The Arabs didn't get anything out of having oil/gas. Maybe the five thousand Saudi inbred cousin princes did, and a couple others.

I am absolutely sure the nations didn't get anything out of it all. A couple skyscrapers to show-off and a few dirty bombs in a hangar doesn't mean progress to me.

Written by Ilham on 01.08.2014 at 20:22

I am absolutely sure the nations didn't get anything out of it all. A couple skyscrapers to show-off and a few dirty bombs in a hangar doesn't mean progress to me.

I can agree with that. The rich Arab countries like to act like they care but its all for show on their behalf. Whenever I go into Bethlehem or my old village the places I see that were invested are NGO's from Western countries.

More rockets are fired at my house and more Europeans are filling their newspaper with hateful nonsense.

Written by Bad English on 08.08.2014 at 22:03

Obama gave green light to ISIS bombing
why Turkey cant do it, they are closer and have a good army, they haubices and cannons could pound to ISIS position

Turkey has become over the years more and more Islamist.

Why didn't the US start to act a bit earlier? The US didn't move even when ISIL pushed the Christians out of Mosul (Iraq's 2nd largest city). Why now?!
Primarily, because ISIL was approaching Erbil (capital of Iraq's Kurdistan) and hence the American interests in there would be endangered. Obviously, not for the mere love of Kurds!

Current situation in Turkey is getting a bit creepy.

Not only Erdogan managed to change the constitution so that the President might be directly elected (oh, just when he ends his prime minister post and becomes a candidate for presidentials....) but now the objective is to change the constitution again to grant excutive powers to the president (just when he got elected. Damn it, this guy is smart). I'm wondering what will happen when his presidential span ends.... Quite sure he will come up with something to remain in power hahaha (not to mention how good he is at removing potential threats). I've seen this story somewhere else.....

Written by deadone on 13.08.2014 at 02:57


I suspect next stop is Sultan Erdogan I of the Neo-Ottoman Empire.

Given how disarmed Eastern Europe is, he should be able to take over Vienna this time around* and still have time for apple strudel (provided apple strudel is not considered heretical). The rest of Europe would flap around noisely whilst the Americans would be saying "do you want fries with those F-35 jets?"

I suspect Erdogan is more concerned about implementing the pious moral codes of islam to the deviant turkish youth and so continuing his islamisation of society under the mask of moderation. I think this is the problem over there, especially considering the ability to stop the more secular forces (militaries getting fucked quite a bit, so did police not long ago, and the CHP party is only strong in big cities).

But if he ever gets to Vienna, he must not worry, by the time there will probably be halal apple strudel so no fear of heresy.

Written by deadone on 13.08.2014 at 02:27

Current situation in Iraq demonstrates how absolutely pro-fundamentalists our Sunni Arab "allies" are.

Islamic State is on a rampage commiting horrific atrocities. The Arab world does nothing.

It's not like they don't like intervening where they feel they have an interest. There was great intervention in Libya (including provision of Arab air power) and Syria. The Saudis and UAE rumbled tanks into Bahrain to support the Sunni regime there against a Shia uprising.


But a bunch of nutters burying people alive, crucifying them etc etc doesn't really even make them blink. I guess it's cause they're slaughtering Shias, Alawites, Yazidis and Christians.

We always conveniently forget that countries like Saudi Arabia are massive sponsors of terrorism and fundamentalism. Afterall the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis. If the West wanted to get all interventionist following 9-11 they should've bombed Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan. Instead we let the true supporters of global terror and radical Islam go scot free and continue to spread their poison.

The term "Arab world" or "Islamic world" is only a description that in fact has nothing to do with the notion of unity and its obligations.
The Muslim Arab countries were introduced to the nation state attaining independence. So, now they play according to their private interests just like all the countries. Well, yes, those private interests can be of religious or sectarian nature. However, this doesn't mean they are doing it for the mere love of Allah. It's all about influence and power even through foreign affairs.

KSA specifically supports Salafism. Al Saud took over Mecca for they knew they would get huge economical benefit, let alone the political influence. I don't think they even care about religion, yet they had to collaborate with the Wahhabis in order to accomplish that and here resides the religious aspect, the gown they had to put on, the Wahabbi Salafism.

A monarchy claiming it applies Islam which is supposedly against monarchy!
This is how I define KSA

Written by deadone on 13.08.2014 at 02:27

Current situation in Iraq demonstrates how absolutely pro-fundamentalists our Sunni Arab "allies" are.

Islamic State is on a rampage commiting horrific atrocities. The Arab world does nothing.

It's not like they don't like intervening where they feel they have an interest. There was great intervention in Libya (including provision of Arab air power) and Syria. The Saudis and UAE rumbled tanks into Bahrain to support the Sunni regime there against a Shia uprising.


But a bunch of nutters burying people alive, crucifying them etc etc doesn't really even make them blink. I guess it's cause they're slaughtering Shias, Alawites, Yazidis and Christians.

We always conveniently forget that countries like Saudi Arabia are massive sponsors of terrorism and fundamentalism. Afterall the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis. If the West wanted to get all interventionist following 9-11 they should've bombed Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan. Instead we let the true supporters of global terror and radical Islam go scot free and continue to spread their poison.

For once, I agree with you. Keep getting less annoying :p

Written by deadone on 06.10.2014 at 03:53

I agree Middle East and Turkey is better under secular dictators that fundamentalists.

Quote:
remember Turkey has nukes

Turkey doesn't have nuclear weapons.

They do as a part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy toghther with Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands.

Scandinavia is awesome and you do sit in prison for murder (obviously). Would be nicer without all the political correctness and immigration there.

Written by Bad English on 06.10.2014 at 20:15

yes but Poland, Romania and Baltics also needs nukes even more as Turkey does and Turkey also has patriot missiles as US gives them....

No idea why Turkey needs nukes or the Netherlands for that matter. I think Patriot missiles are stationed in Poland too.
Any state bordering with Russia these days feels threatened by Russia's policy makers latest decisions, but I reckon I a strong back from NATO is preferable (could you imagine countries like Norway or Netherlands sticking their neck out for Lithuania?), the spread of nuclear weapons and the probability of nuclear war are not favorable ones.

Written by Bad English on 02.10.2014 at 23:17

Turkey will let US fighter jets use their bases and parliament say YES that Turkish army can fight whit ISIS?
I think it will be best if Turkish army take over and arrest and execute erdogan and his supporters and go way what Europe needs, otherwise, there can be civil war in Turkey between islam and western supporters .... seems Ankara made some deal whit isis? c mon Turkey can use heavy cannons and haubices and pound isis positions from distances and when isis be defeted independent Kurdistan must be made in Iraq and Syria , what is Iraq ... fake country made by brits ... mid east needs dictators, what they do kill islam terrorsists as Mubarak did whit silam brotherhood, west say its act and violation of humen wrights but in name of peace its better ... screw Siria, if Turkey falls, what can happen in Europe, remember Turkey has nukes and modern American guns what they gave ... problem is in religion same as in people. N Europe vs S Europe where are more freedom, in atheistic scandi or chatolicistic Spain? we should work to make Turkey be 90% atheistic

it think ISIS in being feeded and supprted by Saudi Arabia and Turkey has a very good trade market with Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is like : "hey buddy u stand still not taking any sides ok or we wont trade anymore no more tourist no more money for ur Hard rock cafe and Metal fests no more money for ur hotels man u've been working for nearly 10 years for this good economic situation and tourists u got why u wanna blow it all up so no one passes the border and ur helping no one ok ? or else ! "
i think ISIS is going on for a year or so killing innocent people trying to destroy lives till Saudi Arabia stops funding them and then its over but surly Saudia Arabia is not alone in this but he is the biggest founder of ISIS

A long article by Spiegel about the inner structure of ISIS, supported by exclusive access to important documents.

Interesting read to say at least.

"But when the architect of the Islamic State died, he left something behind that he had intended to keep strictly confidential: the blueprint for this state. It is a folder full of handwritten organizational charts, lists and schedules, which describe how a country can be gradually subjugated. SPIEGEL has gained exclusive access to the 31 pages, some consisting of several pages pasted together. They reveal a multilayered composition and directives for action, some already tested and others newly devised for the anarchical situation in Syria's rebel-held territories. In a sense, the documents are the source code of the most successful terrorist army in recent history."

Ties between Saudi Arabia's royal family and 9/11? Why I'm not surprised?
Interesting to see that US is fighting the bastard children of Saudi Arabia, while SA is US' greatest ally in Middle East, excluding Israel only.

Written by Bad English on 02.05.2015 at 15:47


I saw it and its true ... I don't get why US and W tries make wrong allies there, well Iran in shak years would be better, and if ussr wont exist , we could have great place there even now .
Only allies I see there in mid east Israel, Turkey, and Iran would do ... India not Pakistan, if US be smart they help India and India mid invade Pakistan ... west must see what is good for them, Saudi and Pakistan is not , same half Afga, so we need make pustun speakers separate state , dari, speakers own state, supported by west

I'm not going as far as calling Iran an ally of US. Both have benefits in fighting sunni terrorists.
Turkey is not much diffrent from Saudi Arabia IMO, at least because of the ideas of their current presidet. They might have much modernized face, but remember how they used to buy oil from ISIS. Oh actually some other European countries did that, too.
And yeah, Pakistan is seemingly the executive branch of SA when it comes to supporting the terrorism.

"interesting" new report on the systematic war crime by Israel army during the recent war.


"...They include allegations that Israeli ground troops were briefed to regard everything inside Gaza as a "threat" and they should "not spare ammo", and that tanks fired randomly or for revenge on buildings without knowing whether they were legitimate military targets or contained civilians."

"The group also claims that the Israeli military operated with different safety margins for bombing or using artillery and mortars near civilians and its own troops, with Israeli forces at times allowed to fire significantly closer to civilians than Israeli soldiers."

"Post-conflict briefings to soldiers suggest that the high death toll and destruction were treated as "achievements" by officers who judged the attrition would keep Gaza "quiet for five years"."

""[The commander] said: 'We don't take risks. We do not spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.'"

"The rules of engagement [were] pretty identical," added another sergeant who served in a mechanised infantry unit in Deir al-Balah. "Anything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat

The area has to be 'sterilised,' empty of people - and if we don't see someone waving a white flag, screaming: "I give up" or something - then he's a threat and there's authorisation to open fire ... The saying was: 'There's no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.' In that situation, anyone there is involved.""

"One of the main threads in the testimonies," said Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer and legal adviser to Breaking the Silence, "is the presumption that despite the fact that the battle was being waged in urban area - and one of most densely populated in the world - no civilians would be in the areas they entered."

One sergeant who served in a tank in the centre of the Gaza Strip recalls: "A week or two after we entered the Gaza Strip and we were all firing a lot when there wasn't any need for it - just for the sake of firing - a member of our company was killed.

"The company commander came over to us and told us that one guy was killed due to such-and-such, and he said: 'Guys, get ready, get in your tanks, and we'll fire a barrage in memory of our comrade" ? My tank went up to the post - a place from which I can see targets - can see buildings - [and] fired at them, and the platoon commander says: 'OK guys, we'll now fire in memory of our comrade' and we said OK."

Written by mz on 04.05.2015 at 18:54

"interesting" new report on the systematic war crime by Israel army during the recent war.

The names of those 60 soldiers are?
I severed during Operation Protective Edge and some of it may sound probable, especially some of the idiotic comments or decision making but some not.
A simple soldier does not have the knowledge nor the tools to claim to what some did in the original report. If a targets are called, you don't get an explanation why. Waffa 'Hospital' was empty (July 17) of patients and was used to fire light arms and AT rockets. If he feels he has done something wrong like bombing a 'hospital' he'll give a moralistic testimony based on what he knows i.e. "I bombed a hospital".
I use single quotation marks around 'hospital' because a hospital is functionally where people get treated, not a military base of military operations.

On The Guardian you'll get the expected treatment, I doubt anyone who professionally dealt with these situations will be as fast judge as the mob who read it.

Written by Bad English on 04.05.2015 at 20:58

=
so sodler
why Samson brigade don't exist anymore?
why didn't you join in Shayetet 13 ?

Samson unit, not brigade. What was perhaps the mistake named the Oslo accords.
Wasn't built for it, not mentally and not physically. Quit after an hour after physical tests to a lesser reconnaissance unit (a set of trials named "Gibush").
Those questions are relevant to the discussion how exactly?

Written by Bad English on 04.05.2015 at 21:52

Because sooner or later we will go of topic and my of topic mess will be less harmless and insults knowing MS last year history whit few users involved
I menthaly would be ready IMO; but physically I would be dead

Off topic how? I don't expect people to actually understand how a war is conducted and what are the epistemic and pressures in a war. All I ask for is consistency if standard and perhaps conduct.

I find myself constantly stuck between two circus shows. One of ethnocentric Jew-hating Europeans who can't get enough of it and on the other hand the brain-dead nationalistic Israeli right who know no wrong of themselves. Not interested with murderess coming from the army into Israeli society and not interested in the 2-cent slander Europeans love to fund and spread -- but for that I need a scarce product called "knowledge".

What do you mean "physically I would be dead"

This story of releasing hear-say unverifiable stories from people without names and cross examinations is not the first time. Last time it yielded nothing concerning actual conduct and its only fruit were political gains. As in the past and currently, this never has been a pragmatic concern, everyone seem to have an axe to grind an d an end that justifies the means.

@ Candlemass
The names are not revealed yet, but since the report is published by The Guardian, I assume that something has actually happened. Should wait to see how Israel's army and the Government of US reacts to this.


@ deadone
I don't know about the war crimes of Iranian troops, and I will not be surprised if there exists actually such thing. The point, here, is that these actions have happened by a member of "civilized world" and a so called true democracy which claims to be doing great on human rights. Should see how US government is going to treat this one, which I think once again will proof the existence of double standards and Western hypocrisy.
About your comment on essence of war in civilized areas, lets just pass it as my point of view is so different from you.

Written by deadone on 05.05.2015 at 03:36


And finally why are you so interested in Israeli human rights "violations" and not those done by your own country men?!? And not even warcrimes by Saudi Arabia in Yemen or US and allies in Iraq and Syria. Why single out the Jewish state?

You couldn't be more wrong about this. I do care a lot about the violation of human right by my own country. IRI is not an ideal gpvernmetn at all, and I'll be the first one to admit that.
I think my recent posts here shows my feelings about the SA. I do regard SA as the single most dangerous country in the world, which has feed all sort of important terrorism in the previous 2 decades. The thing that gets on my nerves is that US is always nagging about dictatorship in Iran, while still selling a shit tone of airplanes and other military tools to the most retarded government in the world: SA.
Being Jewish or not is not important for me at all. I do care about my personal standards when it comes to judging actions, and I regard Iran, SA, Israel and US to be guilty to various degrees.

Written by mz on 05.05.2015 at 03:25

@ Candlemass
The names are not revealed yet, but since the report is published by The Guardian, I assume that something has actually happened. Should wait to see how Israel's army and the Government of US reacts to this.

"Reacts" to what exactly? There is nothing concrete to react to. Were they revealed last time? No.
The organization is funded by certain bodies (EU, British Embassy among them) who expect return for their investment and in specific numbers.
If you'll take time to read the testimonies and report you'll notice what was left out on deliberately in The Guardian (a Fox News/Daily mail left counterpart) - and that's strikes that were canceled and 'civilians' packed with explosives.
The selective use of "human rights" by opportunists like Europe ('external measures' to stop immigration, bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO), Russia (flocks to 'save' ethnic Russians in Ukraine) or the US (liberating oil).
The European obsession that distorts every conversation on this topic is not a consideration, not a moral neither practical one. What I could expect regardless of the above is a serious investigation by the military police which already charged soldiers for several cases of looting. It gets to me that even if assholes like this exist that they are able to get away with it.

@Kariasakis7 aka Bad English: Yeah the US is not neceserilly gonna act unless they see some sort of a direct political or socio economic advantage, and I suppose that goes for any nation. There's no such thing as a politician or group of politicians above corruption. Or sometimes I suppose it's not a matter of corruption in so much as securing the well-being and safety of citizens. All the same though it's kinda fucked because in order for anything virtuous to be done either interests already have to lie there or the pot has to be sweetened.

USA created ISIS, created Al Qaeda but it is allegedly fighting terrorism. We are still funding the fuckers and arming them, and we are there for the economic reasons nothing more, the problem is, it is not going as we planned. The new governments are not strong enough to keep people in check like the rest of the dictators that we placed there in the first place and then overthrew when they did not want to play our game. Now the Middle East is in deep shit, and it will continue that for years and years to come.

Written by Rasputin on 28.05.2015 at 09:59

USA created ISIS, created Al Qaeda but it is allegedly fighting terrorism. We are still funding the fuckers and arming them, and we are there for the economic reasons nothing more, the problem is, it is not going as we planned. The new governments are not strong enough to keep people in check like the rest of the dictators that we placed there in the first place and then overthrew when they did not want to play our game. Now the Middle East is in deep shit, and it will continue that for years and years to come.

No, the US did not 'create' ISIS. The new Iraqi government (Shia 'oppressing' the Sunnis minority in Iraq) together with ideas that already exited (Al-Qaeda-like ideologies and sectarianism) coupled with Sunni degree of popular support (that is growing as more Shia forces get involved in Iraq from Iran) and funding is what assembled ISIS. The US readied the ground for it by getting rid of Saddam(political vacuum).

The Sunnis that support ISIS, don't ideally support them, they just seem to be out of better options --- especially with the Iranians biting into more terf using their foreign fighters (Revolutionary Guards) and Iranian backed Shia militias (Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq).

The proxy wars is currency the best the Iranians and Saudis can achieve, an all-out-war is not yet worth it, for anyone - it just seems the Iranians are doing it longer and better.

Written by Candlemass on 28.05.2015 at 11:53

Written by Rasputin on 28.05.2015 at 09:59

USA created ISIS, created Al Qaeda but it is allegedly fighting terrorism. We are still funding the fuckers and arming them, and we are there for the economic reasons nothing more, the problem is, it is not going as we planned. The new governments are not strong enough to keep people in check like the rest of the dictators that we placed there in the first place and then overthrew when they did not want to play our game. Now the Middle East is in deep shit, and it will continue that for years and years to come.

No, the US did not 'create' ISIS. The new Iraqi government (Shia 'oppressing' the Sunnis minority in Iraq) together with ideas that already exited (Al-Qaeda-like ideologies and sectarianism) coupled with Sunni degree of popular support (that is growing as more Shia forces get involved in Iraq from Iran) and funding is what assembled ISIS. The US readied the ground for it by getting rid of Saddam(political vacuum).

The Sunnis that support ISIS, don't ideally support them, they just seem to be out of better options --- especially with the Iranians biting into more terf using their foreign fighters (Revolutionary Guards) and Iranian backed Shia militias (Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq).

The proxy wars is currency the best the Iranians and Saudis can achieve, an all-out-war is not yet worth it, for anyone - it just seems the Iranians are doing it longer and better.

The majority of ISIS consists of the soldiers trained by the USA/NATO and sent with a specific purpose to take down Gaddafi or any other dictator or non compliant Middle Eastern ruler. I agree with you to that extent that there was a lot of fertile grown for the ISIS to grow, but by all accounts they have been trained, funded and at one point (I am still convinced that they are or a part of them is under the USA control) directed by the USA to engage in warfare. Albanians are another example of this, publicly you are not saying anything, covertly you are aiding them.

Do you think it is a coincidence that John McCain spoke with ISIS members and took pictures with them? I don't think so. USA played with fire, and now the plague cannot be stopped.

Written by Rasputin on 28.05.2015 at 11:59

The majority of ISIS consists of the soldiers trained by the USA/NATO and sent with a specific purpose to take down Gaddafi or any other dictator or non compliant Middle Eastern ruler. I agree with you to that extent that there was a lot of fertile grown for the ISIS to grow, but by all accounts they have been trained, funded and at one point (I am still convinced that they are or a part of them is under the USA control) directed by the USA to engage in warfare. Albanians are another example of this, publicly you are not saying anything, covertly you are aiding them.

Do you think it is a coincidence that John McCain spoke with ISIS members and took pictures with them? I don't think so. USA played with fire, and now the plague cannot be stopped.

I heavily doubt that and it's relevance especially people who live 6k km away from there.
Causality and blame and the whole point of such a discussion (practical? demonizing?) are quite slippery things. You might blame European colonialism and 'arbitrary' border-making for the power struggles inside these countries which are very sectarian to start with. There is not one major country in this world that is not somehow involved in the affairs of another. Take note for instance where the EU funding or Russian weapons go to.

Eventually there's little anyone can do to solve this war. It runs much more deeper than the US invasion to Iraq and the US, to say the least is not the only country trying to secure it's interests in the area (Western and non-Western).

All these similar claims have 'extra-weight' and background assumptions. Don't buy so fast into anti-American mythology. Most European politics originate in literally - mythology. It might be romantic nationalism (ancient Greece), free will (Mesopotamia), Jew obsession (early Christianity) or anti-Americanism (17-18th centuries).

I am just speaking the truth, and the truth is as it stands, that USA had direct and indirect involvement in creating ISIS, much like it did in creation of Al Qaeda, plain and simple.

Don't know how trustworthy this site is, but I have read a lot of good articles on here, and it showcases the ISIS issue in a nutshell.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

And even a feminist site gets it half right

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-assad

And also, my views are negative in regards to the foreign policy and the meddling that my country is doing and as a citizen of it, I am guaranteed the right to speak my mind, and point out the hypocrisy that has been going on for some time now.

Written by Rasputin on 28.05.2015 at 22:43

Don't know how trustworthy this site is, but I have read a lot of good articles on here, and it showcases the ISIS issue in a nutshell.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

And even a feminist site gets it half right

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-assad

And also, my views are negative in regards to the foreign policy and the meddling that my country is doing and as a citizen of it, I am guaranteed the right to speak my mind, and point out the hypocrisy that has been going on for some time now.

Given your opinions in the Islam thread quoting those sources does not hit anyone by surprise.

It's fascinating how an expansionist war by Soviet Russia, Saudi Arabia, the British, China and the Pakistani preferences of who to fund are left out of the picture. By the way, what do intelligence experts think about the evidence of US funding Osama bin Laden? In other words the entire context is left out for a truism to be stacked on another and yet another to provide a certain image - an image of an essence. The essence of the US. An essence beyond any contingent historical natural situations, beyond considerations of different people at different times under different circumstances coupled with the usual statistical biases.

Yes, the US had some terrible decision making, but the world and its issues are not redcuable to the US ("somehow, somewhere it's America's fault") and as far as i know a country does not have an essence.

Written by Candlemass on 28.05.2015 at 23:44

Written by Rasputin on 28.05.2015 at 22:43

Don't know how trustworthy this site is, but I have read a lot of good articles on here, and it showcases the ISIS issue in a nutshell.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

And even a feminist site gets it half right

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-assad

And also, my views are negative in regards to the foreign policy and the meddling that my country is doing and as a citizen of it, I am guaranteed the right to speak my mind, and point out the hypocrisy that has been going on for some time now.

Given your opinions in the Islam thread quoting those sources does not hit anyone by surprise.

It's fascinating how an expansionist war by Soviet Russia, Saudi Arabia, the British, China and the Pakistani preferences of who to fund are left out of the picture. By the way, what do intelligence experts think about the evidence of US funding Osama bin Laden? In other words the entire context is left out for a truism to be stacked on another and yet another to provide a certain image - an image of an essence. The essence of the US. An essence beyond any contingent historical natural situations, beyond considerations of different people at different times under different circumstances coupled with the usual statistical biases.

Yes, the US had some terrible decision making, but the world and its issues are not redcuable to the US ("somehow, somewhere it's America's fault") and as far as i know a country does not have an essence.

USA corporations thrive on war economy, USA has not stopped being at war with someone somewhere, because that not only helps them economically, it also expands the influence. You look at the map and the USA has over 200 bases all around the world now, so in essence it is doing what Rome did. There is always a superpower that claims that they are spreading culture, freedom or some bullshit to justify their actions, USA or any other superpower are no different. USA created the Al Qaeda in the 70-ies and let them go, and the end result we all know. It is not any different with so called ISIS. They keep arming and training these fuckers to allegedly fight dictators or some bullshit, and then these Muslims turn against them and we have what we have. McCain still wants to arm them. It is no coincidence that majority of ISIS videos are filled with US equipment, brand new weapons and vehicles, of course they will thrive when someone is aiding them while allegedly fighting them. It is a dangerous game to play, but it is being played.

@Bad English
I have no fear of that, I have right to speak my mind would you or anyone else like it or not, and I don't care about what goes on in Russia, it is not my concern since I don't live there, but knowing full well how the covert operations operate, I am not surprised that Putin takes drastic measures, because if he did not Russia would end up like Yugoslavia.