RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Completely contradicts Sandy

Look at the date. The weeks previous have been no where near that balanced in their attacks. Maybe this is a shift, but given the Syrian governments ground offensives against other Rebel groups in the West of the country, ISIS isn't a priority for Russia at the moment.

If you look back through previous reports, you will see that Russia has consistently targetted the area around Deir-es-Zour. Of course, the reason for that is that this is a Syrian Government controlled pocket controlling a majorly strategic crossroads. You are correct in as much as other ISIS controlled areas have received very little attention from the Russian Airforce.

An example from early January

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Russian and/or Syrian airforces now targetting hospitals. MSF report that in the most recent attack, their hospital in Ma’arat Al Numan was hit in two seperate attacks, a fairly clear indication that it was a deliberate objective. That's the third hospital this week.

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-least- ... tack-idlib

Turkish artillery also hit a children's hospital. One one gives a shit it seems.

I see, so your position is that Turkish artillery hitting a children's hospital (which is also a war crime) means free fire for the Russian Airforce on all hospitals.

Nice to know.

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Completely contradicts Sandy

Look at the date. The weeks previous have been no where near that balanced in their attacks. Maybe this is a shift, but given the Syrian governments ground offensives against other Rebel groups in the West of the country, ISIS isn't a priority for Russia at the moment.

If you look back through previous reports, you will see that Russia has consistently targetted the area around Deir-es-Zour. Of course, the reason for that is that this is a Syrian Government controlled pocket controlling a majorly strategic crossroads. You are correct in as much as other ISIS controlled areas have received very little attention from the Russian Airforce.

An example from early January

The simple explanation for the Russian targeting is that they are trying to keep Assad in power. The rebels nearer the Western coast of Syria pose a much clearer danger to the regimes stability than ISIS operating further to the East (not withstanding strategic crossing points as you rightly point out). Syria government troops and their allies are stronger in the west, thus for them to make a difference, the majority of Russian air attacks will be in direct support of those ground offensives.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Russian and/or Syrian airforces now targetting hospitals. MSF report that in the most recent attack, their hospital in Ma’arat Al Numan was hit in two seperate attacks, a fairly clear indication that it was a deliberate objective. That's the third hospital this week.

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-least- ... tack-idlib

Turkish artillery also hit a children's hospital. One one gives a shit it seems.

I see, so your position is that Turkish artillery hitting a children's hospital (which is also a war crime) means free fire for the Russian Airforce on all hospitals.

Nice to know.

Theres an interesting article on Bellingcat regarding the use of Russian air force cluster bombs in a civilian area. Anyone who thinks that the rules of warfare have been followed in this conflict has been asleep for the past few years.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Turkish artillery also hit a children's hospital. One one gives a shit it seems.

I see, so your position is that Turkish artillery hitting a children's hospital (which is also a war crime) means free fire for the Russian Airforce on all hospitals.

Nice to know.

Theres an interesting article on Bellingcat regarding the use of Russian air force cluster bombs in a civilian area. Anyone who thinks that the rules of warfare have been followed in this conflict has been asleep for the past few years.

Yes, the silence from the hand-wringing tendency over the Russian use of cluster bombs has been deafening. There are some, frankly gruesome, videos on Youtube of the results on Syrian civilians. I'm sure that Zhivago will have some convincing excuse, though.

Sandydragon wrote:
The simple explanation for the Russian targeting is that they are trying to keep Assad in power. The rebels nearer the Western coast of Syria pose a much clearer danger to the regimes stability than ISIS operating further to the East (not withstanding strategic crossing points as you rightly point out). Syria government troops and their allies are stronger in the west, thus for them to make a difference, the majority of Russian air attacks will be in direct support of those ground offensives.

Absolutely, and it says a lot about their mindset that they refuse to be honest about it. Frankly, everyone knows that this is why they are there, but they continue to obfuscate with wildly exaggerated claims about what they are doing to ISIS. It seems that maskirova is a deeply embedded instinct in Muscovy.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Russian and/or Syrian airforces now targetting hospitals. MSF report that in the most recent attack, their hospital in Ma’arat Al Numan was hit in two seperate attacks, a fairly clear indication that it was a deliberate objective. That's the third hospital this week.

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-least- ... tack-idlib

Turkish artillery also hit a children's hospital. No one gives a shit it seems.

I see, so your position is that Turkish artillery hitting a children's hospital (which is also a war crime) means free fire for the Russian Airforce on all hospitals.

Nice to know.

No, I'm pointing out that the first casualty in war is the truth. Obviously I don't think such targets are legitimate nor indeed will I ever apologise for war. I think it's the wholly unnecessary suffering of normal people when world elites (for want of a better term) vie for wealth resources.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Completely contradicts Sandy

Look at the date. The weeks previous have been no where near that balanced in their attacks. Maybe this is a shift, but given the Syrian governments ground offensives against other Rebel groups in the West of the country, ISIS isn't a priority for Russia at the moment.

War on two fronts, would you not prioritise? My point is that Russia is not focusing on ISIS as much as the others because it makes more sense from a strategic perspective to achieve victory on the one front first. Russia is acting primarily for Assad, this I don't deny. But ISIS is not ignored as such.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Turkish artillery also hit a children's hospital. No one gives a shit it seems.

I see, so your position is that Turkish artillery hitting a children's hospital (which is also a war crime) means free fire for the Russian Airforce on all hospitals.

Nice to know.

No, I'm pointing out that the first casualty in war is the truth. Obviously I don't think such targets are legitimate nor indeed will I ever apologise for war. I think it's the wholly unnecessary suffering of normal people when world elites (for want of a better term) vie for wealth resources.

You've demonstrated that ably yourself.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Completely contradicts Sandy

Look at the date. The weeks previous have been no where near that balanced in their attacks. Maybe this is a shift, but given the Syrian governments ground offensives against other Rebel groups in the West of the country, ISIS isn't a priority for Russia at the moment.

War on two fronts, would you not prioritise? My point is that Russia is not focusing on ISIS as much as the others because it makes more sense from a strategic perspective to achieve victory on the one front first. Russia is acting primarily for Assad, this I don't deny. But ISIS is not ignored as such.

I don't have a problem with them prioritising. My issue is with them lying about it. They have also denied using cluster munitions and targeting hospitals (laughably claiming that they allowed US aircraft to make attacks 65Km from Russian headquarters) when the facts tell a different story.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Look at the date. The weeks previous have been no where near that balanced in their attacks. Maybe this is a shift, but given the Syrian governments ground offensives against other Rebel groups in the West of the country, ISIS isn't a priority for Russia at the moment.

War on two fronts, would you not prioritise? My point is that Russia is not focusing on ISIS as much as the others because it makes more sense from a strategic perspective to achieve victory on the one front first. Russia is acting primarily for Assad, this I don't deny. But ISIS is not ignored as such.

I don't have a problem with them prioritising. My issue is with them lying about it. They have also denied using cluster munitions and targeting hospitals (laughably claiming that they allowed US aircraft to make attacks 65Km from Russian headquarters) when the facts tell a different story.

Agreed. The lumping together of all anti-Assad opposition into the same terrorist pot is u helpful. There were legislate grips about Assad before the Arab Spring,it's not a huge surprise that there is an armed rebellion when the population are being gunned down in large numbers.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
War on two fronts, would you not prioritise? My point is that Russia is not focusing on ISIS as much as the others because it makes more sense from a strategic perspective to achieve victory on the one front first. Russia is acting primarily for Assad, this I don't deny. But ISIS is not ignored as such.

I don't have a problem with them prioritising. My issue is with them lying about it. They have also denied using cluster munitions and targeting hospitals (laughably claiming that they allowed US aircraft to make attacks 65Km from Russian headquarters) when the facts tell a different story.

Agreed. The lumping together of all anti-Assad opposition into the same terrorist pot is u helpful. There were legislate grips about Assad before the Arab Spring,it's not a huge surprise that there is an armed rebellion when the population are being gunned down in large numbers.

Especially unhelpful when they are referred to as 'moderate' rebels. Moderate compared to what? A religio-fascist death cult??

cashead wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Agreed. The lumping together of all anti-Assad opposition into the same terrorist pot is u helpful. There were legislate grips about Assad before the Arab Spring,it's not a huge surprise that there is an armed rebellion when the population are being gunned down in large numbers.

Especially unhelpful when they are referred to as 'moderate' rebels. Moderate compared to what? A religio-fascist death cult??

That would be technically correct though.

It's a value loaded word in the sense that it has a positive connotation. That's what makes it propaganda in this instance, as it does not reflect fairly the value of what it describes. The word distorts the reader's estimation of the value of the thing (the rebels in this case). If the reader bothers to dig into the detail about the rebels, they would not describe them as moderate.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I don't have a problem with them prioritising. My issue is with them lying about it. They have also denied using cluster munitions and targeting hospitals (laughably claiming that they allowed US aircraft to make attacks 65Km from Russian headquarters) when the facts tell a different story.

Agreed. The lumping together of all anti-Assad opposition into the same terrorist pot is u helpful. There were legislate grips about Assad before the Arab Spring,it's not a huge surprise that there is an armed rebellion when the population are being gunned down in large numbers.

Especially unhelpful when they are referred to as 'moderate' rebels. Moderate compared to what? A religio-fascist death cult??

Or indeed the Syrian regime.

Zhivago wrote:

cashead wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Especially unhelpful when they are referred to as 'moderate' rebels. Moderate compared to what? A religio-fascist death cult??

That would be technically correct though.

It's a value loaded word in the sense that it has a positive connotation. That's what makes it propaganda in this instance, as it does not reflect fairly the value of what it describes. The word distorts the reader's estimation of the value of the thing (the rebels in this case). If the reader bothers to dig into the detail about the rebels, they would not describe them as moderate.

No, you learn that there is a very wide variety of beliefs in those described as Terrorists. As I pointed out below, and as you quoted yourself, the alliances made in Syria are as much about desperation as shared ideology.

Press Briefing (16 February 2016)

Sandydragon wrote: No, you learn that there is a very wide variety of beliefs in those described as Terrorists. As I pointed out below, and as you quoted yourself, the alliances made in Syria are as much about desperation as shared ideology.

The West is desperate enough to be openly arming and running air support for their Al Qaeda buddies. Not so much shared ideology as shared interests in destroying Syria, I'd say.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

cashead wrote: That would be technically correct though.

It's a value loaded word in the sense that it has a positive connotation. That's what makes it propaganda in this instance, as it does not reflect fairly the value of what it describes. The word distorts the reader's estimation of the value of the thing (the rebels in this case). If the reader bothers to dig into the detail about the rebels, they would not describe them as moderate.

No, you learn that there is a very wide variety of beliefs in those described as Terrorists. As I pointed out below, and as you quoted yourself, the alliances made in Syria are as much about desperation as shared ideology.

Ok, so you've dug into the detail. Would you describe them as moderate?

Or are you only contrasting Russian narrative of 'terrorists'?

500 'insurgents' go to Azaz ftom Turkey..this place is a link between Turkey and Aleppo.
Kurds would like to join Afrin & Kobane through this area, Turkey would be mortified.
No guessing where Russia sits with this..and Ankara is already blaming Kurdish terrorist 'pawns' ( of Russia ) for the latest deadly bomb.
Will T. risk ground forces alone, or with Saudi's ..
Massive stakes for Turkey,Russia & NATO, even Iran...who's got the twitchy finger ?

Galfon wrote:500 'insurgents' go to Azaz ftom Turkey..this place is a link between Turkey and Aleppo.
Kurds would like to join Afrin & Kobane through this area, Turkey would be mortified.
No guessing where Russia sits with this..and Ankara is already blaming Kurdish terrorist 'pawns' ( of Russia ) for the latest deadly bomb.
Will T. risk ground forces alone, or with Saudi's ..
Massive stakes for Turkey,Russia & NATO, even Iran...who's got the twitchy finger ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... ys-monitor

or 2000 in past week according to Reuters
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideas ... KKCN0VR0RH

Sandydragon wrote:You do realise that's one attack out of dozens? I wrote that the majority of attacks were against non ISIL targets, not that there were none.

Your first statement was they weren't attacking 'ISIS' at all.

You do realise that Russian airstrikes have done more damage to 'ISIS' in 3 months than the US and its poodles have done in 18 months, don't you?

The US doesn't really want to bomb it's own proxies and it doesn't really want to cut the oil flow to Sultan Erdogan and Israel after all. There's big money being made in that trade. And it cost a lot of money to create the 'ISIS' boogeyman operation.

That they are bombing the other liver eaters more is not in contention. The entire point of their mission is to assist Syria in expelling the western backed jihadis from Syria, and that obviously started with the populated areas and the supply lines from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

Your black pajama clad friends and all their US supplied equipment control a lot of uninhabited wasteland but not much in the way of civilisation.

Your real problem, aside from your ingrained bigotry and automatic loathing against all things Russian, stems from the fact that you think the western ruling class psychopaths and their GCC monarchist buds that you channel have some sort of right to dictate to Syrians how they are governed and who will lead them. And the Russians don't agree.

And no person of conscience, Russian, Western or other could. Syria is for Syrians.

But it seems your neoconservative intellectual inspirations are quite prepared to start WW3 to prove their mastery of the universe.

I suspect cooler heads will prevail in the short term. But unless your neoconservative faction is rooted out of power these flash points will continue and one day it will all go wrong and we really will have a nuclear war. And that won't go the way they think it would.

I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

One also has to question the rules of engagement. Many western sorties end in no shots being fired due to a lack of clear targets. Russia seems quite happy to hit anything in the general area and claim a success.Remember all those times you shouted against western carpet bombing and other war crimes, how do you justify this UG? Sta ngely the usual suspects have been very quieting condemning Russia for the way in which it Is using air power in Syria, I'm curious why they aren't being held to the same standard as western forces?

Sandydragon wrote:I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

On the contrary. 'ISIS' is losing territory now, in clear distinction to when the US was pretend fighting them. They expanded then. There is a consistent, credible pattern of evidence that the US and its puppets were assisting ISIS.

Which isn't surprising given that 'ISIS' is a US invention.

One also has to question the rules of engagement. Many western sorties end in no shots being fired due to a lack of clear targets. Russia seems quite happy to hit anything in the general area and claim a success.

There is no credible evidence that this is the case. And given that it is your war, where 250,000 odd people have been killed by your actions, your protestations are obscene.

Remember all those times you shouted against western carpet bombing and other war crimes, how do you justify this UG? Sta ngely the usual suspects have been very quieting condemning Russia for the way in which it Is using air power in Syria, I'm curious why they aren't being held to the same standard as western forces?

Russia is defending Syria in agreement with the legitimate Syrian authorities. There is no symmetry between US/NATO assaults on countries and those countries' defence.

One is the supreme international crime. The other is not a crime but a right.

cashead wrote:So when you say "IS is a US invention," do you want to clarify that one a bit? Are you saying "they're more-or-less the outcome of the US' fuck-ups in the region in general and more specifically, a poorly planned out and executed invasion of a couple of nearby countries due to a lack of any realistic planning in regards to what to do afterwards, along with a poorly implemented destabilisation of an existing government in Syria," or are you saying "the US has been involved with IS from word go?"

The US and its puppies actively created 'ISIS'. But the 'ISIS' you see on the prolefeed doesn't really exist.

Sandydragon wrote:I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

Simply lies. ISIS has lost significant ground to Russia/Syria. At the moment this is taking place East of Aleppo and in Raqqa province.

By contrast, your beloved RAF has inflicted just 7 ISIS casualties in Syria. None via those famous Brimstone missiles our MPs claimed would be our unique contribution. Any comment Sandy? Source is FoI request from Indy.

Time period is 2nd Dec 15 - 29th Jan 16.