Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

Sure, the Syrian Network for Human Rights for one.

I have to laugh that someone keeps quoting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Oblivious to what this is and where it is based.

When you find out you'll realize how silly it is.

Critical thinking in action my friend.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Ok here's your problem. Show me RT lying. Show me the BBC showing RT making up stuff........Clearly you can't. You can however see the BBC lying. You can see RT showing western media showing making up stuff.

Russia's state sponsored media is pretty notorious for blatant lies like here
As such, RT has had presenters resign on air

gobsh!te wrote: »

RT has an agenda for sure but it only needs to show the truth to make the west look bad.

Just as well RT is funded by one of the most anti-press-freedom countries in the world then, isn't it?
All you've shown is that some social media users were lying. Hardly conducive to the West, now is it?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Russian government also did a good thing with Snowden. Do you see him as a traitor like most people in the US government do?

What does this have to do with anything?

gobsh!te wrote: »

This is great, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted again.....lol.
Do you know anything about this "group"? How they get their info? Haha
Ridiculous. Are you actually reading what I am saying?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Yeah because of what The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported, right?

Actually, SOHR are generally seen as a fairly accurate source of information. To the extent they're credited as a source by Amnesty in reports like this one
If you can disprove SOHN's findings, feel free.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Do you know what critical thinking is?

Are you capable of forming an argument without throwing around insults?

gobsh!te wrote: »

No I have not....Have you seen the reports on western media using old photos with casualties before Russia even started bombing? No? Yes?

Check the sources please....https://www.rt.com/news/317712-media-syria-military-fails/

Eh, Twitter isn't "Western media" so I dunno what you're getting at here. If you're asking if I think Twitter is a reputable source, then no. I do not.

gobsh!te wrote: »

How do the Kurds feel? Do you even know who the Kurds are? They mention them on the BBC I think.

No, I've never heard of the Kurds before. Who are they?
What have the Kurds to do with this?

gobsh!te

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The fact is there would be no isis in syria if assad had shown the slightest regard for democracy or human rights. He held on and on until isis were up and running. He even gave them a helping hand. And now they are up and running he portrays himself as the only one who can fight them. Only he's a weak leader, good at barrel bombing and massacring defenceless women and children, hopeless when it comes to fighting armed rebels. He needs big brother russia to save him.

His cowardice has destoyed his country, its history and heritage. Destroyed its past, present and future. A terrible leader but still admired by some it seems. His supporters have a lot in common with isis. Both show a complete disregard for innocent civilians in pursuit of personal and material gain under one false pretext or another.

Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein
Libya was better off under Gaddafi
But hey, fcuk it, lets get try it in Syria.

The US inadvertently created ISIS themselves and this has been admitted. No problem providing the info if you are not going to look yourself.

They saw it developing and let it happen.

Dannyboy83

gobsh!te wrote: »

Ok here's your problem. Show me RT lying. Show me the BBC showing RT making up stuff........Clearly you can't.

According to Russian polls, even the Russians believe the Russian media have lied to them:

Опрос: россиян перестал волновать «майдан»
ВЦИОМ провел опрос об отношении россиян к событиям на Украине.

VSTIOM/'Russian Public Opinion Research Center'
09/16/2015

March 2014 - 32% of Russians believed there was a coup in Kiev
Sep 2015 - Only 7% now believe there was a coup in Kiev.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

One example of BBC lying

I'm not sure what's being proven lying here. It's two different takes: look at the backgrounds when she's talking in the two videos. Check out the guy in the yellow hi-vis. In one of the videos, his arms are behind his back, in the next, his arms are by his side. Clearly, two seperate videos.

Even if they were edited, she said she thinks it was caused by napalm or something similar. Which is a chemical weapon. Next.

gobsh!te wrote: »

One example of CNN lying

This is 16 years old. Dredging now, are we?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Why are they a million times more accurate?

Because of Operation Mockingbird? Gotcha.

RT just needs to expose Western fcuk ups as they do every few weeks.

For entertainment I watch the BBC.

I don't think anyone is saying western media are infallible. But they operate in a country with free press.

Gatling

best piece of propaganda today Isis obliterated in only 72 hours

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34479

Look's like Chechens want to be sent to syria now


https://www.rt.com/politics/317393-this-will-be-holiday-kadyrov/

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

I've already provided evidence. See here
Likewise, check out the Weiss book I mentioned.

It's not surprising that you're calling that evidence. Absurd notion that any of that is evidence.

It's not a ridiculous claim. If you'd been following the conflict you'd know this. Assad is keen to portray himself as the best option within Syria. What better way than to make sure ISIS are around so he can tar all the rebels with the same brush?

It's a completely preposterous claim. With absolutely no shred of evidence to back it up. It's an absurd notion that he would allow is soldiers to be killed, along with some of his family, along with allowing ISIS to capture his oil fields all in the name of trying to look like the better guy. I'm not even going to bother debating that point further because it's not within the realms of reality.

You weren't? We agree Assad has oil deals with ISIS. How is this no cooperation?

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of justification. It was an absurd allegation.

No, you're arguing an absurd point but one which is a staple of apologists for mass-murderers.
"The Rwandan government might be committing genocide but the Rwandan Patriotic Front are just as bad and would be doing the same if they could"
"Bosnians are just as bad as the Serbs and will commit genocide on them if they could"
Like it or not, Assad is the most bloodthirsty and brutal killer in Syria by a huge margin. You cannot deny this. No amount of "What if" will change this.

Again, what an absurd allegation to make against me. Assad is not the most bloodthirsty killer in Syria. Many of the rebel and ISIS leaders would wipe out as many if not more people than Assad. You're argument is quite bizarre in that you, wrongly, suggest that Assad is worse than the Rebels when the Rebels don't have the weapons or the armoury to kill as many people as Assad. They're both the same. Assad just has the means to do it.

Sure, the Syrian Network for Human Rights for one. Likewise, Amnesty International see the Center for Documentation of Violations in Syria as a reputable source for deaths caused by government forces. They also highlight that Assad's regime is guilty of crimes against humanity.
Somehow, I think you'll just disregard any evidence that doesn't fit with your pre-formed opinions. Especially as you've just flat out rejected two reputable sources like Haaretz and Time.

That amnesty report also highlights numerous human rights violations by the Rebels. I've scanned through it and found no back-up for your claim. Again, you're not providing any evidence.

I'm supporting the Syrian people here. They're not going to have peace as long as a murdering tyrant like Assad is in charge. Considering what he's done to his own people, they're hardly likely to agree to any peace deals where he remains in power.
Have you any evidence that without Assad, the Alawites would be wiped out? Sure, groups like ISIS would be happy to do so, but others like Al-Nusra have said they'd be expected to change aspects of their faith but not be wiped out. And that's assuming they take control if Assad falls. So yeah. Evidence please.

It's clear that you're either misrepresenting your argument or you haven't really a good understanding of the situation in Syria. How can I provide evidence of something that hasn't happened yet? Again what an absurd request.

The fact that you believe the nonsense coming from Al-Nusra, a designated terrorist organisation by many countries including the US, sums up nicely your whole debate.

Elmer Blooker

Lockstep wrote: »

I trust Western media sources more than I do the authoritarian and oppressive Russian government.

You've used a lot of words to say very little.
ISIS is renowned for their brutality. This was a major reason why they split with AQ/AN who've adopted a population-centred approach. ISIS brutality was a key factor in their split from AQ/AN.

No amount of false equivalence on your part can change this.

Heres a western media source that you can trust, this article is only six months old but before AQ/AN's extraordinary transformation into "moderates"
Is this what you mean by "population-centred"?

At the same time, the group has become increasingly aggressive toward local populations. In January, members of the group reportedly shot a woman dead in front of a crowd in Idlib after they accused her of being a prostitute. The group also has carried out public lashings, crucifixions and kidnappings - though it has not publicized the atrocities like the Islamic State group.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/al-qaeda-in-syria-is-on-the-rise-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

Russia's state sponsored media is pretty notorious for blatant lies like here

Someone's opinion is proof?

As such, RT has had presenters resign on air

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=195&v=HIiiwe6TUtY

Just as well RT is funded by one of the most anti-press-freedom countries in the world then, isn't it?
All you've shown is that some social media users were lying. Hardly conducive to the West, now is it?

Who funds the BBC? Do you think it was good that they changed the phase napalm to chemical weapons in order to push for a bombing against Syria's government? Yes? please answer

What does this have to do with anything?

Didn't think you would answer the Snowden question. Doesn't fit the agenda.

Actually, SOHR are generally seen as a fairly accurate source of information. To the extent they're credited as a source by Amnesty in reports like this one
If you can disprove SOHN's findings, feel free.

It's a guy in Coventry that works from his home. He has not been to Syria since 2000. You clearly don't know how silly you sound to be talking him up. It's a joke.

Are you capable of forming an argument without throwing around insults?

Hard when you ignore my direct questions

Eh, Twitter isn't "Western media" so I dunno what you're getting at here. If you're asking if I think Twitter is a reputable source, then no. I do not.

These are called videos. If you press play you can see the report. Supporting my points and knocking down yours.

No, I've never heard of the Kurds before. Who are they?
What have the Kurds to do with this?

Ask the SOHN lol

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

It's not surprising that you're calling that evidence. Absurd notion that any of that is evidence.

Right, so Middle East Monitor, NBC News, Time and Michael Weiss are not evidence.
Wow.

glued wrote: »

It's a completely preposterous claim. With absolutely no shred of evidence to back it up. It's an absurd notion that he would allow is soldiers to be killed, along with some of his family, along with allowing ISIS to capture his oil fields all in the name of trying to look like the better guy. I'm not even going to bother debating that point further because it's not within the realms of reality.

I have provided evidence. Are you just going to keep denying them in the hope it'll go away?

glued wrote: »

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of justification. It was an absurd allegation.

You agree Assad is working with ISIS on oil but not seeing this as cooperation?

glued wrote: »

Again, what an absurd allegation to make against me. Assad is not the most bloodthirsty killer in Syria. Many of the rebel and ISIS leaders would wipe out as many if not more people than Assad. You're argument is quite bizarre in that you, wrongly, suggest that Assad is worse than the Rebels when the Rebels don't have the weapons or the armoury to kill as many people as Assad. They're both the same. Assad just has the means to do it.

Once again you're relying on "Yeah well the rebels would if they could"
This doesn't change that Assad is killing far more people than they are. Stop engaging in whataboutery.

glued wrote: »

That amnesty report also highlights numerous human rights violations by the Rebels. I've scanned through it and found no back-up for your claim. Again, you're not providing any evidence.

I never said the rebels were not violating human rights.
p6: "In some cases, the actions of the Syrian government amounted to crimes against humanity."

From January 2014 to March 2015, government forces launched continual attacks usingbarrel bombs and other imprecise explosive weapons on areas populated with civilians,including at least 14 public markets, 12 transportation hubs and 23 mosques, and oncivilian objects, including at least 17 hospitals and medical centres and three schools. Thevast majority of fatalities caused by barrel bomb attacks in Aleppo have been civilians.According to the Violations Documentation Center, a Syria-based monitoring group, barrelbomb attacks killed at least 3,124 civilians – and 35 fighters – in Aleppo governorate fromJanuary 2014 to March 2015. For this report, Amnesty International conducted in-depthinquiries into eight barrel bomb attacks and found that they killed at least 188 civilians; onlyone fighter was recorded among the fatalities. Meanwhile, the Syrian government has failedto acknowledge that its aerial bombardment campaign in Aleppo has resulted in a singlecivilian casualty and has insisted that air attacks have targeted only “terrorists”.

Interesting the Amnesty are viewing the VDC and SOHR as reputable sources.

glued wrote: »

It's clear that you're either misrepresenting your argument or you haven't really a good understanding of the situation in Syria. How can I provide evidence of something that hasn't happened yet? Again what an absurd request.

Exactly. You can't prove it so you can't expect to be taken seriously.
A unicorn is going to fly outside my house tomorrow. You want proof? It hasn't happened yet!

glued wrote: »

The fact that you believe the nonsense coming from Al-Nusra, a designated terrorist organisation by many countries including the US, sums up nicely your whole debate.

Yup, they're trying to win hearts and minds. Fairly straightforward strategy.

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

I'm not sure what's being proven lying here. It's two different takes: look at the backgrounds when she's talking in the two videos. Check out the guy in the yellow hi-vis. In one of the videos, his arms are behind his back, in the next, his arms are by his side. Clearly, two seperate videos.

Even if they were edited, she said she thinks it was caused by napalm or something similar. Which is a chemical weapon. Next.

They edited it to say chemical weapons. They were blaming Assad for chemical weapons....
Within 2 hours of posting this story, the BBC filed a copyright claim with YouTube to get the 45 second clip removed.
Dr Rola Hallam in the video is the daughter of someone on the Syrian National Council, the political body which represents opposition militants.

Brush it aside....I am amazed that seemingly intelligent people eat up this and call it truth.

This is 16 years old. Dredging now, are we?

So this is not fake or it is? I'm sorry I don't understand the response.

I don't think anyone is saying western media are infallible. But they operate in a country with free press.

Keep telling yourself that. I acknowledge every large media company has an agenda. It is just that the Western media is full of crap.

As for the BBC, I mean how can you take them seriously ever since they reported a WTC7 had collapsed when it was standing in the actual report??? Amazing stuff

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Who funds the BBC? Do you think it was good that they changed the phase napalm to chemical weapons in order to push for a bombing against Syria's government? Yes? please answer

What editing? It clearly showed two different shoots. Look at the man in the hi-vis. Unless you're arguing BBC is photoshopping too?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Didn't think you would answer the Snowden question. Doesn't fit the agenda.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Russia was right to give asylum to Snowdon. Why's it relevent though?

gobsh!te wrote: »

It's a guy in Coventry that works from his home. He has not been to Syria since 2000. You clearly don't know how silly you sound to be talking him up. It's a joke.

Eh, research can be done from anywhere, you do know that, right?
If you can disprove his work or why he's such a popular source in the West, feel free. Especially when it's seen as a reputable source by respected media (Guardian, BBC) and human rights organisations (Amnesty)

gobsh!te wrote: »

Hard when you ignore my direct questions

What direct questions? If you can't argue like an adult, relax and post when you're calmer.

gobsh!te wrote: »

These are called videos. If you press play you can see the report. Supporting my points and knocking down yours.

The only photos involved were ones on social media. Social media isn't Western media.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Ask the SOHN lol

I was being sarcastic. I'm not sure why you're bringing in the Kurds here.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

They edited it to say chemical weapons. They were blaming Assad for chemical weapons....
Within 2 hours of posting this story, the BBC filed a copyright claim with YouTube to get the 45 second clip removed.
Dr Rola Hallam in the video is the daughter of someone on the Syrian National Council, the political body which represents opposition militants.

Brush it aside....I am amazed that seemingly intelligent people eat up this and call it truth.

It clearly shows two separate shoots. Watch the man in the hi-vis. Poor effort. Unsurprising that BBC want it removed when it's a shoddy attempt to discredit them.

gobsh!te wrote: »

So this is not fake or it is? I'm sorry I don't understand the response.

Nah, I don't see the relevence of a 16 year old story on the Gulf War to the Syria conflict.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that. I acknowledge every large media company has an agenda. It is just that the Western media is full of crap.

Except Western media is far better and operates with much better freedom than Russian sources.
again
Western media isn't perfect but to try and equate any equivalence to Russian media is laughable.

gobsh!te wrote: »

As for the BBC, I mean how can you take them seriously ever since they reported a WTC7 had collapsed when it was standing in the actual report??? Amazing stuff

Ah not this
tinfoil hat stuff again.

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

Shurimgreat

Looks like russians have just sent in their first ground troops albeit special forces. Clearly they havent learned the lessons of afghanistan or vietnam for that matter. They go in all gung ho thinking they ll whip everyones butt only to discover a nasty surprise with a number killed and catured. Then they have to send in more and more troops. Classic quagmire in the making. If the americans couldnt defeat an insurgency in iraq with tens of thousands of troops what hope the russians in syria? I hope they are well stocked in body bags!

Lockstep

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Looks like russians have just sent in their first ground troops albeit special forces. Clearly they havent learned the lessons of afghanistan or vietnam for that matter. They go in all gung ho thinking they ll whip everyones butt only to discover a nasty surprise with a number killed and catured. Then they have to dend in more and more troops. Classic quagmire in the making. If the americans couldnt defeat an insurgency in iraq with tens of thousands of troops what hope the russians in syria? I hope they are well stocked in body bags!

This is especially interesting considering how little public support the deployment has with the Russian public
Considering what a clusterfúck Syria is, I doubt Russia will be very resilient here. It's one thing to provide airstrikes but there's a huge different between that and risking troops on the ground. This was a major reason why NATO was so keen to use airpower in Kosovo and Libya but terrified of deploying troops.

Elmer Blooker

Lockstep wrote: »

Ah not this
tinfoil hat stuff again.

As you're on the subject of 9/11 wasn't it your population-centred AQ who carried out the 9/11 attacks? They didn't show much moderation that day!

Looks like russians have just sent in their first ground troops albeit special forces

Source please?

Lockstep

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

As you're on the subject of 9/11 wasn't it your population-centred AQ who carried out the 9/11 attacks? They didn't show much moderation that day!

The Americans are hardly the population that Al-Nusra were hoping to draw support from. They were however, concerned about alienating public support in the Middle East, which wasn't helped by ISIS' use of violence. Also, ISIS' focus on the Levant region while AQ/AN wanted to focus on the US. AQ/AN are murdering terrorists. They're nowhere near as violent or brutal as ISIS though.

Foreign Affairs have a fascinating article on Al-Nusra and PR here

K-9

gobsh!te wrote: »

One example of BBC lying

One example of CNN lying

Why are they a million times more accurate?

Because of Operation Mockingbird? Gotcha.

RT just needs to expose Western fcuk ups as they do every few weeks.

For entertainment I watch the BBC.

What do those videos prove?

K-9

gobsh!te wrote: »

Someone's opinion is proof?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=195&v=HIiiwe6TUtY



Who funds the BBC? Do you think it was good that they changed the phase napalm to chemical weapons in order to push for a bombing against Syria's government? Yes? please answer




Didn't think you would answer the Snowden question. Doesn't fit the agenda.



It's a guy in Coventry that works from his home. He has not been to Syria since 2000. You clearly don't know how silly you sound to be talking him up. It's a joke.




Hard when you ignore my direct questions



These are called videos. If you press play you can see the report. Supporting my points and knocking down yours.



Ask the SOHN lol

Who is the Paul Watson guy with the video about RT?

What's his credentials?

Elmer Blooker

A very cynical article. Yes it does point out that AN are terrorists but theres enough reading between the lines to try and convince that they are the good guys/our terrorists who have seen the error of their ways and are now reasonable. Dated Oct 5th too, If the Russians are bombing 'em then they're the good guys! Cheap.

In Syria, al Qaeda has tried to paint itself as a more reasonable jihadist force with which other rebels on the ground and outside states can cooperate.

Further, even if al Nusra doesn’t do the right things with respect to protecting minorities, it is at least willing to say some of the right things, in contrast to ISIS’ open brutality.

Finally, whereas ISIS has embarked on a campaign of mass slaughter and brutality against religious minorities, al Nusra has instead favored reeducation and forced conversion.

The group’s preference for working with coalition partners and its behavior following its victories are designed to signal that al Nusra is open to sharing power with other organizations.

Since Zawahiri’s last decree earlier this year, al Nusra has worked to further ingratiate itself into the Syrian opposition while making itself appear more moderate to an international audience.

gandalf

K-9 wrote: »

Who is the Paul Watson guy with the video about RT?

What's his credentials?

He seems to have a lot of articles published by sites that like to peddle conspiracy theory drivel.

He also has contributed to some pieces on RT. Hardly a bastion of unbiased or logical information.

WarZ

Russian special forces won't be taken alive, they will bare no Russian insignia and a recent law in Russia means that the Russian government no longer needs to declare the deaths of its soldiers.

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

As you're on the subject of 9/11 wasn't it your population-centred AQ who carried out the 9/11 attacks? They didn't show much moderation that day!

Source please?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/610143/Islamic-State-ISIS-Putin-Spetsnaz-Syria-special-forces-airstrikes

Although somehow I'm a bit sceptical. There's tens of thousands of so called jihadists. In chechnya if i recall there was only a few thousand. The russians are also talking about putting thousands of boots on the ground. As if non muslim boots on the ground worked before in the middle east. Usually it just attracts more nutters to fight them. Yep russians falling into the quagmire trap alright.

And many of the jihadists they will face in syria are veterans of the iraq war against the americans and of avoiding airstrikes. Really can't see this going well for the russians. They should cut their losses on assad and run while they can. The iraq war cost the americans almost a trillion dollars. Not sure russia has that kind of money even if the war went well for them.

Shurimgreat

WarZ wrote: »

Russian special forces won't be taken alive, they will bare no Russian insignia and a recent law in Russia means that the Russian government no longer needs to declare the deaths of its soldiers.

They might be taken injured or many might desert. Desertion rates are notoriously high in the russian army. Possibly not with the special forces, more so with ordinary troops. The idea the russians will walk away from syria with few casualties is naive. The americans thought they could achieve that in iraq.

Count Dooku

So called "rebels" from An Nusra started to hide their tanks behind mosques, so be prepared for massive propaganda campaign about Russian attack on Islam

Shurimgreat

Anyone else think Russia is using dumb bombs but trying to make them look like precision guided by using cameras with a cross in the middle?

Seems I'm not the only one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/01/air-force-senior-intelligence-officer-russia-is-using-dumb-bombs-in-its-syria-bombing-campaign/

On the videos released by the russians the bombs always seem to fall a distance away from the crosshairs and then the crosshairs are moved on to them afterwards. The guidance cameras on western fighters are also far more sophisticated than a simple crosshairs.

Gatling

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Anyone else think Russia is using dumb bombs but trying to make them look like precision guided by using cameras with a cross in the middle?

Seems I'm not the only one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/01/air-force-senior-intelligence-officer-russia-is-using-dumb-bombs-in-its-syria-bombing-campaign/

On the videos released by the russians the bombs always seem to fall a distance away from the crosshairs and then the crosshairs are moved on to them afterwards. The guidance cameras on western fighters are also far more sophisticated than a simple crosshairs.

It mostly looks like dumb Bombs for the most part ,
Compare Russian bombs with American GBU percision bombs no steering fin's front or back now I could be wrong

Shurimgreat

Another article on it.

http://time.com/4059442/russia-bombing-syria-isis-assad/

Dumb bombs are notoriously innaccurate. You try to bomb a terrorist hideout and you end up flattening a residential area a mile away. Not sure how effective the russian air campaign will be if they keep missing targets.

Shurimgreat

One more post on this.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/russia-is-using-old-dumb-bombs-making-syria-air-war-even-more-brutal.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

The Russian air campaign is just going to make things worse for the syrian population particularly the use of cluster bombs. I know there will be no international outcry about this because its Russia using them and not the US. I don't expect to see a stop the war march down o'connell street for similar reasons. But cluster bombs which even the americans stopped using a decade ago leave a long term problem for civilians particularly kids who often end up playing with them.

Gringo180

Gatling wrote: »

It mostly looks like dumb Bombs for the most part ,
Compare Russian bombs with American GBU percision bombs no steering fin's front or back now I could be wrong

That must of being a dumb bomb the Yanks dropped on that hospital in Afghanistan earlier.

FTA69

What would you call the "smart" weapon which recently flattened a hospital in Afghanistan?

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

That must of being a dumb bomb the Yanks dropped on that hospital in Afghanistan earlier.

No again it wasn't bombed with dumb or smart bombs ,

It's looking like 105mm artillery or 40mm bofors did the damage

Shurimgreat

Gringo180 wrote: »

That must of being a dumb bomb the Yanks dropped on that hospital in Afghanistan earlier.

I'm going with gathlings view on this. I doubt the americans set out deliberately to bomb a hospital. No one likes bad publicity.

Gatling

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Was actually a smart bomb

It wasn't it was either 40mm bofors or 105 artillery shells fired from a C130

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

What editing? It clearly showed two different shoots. Look at the man in the hi-vis. Unless you're arguing BBC is photoshopping too?

Bull****, why did the BBC get it immediately pulled from Youtube.
They also staged an attack in a Panorama report: Saving Syria’s Children
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/bbc-trust-no-requirement-for-re-edited-material-to-be-flagged-to-the-viewer/

I'm not sure what your point is here. Russia was right to give asylum to Snowdon. Why's it relevent though?

I'm just asking whether you agree with the US government on Snowden being a traitor or not and do you give credit to Russia for giving him asylum?

Eh, research can be done from anywhere, you do know that, right?
If you can disprove his work or why he's such a popular source in the West, feel free. Especially when it's seen as a reputable source by respected media (Guardian, BBC) and human rights organisations (Amnesty)

You haven't seen how he gets his information then?
Are you just pretending? I mean are you a wind up merchant? You're getting me good.

What direct questions? If you can't argue like an adult, relax and post when you're calmer.

Ones that said Yes/No

The only photos involved were ones on social media. Social media isn't Western media.

Still haven't watched the videos then?

I was being sarcastic. I'm not sure why you're bringing in the Kurds here.

Yeah why would the Kurds opinion on anything be important.

Ok you got me....I fell for you winding me up. :(

drunkmonkey

If you were to believe the news ISIS won't be around in a week, http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/610143/Islamic-State-ISIS-Putin-Spetsnaz-Syria-special-forces-airstrikes

I'm starting to think that ISIS were never really the problem they were made out to be and were hyped by the American PR machine as something that needed to be battled while they were it was merely spin to arm anyone willing to take on the Syrian army.
Putin is about to unleash hell on everyone the Americans and west backed and will get away with it as there's no credible spin the yanks can make now they just have to sit back while their uniofficlay army gets its ass whooped.
If Putin pulls this off and I think he will, hey may not have the respect of western leaders but will have the respect of western people and will have put a nail in the coffin of team America.

Dannyboy83

glued wrote: »

Where is the evidence for your claim? The only way I could prove that to you was if I was able to get into the head of Assad. It's clearly a strategic move. You're making a completely preposterous point. What you're essentially saying is that Assad has allowed ISIS to control many of his oil fields and kill many of his soldiers all in the name of looking better by comparison. Do you realise how ridiculous that notion is?

This is not even a 'Western' viewpoint you are arguing against though,
the following cartoon is by an Iranian Cartoonist called Mana Neyestani

Dannyboy83

Turkey/Russia relations souring after multiple violations of Turkish airspace by Russians

• Turkey intercepts Russian jet in its airspace
• NATO rejects Russia explanation on Turkish air space
• Turkey summons Russian ambassador a second time
• Erdoğan warns Russia against losing Turkey’s friendship
• Gazprom cuts Turkish Stream’s capacity by half
• The Kremlin ruled out the impact of the Russian fighter incident on the Turkish Stream (Кремль исключил влияние инцидента с российскими самолетами на «Турецкий поток»)
• Turkey Threatens to Shoot Down Russian Planes that Stray from Syria

Also on the topic of souring relations, Dutch media are reporting that BUK missile fragments were found in the bodies of the MH-17 victims)

The Russian government's tactics to extort Dutch silence in the investigation have failed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10452857.html
Russia has stoked tensions with the West by burning Dutch flowers, in what has been regarded as a political statement over the investigation into the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster headed by the Netherlands.

And on the topic of investigations, representatives of the family of murdered opposition activist Boris Nemtsov have asked investigators to define this case as murder of a statesman.

"We have filed the application with the Investigative Committee today. This decision is long overdue; the crime was initially defined under Points G, H, Part 2, Article 105 of the Russian Criminal Code [murder by a group of hired assassins], yet we think it should be investigated as an attempt on the life of a statesman under Article 277 of the Russian Criminal Code," the family's lawyer Vadim Prokhorov told Interfax on Sept.14.

- http://rbth.com/news/2015/09/14/nemtsov_family_wants_homicide_inquiry_to_be_held_under_different_article_49222.html)

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Bull****, why did the BBC get it immediately pulled from Youtube.

Like I said: presumably as they don't appreciate such shoddy efforts to discredit them.
Once again, they're two separate videos. This is clearly evident by the man in the hi-vis jacket.
No amount of wishful thinking on your part changes this.

gobsh!te wrote: »

They also staged an attack in a Panorama report: Saving Syria’s Children
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/bbc-trust-no-requirement-for-re-edited-material-to-be-flagged-to-the-viewer/

Your evidence is a wordpress site? What next? Bebo?
All that says is that BBC removed graphic images from an attack s it was deemed unsuitable.
Are you just Googling "BBC lies" and throwing up whatever comes up?

gobsh!te wrote: »

I'm just asking whether you agree with the US government on Snowden being a traitor or not and do you give credit to Russia for giving him asylum?

The US government was completely in the wrong on Snowdon but considering Russia's abysmal political/civil freedoms , I don't think they should be given credit here.
If North Korea gave shelter to a dissident, that'd be great but doesn't change the fact they're still one of the world's most oppressive regimes.

gobsh!te wrote: »

You haven't seen how he gets his information then?
Are you just pretending? I mean are you a wind up merchant? You're getting me good.

Through research from the UK. If you can discredit his findings, feel free.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Ones that said Yes/No

Your posts are long-winded, vague, poorly sourced and full of insults. If you want something specifically addressed feel free to draw attention to it but considering the above, stuff will get missed out.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Still haven't watched the videos then?

Yes: the photos you keep referring to were posted on social media. Not Western media. This is clearly stated in the RT article.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Yeah why would the Kurds opinion on anything be important.

Ok you got me....I fell for you winding me up. :(

You'll need to elaborate this question better. Going "YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE KURDS?" isn't really conducive as I'm not sure what you're asking. Be clearer please.

Lockstep

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

A very cynical article. Yes it does point out that AN are terrorists but theres enough reading between the lines to try and convince that they are the good guys/our terrorists who have seen the error of their ways and are now reasonable. Dated Oct 5th too, If the Russians are bombing 'em then they're the good guys! Cheap.

Nowhere does it makes excuses for Al-Nusra or justify their behavior. Al-Nusra are smart: they know ISIS have become a useful bogeyman in the West and are competing with them for recruits and resources. By portraying themselves as Jihad-Lite, they have a unique niche in that they're still an effective anti-Assad and pro-Jihad machine but not attracting the reflexive action against ISIS.
Pointing this out does not make you pro Al-Nusra.

K-9

Mod:

Gobsh!the banned for a couple of days until we clear up a few things about YouTube videos, blogs etc. as evidence for claims.

Rhys Essien

Russia now launching missiles into Syria from its navy flotilla in the Caspian Sea,over one of the busiest air corridors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34465425

BoJack Horseman

Odd tactic from Ivan.

They have plenty of ship-launched missiles available in the Mediterranean, that would fly safer & easier to target.

Perhaps they had stock that was reaching their use by date? (Not being glib.... missiles do expire).

Elmer Blooker

Lockstep wrote: »

Nowhere does it makes excuses for Al-Nusra or justify their behavior. Al-Nusra are smart: they know ISIS have become a useful bogeyman in the West and are competing with them for recruits and resources. By portraying themselves as Jihad-Lite, they have a unique niche in that they're still an effective anti-Assad and pro-Jihad machine but not attracting the reflexive action against ISIS.
Pointing this out does not make you pro Al-Nusra.

I think its the western propaganda machine thats portraying them as "Jihad lite"
to justify arming them. Face up to reality - any Alawite, Christian, Shia or Apostates as they call them, that they come across will soon find out how "lite" they are!

glued

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This is not even a 'Western' viewpoint you are arguing against though,
the following cartoon is by an Iranian Cartoonist called Mana Neyestani

So one Iranian cartoon proves your point? That's a good argument. :rolleyes:

The standard of debate in here is nothing short of atrocious. Between posters supporting putting Al Nusra in government and people being strawmen it's getting very obvious that people can't see beyond their very obvious anti-Russia bias.

drunkmonkey

I'm pro Russian as I think there doing what the west should have done on day one, think Putin is playing a very clever game and will settle Syria then Iraq in a very short time.
The refugees will be able to return home in 6mts to a stable country with a future. Assad will step down but not in the middle of this mess.

WarZ

I don't see Putin touching Iraq. America would go to war if Putin put Russian troops on the ground in Iraq.

BoJack Horseman

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The refugees will be able to return home in 6mts to a stable country with a future. Assad will step down but not in the middle of this mess.

Congrats on your recent birth!
I assume.... because there is no way in hell that the millions of displaced Syrian's have a viable future under a man who has killed & injured hundreds of thousands of his own people.

When/if Assad emerges victorious, the vengeance he will likely inflict upon his people for daring to question his dictatorship will shame us all.

There is no indication that a victorious Assad will cede power voluntarily.
Why would he? It's not the thing victors do.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Odd tactic from Ivan.

They have plenty of ship-launched missiles available in the Mediterranean, that would fly safer & easier to target.

Perhaps they had stock that was reaching their use by date? (Not being glib.... missiles do expire).

Expect another MH17

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Expect another MH17

A cruise missile cannot target an object in the air (afaik).... so the risks there are slim.
Plus the flight path of the CM would likely be quite low to the ground.

The only issue would be if the guidance systems failed and it landed anywhere other than its target.... which is also probably unlikely as these things often have multiple guidance methods for redundancy.