TTS CONUNDRUM OF THE DAY

Should the anti-war movement support Russia joining with Syria to destroy Islamic State?

Islamic State have existed for far too long. They were allowed to rise by NATO/Zionist/Gulf forces after their Plan A of unleashing international cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria a la Libya had failed, and their Plan B of a false flag to provoke a war on Syria also failed.

And throughout its existence those same forces have been encouraging and allowing their citizens to join Islamic State, assisting Islamic State with supplies, and after a year of those forces allegedly bombing Islamic State positions in Syria they now control more of Syria.

It is bleedin' obvious what is happening in Syria: Islamic State was created to destroy Syria and isolate Assad by giving the NATO/Zionist/Gulf forces the excuse to openly interfere in Syria. For how can Assad complain? If he refused he could be labelled a terrorist supporter.

Syria has done very well to have resisted the invasion of these international cutthroat Jihadis so far, but needs large scale and rapid assistance before Islamic State takes control of Damascus.

But should the anti-war movement support Russia's military intervention in Syria?

We can assume that Russia will be dropping bombs on Islamic State positions in Syria more accurately and frequently than the NATO/Zionist/Gulf forces did. But will those bombs be 100% accurate?

Most of us want Islamic State destroyed...and quickly.

But can't their bank accounts be traced and stopped?

How long could they survive without their cash? Or their supplies?

And who precisely are their financial supporters?

Who pays them for services and goods?

Where do they get their supplies from?

If they are supplied through the Turkey-Syria border then can Turkey be forced to close the border crossings into Syria?

And why has it taken Russia so long to become involved on this scale?