Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

glued

Streetwalker wrote: »

Russia now laying waste to terrorist scum all across Syria whilst the US arms and funds them. America is the good guy right?

I don't think anybody is the good guy in this war but some people have a massive Siberian sized chip on their shoulder about Russia.

AbusesToilets

glued wrote: »

How is he/she an obvious troll?

Just because they don't agree with your viewpoint doesn't make them a troll.

Besides the pro-Russia rant without any effort to support his points with evidence or data? Gee, I don't know what could lead me to that conclusion...:rolleyes:

Streetwalker

alcaline wrote: »

It truly is pathetic the russophobic nature of some of the posters here, Russia has stepped up and got stuck into ISIS and some see this as a bad thing.
These posters must have been raised on a diet of american propaganda, USA good, Russia bad.
The US was either unwilling or unable to take on ISIS and now that Russia is ,it is now the evil aggressor.
The facts are Russia is the only foreign power legally acting in Syria, the US and NATO have broken international law by bombing Syria.
Naturally the russophobic posters ignore this fact.

ISIS where doing the exact job America trained and armed them to do along with all the other jihadi head hacker groups of animals. Now they have a massive pissy fit when Russia steps up and decides enough is enough. Again remind me who the good guys are?

K-9

Mod

alcaline, Gatling and AbusesToilet banned for a couple of days for that spat. There were at least 2 on thread warnings and a few cards handed out previously so the natural progression is bans.

smurgen

Shurimgreat wrote: »

They had some of the greatest. And you're forgetting the contribution of german scientists post war including their early space adventures. They also gave us the chernobyl and kursk disasters. The west have spent billions funding nuclear decommissioning in russia and also gave the russians much technical help. Todays russian military is a pale shadow of the former ussr. The money and resources isnt there. Still using dumb bombs and cluster munitions when everyone else has moved on.

The German scientists were snatched up by the yanks.google operation paperclip for more info.

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

The German scientists were snatched up by the yanks.google operation paperclip for more info.

The helped put the yanks on the moon.all that experience from bombing London went to good use eventually.

Count Dooku

This is going to be fun
RAF fighter jets will be armed with air-to-air missiles and have been given the green light to shoot down hostile Russian planes.

smurgen

Count Dooku wrote: »

This is going to be fun
RAF fighter jets will be armed with air-to-air missiles and have been given the green light to shoot down hostile Russian planes.

One of the worst written articles I've ever seen.of course the British are going to fire back if they're fired upon.

ancapailldorcha

Count Dooku wrote: »

This is going to be fun
RAF fighter jets will be armed with air-to-air missiles and have been given the green light to shoot down hostile Russian planes.

Posting a link with a one-liner is below the standard expected here. Please read the charter before posting again.

smurgen

Count Dooku wrote: »

This is going to be fun
RAF fighter jets will be armed with air-to-air missiles and have been given the green light to shoot down hostile Russian planes.

why are you cheerleading this tension? If it all gets too much the russians will send in the blackjacks to london and clear house
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

Count Dooku

smurgen wrote: »

why are you cheerleading this tension?

My point was that London nearly imposed no fly zone over Iraq, despite it is not British colony for long time. So far, from what I see, Russian planes were flying without air-to-air missiles, but now Russians don't have choice other than arm their planes and now after Russian and British planes will meet in sky, everything will depend from pilots

Lockstep

alcaline wrote: »

It truly is pathetic the russophobic nature of some of the posters here

Criticising naked imperialism is hardly "Russophobia".
It's bad when the US does it, it's bad when Russia does it.

alcaline wrote: »

Russia has stepped up and got stuck into ISIS and some see this as a bad thing.
These posters must have been raised on a diet of american propaganda, USA good, Russia bad.
The US was either unwilling or unable to take on ISIS and now that Russia is ,it is now the evil aggressor.

Unable or unwilling?
The US and its allies have been bombing ISIS in Syria for over a year now

Meanwhile, Russia airstrikes have overwhelmingly focussed on rebel groups other than ISIS

alcaline wrote: »

The facts are Russia is the only foreign power legally acting in Syria, the US and NATO have broken international law by bombing Syria.
Naturally the russophobic posters ignore this fact.

Hold up there.
On the one hand, you're saying NATO have been unable or unwilling to tackel ISIS but also, theyr'e breaching international law by bombing Syria?
Fascinating doublethink there.

Shurimgreat

The way things are going, Russia is acting not just as the air support for the Assad regime, its also doing the same for ISIS. Apart from a few token efforts at hitting ISIS (my guess is they dropped a few bombs in the desert somewhere missing ISIS targets) they have focused entirely on the nearest threat to Assad. Meanwhile, ISIS are gaining ground around Aleppo. Inevitably ISIS will fill the vacuam left behind by other rebels. The Syrian people will be squeezed between Assad and ISIS. Exactly the kind of scenario Assad was hoping for all along. At the moment, many are getting along alright in moderate rebel territory. You aren't seeing the same mass migration of people as you see from ISIS. But once Assad or ISIS regain territory you will see this.

karma_

Lockstep wrote: »

Meanwhile, Russia airstrikes have overwhelmingly focussed on rebel groups other than ISIS

While I agree that russia should not be there, I can't really see your reasoning behind this point. I mean, essentially from what I have read recently is their other main target is al-nusra, who are Al-Qaeda.

And now the West are ramping up support for these groups, the very same groups who were responsible for 9/11. I saw an interview with one of the Syrian Christian leaders this week who has condemned the west for supporting these people.

It can't just be me who thinks the world is slowly going insane.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The way things are going, Russia is acting not just as the air support for the Assad regime, its also doing the same for ISIS. Apart from a few token efforts at hitting ISIS (my guess is they dropped a few bombs in the desert somewhere missing ISIS targets) they have focused entirely on the nearest threat to Assad. Meanwhile, ISIS are gaining ground around Aleppo. Inevitably ISIS will fill the vacuam left behind by other rebels. The Syrian people will be squeezed between Assad and ISIS. Exactly the kind of scenario Assad was hoping for all along. At the moment, many are getting along alright in moderate rebel territory. You aren't seeing the same mass migration of people as you see from ISIS. But once Assad or ISIS regain territory you will see this.

Use some common sense. I mean what would be the point of a strategic ally landing forces in your backyard then not using them in a way that would help you? I think everyone can accept that Iran and Russia are, at this point in time actively engaged in trying to keep Syria together so it can stay a strategic ally, in their interests.

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

While I agree that russia should not be there, I can't really see your reasoning behind this point. I mean, essentially from what I have read recently is their other main target is al-nusra, who are Al-Qaeda.

And now the West are ramping up support for these groups, the very same groups who were responsible for 9/11. I saw an interview with one of the Syrian Christian leaders this week who has condemned the west for supporting these people.

It can't just be me who thinks the world is slowly going insane.

There are many different rebel groups in syria some friendlier towards the west than others such as the kurds and the remnants of the fsa. The west is certainly helping these and rightly so. The kurds are about as far away from aq and isis as you can get.

You make no attempt to distinguish rebel groups lumping them all as head chopping western haters who we shouldn't help.

We should help some. We shouldn't and aren't helping others. Russias intervention has been counterproductive in the fight against isis. Its weakening some rebel groups but not isis who will take their place. In other words the airstrikes are helping isis.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There are many different rebel groups in syria some friendlier towards the west than others such as the kurds and the remnants of the fsa. The west is certainly helping these and rightly so. The kurds are about as far away from aq and isis as you can get.

You make no attempt to distinguish rebel groups lumping them all as head chopping western haters who we shouldn't help.

We should help some. We shouldn't and aren't helping others. Russias intervention has been counterproductive in the fight against isis. Its weakening some rebel groups but not isis who will take their place. In other words the airstrikes are helping isis.

The Kurds, yeah they are in a tight spot, for they are now both receiving aid from a NATO member whilst being bombed by another NATO member.

I'm not convinced at all that there is any such thing as a 'moderate' rebel force fighting in Syria. Like I said we even have Syrian Christian leaders condemning aid to them.

But Russia isn't there to fight ISIS, they are there to shore up Syria as a strategic partner for it's in their interests to do so. The ultra cynic in me believes the West is there to aid the Rebel groups for it is in their interests to do so. No doubt when the Russians have pounded the other Rebels to dust they will eventually turn their attention to ISIS.

Whole thing reeks of just another poxy proxy war.

BoJack Horseman

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You make no attempt to distinguish rebel groups lumping them all as head chopping western haters who we shouldn't help.

This is very intentional & part of the narrative distortion.

Goes along with the Russian intention to "destroy terrorists".....

Label every Assad hating Syrian as a head-hacking jihadi & pretend the only alternative is the tyrannical civilian slaughtering Assad dictatorship.

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

This is very intentional & part of the narrative distortion.

Goes along with the Russian intention to "destroy terrorists".....

Label every Assad hating Syrian as a head-hacking jihadi & pretend the only alternative is the tyrannical civilian slaughtering Assad dictatorship.

Did you even read my last two posts? I'm criticising geo-political warfare.

Yet I'm the one trying to distort a 'narrative'?

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

Yet I'm the one trying to distort a 'narrative'?

Not necessarily you... its mostly the Putin-supporting media, but parroted by posters here too for sure.

It does a great disservice to the Syrian people to assume there aren't moderate secular forces who just want a chance to determine their nations future.

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

Did you even read my last two posts? I'm criticising geo-political warfare.

Yet I'm the one trying to distort a 'narrative'?

You said the west is supporting the very same groups responsible for 9/11 when clearly the west isn't, at least not on purpose. In the main its been helping the kurds. It tried to train a new force but they handed over some of their weapons to anf. After that the americans abandoned that strategy and are now just going to arm the kurds who are at the end of the day the old reliable friends the west have in the entire middle east.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You said the west is supporting the very same groups responsible for 9/11 when clearly the west isn't, at least not on purpose. In the main its been helping the kurds. It tried to train a new force but they handed over some of their weapons to anf. After that the americans abandoned that strategy and are now just going to arm the kurds who are at the end of the day the old reliable friends the west have in the entire middle east.

Do you even seriously believe your own rhetoric? "old reliable friends the west" have repeatedly let the Kurds down time after time.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The way things are going, Russia is acting not just as the air support for the Assad regime, its also doing the same for ISIS. Apart from a few token efforts at hitting ISIS (my guess is they dropped a few bombs in the desert somewhere missing ISIS targets) they have focused entirely on the nearest threat to Assad. Meanwhile, ISIS are gaining ground around Aleppo. Inevitably ISIS will fill the vacuam left behind by other rebels. The Syrian people will be squeezed between Assad and ISIS. Exactly the kind of scenario Assad was hoping for all along. At the moment, many are getting along alright in moderate rebel territory. You aren't seeing the same mass migration of people as you see from ISIS. But once Assad or ISIS regain territory you will see this.

This is probably the most bizarre and most incorrect narrative I've seen in this thread so far. You can't seriously believe a word of that? Russia supporting ISIS?

This Pro-West, anti-Russia argument has fallen completely flat on its face. This post just illustrates how weak that argument has been and you haven't a shred of evidence to back up any of those bizarre points.

donaghs

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It does a great disservice to the Syrian people to assume there aren't moderate secular forces who just want a chance to determine their nations future.

But it seems obvious from whats occurred since 2011 that such people don't have any serious military presence or abilities. And that most "moderates", or "secular" people would take their chances with Assad rather than the possible alternative.

Even if there was initially a fair democratic election, its likely the Sunni majority would vote themselves in. And they would dominate the country the same way that the Shia majority now dominate "democratic" Iraq. Their allies in Saudi Arabia would be keen to advise on God's Will for running a country.

BoJack Horseman

donaghs wrote: »

But it seems obvious from whats occurred since 2011 that such people don't have any serious military presence or abilities.

That's a little unfair.
The FSA we know was formed largely from defecting Syrian army personnel.
However, they were always outnumbered by their former colleagues & enjoyed none of their advantages in weapons, armour, air support or command/control.
That said, it cannot be denied that the did enjoy a lot of early battlefield success.

And after 5 years of fighting they aren't what they were.... much of their manpower & materiel has been exhausted.
But so what?

The cause for a Syria, free from Assad's murderous tyranny is no less just, simply because the forces fighting for it are weaker than that of the regime.
Its usually the case that the regime enjoys the military advantage anyway.

And that most "moderates", or "secular" people would take their chances with Assad rather than the possible alternative.

The choices are:
Assad's dictatorship.
IS dictatorship.
Democratic Syria.

Dictator's tend not to do well in free votes, I don't understand where the perception that people would chose tyranny if given the choice?

I mean, its not like ol' Bashar was into polling the public, was he?

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

This is probably the most bizarre and most incorrect narrative I've seen in this thread so far. You can't seriously believe a word of that? Russia supporting ISIS?

This Pro-West, anti-Russia argument has fallen completely flat on its face. This post just illustrates how weak that argument has been and you haven't a shred of evidence to back up any of those bizarre points.

S/he didn't say Russia was actively supporting ISIS like you seem to think. They're saying that Russia's overwhelming focus on non-ISIS rebelsmeans they'll be greatly weakened while the fact ISIS are relatively untouched means they'll fill the vacuum. By providing air support to non-ISIS rebels, they're effectively providing air support for ISIS. Which is exactly what the poster was saying.

Hardly anti-Russian. It's pretty clear.

Lockstep

karma_ wrote: »

While I agree that russia should not be there, I can't really see your reasoning behind this point. I mean, essentially from what I have read recently is their other main target is al-nusra, who are Al-Qaeda.

And now the West are ramping up support for these groups, the very same groups who were responsible for 9/11. I saw an interview with one of the Syrian Christian leaders this week who has condemned the west for supporting these people.

It can't just be me who thinks the world is slowly going insane.

Any evidence that they're overwhelmingly focussing on Al-Nusra?
From the looks of Vox's map, Russia's bombs are hardly focussing on Al-Nusra territory.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

S/he didn't say Russia was actively supporting ISIS like you seem to think. They're saying that Russia's overwhelming focus on non-ISIS rebelsmeans they'll be greatly weakened while the fact ISIS are relatively untouched means they'll fill the vacuum. By providing air support to non-ISIS rebels, they're effectively providing air support for ISIS. Which is exactly what the poster was saying.

Hardly anti-Russian. It's pretty clear.

It's pretty clear that the statement was either based on a fabrication or pure ignorance.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

It's pretty clear that the statement was either based on a fabrication or pure ignorance.

No it's not. Do you not agree that Russia's overwhelming focus on non-ISIS groups will heavily benefit ISIS?

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

This is probably the most bizarre and most incorrect narrative I've seen in this thread so far. You can't seriously believe a word of that? Russia supporting ISIS?

This Pro-West, anti-Russia argument has fallen completely flat on its face. This post just illustrates how weak that argument has been and you haven't a shred of evidence to back up any of those bizarre points.

Effectively yes. Generally that's how wars and conflicts operate. When you weaken one side, you strengthen the other.

There's 3 major players in the Syrian Conflict. The government, the opposition and then ISIS who are currently fighting both the opposition and government, although like Assad are more intent on fighting the opposition.

It suits Assad to have the opposition worrying about ISIS on one side of them. At the moment, the Russians who seem to have taken over managing the conflict on the government side have shown zero interest in taking on ISIS. They probably view ISIS as a ragtag outfit who are good at taking over majority sunni areas through a mix of terror and tribal alliances. They don't see them as a threat in the short term to the west of Syria.

The way things are going in Syria, all that will be left is the government and ISIS, neither of them able to defeat the other.

Shurimgreat

Lockstep wrote: »

No it's not. Do you not agree that Russia's overwhelming focus on non-ISIS groups will heavily benefit ISIS?

They are already filling the vacuam left in the wake of Russian airstrikes. So far the only ones genuinely taking the fight on the ground to ISIS are the opposition. Not Assad and certainly not the Russians.

karma_

Lockstep wrote: »

Any evidence that they're overwhelmingly focussing on Al-Nusra?
]

Only from Patrick Cockburn, a recent interview he gave which I'll link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfCnENsSlaE

Starts talking about the Russian involvement from about the 6.20 mark or thereabouts if that is helpful but the entire interview is worth viewing. He talks about the groups which the West have promoted as moderates as "really not."

Lockstep

karma_ wrote: »

Only from Patrick Cockburn, a recent interview he gave which I'll link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfCnENsSlaE

Starts talking about the Russian involvement from about the 6.20 mark or thereabouts if that is helpful but the entire interview is worth viewing. He talks about the groups which the West have promoted as moderates as "really not."

The video is disabled and can't be viewed. Any other links that show or claim Russia is focussing on Al-Nusra?

karma_

Lockstep wrote: »

The video is disabled and can't be viewed. Any other links that show or claim Russia is focussing on Al-Nusra?

Shame. I'm not saying the Russians are focussing on anyone in particular, for they appear to be attacking everyone, what I am questioning is the legitimacy of the 'moderate' tags that these groups appear to have.

Here is a mirror.

http://syriancivilwararchive.com/Videos/Journalist-Patrick-Cockburn-who-just-returned-from-Syria-speaks-about-the-impact-of-the-Russian-airstrikes-in-Syria-and-whether-it-can-play-a-role-in-bringing-the-civil-war-to-an-end.mp4

Skylinehead

Lockstep wrote: »

The video is disabled and can't be viewed. Any other links that show or claim Russia is focussing on Al-Nusra?

Click the Youtube button, it's disabled for embedded videos but not on the site itself.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

No it's not. Do you not agree that Russia's overwhelming focus on non-ISIS groups will heavily benefit ISIS?

No it doesn't benefit ISIS. I don't know why you're peddling this simplistic line. Russia is mainly focusing on targets that are a direct threat to the Assad regime and also areas that are of material advantage to the regime. It doesn't matter if it's ISIS, or Al-Nusra a terrorist group which you proposed to put into power, or the Rebels. Do you think Putin will allow ISIS to swallow up the territory lost by the Rebels? The short answer is not a chance. Russia have targeted ISIS in areas that are directly a threat to Assad.

I don't know where this tin-foil hat conspiracy is coming from. If ISIS move towards Assad they will be bombed too. It's not that hard to see what Russia are actually doing.

The only countries that have helped ISIS are The US and Saudi Arabia. Maybe you should focus your Russian fuelled hatred onto them.

The majority of your posts on this thread are anti-Russian. You have provided absolutely no basis for any of your allegations so far. Russia has been far more effective in a couple of weeks than NATO has managed to do in over a year. Is that where your anger stems from?

What exactly is your problem with Russia? Do you think NATO were doing anything tangible in Syria bar arming Extremist Rebels?

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Not necessarily you... its mostly the Putin-supporting media, but parroted by posters here too for sure.

It does a great disservice to the Syrian people to assume there aren't moderate secular forces who just want a chance to determine their nations future.

There are no secular forces in syria other than Assad, none of credible or that have been subsumed or given over to extreme islamicism.

karma_ wrote: »

Do you even seriously believe your own rhetoric? "old reliable friends the west" have repeatedly let the Kurds down time after time.

The Kurds have some distasteful practice themselves.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's a little unfair.
The FSA we know was formed largely from defecting Syrian army personnel.
However, they were always outnumbered by their former colleagues & enjoyed none of their advantages in weapons, armour, air support or command/control.
That said, it cannot be denied that the did enjoy a lot of early battlefield success.

And after 5 years of fighting they aren't what they were.... much of their manpower & materiel has been exhausted.
But so what?

The cause for a Syria, free from Assad's murderous tyranny is no less just, simply because the forces fighting for it are weaker than that of the regime.
Its usually the case that the regime enjoys the military advantage anyway.




The choices are:
Assad's dictatorship.
IS dictatorship.
Democratic Syria.

Dictator's tend not to do well in free votes, I don't understand where the perception that people would chose tyranny if given the choice?

I mean, its not like ol' Bashar was into polling the public, was he?

People may choose stability, all they need to do ismlook to the now corrupted Iraq or even less stable Libya, democracy isn't the cure all pill and democracy is a long way off if even possible, especially given western support, the last thing the west wants is an independent strongly democratic nation, unless it's a top down democracy where the politicians sell their soul in exchange for mineral and resource rights.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

No it doesn't benefit ISIS. I don't know why you're peddling this simplistic line. Russia is mainly focusing on targets that are a direct threat to the Assad regime and also areas that are of material advantage to the regime. It doesn't matter if it's ISIS, or Al-Nusra a terrorist group which you proposed to put into power, or the Rebels. Do you think Putin will allow ISIS to swallow up the territory lost by the Rebels? The short answer is not a chance. Russia have targeted ISIS in areas that are directly a threat to Assad.

Eh, no they haven't. They've focussed on non-ISIS rebels while constantly giving the narrative that they are taking on ISIS. It's a nice fig leaf which sounds better than "We're bombing rebel groups and largely ignoring ISIS".

glued wrote: »

I don't know where this tin-foil hat conspiracy is coming from. If ISIS move towards Assad they will be bombed too. It's not that hard to see what Russia are actually doing.

Except Assad's forces have shown a marked unwillingness to fight ISIS. Makes sense really, considering it allows him to peddle himself as a moderate compared to them rather than the bloodletting dictator of a deeply oppressive society.

glued wrote: »

The only countries that have helped ISIS are The US and Saudi Arabia. Maybe you should focus your Russian fuelled hatred onto them.

Yeah, the US has been helping ISIS a lot. What with bombing them for the last year and all.
Also, "Russian fuelled hatred"? Are you kidding me?

glued wrote: »

The majority of your posts on this thread are anti-Russian. You have provided absolutely no basis for any of your allegations so far.

Actually, I have. You just keep skating past them.
What sources do you want rehashed? I can bring them up if you can't be bothered looking.

This seems to be a common theme of your posts: you ignore evidence provided to you, wait a few posts then claim no evidence has been provided. For example, you demanded a source that Assad was reluctant to tackle ISIS so he could portray himself as the only alternative. Even though it had already been provided in the thread, I provided it again here
If you disagree with me, that's fine but please don't accuse me of Russophobia and providing no sources.

glued wrote: »

Russia has been far more effective in a couple of weeks than NATO has managed to do in over a year. Is that where your anger stems from?

Have they? Source?

glued wrote: »

What exactly is your problem with Russia? Do you think NATO were doing anything tangible in Syria bar arming Extremist Rebels?

My problem with Russia is their imperialism and support given to a bloodthirsty dictatorship. It's wrong when the US does it, it's wrong when Russia does it. Although apparently any criticism of Russia is Russophobia. Steady on there.

Lockstep

karma_ wrote: »

Shame. I'm not saying the Russians are focussing on anyone in particular, for they appear to be attacking everyone, what I am questioning is the legitimacy of the 'moderate' tags that these groups appear to have.

Here is a mirror.

http://syriancivilwararchive.com/Videos/Journalist-Patrick-Cockburn-who-just-returned-from-Syria-speaks-about-the-impact-of-the-Russian-airstrikes-in-Syria-and-whether-it-can-play-a-role-in-bringing-the-civil-war-to-an-end.mp4

Thanks for the link. I agree that many of the groups are far from moderate but this does not detract from the fact Russia is primarily attacking other groups. Cockburn does not deny this: he agrees that attacks are taking place against ISIS and Al Nusra (as does the Economist)
Nowhere does he say Russia is primarily targetting them.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Thanks for the link. I agree that many of the groups are far from moderate but this does not detract from the fact Russia is primarily attacking other groups. Cockburn does not deny this: he agrees that attacks are taking place against ISIS and Al Nusra (as does the Economist)
Nowhere does he say Russia is primarily targetting them.

Why would Russia primarily focus on ISIS when the Rebels are far closer and are much more of a direct threat to Assad?

The majority of rebel groups are Islamic Extremists. The Rebels that aren't in that category have no real material impact on the region. It would make very little sense for Russia to primarily attack ISIS and allow Western Syria to be overrun by Rebels.

Also it's fairly evident that ISIS aren't going to be eliminated by Airstrikes. If NATO were serious about destroying ISIS they will have to commit ground troops into the region. The fact that The US are prepared to drop more weapons into Syria only illuminates how ridiculous their plan is in Syria. Almost 100% of their arms they provided to moderate rebels have ended up in the arms of extremists.

Russia, at the very least have Assad's troops on the ground, but Russia would also need to commit troops to eliminate the extremists. Nobody has an exit plan and NATO's current military strategy isn't working and it won't ever work. It's quite worrying seeing NATO shout so loud but they have been completely ineffective in stopping ISIS so far.

Everybody has shown a lack of desire to actually solve the problem in Syria and NATO are just trying to blame Russia. It's been a pathetic campaign for NATO to date.

Shurimgreat

cerastes wrote: »

There are no secular forces in syria other than Assad, none of credible or that have been subsumed or given over to extreme islamicism.

A complete myth.

The rebels represent a vast cross section of syrian society from kurds and former army officers to isis head choppers although isis and the rest of the rebels aren't really on the same side.

I know you like to misrepresent this as a black and white conflict, secular Assad against head choppers but its not like that.

The headchoppers represent a small minority who are hated by most of the rebels.

One of the first victims of russian airstrikes was a defected former syrian officer. He was as far from an extremist as you can get.

Finally there would not be a strong ISIS in syria if it wasnt for Assad. His brutal actions have attracted thousands of recruits to the likes of isis. No-one can genuinely argue with that although I have no doubt some will try.

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

Why would Russia primarily focus on ISIS when the Rebels are far closer and are much more of a direct threat to Assad?

The majority of rebel groups are Islamic Extremists. The Rebels that aren't in that category have no real material impact on the region. It would make very little sense for Russia to primarily attack ISIS and allow Western Syria to be overrun by Rebels.

Also it's fairly evident that ISIS aren't going to be eliminated by Airstrikes. If NATO were serious about destroying ISIS they will have to commit ground troops into the region. The fact that The US are prepared to drop more weapons into Syria only illuminates how ridiculous their plan is in Syria. Almost 100% of their arms they provided to moderate rebels have ended up in the arms of extremists.

Russia, at the very least have Assad's troops on the ground, but Russia would also need to commit troops to eliminate the extremists. Nobody has an exit plan and NATO's current military strategy isn't working and it won't ever work. It's quite worrying seeing NATO shout so loud but they have been completely ineffective in stopping ISIS so far.

Everybody has shown a lack of desire to actually solve the problem in Syria and NATO are just trying to blame Russia. It's been a pathetic campaign for NATO to date.

NATOs plan isn't working? Clearly you haven't been following events lately. While the Russians have been making a big song and dance about bombing isis but have done nothing if the sort the kurds with western air support have been slowly rolling isis back. They are now within a few miles of raqqua and the recent arms drops were to prepare for an attack on the isis capital.

There's no NATO involvement in syria by the way, another misrepresentation of the situation.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

Why would Russia primarily focus on ISIS when the Rebels are far closer and are much more of a direct threat to Assad?

As has been repeatedly stated: because avoiding ISIS means they'll keep attacking less extreme groups, weakening opposition to Assad and allowing Assad to portray himself as the only alternative.
Russia is the one saying it's tackling ISIS (alongisde other rebel groups) see here and yet few of its strikes are against ISIS.

If what you say is true, why is Russia blathering on about ISIS and yet not focussing on them?

glued wrote: »

The majority of rebel groups are Islamic Extremists. The Rebels that aren't in that category have no real material impact on the region. It would make very little sense for Russia to primarily attack ISIS and allow Western Syria to be overrun by Rebels.

Source?

glued wrote: »

Also it's fairly evident that ISIS aren't going to be eliminated by Airstrikes. If NATO were serious about destroying ISIS they will have to commit ground troops into the region. The fact that The US are prepared to drop more weapons into Syria only illuminates how ridiculous their plan is in Syria. Almost 100% of their arms they provided to moderate rebels have ended up in the arms of extremists.

Very true: no military power can be obliterated by airstrikes. However, airstrikes do act as huge support for rebel groups on the ground to advance. This is exactly why the Kurds were able to seize Kobane: because their advance was preceded by NATO airstrikes
However, like everyone else, NATO prefers airstrikes as they pose a much smaller risk: NATO conducted Operation Allied Force in Kosovo without a single casualty. Unlike Russia, NATO states are liberal democracies and as such, body bags carry huge political risks. How many combat troops is Russia deploying?
If you think any nation will deploy ground troops into a conflict like Syria without huge potential gains for themselves, you've a warped or very idealistic view of international relations.

glued wrote: »

Russia, at the very least have Assad's troops on the ground, but Russia would also need to commit troops to eliminate the extremists. Nobody has an exit plan and NATO's current military strategy isn't working and it won't ever work. It's quite worrying seeing NATO shout so loud but they have been completely ineffective in stopping ISIS so far.

And the US is operating in support to armed groups like the Kurds. As above, Kobane is a good example. All Russia is doing is prolonging a brutal civil war by supporting the most savage faction.

glued wrote: »

Everybody has shown a lack of desire to actually solve the problem in Syria and NATO are just trying to blame Russia. It's been a pathetic campaign for NATO to date.

Hey, at least NATO are actually focussing on ISIS. Unlike Russia which is just posturing and backing a classical despot against opposition forces. They're acting a lot like the US in the Cold War.

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The choices are:
Assad's dictatorship.
IS dictatorship.
Democratic Syria.

Dictator's tend not to do well in free votes, I don't understand where the perception that people would chose tyranny if given the choice?

I mean, its not like ol' Bashar was into polling the public, was he?

This is a perfect example of the wests double standards.
Replace Syria with Saudi Arabia and there is no difference, well maybe women are better off in Syria.
The west can't preach Democracy for Syria while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia..
Now that the Russians have got stuck into ISIS the western government look like chumps at best and ISIS enablers at worst.

Lockstep

alcaline wrote: »

This is a perfect example of the wests double standards.
Replace Syria with Saudi Arabia and there is no difference, well maybe women are better off in Syria.
The west can't preach Democracy for Syria while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia..
Now that the Russians have got stuck into ISIS the western government look like chumps at best and ISIS enablers at worst.

US support for Riyadh is disgusting but out of interest, if there was a pro-democracy insurgency in Saudi Arabia, do you genuinely think the US would be bombing them?

The West has a lot to answer for but this does not excuse Russia's actions.

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

double standards.

Please elaborate on how thinking Syrian people should be allowed a free democratic say in their nations future is a double standard?

For your post to hold a gram of weight, you will have to provide proof that I desire anywhere to conversley not have democratic self-determination.
Quote the post displaying this.

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

This is a perfect example of the wests double standards.
Replace Syria with Saudi Arabia and there is no difference, well maybe women are better off in Syria.
The west can't preach Democracy for Syria while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia..
Now that the Russians have got stuck into ISIS the western government look like chumps at best and ISIS enablers at worst.

Clearly you have missed the fact that roughly 2% of russian airstrikes have targeted isis. But hey don't let a small matter like the truth get in the way. Some of the distortions of the truth and facts are simply laughable around here.

The west launches over a thousand strikes against isis, saves kobane, the kurds and the yasidis and send isis into retreat. Russia on the otherhand launch 6 or 7 strikes on isis and yet the narrative is the russians are defeating isis single handedly!

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

This is very intentional & part of the narrative distortion.

Goes along with the Russian intention to "destroy terrorists".....

Label every Assad hating Syrian as a head-hacking jihadi & pretend the only alternative is the tyrannical civilian slaughtering Assad dictatorship.

Have you done a count on the Syrians that hate Assad? they might not like him, but if they hate him so much why havent ALL in the Syrian army just put their weapons down?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A complete myth.

The rebels represent a vast cross section of syrian society from kurds and former army officers to isis head choppers although isis and the rest of the rebels aren't really on the same side.

I know you like to misrepresent this as a black and white conflict, secular Assad against head choppers but its not like that.

The headchoppers represent a small minority who are hated by most of the rebels.

One of the first victims of russian airstrikes was a defected former syrian officer. He was as far from an extremist as you can get.

Finally there would not be a strong ISIS in syria if it wasnt for Assad. His brutal actions have attracted thousands of recruits to the likes of isis. No-one can genuinely argue with that although I have no doubt some will try.

For a start my point was that there isnt a credible secular force other than the real Syrian army, the FSA have turned their weapons and themselves over to a non secular direction, you even suggest headchoppers as you call them are secular. You dont know what I think as I never said its a black and white conflict, never said that if you care to point to what I said that says that? its far from black and white.
There wouldnt be an ISIS full stop or even in Syria for lots of reasons, they didnt just spring out of nowhere, the Russians only just turned up so its very easy for you to blame them.

His actions have not drawn recruits to ISIS, these recruits are already radicalised and abound in Iraq from gulf war 2, they saw an opportunity or so they consider to form what they want on the carcass of a weakened Syrian state, it suits the wests agenda to arm or let them destroy syria as they have already formented and supported dissent and its obvious as it suits certain nations agendas. It should be no surprise to anyone that this occurred in Syria, they were already on the evil axis hitlist.

Lockstep wrote: »

As has been repeatedly stated: because avoiding ISIS means they'll keep attacking less extreme groups, weakening opposition to Assad and allowing Assad to portray himself as the only alternative.


And the US is operating in support to armed groups like the Kurds. As above, Kobane is a good example. All Russia is doing is prolonging a brutal civil war by supporting the most savage faction.

Hey, at least NATO are actually focussing on ISIS. Unlike Russia which is just posturing and backing a classical despot against opposition forces. They're acting a lot like the US in the Cold War.

If Russia is prolonging a civil war, what has the US and its allies done, forment civil war and then stood by on the sidelines apparently dithering, but really its like an invasion-lite, let both sides bleed each other white, then roll in later and deal with a faction here or there who has been allowed (not bombed into oblivion) local control for the right to do whatever they please.

The end does not justify the means regarding bringing so called democracy, as that means the people of Syria suffer.
If anyone was really interested in ousting Assad, it would be much better for them to go through a formal channel and tell him, he and his nearest cronies arent going to be tolerated, he can be on his way with X worth and live in exile in X country, there will be free and open elections to be organised under international control.

If its opposition to a brutal dictatorship, then why was Syria on the hitlist and not Saudi? or is it because they play ball?

IF Russia is acting like the US did during the Cold war can you point to exactly which conflic or conflicts you are referring to?
The US seems to be progressively acting worse and worse to other nations, and seems to have veered into a glorification of a ruthless militarised police state.
I dont recal when the US took such little action and so lightly? whereas they actually seemed to be involved in many conflicts during the cold war.

coolemon

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A complete myth.

The rebels represent a vast cross section of syrian society from kurds and former army officers to isis head choppers although isis and the rest of the rebels aren't really on the same side.

I know you like to misrepresent this as a black and white conflict, secular Assad against head choppers but its not like that.

The headchoppers represent a small minority who are hated by most of the rebels.

One of the first victims of russian airstrikes was a defected former syrian officer. He was as far from an extremist as you can get.

Finally there would not be a strong ISIS in syria if it wasnt for Assad. His brutal actions have attracted thousands of recruits to the likes of isis. No-one can genuinely argue with that although I have no doubt some will try.

The YPG certainly do not seem to believe there is much difference between the so-called moderate opposition and ISIS - http://www.basnews.com/en/news/2015/09/05/ypg-syrian-interim-government-supports-is/

"We have said this before, the Syrian coalition is the political face of ISIS”, Xelil said

coolemon

Shurimgreat wrote: »

NATOs plan isn't working? Clearly you haven't been following events lately. While the Russians have been making a big song and dance about bombing isis but have done nothing if the sort the kurds with western air support have been slowly rolling isis back. They are now within a few miles of raqqua and the recent arms drops were to prepare for an attack on the isis capital.

There's no NATO involvement in syria by the way, another misrepresentation of the situation.

The Russians from day one said they were targeting terrorists. Western media put a spin on this and made out that they said they were targeting ISIS but instead are now bombing "moderate Syrian" rebels.

Of course the will bomb the Syrian rebels. They were invited into the country by the Government to assist them in fighting the terrorists.