ADVERTISEMENT

Al-Qaeda in Syria calls for revenge attacks on Russia

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,435
62,542
113
The head of al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Syria has called on followers to carry out attacks in Russia following Moscow’s airstrikes in the country, raising the specter of blowback on Russian soil for its military intervention to aid Syria’s embattled government.

Just hours after the call from Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, or Nusra Front, two mortars landed in the perimeter of the Russian Embassy in the Syrian capital Damascus.

No one was reported injured, but it underscored the rising anger at Russia among rebel factions and others for its military backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia has used cruise missiles and fighter jets to strike targets in Syria held by Islamic State militants and other factions battling Assad including Nusra and U.S.-backed rebel forces.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has argued that containing the extremists is a national security concern for Russia, with thousands of militants draw from Russia’s restive North Caucasus. Russia also has deep stakes in Assad’s regime, which gives Russia key military footholds in the Middle East and Mediterranean.

[Gallery: On the ground after Russia’s airstrikes ]

“The new Russian invasion is the last arrow in the quiver of the enemies of the Muslims,” Jolani said in an audio recording released late Monday. He urged those in the Caucasus to “distract” from the conflict in Syria, calling for attacks on both civilian and military targets.

“If the Russian soldier kills from the masses of [Syria], kill from their masses,” he said. “And if they kill from our soldiers, kill from theirs. One for one.”

In the 21-minute speech, he also set bounties for the killing of Assad, and Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which is backing the Syrian government on the battlefield.

Jolani said a bounty of 3 million euros ($3.4 million) would be paid for Assad’s death.

“Should this ruler not be killed?” he said. “The poison is in the head of the snake.”

For Nasrallah he set the bounty at 2 million euros ($2.3million).

The shells that landed near the Russian Embassy in Damascus on Tuesday came as a group of supporters carried out a rally in solidarity with the Russian airstrikes. The Russian Embassy in Damascus said no one was injured in the attack, the Russian news agency Interfax reported.

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the attacks on the embassy as an “obvious act of terror.” One mortar landed on a residential building, and another in a sports ground, he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2e-180f2f4882f5_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop_b
 
If only our President wasn't so controlled, then he could tell our agencies to quit stoking the flames of this madness. Instead he's just letting the NeoCons guide this thing into a full-scale war between several different factions.......should we call him FAILbama?
 
So, the usa funds isis and al q. We made up the terms, isis and al q. to them, they are all one muslim nation, with usa money. so this is the usa and Russia fighting each other in a proxy war. Obama gave the nukes to iran, the muslim nation, and told them to bomb us.
 
If only our President wasn't so controlled, then he could tell our agencies to quit stoking the flames of this madness. Instead he's just letting the NeoCons guide this thing into a full-scale war between several different factions.......should we call him FAILbama?

...because things turned out so AWESOME for the Russians the last time they got involved in the Middle East...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menace Sockeyes
If only our President wasn't so controlled, then he could tell our agencies to quit stoking the flames of this madness. Instead he's just letting the NeoCons guide this thing into a full-scale war between several different factions.......should we call him FAILbama?
You of all people can't appreciate a successful troll job? Its sad when you become too partisan to appreciate a win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
'Winning' = 'Getting your embassy hit by insurgent rocket fire'

Got it.
You're missing the point. Russia is taking advantage of the situation we helped create over there. Believe me, our NeoCons and war hawks are not happy about this.
 
And why should we care that neocons are grumpy again?
Because they'll make moves to see that they are no longer grumpy. You believe that they aren't already working on ways to get control of this again? If in fact btw, that they don't already have control. For all we know, they may in fact be liking what they are seeing. I doubt that very much in this case though. Natch.
 
Because they'll make moves to see that they are no longer grumpy. You believe that they aren't already working on ways to get control of this again? If in fact btw, that they don't already have control. For all we know, they may in fact be liking what they are seeing. I doubt that very much in this case though. Natch.
I think that's good. I'd rather have grumpy neocons plotting than happy successful neocons gloating.
 
Both, they overestimated their ability to control that region, and Russia getting involved again, is further complicating the situation.

If we focused our resources on developing and maintaining energy independence (via a combination of clean nuclear, frakking, renewables etc) instead of 'maintaining control' in the Middle East, why would we care who 'owns' or 'runs' the oil fields over there? What, then, is our 'mission' in the Middle East?
 
If we focused our resources on developing and maintaining energy independence (via a combination of clean nuclear, frakking, renewables etc) instead of 'maintaining control' in the Middle East, why would we care who 'owns' or 'runs' the oil fields over there? What, then, is our 'mission' in the Middle East?
You're just kind of trying to redirect this conversation here and there aren't you? Is there a reason you're asking this?
 
Exactly. Mr. Putin, welcome to your Vietnam.
It's different this time, we've softened them up for years. Putin won't run into the same issues as his predecessors did before. Kind of a funny thing to say, considering how damaging it was to US.
 
It's different this time, we've softened them up for years. Putin won't run into the same issues as his predecessors did before. Kind of a funny thing to say, considering how damaging it was to US.

LOL....yeah...because the Russians did such a 'bang-up' job of 'softening up' Afghanistan in the 80's....

It's not 'different' at all. It's: Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TankHawk
I think I already pointed out that one way or another the Russians getting involved was good for the US. They either take care of the mess or they become so ingrained in it that we can get out completely. Both are, long term, really good for us. Short term it might be bad for a certain segment of our politicians, but hey, they're politicians so I don't care about what's good for them.
 
LOL....yeah...because the Russians did such a 'bang-up' job of 'softening up' Afghanistan in the 80's....

It's not 'different' at all. It's: Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Joe, Joe, Joe, Place, place, place. This is a different ball game, and you should know that. This is not a lather rinse and repeat scenario. Don't be a silly billy.
 
LOL....yeah...because the Russians did such a 'bang-up' job of 'softening up' Afghanistan in the 80's....

It's not 'different' at all. It's: Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
After reading this thread it is clear that many do not know exactly what is going on here. I disagree entirely with your lather, rinse, repeat statement here. This is a very different time and scenario.
Our presence for one, wasn't nearly as defined and wide spread in the 80's as it is now in the Middle East. We have been working for decades now, with the last two decades seeing us physically involved in warfare.
We have sent factions against one another, without a clear view, at least publicly, as to who is who. One day we're fighting rebels, the next we are arming rebels, and so on.
Now the Russians are involved militaristically for the first time in quite a while. We are bound to cross paths.
NATO is threatening to take action for any instance that Turkey is harmed. We have reports that Russians may be targeting whom we are arming, and vice versa. We are in a bad spot, because the public wants no part of any more Middle Eastern action, at least for now. Not to mention the damage it did being over there for so long fiscally and morally.
I wouldn't be too quick to think that this is just the same game being played over exactly how it did the other time. It's a new game, and we are going to see some very memorable times in our history in the next decade.
 
After reading this thread it is clear that many do not know exactly what is going on here. I disagree entirely with your lather, rinse, repeat statement here. This is a very different time and scenario.
Our presence for one, wasn't nearly as defined and wide spread in the 80's as it is now in the Middle East.

LOLWUT?

A certain Iranian figure known as the 'Shah' ring a bell?
 
LOLWUT?

A certain Iranian figure known as the 'Shah' ring a bell?
Are you saying Shah was the reason he was installed? Did Shah have US military bases surrounding him during his time? You bounce around like a rubber bouncey ball thrown by a confused child.
I don't mean that as a put down, I just want you to understand how you come off when trying to debate others. You even included a LOLwut in your argument. That's reddit style commenting in todays age. If you wish to debate, you must stay on subject, and refrain from the slang. You'll get taken much more seriously if you do that.
 
LOL....yeah...because the Russians did such a 'bang-up' job of 'softening up' Afghanistan in the 80's....

It's not 'different' at all. It's: Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
LOLWUT?

A certain Iranian figure known as the 'Shah' ring a bell?
The #$#$ does that have to do with anything? We can get to Iran later one Joey. Hey Joey, Does Stalin ring a bell? LOLCANO!!!!!!!
 
Are you saying Shah was the reason he was installed?

I have no clue as to what this even means.

Did Shah have US military bases surrounding him during his time?

Are you aware of the Cold War going on during the 80's? Of COURSE our military wasn't on the Soviets' borders; we used OTHER means to excise influences in the Middle East. Your comment/premise was that we 'didn't have a presence there like we do now', which is utter nonsense. We were MORE ingrained in the Middle East in the 70s and 80s, because that was where ALL of the oil was. It was absolutely a national security concern to maintain our oil supply back then, and propping up the Shah's regime was ONE of the methods used, until that blew up in our faces.

ISIS poses little, if any, national security risk to us now; even less if Iran is now able to open up its oil trade following the nuclear agreement. It poses a significant risk to Iraq and the Saudis and maybe others in the region, but not really us. Could it destabilize the region? Yes. But so long as there are adequate oil supplies from other areas, it has little significance to us, other than pointing out how badly we muffed the whole 'Iraq Nationbuilding' plan.

Putin has significantly bigger interests over there, because his oil supplies are mostly landlocked, and being able to exert influence on and control any governments over there could allow him to build pipelines to get that oil out into more world markets. And it would behoove him to do so within the next decade, before carbon-caps/trade and emissions limits devalue his oil stash. The main interest we have is in limiting his influence; but based upon historical precedents, it's unlikely we really have to do all that much to make most of them hate him and resist his power push.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
The #$#$ does that have to do with anything? We can get to Iran later one Joey. Hey Joey, Does Stalin ring a bell? LOLCANO!!!!!!!

If you're able to follow comments and read, my point was in response to:
"Our presence for one, wasn't nearly as defined and wide spread in the 80's as it is now in the Middle East."

'Our presence' was VERY clearly defined in the 80s and Cold War in the Middle East, mainly in response to the oil embargoes/crisis of the 70s. And I've already noted why we did not put troops on the ground during the Cold War. But we spent LOTS of money on Middle East stability back then.

So, yes, this is Lather Rinse Repeat.
 
Is this the same AQ funded by Obama? The same AQ that General Betrayus has told us to bank?
 
I have no clue as to what this even means.



Are you aware of the Cold War going on during the 80's? Of COURSE our military wasn't on the Soviets' borders; we used OTHER means to excise influences in the Middle East. Your comment/premise was that we 'didn't have a presence there like we do now', which is utter nonsense. We were MORE ingrained in the Middle East in the 70s and 80s, because that was where ALL of the oil was. It was absolutely a national security concern to maintain our oil supply back then, and propping up the Shah's regime was ONE of the methods used, until that blew up in our faces.

ISIS poses little, if any, national security risk to us now; even less if Iran is now able to open up its oil trade following the nuclear agreement. It poses a significant risk to Iraq and the Saudis and maybe others in the region, but not really us. Could it destabilize the region? Yes. But so long as there are adequate oil supplies from other areas, it has little significance to us, other than pointing out how badly we muffed the whole 'Iraq Nationbuilding' plan.

Putin has significantly bigger interests over there, because his oil supplies are mostly landlocked, and being able to exert influence on and control any governments over there could allow him to build pipelines to get that oil out into more world markets. And it would behoove him to do so within the next decade, before carbon-caps/trade and emissions limits devalue his oil stash. The main interest we have is in limiting his influence; but based upon historical precedents, it's unlikely we really have to do all that much to make most of them hate him and resist his power push.
So the presence of us patrolling the oil fields and bays that surround them with our Navy and Coast Guard, our numerous permanent bases, our heavier than ever dealings with the Middle East as a whole, our embassies, etc, etc. make us less engrained in the Middle East?
us-military-bases-in-the-middle-east-the-number-has-exploded-over-the-past-decade.jpg

You surely have little idea of what you speak of. ISIS does in fact pose little threat to us, that I will agree. The rest of what you said isn't anything that I don't already know. The fact that you said we are less engrained over there, is absolutely ridiculous. Do you realize how much in property and assets we have over there right now? The PATFORSWA mission alone is worth Billions in tax money a year.
I think you are learning on the job here is what I think. You're playing it by ear, rather than being able to go on what you already know. That puts you at a huge disadvantage when speaking of this matter with me.
 
I think I already pointed out that one way or another the Russians getting involved was good for the US. They either take care of the mess or they become so ingrained in it that we can get out completely. Both are, long term, really good for us. Short term it might be bad for a certain segment of our politicians, but hey, they're politicians so I don't care about what's good for them.
This. Russia engaging could be a huge benefit to the US. I've posted that the only way a political settlement is reached is if Russia needs to exit from Syria after having their nose bloodied. Russia holds the key to Assad leaving Syria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
So the presence of us patrolling the oil fields and bays that surround them with our Navy and Coast Guard, our numerous permanent bases, our heavier than ever dealings with the Middle East as a whole, our embassies, etc, etc. make us less engrained in the Middle East?
us-military-bases-in-the-middle-east-the-number-has-exploded-over-the-past-decade.jpg

You surely have little idea of what you speak of. ISIS does in fact pose little threat to us, that I will agree. The rest of what you said isn't anything that I don't already know. The fact that you said we are less engrained over there, is absolutely ridiculous. Do you realize how much in property and assets we have over there right now? The PATFORSWA mission alone is worth Billions in tax money a year.
I think you are learning on the job here is what I think. You're playing it by ear, rather than being able to go on what you already know. That puts you at a huge disadvantage when speaking of this matter with me.

"ISIS does in fact pose little threat to us, that I will agree."

This was my entire point.

Again....we spent WAY more during the Cold War to keep the Middle East from falling under Soviet influence. That was for 4 decades, not 1. There was a very significant threat at that time that they could take over key regimes and cut off oil supplies to the rest of the world. ISIS poses no such threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
If you're able to follow comments and read, my point was in response to:
"Our presence for one, wasn't nearly as defined and wide spread in the 80's as it is now in the Middle East."

'Our presence' was VERY clearly defined in the 80s and Cold War in the Middle East, mainly in response to the oil embargoes/crisis of the 70s. And I've already noted why we did not put troops on the ground during the Cold War. But we spent LOTS of money on Middle East stability back then.

So, yes, this is Lather Rinse Repeat.
Our military presence in the region alone negates everything you just said here Joe. We're still spending money, and on top of that, we are also paying for all our bases over there.
 
Our military presence in the region alone negates everything you just said here Joe. We're still spending money, and on top of that, we are also paying for all our bases over there.

...and we DIDN'T have any bases or military involvement during the Cold War!!???

It's Lather Rinse Repeat. So long as we have energy dependence (direct or indirect). That is THE reason we have been involved over there, and always has been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
...and we DIDN'T have any bases or military involvement during the Cold War!!???

It's Lather Rinse Repeat. So long as we have energy dependence (direct or indirect). That is THE reason we have been involved over there, and always has been.
How many compared to now Joe?
 
Let's get back to the original question, and my Lather Rinse Repeat comment.

Why are we over there now? (and why do we have neocons wanting to get involved again?)
Why were we over there in the 70s and 80s?
Iran/oil, it's always been about Iran/oil. Making sure we get control of the region before others do.,..but there is also, and this takes thinking outside the box Joe, there is another reason as well. This isn't so much thinking outside the box though, as this has been stated, and our moves are definitely pointing to this other reason. There has been development towards this goal for quite awhile now. The Middle East is a huge key to this due to where it is. There has been a building of awareness about it as well, though it has been slow to develop, and with good reason. Yo, yo, yo, Joe, tell me if you think ya know.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT