PDA

View Full Version : TBT


Southpaw2012
10-01-2015, 12:43 PM
Throwback Thursday for when Romney said Russia would be our greatest threat in the near future and liberals laughed.

connabard
10-01-2015, 01:11 PM
What has Russia done that makes them (y)our biggest threat?

Ozymandias
10-01-2015, 03:52 PM
Russia is Russia's biggest threat. Thus far, they seem to be lagging any number of other players for "biggest threat". China is a bigger threat to our economic predominance (and to our economy in general) and is a bigger player in cyberspace attacks. Islam is a bigger threat from a terrorist/cultural values point of view.

Russia is nothing. They don't threaten us. They threaten things we are interested in, things we've made some promises (both implicit and explicit) to protect. But at the moment, and judging from the timing of your post, you'd have a hard time claiming they're threatening us. They are hurting the enemies of ISIS, who would presumably then be freer to harm the US. So again... Russia is merely enabling a different threat. Which means, by definition, they aren't a direct threat at all.

Now I'll stop laughing at Romney and laugh at your near-total illiteracy and idiocy.

Kimon
10-01-2015, 04:19 PM
What has Russia done that makes them (y)our biggest threat?

Nothing that is an actual threat to us. They invaded Georgia while Bush was president, we issued chastisements, but otherwise did nothing. Nor should we have. Then they invaded Crimea and destabilized Eastern Ukraine. We responded with sanctions. Doing so was prudent, doing more would have been silly. And recent events in Syria? That they would be nervous about Assad nearing the brink and seek to buttress him is of no surprise. Nor is the fact that they would start hitting rebels nearest to both Assad's positions, and to their own assets - Tartus and now Latakia. We'd prefer that they focus more on ISIS, but their goal isn't just ISIS, nor is it just keeping their client-despot, Assad. They also need to ensure that Tartus and Latakia don't fall or they lose their own bases.

But should that really bother us? We have had no success with any rebels but the Kurds, who weren't targeted, so the Russians hitting these rebels really means nothing for us, as our focus should be ISIS. They have to take priority for us, it's why we've been hitting them rather than focusing on Assad. As if he fell, ISIS likely would take Damascus. Now the Russians are doing the dirty work for us. Let them take the blame in the Sunni world for saving Assad while we publicly rebuke their actions, while privately seeing that it needed to be done, abut best by someone other than us.

Davian93
10-01-2015, 06:56 PM
Throwback Thursday for when Romney said Russia would be our greatest threat in the near future and liberals laughed.

LMAO...a minor regional power playing around in one of its traditional areas of influence? Oooh, I'm shaking over here.


You're such a chickenshit. If you were so scared of everything, you'd probably be happier.

yks 6nnetu hing
10-02-2015, 01:04 AM
Throwback Thursday for when Dubya said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul and pronounced him trustworthy and everybody laughed.

fixed that for you.

here's the actual quote for you. from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia_Summit_2001).

I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship

SomeOneElse
10-02-2015, 04:03 AM
Russia is Russia's biggest threat.

Very true!Nor is the fact that they would start hitting rebels nearest to both Assad's positions,

Just out of curiosity, may you please tell me who exactly are these rebels (non-ISIS/Nusra/etc)? Everything suggests that only ISIS and Nusra are actively opposing Assad now (in the beginning there were other sides but they were wiped out later on by Assad or ISIS or whatever).
Now any non-ISIS opposition is virtually nonexistent and syrian army is definitely capable to deal with them without any help.
It is expectable that the whole world will watch after what Russia does in Syria, thus it would be extremely stupid to target anything except ISIS. At the same time, ISIS is the greatest threat for Assad which he couldn't handle.

Kimon
10-02-2015, 03:56 PM
Just out of curiosity, may you please tell me who exactly are these rebels (non-ISIS/Nusra/etc)? Everything suggests that only ISIS and Nusra are actively opposing Assad now (in the beginning there were other sides but they were wiped out later on by Assad or ISIS or whatever).
Now any non-ISIS opposition is virtually nonexistent and syrian army is definitely capable to deal with them without any help.
It is expectable that the whole world will watch after what Russia does in Syria, thus it would be extremely stupid to target anything except ISIS. At the same time, ISIS is the greatest threat for Assad which he couldn't handle.

There isn't a simple answer to your question, because while Assad, ISIS, al-Nusra, and the Kurds are the four largest players in the civil war, there are also myriad other rebels forces actively trying to overthrow Assad, most for legitimate grounds, as his brutal response to the demonstrations that precipitated this insurrection 2 years ago has led him down the road to the dire and precarious situation in which he now finds himself. That brutality is without question. What is in question is whether or not if he fell if what replaced him would be worse - e.g. ISIS ruling a Damascus based caliphate, rather than a Raqqa and Mosul based one. I personally think the answer to that is yes, unless some power sends in ground troops. Maybe that will be you. Clearly we do not want it to be us.

Nonetheless, the rebels that your government has been hitting has not been, at least so far, ISIS or al-Nusra. Likely this is simply because Putin has decided that all opposition to Assad is equally a problem for Russian interests, and as such, he has painted all the rebels in Russian media as being terrorists, and as ISIS, as a way of selling to the Russian people the necessity of the mission. Western media, being outside of state control, is not completely immune to propaganda (e.g. Fox), but is still more reliable.

Here's the analysis of the New York Times, tracking the Russian airstrikes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html

You'll notice that the strikes are centered mostly at targets near bordering between non-ISIS held rebel territory bordering Assad's positions in the east, near the Mediterranean. In contrast to the vast majority of strikes, only two appear farther east in ISIS held territory. This isn't a surprise. First priority for the Russians is understandably securing Tartus and Assad. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not ISIS targets that Russia was focusing on.

Here is a comment on just this fact by the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34411653

Coverage of Russian air strikes in Syria has been leading news bulletins on Russian state television. Reports spoke of jets targeting the Islamist al-Nusra Front as well as so-called Islamic State (IS).
But mostly Russian media simply calls the targets "IS" or "terrorists".

Here's an overview on the various rebel groups from the BBC - it is unfortunately a bit old, so outdated caveats apply, but should make clear that this is not as simple a picture as Russian media seems to portray.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003

I still don't think this is such a big deal, unless, like Turkey, Russia starts targeting the Kurds. Russia hitting these other, non-ISIS, Sunni rebel groups is predictable. It does however also carry a high potential for long-term problems, as it will aggravate Turkey, the Saudis, and all the other Sunni backers of those groups. It's why we've been staying away from them. The Sunni nations all want Assad out. Russia is essentially poking a hornet's nest. That might be unavoidable, but as I said, better that Russia gets blamed by the Sunni world than us.

SomeOneElse
10-03-2015, 11:01 AM
Maybe that will be you.That is not likely to happen unless we want a new Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, the rebels that your government has been hitting has not been, at least so far, ISIS or al-Nusra. Likely this is simply because Putin has decided that all opposition to Assad is equally a problem for Russian interests, and as such, he has painted all the rebels in Russian media as being terrorists, and as ISIS, as a way of selling to the Russian people the necessity of the mission. Western media, being outside of state control, is not completely immune to propaganda (e.g. Fox), but is still more reliable.

Here's the analysis of the New York Times, tracking the Russian airstrikes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.htmlThat article lists organizations like Fatah Army, ansar ash-shariah etc, even their names clearly suggest who they are. I don't see any significant difference between them and ISIS, especially given the fact that they often operate together.
Also a quote from NY times article that I find very interesting:
In the South, the Southern Front is a coalition of smaller armed groups that has coordinated with the United States. The coalition supports a secular government. the author doesn't even bother naming these secular groups since they have zero impact currently.
So the alternative is Assad or these ISIS/Ansar alshareah/Nusra/Jayesh al-fatah etc. If you see any other group that could replace Assad and, at the same time, doesn't want to build a khalifate and is able to defeat ISIS and other scum (Nusra etc) pls name it.

You'll notice that the strikes are centered mostly at targets near bordering between non-ISIS held rebel territory bordering Assad's positions in the east, near the Mediterranean. In contrast to the vast majority of strikes, only two appear farther east in ISIS held territory. This isn't a surprise. First priority for the Russians is understandably securing Tartus and Assad.Here you're right I think.
Also note that, As our officials declare, they would like to cooperate with the syrian army supporting their ground operations by airstrikes rather than to destroy ISIS using our air forces which isn't realistic.

Here is a comment on just this fact by the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34411653
From the article:
Coverage of Russian air strikes in Syria has been leading news bulletins on Russian state television. Reports spoke of jets targeting the Islamist al-Nusra Front as well as so-called Islamic State (IS).

But mostly Russian media simply calls the targets "IS" or "terrorists".So, the problem is only that Russia targets not only ISIS but also other terrorist groups which are ideologically very close? Or just our media naming them "terrorists"?
To be honest, Russian medias often mansion Nusra and other groups including Jayesh al-islam (who declared a "war" against us shortly after the operation started).


Russia hitting these other, non-ISIS, Sunni rebel groups is predictable. It does however also carry a high potential for long-term problems, as it will aggravate Turkey, the Saudis, and all the other Sunni backers of those groups.Turks, Saudis and all others should get out of Syria. They are the biggest problem since they created and financed all these countless islamist groups, not Russia/Assad.
However,I also doubt this operation shall dramatically change the situation. Syria, thanks to both Turkey and other saudis and the west, already turned to be a fucked up place and whatever happens it won't recover in any near future.

The Sunni nations all want Assad out.And what? Russia and probably some others "want Obama out", but does that change anything?

better that Russia gets blamed by the Sunni world than us.Russia is already commonly recognized as an anomy by the sunni world, so that also won't change anything.

Kimon
10-03-2015, 01:09 PM
That article lists organizations like Fatah Army, ansar ash-shariah etc, even their names clearly suggest who they are. I don't see any significant difference between them and ISIS, especially given the fact that they often operate together.


Yeah, they're Muslim. Not exactly surprising that many of them would be religious. That doesn't mean that they are all terrorists, but it does create the problem of who to trust. Currently, the only rebel force that I trust at all, and even that is mostly by comparison to all the other bad options, is the Kurds. That is why I said it neither surprised me, not really bothers me that Russia is hitting these groups. But it is bothering Turkey, who is sponsoring these Sunni rebel groups (and maybe tacitly sponsoring ISIS...).

Putin clearly has decided that keeping Assad is worth pissing off the rest of the neighborhood - except Iran and Hezbollah, the only two other proximate forces that support Assad, since like him, they are Shia. We are trying to balance supporting both Turkey's goals and supporting the Kurds. Just realize that this will have consequences in the Sunni world for Russia. But then, as I said, better that they be pissed at you than at us.

Turks, Saudis and all others should get out of Syria. They are the biggest problem since they created and financed all these countless islamist groups, not Russia/Assad.
However,I also doubt this operation shall dramatically change the situation. Syria, thanks to both Turkey and other saudis and the west, already turned to be a fucked up place and whatever happens it won't recover in any near future.

Assad's main problem is that he is a Shia warlord in a majority Sunni nation. With Russian help he can maybe hold onto the west - which is likely all that Russia really cares about, since it's that access to Tartus and the Mediterranean that is really what matters strategically for Russia. But not even with Russian help can he retake the rest of Syria. This will either end with a partitioning of Syria or a Sunni government ruling all of Syria from Damascus. If that latter possibility didn't likely mean ISIS taking Damascus, I'd be less inclined to support the former, but due to that concern I still think the best option is trying to sell Turkey on the idea of partition. They don't want that since they don't want either Assad or the Kurds to come out of this with a presence, but if Russia's entry into the civil war forces them to make that concession - still the best outcome in my opinion.

Davian93
10-03-2015, 06:25 PM
Irony: Us criticizing/condemning the Russian air strikes in Syria and then us going and bombing a hospital...

Whoops.

GonzoTheGreat
10-04-2015, 04:07 AM
But when we bomb it then that proves that it was a terrorist hospital, doesn't it?

Kimon
10-04-2015, 11:39 PM
But when we bomb it then that proves that it was a terrorist hospital, doesn't it?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34440965

The Afghan Government apparently is trying to justify it with just this rationale...

On Saturday the Afghan defence ministry said "armed terrorists" were using the hospital "as a position to target Afghan forces and civilians".
MSF said in a statement: "These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital - with more than 180 staff and patients inside - because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.

"This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimise the attack as 'collateral damage.'"
US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said on Sunday that a full, transparent investigation would be conducted into whether the US military could be linked to the attack.
MSF re-iterated its demand for an independent investigation by an international body.

Twelve MSF staff members and 10 patients were killed when the hospital was hit.
Dozens were injured and the hospital severely damaged by a series of air strikes lasting more than an hour from 02:00 local time on Saturday morning.
On its Twitter feed, MSF said: "The hospital was repeatedly and precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched.
"Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the hospital compound prior to the US air strike on Saturday morning."


I agree with the MSF. This is a war crime. Whoever authorized this strike should face a court martial.

Davian93
10-05-2015, 07:20 AM
This is a war crime. Whoever authorized this strike should face a court martial.

This is America, we don't indict war criminals...we elect them to Congress:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/14/article-2085872-0F737EB000000578-146_306x423.jpg

Khoram
10-05-2015, 08:45 AM
On its Twitter feed, MSF said: "The hospital was repeatedly and precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched.

And these blast points, too accurate for sand people. Only imperial storm troopers are so precise.

Ivhon
10-05-2015, 09:50 AM
And these blast points, too accurate for sand people. Only imperial storm troopers are so precise.

Ive always had a problem with that line...

Kimon
10-05-2015, 11:20 AM
It was already obvious, but we've admitted now that it was us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34447792

"We have now learned that on 3 October, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from US air forces," said Gen Campbell, the top commander of the US-led Nato coalition in Afghanistan.
"An air strike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck." He expressed his "deepest condolences" over the civilian deaths.

So apparently our excuse is either that we didn't bother to verify the target, or that we simply didn't care.

Davian93
10-05-2015, 12:54 PM
If you cant trust local Afghani forces, who can you trust...


Next you'll try to tell me that during our initial invasion in 2001, they simply made up stories of their tribal rivals being Taliban supporters so they could sell them to us for a quick buck and to eliminate said rival.

That'd be ridiculous.

Ivhon
10-05-2015, 07:23 PM
If you cant trust local Afghani forces, who can you trust...


Next you'll try to tell me that during our initial invasion in 2001, they simply made up stories of their tribal rivals being Taliban supporters so they could sell them to us for a quick buck and to eliminate said rival.

That'd be ridiculous.

But! But! That would be.....dishonest!!!

Kimon
10-06-2015, 06:18 PM
Back on the original topic, the situation between Russia and Turkey has continued to deteriorate.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34453739

Russia's violation of Turkish airspace over the weekend "does not look like an accident", Nato has said.
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Russia had not provided "any real explanation" of the violation, which "lasted for a long time."
Russia says Saturday's incursion was brief and due to bad weather. It is examining claims of another violation.
Turkey's army also says an unidentified fighter jet locked its radar on to eight of its jets on Monday.
It echoes a similar incident on Sunday, when an unidentified Mig-29 - which analysts say may have been Syrian - locked its radar onto Turkish jets for more than five minutes over the Turkish-Syrian border.
Missile systems inside Syria were also locked on to Turkish planes for more than four minutes on Monday, the Turkish military says.


Hopefully this doesn't get too interesting, but the rhetoric is certainly getting more bellicose...

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that "an attack on Turkey means an attack on Nato"
He added: "If Russia loses a friend like Turkey, with whom it has been co-operating on many issues, it will lose a lot, and it should know that"

Rand al'Fain
10-06-2015, 08:44 PM
I don't think many in Turkey even care much about Russia right now, with everything else going on. And have to wonder about how popular Putin's decision to prop up Assad (at least for a bit longer) will be in Turkey (which has been public about not liking Assad, to put it lightly).

Kimon
10-06-2015, 09:17 PM
I don't think many in Turkey even care much about Russia right now, with everything else going on. And have to wonder about how popular Putin's decision to prop up Assad (at least for a bit longer) will be in Turkey (which has been public about not liking Assad, to put it lightly).

Turkey, due to its proximity, has been getting the largest share (more than 2 million) of the refugees fleeing the civil war. This is about more for them than just disliking Assad and the Kurds, this struggle affects them far more than it does us or Russia, or Europe. Europe has been getting a massive influx of refugees as well, most coming through from Turkey, and because Turkey is overwhelmed. Just how much of that encouragement is top down is debatable, but seems to be the general consensus that the Turkish government has been trying to export refugees into Europe, perhaps to force Europe's hand and bring them more directly into the conflict, perhaps simply because they are overwhelmed. In any case, Russia's involvement might be beneficial for us, but it certainly is not from Turkey's perspective.

As for EU negotiations with Turkey on the refugee crisis, the EU is trying to throw money at the problem to convince the Turks to stop the flow...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34451660

Rand al'Fain
10-08-2015, 12:08 AM
Well, on another forum I frequent has an international community (apparently RISK-type games are internationally popular) with a few Russians on there. And they have been following Russia's entrance into this with zealotry (no, I don't exaggerate there). And the business with Russia blatantly violating Turkey's airspace? Yeah, spun to show "how stronk Russia is!"

Also one has a major hard on for anything that can even be spun as anti-Israeli. Like this direct quote:
These are supposedly being fired by the Red Banner Caspian Flotilla, probably the anti-surface variant of the KH-35? Russia received permission from the U.S. puppet government in Baghdad to allow it to fire missiles across Iraqi territory and into Syria, showing America has now been almost completely elbowed out of the region in a matter of a week.

To drive that point home ...

Sixty-four of the S-300s are now in position on ships from the 30th Surface Ship Division off the northern Israeli coast ... if the Zionists even look at Syria again it will be the last thing they see ... according to the Zionists themselves! - Imagine a 64 page thread spanning about a year and a half with that. But I digress.

Another one doesn't quite have the way with words and posts stuff like this for truth;
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151006/1028097396/merkel-veil-tv-show-islamophobia.html
When the image itself was photoshopped and the news agency is reeling from it.

yks 6nnetu hing
10-08-2015, 01:53 AM
Well, on another forum I frequent has an international community (apparently RISK-type games are internationally popular) with a few Russians on there. And they have been following Russia's entrance into this with zealotry (no, I don't exaggerate there). And the business with Russia blatantly violating Turkey's airspace? Yeah, spun to show "how stronk Russia is!"

Also one has a major hard on for anything that can even be spun as anti-Israeli. Like this direct quote:
Imagine a 64 page thread spanning about a year and a half with that. But I digress.

Another one doesn't quite have the way with words and posts stuff like this for truth;
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151006/1028097396/merkel-veil-tv-show-islamophobia.html
When the image itself was photoshopped and the news agency is reeling from it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of state propaganda. As I posted... gosh, it must be a year ago now! definitely, if not more. Russia has no independent news sources any more. Everything is state owned, operated and approved. There are still a few bloggers that try to offer a different view but there are reports of those bloggers being severely beaten. Either by the police or by "law-abiding citizens" or by "unknown criminals". And even if they are not taken down, a blog simply does not have the same sort of general penetration as TV, radio and newspapers.

much like 20-30 years ago, Russia is attempting to war its way out of a financial disaster. This will end badly for Russia, they'll implode again. sooner or later. Unfortunately, this is also having very bad reprecussions on non-Russians, and that's happening right now.

Davian93
10-08-2015, 07:05 AM
Welcome to the wonderful world of state propaganda. As I posted... gosh, it must be a year ago now! definitely, if not more. Russia has no independent news sources any more. Everything is state owned, operated and approved. There are still a few bloggers that try to offer a different view but there are reports of those bloggers being severely beaten. Either by the police or by "law-abiding citizens" or by "unknown criminals". And even if they are not taken down, a blog simply does not have the same sort of general penetration as TV, radio and newspapers.

much like 20-30 years ago, Russia is attempting to war its way out of a financial disaster. This will end badly for Russia, they'll implode again. sooner or later. Unfortunately, this is also having very bad reprecussions on non-Russians, and that's happening right now.

In Soviet Russia, financial disaster implodes you!

yks 6nnetu hing
10-08-2015, 07:11 AM
In Soviet Russia, financial disaster implodes you!

well. you know...

you have a toy. your friend has a better toy. If you break your friend's toy, this doesn't actually make *your* toy any better. But of the two of you, you now have a toy and your friend has nothing.




Yes I did compare Russia to a badly behaved toddler.

Davian93
10-08-2015, 07:14 AM
well. you know...

you have a toy. your friend has a better toy. If you break your friend's toy, this doesn't actually make *your* toy any better. But of the two of you, you now have a toy and your friend has nothing.




Yes I did compare Russia to a badly behaved toddler.

That's an insult to badly behaved toddlers everywhere.

Nazbaque
10-08-2015, 07:16 AM
well. you know...

you have a toy. your friend has a better toy. If you break your friend's toy, this doesn't actually make *your* toy any better. But of the two of you, you now have a toy and your friend has nothing.




Yes I did compare Russia to a badly behaved toddler.

Is there a country that is compareable to a well behaved toddler?

Davian93
10-08-2015, 07:19 AM
Is there a country that is compareable to a well behaved toddler?

Canada maybe?

yks 6nnetu hing
10-08-2015, 07:39 AM
That's an insult to badly behaved toddlers everywhere.

nah. I'm sure badly behaved toddlers would LOVE to play with nukes and tanks and missiles.

Davian93
10-08-2015, 07:42 AM
nah. I'm sure badly behaved toddlers would LOVE to play with nukes and tanks and missiles.

On one note, would what's left of secular Syria becoming a Russian Protectorate really be worse than the current setup?

I know that's the same as unleashing a rabid lion in the streets and hoping he attacks the right people but wouldn't it be preferable to an ISIS takeover of Assad's rump state?

yks 6nnetu hing
10-08-2015, 08:04 AM
On one note, would what's left of secular Syria becoming a Russian Protectorate really be worse than the current setup?

I know that's the same as unleashing a rabid lion in the streets and hoping he attacks the right people but wouldn't it be preferable to an ISIS takeover of Assad's rump state?

That's like asking if you'd like to be shot in the head or in the heart.

Khoram
10-08-2015, 08:44 AM
That's like asking if you'd like to be shot in the head or in the heart.

Head. People have survived gunshot wounds to the head. Gunshot wounds to the heart? Much more difficult to survive.


:rolleyes:

Nazbaque
10-08-2015, 08:50 AM
Head. People have survived gunshot wounds to the head. Gunshot wounds to the heart? Much more difficult to survive.


:rolleyes:

A shot to the head isn't necessarily a shot to the brain either.

SomeOneElse
10-08-2015, 12:53 PM
you have a toy. your friend has a better toy. If you break your friend's toy, this doesn't actually make *your* toy any better.

Wow I remember being in that exect situation and I realized my toy is the same, but I was sooooo happy that the other guy doesn't have his toy any more.On one note, would what's left of secular Syria becoming a Russian Protectorate really be worse than the current setup?

I know that's the same as unleashing a rabid lion in the streets and hoping he attacks the right people but wouldn't it be preferable to an ISIS takeover of Assad's rump state?

Do you remember Assad attacking any country (Bashar Assad, not Hafiz)?
ISIS is already doing that, so Assad is maybe comparable for his own people (though I doubt), but ISIS shall be much worse for the rest of the world. ISIS, not Assad, already organized attacks in Australia, Paris and some other places like Lybia.

The Unreasoner
10-08-2015, 01:32 PM
ISIS shall be much worse for the rest of the world. ISIS, not Assad, already organized attacks in Australia, Paris and some other places like Lybia.

Maybe your country should fight them, then. Even al-Nusra is not a credible threat to the world anymore (with the exception of their protecting khorosan). They've more or less become (at least effectively) moderate, under the influence of their Arab backers.

yks 6nnetu hing
10-08-2015, 02:04 PM
Maybe your country should fight them, then. Even al-Nusra is not a credible threat to the world anymore (with the exception of their protecting khorosan). They've more or less become (at least effectively) moderate, under the influence of their Arab backers.

er. he's Russian.






awkward.

The Unreasoner
10-08-2015, 02:07 PM
er. he's Russian.
That's my point.

ShadowbaneX
10-08-2015, 02:39 PM
Canada maybe?

Nah. You just have to go to a kids hockey league game and watch the parents. Also beer.

SomeOneElse
10-08-2015, 03:10 PM
Maybe your country should fight them, then. Even al-Nusra is not a credible threat to the world anymore (with the exception of their protecting khorosan). They've more or less become (at least effectively) moderate, under the influence of their Arab backers.

Okay, probably Nusra became moderate (though it is so gullible to believe that since Nusra in fact is a division of Al-qaeda, but let's assume you're right), but they still fight against Assad's army, who is Putin's bet since he doesn't want to send our troops there (nor does USA or any one else). So strategically it would be dumb to allow some one to be constantly attacking syrian army while they're trying to fight ISIS.
Probably these groups should declare some sort of truce with Assad until the story with ISIS is over, but, since no one has any control over them, it is not practical.

Also there's no doubt that, if ISIS is somehow removed from Syria, that Nusra (or some other jayesh al-islam) will replace it the next day. Actually, terrorism in Syria in 2011-2013 began with these groups and ISIS joined later (2013-2014).

In fact, I don't understand how could one seriously talk about supporting any of these scum salafi/wahhabi groups or even any armed group. There still is legitimate army and I don't think any syrian/international law allows these groups, even if you dislike current syrian president.

Kimon
10-08-2015, 03:54 PM
Do you remember Assad attacking any country (Bashar Assad, not Hafiz)?
ISIS is already doing that, so Assad is maybe comparable for his own people (though I doubt), but ISIS shall be much worse for the rest of the world. ISIS, not Assad, already organized attacks in Australia, Paris and some other places like Lybia.

I suppose you could argue that he was just a continuation of his father's policy in Lebanon, nonetheless, Syria didn't withdraw from Lebanon until 2005, and he has been widely presumed to have been behind the assassination of Rafic Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon. His crimes aren't just internal. That said, the potential of Damascus falling to ISIS is still worrisome. That however does not change the fact that it is mostly Turk-affiliated rebels that Russia is fighting, not ISIS.

Kimon
10-08-2015, 04:31 PM
Some of those rockets that Russia launched from the Caspian Sea seem to have fallen a bit short of their targets...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34479873

Iran's Irna news agency reported on Wednesday that an unknown flying object had crashed in the village of Ghozghapan in the Iranian province of West Azerbaijan, said to be under the missiles' flight path.
But conservative Iranian media described the reports of missiles landing in Iran as "psychological operations by the US against Moscow".

Davian93
10-08-2015, 07:52 PM
Shocker.

Rand al'Fain
10-08-2015, 08:21 PM
Welcome to the wonderful world of state propaganda. As I posted... gosh, it must be a year ago now! definitely, if not more. Russia has no independent news sources any more. Everything is state owned, operated and approved. There are still a few bloggers that try to offer a different view but there are reports of those bloggers being severely beaten. Either by the police or by "law-abiding citizens" or by "unknown criminals". And even if they are not taken down, a blog simply does not have the same sort of general penetration as TV, radio and newspapers.

much like 20-30 years ago, Russia is attempting to war its way out of a financial disaster. This will end badly for Russia, they'll implode again. sooner or later. Unfortunately, this is also having very bad reprecussions on non-Russians, and that's happening right now.
The odd thing is, 1 is in Macedonia (the one who posted the link about Merkel), one is in Canada (the anti-Israeli one), and one other is in Slovakia (and still refers to it as Yugoslavia, and has a bad case of referring to homosexuals as "cornholers", as does the one from Macedonia). So it's not like they don't have access to other forms of information or anything.

The Unreasoner
10-08-2015, 08:50 PM
Why Yugoslavia?

Also: It's nice to see that other countries have to deal with misinformed idiots too.

Kimon
10-08-2015, 09:08 PM
Why Yugoslavia?



They supported Serbia in their wars back in the 90s when they attempted to reunify Yugoslavia, and were angered by NATO's involvement in the conclusion of that war. For us that was just about stopping genocide and protecting self-determination, for the Russians it seemingly was viewed as a proxy war and American imperialism in their old Soviet backyard.

Khoram
10-08-2015, 09:16 PM
Also: It's nice to see that other countries have to deal with misinformed idiots too.

I've gotta live with it daily. Stupid sovereignists and their "Quebec is it's own country" bull. And language laws. -_-

The Unreasoner
10-08-2015, 09:22 PM
They supported Serbia in their wars back in the 90s when they attempted to reunify Yugoslavia, and were angered by NATO's involvement in the conclusion of that war. For us that was just about stopping genocide and protecting self-determination, for the Russians it seemingly was viewed as a proxy war and American imperialism in their old Soviet backyard.
I didn't know Slovakians identified with Yugoslavia though. Is there some history there? Being allies in a war doesn't usually have that effect.

ShadowbaneX
10-08-2015, 09:28 PM
I've gotta live with it daily. Stupid sovereignists and their "Quebec is it's own country" bull. And language laws. -_-

Distinct Society...

Kimon
10-08-2015, 09:33 PM
I didn't know Slovakians identified with Yugoslavia though. Is there some history there? Being allies in a war doesn't usually have that effect.

Rand, if I'm following him correctly, said this was a Russian living abroad in Slovakia. I'm not sure if many Slovaks would have those same pro-Serb inclinations, and hence be as likely to use that old name. With the Russians it just seems to be a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Yeltsin was quite adamant at the time of the war in his speeches to the UN. They considered it to be an illegal intervention, and another humiliating advance of NATO into the old Soviet sphere of influence. So calling it Yugoslavia harkens back to the good old days of the Soviet Empire.

Davian93
10-08-2015, 09:40 PM
They supported Serbia in their wars back in the 90s when they attempted to reunify Yugoslavia, and were angered by NATO's involvement in the conclusion of that war. For us that was just about stopping genocide and protecting self-determination, for the Russians it seemingly was viewed as a proxy war and American imperialism in their old Soviet backyard.

Russia trying to start a war over the Balkans...how original.

Khoram
10-08-2015, 09:47 PM
Russia trying to start a war over the Balkans...how original.

The only way that could be original is if you substituted "Russia" for "Canada" and "the Balkans" for "Quebec's rights to poutine and maple syrup".

Kimon
10-08-2015, 09:50 PM
The only way that could be original is if you substituted "Russia" for "Canada" and "the Balkans" for "Quebec's rights to poutine and maple syrup".

I've never understood the appeal of poutine. French fries should be crispy, not a soggy mush covered in gravy.

Khoram
10-08-2015, 09:52 PM
I've never understood the appeal of poutine. French fries should be crispy, not a soggy mush covered in gravy.

Not just gravy. Cheese curds, too. And they aren't all soggy. Just most of it. :D



And it's delicious.

Rand al'Fain
10-09-2015, 01:55 AM
Rand, if I'm following him correctly, said this was a Russian living abroad in Slovakia. I'm not sure if many Slovaks would have those same pro-Serb inclinations, and hence be as likely to use that old name. With the Russians it just seems to be a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Yeltsin was quite adamant at the time of the war in his speeches to the UN. They considered it to be an illegal intervention, and another humiliating advance of NATO into the old Soviet sphere of influence. So calling it Yugoslavia harkens back to the good old days of the Soviet Empire.
Yep. If he's not Russian, he's very pro-Russian.

Davian93
10-09-2015, 07:30 AM
I've never understood the appeal of poutine. French fries should be crispy, not a soggy mush covered in gravy.

Philistine!

SomeOneElse
10-09-2015, 10:51 AM
I suppose you could argue that he was just a continuation of his father's policy in Lebanon, nonetheless, Syria didn't withdraw from Lebanon until 2005, and he has been widely presumed to have been behind the assassination of Rafic Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon. His crimes aren't just internal.
My post was a reply to the one by Davian93 stating that ISIS won't be much worse than Assad. My point here is that, while Assad probably is a dictator (like almost any other ruler in the arab world), but he is not likely to invade other countries. ISIS (as well as all other Nusra, jaysh al-islam etc), at the same time, being a young revolutionary organization, tends to export their anti-human ideology to any other area they can. In fact, reason of their existence is not only Assad, but rather jihad as an idea of wiping out everyone they consider a disbeliever (e.g. Iran and any other nation except their own "state").

That however does not change the fact that it is mostly Turk-affiliated rebels that Russia is fighting, not ISIS.
Again allowing them to operate against syrian army would be so foolish.Some of those rockets that Russia launched from the Caspian Sea seem to have fallen a bit short of their targets...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34479873
And?

Khoram
10-09-2015, 10:58 AM
Philistine!

Just had a pulled pork poutine. It was okay. Not as good as Lafleur's or La Belle Province poutine, but it was satisfying.

The Unreasoner
10-09-2015, 01:30 PM
Yep. If he's not Russian, he's very pro-Russian.
My mistake. I thought you were talking about Russian propoganda's influence around the world. And I thought maybe you meant to say Slovenia.

Rand al'Fain
10-09-2015, 01:45 PM
My mistake. I thought you were talking about Russian propoganda's influence around the world. And I thought maybe you meant to say Slovenia.

No problem.

For that anti-Israeli guy, well here's what he posted this morning.

SANA is reporting 300 "rebels" have been killed in the last 24 hours in joint Syrian-Russian operations (including 100 killed in a single strike on a munitions-filled weapons cache) and more than 30 kilometers of additional territory has fallen to the Syrian Arab Army.

The advances of the SAA have become so readily confirmable now that the western media have stopped publishing their "anonymous sources" about Russian "misses" entirely and are now leading their headlines with news about pre-Halloween pumpkin shortages.

Today Aleppo - Tomorrow Jerusalem
Yeah, he's advocating that Russia and Syria bomb Israel.

Kimon
10-09-2015, 03:45 PM
And?

The only point of using ships in the Caspian is to send a message of the reach of the Russian rockets. It served seemingly a purely psychological purpose, as it was a superfluous strike that could have been more accurately accomplished by bombers flying sorties in Syria, or by warships much closer to the targets in the Mediterranean. But when those strikes fail, falling so far short of their targets, any psychological impact desired from that strike is merely replaced by international amusement at the blunder. Amusement, at least, rather than derision, as it was at least seemingly a harmless blunder, as apparently no Iranian civilians fell prey as unintentional victims of that pointless saber rattling.

Rand al'Fain
10-09-2015, 04:20 PM
The only point of using ships in the Caspian is to send a message of the reach of the Russian rockets. It served seemingly a purely psychological purpose, as it was a superfluous strike that could have been more accurately accomplished by bombers flying sorties in Syria, or by warships much closer to the targets in the Mediterranean. But when those strikes fail, falling so far short of their targets, any psychological impact desired from that strike is merely replaced by international amusement at the blunder. Amusement, at least, rather than derision, as it was at least seemingly a harmless blunder, as apparently no Iranian civilians fell prey as unintentional victims of that pointless saber rattling.

Not quite true. Apparently several head of cattle were turned into steaks by the rockets. Those dirty terrorist cows!

The Unreasoner
10-09-2015, 04:48 PM
The Russians have made this whole mess a hell of a lot more unstable by attacking FSA positions, considering they are the only group in the region we have been giving serious lethal aid. And we have just committed to sending more, including more anti-tank missiles. By all accounts, they are performing well in battle, are not radical, and enjoy (at least popular) support from the majority of Sunnis, including Russian Muslims. We need to either move them north and set up a no-fly zone, or extend our air campaign to attacking Assad now. And Russia is barely doing shit against ISIS. They'll let us and the Kurds fight ISIS while they slaughter moderate Sunni fighters in the south, only making tensions worse.

Also: aren't cruise missiles crazy expensive? Spending tens of millions to destroy a couple dozen low value targets seems odd.

Kimon
10-09-2015, 04:58 PM
We need to either move them north and set up a no-fly zone, or extend our air campaign to attacking Assad now. And Russia is barely doing shit against ISIS. They'll let us and the Kurds fight ISIS while they slaughter moderate Sunni fighters in the south, only making tensions worse.


Attacking Assad would be a massive mistake. Much more so now that the Russians are openly fighting alongside him. It would be forcing a direct confrontation, one from which Putin could not back down without disastrous consequences politically at home. He'd have to respond. That's why we haven't done more in Ukraine either. Nor before that in Georgia. It's why Russia didn't do more than just make speeches in the UN and send volunteers to help the Serbs when NATO intervened back in the 90s in Kosovo. Because if they had it would have meant WWIII. Just as if we attacked Assad it might well mean WWIII. This situation can only be solved through proxies, and then at the negotiating table. And again, it does not matter to us if Assad stays in power. He is not what is important to us in this struggle.

Kimon
10-09-2015, 05:11 PM
Unreasoner, the BBC just published an article on this very problem.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34486572

We just haven't had any success with any of the rebels, except the Kurds. And this decision has the feel of an admission of that.

The Unreasoner
10-09-2015, 05:21 PM
If the Russians have no troops 'officially' operating in the region, they can hardly object to us attacking troops advancing on moderate rebel positions, if we announce such a policy ahead of time. We already said we will attack Assad to protect the Kurds. The issue of air cover is not insignificant though, and however much we trust the FSA, we won't give them significant antiaircraft weaponry. But there is significant regional support for a US enforced no-fly zone.

Putin will face political consequences whatever happens. War is never popular for long. Russian Muslims are as likely to support ISIS as Assad. And Putin's power structure is reportedly becoming very 'brittle' thanks to the economic disaster he's caused at home.

The rebels are very well funded and have broad regional and international support. Assad is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the displacement of millions, and the rise of ISIS. No one will tolerate him remaining in power. But if the Russians remove him and pick a successor for a smaller successor state, a quick diplomatic solution should be possible. The Syrians (on all sides) are sick of fighting.

The Unreasoner
10-09-2015, 05:25 PM
Unreasoner, the BBC just published an article on this very problem.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34486572

We just haven't had any success with any of the rebels, except the Kurds. And this decision has the feel of an admission of that.
That's a separate issue. Those are Syrian expatriates being trained to go back, and it's failed. The FSA has been there all along, and just repelled a significant and sustained assault by Assads ground forces, destroying anywhere from 10-24 tanks, capturing two more, all while enduring an assault from the air by Syrian helicopters with Russian cover. We've been sending them quite a few weapons, but they need more.

Kimon
10-09-2015, 05:28 PM
If the Russians have no troops 'officially' operating in the region, they can hardly object to us attacking troops advancing on moderate rebel positions, if we announce such a policy ahead of time. We already said we will attack Assad to protect the Kurds. The issue of air cover is not insignificant though, and however much we trust the FSA, we won't give them significant antiaircraft weaponry. But there is significant regional support for a US enforced no-fly zone.

Putin will face political consequences whatever happens. War is never popular for long. Russian Muslims are as likely to support ISIS as Assad. And Putin's power structure is reportedly becoming very 'brittle' thanks to the economic disaster he's caused at home.

The rebels are very well funded and have broad regional and international support. Assad is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the displacement of millions, and the rise of ISIS. No one will tolerate him remaining in power. But if the Russians remove him and pick a successor for a smaller successor state, a quick diplomatic solution should be possible. The Syrians (on all sides) are sick of fighting.

Proxies. If Turkey, Qatar, and the Saudis want to give these rebels more equipment and actual ground troops fine. But it has to be them - although Turkey is dangerously close to it being us due to their NATO membership. But it can't be us. Especially not with more than equipment and money. This is the same situation as in Ukraine. It's a fine line for both of us. What's important for us in Ukraine is that the Russians and their puppet rebels don't move against Kiev. So long as they stay in the east, who cares. And in Syria? It's just ISIS - and hopefully protecting the Kurds. Assad matters a lot for Russia. Too much so for us to force their hand.

The Unreasoner
10-09-2015, 05:36 PM
Proxies. If Turkey, Qatar, and the Saudis want to give these rebels more equipment and actual ground troops fine. But it has to be them - although Turkey is dangerously close to it being us due to their NATO membership. But it can't be us. Especially not with more than equipment and money. This is the same situation as in Ukraine. It's a fine line for both of us. What's important for us in Ukraine is that the Russians and their puppet rebels don't move against Kiev. So long as they stay in the east, who cares. And in Syria? It's just ISIS - and hopefully protecting the Kurds. Assad matters a lot for Russia. Too much so for us to force their hand.
We are already sending them lethal aid. We have been. We should continue (and escalate). It was actually easier politically to back them than it was the Kurds, and we have been aiding them for longer. Fuck Russia. They're not stupid enough to start WW3. Assad has no legitimacy, which gives us as much right to aid the FSA (and the interim government's other allies) as Russia has to aid Assad.

ETA:
And Qatar at least has no qualms giving rebels surface to air capabilities.

Kimon
10-09-2015, 05:50 PM
Fuck Russia. They're not stupid enough to start WW3.

Perhaps, but are we?

I personally would prefer to just focus on the Kurds and ISIS. Assad certainly isn't worth supporting openly, but the potential costs of deposing him are just far too high. Let someone else reap those repercussions.

Davian93
10-09-2015, 06:58 PM
My post was a reply to the one by Davian93 stating that ISIS won't be much worse than Assad. My point here is that, while Assad probably is a dictator (like almost any other ruler in the arab world), but he is not likely to invade other countries. ISIS (as well as all other Nusra, jaysh al-islam etc), at the same time, being a young revolutionary organization, tends to export their anti-human ideology to any other area they can. In fact, reason of their existence is not only Assad, but rather jihad as an idea of wiping out everyone they consider a disbeliever (e.g. Iran and any other nation except their own "state").


No, I meant that I don't see a Russian protectorate as a worse option than allowing ISIS to topple Assad. I'd still rate Russia over ISIS. I apologize if I worded it poorly.

SomeOneElse
10-10-2015, 11:14 AM
For that anti-Israeli guy, well here's what he posted this morning.
Today Aleppo - Tomorrow Jerusalem

Tell that guy he's absolutely wrong since Jerusalem is meant to be the capital of Palestine. Instead he'd better say something like
Today Aleppo - Tomorrow Tel Aviv
The only point of using ships in the Caspian is to send a message of the reach of the Russian rockets. It served seemingly a purely psychological purpose

This is so obvious, actually I think even russian media admit it.
The other reason maybe that our operation is limited by only one airbase in Latakia.
any psychological impact desired from that strike is merely replaced by international amusement at the blunder.
Even if these reports are correct, only 4 of 26 rockets hadn't reached their targets.
Assad is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people... and the rise of ISIS.Assad is "responsible" only for Syria not becoming a place full of terrorists (like Iraq and Afghanistan) much before. When Assad had full control over Syria, there wasn't any ISIS or other scum there, the whole story began only after arab spring was started in Syria (with the help of sunni countries like Turkey and KSA as well as the west (at least supporting it politically and diplomatically)). It is so stupid to blame Assad for what he was preventing for years.

Davian93
10-10-2015, 06:04 PM
Even if these reports are correct, only 4 of 26 rockets hadn't reached their targets.

Um...a 15% failure rate is pretty horrific for a state of the art missile system.