‘For ISIS to survive, it needs support from allies: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the US’ — RT Op-Edge

Coat of Arms of Saudi Arabia

Coat of Arms of Saudi Arabia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Reports that Syrian government forces have retaken the city of Palmyra from ISIS forces prove that the terrorist group is incapable of withstanding a conventional assault, Gregory R Copley, strategic analyst and editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs told RT.

Source: ‘For ISIS to survive, it needs support from allies: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the US’ — RT Op-Edge

This short article published by RT is worth a read.

Unfortunately, the article does not explain the meaning of the assertion that ‘ISIS needs the support of the US to survive’. I wonder if this is related to Obama’s disastrous foreign policy decisions? Meanwhile, the article reminds us that ISIS has had sponsorship from Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The sting in the tail is the assertion that ISIS on the defense is likely to be more dangerous.


Opinion – US-led coalition does not know who the terrorists in Syria are – Lavrov — RT News – John Gelmini

With more than 100 disparate groups of terrorists, jihadists and Islamists in Syria, Lavrov has a point.

In this article, brought to us by Dr. Alf, we are expected by our media to believe that there is “moderate” Syrian opposition and groups like ISIS, Korasan and Al Qaida plus the “Free Syrian Army” and that some deserve our help and support, whilst others remain proscribed and beyond the pale.

We are also expected to believe that Assad is equally odious and should be replaced but we are not prepared to say with what and by whom.

The West’s policies under Obama lack credibility because we have a public agenda and a hidden agenda and Turkey, our treacherous NATO ally has a different agenda (recreating the Ottoman Empire), which differs again from the agenda of the Gulf States, (Quatar, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,.

The City and Corporation of London, which benefits from the Gulf States and their oil revenues, has another agenda and the UK Government and the arms manufacturers have another.

The situation is one of complexity, double dealing and subterfuge, none of which President Obama and his “Black and white” thinkers can comprehend.

Putin has a clear objective, which is to protect Syria and Iran, as a means to protect Russia from encirclement and dismemberment.

Lavrov is equally determined and clear.

Speed, clarity of objectives and decisiveness, combined with the public’s cynicism about further military adventurism is trumping Obama’s dithering and will go on doing so.


Because we are reacting to events which have already happened, whilst Russia for good or ill, is shaping those events faster than the useless Obama can react to them.

John Gelmini