More Evidence That Cameron Does Not Want To Destroy ISIS

[Christie Brinkley]

Britain’s fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is being derailed because of Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to let special forces hunt and kill jihadist leaders, military figures claim.
UK special forces will not be allowed to track and kill jihadist leaders around the group’s Syrian capital Raqqa, the Sun newspaper reported on Wednesday.
It is alleged Cameron fears the political fallout from anti-war MPs if casualties are sustained. There is also a legal minefield surrounding extrajudicial killing overseas.

https://www.rt.com/uk/337779-sas-isis-cameron-syria/

[aboutime]

Britain’s fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is being derailed because of Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to let special forces hunt and kill jihadist leaders, military figures claim.
UK special forces will not be allowed to track and kill jihadist leaders around the group’s Syrian capital Raqqa, the Sun newspaper reported on Wednesday.
It is alleged Cameron fears the political fallout from anti-war MPs if casualties are sustained. There is also a legal minefield surrounding extrajudicial killing overseas.

https://www.rt.com/uk/337779-sas-isis-cameron-syria/

Not surprised with that news at all. Cameron is nothing but an Obama negative

[Drummond]

Britain’s fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is being derailed because of Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to let special forces hunt and kill jihadist leaders, military figures claim.
UK special forces will not be allowed to track and kill jihadist leaders around the group’s Syrian capital Raqqa, the Sun newspaper reported on Wednesday.
It is alleged Cameron fears the political fallout from anti-war MPs if casualties are sustained. There is also a legal minefield surrounding extrajudicial killing overseas.

https://www.rt.com/uk/337779-sas-isis-cameron-syria/

This IS from 'rt.com', which makes this story one emanating from Russia. Which in turn means it has propagandist intent ...

Perhaps Russia needs to be reminded of the decision they took THEMSELVES, only recently, to withdraw forces from Syria ?? Which makes their criticisms 'a bit rich' ...

All that said, I'd agree that Cameron could've been FAR tougher than he has been. I'm prepared to accept that the story does have merit. But I think Russian criticism, all things considering, has its outrageous side.

[Gunny]

This IS from 'rt.com', which makes this story one emanating from Russia. Which in turn means it has propagandist intent ...

Perhaps Russia needs to be reminded of the decision they took THEMSELVES, only recently, to withdraw forces from Syria ?? Which makes their criticisms 'a bit rich' ...

All that said, I'd agree that Cameron could've been FAR tougher than he has been. I'm prepared to accept that the story does have merit. But I think Russian criticism, all things considering, has its outrageous side.

It's the 1930s all over again. We're going to keep appeasing these clowns until it takes another world war to get rid of them.

[Kathianne]

Russia is not doing in Syria what Obama did in Iraq:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mi...-idUSKCN0WW0DJ

...


It is not known what the ships were carrying or how much equipment has been flown out in giant cargo planes accompanying returning war planes.

But the movements – while only a partial snapshot – suggest Russia is working intensively to maintain its military infrastructure in Syria and to supply the Syrian army so that it can scale up again swiftly if need be.Putin has not detailed what would prompt such a move, but any perceived threat to Russia’s bases in Syria or any sign that President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s closest Middle East ally, was in peril would be likely to trigger a powerful return.
...

[Drummond]

Russia is not doing in Syria what Obama did in Iraq:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mi...-idUSKCN0WW0DJ

Suggestions. Educated guesses. Inferences. 'Ifs, buts, maybes'.

What we DO know is that Putin has withdrawn forces previously being used against terrorists in Syria (no doubt to aid his buddy, Assad). This is known fact. That he'll ever return any of them amounts to pure supposition at best ... and maybe is mere propaganda, designed to disguise his close matching of Obama's own actions over Iraq ?

We know Putin loves to be seen as a very strong leader. So, why wouldn't he indulge in propaganda designed to serve that aim ?

From your link:

Moscow has not revealed the size of its force in Syria, nor has it given details of its partial withdrawal

Why such coyness ?

[Gunny]

Suggestions. Educated guesses. Inferences. 'Ifs, buts, maybes'.

What we DO know is that Putin has withdrawn forces previously being used against terrorists in Syria (no doubt to aid his buddy, Assad). This is known fact. That he'll ever return any of them amounts to pure supposition at best ... and maybe is mere propaganda, designed to disguise his close matching of Obama's own actions over Iraq ?

We know Putin loves to be seen as a very strong leader. So, why wouldn't he indulge in propaganda designed to serve that aim ?

From your link:



Why such coyness ?

Lack of funds.

Probably doesn't want to get caught in the quagmire known as the Middle East unless he has to. Russia's last foray into the ME (Afghanistan) didn't turn out so well. You can rest assured whatever Putin's doing, it's self-serving.

[Drummond]

Lack of funds.

Probably doesn't want to get caught in the quagmire known as the Middle East unless he has to. Russia's last foray into the ME (Afghanistan) didn't turn out so well. You can rest assured whatever Putin's doing, it's self-serving.

Makes sense.

I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. I don't trust Putin an inch when it comes to matters such as Ukraine's future. Russia has already grabbed Crimea and annexed it .. it's now putting economic pressure on the rest of Ukraine. I believe Putin has long-term territorial ambitions the likes of which the old Soviet Union would've easily identified with.

[Gunny]

Makes sense.

I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. I don't trust Putin an inch when it comes to matters such as Ukraine's future. Russia has already grabbed Crimea and annexed it .. it's now putting economic pressure on the rest of Ukraine. I believe Putin has long-term territorial ambitions the likes of which the old Soviet Union would've easily identified with.

I don't doubt it a bit. When the Soviet Union broke up we had this poster on the wall that was a map dividing Soviet territory up in the shape of a bear and it read "The Bear Is Still There". Gorbachev broke off his satellite states because he couldn't afford them. Putin is trying to reel some back in for the money.

[Drummond]

I don't doubt it a bit. When the Soviet Union broke up we had this poster on the wall that was a map dividing Soviet territory up in the shape of a bear and it read "The Bear Is Still There". Gorbachev broke off his satellite states because he couldn't afford them. Putin is trying to reel some back in for the money.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - yes.

But I especially fear for Ukraine's future. Under Stalin, they went through their own version of a 'holocaust' ... with a death toll resulting from a systematic starvation programme that eventually killed seven million of their people. To put it mildly, Ukraine won't want to revisit those memories by staring the prospect of future complete annexation in the face. They've lost Crimea. I think it's only a matter of time before Putin moves to complete the job.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't doubt it a bit. When the Soviet Union broke up we had this poster on the wall that was a map dividing Soviet territory up in the shape of a bear and it read "The Bear Is Still There". Gorbachev broke off his satellite states because he couldn't afford them. Putin is trying to reel some back in for the money.

Going-- lean and mean was what I called it back then--waiting for a better future to arrive.
Seems it has now arrived and he wants back that territory, for a host of reasons methinks.-Tyr