If you really think the Kurds are all supportive of those communist terrorists, think again. Also think again if you think a Top 10 military power in the world will fall to Kurds. The Turks know how to keep these idiots in check and not allowing them establish a territory on their southern border is key. There is a reason the word "slaughter" is being tossed out there. They will get wiped off the playing board by tanks, jets, and highly trained ground units.
Yeah so the left overs of ISIS bombed to make it look like they were the victorious ones. Propaganda. Don't buy it. They still have no country.
People like the idiots whose tweets you posted are doing exactly what ISIS wants them to do. They way they are framing their coverage makes it appear as if ISIS is still relevant and force in the region. This is exactly what ISIS wants. ISIS wants to appear strong and relevant. The reality is, ISIS has been largely defeated. They control very little territory anywhere in Syria/Iraq at this point. By playing up their capabilities these "reporters" are aiding ISIS in what they are trying to accomplish merely to play a "gotcha" game with the administration they hate so much. Only morons would think a suicide bomber attack is indicative of a larger operational capability by ISIS.
Exactly. Its ridiculous. Dont know why Trump left and dont care and couldn't care less about some suicide bomber in Syria Doesn't fighting ISIS help Assad? No rhyme or reason
I guess these "morons" also want to "embolden ISIS", to "make them appear strong and relevant": http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/cb7fcaec-4eb8-4938-9dac-96de50ead998 https://www.businessinsider.com/rep...yria-retreat-after-isis-claimed-attack-2019-1
How's this argument... "lets make the questionable claim that "ISIS is defeated" and withdraw our troops (with the thanks of russia and turkey) and allow ISIS to build back up, just so we can claim a political win?"
1. ISIS is a terrorist organization, people like you, will always be able to quibble with claiming they are defeated. It's pretty clear, when looking at the military situation, that ISIS is a shell of what they were in 2014. How long does the United States need to be there? You, apparently, and others, would have us keep troops there indefinitely. There will never be a "good" time to leave. There will always be some excuse or justification. 2. Is there any evidence of this? I could care less if some Republican politicians or members of the military think pulling out of Syria is a bad idea. Politicians and military figures blunder all the time in regards to military interventions. However, it's still a false equivalence, I don't see quotes from those politicians reacting to the suicide bombing from yesterday. Pointing to an isolated incident, like a suicide bombing, to assert that ISIS isn't defeated is disindigenous in the extreme but no surprise coming from those people.
Amazing with trump supporters, everything is "this, or that". If someone disagrees with trump's decision to go against his military leadership and intelligence teams and make a decision to pull the troops out with what appears a political decision, that person wants the troops there "indefinitely". Just like if someone opposes an expensive wall built along the southern border, that person wants "open borders." But getting back to Syria... you could care less that republicans congressmen and military leadership opposes this? SMH...
1. I'm not a Trump supporter, I'm a supporter of reducing the United States Military and the United States military's commitments around the world. I, in fact, disagree with Trump's military rhetoric when it comes to spending/expansion of the military. 2. Explain to me when/how and under what conditions it will be appropriate for the American military presence to leave Syria. Now seems like just as good a time as any. 2. Uh, yea, I'm not sure how educated you are in the Western intervention in the near/middle-east but yea, Western political and military leadership get that sh*t wrong all the time. I don't hold much weight in some warhawks opinions that we should have more war. I imagine a lot of politicians and military leadership would oppose my views on the military and the United States role in international military affairs.
I support pulling troops from deployment. But, I don't approve of pulling them when military and intelligence leaders say not to. If you have a disagreement with the current military and intelligence leadership, then you need to vote out the current president and hope the next president uses better judgement in the leadership he has around him. I don't think the only people criticizing trump's decision are all "war hawks". And again, I want to reduce the number of troops deployed. In this instance, I think trump made his decision for political purposes. The fact that he has danced back and forth on this has further confused the military and allies.
