CampeadorSo, if I understand correctly, if ISIS suicide bombing began taking place in Western nations, then civilian casualties in ISIS cities are acceptable? Why wait for that?
In Syria and Libya, those governments were destabilized by the jihadists themselves. Now those same jihadists have declared war on the infidel, and are fueled by Islam to establish the global caliphate. ISIS is growing not because of Syrians angry about U.S. bombings against ISIS, but rather because foreign fighters (like muslims from Europe) are going over there in droves to sign up. We cannot continue to look for justification for their Islamic lunacy.
Their other primary motivation is seeing a West that is so weak that they could actually win.
I will leave you with this quote:
“Men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
How would the cessation of bombing campaigns against ISIS prevent it from growing?
Also, another interesting (and very relevant quote) from a book that I have read and enjoy:
The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage.
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Understand that the western coalition is not looking to eliminate ISIS. Back in 2013, just around the last election the wardrums to put boots down in Syria started beating led by the Obama Administration, McCain and of all people Lindsey Graham. US citizens refused to put boots down in Syria and laughed at the proposition.
Here’s Senetor Gramhm and John McCain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4fWE23B0A0&feature=youtu.be
So we have scaremonger, Lindsey Graham in 2013 pushing the fear agenda that Syria and Iran will nuke Charlestown or New York harbor if the United States did not bomb Syria in 2013. Graham was a key mouthpiece who pushed for Syria military intervention. He propagandized fear like a terrorist would, yet this man still remains as a credible representative of the people? 


He wants 10,000 U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria. "If we don't do these things soon, what you've seen in Paris is coming to America.” He is quoted saying, “There’s a 9/11 coming after Paris.” 

He grand publicly stated that, "the United States would suffer a nuclear attack, if it did not contain Syria’s chemical weapons," which, as we have found out the 2013 chemical attacks were orchestrated by the moderate rebels and not the Assad Regime. 

BUT NOW this fucker is at it again.
The media time and time again using the same mouthpiece to spread fear and to foster an agenda. Graham states, that the next 9/11 is coming from Syria and Iraq, it is inevitable.” 

Terrifying, terrorist, terrorism, trauma, fear, control and play you like a bill. Under the 2012 NDAA passed by the Obama Administration, repeals the Smith-Mundct Act and allows the US government to legally utilize propaganda on its citizens. They are bullshitting you with legal lies.
The 2013 bombings in Syria conducted by Israel are actually indirect attacks on Iran. Syria and Iran are bound by a mutual defense pact and are strategic alliances. The US and Israel's senate resolution 65, surely to pass states that congress reaffirms the long-standing bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel, supports the full implementation of U.S. and international sanctions on Iran, recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, formerly Iran has not even decided nor has the capability to create a nuclear warhead, as stated by the CIA. It also states that if Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program the U.S. government will provide Israel with diplomatic, military, and economic support. Hence, the foreign relations committee voting to endorse resolution 65 (April 17, 2013) is the latchkey should Israel attack Iran.
By now, people should know that Israel has openly indicated its desire to use military force on Iran. Formerly, on January 30th of this year the US government affirmed that the Syrian government under Assad utilized chemical weapons against its own people. Following this event, it was revealed that a hacker leaked emails and a large quantity of sensitive documents from a UK based military contractor. Particular emails within these hacked documents were manipulated to make it look like this operation had full proof from the US government, however this is incorrect and stains the documents' credibility. Nevertheless, a plan by Qatari was to have the firm provide false evidence that Syria would give the go ahead to use chemical weapons. The documents also revealed details regarding a contract with Saudi Arabia to help prepare their forces for a War with Iran.
Three months later, on March 19th sarin gas was used in Aleppo, Syria. Israel and the US accused the Syrian government when many of those killed were Syrian government soldiers. Obama then began talking about the event as a 'RED LINE' that had been crossed. However, the UN investigated the subject and on May 6th 2013 UN investigator Carla Del Ponte went public, stating that it was in fact the Syrian rebels that utilized sarin gas and that there was no sign that the Syrian government launched any chemical attacks whatsoever. According to the lab results, investigators discovered the presence of Hexogen, which was utilized as an opening charge and is not used in standard chemical emissions. Therefore, results pointed to the attack being launched by the Syrian rebels. Mysteriously, the Obama Administration backed down from previous claims. I believe this was done to create the ostensible reason for military involvement.
Iran-backed Hezbollah weapons were said to be the target according to Israel. The real motive however, was to derail Syria's progress in their fight against foreign militants originally from Lebanon. Hezbollah, who sides with president Assad's regime, declares that it was a war against foreign backed terrorists. Iran has sent over 4,000 troops to aid Assad and Russia s-300, have responded to take Syria's side as well as China. This is all about how Iran has one of the largest oil reserves; in addition they are not cooperating with the US. The USA's excuse to invade Syria is an excuse to draw Iran into an exposed conflict.
NATO and the US have been running a proxy war by arming and funding the FSA. Funneling these resources through their allies in the region. To obscure the source of this support, Qatar has been used to purchase the weapons from countries like Sudan and route them to Syria via Turkey. Qatar is a close military ally of the US; they provided tank support in the Gulf War and served as the US Central Command Headquarters during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The US government has now openly admitted to funding, arming and training the Syrian rebels.
Following this event, the US increased their support significantly. In July of 2013, the US openly began discussing kinetic strikes against Syria as if their lies hadn't been exposed. Shortly after, on August 21st 2013 the US attempted once again to frame the Syrian government. Initially, the media coverage tried to pin the attack on the Syrian government and the US and France instantly came out condemning Assad. By August 24th the Pentagon already announced plans for missile strikes. That very day the Syrian army came forward with footage to back up their report that they uncovered a massive chemical weapons stash in Rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburbs of Jawbar. This is the exact neighborhood of where the chemical weapon attacks took place. On May 31st 2013 Turkey finds a 2kg cylinder filled with sarin gas in homes of Syrian militants. On July 7th the Syrian army went public regarding a chemical lab that they found belonging to the Syrian rebels outside the city of Damascus.
What is the motive? The only parties that benefit from the ensuing attack are the Syrian rebels, the US and its allies. The Syrian government knows full well that NATO and the US have been looking for any accuse to invade. The rebels on the other hand have already been caught committing ruthless killings as well as creating fake videos of civilian casualties. Two days after the attack, the Syrian rebels release a video statement vowing to strike back with any and all means. They claimed to have access to chemical weapons and that they now intended to use them with zero misgivings from this point forward. Basically, they are using their own crime for a pretext to openly utilize chemical weapons in battle.
If the US invades a lot of civilians will die. Their situation is not going to be enhanced by the US attacking, anymore than it was in Iraq and these limited strikes are no different than chemical weapons. Western nations have a conditioned aversion to chemical weapons. Historically, because of the conditions of World War 1 their usage became taboo. In any case, the very actuality of the taboo permits Western nations to selectively cite use of chemical weapons as reasons for military action. This use is, of course selective; if it's a client regime using them against enemies of the US or its allies, no enforcement, and perhaps even outright aid, as in the case of Iraq against Iran. And of course it's all hypocritical, and downright irrational: hence the importance of media saturation campaigns and consistent government propaganda concerning WMDs.
So is the western agenda still the same as it was 2 years ago? "Obama administration now admits Assad MUST go before ISIS can be defeated: President plans to focus on Syria and ousting brutal dictator as he tries to beat back terror group," Very strange when Assad is an enemy of ISIS, which if he was to be ousted would pave way for ISIS control over that region. It would make more sense to work as a coalition force to destroy ISIS in Syria leaving the reduced and concentrated in the killing sand hoc of Iraq.
We understand that there are various agendas at play. ISIS wants to engender a Salafist state and make its presence all throughout Syria. Russia is helping the legitimate government of Syria bomb the Islamic state. Russia has been supplying Assad with weapons for years, and have continued to do so throughout the Syrian civil war. The United States does not back the Assad regime. The official policy of the U.S. with respect to Assad is regime change by any means possible. If that means covertly backing rebel proxies to destabilize the region than that is what they must do.
Hence, the US government is edging for regime change. Moreover, the financial elites are longing the expansion of the Rothschild Central Banking fiat currency system. (Only Syria, and Iran have independent central banks in the Middle East.... most recent example was Libya.) Another motive could be for Oil-and-gas as well as control of the money. Like the rest of the "axis of evil," Syria doesn't have a private central bank. Maybe I'm giving the United States too much leverage, I do not know, could it be due to a pipeline?
Frederic Hof, a member of the Syrian Crisis Committee as well as a member of the Atlantic Council. 

President Obama conferred on Ambassador Hof the rank of ambassador in connection with his new duties as special adviser for transition in Syria. So where did this guy come from? Armitage International L.C. Consulting Group. Have you ever heard of the Armitage International L.C. group before? Founded by Richard (ie Dick) Armitage, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State. This guy arguably, is the architect of the invasion in Iraq for the exact reasons that are happening in Syria. This is from his entry in the book of knowledge:
"In 1998, Armitage signed "The Project for the New American Century" letter (PNAC Letter) to President Bill Clinton. The letter urged Clinton to target the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq due to erosion of the Gulf War Coalition's containment policy and the resulting possibility that Iraq might develop weapons of mass destruction.
During the 2000 Presidential election campaign, he served as a foreign policy adviser to George W. Bush as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice that called itself The Vulcans."
So the path is we've got the project manager - the guy who works for Armitage, the one who works to get us in Iraq, Project for a New American Century, and he gets his guy put in charge there to stirring it up so we can build this pipeline. Nonetheless, If the rebels takeover, Russia will not have any ally in the region. Syria is a very strategic ally, in term of economy; defense point; presence in the region. At this point, Russia cannot afford to lose it's only ally in the region.

 Meanwhile we never get a similar story about analyzing US support for Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc... or even Libya and Egypt.

Saudi tanks crush protesters in Bahrain, barely makes news. Instead we are bombarded with Assad committing terrine atrocities, many of which have been proven to be false. I'm not saying Assad is a good person his army very much has committed atrocities. So why not mention US frustration with their rebel allies at same time as Russian frustration. There are various claims that the rebels used chemical weapons including MIT study and respected leading weapons inspector.
Obviously, the reason Russia supports Syria, same reason US supports every country in middle east that hosts US military bases, whether or not protests or dictatorship, or government snipers killing people. THE REASON: Syria hosts Russia bases and buys Russian military weapons.
There are multiple militant groups in Syria including but not limited to: ISIS, other miscellaneous Islamist extremist groups that are not directly affiliated with ISIS, Syrian rebel groups that are fighting against the Assad government (these are not mutually exclusive with ISIS or other islamist militants). There is not much clarity about the alignment and backing of the various rebel groups. It's a clusterfuck basically. The targets that Russia bombed are groups that have been fighting against the Assad regime. There is not much agreement about which groups they bombed. We only know that it wasn't Assad's army. Like with any war, civilians die. Assad has killed civilians, the French airstrikes have killed civilians, same can be said about Russia and the US.
Jihadists have declared war on the infidel, they all have individual agendas, like you said "they are fueled by Islam to establish the global caliphate.” Yet, western nations primary goal is not to end ISIS but to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria.
"I think the US created the overall conditions for the rise of ISIS but that its ME allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc) were the ones who actually funded and supplied these jihadi groups. Defining responsibility depends on what you consider the most important aspect and where you draw the starting line. If US covert operations are not directly behind the dissent and protests in these countries as the aforementioned wikileaks document would suggest they are directly behind it, we're coming in after the fact and supporting the dissenters, which has already been proven to be true. However, this is not only done by the US alone, but by many other countries as well. The US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any means necessary, either by utilizing economic hit men, jackals or via destabilizing the region by stirring up a salafist principality in the region, i.e. ISIS. And that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government, not what other impacts the action might have... In public, the US was opposed to Islamist terrorists everywhere; but in private it saw the potential threat to the legitimate government of Syria from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists as an opportunity that the US should take action to try to increase. Destabilization is and will always be a requirement for overthrowing a government. It's the primary reason an external force would do so."
For References:::
The December 2006 cable.
The "possible actions" that were suggested in the cable:
-- PUBLICITY: Publicly highlighting the consequences of the ongoing investigation a la Mehlis causes Bashar personal angst and may lead him to act irrationally. ...
-- PUBLICITY: Publicly highlighting the consequences of the ongoing investigation a la Mehlis causes Bashar personal angst and may lead him to act irrationally. ...
-- PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. ... we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue.
-- ADDITIONAL DESIGNATIONS: Targeted sanctions against regime members and their intimates are generally welcomed by most elements of Syrian society. ...
-- We should continue to encourage the Saudis and others to allow Khaddam access to their media outlets, providing him with venues for airing the SARG's dirty laundry. ...
-- ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING: The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like Khaddam and Rif'at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards.
-- HIGHLIGHTING FAILURES OF REFORM: Highlighting failures of reform, especially in the run-up to the 2007 Presidential elections, is a move that Bashar would find highly embarrassing and de-legitimizing. Comparing and contrasting puny Syrian reform efforts with the rest of the Middle East would also embarrass and irritate Bashar.
-- DISCOURAGE FDI, ESPECIALLY FROM THE GULF: Syria has enjoyed a considerable up-tick in foreign direct investment (FDI) in the last two years that appears to be picking up steam. ...
-- HIGHLIGHT KURDISH COMPLAINTS: Highlighting Kurdish complaints in public statements, including publicizing human rights abuses will exacerbate regime's concerns about the Kurdish population. Focus on economic hardship in Kurdish areas and the SARG's long-standing refusal to offer citizenship to some 200,000 stateless Kurds. This issue would need to be handled carefully, since giving the wrong kind of prominence to Kurdish issues in Syria could be a liability for our efforts at uniting the opposition, given Syrian (mostly Arab) civil society's skepticism of Kurdish objectives.
-- Publicize presence of transiting (or externally focused) extremist groups in Syria, not limited to mention of Hamas and PIJ. Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback. The SARG's argument (usually used after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of terrorism should be used against it to give greater prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria.
Boiled down, it's simple. The western governments are supporting ISIS, not fighting them. We have different competing interests there with various state and non state actors. We have interventionist ideals. Wahhabi support groups various interests. Dozens of other umbrella groups that have their own interests. Al-Nusra, the Islamic Front, Daesh, Free Syrian Army groups, all with different alliances and secular and theocratic relationships. From the Kurds, the SDF, YPG, the CIA, Hezbollah, various paramilitaries, etc.
Stop believing politicians!
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/799911/France--39-s-Former-Foreign-Minister--UK-Government-Prepared-War-in-Syria-Two-Years-Before-2011-Protests