You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If Jihadists, male and female, gather their children around them does that make them all a target or not ?
There we go.
I dunno - is it better to be a terrorist sympathiser (questionable anyway) or someone who has no problem seeing children being killed as "collateral damage" (no doubt at all)?
Simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned.
Given your tenuous grip on what is a fact and what's your opinion, that statement carries as much weight as a helium balloon.
Oh and did I hear something about an MOD leak that Cameron was advised [i]not[/i] to use the "70000" figure given how questionable (putting it lightly) it was?
Corbyn and McDonnell (for you DrJ) named once again as terrorist sympathisers. Simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned.
[i]"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."[/i]
Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned.
It is. Everyone sympathies with terrorists of some kind. SOE, GHQ Auxiliary Units. Hard to imagine nobody voting against (or for) sympathized with any terrorist ever. (and some are on record saying so.)
Cameron shouldn't have said it because it's unhelpful and misleading in the context of ISIL, but it *is* true.
Jesus ****ing Christ! Terrorist sympathisers! You boil my piss!
So its OK to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia known for stoning people to death or beheading them. Women aren't allowed to drive
Israel use terror constantly aswell as popping people off around the globe
FFFS
For ****s ****ing sake
You have no moral compass.
[i]Everyone sympathies with terrorists of some kind.[/i]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1065913.stm
This guy.
Not been following the thread sorry - have we done this yet?
ctk - MemberJesus * Christ! Terrorist sympathisers! You boil my piss!
So its OK to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia known for stoning people to death or beheading them. Women aren't allowed to drive
Israel use terror constantly aswell as popping people off around the globe
FFFS
For * * sake
You have no moral compass.
Wow wow wow fella, what are you saying? Are you saing that David Cameron ([i]gorblessim[/i]) is sympathetic to the brutal murderous Saudi regime who decapitate hundreds of their own civilains for trivial issues?
The same Saudi regime who export the Wahhabist philosophy that ISIS follow to the letter? The same Saudi regime who everyone including senior british militry figures say is the wellspring from which ISI and Al-Qaeda flow?
That's almost like saying David Cameron is sympathetic to ISIS. Isn't it. If that was true it would make Cameron the most disgustingly hypocritical pig f** wouldn't it?. If we lived in Saudi you'd have your head cut off for that.
Are you saing that David Cameron (gorblessim) is sympathetic to the brutal murderous Saudi regime who decapitate their own civilains for trivial issues?
Of course, JC is desperately trying to get the job that involves sucking up to Saudi. Wannabe Saudi sucker. 😀
Ha yes that's right! Corbyn is just [i]acting[/i] this way- its a negotiating position for when he gets into power. Extra gold coins for Corbs!
And Hilary Benn if he believes what he says then he should follow it through and get our soldiers involved on the ground. He did really seem to mean what he said didn't he?
[quote=ctk ]And Hilary Benn if he believes what he says then he should[s] follow it through and[/s] get [s]our soldier[/s]s involved on the ground. He did really seem to mean what he said didn't he?FTFY
ctk - MemberAnd Hilary Benn if he believes what he says
Do you mean when he said we definitely have to bomb Syria, or when he said we definitely shouldn't?
You've got to hand it to him, he does personify the modern labour party, having profound and unreconcilable divisions with himself. Makes him the ideal leader.
French Government advice published today on responding to terrorist incidents, posters will be sent to businesss. Very sadly a sign of the times.
[img] 
[/img]
@grum the war in Syria is entirely the result of the "Arab spring" which turned into a full scale civil war with external influenece from those who wished to see Assad toppled. Really it has pretty much nothing to do with oil or gas.
@grum the war in Syria is [b]entirely the result [/b]of the "Arab spring" which turned into a full scale civil war with external influenece from those who wished to see Assad toppled.
It is, if you ignore the internal political and economic causes of the war: sustained drought, migration to the cities to look for work, an inflexible state-run economy, the strain of a million Iraqi refugees.
@ctk, a few thoughts
Jesus * Christ! Terrorist sympathisers! You boil my piss!So its OK to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia known for stoning people to death or beheading them. Women aren't allowed to drive
Israel use terror constantly aswell as popping people off around the globe
FFFS
For
* **** sakeYou have no moral compass.
If you get so wound up discussions on a bike forum populated primarily by citizens of one of the most Liberal democracies in the world perhaps you should spend time elsewhere ?
Last year we sold $4bn of weapons to the Saudis, the French sold $12bn. Please take up your point with Monsieur Hollande. Let me know how you get on.
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and what happened, the population elected an extreme Islamist government with a written constitution to destroy Israel by armed Jihad. The Israelis are used to dealing with such extremists, we are having to learn those very harsh lessons. Lessons which dont sit well with our liberal democracies.
Moral compass ? Always a very personal and subjective judgement. Withoit coalition intervention in Iraq IS would have murdered 10's if nit 100's of thousands of Yazidis. Ask the French whether they think its morally justified to launch airstrikes in Syria and to require EU nations to assist militarily under the EU treaties.
causes of the war: sustained drought, migration to the cities to look for work, an inflexible state-run economy, the strain of a million Iraqi refugees.
I'm not ignoring those things, they where factors leading to the Arab Spring uprising in Syria no ?
The claim is that the arab spring was the cover and that foreign countries[ and this is not disputed BTW] were funding and training the "opposition" to Assad and were agent provocateurs
Its not like its unheard of the west getting rid of unfriendly govts and maintain friendly ones irrespective of trifling concerns about legitimacy, democracy or human rights
Interesting read and requires a deeper analysis than you have given it though I dont know if it is true or not
Withoit coalition intervention in Iraq IS would have murdered 10's if nit 100's of thousands of Yazidis.
You could always argue that without the coalition intervention in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem to begin with. There were pretty clear warnings about what would happen in Iraq. It would collapse into sectarian violence. Which it did. Ultimately leading to the formation of ISIS
Hurray for coalition intervention eh?
OK so no-one can be bothered to read the link but how about this nice diagram?
[img] 
[/img]
Apologies if it has been done before.
That oil drum in the top corner is clearly related to.....
[img] 
/revision/latest?cb=20111104010226[/img]
so no-one can be bothered to read the link
I read it ...go on test me 😉
I did read it honest. I never comment on links unless i have read them as anything else is stupid.
I think I need a killfile for jambalaya..
His posts are starting to make me really really sad.. What a nutter
I find Jammers posts quite interesting. In the same way as reading a Peter Hitchens article is interesting.
jambalayaLast year we sold $4bn of weapons to the Saudis, the French sold $12bn. Please take up your point with Monsieur Hollande. Let me know how you get on.
Hang on there a minute. Just because France are as complicit, or more so in arming the regime that funds ISIS it doesn't exonerate Cameron. In addition to farming out radical Islam to every mosque in the world that'll let them and killing their own citizens for crimes such as atheism and adultery the Saudis are using these weapons to slaughter civilians in Yemen.
Its not like its unheard of the west getting rid of unfriendly govts and maintain friendly ones
True, although in more recent years the west has chosen to get rid (relatively) friendly Governments and replace them with Islamic extremists who hate us.
You could always argue that without the coalition intervention in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem to begin with. There were pretty clear warnings about what would happen in Iraq. It would collapse into sectarian violence. Which it did. Ultimately leading to the formation of ISIS
This. It's not even debatable, just fact.
jimjam - MemberIn addition to farming out radical Islam to every mosque in the world that'll let them and killing their own citizens for crimes such as atheism and adultery the Saudis are using these weapons to slaughter civilians in Yemen.
Nuh uh- we sold them Brimstone missiles, they only kill baddies
True, although in more recent years the west has chosen to get rid (relatively) friendly Governments and replace them with Islamic extremists who hate us.
i never said we were any good at it 😉
CHrist you have to laugh as that is depressing news we are just making enemies everywhere
I read it ...go on test me
I did read it honest. I never comment on links unless i have read them as anything else is stupid.
Just interested to know what people thought of it as an explanation for the conflict. It seems fairly plausible to me and I'ld be very surprised if 'resource security' wasn't a fairly major part of all this - just hard to know exactly what to believe.
The Wesley Clark video is also pretty amazing in some ways - though also no surprising.
NorthwindNuh uh- we sold them Brimstone missiles, they only kill baddies
I'm pretty sure they killed 100+ civilians last month, 56 of them children using bombs Dave sold them. I mean, I'm no expert in geopolitics or wordplay, so I guess there's some sort of profound difference when an extreme Islamist government slaughters children and that of an extreme Islamist group slaughtering children.
If killing children with missiles was terrorism I guess that would make Dave not only a sympathiser but a profiteer of terrorism, but I guess it's not, so he couldn't possibly be.
perhaps you should spend time elsewhere ?
Perhaps we should have a vote on who we want to leave
Who do you think would garner the most votes ?
Its not really that surprising that a number of folk consider your posts to lack empathy and logical coherence
Still at least you stayed consistent and blamed them for reacting
Moral compass ? Always a very personal and subjective judgement
Not really some stuff is bad and that is it. We dont look at who is doing it before deciding what is bad . Have a look at Israel assassinations abroad and condemn it as you would if Syria, Palestine, or Iraq did.
Agreed Grum it is certainly plausible and we certainly do go to war re resources and we certainly dont go to war just because the country is a bit mean to its citizens.
yunki - MemberI think I need a killfile for jambalaya..
His posts are starting to make me really really sad.. What a nutter
You might be dismissive of jambalaya but his views and opinions are [i]very much[/i] in line with the views and opinions of those who decide our defence policy, education policy, health policy, taxation, international relations, etc, ie the government.
You are going to have to think of a better description than simply "nutter" imo.
And if you're not happy with government policies something more effective than a killfile.
You are going to have to think of a better description than simply "nutter" imo.
"Voter"? 😉
jambalaya - Member
...on a bike forum populated primarily by citizens of one of the [b]most Liberal democracies[/b] in the world...
You're being ironic I hope.
We've got nothing on this bunch of [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/islamic-state-child-soldiers-play-6949570 ]lefties[/url]
@yunki I would hope you'd see things differently if we met for a beer, assuming you'd agree to such a thing someday. As you can see I'm not one to try and sugar coat things, sometimes reality is harsher than many are prepared to admit.
@epic, I am certain you are trying to make a point but actually I agree with you totally on this security issue in terms of my views and government policy.
Yes absolutely we live in one of the most Liberal and open democracies in the world, top 3, top 5 ?
I've been in Pairs this week and there has not been a single comment / written word I've seen anywhere about civilian casualties. I may have missed them of course. France is imo the most left wing of any European nation and yet has upped the anti to "war" status against IS and in terms of domestic polciy and police powers. Do we really need an attack here in the UK which sees 400 people shot and 130 dead before we fully appreciate what we are dealing with.
The BBC reported on the latest Daesh video today, kids playing hide and seek, except once found those people where executed by the kids. 5 shot and the last one beheaded. I watched the video. Even more gruesome than the executions by kids at the Palmare site released a few months ago. I believe the rationale given for the executions where that they where spies for Israel.
These people are monsters, left unchallenged they will grow stronger and they will continue to murder people everyday. They wil continue to train and rescource people to travel to the West to kill us. One of fhe Paris terrorists is known tomhave travelled to Birmingham and London and met known uk terrorist suspects
Why do the hawks always accuse the anti-bombers of wanting to do nothing? When we've repeatedly said that's not what we want.
It's very poor rhetoric, when we really need intelligent debate.
The question isn't to bomb or to appease; it's "what is the best way to stop ISIS?"
I am saying bombing isn't the best way to fix the situation. If it were, I'd support it.
No we dont need that and we dont need emotive appeals as no one wants to see anyone dead so lets just take that as a given. Secondly lets not pretend that engaging them in war will necessarily make this event less likely or that it is inevitable if we " do nothing". Basically we all know what we are dealing with where we differ is on what we think is the best way of dealing with them.Do we really need an attack here in the UK which sees 400 people shot and 130 dead before we fully appreciate what we are dealing with.
Please try to put your case a little less with appeals to emotions and a bit more cogent/explanation about how bombing them will work out well for us. Feel free to use the recent Western excursions in the middle east field to illustrate your answer.
I assume hilary benns speech was a little like that Said things we all agreed with but never really tried to explain how or why bombs would make it all better.
Why do the hawks always accuse the anti-bombers of wanting to do nothing? When we've repeatedly said that's not what we want.
The anti-bombers do the same by claiming that the hawks want to *only* bomb and not carry out any of the raft of other options in addition to bombing.
Both are straw-man arguments and very frustrating.
Both are straw-man arguments and very frustrating.
I perused an argument between Danny Finkelstein, Philip Collins and Medhi Hassan on Twitter today which went along similar lines - these are all guys of some ability - and they end up in the same place.
How long have intelligence services been supporting 'moderate' Syrian Rebels?
[img] 
?oh=e91c400bfb8c5b4884ee3bdd5a16faad&oe=56E2137E[/img]
Was there ever a highly publicized parliamentary debate on the matter?
About that jet that violated your airspace.....
Police treat stabbing on Tube as terrorist attack
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/05/suspect-custody-after-stabbing-leytonstone-london-underground-station ]Guardian Link[/url]
The BBC reported on the latest Daesh video today, kids playing hide and seek, except once found those people where executed by the kids. 5 shot and the last one beheaded. I watched the video.
Do you spend a lot of time searching out and watching terrorist propaganda?
He's a bleedin terrorist his self int he..
Poisoning our hearts and minds with hate, terror, lies and propaganda..
He needs a knock on the door from special branch I reckon
piemonster - Member
About that jet that violated your airspace.....
I think they have been there supporting semi autonomous Kurdish pechmergfr forces for over a year. The lot complaining are the Iran backed Baghdad government, Iran/Turkey are the big players locally looking to come out this with the Syrian oil.
Do you spend a lot of time searching out and watching terrorist propaganda?
It's a bit of a worry isn't it?
Presumably as jambalaya says the BBC "reported" the video, however he claims to have seen it which I believe might be a criminal offence, certainly if you search for ISIS propaganda it is likely to attract the attention of the security services, as yunki suggests.
Besides of course the moral implications :
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/isis-videos-complict-terrorism-death-hostage-killers ]If you watch Isis’s videos you are complicit in its terrorism[/url]
[i]"Some internet users clearly find the unrelenting goriness of it all captivating – stonings, decapitations, throwing people off tall buildings, sticking severed heads on spikes. Perhaps there’s a compulsion to see just how far Isis will go. But the very act of choosing to witness these things makes us, in some way, complicit".[/i]
As the article says, drawing people's attention to them helps the terrorists achieve their traffic targets.
The lot complaining are the Iran backed Baghdad government
That'll be the same Baghdad government which is fully backed by the US, the UK, and France.
@yunki I prefer to source news amd information from a broad variety of sources amd the intenret is fabulous for that, then I can make up my own mind. Mainstream news services here are consumed by political correctness, not least in the BBC decided that the name Daesh is not "fair" to use for IS. As an aisde Im in favour of full security monitoring of web/mobile etc and am perfectly happy for gchq to be aware I watched the video on heavy.com
Tristian Hunt on Stop the War Coaliion
[i]We have also seen some pretty ugly comments from them about Hilary Benn and the fact that Hilary Benn should be sacked. And also their comments about Islamic State and about how the French almost had it coming to them. They are a really disreputable organisation. I would hope Jeremy would step back and not go to their fundraiser.”[/i]
Tristian Hunt on Stop the War Coaliion
Gosh, a blairite bomber is critical of Stop the War Coalition ..... whatever next?
Go on ...... shock and amaze me by posting David Cameron's opinions of Stop the War Coalition.
UK, US may have put that goverment in but there now just an extension of Tehran.
UK, US may have put that goverment in but there now just an extension of Tehran.
This.
All Shias. 2/3 of Iraq is a defacto province of Iran thanks to the UK/US getting rid of Saddam.
It would appear that the beheady, beardy ones have now simply upped sticks and moved to Libya.
When do we start bombing then?
he BBC decided that the name Daesh is not "fair" to use for IS
They said it was pejorative
I much prefer our brave leaders impartial description for them "This evil death cult " IMHO only terrorist sympathisers dont use this term oh and commies but lets be honest who can tell them apart....remember that Mandela fella he was both.
It would appear that the beheady, beardy ones have now simply upped sticks and moved to Libya.
Saudis?
Meanwhile...
[img] 
?oh=a0f64cb53a84b2e8e281e787cc261922&oe=571D8414[/img]
Libya. When do we start bombing then?
French have been running reconnaisance there this week. I'd say the French could start bombing IS there very soon.
@epic a fuller quote from McCain
[i]“Air strikes alone won't win a conflict but it's good to have increased air strikes, it's good to have increased air activities, it's good to have shows of support from our British friends," he noted. "So I'm glad of it, thank you, we appreciate it! But to say that it's going to make a significant difference, no I've got to be a little more candid than that."[/i]
jambalaya - Member"But to say that it's going to make a significant difference, no I've got to be a little more candid than that."
So Senator McCain doesn't think that UK air strikes in Syria will make a significant difference, well that's not what Cameron was claiming.
Mind you I was describing the whole exercise a political stunt 5 days ago, so you obviously don't need to be a fully paid up member of Mensa to work that one out.
I can't help thinking that the money we are spending bombing Syria, if spent on support for the weak and vulnerable in our society would save more lives than the most dedicated ISIS attack could take.
You mean stuff like this epicyclo where more people die because of fuel poverty than from terrorist attacks?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/call-for-energy-bill-cuts-as-hypothermia-deaths-almost-double-6804819.html ]Call for energy bill cuts as hypothermia deaths almost double[/url]
You sound like a Corbyn supporter. Which makes you a terrorist sympathiser and a threat to our security.
Any spare cash needs to be spent on bombs to kill people, not to save lives.
And it wins more votes too.
[img] 
?oh=9df76d8af10f17f75e1ce5603759965d&oe=56E409E9[/img]
After reading a lot more about the actual circumstances in the region I have moved from an instinctive "no to bombing" position to a "bomb as part of a larger strategy" position.
Not that what I think matters and I'm not going to try and sway anyone on here,
Don't you usually decide on a strategy and then choose the tactics (eg bombing) that seem appropriate - rather than fix upon a tactic and then search out a strategy that might fit?
In other words - what's the strategy?
wilburtAfter reading a lot more about the actual circumstances in the region I have moved from an instinctive "no to bombing" position to a "bomb as part of a larger strategy" position.
Not that what I think matters and I'm not going to try and sway anyone on here,
When I was watching the commons debate I was relieved to see that a lot of the objectors, particularly John Baron were voicing the same concerns as I felt however I was moved by the pro campaign MP's who read out tweets and emails from people in Raqqah pleading for help. In fact all of the MPs who spoke for the motion emphasised how they would help civilians and attack ISIS headquarters as a matter of urgency. When the motion was passed I almost felt glad, perhaps the RAF would bomb ISIS positions in Raqqah, maybe they would improve peoples lives and free them from tyranny.
But no, the super accurate civilian friendly bombs are being used to attack infrastructure, controlling the flow of oil and money. So depressingly predictable. There's no plan other than to get a finger in the pie and advertise british military hardware to dictators and warlords.
This sums it up for me - a sensible man who knows what he's talking about (just a shame he's a Tory).
http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/rory-stewart-mp-on-syria/
In other words - what's the strategy?
I don't know, maybe someone else does, maybe they don't, sometimes you don't know the complete strategy just the next best thing to do, for me on balance that includes direct military attacks on ISIL and there supply line and a range of other less visible actions.
I'm not convinced the local players have much interest in ISIL, there just pawns in the power struggle, Turkey, Iran, Russia, Saudi would all happily support terrorists if it suited their needs.
Rory Stewart always seems to nail these things, he's got the first hand experience.
you guys. aiming for 1000 posts?
Turkey, Iran, Russia, Saudi would all happily support terrorists if it suited their needs.
But not the US, the UK, or France?
You do realise that the UK only declared ISIS a terrorist organisation 18 months ago when they started threatening UK geopolitical interests in Iraq, don't you?
When ISIS was operating primarily in Syria the UK government did not consider them be a terrorist organisation, and it wasn't a criminal offence to be a member.
But not the US, the UK, or France?
Possibly (at least in the short term) although I think most people would think its less likely.
ISIL is selling oil and getting supplies through Turkey, they're fighting the same people as Assad and as such Russia and have roughly the same beliefs as Saudi albeit recently fallen out.
Whilst the UK, US and France want whatever brings stability to the region and even better a government we can do business with.
Whilst the UK, US and France want whatever brings stability to the region and even better a government we can do business with.
Saddam and Assad were pillars of stability !!
Saddam and Assad were pillars of stability !!
Sadly Saddam's regime, though heinous, was stable until wiped out by the world's most powerful military.
where more people die because of fuel poverty
Oil, coal and gas are now at its lowest for years. You also want the government to remove the 8% environmental tax?
Below is from 2013, when energy prices were a lot higher.
[img] 
[/img]
.. he bit his master's hand and rode into KuwaitSadly Saddam's regime, though heinous, was stable until
Saddam and Assad were pillars of stability !!
Yup. I have a friend who was an archaeologist in Iraq under Saddam, his sister was a University Lecturer. They were of Arab descent but Christians and could walk about freely living what you or I would regard as a 'normal' western life with middle class western style jobs in spite of being no friends of the regeme and christian (rather than Sunni, like Saddam).
Saddam got awards for introducing universal education. How many kids do you think learned to read and write before Saddam?
Life under Saddam was stable, even if you were Christian or Shia. The accusation that he killed 200,000 over 30 years is put into perspective by what we've done to the place.
Life under Saddam was stable, even if you were Christian or Shia
This is the classic mistake in great power politics: "let's stick with the strong man, he'll keep things stable". A pressure cooker over a flame is stable - right up until the point it explodes.
Dictatorial regimes don't have the institutions necessary to ensure long term stability. They're vulnerable to shock - so when the old man carks it (Tito, Assad) or overplays his hand (Hussein, Gadaffi, Mobutu), it all goes to crap.
It's also weird to describe Hussein's regime as stable when his ascent was almost immediately followed by a war of aggression against Iran (which they lost, with 250,000-500,000 killed and half a trillion dollars lost) and another one against Kuwait (which they lost, with 25-35,000 killed), and with a Kurdish insurrection, and countless plots and murders and assassinations and confrontations.
The post-Hussein regime has of course been a complete cluster****.
Yup. I have a friend who was an archaeologist in Iraq under Saddam, his sister was a University Lecturer. They were of Arab descent but Christians and could walk about freely living what you or I would regard as a 'normal' western life with middle class western style jobs in spite of being no friends of the regeme and christian (rather than Sunni, like Saddam).
My friend is a Kurd, the majority of her family were horrifically killed in a chemical weapon attack under Saddam instructions. Her father escaped and he and his family lived under the threat of death if they returned to their family home. So let's not go suggesting that he was some benign dictator even if you weren't a friend of the regime.
So what does a successful Arabic society look like?
Yeap! Knew that was going to happen ... [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35024408 ]BBC news[/url]
It looks like UK joining in the bombing in Syria is just a form of UK trying to get rid of Assad. (no surprise there due to pressure from the minority shouting loudest in the UK)
Dangerous game if that is the case and don't they get it? Getting rid of Assad means putting his people to death en mass so what's this shite about precious human life eh? There will be revenge killing all over again. Also I do not intend to feed his population so leave him alone!
As usual being political correct when UK started bombing the target is actually Assad's army as UK has been trying to get rid of Assad but sneakily said they were bombing SISI ...
Simply put the West are staking the territory but need the excuse of get rid of Assad to start with a clean slate ... They want to deal with SISI the Western ways and not the Russian ways. Again, playing gods and goatmen.
I am sure there will be another escalation if another Russian plane is shot down mistakenly.
If that is the case then stooopid PC West play directly into the hand of SISI just because of their stoopid intention to get rid of Assad. Now SISI have planes in the sky without them even having to fly one ... Wahey!
Russia and Assad are not the enemies, SISI etc are so get that right!
🙄
edit: I will not be surprised if the matter of oil is also an objective to gain now ... ya ... oil.