RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

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.

It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

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.

It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

Will Russia defend Syria's territory and attack Turkey's forces now in Rojava ?
If so, where does that leave NATO..?
I think as it follows a unilateral act of crossing a recognised border, there is no de facto military alignment.

I think you need to look at what brimstone is used for. I also point ed out that the western air forces are being more restrictive in their use given their rules of engagement. Russian attacks are less discriminatory. It's this no surprise that they are inflicting greater casualties and hitting more targets. What is questionable is what those targets are.

The weight of the Russian attacks has been against supporting Assad offensive I the west of the country. This is not proving damaging to ISIS. No where near as much as he western use of air power on Iraq where huge swathes of country were reclaimed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity. Doc using on brimstone, as the media did, is complete rubbish. ISOS doesn't have the infrastructure to hit with a standoff capability on a lawful way in the same way that another nation state may.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sandydragon wrote:UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.

Tell that to Israel, LOL.

Should just tell the lads to go weapons free. Bollocks to Roe

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.

Tell that to Israel, LOL.

4 pages, not bad.

Sandydragon wrote:Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity.

Uh... I hardly think we're paying good money for radar and laser guided homing missiles if they can't attack fast moving targets.

and indeed a quick search of the net proves that you're talking bollocks.

The Brimstone missile, deployed on the Royal Air Force Tornado jets that went into action over Syria within hours of the House of Commons vote, uses a combined radar and laser guidance system to hit targets including fast-moving vehicles, while deploying a relatively small warhead to limit the blast zone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -syria-war

So what's your next excuse?

Sandydragon wrote:indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime.

It is indeed, I'm glad you agree. You are presumably therefore against nuclear weapons due to their extremely indiscriminate nature, right?

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
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.

It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

What on earth are you on about? The RuAF has not killed a single civilian. Not. One. Single. Civilian.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/164001/201 ... alties.htm

It's amazing what the RuAF can do with iron bombs and cluster munitions...

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity.

Uh... I hardly think we're paying good money for radar and laser guided homing missiles if they can't attack fast moving targets.

and indeed a quick search of the net proves that you're talking bollocks.

The Brimstone missile, deployed on the Royal Air Force Tornado jets that went into action over Syria within hours of the House of Commons vote, uses a combined radar and laser guidance system to hit targets including fast-moving vehicles, while deploying a relatively small warhead to limit the blast zone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -syria-war

So what's your next excuse?

This is correct, Brimstone's key feature is it's ability to independently track moving targets as well as be guided onto stationary targets. It also has a very small warhead, so it is ideal for precision strikes while minimising collateral damage. Because of this it is a poor choice for hardened targets, which is probably why the RAF have been using Paveway in Syria.

Brimstone is also shit at taking out hospitals.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

What on earth are you on about? The RuAF has not killed a single civilian. Not. One. Single. Civilian.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/164001/201 ... alties.htm

It's amazing what the RuAF can do with iron bombs and cluster munitions...

Yes it's a lie of course. There are always civilian deaths in war. Anyone who tell you otherwise just wants your agreement to go to war.

In Iraq in 2015, there were 7,000 civilian deaths caused by ISIS, and 845 civilian deaths caused by coalition airforces (13,000 and 2,000 if you include the period from June 2014 onwards).

Guess what, Cameron alsoclaims we didn't cause any civilian deaths in Iraq. That claim is equally credible as the RuAF claim.

On the subject of civilian deaths in media. The usual source quoted by our media is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It is UK based, ran by a Syrian national out of a 2 bedroom house in Coventry. In their civilian casualty figures, they include opposition combatants among the number of civilian casualties, as long as these are not former members of the military. This source is often quoted in our media about Russian inflicted civilian casualties. The fact that this source includes combatants as civilians undermines its credibility significantly in my opinion, as it shows a lack of understanding of what a civilian is, and also betrays an innate bias.

So next time you read a report about civilian deaths, please remember this context about the statistical method/definition.

Sandydragon wrote:UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to overthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to overthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to overthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to open verthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Yes. Your mistake is to accept unreliable, uncorroborated reports from propaganda outlets.

It's kind of absurd to think that the Syrian defence would be targeting Syrians, don't you think?

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Yes. Your mistake is to accept unreliable, uncorroborated reports from propaganda outlets.

It's kind of absurd to think that the Syrian defence would be targeting Syrians, don't you think?

Turkey on the other hand...

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Yes. Your mistake is to accept unreliable, uncorroborated reports from propaganda outlets.

It's kind of absurd to think that the Syrian defence would be targeting Syrians, don't you think?

It's Syrians revelling against Assad, so not really.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

What on earth are you on about? The RuAF has not killed a single civilian. Not. One. Single. Civilian.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/164001/201 ... alties.htm

It's amazing what the RuAF can do with iron bombs and cluster munitions...

Yes it's a lie of course. There are always civilian deaths in war. Anyone who tell you otherwise just wants your agreement to go to war.

In Iraq in 2015, there were 7,000 civilian deaths caused by ISIS, and 845 civilian deaths caused by coalition airforces (13,000 and 2,000 if you include the period from June 2014 onwards).

Guess what, Cameron alsoclaims we didn't cause any civilian deaths in Iraq. That claim is equally credible as the RuAF claim.

Nice try. However, when you use military force, you are obliged to avoid civilian casualties. That's what the laws of war state. Actions must be proportionate and discriminate.

There is significant effort by the like of the RAF and USAF to avoid civilian casualties, even though it's sometimes inevitable.

In Syria, neither the Russians nor the government troops seem that bothered. They are committing war crimes. The silence from the usual suspects is deafening and would be almost amusing if not for the human cost. I suppose if you turn a blind eye to reports you don't like then it's easy to ignore. Not a very honest approach though.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.

Tell that to Israel, LOL.

Assad has killed far more of his own people, yet silence. How strange.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity.

Uh... I hardly think we're paying good money for radar and laser guided homing missiles if they can't attack fast moving targets.

and indeed a quick search of the net proves that you're talking bollocks.

The Brimstone missile, deployed on the Royal Air Force Tornado jets that went into action over Syria within hours of the House of Commons vote, uses a combined radar and laser guidance system to hit targets including fast-moving vehicles, while deploying a relatively small warhead to limit the blast zone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -syria-war

So what's your next excuse?

You do realise that the RAF need to confirm that a potential target is a legitimate one. Without eyes on the ground, or a free fire policy like the Russians are. Using, they won't just blast any vehicles they see.

MSF now refuse to share their hospital locations with the Russians and Syrians. They certainly believe the attacks on their hospitals were deliberate.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... te-attacks