Russian Jet Shot Down by Syrian Rebels

[Kurieuo]

We're not going to see eye-to-eye. We disagree on the facts. Using your same logic however, when Israel flys its drones and/or allows the US to, then all nations surrounding Israel have a right to bomb the crap out of them? No, I don't see that it works that way.

Iran is working alongside Russia and Syria, as has been Hezbollah, on the ground against ISIS. If you couldn't tell, Syria has been war-torn and in turmoil, due to a mess our Western nations caused. Who Syria invites in to help to help them, is up to them. It may not please the US or Israel, but it'd be another Libya and Iraq if it wasn't for outside assistance, particularly Russian intervention.

[RickD]

kurieuo wrote:
We're not going to see eye-to-eye. We disagree on the facts. Using your same logic however, when Israel flys its drones and/or allows the US to, then all nations surrounding Israel have a right to bomb the crap out of them? No, I don't see that it works that way.

The difference that you seem to be missing, is that Israel just wants to exist. To be left alone. Any attacks from them are retaliation for something that somebody else did. Surely you understand that these other nations and terrorist groups are the ones attacking Israel, right?

Iran is working alongside Russia and Syria, as has been Hezbollah, on the ground against ISIS. If you couldn't tell, Syria has been war-torn and in turmoil, due to a mess our Western nations caused. Who Syria invites in to help to help them, is up to them. It may not please the US or Israel, but it'd be another Libya and Iraq if it wasn't for outside assistance, particularly Russian intervention.

So, if Syria invites Iran into their nation, and Iran invades Israel airspace from Syria, it's none of Israel's business?

[DBowling]

kurieuo wrote:
We're not going to see eye-to-eye. We disagree on the facts. Using your same logic however, when Israel flys its drones and/or allows the US to, then all nations surrounding Israel have a right to bomb the crap out of them? No, I don't see that it works that way.

The difference that you seem to be missing, is that Israel just wants to exist. To be left alone. Any attacks from them are retaliation for something that somebody else did. Surely you understand that these other nations and terrorist groups are the ones attacking Israel, right?

Iran is working alongside Russia and Syria, as has been Hezbollah, on the ground against ISIS. If you couldn't tell, Syria has been war-torn and in turmoil, due to a mess our Western nations caused. Who Syria invites in to help to help them, is up to them. It may not please the US or Israel, but it'd be another Libya and Iraq if it wasn't for outside assistance, particularly Russian intervention.

So, if Syria invites Iran into their nation, and Iran invades Israel airspace from Syria, it's none of Israel's business?

Iran and Hezbollah have repeatedly stated their official goal of destroying Israel. Hezbollah deliberately targets civilians in terrorist and missile attacks on Israel and uses their own women and children as human shields. Iran is a primary supporter for Hezbollah's terrorist attacks against Israel. So when Iran and Hezbollah attack Israel from Syria and Lebanon, then Israel has every right as a nation to defend itself from those attacks and respond to Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and Syria.
In this specific case Israel brought down an Iranian drone in Israeli territory. As Rick pointed out, if Syria and Lebanon don't want to be attacked by Israel, then they need to stop letting Iran and Hezbollah use their nations as staging grounds for attacks against Israel.

[Kurieuo]

After thinking on it, you are right about one thing Rick. What this is likely about, is Israel getting their knickers in a knot about Hezbollah, who are working alongside Syria, Iran and Russia (at the behest I believe largely of Russia who got many different groups together talking at the table). However, I do not believe Iran launched a drone into Israel. Such doesn't make any sense. And, certainly, there were no missiles fired at Israel, no real "aggression" -- and if spying is an aggression, then the US and NATO acts very aggressive to China and Russia and many other nations.

BUT, lets keep to this scenario rather than throw in the general rhetoric that Israel is surrounded by everyone wanting to kill them, so they have every right to strike whoever rhetoric. One must wonder why Iran would even fly a drone over? It'd peeve off Syria and Russia if they did their own thing, who mind you both deny the allegation. There is just little to no reason why Iran would. Can you guys think of any good reason why they'd send a spy drone over? I can't. This rings of a false flag to me, but why would Israel fabricate it?

It does I believe come down to Hezbollah. Israel don't like them working alongside Russia, Iran and Syrian forces. An exchange of arms and firepower is a risk to Israel. Yet, if Israel weren't so intent on playing the victim and conquering their enemies via military might, then they might ask Russia (who is on "friendly" terms with Israel) if they could help brokerage peace or better relations with Hezbollah and even perhaps Iran (though unrealistic). Nonetheless, Russia would leap at the opportunity to gloat over the US, and so of course, the US wouldn't like nor allow Israel to do such a thing. So, Israel won't look to diplomacy either, even if they wanted to. But, wouldn't it be great if a diplomatic means could be used to bring an end to the ongoing thread and hatred? If Israel was to open up, and send in a contingent of forces to also help Syria and fight a common enemy alongside Iran, Russia and even Hezbollah (who might then become ostracise themselves from the group if they couldn't handle working with Israel, along with Iran), that'd be an awesome move of diplomacy.

Yet, diplomacy is rarely considered an option unless there is mounting international pressure, and aggression largely seems to be Israel's preference. So they identify locations where Hezbollah are at and likely certain ammunition locations and other locations they feel may pose possible threats. Once they have the intel of strategic locations they want to stirke, Israel then claims Iran sent a drone over Israel provoking them to respond with force. Israel then hit the key locations they identified, and in the process one of their warplanes is (embarrasingly) shot down. I'm doubtful Iran is their concern at all, except so much as in they give ammunitions to Hezbollah. For example, Israel had known for a while Iran have been increasing had activity at a "T-4 Syrian air force base near to Palmyra" (where Hezbollah are also).

As things stand, now there is going to be a stronger Iran-Russia alliance which the US won't like. It seems the US has been doing a bit of their own striking though too against the SAA. Re: Iran, The US-led West has been looking to create civil unrest in Iran in recent times, and personally I have no love for the Iranian government and do think them very provokative. The US with Obama really extended a rather lush olive branch, and Iran just slammed America's fingers in the door after taking it. That's what I see. Things are looking more complicated, espeically if Russia now starts supporting Iran more strongly. With Trump as President, the two may lock horns.

Anyway, make of all that what you will, whether or not Israel is justified with preemptive strikes, simply because Hezbollah have used diplomacy to gain a seat at the table in joining Russia, Syria and Iran in fighting the terrorists groups in Syria. This wasn't a retalitory strike, but rather a pre-emptive strike. Yet, in order to send in their warplanes, they wanted a reason for justification. Perhaps Iran does have its drones around to help against fighting the terrorists in Syria, to the dislike of Israel who sees such also as a threat to their own nation. So why not also hit two birds with one stone - Hezbollah and Iranian drone locations. Nonetheless, whether or not justified, I see Israel's actions are being made out of fear, and in this particular instance I consider Israel the first aggressors.

[DBowling]

Israel was tracking the Iranian drone before it hit Israeli airspace, but they didn't take the drone down until it crossed into Israel. We may not know why Iran sent a drone into Israel, but Iran knows what the drone was up to, and Israel has a pretty good idea too based on the drone's flight path.

Here's a nice overview of what Iran and Hezbollah have been up to in Syria, and why Israel responded the way they did to Iran sending a drone into Israeli territory.
From
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/opinions ... index.html

A perfect storm of factors with the potential to prompt an attack like Saturday's have been brewing for some time. Capitalizing on Iran's support of the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Teheran has moved to expand its influence in Syria as a hedge against US and Saudi designs. And with Iran's help, Hezbollah has probed areas close to the Syrian Golan Heights to possibly create another front against the Israelis.
They planned to establish weapons factories and land routes that might facilitate supply to Hezbollah. Motivated partly by the ideological struggle against Israel and by a practical need to build up a stronger capability in the event of an Iranian-Israeli conflict, Iran apparently plans to expand the Israeli-Lebanese front to include Syria.
For its part, Israel has drawn clear red lines that it warned Iran not to cross and has long complained about Iran's ambitions in Syria. These include Iran's desire to create a land bridge connecting Iran and Lebanon through Iraq and Syria, deploy 10,000 Shia militia in southern Syria, create maritime and air bases and weapons factories, and even to create a presence adjacent to the Golan Heights.
On this last goal, steps have already been taken. In 2015, Israel killed an Iranian general and senior Hezbollah operatives near the Golan Heights.
Over the last several years, Israel has conducted at least a hundred attacks in Syria, aimed at preventing weapons shipments to Hezbollah, blowing up weapons depots and eliminating regime or jihadi activity too close to its borders. But Saturday's violation of Israeli airspace and sovereignty by an Iranian drone was considered a provocation that needed a clear answer on the tactical level and a strategic response.

[RickD]

Bueller? Kurieuo? Bueller?

[Kurieuo]

I'm more disgusted by the US strike killing SAA and Russians. You guys have heard about such in your never fake news? No doubt Australia is involved in such. What did Trump say in the elections? Wouldn't it be great if the US worked side by she with Russia to take out ISIS? What a joke! When they bomb the ones who have been most effective against such. Trump is just another Neocon, US is still after regime change, and if they don't get Assad they'll look to divide up and setup a new Syria to work with. Oh, how precious the oil.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

One of the many reasons I'm unaffiliated with political parties. I agree with anyone I will agree with, don't label me with the stereotypes of liberal or conservative.

[RickD]

I'm more disgusted by the US strike killing SAA and Russians. You guys have heard about such in your never fake news? No doubt Australia is involved in such. What did Trump say in the elections? Wouldn't it be great if the US worked side by she with Russia to take out ISIS? What a joke! When they bomb the ones who have been most effective against such. Trump is just another Neocon, US is still after regime change, and if they don't get Assad they'll look to divide up and setup a new Syria to work with. Oh, how precious the oil.

Kurieuo,

You sound cranky. Get a good night sleep. You'll feel better in the morning.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I do lean conservative however.

[Kurieuo]

I don't know what you talking about Rick? It's morning here. Perhaps you're getting cranky.

The recently bombed Syrian army (by the US), which also killed some Russians, was to protect their SDF anti-Syrian Kurds. Around 100 Syrian fighters were killed. SDF are now turning north the help the YPG fight against Turkey, who is meant to be a US ally and part of NATO. SDF are considered terrorists by many, links to PKK who kill civilians in Turkey, and yet are backed by the US.

What is the US doing, besides creating a diplomatic nightmare and real mess in Syria? It's not about ISIS anymore. Trump is doing a pitiful job and is either clueless or complicit. Neo-Cons clearly appear to be running things. They want Assad gone, regime change, and to install someone to power who can be controlled.

[Kurieuo]

Found a video, which provides some background understanding, for those who don't understand the varying groups, why they're fighting Turkey, US involvement with the groups and like:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Zx4kHLZPQ

[Philip]

Trump, clumsy with Syria, yes. But his past statements appear to show him desirous of avoiding quagmires and nation-building. Seems the best way for the Syria war to end is just to segment it and broker a piece that leaves Assad in power. Else the civil war drags on with increasing human costs. Remove him, and you've got another Iraq power vacuum scenario. Most U.S. conservatives view the Bush / Blair / Neo-con shenanigans as an enormous disaster.

Putin just wants to feel like Russia before the USSR imploded. He's just a thug with a lot of nukes. Reminds me of Henry VIII - always wanting to be a power player without the money or budget to pursue empire fantasies. I think all the posturing over the drone is likely only an insignificant blip.

[Kurieuo]

Phil, if you truly believe that the US should leave Assad in power, otherwise there will be another power vacuum like in Iraq (and lets not forget Libya too), then you should know that the US, as explained recently by Tillerson, is in fact looking to remove Assad. (I just found this earlier)

Note in the video below, Tillerson speaks out both sides of his mouth. First saying the reason the US is there to ensure ISIS is dispelled. BUT, then he states the real end goal, which is to bring down Assad and install a new government (which we know worked out so fabulously in Iraq and Libya, ISIS uprising and the like didn't it?). Tillerson also describes the years of Syria under Assad as a "client state of Iran," overstated a little perhaps, but such justifies regime change I suppose.

It has been the Russian supported SAA who have really taken ISIS to the cleaners. Who took back Alleppo while the US claimed they were bombing hospitals and schools (the actual reason was that some of these fighter groups were actually being armed by the US with the hopes of toppling Assad -- they were found with US weaponary and ammunitions). Meanwhile, Mosul was absolute a disaster so far as protecting civilians and left in ruins littered full of rotting corpses -- it is absolutely deplorable what happened there with the Iraq army under US leadership.

In any case, if you watch the following speech of Tillerson, you'll see what I say about overthrowing Assad is true. The US' original motive of taking out Assad -- like taking out the leaders of Libya, and like with Iraq -- is what the US is still pressing for in Syria. The US wants to destroy the Syrian leadership, and leave it in ruins by I suppose again allowing militia groups to take control (worked so well with Gaddafi). Based upon history, this will be another US meddling that will lead to a fragmented and dysfunctional state. That is, unless the likes of Russia with the help of Iran and increasingly perhaps Turkey, can prevent such from happening.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tjStnjgYk

[Philip]

I sincerely hope you're wrong.

They'd never get Congress to approve it, or to send troops to fill any resulting power vacuum. Iraq opened a lot of Americans eyes to the folly of such.

Watch what Lindsay Graham's response is.