Home | About | Donate

Obama Won’t Admit the Real Targets of Russian Airstrikes


Obama Won’t Admit the Real Targets of Russian Airstrikes

Gareth Porter

The US response to Russia’s new Syrian military campaign in support of the Assad regime has struck a pose of moral superiority by arguing that the Russians have not been targeting the Islamic State but rather the non-ISIS Syrian opposition to the Assad regime.


A splash of ice water onto the faces of those whoe reflexively proclaim US activity in these parts of the world is the deadly accurate planning of empire domination by Machiavellian geniuses. Rather it's a tremendously deadly pathology by decidedly non-geniuses. It's boardering on a miracle that our civilization is still around. And the whole picture gets worse and worse. This of course is fodder for trolls who ought be addressing their game playing to the doomsday clock, whose face can only smile in delight.


Well apparently we the public are to believe the following.

Al Qaeda is such a fanatical organization and so dangerous it's members orchestrated an attack on the country with the most powerful military in the world leading to some 3000 deaths.

So fanatical and dangerous were its members we were told they needed to be blindfolded cuffed and gagged when captured so they could be shipped to Gitmo.

We were told these men were so dangerous a single coded eyeblink would sent their minions rushing to attack and murder US citizens and their jaws so powerful they would chew through an aircrafts flight cables and cause said plane to crash thus these measures needed.

As it turns out however these people are actually moderates.

One can only wonder at the superpowers that ISIS members have. It seems in any case that both al Qaeda and ISIS have a nemesis, the kryptonite to their super powers and it apparently Russians!

Joe Shuster could not have imagined a better tale!


No one in the mainstream media - and remarkably few in the alternative media - mentions that Russia has a naval base in Syria, the only Russian naval base on the Mediterranean. That base would likely come under attack were the US-Israeli-Saudi backed Al Qaeda in Syria to push southwest from IdLib. And were Assad to fall, the Russians' permission to have that base would be at risk.

So it seems to me the Russian's recent entry into the fray has everything to do with preserving their naval base at Tartus and nothing to do with supporting Assad per se. Though keeping him in power protects their base for the time being, the Russians have also called for an orderly transition to a new government, with whom they presumably would renegotiate use of that base.

Another point - the 26 cruise missiles Russia launched from the Caspian Sea travelled 1500 km to their targets, demonstrating their ability to hit most of Europe from their vessels in the Black and Caspian Seas. Apparently this ability caught Warshington off guard.

KALIBRating the foe: strategic implications of the Russian cruise missiles’ launch


If the US wanted to beat ISIS it would have provided them with GM trucks rather than Toyota trucks.


"Necessary Enemies," co-efficient of War without End(ing).


Ugh, you're killing me here. The Taliban didn't even exist during the Soviet-Afghan War. You're thinking of the mujaheddin. The Taliban were created after the Soviets left by the Pakistani ISI, originally to protect their convoys traversing the warlord dominated husk of Afghanistan.


"splitting hairs."

It's reaaaaally not.

And I'll go one further: the deal with the Pakistanis to move personnel and equipment across their border into Afghanistan stipulated that while the CIA would provide money and training, the final say as to who got what was decided by the ISI intermediaries. The notion that the United States created Al-Qaeda has any truth in only the loosest possible sense. The CIA knew bin Laden and other foreign fighters were in Afghanistan and certainly approved of what they were doing, but had no control over what funds, equipment, or training ended up with jihadists. The vast majority of that assistance ended up with the Afghanis, just as it was the Afghanis who did the vast majority of the fighting. The idea that bin Laden was some on-call CIA asset that we could direct to do things bears no resemblance to the reality. And in fact every account I've ever seen from CIA operatives working in-country makes it clear that the jihadi types would have just as happily gutted the American agents as any Soviet.

I see though from the likes your post got that anything I say will be water off a ducks back and will be ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative some people have constructed for themselves.


Orwell's grave, of course, is on permanent spin cycle.


Nothing I said contradicts Brzezinski. We did have CIA operatives in Afghanistan, but the CIA had no direct control over where funding and training went. The CIA trained whoever the Pakistanis sent them to train.


Seriously? That's the best you got? Yeah, the head of a wealthy Arabian family in the oil and construction business was friends with an American oil magnate. Shocking.


Except I never said that, but okay. Keep on keeping on.


Blowback from US /NAZI playbook. What a shitty day for the world when USA aligned themselves with Nazis, John Birch society and other cold war players. Reap what you sow. Making friends with Hitler and his pals has put the world in a terrible position. Turning up the propaganda hasn't helped. In fact it will make matters worse. To bad Obama and Washington are so brainwashed. Ignorance as knowledge has never worked.


Except it isn't like that at all. A provincial governor was a member of the Roman government. A province of Rome was part of Rome, and inhabited by Romans. Neither Pakistan nor any of our Gulf State 'allies' are directly run by the US government. And Pakistan in particular is a schizoid country; the ISI is at least equally divided between genuine friends of the US and thinly veiled enemies. As for the Saudis, it's been an open secret for decades that they export wahhabism. They're allowed a tremendous amount of leeway because of their dominant position as an oil producer. I think you're ascribing far more coherence and cleverness to US foreign policy than the evidence warrants.


Immediately after this launch the US announced it was pulling its last Aircraft Carrior out of the region for "rest and refit".

Aircraft Carriers, upon which US Naval power is based are neutralized by this type of weapon and the billions spent on each money wasted. Russia also works and has likely deployed undersea drones. These are mini submarines that can be deployed in great numbers and are unmanned. They sit at great depths can can detect propeller or shipborne noises above rising from the depths to strike a ship from beneath with a powerful warhead. Thousands and more of these can be deployed for each 13 billion dollar carrier,


Oh what a tangled web:

We have always been at war with East Asia, I mean not been at war with, no, wait wasn't it East?... no, Al-Q good, four legs bad. Now, that should clear it all up. The question is, "who is to be master."

[quote="JonnyJames, post:4, topic:14316"]
So in our


Perhaps so, but you would assist your cause/argument if you gave cites to the sources you have used for your position. That's seems reasonable when countering somebody else's position but I don't have any sources for this, it's just IMHO.


Although Russia has historically been a rival to the Anglo-Americans since at least the 19th century, both power centers are, and were, imperialist regarding the Muslim world. Tolstoy's novel "Hadji Murad" describes the Tsarist war against the people now known as Chechens, and The Crimean War made it clear that the West always saw Russian intrusion into the Muslim world as a threat to their own domination. And of course, it was Soviet Russia which originally destabilized Afghanistan in 1979. The present Russian aggression in Syria is in keeping with this very old pattern, as is US- NATO opposition. None of these European powers belong in the Muslim world and none of them have ever done anything but damage.


What exactly is a "superficially accurate" US statement? Forget US ! Russia, read Putin, itself states its ultimate military campaign goal - support of the "legitimate" , read genocidal dictator Assad, regime.

Russia is bombing Assad enemies, ISIS apparently is not much of a threat to Assad , hence not a target.