...støtte til FSA og opprørsgrupper har gått direkte til ISIS, Al Nusra og andre radikale grupperinger.

Om du les artikkelen går det fram at det er snakk om bakkestyrker.

Før du gir opp, kan du vennligst svare meg på følgende:

Kampen om hvem som skal styre Syria er en kamp mellom et ekstremt islamistisk styresett og en moderat og moderne styresett.

Om opprørsstyrker etterhvert skjønner at å få Assad fra makten militært er dødfødt, så kan man kanskje innse at man må sette seg ved et forhandlingsbord sammen med Assads regime for å få til noen løsning.

jaja.. Du kan gjerne trekke deg fra debatten på denne måten om du synes det gir mening. Takk for meningsutveksling så langt.

Og dette skal liksom ikke være truende? Amerikanerne har jo selv bombet i Syria i over et år, og har ikke hatt noen av sine drept der. Likevel kan han si at Russland vil få det i løpet av dager! Og dette skal liksom ikke være truende!?

Og det er jo det som er tilfellet. Det er syrere ( og Hizbollah og lignende ) som kjemper på bakken, ikke russere. Det er russere der som vokter flyene, og som flyr flyene.

“[The Russians] have initiated a joint ground offensive with the Syrian regime, shattering the facade that they are there to fight Isil [Isis],” [Carter] added. “This will have consequences for Russia itself, which is rightly fearful of attacks. In coming days, the Russians will begin to suffer from casualties.”

Du tar selektiv lesning og quote mining til et helt nytt nivå. Her er uttalelsen fra artikkelen om Carters uttalelser:

At det i stedet skal være en trussel fra Carter er kanskje den minst tenkelige og minst naturlige tolkningen av alle, men du har dessverre sett deg fullstendig blind på din egen agenda

Så man kan altså si noe som ikke er ment som trussel, ikke er ment som noe truende, men likevel kommer igjennom som truende.

vi bare registrerer her og nå at du tror USAs forsvarsminister kom med militære trusler mot Russland for åpen mikrofon

Det virker som du tror det som er avgjørende her, er hva Ashton Carter egentlig mente.

Noen dager senere sa forøvrig Carter at USA vil ta "all necessary steps" for å kontre Russland :

"US defense chief: we will deter Russia's 'malign and destabilizing influence.

To the east, Russia has used political, economic, and military tools to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of neighboring countries, flouted international legal norms, and destabilized the European security order by attempting to annex Crimea and continuing to fuel further violence in eastern Ukraine.

In response, the United States and our allies are taking a strong and balanced strategic approach. We will take all necessary steps to deter Russia’s malign and destabilizing influence, coercion, and aggression, including its efforts to undermine strategic stability and challenge the military balance in Europe.

And at the same time, we will continue to be open to cooperating with Russia where our interests align, and we will leave the door open for Russia to rejoin the community of respectable nations.

To do this, we’ll leverage strong and modern U.S. forces – the finest fighting force the world has even known – and an adaptive and agile NATO working from a new play book, which includes preparing to counter new challenges, like cyber and hybrid warfare, as well as adjusting our posture and presence to help facilitate training and exercises and help make our forces more mobile and responsive.

And we will continue to make it clear that if Russia wants to end its international isolation and be considered a responsible global power, it must stop its aggression in eastern Ukraine, end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, and live up to its commitments under the Minsk agreements.

On top of their behavior in Ukraine, Russia's behavior in Syria concerning, and crosswise with the right course of action. As I recently told Russian Minister of Defense Shoygu, there is a contradiction in the logic of the Russian position and its actions in Syria.

Russia says it intends to fight ISIL on the one hand but support Bashar al-Assad on the other. By taking military action in Syria against moderate groups targets, Russia has escalated the civil war, putting further at risk the very political resolution and preservation of Syria’s structure of future governance it says that it wants. This approach is tantamount to pouring gasoline on the fire of civil war.

It’s important to remember that the civil war in Syria began because of Asad’s deficiencies as a leader. He responded to peaceful protests with extraordinary violence. He dropped barrel bombs on villages, and demonstrated a willingness to destroy his nation in a desperate bid to control it. His actions uprooted millions families, and fueled the chaos which gave rise to ISIL. He cannot be rehabilitated in the eyes of the Syrian people.

So as Russia continues to violate international law and alienate the international community, it is doing so in service to a goal that cannot be achieved. The Asad regime cannot last – the only question is what will happen to Syria and the region when it falls.

The United States’ position is clear that a lasting defeat of ISIL and extremism in Syria can only be achieved if pursued in parallel with a political transition in Syria. And we will continue to insist on the importance of simultaneously pursuing these two objectives. The coalitions operations against ISIL are continuing unchanged.

It remains my hope that Russia will see that tethering Russia to a sinking ship is a losing strategy, and will decide to confront the threat presented by ISIL instead of continuing its unilateral airstrikes against Assad’s opposition. In the meantime, we call on Russia to act in a safe and professional manner, uphold international standards for safety, and respect the sovereignty of all nations -- most recently our NATO ally, Turkey.

Russia has an opportunity to be part of the right side of history in resolving the situation in Syria, just as it was in 1995 when I worked with the Russian Minister of Defense to ensure that it joined NATO in bringing peace to Bosnia. And when we worked together to control the spread of nuclear weapons following the cold war. And more recently, Russia has hosted a key NATO supply route into Afghanistan.

People in the United States, here in Europe, and in Russia, all benefited from that collaboration and progress. That’s why we’ll keep the door open for cooperation with Russia. But it’s up to the Kremlin to decide.

Jeg har hele tiden snakket om hvorvidt tolkningen din er rimelig, og hvordan Carters uttalelse fremstår.

Det forutsetter at Tyrkia har noen slags interesse av å stanse IS...

(...)

Hadde de hatt muligheter for å kontrollere IS så hadde de forsynt dem med våpen.