This was analysed before with someone of great foresight: http://m.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=pDg7xpLLuhw
just pointing out the fallacy: intervention was sought to depose assad, not to strengthen him. therefore it is not good. they called for intervention of america/west to get rid of assad - russia is fighting with and for assad. putin's russia is evil. in the end there is no escape for common muslims - you run from assad to wahabi-revolutionaries to the mad-ISIS, to ruthless russia, to iran, to hezbollah to america/coalition to arab-countries etc. everyone wants to 'help' for their own agenda. inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.
"amreeka" has only been playing Noora Kushti, and fooling everyone. now "roosiya" is helping the Shias. both are making good money too.
I'm finding the statements coming from this account stranger and stranger. It's almost making me question if he runs the account himself or is it some admirer. http://www.scn-sy.com/ar/news/view/14146.html I thought you wanted intervention in Syria? Now you got it is it not good enough? Is it the Americans that have to intervene but hasn't Russia achieved in a week what America couldn't do in a year.
