Discussion: Russians Say Rescue Helicopter Also Shot At. One Rescuer Killed

Discussion for article #243170

So Syrian rebels, and not the Turks shot at the rescue helicopter according to CNN. Important distinction.


This situation is getting more complicated than Chinese algebra.

1 Like

Welcome to Syria Mr. Putin …

A bit off topic, but this article was linked to a story at Political Wire and I found it interesting. Perhaps you may also.

***Mark Goulston, M.D. Headshot
Mark Goulston, M.D. Become a fan
CEO, The Goulston Group
Obama’s Cagey Strategy Regarding Terrorism
Posted: 11/24/2015 3:25 pm EST Updated: 44 minutes ago

There will be many who read this that will say I’ve been smoking way too much weed, because what I am about to say is not based on “facts in evidence.”
If Donald Trump is taking a “we don’t need no stinkin’ badges” approach to dealing with terrorism, is it possible that President Obama is deploying a “We can’t and won’t wage a ground war alone” strategy?
Some might say that is giving way too much credit to a passive and avoidant president who is fixated to the point of absurdity on his promise to bring American fighting troops home.
I try not to expend too much energy on naysaying everything anyone in power or seeking power is saying and instead prefer to look for the valid “pony” in the pile of rhetoric.
And when I did that with Obama’s tact and mindset I imagined this might be what he is thinking:
It’s true that I promised America to bring our troops home. It’s true that America is war weary and new-ground-war wary. It’s true that there are huge numbers of Americans that are very disappointed in my and our accomplishments since I became president. Finally, it’s true that we will not be able to effectively rout out and destroy terrorism without some kind of ground operation.
However, I have seen the folly and cost to us of going it alone with allies offering scant more than lip service in the wars we have fought since 9/11. Therefore I’m going to hold off until enough countries like Russia and France get a sufficient taste of terrorist acts that they begin to take their own singular actions to counter it regardless of what support they receive from others. If this continues, we will join their efforts and we will together wage a ground war to destroy terrorism wherever it may be and wherever it is being supported.
In the meantime we are going to hold back until they each take enough of a leadership position in this war so that when we join them, they don’t toss the ball to us and then pull back. We will co-lead such a war with such a coalition, but we will not go it alone. We will not go it alone, because that won’t succeed.
Regarding my promise to the American people about no American troops on the ground fighting other wars that don’t directly impact our national security I believe I will be able to make a compelling and convincing case of why we must do so, but also reassure them that we are not doing it alone. And of course if terrorists should strike within our borders, it will be much easier to make a case to our people for taking ground action. It’s even possible that terrorists have held back from striking us because they don’t want to feel our wrath and retaliation.
I invite any readers to rip apart what I have written in any way you choose, however I would prefer if you found any hint of a “pony” in what I have said and then built on that.***

Our President has his hands full. I am sure at times such as these, he wishes he could leave office tomorrow. But then, “knowing” this President, he doesn’t see it that way at all.


syrian rebels shot dowm the rescue helicopter. the turks shot down a russian jet in their airspace. russia has been attacking syrian rebels fighting against assad, no sympathy there. and russia/the soviets have never had too much respect for other countries’ airspace.

maybe putin should concentrate on bombing the piss out of isis, who blew up an airliner with a couple hundred russian tourists.


Is that the kind you play on an abacus?

1 Like

Here’s how I understand your post: Russians = bad, need to do more of our bidding.

no, i’m saying that they should NOT be bombing syrian rebels fighting assad. i’m saying that they should not invade turkey’s airspace. i’m saying they should be bombing isis. is this clear enough for you? would pictures help?

Ukraine is one thing; the Middle East is an entirely different plane of tribal and religious conflicts, grudges, and mixed loyalties. And once you get sucked in, it’s almost impossible to get out. Putin should have known better, but I guess he had his reasons.

Why shouldn’t they? Why do you support a group of people you know nothing about? Why do you assume that Syria would be better off with Assad gone? Was Eygpt better off when Obama!s buddies the Muslim Brotherhood took over? Is Lybia better off. Is Yemen better off? Is Iraq better off? All counties we supported removal of there evil “dictator”.

But Putin isn’t attempting to nation build, which is a importance difference to what we are doing.

As a former combat rescue helicopter pilot myself, I admire the courage of the helicopter crew. As one can see from the picture, they faced daunting odds.

Given your Obama hating agenda, do you really expect anyone to respect your opinion?

It’s a bit inaccurate to call the Muslim Brotherhood “Obama’s buddies”. When Mubarak fell, the US and most of the world wanted free and fair elections. The election was held and the Egyptian people voted for Morsi and there is little doubt that was who the majority voted for. If the democratic opposition failed to field a viable candidate, that was their fault, not Obama’s. The US certainly did nothing to stop his overthrow. By the way, you forgot to mention Gaza, where Bush insisted on elections, which he thought would be won by the PA, but which Hamas won instead.

But your general point, that the US shouldn’t tell other countries how to run things is a good one. Of course, Russia’s support of Assad is meddling as well, as is Iran’s. At root, many of the problems of Syria and Iraq is that they are artificial countries, created by the British and French after World War I, containing a volatile mix of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians and others. All the other interventions are in a sense attempts to deal with that one.

In an interesting twist, John Bolton, the arch-neocon had an op-ed in the Times yesterday proposing the creation of a Sunnistan covering western Iraq and eastern Syria, leaving the Baghdad government in control of Shiite regions of Iraq and Assad in control of Alawite and Christian areas of Syria. I had to read it 3 times, before I was able to admit that despite being wrong about so much, Bolton is right about this. Biden proposed this for Iraq several years ago as well. The borders established by colonial powers 100 years ago don’t have to be sacred today.

1 Like

I see our current President mentioned in your post but not that last guy … what was his name? Bush I think it was although his brother has since changed the name to the Exclamation Point (!). He was going to free the Middle East like a latter day Lincoln.

In Latin America Dictators suppress the people and do the bidding of wealthy interests. If they were gone you would see some chaos but mostly better lives for the people. In the ME Dictators suppress the religious and ethnic savagery lying just below the surface, If you remove them you get Daesh.

I have to admit to my stupidity, when those in the know said there were worse groups in the ME than Al Qaeda I didn’t believe them … now I do.

A small correction to your post. The dictators are gone in Latin America, by and large, and there democratic governments in all of the major countries. And the people generally are doing much better. The fall of dictatorships in South America is one of the great success stories in recent times and it was accomplished non-violently in most cases.

i do know that this started with peaceful protesters unhappy with years of the assad family dictatorship being murdered, poisoned with gas, barrel-bombed, and starved to death.

WTH do you know?