Corbyn equates Russian carpet-bombing of civilians w/ US targeted striked on ISIS

you are likely to have a pro-russian bias.

I have no doubt the Americans weren't 100% honest in their justification for the Iraq war, but maybe the reason for not just simply invading the "DPRK" is because they don't want another Iraq style situation on their hands???

and you have a pro western bias as you seem to be making excuses for them.

The situation in both countries before the war was similar and that quote isn't recent I think it was from 2003.

+1 my personal opinion is that the US are indirectly 'supporting' IS to do their dirty work for their own agenda from the beginning, which is to remove Bashar al Assad from power.

The situation in both countries before the war was similar and that quote isn't recent I think it was from 2003.

How was the situation between the two countries similar? Name five ways in which they were similar. I bet you can't name three

The United States has been continuously fighting ISIS and its predecessor, AQI, since 2003. If the Iraqi government hadn't asked US troops to leave in 2011 they would have kept fighting them and ISIS would have never arisen. The US' commitment to opposing this organisation is beyond question.

By contrast, Bashar al-Assad allowed AQI safehaven in his country during the early Iraq War years. He had an effective ceasefire and trading agreement with them until 2015 while he focused on other enemies; Assad even released thousands of jihadists from prison in late 2011 knowing they would start an insurgency which he could use to taint all rebels.

I'm sorry but claiming that the US has supported IS demonstrates that you are;

(1) Completely paranoid with almost no grasp on reality
(2) Totally credulous in believing anything you read on websites like RT and Sputnik, and other conspiracy outlets
(3) Quite simply, not very bright. It's clear you're way out of your depth on this thread.

First of all, if it wasn't for the wests invasion for its persuit for 'democracy' in Iraq as well as bogus claims Sadamm Hussain posessed WMDs there wouldn't have been 'AQI' or 'IS' today so your argument for american troop withdrawal is baseless as they facilitated the means for these extremists to come into existance by the illegal invasion they started! Were their any of the groups present in pre 2003 Iraq? Nope!

also it's funny how the US 'accidently' killed 83 syrian troops in Deir-Ez-Zoor but not 1 IS terrorist in the course of 60 minutes and as soon as the bombardment stops... IS fanatics take over!

This is not 'conspiracy' it is fact

First of all, if it wasn't for the wests invasion for its persuit for 'democracy' in Iraq as well as bogus claims Sadamm Hussain posessed WMDs there wouldn't have been 'AQI' or 'IS' today so your argument for american troop withdrawal is baseless as they facilitated the means for these extremists to come into existance by the illegal invasion they started! Were their any of the groups present in pre 2003 Iraq? Nope!

also it's funny how the US 'accidently' killed 83 syrian troops in Deir-Ez-Zoor but not 1 IS terrorist in the course of 60 minutes and as soon as the bombardment stops... IS fanatics take over!

This is not 'conspiracy' it is fact

That's not the point. The point was that the US has consistently been opposed to ISIS and its predecessor, regardless of whether the 2003 invasion "created" them or not. And accidentally creating the condtions for ISIS to thrive is not the same thing as actually directly creating or supporting them.The Deir Ezzor incident was an accident, and there is nothing credible that suggests otherwise. There were ISIS positions nearby (which had actually been bombed previously) and the coalition hit the Syrian army by mistake. ISIS are good at quickly taking advantage of weak spots, so of course they were able to quickly send fighters to take the position afterwards, it's what they do. It was also retaken by the Syrian army hours later, suggesting it was an opportunistic attack by ISIS that didn't have a lot of fighters or resources behind it.The Russians, who have a good relationship with the Syrian army and co-ordinate with them for intelligence, have bombed the Syrian army accidentally near Palmyra back in March. So it's not surprising that a country which doesn't have anywhere near that level of co-ordination made a similar mistake.

Another well known fact is that America usually end up bombing the wrong people in wars due to their gung-ho attitude.Are you seriously claiming that while bombing IS in Iraq, Syria and Libya(along with providing aid to factions fighting them on the ground) they're secretly supporting them as well?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_since_1945_with_British_victims

Libya... another marvellous success story for 'democracy'How many times has the west intervened in a country but create nothing but terror in the process of 'liberation'? do they not learn? We have had Iraq and Libya, and now it's full steam ahead in regime change in Syria.

There was a ceasefire, brokered by the Russians and Americans, between the Syrian government and the rebels; there was no ceasefire between America and Syria because they are not in conflict. When America was engaging an ISIS force at Deir ez-Zor (incidentally, they were doing this to help the Syrians) they accidentally hit a Syrian unit.

The idea that somehow the United States attacked the Syrians on purpose is a paranoid conspiracy theory typically found on sites like RT and Sputnik.

Given there was no "ceasefire" between the US and the Syrian government, as they were not in conflict, claiming it was "broken" is incoherent. The Syrians abandoned that ceasefire with the rebels around that time because they perceived it was in their interests to do so, not because some Syrian soldiers were accidentally killed when the US Air Force was going to their aid.

Also, it's unclear what any of that has to do with Corbyn laughably equating Russian carpet-bombing of Aleppo with crude unguided bombs and the US' highly targeted strikes that tend to hit the right target around 99% of the time.

There was a ceasefire, brokered by the Russians and Americans, between the Syrian government and the rebels; there was no ceasefire between America and Syria because they are not in conflict. When America was engaging an ISIS force at Deir ez-Zor (incidentally, they were doing this to help the Syrians) they accidentally hit a Syrian unit.

The idea that somehow the United States attacked the Syrians on purpose is a paranoid conspiracy theory typically found on sites like RT and Sputnik.

Given there was no "ceasefire" between the US and the Syrian government, as they were not in conflict, claiming it was "broken" is incoherent. The Syrians abandoned that ceasefire with the rebels around that time because they perceived it was in their interests to do so, not because some Syrian soldiers were accidentally killed when the US Air Force was going to their aid.

Also, it's unclear what any of that has to do with Corbyn laughably equating Russian carpet-bombing of Aleppo with crude unguided bombs and the US' highly targeted strikes that tend to hit the right target around 99% of the time.

Why is it a conspiracy theory? The americans are opposed to assad and have openly stated their desire for regime change.Do you think its completely unlikely that they would bomb syrian forces deliberately?Of course they said it was an accident.They didnt want to look like the bad guys.I highly doubt it was an accident.

I agree completely, the far left are repugnant. Out of interest, do you have any particular sources for debunking the idea that the US invaded Iraq for the oil?