Terrorists bomb Paris

[protege]

The US has been striking IS oil operations too. But they can only strike things like makeshift refineries and the like. They can't bomb the wells themselves. Which is the problem. The wells are critical infrastructure and bombing them would hurt the civilian populace far more than IS. Which would just play more into IS's propaganda hands.

From what I heard, the airstrikes were targeting the trucks used to haul the oil. Small potatoes, actually. They're not going to be able to hit all of them. Same with the "refineries." There are literally thousands of these, scattered all over the desert. I'm sure that some of those things are small enough they could easily be moved. As for the wells, I agree that it would harm the populace. Not just from an economic standpoint--remember the huge environmental mess left behind when Saddam's retreating troops destroyed Iraqi wells towards the end of the first Gulf War? All of that mess had to be extinguished and cleaned up before production could restart after the war.

[Canarr]

Well, Russia barging into Syria screwed up the UN's diplomatic efforts and made rebel factions leave the negotiation table. Fucking up the US and Turkey's plans in the process. Plus Russia's bombers wandered into Turkey's airspace. Then they bombed the rebels claiming they were IS. So its pretty ballsy for Russia to come to the table now and complain no one wants to fight IS with them.

Between that and Crimea, Putin hasn't exactly demonstrated he can be trusted to do anything except further his own interests.

Well, frankly... neither have the US, or their Coalition. It's a propaganda thing, basically:
Putin in Crimea supporting "rebels" against a "legitimate government" = a warmongering conqueror.
The US in Syria supporting "rebels" against a "legitimate government" = fighting terrorism.

Russia wants Assad as part of the coalition and entered the war in Syria on Assad's request for aid against the rebel factions. They also sell a ton of weapons to Assad ( 10% of their global sales even ) and have a key naval base in Syria. They've also used their position on the UN to veto sanctions and military action against Assad. Their interest in Assad staying is both strategic and economic. Regardless of what they say in front of the cameras.

Before Russia started bombing the UN had 41 different factions together at the table with them for negotiations. Then Russia bombed some of them ( and hit a civilian target in the process ) and they bailed. Specifically citing Russia's involvement and attacks as the reason that there was no longer any political solution going forward.

Personally, I'm neither sympathetic to Putin's activities, nor the US' continuous meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. But I can understand somewhat that Putin feels the need to push his way into the situation in Syria - as you state, Russia does have legitimate interests there, and it's unlikely the Western states would have accepted his involvement if he'd just asked nicely.

Honestly: what Putin did in the Ukraine isn't any worse than the stuff the US have been pulling all over the world for decades. But Russia gets slapped with sanctions and embargoes. I'd be pissed, too.

And, from a strictly legal point of view: if I understand correctly, Assad is still the head of Syria's legitimate government - so one could argue that Russia is in Syria legitimately, while the others (US, UK, France) are not. Right?

[Canarr]

Addendum, on the subject of "OMG refugees are terrorists!!!!!!":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6738821.html

[XCashier]

Online vigilante group Anonymous says it attacked ISIS

[Tama]

Looking at all of this, I am beginning to understand why "may you live in interesting times" is a curse.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, frankly... neither have the US, or their Coalition. It's a propaganda thing, basically:
Putin in Crimea supporting "rebels" against a "legitimate government" = a warmongering conqueror.
The US in Syria supporting "rebels" against a "legitimate government" = fighting terrorism.

Wait, what? These aren't even remotely comparable.

Russia does have legitimate interests there, and it's unlikely the Western states would have accepted his involvement if he'd just asked nicely.

Well, it depends how legitimate you consider selling weapons to one of the worst governments on the planet in terms of human rights abuses.

And, from a strictly legal point of view: if I understand correctly, Assad is still the head of Syria's legitimate government - so one could argue that Russia is in Syria legitimately, while the others (US, UK, France) are not. Right?

That depends how legitimate you think holding elections with no other candidates where opposing Assad isn't allowed. In which case yes, he won with 99.7% of the vote with a 94.6% voter turn out. He then "won" a second term, again, with no opposing candidates, with 99.82%.

He then "won" a third term in 2014 against two other candidates he had set up to give it an air of legitimacy. This election was held during a civil war with no international monitors of course, voting was only allowed in regions he controlled, you were allowed to vote as many times as you wanted and Syrian refugees were told if they didn't vote for Assad they would not be allowed back into Syria.

Oh, and Assad became president after his father died. His father who was president for 30 years.

Other than all that though, yes, totally a legitimate government. >.>

[Gravekeeper]

170 hostages taken in a hotel in Mali now =/

[Kheldarson]

80 have been freed: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T90SK20151120

[Canarr]

Hamas and Islamic Jihad condemning the attacks on Paris - that's a new one.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Wor...s-attacks.ashx

[Rageaholic]

Even Evil Has Standards?

Interesting.

[s_stabeler]

it's more that Hamas and Islamic Jihad specifically think that violence against israelis is OK- since they believe, essentially, that israelis- civilians and military alike- are an occupying force. Under such circumstances, their actions are quite a bit different. (Note- I am NOT saying I agree with them- I am merely explaining how they think their actions are different from those of ISIS.)