ISIS, and pacifism. (part 1) image - The Debating Society

I'll be frank with you two, debating about what could've been doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Yes, but maybe it helps prevent the US from making the same mistake, a third time.

I doubt it, tho.

You're all heart. Maybe yes, maybe no, we'll wait and see.

We are. We don't hear much about them because what they do is not supposed to be known unless high command wants it to. Like the time a Green Beret(?) unit raided a Da'esh prison and liberated Kurdish POWs.

Our strategy has shifted to containing, degrading then eliminating Da'esh. Assad isn't a priority and has taken a back seat for now. Despite what people will want you to believe (us giving support to al-nusra/al-qaeda and/or da'esh while at the same time bombing, assassinating, and harassing them is delusional) the groups we're supporting in Syria are now collectively called the Syrian Democratic Forces or SDF/QSD. They are Syrian Kurdish Peshmerga forces, Syrian Revolutionary Front units, elements of some of the Free Syrian Army in the north, and a couple others I can't remember now. The ones who aren't included are Al-Nusra, Da'esh (obviously), and any other wahhabi or would be jihadist militias. As the SDF is being supported by us to fight said jihadists, Al-Nusra, and Da'esh. Afghanistan is a complicated issue that the American people, actually, people in general don't want to know of how complicated things are. They want a simple picture of the situation and a simple, easy solution to it. The unhelpful media oversimplified the situation because it's not what about what people in general need to hear. It's about what they want to hear and they don't want to hear about a complicated situation that needs a thought out solution.

What was 'murica even doing in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, to give people democracy by killing Saddam? To kill Osama? ********, no one asked for democracy, and it took you 10 years later after the Iraqi War to finally "kill" Osama, the guy your CIA backed up in the first place. Saddam died and now ISIS has risen, who's fault is that?

What ****** me off the most is that people like you think that 'murica is superior and is the center of the universe, while the rest of the planet are lowlifes to be killed and exploited. Stop sticking your noses into other people business and fix your own damn country before trying to fix someone else's country.

As it seems like talking to you is like talking to religious people, i'll back off before this escalates anymore. No matter how wrong you are, you will still act like you are right. I stand by my comment and that's the end of it from me.

Rant away...

I'll admit, we get a share of the blame for Da'esh but lumping the entire thing on us is uncalled for. If anyone deserves the lion's share it's would be Iraq when Malaki was in power. Also, Da'esh didn't come from nowhere. Once upon a time it was once called the "Islamic State of Iraq" and at the time it numbered only a couple hundred in northern Iraq. Maliki had a grand opportunity to wipe them out, but didn't. At a time when we were leaving and handing the keys to Maliki's regime, he was warned not to release those prisoners we had in Camp Mitchell, I think it was called, but released them he did. Those prisoners were from ISI and other jihadi militia's that were wiped out at the time and they flocked to what's left of ISI pretty quickly. Fast forward to Syria and they see an opportunity to increase their ranks by budding up with the FSA at the time when it was desperate for allies. Both of them didn't like each other and thought each other as a means to an end and both had plans to get rid of the other. Unfortunately Da'esh attacked first, severely crippled the FSA, and took over half of what the FSA used to control. At some point afterward, Al-Qaeda and Da'esh had a falling out again (the first one was during the Iraqi war when bin Laden, of all people, told the ISI branch to quit their brutality against the populace) because of Da'esh's brutality against the populace.

Go back to Iraq while all of this was happening and Maliki was pushing laws and legislature that fell into sectarian favoritism in all areas of government including the military. It was pretty much what the Saddam and his Iraqi Sunni government higher ups were doing to the Iraqi Shias, Kurds and others when he was in charge. But this time the shoe was on the other foot when Maliki came to power. Long story short, the Sunnis felt oppressed, and were oppressed, and ISIS, ISIL, IS, whatever, presented itself as the only group that will 'liberate' them. Even you have to admit that when it comes to propaganda, Da'esh is a very good distributor. Then Da'esh launched their blitzkrieg, the Iraqi officer corps dropped their uniforms and ran, because of sectarian favoritism in the officer corps. Leading to mass desertions, as command and control was effectively gone, and a full scale retreat to Baghdad.

I can't help but notice your self righteousness as you've let your hate for anything American get the better of you. And began mouthing off that anyone but us is better qualified, despite some others often acting no better than us in your eyes, i.e. the Russians. Considering their war record is about as stellar as ours. I don't blame Joshua for jumping your case for what you've typed and how you've typed it out but I will call him out for dropping down to your level (shame on you Johnny.)

This will be a late reply, but I feel that what you said on your first 2 comments need a response.

(Note1: For a lack of better terms, I will call the first 3 sources as "Anti-Russian" and the last 3 ones as "Pro-Murican", to keep their names short.)

(Note2: I will not put sources here because I don't remember all of them, and writing this will take long, but I will try to remember them in the next few days, if anyone wants them (and for some reason doesn't search for themselves), I will put them here.)

First off: The sources used by the Anti-Russian articles are mainly the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR)

1) SOHR has nothing but a fancy name.

1.1) They count rebels that have no military training as civilian casualties. They are not civilians, they are fighters, combatants (this means that all of those 2000 casualties might actually be rebels, and not civilians).

1.2) They are biased in their covering. They once covered the same event with very different data in the 2 languages they use (Arabic and English).

The English version said that "Russian airplanes had killed X civilians in *Locations*", meanwhile the Arabic version said "X civilians killed by Assad Regime fighters".

Both news were referring for the same air strikes, in the same day, but the actors were different. That's misinformation. They want to demonize Assad internally, so that the Syrian people support the rebels, and they want to demonize Russia externally.

1.3) And needless to say, if they have so many evidences, why do they show us none?

2) SNHR

I hadn't seen a lot about them before, but from searchs I've made it seems they are guilty of the same things of SOHR. And they also claim sources and evidences, while showing none.

Now, about the Pro-Murican articles:

The sources they have is the US government/army themselves. What they say about themselves is not trustworthy. There's a reason we don't trust criminals who plead innocence.

Besides, if you consider what the US says of themselves as enough evidence, what the Russians say about themselves is also enough evidence (Let's not have double standards here). The Russians said in the Anti-Russian articles:

"no evidence of our bombing civilians, even though everyone is accusing us of this"

"[the Russian air force] does not even plan air strikes on such targets in the event of a threat of civilian deaths"

Pretty much the same thing the US says about themselves.

Once again, let's not have double standards, if you consider US' word as enough evidence, Russian's words are worth just as much. So none of them is killing civilians there.

Now, based on all of this, plus all knowledge of previous US interventions, I can say:

The US is, by far, not the best choice.

Russia might not be the best choice, but is much better than the US.

There were more things I wanted to mention (Like the images of the air strikes in the BBC and Guardian articles, which come from the French and US army respectively, again, not unbiased sources) , but this comment is huge already, and some of those things would leave the subject (Syria) and go to other US interventions and the Nord-Ost Hostage Crisis. I'll leave those for another time.

Meh, Imma jump in for the lolz.

Let me address what you said point by point:

Sure, lets just go under the assumption other powers would never do what America does. Because all other nations on the Earth are saints and incapable of bad choices or selfish intentions at others expense. Sure, only 'MURICA is capable of that.

Sanguinius never said anything about other nations being saints. You seem to have taken his rather blunt criticisms personally.
Comparing the Russian Federation's track record to the United States' is starkly contrasting. Comparing the Soviet Union's with the United States, not so much. Russia has gone through a complete change in government ideology, foreign policy, and social structure, paid a hefty price in making these decisions, and extended a hand in grace to its former foes, the least we can do is recognize these decisions. It is disheartening today to see so many that still view them as "evil Commies" or worse, as a Stalinist Russia and refuse to recognize the monumental reforms the Union as a whole suffered to rid itself of its Communist ideology.

Lumping decisions made under the USSR as a part of Russia's policies today is simply divorcing reality in favor of fiction.

Yeah I'm gonna have to call bull on your comment just for that piece you had to throw in there. We sure as hell didn't screw over the mideast in the gulf war under Bush Senior. So I know for a fact we're capable of acting responsibly. Where we went wrong was changing governments.

The first Gulf War was only the beginning of a much more aggressive policy against the Middle East. It also dampened world negativity towards US imperialism in the Mid-East as a whole by introducing the US as a law-abiding policeman, corporate media reinforced this. Williamblum.org

As an aside, it was really the first time the US could harness the full-might of TV broadcasting to enforce a message of total dominance. "Get offside with us, and we will end you." Hence; Video Game: War. Unlike Yugoslavia, this time the US was able to really spread its new message, setting the precedent for the overthrow of Saddam.

Why Euro's and other countries think they're exempt from imperialism is beyond me. Every time a power vacuum is filled, you're gonna see abuse.

A vicious circle that should have ended with World War II. Soviet paranoia and a US drunk on power made sure it didn't. Second chance came after 1986, but alas, imperialism had found its new roost, and was well and truly entrenched now, the US was only just getting started, no opponent to counter their moves with the USSR gone.

Who you thinks been supplying the Kurds and Iraqis in the first place? You assume they've gotten their training and armaments from thin air to fight ISIS?

The Iraqis have been going to work with Su-25s, Mi-28NEs, Mi-35Ms, on very cheap contracts, a decision the Maliki government came to after the US would not grant them their requested F-16s or other hardware fast enough, or cheap enough.
The Kurds in Syria have been regularly receiving VKS air support and small arms drops. They have also opened an embassy in Moscow. Youtube.com The same can not be said for the US.

As for the Russians...
I still remember how the Russians choose to handle the 2002 Nord-Ost siege.
En.wikipedia.org

Good debaters won't use Wikipedia, just a heads up. :)

Criticizing Nord-Ost for how it was handled and drawing parallels to how Russia handles modern conflicts is like me criticizing the Waco siege, or the gendarme for the amount of people they more than likely killed in the Bataclan theater recently, or the multitude of other terror/hostage attacks that took a turn for the worse, and then using these tragedies to attempt to strengthen my point on how these nations handle actual modern conflicts. It's kinda dumb, don't you think? Also, a lot more would have died if standard breach and clear tactics had been used. Look at Orlando, 50 people dead, one man, as opposed to ~50 heavily armed Chechen terrorists in a theater with many more people. (convenient how Wikipedia leaves that term out: "terrorists", it almost screams "They were just brave freedom fighter man, trying to make a point!").
We actually discussed Nord-Ost on my page, dunno if you remember, you still seem to be using it as some sort of weird under-the-belt anti-Russia jab?

Civilian casualty reports have skyrocketed since the Russians got involved in the sectors they are operating in Syria. The Russians have never been much about precision.

Civilian casualty reports provided by whom exactly? As pointed out by BioDestroyer, and actually readable right there on your linked articles (I paid attention to the content of those articles, but I did something else that is part of research, and that's identifying sources used). The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is run by one guy, Rami Abdelrahman, based in London. His reports, he claims, are based on "trusted sources" on the ground in Syria, or he could just be making it up, getting paid big dollars by Rupert Murdoch and co. so MSM can have a "source" linked to their articles. RT actually tried to get in contact with him: Youtube.com Almost the same story for the White Helmets, run by Democracy Roots (literally linked on their page, or it used to be, it's gone now lel) a US NGO run by George Soros, details here: Youtube.com. No lie, the vast majority of MSM articles on "Russian airstrikes are killing bazillions of civilians" are sourced right back to this "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights".

The Russians have never been much about precision.

Nice statement, but you're going to need facts to back that up. Once you can explain SVP-24 Gefest in great detail to me, along with the technical characteristics of Kalibr and KH-101, KAB-1500, KAB-500, and KAB-250, then you might have grounds to speculate on the accuracy of VKS strikes, until then, throwaway statement is throwaway.

But, with all that said, there will be civilian casualties. It's an air campaign and 100% certainty is never attainable. Calls have to be made, bombs dropped and people killed.

Hell, you'd think after reading about the Tzar Bomba people would have sense enough to know the Russians by now. While the Americans focused on precision to take out the target. The Russians decided to just throw a hand grenade at it.

Mate... I can see this whole thing is a very emotionally charged statement, because that flat out made no sense. The Tsar Bomb was a demonstration of Soviet nuclear prowess and was primarily detonated as a weapon of intimidation toward the US. Yes, the USSR liked making massive nukes, and in fact could have made a Tsar Bomb double the size of the original (they feared for the integrity of the atmosphere as it was though), but realistically the only application a nuke that size would have is atmospheric detonation, blowing a hole in the ozone layer and wrecking the planet (or something like that, can't remember rightly, and I'm not very savvy when it comes to most sciences). The US having more accurate ICBMs than the USSR back in the day was complete bulldust, if there was any difference it was marginal (how inaccurate can you be with an ICBM anyway?). Besides, saying the US is more accurate with their nuclear arsenal is completely moot, when someone fires one, it's over, end of the world. It's like how the MSM moaned and cried about Status-6 being a weapon of "pure terror". Well duh, nuclear apocalypse isn't exactly butterflies and flowers. Status-6 is just another addition to Russia's Strategic Nuclear Triad, making sure that America, or whoever, is really really dead in the event of nuclear war.

The situation is a lot more complicated than at first glance so at least do try to go into some form of detail before you go out on a mindless rant insulting and ******* on my countries name like a dog.

This doesn't add to the discussion in any way.

That goes for everyone who's gonna comment here. This is the debating society, but if you can't show some modicum of respect and insist on creating a hostile/toxic atmosphere than there's no real point continuing the discussion.

Haha. The two Debating Groups on this site were essentially where the monkeys (excluding the reasonable ones) of ModDB met to throw **** at each other. Debate rarely happened, just downvotes on unpopular opinions or "safe" topics where everyone happily agreed. Which is why they're both essentially dead... and debate happens more often in the Humour Group.

I'm afraid you're guilty of perpetrating a hostile atmosphere by expressing unsubstantiated statements in your above comments, just as much as Sangiunius. BUT THAT'S OKAY, debating isn't supposed to be about creating loving environments of affirmation...

Here's for the Americans, you wanna know how much my country apparently cares for the people of Syria in our Air Force? Take a look at our rules of engagement and while you're at it look at the statistics.

75% return rate... damn, no wonder ISIS actually expanded under coalition airstrikes. Apparently they're officially withheld by Obama himself, which is interesting. Anyway, stating that 75% of the sorties comeback like that's a good thing is silly. That just says they had terrible intel on the area, they should know they're hitting a civvie populated zone before even making the call to get airborne. Russia has target designators behind enemy lines, coordination with SAA and Hezbollah, and constant UAV coverage, their strikes hit the targets they want to hit. There is currently zero, and I mean zero, proof of the VKS hitting civilian infrastructure inhabited by civilians. The story is different for the SyAAF, but that is mainly due to technical limitations. The US on the other hand has had a run of bad luck in recent history alone, hitting the hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan and killing Serbian diplomats in Libya recently... and that's just the stuff that gets reported because the people they hit had a voice. The same can not be said for the weddings, funerals etc. that US drone strikes, according to whistleblower information, (Google drone program whistleblowers) hit consistently in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq....

It's based off this information you'll see who's better for the region in terms of support. The mideast doesn't need brute force, it needs leadership and logistical support right now. The USA is trying it's best to get that done.
You can't say the Russians are the best choice after what I just gave you.

Wait what? Last I saw the US has flip-flopped, dilly dallied, threw money here, threw weapons over there for the entirety of the conflict in Syria. Youtube.com

Nytimes.com

Leadership and logistical support? For who? FSA? Who regularly fight alongside ISIS? Al-Nusra? They're Al-Qaeda with a different name, and fight alongside ISIS all the freaking time. Jaish-Al-Fatah? Or the rest of the plethora of sub-factions that pop up and disappear incessantly in the conflict? The US policy was not about supporting anyone in particular, it was about deposing the legitimate Syrian Government through hybrid warfare, sponsoring insurgencies just like they did in Afghanistan, just like they did with Al Qaeda.
Youtube.com

For the sake of the Syrian people, the US needs to hands off. Assad never imposed sharia-law, almost all opposition will, and do, when they capture areas, Assad's Government is a secular government, every opposition faction it faces is heavily Islamic, mainly Wahhabi in ideology.

The US has a clear goal in Syria, the destruction of the legitimate government. Russia has a clear goal in Syria, the protection of the Syrian government and the Syrian people, and the sovereignty of Syria. One is there on official invitation, the other is illegally breaching the nation's sovereignty over and over again, and that's not according to the Russians, that's according to international law.

The mideast is like a powdercake that's blown. It needs to be dusted off and put back together, CAREFULLY. I don't see how total disregard for human life is gonna accomplish that.

A powder keg pretty much solely blown to bits by the US. If your country cared about Syria, they'd care about Yemen... but I hear only a deafening silence when it comes to Yemen. Oh, and a US fleet blockade. In the 21st century Russia doesn't even come close in anyway to the callous disregard the US has for human life, so don't pull that one out of thin air either. Youtube.com

What can I say heh, I had time on my hands.

Also, a quote by Sergey Lavrov, Russian FM: “If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it’s a terrorist, right?”

Adding the UK Ministry of Defence doesn't really change anything. We have one side saying "We do our job right, the other side doesn't.", meanwhile the other side is saying the same thing. None of that serves as evidence.

Just because I'm not a correspondent I can't criticize when correspondents don't do their job right? I'm not a chef, but I'm capable of identifying good and bad food.

You have chosen to blindly believe SOHR for no good reason. I bet that, if they were reporting the opposite (US as bad guy and Russia as good guy), you wouldn't be trusting them blindly like you do now.

You'd already made up your mind about the United States long before this discussion even began.

And you've already made up your mind about Russia long before this discussion even began. ;)

Now you're just trying to denigrate my arguments while giving no actual facts to disprove it, trying to discard them as being biased agaisnt the US.

I didn't just start mistrusting the US out of nowhere, they made me distrust them throughout the years, with all of the bad things and lies they have made.

You didn't bother coming up with an argument because you just can't, all of your "evidences" come from the US saying how good they are, saying how they care about freedom and democracy. Words are not facts. Words are worth nothing in this world. Their acts prove otherwise.

About the MSF hospital, there are some things you just can't hide. There is a huge difference between bombing a random hospital or school somewhere to bombing an hospital run by the Médecins Sans Frontières, an internationaly recognized humanitarian group, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

There are some things you just can't sweep under the rugs. But they did cover it up. They said they would investigate it themselves. MSF demanded an independent investigation, but apparently the US did not consent.

If they had nothing to hide they would have no reason to do that.

...it has become quite the popular opinion of foreigners such as yourself to denigrate that which you could never understand...

I don't need to have family in something to understand it, that's the kind of thing that make people biased towards something (like yourself, apparently).

I have no hatred for your countrymen, I hate your government, and I hate imperialism. I hate them for their crimes, I hate them for their lies about freedom and democracy, for all evil they have committed under those disguises.

I have nothing but pity for you and your fellow countrymen, for your incapability of seeing beyond their obvious lies. They don't care about its people, they see you all as nothing but cannon fodder, as resources, assets, to fight, kill and die all over the world for their imperialistic interests, for the will of the bankers and a very small minority.

Some of you have seen the truth. Maybe one day the rest will too.

En.wikipedia.org

En.wikipedia.org

Here is what one of your countrymen said:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

I know how your soldiers think, they think they are doing the right thing, they think they are actually fighting for freedom and democracy, they think they are helping, but they are not. They are fighting for imperialism, so that people that don't care about them can get what they want.

I feel pity of them. Their ignorance is causing the death of innocent people. Those innocent people include themselves.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

About Nord-Ost: That was a tactical nightmare, the terrorists did their homework very well, we gotta give them that. All other alternatives would have ended with even more casualties. The only mistake commited by the Russians was that, since they couldn't reveal the chemical used (to prevent other terrotists from preparing to face it), they should have had their own doctors there to treat the people exposed to it.

The only guestion that matters about Nord-Ost is if they learned from that mistake. Nobody asked them that, so I don't know.

And to finish this: Yes, I'm not a 'Murican, and I'm not Russian either. I'm not biased towards any of them because of petty patriotism. My opinions were shaped throughout the years, based on facts and evidences, through rational and objective analysis of all data available.

From what I can see, your objective judgment of all of this is impaired by your patriotism.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
- Albert Einstein

"I have nothing but pity for you and your fellow countrymen, for your incapability of seeing beyond their obvious lies. They don't care about its people, they see you all as nothing but cannon fodder, as resources, assets, to fight, kill and die all over the world for their imperialistic interests, for the will of the bankers and a very small minority."

You're preaching to the choir buddy. There are many of my 'countrymen' that are aware of this. Far more than you think. But we're in no mood to fight for we've been fighting for a while and are tired. You would be too if you're country has been fighting a war or two for around 15 years. You wouldn't have the stomach for another war, even if you're thinking about starting one at home.

Oh geez, I'm regretting this already. But ah well, lets see how far we can take this eh old chap? Nationalism makes for a fun case study.

I'm going to address your responses from oldest to newest, just FYI.

They [Russia] still however are very nationalistic and prideful like the U.S. albiet far less liberal.

No. Nationalism is blind faith in one's government. Understanding the Russian psyche requires hearing from the most prominent Russophiles and Russia scholars on both ends of the civilization spectrum... Huge topic, I barely have a grasp of it yet, and simultaneously off-topic anyway. I'll just leave it with the fact that there is a distinct definition between "Patriotism" and "Nationalism". Russian's are fiercely patriotic, but they are by no means nationalists.

A little fact about that.
Media has also been our bane. War correspondents and investigators will use the media to put us up to account when they find something they don't like.

Really? It is sad that you so wholeheartedly think this... Your Mainstream Media reports on anything that will inevitably catch the public eye anyway. This way they maintain some sort of "credibility" to the gullible, while at the same time being the first ones to break the news, means they can twist it just as it is required. Just like the Kunduz Doctors Without Borders Hospital, it was reported, because it would have inevitably found it's way out anyway. It's Doctor's Without Borders for crying out loud. Same with the Serbian diplomats, same with the other hospitals, and again, that's just recent history. MH17 was a classic example of your controlled media. Statique.lamarseillaise.fr
Give me a single story run in Western Mainstream Media directly after the shoot down that provided an alternative viewpoint. There was no discussion, just a monstrous accusatory game. The depths of your controlled media has been demonstrated time and again, sometimes live on air, like a totalitarian regime: Youtube.com

Your media is controlled by a select few corporates, who in turn either are in the official US government's pocket, or vice versa: Globalresearch.ca
(The Fed being a private institution, that is comedy gold)

Do you really believe the Russians would allow something like that to escape their tightly controlled media? I don't recall the Kremlin being so lenient to news reports they don't like getting out, both politically and militarily.
Ibtimes.co.uk
Huffingtonpost.com
Theintercept.com

Again, investigate, don't take your mainstream media as having an ounce of truth to say about Russia. Your Government is actively engaging in a Cold War with the nation, its mainstream media publishers are simply not allowed to tell the truth.
Media blackout you say?
Novosti:http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1610019
KP Daily: Kp.ru
National TV: Youtube.com
ITAR-TASS: Tass.ru (eng and ru)

Here, do it yourself: Lmgtfy.comИсламская+женщина+несет+голову+ребенка+в+Москве

Even better, use Yandex: Yandex.com

So yeah, your media out and out lied about another Kremlin Konspiracy. They assume, rightly it would seem, that people don't fact check any more.

Key pointer, just because you don't see it presented on a platter in front of you when you type a search into Google doesn't mean it isn't there. Most likely, it is hidden behind (A.) Western rhetoric. and (B.) a language barrier.

Lets try a little experiment. Google.co.nz bombs syria
Count the number of results you get before you find a link with an alternative view on the situation, I counted 10, the last result, at the bottom of my page: Express.co.uk
Now count the results before you you find a link that is non-Western mainstream. (Al-Jazeera did come up about 25 results into the list, but they're Saudi owned) I counted 34 (!).

That my friend, is propaganda.

Granted our government does try to sweep these things under the rug. But the catch is, our media is a free media and the government is not able to assassinate nor shut them down when they see something they don't like. The two opposing political factions in my country, often have one supporting our armed conflicts and the other looking for a reason to leave them. So there's always gonna be that reporter who's daring enough to find out the truth.
...Edward Snowden is another such example. There are media over here who look at him as a hero...

So one moment you say thank God for investigative journalists, then next you say it will always come out "Through leaks and whistleblowers" HELLO! That's a sure-fire sign that you're living in an oppressive regime. If it was about investigative journalism then I wonder where all the coverage for John Pilger, Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange etc. is?

Collateral Murder was covered.... when someone leaked it. Abu Ghraib was covered... when the information was leaked to Amnesty International. The drone program was covered to a measly extent... when the whistleblowers came forward, many whom were threatened by their superiors, or by "anonymous messages". Edward Snowden fled for his life, you see him as a traitor, and the media told you that he had compromised national security. Snowden is adamant to this day that what he did he did for Americans, and he was careful to release information that did not directly endanger anyone. In this interview Youtube.com he states that he has never been contacted by Russian secret services (FSB or otherwise) and that he has never received a single word of recognition or congratulations from President Putin, all his dealing have been through the typical channels of that of asylum seekers. But at the end of the day, he had to flee for his life, and that is the point...
Bradley Manning is locked up, and the key might as well be thrown away.

What am I getting at? Your media did not reveal a single one of those examples, almost every atrocity throughout America's bloodstained recent history was released by insiders, NOT investigative journalists. Like I said, the media covered it once it was out, else they would lose all credibility.

Yes, it should have shouldn't it?
Unfortunately, it's just never than simple. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.... etc. etc. etc.

"I do not worship my government, I just love my country."
"Praising the government when it is worthy."
Orwell's 1984 would like a word. -_-

The same can not be said for the US.

I was talking about a Syrian Kurdish embassy in Washington... you don't have one.
Yeah I'm so blind, couldn't see the Iraqis driving around in M1s.

They replaced many of the officers that worked with us during our time in Iraq with government stooges who would support their religious and political ambitions.

They replaced US government plants with legitimate Iraqis? No way!

I have to laugh when I see Americans mock the Iraqis for not being able to fight ISIS... I ask you, what on earth do they have left to fight for? Americans patrol Baghdad like it is under 24/7 martial law, and it's been like that since you blew the place up. And it's worse, far worse. Ex-US ambassador to Iraq: Globalresearch.ca

The rest of Iraq is practically a hell-hole now. I know if I was a kid growing up in Iraq I wouldn't know the difference between ISIS and the US. The people who kick your doors down and haul your family out onto the street in search of weapons, or take away your dad, never to seem him again. Youtube.com
Or the boys in black, who storm in, murder a bunch of people in your village, proclaim death to all infidels, and promise you revenge.

Hmmmm.... and the Americans mock them for not having a fighting spirit.

But what you need to understand is Russian high command gassed the building not just taking out the terrorists but the civilians being held hostage there as well.

Oh, you're probably right, they should have just gassed the terrorists... idiots.
Or used a breach & clear method, and had everyone get massacred. This isn't a movie mate, there is no happy ending, there isn't even a right decision, there's just different numbers of people who die. Again, the final decisions were left to Alpha and Vega, and you wouldn't catch me on those poor sods' shoes.

It tells me they leave their own behind, these were Russian citizens scared out of their minds. Instead of being helped, they were left there and gassed along with the terrorists. I was taught growing up that our military never leaves a man behind.

Wow, you really got a hell of a lot of Nord-Ost huh? You now know that Russians don't care about their own casualties (when you first mentioned Nord-Ost here), and that they don't care about civvies either, all from one terror attack. Outstanding.

I was taught growing up that our military never leaves a man behind.

Bollocks. An achievable task when you completely dominate the enemy. Quite the opposite on a real battlefield. I know, "Never leave a man behind" is mentioned in almost every Hollywood movie, and 100% of all Hollywood WWII movies, but in the real world (and a real war)? You'll fight hard for your comrades, when you're not busy ******** yourself, watching your friends get mowed down, and seeing them bleeding out and finally, when command reinforces success, and leaves the failing division to be massacred, there won't be any whirly birds and fighter jets to come save the day. You'll die, in a hole.

Granted when I grew up I found out how naive that is when applied to most situations a soldier gets in.

Exactly.

Not that'd I presume to know a thing about warfare, I've never been shot at.

Sorry, I'm sounding cynical. Besides, hostage situation, not war.

Syriahr.com
"We are a group of people who believe in Human Rights, from inside and outside the country, documenting the Human Rights situation in Syria and reporting all Human Rights violations, filing reports and spreading it across a broad Human Rights and Media range. We cooperate with Human Rights organizations in Syria, the Arab world and the international community with what goes along with our goals and aspirations"

If his onsite blurb is all it takes to convince you he's legit, hoo boy. If he was legit his information, his sources, and the names of his people, would be available for everyone to access, just like the OSCE mission in Ukraine. That goes for Eastern press, that goes for you and me, and that goes for MSM. Simply it is not, as demonstrated when RT tried to track him down. Therefore he can not be called a credible source, I'm sorry, but that's just what it is. It also means any source quoting him as a source, might as well be binned.

Fairest article you'll read.
Quora.com
Now for the biased one. ;-)
Washingtontimes.com

What? AGGH, no no no no no. I wasn't saying come and please educate me on Russian weaponry, I was saying go educate YOURSELF on weaponry and systems being used. Sighz

Now for the biased one. ;-)
Washingtontimes.com

Then you go ahead and use it as the basis for your next paragraph.

Russia is not using precision ordnance in Syria... ...So you may claim, the Russians have "precision" but that's certainly not the kind of ordnance they're using in Syria.

I am not going to educate you on the weapons and systems the VKS are using in Syria, please come back to me when you understand the properties of the ordinance being used. I gave you some hints, namely SVP-24 Gefest, KAB family etc. Actually take more than ten seconds to read about them. Someone in the comments section even links to a good article on SVP-24 in the first link. :/

You're relying on low altitude bombings to try to compensate for the accuracy. Better than simple carpet bombing, but still highly debatable as to it's effectiveness.

Yet the Russians claim most strikes are taking place in excess of 25,000ft, and at lowest, 5-10000ft, fyi that's not low altitude bombing. Video footage confirms this: Youtube.com
Youtube.com
Youtube.com (note distance to target on left-hand side)

Su-25s are probably hitting lower, but that's because they're CAS aircraft, it's what they do. Also, since when does higher altitude dictate better accuracy? lol.

That, along with the ground intel provided which you'd have to rely on for these strikes. Trust, is not something that comes easily to me when speaking of the Assad regime.

Sure, but they're not trusting Assad, they're trusting a communication chain through the SAA. Assad has nothing to do with it, the boys on the ground do. But the VKS SSO designators, in so deep some times they get caught: Sputniknews.com

Why do you think he was there? If Russia didn't give a damn about civvies, then they wouldn't even use ground intel. Just Sat data and UAV coverage would be sufficient for them to find targets, and blow them to bits, unarmed and armed. Sort of like a drone program I know of.

...didn't Russia go into Afghanistan with the intention of turning it into a soviet satellite state? The United States responded by supporting the rebels.

Yes, when it was the Soviets, the Taliban/Mujahideen were "rebels" but when America invades a few years later they're evil terrorists.

here's no way you'd have pacified the region. We spend ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fighting never ceased and it's all but ruined our economy. We should've just let the USSR blow their budget on trying to pacify a region that would've drained them dry. But ah well, all is said, all is done.

Ahuh... it's amazing how Americans reminisce over how they should have defeated their enemies differently...

When we do something wrong, everyone knows about it.

You wouldn't know if a goatherder in Afghanistan got blown up by a drone just 5 minutes ago. That's what your drone program is all about, unaccountable murder. You just trust that your media is keeping you informed... that's just laughable.

When Russia does something wrong, it's covered up under tight media control in their country and passed off as propaganda when groups like SOHR report it.

Proof? Lol, it just happens right? Because it's Communist Russia, and KGB are walking around in heavy overcoats with silenced pistols killing innocent Russians. Don't let facts get in the way of a good story. ;D

SOHR isn't credible because aforementioned reasons. You only just heard of it, and yet you're clinging to it like a hardcore convert.

Along with defense ministries from well developed western nations. I already explained to you the lack of freedom of the press in Russia.

"Lack of freedom of press" "well developed Western defense ministries" No need for facts again, just throw out some buzzwords you heard. And c'mon man, you're going to rely on these "well developed nation's Defense Ministries"? They're at war with Russia, they don't care about the truth. They care about making sure people like you keep drinking the kool-aid that is their moronic press releases. You seem to have a lot of faith in the military, even though it's just an organisation that goes around killing in the name of America.
As for Russian freedom-of-speech... their president sits down and has an unscripted 2-3 hour presser with the press and anyone who can get on a line, every year. The West has nothing that even comes close.

We tried different strategies, what can I say.
As for your other claims. "Says the kettle to the pot".

Trying "different strategies" is therefore not a cohesive strategy, ergo the US role in Syria has been only destructive, and does not compare to the Russian role.

Yet, you're supporting groups like Hezbollah who have the intention of dethroning the Isreali government

I'm not supporting anyone, I'm just stating the facts.

...and instituting a Islamic caliphate.

Hahaha, good one, but no nice try.

Ive heard enough reports and accounts to know that's the kind of rhetoric floating throughout that terrorist organization.

Your own government removed them from their terror list.
Rt.com

They're gangsters in the mideast, love dirty tactics.

They're pros, and badass: Youtube.com
Youtube.com

They have helped train Syrian Christians, Muslims and even women, to fight ISIS. Mintpressnews.com

Why Russia must support a terrorist group who has used civilians as human shields for their rocket installations when bombing Isreali cities

Cool story bro, but that's Hamas.

Israel hates Hezzies for tearing their state of the art armored divisions a new one with ATGMS in the Golan Heights. Just can't seem to live that one down. xD

and has supported Iran who've had elements in their military say they'd take great pleasure out of wiping Israel off the map is beyond me.

Mhmmm, Ayatollah Khomeini's quote that was chopped to bits and then thrown into the MSM and Israel's propaganda machine to churn out some lovely war rhetoric. Globalresearch.ca

Meanwhile, I can't remember how many times Israel has stood up and loudmouthed about how they'd like to blow Iran to bits because "They gonna build da bomb man" and Israel's 400 undeclared nuclear weapons that got Mordechai Vanunu locked up in a cell the size of a cupboard for years just won't be enough to pulverize them.

the Russians obviously would not mind the state falling and then being replaced with a pro-Russian one.

Israel actually operates with a modicum of independence, and do deals with Russia on and off, unlike the rest of the Western world.

Russia doesn't go joyriding around the world deposing of governments it doesn't like because they're not "pro-Russian." That's the whole point of BRICS, that's the whole point of the multipolar world they keep going on about.

You are very pro Russian Federation. I can respect that, what I cannot respect however is turning a blind eye to issues within the Federation itself. You wish to talk to me of sins, then be aware of yours. That is all I ask of you.

I don't want you to respect me for being "pro-Russian" or whatever little safe box you want to plonk me in. I want you to respect the facts, with an unbiased view, I couldn't care less what you think of me.

A embargo enacted by the United Nations, and you're blaming the United States.

Yes, the US had the UN at it's beck and call then, this was post-USSR remember? The whole world loved you so much. Who stood against you? China? China was busy, and really wasn't interested with what was going on halfway across the world. Russia was being lead by a US *****, to be frank. So no veto powers from anyone...

But yeah, I was talking about the US fleet blockade of Yemen, a nation that the KSA was and still is, bombing back to the stone age, with a starving ~14 million people in the country are desperate for aid.

Okay different comment format. It's Saturday now, and I've got things to do.

First off, thank you for actually reading my sources. I appreciate that, and do return the favor, thank you for attempting adopt a position neutrality. I bounced off your previous comments with my last response because if I feel like I'm wasting my time I tend to get short.

The Russian psyche, how they view the world, it's intensely historical. When you're a nation that is, and will be, inevitably attacked by the next superpower simple due to your landmass, your raw resources, and your own power it breeds massive suspicion. The Soviet Union went on a complete paranoia joyride after World War II. They freaked the hell out, made a huge foreign policy shift (everyone is expendable except for us), built the most powerful military of that century, installed the Stasi in East Germany, and essentially said "**** you Germany", and then they went full-mad dog stare down with the US. Now, the US certainly didn't help the situation at all, but the blame is most definitely 50-50 for the entirety of the Cold War. That's why saying "Russians don't care about Russians" is one of the saddest statements of this millennium. The entire post-WWII Soviet Union existed the way it did because Russians care fiercely about their own.

I suppose you can put it down to an experiment in what happens when you slaughter ~27 million people. Nation-wide psychological trauma. Every single Russian family had a relative that had died in the war.

For me, the sad thing about cries of "Russophobia" is that it serves as a justification for all matter of things: You just do not UNDERSTAND the mysterious Russian soul and way of doing things!

Hmmm, an interesting deduction, for a woman that has taught in Russia for 23 years. Sounds more like frustration to me.

Here is a good read and watch on the subject. Still only a light touch on it though.
Youtube.com
Russia-insider.com

As for Snowden. I Googled the same thing, got the same results. Interestingly there are only two results from what can be considered MSM sources on the first page, the rest are forums/third-party websites. Page 2 revealed a few more MSM results, however they were not op-eds but rather debates.

A few more results were given by the usual suspects when flipped on its head: Imgur.com

Whether it's about ratings, or about propaganda, either way it's very dangerous. Whether it's Republican or Democrat, you all seem to be the same when you're the dominant party. Look at O'Reilly, what a hardcore bully. Then look at something like TYT, actually mentally handy-capped, I'm positive of it, and they advertise themselves as "alternative" Youtube.com

Fox News in general: Youtube.com

I'm not defending the Left, or the Right, because I frankly think both sides are complete morons in the American political establishment. It's gone past that point anyway, running America isn't about politics it seems, but about how much money you can throw at a rep in Congress, how much you can lobby the media, how many central banks or shares in defense industry you own.
Americans seem to be heavily fomented against Russia, even though, I said before, when Russia's recent track record (Post-SSR) is compared to America's from a factual perspective, it just doesn't rate. I'm going to be all hardcore "pro-Russian" and say that the Russian record is pretty stellar... Not that you'd ever agree with that. Just an interesting observation.

This sort of thing is shown starkly when something like this happens:
Youtube.com
And now I can't find the one that was done in the same format in Crimea.... curses. Ah well, the one done Crimea was responded to with the common sense answers you'd expect of people.

SOHR? The very reason it represents the monopoly on the sources that MSM uses should be setting off alarm bells, but anyway, I've gone over this twice already, I'm clearly not going to change your mind on it.

I would of posted that letter from the Ex-Iraqi ambassador straight from the source (US gov Freedom of Info page) if it hadn't been deleted. Globalresearch was a secondary option. Yes people hate them, but they're not hired by Russians lol. I don't use it that often unless they well citate their articles with legitimate data. But some of it is loopy conspiritard stuff.

South China Sea? A regional debate that should be left to the players in the region. US is using both Japan and Taiwan to stake some sort of legitimacy in the debate.... while also motoring right up into China's backyard with carrier groups and strategic bombers, typical America fashion. I would love to see just how ape you would go if China and Russia regularly did what you guys do with your naval power. Can just see Russia motoring around Cuba, or Hawaii, with a battlegroup. They don't even though legally they're allowed to, because they know that escalating a situation between superpowers is stupid, something America seems acutely unaware of, especially when they drive right into the Black Sea or Baltic with some Destroyers like a bunch of arrogant buffoons. It's just stupidity to the max.

Well clearly there was no media blackout then was there? If it was just one channel it still wouldn't be a media black out. Comments critiquing the news? What else is new....

Use Yandex with Russian language searches... that's the whole point. It just offers better results than Google does when you hit it up with a Russian query. So for example: Исламская женщина несет голову ребенка в Москве. Plug that into Yandex, and away you go.

Nord-Ost.... you know what, I give up. "SWAT would never gas anyone" Sure... hit them up with the same scenario and see what happens, give them the same gas as well. The reason the Chechens didn't blow themselves up was because of the gas, fast acting, movement neutralizing, and invisible. Your points are completely inane concerning this subject. Moving on.
If you want to discuss false-flagging... It's like the 1999 Apartment Bombings, Americans are so quick to say "Hurrrr Russians killing own people to justify things." But when it's 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin, Bay of Pigs, etc. etc. etc. and the absolute plethora of sketchy justifications used for all sorts of other things. "NO! Impossibru, our gov would NEVER do that."
But when it's Russia, pfffft of course!

Am I saying the theater wasn't a false flag? No. But it doesn't strike me as a good scenario for a false flag... the Chechnya wars were over, and Chechnya was under Russian federal control, the Islamic caliphate expelled. A false-flag that leads to nowhere.

"Mostly inaccurate weapons are being used in Syria."
This is crazy, I am losing my mind. Whatever.... you don't want to study up on what's actually being used, you just want people to tell you it's all inaccurate. Sighz... moving on. (FYI I know all about the weapons employed, what aircraft, and what targets, but I was going to leave it to you to find out, so you can imagine this is pretty much torture for me)

Israel is a gigantic mess, made even worse by people who say

Palestinians = Hamas

Yes Hamas fire rockets at Israel, and Israel airstrikes the Gaza Strip or moves in with tanks every now and then, it's a bloodbath, and both sides are wrong. Journalists that have been there, independent ones, even insist that Israel is prolonging the conflict so as to avoid any sort of solution, and keep up the "I'm a victim" plea. Hamas use human shields.
I use to be hardcore pro-Israel, I changed my tune when I saw some of the things that are simply unjustifiable, no matter the conflict. Reading books like John Pilger's Freedom Next Time have been quite eye-opening concerning Israel.
So Hezzbollah... they're a paramilitary group based in Lebanon, they're good at what they do, and they don't massacre civilians like the "moderate" elements in Syria, nor do they distinguish between ethnicity or religion. Yes, I do not deny they are involved in arms trading, heavily linked with Iran, but that seems to be the extent of it. In the Syria conflict they have only been a positive influence, liberating many towns, and supporting the SAA advance, I would never denigrate this. Outside of that, their business with Israel is their business, the fog of war and the misinformation campaign is far to heavy to distinguish right from wrong there. I don't frankly care about the safety of Israel. They have one of the best militaries in the Mid-East, and they have a huge nuclear stock-pile. Every time they bitch about something I cringe, especially when I know they meddle where they want and when they want, especially when it comes to international perception of Iran. But hey, at least it's an independent policy, which I can respect. Any country that decides its own future rather than letting it be dictated to by Big Brother or anyone is a +1 in my book.

Hezzbollah helping the people of Syria because of history, and they feel an obligation. Yes, good job.

If you want to see me as Pro-Russian, then so be it.
Mutual respect, I can certainly agree with that.