“Russia is hitting the groups that we are backing.”

This is absolutely right — and here’s why:

https://conflict-backchannels.com/2016/11/12/ftac-how-isil-developed/

Assad incubated the al-Qaeda types all the way to ISIL!

And he did exactly by preferring other strategies and targets — noncombatants, including the sniping of pregnant women, and, of course western-leaning Free Syrian Army (FSA) and others in the field. Providing leeway provided room for ISIL to develop and play the convenient foil in “Assad vs The Terrorists”.

Please don’t believe me, but rather check out the significance of “Russia is hitting the groups that we are backing” by using and questioning the same references and checking them as well.

I would beg conservatives not to ennoble Russian (Putin-Assad-Khamenei) barbarism in Syria.

Some reminders:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/05/19/how-putin-became-president/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_and_the_Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

Have conservatives been duped (along with everyone else) by Putin’s changing postures over time?

It’s a question worth asking this day.


Posted by Gladbecker, November 12, 2016.

Above — and within the “awesome conversation” — the inspiration for this post.

Beneath — what Assad, as flanked by Putin and Khamenei, have done to Syria in the “cause” of medieval political absolutism.

Posted by Muhammed Al Mousa, September 4, 2016.

BackChannels believes American and Israeli and other conservatives have been duped by Putin and the arc of a narrative that began 25 years ago with the dissolving of the Soviet Union and the initial touting of capitalism and democracy that produced confidence in Putin as a leader who would bring order and stability to Russia while producing a civil and free society.

Instead, President Putin has been busy reproducing the Soviet-style “security state”, demonstrating a complete lack of conscience in the engineering of the Syrian Conflict, and, in general, establishing legitimacy for “political absolutism” and barbarism.

In essence, Putin represents the rule of the strong as more powerful than the rule of law, and, ironically, the conservative “new nationalists” of the open democracies — those who should be fully supporting the rule-of-law and other classically liberal and western values — appear to be helping him do it.

–33–