SECRET 'TERROR DEAL' America ‘plotting to allow 9,000 ISIS fighters to escape terror capital Mosul so they can attack Russian troops’, Moscow outrageously claims
"The military source in Moscow told the Star: “In preparation for the operation in Mosul, US intelligence agencies and Saudi Arabia agreed that before the assault all militants will be offered a safe route to leave the city with their families.
“And at the time of the assault, coalition aircraft would only strike empty buildings, agreed in advance with the militants.
"More than 9,000 ISIS fighters will be transferred to the eastern regions of Syria to follow a major offensive operation, which involves the capture of Deir ez-Zur and Palmyra.”"
-----
Obama, and potentially Hillary, WILL lead to WW3 with Russia. It is no longer an IF, but WHEN, assuming Hillary is elected. Her radical rhetoric against Russia and aggressive behavior in the middle-east WILL lead to disaster for civilization.
It wont be a world war unless China gets involved and they'd probably back us for expedience, and a slab of Russian turf, sake.
Are we really taking reports from The Sun (and from Daily Star now)?
I mean if we are apparently the US was attacked last night, and there's nothing on the news.
"Moscow outrageously claims.."
Quote:SECRET 'TERROR DEAL' America ‘plotting to allow 9,000 ISIS fighters to escape terror capital Mosul so they can attack Russian troops’, Moscow outrageously claims
"The military source in Moscow told the Star: “In preparation for the operation in Mosul, US intelligence agencies and Saudi Arabia agreed that before the assault all militants will be offered a safe route to leave the city with their families.
“And at the time of the assault, coalition aircraft would only strike empty buildings, agreed in advance with the militants.
"More than 9,000 ISIS fighters will be transferred to the eastern regions of Syria to follow a major offensive operation, which involves the capture of Deir ez-Zur and Palmyra.”"
-----
Obama, and potentially Hillary, WILL lead to WW3 with Russia. It is no longer an IF, but WHEN, assuming Hillary is elected. Her radical rhetoric against Russia and aggressive behavior in the middle-east WILL lead to disaster for civilization.
Quote:SECRET 'TERROR DEAL' America ‘plotting to allow 9,000 ISIS fighters to escape terror capital Mosul so they can attack Russian troops’, Moscow outrageously claims
"The military source in Moscow told the Star: “In preparation for the operation in Mosul, US intelligence agencies and Saudi Arabia agreed that before the assault all militants will be offered a safe route to leave the city with their families.
“And at the time of the assault, coalition aircraft would only strike empty buildings, agreed in advance with the militants.
"More than 9,000 ISIS fighters will be transferred to the eastern regions of Syria to follow a major offensive operation, which involves the capture of Deir ez-Zur and Palmyra.”"
-----
Obama, and potentially Hillary, WILL lead to WW3 with Russia. It is no longer an IF, but WHEN, assuming Hillary is elected. Her radical rhetoric against Russia and aggressive behavior in the middle-east WILL lead to disaster for civilization.
Does Drifter know you've taken over as the person posting nonsensical articles from high school media? He's not going to be pleased.
Oh, the irony. The person always whining about the "main stream media" being in bed with Hillary searches frantically to find anything, anything at all, to try and impeach (Clinton, globalists, Republican Establishment, NWO, climate change, Breitbart theme of the day, etc., etc.). Like clockwork.
let's see what actually happens. if the ISIS fighters do get out and escape to Syria and continue fighting, that means they probably did get off Scot free.
this is the main stream news side of the story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraq-mosul-i...h-airbase/
all they say is that we are gearing up for a battle with ISIS to retake Mosul in Iraq. How exactly this goes down remains to be seen. If ISIS is allowed to get out of town without a fight, that would seem to confirm the report by RT and other Russian sources.
Quote:Does Drifter know you've taken over as the person posting nonsensical articles from high school media? He's not going to be pleased.
Oh, the irony. The person always whining about the "main stream media" being in bed with Hillary searches frantically to find anything, anything at all, to try and impeach (Clinton, globalists, Republican Establishment, NWO, climate change, Breitbart theme of the day, etc., etc.). Like clockwork.
Don't forget the Illuminati. Every time someone brings them up, I get a good laugh. "Secret organization that rules the world unfoiled by Trump supporter on an NFL message board."
Quote:let's see what actually happens. if the ISIS fighters do get out and escape to Syria and continue fighting, that means they probably did get off Scot free.
this is the main stream news side of the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraq-mosul-i...h-airbase/
all they say is that we are gearing up for a battle with ISIS to retake Mosul in Iraq. How exactly this goes down remains to be seen. If ISIS is allowed to get out of town without a fight, that would seem to confirm the report by RT and other Russian sources.
If they get out, it could be for reasons other than someone just let them out.
Quote:If they get out, it could be for reasons other than someone just let them out.
ya i guess, but should that be allowed to happen?
given our own ties with the Saudis and their ties with ISIS, the idea that a deal was struck to allow them to flee to Syria is not out of the question, is it? you think it's out of the question?
Everyone knows if they don't get free, it's only because this story came out. It was Obama's plan all along, but he backed out at the last minute because of the news story. Or at least that's what we'll be hearing next. Remember: The conspiracy theorist is never wrong.
Quote:Everyone knows if they don't get free, it's only because this story came out. It was Obama's plan all along, but he backed out at the last minute because of the news story. Or at least that's what we'll be hearing next. Remember: The conspiracy theorist is never wrong.
no, i dont think he would just back out of an agreement with the Saudis because of a news story
Why are you being an apologist for Russia? Russia was under economic sanctions and helped to keep Syria destabilized so they could sell Assad weapons. Russia built up their military in the area and illegally seized the Crimean Peninsula. Their presence in the region is protecting one of their few remaining economic investments and it comes at the expense of millions of lives stuck in a civil war. Their state controlled media is being very deliberate in endorsing a candidate they feel aligns with their world view. That's not remotely curious to you? Should Obama NOT have imposed economic sanctions on Russia? Should he have beefed up our military on the Syrian border? Russia starts saber rattling and you blame our leaders for what.. letting it happen? Go watch Rocky IV and take a chill pill.
Quote:Why are you being an apologist for Russia? Russia was under economic sanctions and helped to keep Syria destabilized so they could sell Assad weapons. Russia built up their military in the area and illegally seized the Crimean Peninsula. Their presence in the region is protecting one of their few remaining economic investments and it comes at the expense of millions of lives stuck in a civil war. Their state controlled media is being very deliberate in endorsing a candidate they feel aligns with their world view. That's not remotely curious to you? Should Obama NOT have imposed economic sanctions on Russia? Should he have beefed up our military on the Syrian border? Russia starts saber rattling and you blame our leaders for what.. letting it happen? Go watch Rocky IV and take a chill pill.
what about the US and Gulf state support in the region that has allowed the rebellion to gain strength?
numerous polls have shown that Syrian people dont want a civil war, support Assad, and want life to go back to how it was before
Quote:Why are you being an apologist for Russia? Russia was under economic sanctions and helped to keep Syria destabilized so they could sell Assad weapons. Russia built up their military in the area and illegally seized the Crimean Peninsula. Their presence in the region is protecting one of their few remaining economic investments and it comes at the expense of millions of lives stuck in a civil war. Their state controlled media is being very deliberate in endorsing a candidate they feel aligns with their world view. That's not remotely curious to you? Should Obama NOT have imposed economic sanctions on Russia? Should he have beefed up our military on the Syrian border? Russia starts saber rattling and you blame our leaders for what.. letting it happen? Go watch Rocky IV and take a chill pill.
Where is the EU in all this? This is their territory. What did they do to stop the annexation of Crimea? The invasion in Ossetia? They didn't do squat, yet they have a massive economy that can easily control Russian aggression. Instead we play world police and are entering a new cold war because Obama and Hillary have the diplomatic expertise of an an Indonesian basket weaver (probably less, really). The establishment are leading to disaster.
How well do you understand what started the civil war in Syria? Right after Assad took power from his dad, he started arresting political opponents (sound like anyone you know?). A few years later the US imposed sanctions because they were supporting terrorist groups and doing nothing to stop jihadists from entering Iraq to try to kill Americans. For years Assad continued to lock up any political dissidents which caused the general population to rise up in 2011. Internal violence continued with the government military killing anyone who stood up in opposition to draconian government action. Late in 2011 the Arab League followed Obama's lead by imposing sanctions on Syria and suspending them from membership. This is around the time several Syrian military leaders were defecting. Early 2012 saw the rise of the Al-Nusra front (made with influence of Al Qaeda and ISIS) and became the leading opposition force to Assad. During an attempted cease fire, Assad's military carried out massacres and assassinations. Shortly after was when the US tried to help militants (which predictably was of little help). In 2013 Assad began to use chemical weapons on his own people. That's [BLEEP] horrific. I still can see the images of those dead kids caught in the middle if this mess. Rebels strengthened their resolve in response and started making gains (captured Raqqa). At this point there were roughly a million Syrians declared as political refugees. Destabilization of the area allowed ISIS to sweep into Iraq in early 2014 as well as taking Raqqa. Weeks later the US and U.N. started to attack ISIS in Aleppo and Raqqa. Russia used this distraction to seize the Crimean Peninsula. They seemingly joined the party by attacking ISIS targets, but were also intermittently attacking Syrian rebels as well to prop up the guy who is buying all of their military supplies. Assad must not have minded ISIS advancing to take cities in his country as he started buying oil directly from them. You think Syrians want to go back to what it was before? Having anyone who speaks out against the government jailed or killed? What foreign policy would you have employed differently to calm the situation (I have proposed a black ops team and one bullet would have done the trick long before Russia was able to dig in, but that is hardly diplomatic). Instead of making a blanket statement about how awful Obama and Hillary handled things, give me your take on what would have been better.. like Trump is gonna solve an Arab nation's civil war when the Arab League also bounced them from the club. Where is the EU in all this? I don't know... maybe [BLEEP] Europe? This isn't their region. Syria doesn't border any EU nation I am aware of. But they are members of the UN force in the area. Easy to assign blame when you don't have any alternative solution or know what you're talking about.
Giving weapons and support to people who want to establish their own Islamic State (which all the rebel groups want, not just ISIS) certainly is not my preferred option.
I dont THINK Syrians want to go back to life before the war, that's been reported by journalist after journalist on the ground in Syria.
Quote:Giving weapons and support to people who want to establish their own Islamic State (which all the rebel groups want, not just ISIS) certainly is not my preferred option.
I dont THINK Syrians want to go back to life before the war, that's been reported by journalist after journalist on the ground in Syria.
We have been through the discussion on providing weapons to the rebels. The US was trying to find a way to support those getting killed without committing troops to military intervention. I'm sure gun manufacturers didn't complain. While it could have been predicted SOME would end up in the hands of people we didn't want them to, there were plenty that did get in the hands of who it was intended. This was a CIA initiative which had plenty of backing from Republican leaders at the time (like Bob Corker) and was promised by John Kerry who was Secretary of State at the time. What kind of support would you have offered differently?
And am I supposed to be surprised that Syrians who have been caught in the middle of a civil war that is over a decade old and have seen their families uprooted, gassed by their own government and killed en masse would prefer things how they were before? These people have been barely surviving and just want what we all want. Hard to have a normal life when this madness is at every corner.
Quote:We have been through the discussion on providing weapons to the rebels. The US was trying to find a way to support those getting killed without committing troops to military intervention. I'm sure gun manufacturers didn't complain. While it could have been predicted SOME would end up in the hands of people we didn't want them to, there were plenty that did get in the hands of who it was intended. This was a CIA initiative which had plenty of backing from Republican leaders at the time (like Bob Corker) and was promised by John Kerry who was Secretary of State at the time. What kind of support would you have offered differently?
And am I supposed to be surprised that Syrians who have been caught in the middle of a civil war that is over a decade old and have seen their families uprooted, gassed by their own government and killed en masse would prefer things how they were before? These people have been barely surviving and just want what we all want. Hard to have a normal life when this madness is at every corner.
that's the most naive take ever. these interventions are not driven by humanitarian motives
Quote:that's the most naive take ever. these interventions are not driven by humanitarian motives
Assad was receiving assistance from Russia and Iran. We were trying to support the rebels without getting directly involved. That's not what we were doing? That's not why we gave the Syrian Military Council arms?
Okay.. enlighten me.