Conservative Political Forum

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-22/russia-calls-for-un-brokered-moves-in-fighting-terror-ifx-says

QuoteU.S. actions in the Middle East helped Islamic State to gain influence, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, according to Interfax.
The strengthening of Islamic State "became possible partly due to irresponsible U.S. politics" that focused on fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of joining efforts to root out terrorism, Medvedev was cited as saying in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday. President Barack Obama earlier on Sunday said that Russia is facing a strategic choice as Assad can't stay. The Obama administration declined to comment Sunday on Medvedev's statement.

Checkmate! Obama, who is an obvious traitor to the United States, is not so subtly exposed as such by the Russians! Obama, who has successfully rooted out every middle eastern dictator favorable to the USA, and her allies interests, due to the corrupting of the American process by the democratic party, has more then met his match in Vladimir Putin, who has effortlessly mastered America's first, and last affirmative actioned president!

Putin has been saying similar things for awhile now. 

Don't forget Hillary's role in this, started with Libya

Quote from: Dori on November 22, 2015, 04:27:31 PM
Putin has been saying similar things for awhile now.

I saw a video of him the other day.  He is calling America the aggressors.  The video made me think that we are definitely headed toward Armageddon.  He is right Obama and Hillary created ISIS.  Arab Spring and his agenda to get rid of Bashar Al Assad and Gaddafi.  Those fighters are ISIS now.  There is plenty of information that supports the truth that Obama is responsible.  Freedom for information documents.  Reports from people within Syria about what happened there.  I just read a story about a Syrian woman that joined to save her family.  She told how ISIS came out of the fighters trying to get rid of Assad.  The leaders were from Iraq.  The timing of all of Obama's agenda tells the story.  He created hell in the Middle East.

Quote from: Tacoma on November 22, 2015, 04:12:24 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-22/russia-calls-for-un-brokered-moves-in-fighting-terror-ifx-says

Checkmate! Obama, who is an obvious traitor to the United States, is not so subtly exposed as such by the Russians! Obama, who has successfully rooted out every middle eastern dictator favorable to the USA, and her allies interests, due to the corrupting of the American process by the democratic party, has more then met his match in Vladimir Putin, who has effortlessly mastered America's first, and last affirmative actioned president!

I don't think the russian guy refers particularly to Obama, his administration or the democratic party, but more the foreign policy of the USA that tends to remain pretty consistent, no matter who's in the White House. You think anyone else would handle the Middle East any differently? How so, and how would that change the rise of ISIS, which is the point of Medvedev?

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 11:56:35 AM
I don't think the russian guy refers particularly to Obama, his administration or the democratic party, but more the foreign policy of the USA that tends to remain pretty consistent, no matter who's in the White House. You think anyone else would handle the Middle East any differently? How so, and how would that change the rise of ISIS, which is the point of Medvedev?

So you actually believe that Obama did not change ME foreign policy when he took over in 2009? I'll get you started with just four countries to keep it simple. Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Egypt?

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 23, 2015, 12:04:11 PM
So you actually believe that Obama did not change ME foreign policy when he took over in 2009? I'll get you started with just four countries to keep it simple. Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Egypt?

No, I don't think. The general principles seem to be the same: creating havoc to divide and conquer. Am I wrong that this has been our beloved foreign policy for the middle east (for those countries who just don't obey) for decades?

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 12:07:46 PM
No, I don't think. The general principles seem to be the same: creating havoc to divide and conquer. Am I wrong that this has been our beloved foreign policy for the middle east (for those countries who just don't obey) for decades?

You may have gotten it right with your first sentence. You didn't answer the questions. How did the bush policies stress divide and conquer of the four countries I asked about?

You are treading on troll status with your few new posts. Bring some common sense to this forum and do not avoid questions.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 23, 2015, 12:39:56 PM
You may have gotten it right with your first sentence. You didn't answer the questions. How did the bush policies stress divide and conquer of the four countries I asked about?

You are treading on troll status with your few new posts. Bring some common sense to this forum and do not avoid questions.

I'm not avoiding the question (I answered it: No, Obama didn't change the US foreign policy), sir. I'm just seeing the problem from a holistic perspective (as I think matters of foreign policy should be seen) as opposed to seeing from a simplistic one like "Do we take soldiers from Iraq or do we keep them?". Those are just details.

What you need to think is: After we fucked up Iraq, what was next on our list? Yes, Libya and Syria. Obama managed to create havoc on both of them, so I don't think it's a bad presidency, at least in terms of middle east foreign policy wrt to US interests. The next president will try Iran, although that's a tougher bone..

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 12:47:28 PM
I'm not avoiding the question (I answered it: No, Obama didn't change the US foreign policy), sir. I'm just seeing the problem from a holistic perspective (as I think matters of foreign policy should be seen) as opposed to seeing from a simplistic one like "Do we take soldiers from Iraq or do we keep them?". Those are just details.

You still have not answered how the Bush policy was divide and conquer for those countries.

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 12:57:54 PM
What you need to think is: After we fucked up Iraq, what was next on our list? Yes, Libya and Syria. Obama managed to create havoc on both of them, so I don't think it's a bad presidency, at least in terms of middle east foreign policy wrt to US interests. The next president will try Iran, although that's a tougher bone..

How did Bush screw up Libya and Syria?

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 23, 2015, 01:35:04 PM
How did Bush screw up Libya and Syria?

Who said that?

??

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 01:39:37 PM
Who said that?

??

"What you need to think is: After we fucked up Iraq, what was next on our list? Yes, Libya and Syria. Obama managed to create havoc on both of them, so I don't think it's a bad presidency, at least in terms of middle east foreign policy wrt to US interests. The next president will try Iran, although that's a tougher bone.."

Remember what you post here. Now answer the question.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 23, 2015, 02:03:59 PM
"What you need to think is: After we fucked up Iraq, what was next on our list? Yes, Libya and Syria. Obama managed to create havoc on both of them, so I don't think it's a bad presidency, at least in terms of middle east foreign policy wrt to US interests. The next president will try Iran, although that's a tougher bone.."

Remember what you post here. Now answer the question.

I do remember, sir.
We is us, the United States, US Administration.
fucked up Iraq -> Bush's Adm
Syria and Libya -> Obama's Adm

Therefore, your question

Quote
How did Bush screw up Libya and Syria?

is nonsensical. Hence my puzzlement.

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 02:08:02 PM
I do remember, sir.
We is us, the United States, US Administration.
fucked up Iraq -> Bush's Adm
Syria and Libya -> Obama's Adm

Therefore, your question is nonsensical. Hence my puzzlement.

Thanks for acknowledging that foreign policy did change from Bush to Obama.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 23, 2015, 02:18:54 PM
Thanks for acknowledging that foreign policy did change from Bush to Obama.

Lol, sorry, I haven't.
I mantain my position: the foreign policy is the same, as it has been in the past 5 or 6 decades.

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 12:07:46 PM
The general principles seem to be the same: creating havoc to divide and conquer. Am I wrong that this has been our beloved foreign policy for the middle east (for those countries who just don't obey) for decades?

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 12:47:28 PM
I'm not avoiding the question (I answered it: No, Obama didn't change the US foreign policy), sir. I'm just seeing the problem from a holistic perspective (as I think matters of foreign policy should be seen) as opposed to seeing from a simplistic one like "Do we take soldiers from Iraq or do we keep them?". Those are just details.

What POTUS in the past ever flooded the country with Muscum terrorists? Blew open the Southern border for South American illegals to flood in?
You don't see a difference in foreign policy where Hussein supported the Muscum Brotherhood and the Arab Spring, allows the Muscum Brotherhood in the WH, conducts an illegal war in Libya.
And the list goes on and on, but you can't see a difference?

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2015, 02:24:57 PM
What POTUS in the past ever flooded the country with Muscum terrorists?

Sorry, don't know what that means..

Quote
Blew open the Southern border for South American illegals to flood in?

I thought we were talking about middle east foreign policy? Why bring up South America, borders? Wrong thread, maybe?

Quote
You don't see a difference in foreign policy where Hussein supported the Muscum Brotherhood

Ohhhh, this.. really? Muscum? really?

Quote
and the Arab Spring, allows the Muscum Brotherhood in the WH

Now it seems you're just throwing names into the air: Arab Spring, WH (??)

Quote
, conducts an illegal war in Libya.

I said I prefer to be holistic, but even going through your approach (simplistic, focusing on details), it seems you are contradicting your own view: conducting illegal wars was also Bush's way.

Quote
And the list goes on and on, but you can't see a difference?

Nope, read what I said carefully (holistic approach) and then think for a minute

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 02:35:48 PM
Sorry, don't know what that means..

POTUS President Of The United States. Try and keep up son.

QuoteI thought we were talking about middle east foreign policy? Why bring up South America, borders?
Wrong thread, maybe?Ohhhh, this.. really?

What part of the term "Foreign policy" do you not understand?
Are you suddenly restricting discussion to your personally selected parameters?

QuoteMuscum? really?

Careful now, your bleeding heart is showing through.

QuoteNow it seems you're just throwing names into the air: Arab Spring, WH (??)

Am I overloading your sensibilities?

QuoteI said I prefer to be holistic, but even going through your approach (simplistic, focusing on details), it seems you are contradicting your own view:

Now you claim an all encompassing view, while just a second ago you claimed you wanted to focus on just the M/E.
Now who's being contradictory?

Quoteconducting illegal wars was also Bush's way.Nope, read what I said carefully (holistic approach) and then think for a minute

Straw man, Bush had 97% of Congress backing, a UN resolution, and you claim it was an illegal war?
Hussein told Congress what he would do, he did not ask for permission, what he did was unconstitutional.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 23, 2015, 02:18:54 PM
Thanks for acknowledging that foreign policy did change from Bush to Obama.

German comedian hs something to say about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0Ql0VfcRg

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2015, 02:48:56 PM
POTUS President Of The United States. Try and keep up son.

It wasn't that, it was the racist slur I figured out later on

Quote
What part of the term "Foreign policy" do you not understand?
Are you suddenly restricting discussion to your personally selected parameters?

Nope, I defined pretty early in this discussion how I view foreign policy and what it means. Do you need me to quote myself again?

Quote
Careful now, your bleeding heart is showing through.

Well, I was admired, wasn't expecting that.

Quote
Am I overloading your sensibilities?

Not really, you use the language you want, it's not my business. But I was surprised.

Quote
Now you claim an all encompassing view, while just a second ago you claimed you wanted to focus on just the M/E.
Now who's being contradictory?

No, and not me. It seems you haven't read what you replied to:

Quote
I said I prefer to be holistic, but even going through your approach (simplistic, focusing on details), it seems you are contradicting your own view

So, to show you wrong, even with your own approach, I decided to indulge you. Get it?

Quote
Straw man, Bush had 97% of Congress backing, a UN resolution, and you claim it was an illegal war?
Hussein told Congress what he would do, he did not ask for permission, what he did was unconstitutional.

I think you got that wrong (you don't know much on the subject, do you?)

Quote from: google's response for iraq war illegal
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.Sep 15, 2004

Lol, Hussein is Obama for you?  :laugh: you got me there..

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 03:04:01 PM
It wasn't that, it was the racist slur I figured out later onNope, I defined pretty early in this discussion how I view foreign policy and what it means. Do you need me to quote myself again?Well, I was admired, wasn't expecting that.Not really, you use the language you want, it's not my business. But I was surprised.No, and not me. It seems you haven't read what you replied to:So, to show you wrong, even with your own approach, I decided to indulge you. Get it?I think you got that wrong (you don't know much on the subject, do you?)

Lol, Hussein is Obama for you?  :laugh: you got me there..

Jeeez, and you wonder how you were outed as a lib so quickly.

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2015, 03:14:35 PM
Jeeez, and you wonder how you were outed as a lib so quickly.

I don't, really ;)

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 02:22:19 PM
Lol, sorry, I haven't.
I mantain my position: the foreign policy is the same, as it has been in the past 5 or 6 decades.

So once again then I ask you the question of how Bush policy was to divide and conquer Egypt and Syria? Your BS is getting old. We do not tolerate "tail chasing" threads on this forum.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 24, 2015, 04:48:15 AM
So once again then I ask you the question of how Bush policy was to divide and conquer Egypt and Syria? Your BS is getting old. We do not tolerate "tail chasing" threads on this forum.

Egypt was an "ally", friend not a "state that didn't obey the USA". Whatever happened there is what happened, revolutions escape the control of local rulers, even more foreign ones. And like I said, Iraq was first on the list, Syria would be later: that's why Bush's job was Iraq, and Obama Lybia and Syria. It's an ongoing process. Duh!

I don't know what the hell Mariner is talking bout, I don;t know how Bush Fkdup Iraq.....he removed Saddam, established a stable Govt and turned it all over to Obamao on a silver platter....who then proceeded to Fk things up Royally on a never before seen scale begining with the laughable reset button and Putin.

Take particular note about what what said in the original article, and harken back to the FACTS of the situation.

Bush had a much better relationship with Putin, whom he got into a sort of working relationship....as much as you can with a posionous snake. Bush specifically LET SYRIA ALONE, especially when there was ABSOLUTE PROOF that Saddam's chemical WMD were taken to Syria, I still say there was some kind of deal cut, possibly involving Putin who may have said something like....we'll keep a lid on Assad, talk sense to him over Israel, don't go blasting his bunkers, in exchange we'll help you in Iraq in any way we can, remember, Great Mother Russia (Me) negotiated your bases in the 'Stan's.  for logistics in Afghanistan.

WE KNEW ASSAD WAS BACKED BY RUSSIA, for a long time back. Yet stupid ass Obamao trying to remake the world for the Muslim brotherhood decides that Assad has to go and supports "rebels' who are likely clan members uncles, brother and cousins 3rd removed from a lot of ISIS....stupid, stupid and stupid again.

My only shock at the whole thing is why Putin didn't intervene earlier, Obamao and Madame LeFarge Le Hillary have truly put him in the catbird seat. Now he'll Have Assad in his back pocket, a warm water port in the ME for his ships, oil pipelines for his country and he'll drive ISIS into Iraq to create more problems for the US to deal with.

In short Obamao facilitated Putin having more power, prestige and influence in the ME while America looks like fools and weaklings. That hasn;t been our policy for the past 5 or 6 decades....has it?(oh I forgot, yes it was...Jimmy the idiot Carter)

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on November 24, 2015, 05:18:58 AM
I don't know what the hell Mariner is talking bout,

You'd have to read the context of the discussion. It kinda helps when you want to know what the hell someone is talking about. Just a friendly advice.

Quote
I don;t know how Bush Fkdup Iraq.....he removed Saddam, established a stable Govt

I challenge you here, I believe you are wrong. He left the country in a state of chaos on the road to colapse, as soon as the troops would leave, like it has happened, which was kind of the point, reggarding America's foreign policy

Quote
and turned it all over to Obamao on a silver platter....who then proceeded to Fk things up Royally on a never before seen scale begining with the laughable reset button and Putin.

That's how democracies work, presidents come and go. But the state's interests remain the same: the foreign policy is the same: Obama just left Iraq and did a 2 in 1: appease the popular mood (get the hell out of there!) and leave Iraq as a failed state, which was the point on this all affair.

Quote
Take particular note about what what said in the original article, and harken back to the FACTS of the situation.

I am, I think Medvedev is saying the same thing as I am, just not so explicitly.

Quote
Bush had a much better relationship with Putin, whom he got into a sort of working relationship....as much as you can with a posionous snake. Bush specifically LET SYRIA ALONE, especially when there was ABSOLUTE PROOF that Saddam's chemical WMD were taken to Syria, I still say there was some kind of deal cut, possibly involving Putin who may have said something like....we'll keep a lid on Assad, talk sense to him over Israel, don't go blasting his bunkers, in exchange we'll help you in Iraq in any way we can, remember, Great Mother Russia (Me) negotiated your bases in the 'Stan's. for logistics in Afghanistan.

I think it was a matter of timing, this stuff can't all be made all at the same time...
Lol, absolute proof? Can you show it? It seems you are making stuff up. Or someone else did, told you and you just believe it. lol, WMD from Iraq to Syria? ´
Please show the proof, I'm very interested.

Quote
WE KNEW ASSAD WAS BACKED BY RUSSIA, for a long time back. Yet stupid ass Obamao trying to remake the world for the Muslim brotherhood decides that Assad has to go and supports "rebels' who are likely clan members uncles, brother and cousins 3rd removed from a lot of ISIS....stupid, stupid and stupid again.

Agreed. Syria was always a tougher bone than Iraq because of Russia's presence. That's why "Iraq First!". Obama did what Bush would have done, took advantage of the situation after the Arab Awakening, and started funding and arming "rebel groups". It payed off! Look at them now!

Quote
My only shock at the whole thing is why Putin didn't intervene earlier, Obamao and Madame LeFarge Le Hillary have truly put him in the catbird seat. Now he'll Have Assad in his back pocket, a warm water port in the ME for his ships, oil pipelines for his country and he'll drive ISIS into Iraq to create more problems for the US to deal with.

I agree, roughly. It seems things might turn out good for Putin, perhaps add a bit more of balance on international relations. What a guy, hein?

Quote
In short Obamao facilitated Putin having more power, prestige and influence in the ME while America looks like fools and weaklings. That hasn;t been our policy for the past 5 or 6 decades....has it?(oh I forgot, yes it was...Jimmy the idiot Carter)

I think it was more of Putin's move, Obama (read America) was just powerless to deal with it. And the same thing happened on Bush's time (Putin defying America and America powerless to do anything). Maybe you're not aware?

Quote from: Mariner on November 24, 2015, 04:58:59 AM
Egypt was an "ally", friend not a "state that didn't obey the USA". Whatever happened there is what happened, revolutions escape the control of local rulers, even more foreign ones. And like I said, Iraq was first on the list, Syria would be later: that's why Bush's job was Iraq, and Obama Lybia and Syria. It's an ongoing process. Duh!

Good riddance troll.

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 24, 2015, 09:39:28 AM
Good riddance troll.

He came right back as AstroTurf. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2015, 09:42:10 AM
He came right back as AstroTurf. :rolleyes:

Clean up on aisle two?

Quote from: walkstall on November 24, 2015, 09:48:21 AM
Clean up on aisle two?

Boo never fixed the hole in the screen and the bugs keep sneakin in...
Squashed this on in the hall.

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 11:56:35 AM
I don't think the russian guy refers particularly to Obama, his administration or the democratic party, but more the foreign policy of the USA that tends to remain pretty consistent, no matter who's in the White House. You think anyone else would handle the Middle East any differently? How so, and how would that change the rise of ISIS, which is the point of Medvedev?

Oh please, spare us the libtard attempts at making excuses for Obama.  Obama's M.E. policy has been anything but, "consistent" with that of past administrations. The FACT of the matter is, Pre-Obama there was no ISIS, and Al-Queda was seriously degraded.

Post Obama we now have ISIS to contend with, and Al-Queda is making a come back, trying to compete with ISIS to see who can kill the most people for Islam.

I don't know this Mariner person, but if they cannot see the inconsistency and difference there. Then they're simply either delusional, a DNC operative/plant, willfully ignorant, and or mentally handicapped.

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 11:56:35 AM
I don't think the russian guy refers particularly to Obama, his administration or the democratic party, but more the foreign policy of the USA that tends to remain pretty consistent, no matter who's in the White House. You think anyone else would handle the Middle East any differently? How so, and how would that change the rise of ISIS, which is the point of Medvedev?

Really?

"became possible partly due to irresponsible U.S. politics" that focused on fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of joining efforts to root out terrorism"

Sounds pretty specific to me.

Quote from: Mariner on November 24, 2015, 05:40:53 AM
You'd have to read the context of the discussion. It kinda helps when you want to know what the hell someone is talking about. Just a friendly advice.I challenge you here, I believe you are wrong. He left the country in a state of chaos

Question, If I hadn't been following the thread how could I have responded with specificity to something you posted? Friendly advice; stop trying to be cute and concentrate on facts.

You entirely missed the point of my post which was the issue of the WMD which were PROVEN to be in Syria ala Obamao impotent 'Red line".  Why didn't Bush make an issue of these WMD's when there was ample evidence Saddam moved them out of Iraq and into Syria.....my speculation is that Bush and Putin cut a deal. And unless you have been living in a cave or deliberately not paying attention to the aforementioned Red line debacle, even the NY Times were running articles on Chemical weapons found in Iraq.

Iraq was hardly left in a state of Chaos, at least not by Bush, it may not have been perfect but it took Obamao to really Fk things up to the point where ISIS has annexed great swaths of that nation as part of the Caliphate.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on November 24, 2015, 04:32:00 PM
Question, If I hadn't been following the thread how could I have responded with specificity to something you posted? Friendly advice; stop trying to be cute and concentrate on facts.

You entirely missed the point of my post which was the issue of the WMD which were PROVEN to be in Syria ala Obamao impotent 'Red line".  Why didn't Bush make an issue of these WMD's when there was ample evidence Saddam moved them out of Iraq and into Syria.....my speculation is that Bush and Putin cut a deal. And unless you have been living in a cave or deliberately not paying attention to the aforementioned Red line debacle, even the NY Times were running articles on Chemical weapons found in Iraq.

Iraq was hardly left in a state of Chaos, at least not by Bush, it may not have been perfect but it took Obamao to really Fk things up to the point where ISIS has annexed great swaths of that nation as part of the Caliphate.

Billy? Mariner and his successor-identity were both banned. Can't recall the second ID.

Quote from: quiller on November 24, 2015, 05:17:46 PM
Billy? Mariner and his successor-identity were both banned. Can't recall the second ID.

Astros Turf, as in the Jetson's dogs piss carpet.

Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2015, 05:54:23 PM
Astros Turf, as in the Jetson's dogs piss carpet.

Like that old song says --- what a difference a day makes.  :biggrin:

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crsfrqtwddkkdrffxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frkfgrrqbfxkbgsffsqgxbsdffqgqs%2F1%2F1595431%2F13159128%2Fcpftaxedshowsatrollthedoorvi-vi.png&hash=69c56b2c2b0d20d96b077749d6f1c48ab190163d)

Putin has won. We need to deal with that and we could use it to our advantage.

Quote from: quiller on November 24, 2015, 05:17:46 PM
Billy? Mariner and his successor-identity were both banned. Can't recall the second ID.

  :sad:....Awwwwwwwww I was just gettin' warmed up

Сaricature from Czechoslovakia, 1958
-
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcs628228.vk.me%2Fv628228588%2F354c2%2Fnho_WHDnoXs.jpg&hash=99d09e801aeca5951113056c45965bb859207b21)

Michael Savage on Putin and Russia:
https://youtu.be/NjF_D2f9_t4?t=14m48s

Quote from: Mariner on November 23, 2015, 12:07:46 PM
No, I don't think. The general principles seem to be the same: creating havoc to divide and conquer. Am I wrong that this has been our beloved foreign policy for the middle east (for those countries who just don't obey) for decades?

Yes.  You are wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KHCNk9BYy4

Assad is Putin's bitch. He used to be our bitch, but Obama cut him loose so Obama could side with the Muslim Brotherhood and other elements of Racial Islam. The Soviets.... er, sorry, Russians only interest in Syrian is keeping Assad in power so they can continue to base their military forces there.