Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

The US has been stiring up problems in the middle east for years and now Russia and its allies have had enough and have decided to put a end to it.
We have all seen the photos of John McCaine with ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi, if the US did not create ISIS it at the very least allowed them to grow and destabilise the region even more.
The Russians went in to Syria and started to bomb ISIS and alter the course of the war, the US had a rush of blood to the head and parachuted tons of weapons and ammo into Syria in the hope it finds it way to the "good guys" in the free Syria Army.
Russia was not happy so launched 26 cruise missiles at targets in Syria, the next day the US pulls its aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, named after the 26th president, out of the Persian Gulf, coincidence i think not. Its the first time since 2007 no US aircraft carrier is in the Gulf.
Russia aint playing games in the middle east, its there to bring stability to the region after years of US chaos and it has put the US on notice.
Yet some people here believe that Russia is the bad guy and the US is the good guy.
A serious question in your minds what would the US have to do for you to see them as the bad guys and what would Russia have to do to be seen as the good guys?

Other than a purely anecdotal post
The course of the war hasn't changed at all ,
Russia hasnt beaten or wiped out isis at all not even close

jank

Lockstep wrote: »

Quick reminder of the following from the Politics Charter

My apologies.

My own opinion that he is mostly right, especially about Iran. One one hand Iran are trying to appear to follow international norms through diplomacy and openness. On the other, they fund groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are their comments about Israel not existing in 25 years are really serious.

Nature abhors a vacuum and it is kinda ironic that it is actually American disengagement in the region that is leading to instability in the region today. It was inevitable really due to the sectarian make up of the region and the nations states created post WWI due to the breakup of the Ottoman empire, but I do not think history will look kindly at the Obama's administration's foreign policy in this regard.

Lockstep

alcaline wrote: »

Says the BBC a mouth piece for the British government, why should we believe this over a Russian General who has access to much more info than the BBC?

Eh, the BBC isn't a "mouthpiece" for the British government. It's independent from it. It frequently gets accused of bias but given this comes from across the spectrum, this is a pretty good sign the BBC does a damn good job.

Compare that to a Russian general. What possible motive would he have to lie?

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

What moderate opposition have Russia taken out so far? And can you back up that claim?

You believe everyone in Syria (including the Kurds, Druze, Assuri, and former defected Syrian officers) are all sunni headchoppers so is there any point continuing to argue this with you?

Everyone is evil in Syria except Assad or at least he's the least evil in your view. And none of the opposition want democracy.

You clearly believe the opposition are one monolithic group intent on chopping off the heads of everyone and anyone, ignoring the fact the opposition are made up of hundreds of different groups of various hues.

But that's probably too complex for you to comprehend. So instead you will usually opt for the "they are all head choppers" description since its an idea you feel more comfortable with clearly.

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

The US has been stiring up problems in the middle east for years and now Russia and its allies have had enough and have decided to put a end to it.
We have all seen the photos of John McCaine with ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi, if the US did not create ISIS it at the very least allowed them to grow and destabilise the region even more.
The Russians went in to Syria and started to bomb ISIS and alter the course of the war, the US had a rush of blood to the head and parachuted tons of weapons and ammo into Syria in the hope it finds it way to the "good guys" in the free Syria Army.
Russia was not happy so launched 26 cruise missiles at targets in Syria, the next day the US pulls its aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, named after the 26th president, out of the Persian Gulf, coincidence i think not. Its the first time since 2007 no US aircraft carrier is in the Gulf.
Russia aint playing games in the middle east, its there to bring stability to the region after years of US chaos and it has put the US on notice.
Yet some people here believe that Russia is the bad guy and the US is the good guy.
A serious question in your minds what would the US have to do for you to see them as the bad guys and what would Russia have to do to be seen as the good guys?

Have we now? Can you send us a link to this alleged photo or else post a correction/apology? Not holding out much hope for either to be honest.

Lockstep

John McCain meeting Al-Baghdadi is a common and widely discredited internet rumour, propagated by those who either think all Arabs look the same or are being blatantly dishonest

See here for clarification.

Shurimgreat

All Arabs are foaming at the mouth head choppers don't you know, incapable of ruling themselves or democracy or anything like that.

Unfortunately Assad pushed many of the Syrian people into the arms of extremists because of his own extremism. When the local military base is shelling villages around the clock and a group like ISIS or ANF overrun that base, its not hard to see how people become sympathetic to the extremists.

alcaline

Lockstep wrote: »

John McCain meeting Al-Baghdadi is a common and widely discredited internet rumour, propagated by those who either think all Arabs look the same or are being blatantly dishonest

See here for clarification.

Its real, just because you don't want it to be won't make it so.
When John Mccain Met Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
https://youtu.be/GopqiYvuU1E
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-fail-mccain-no-connections-to-isis/5409160
A simple google search for "John McCAIN ISIS" will bring up plenty of proof

alcaline

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Have we now? Can you send us a link to this alleged photo or else post a correction/apology? Not holding out much hope for either to be honest.

If you can use google, seek the help of someone who can.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Eh, the BBC isn't a "mouthpiece" for the British government. It's independent from it. It frequently gets accused of bias but given this comes from across the spectrum, this is a pretty good sign the BBC does a damn good job.

Compare that to a Russian general. What possible motive would he have to lie?

In fairness the BBC coverage of the Syrian war has been exceptionally poor but they certainly aren't a mouthpiece for the British government. I'd more put it down to a poor lack of research and a horrendous standard of journalism.

johnnyskeleton

Shurimgreat wrote: »

But that's probably too complex for you to comprehend. So instead you will usually opt for the "they are all head choppers" description since its an idea you feel more comfortable with clearly.

Mod note:

Please keep it civil thanks.

Lockstep

alcaline wrote: »

Its real, just because you don't want it to be won't make it so.

No, no it is not. Are you unable to tell Arabs apart or something?
Once again
It's debunked

If John McCain was secretly meeting with ISIS, why was he openly posting it on Twitter?
Also, see here for a response by Mouaz Moustafa, the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force

It’s so upsetting to keep seeing this photo among other photos calling me and the guys in the picture ISIS.

You're posting total rubbish. It's not Al-Baghdadi. Are you so desperate to believe the worst in McCain that you need to invent stories?

alcaline wrote: »

https://youtu.be/GopqiYvuU1E

What a bizarre and dishonest video. Nowhere does he say he met with ISIS or knows them. He says he met with the FSA.

alcaline wrote: »

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-fail-mccain-no-connections-to-isis/5409160
A simple google search for "John McCAIN ISIS" will bring up plenty of proof

Eh, the conspiracy theory fest that is Globalresearch.ca
Rationalwiki do a good analysis of them Even if you dislike Wikis, check out the articles they link to. Globalresearch.ca is hardly a good source.

At any rate, your "article" doesn't prove John McCain met ISIS members. It states he met FSA members and tries to conflate the two. Poorly researched and argued article on a disreputable website by an unheard of "journalist". It also doesn't prove any meeting between McCain and Al Baghdadi

The author mentions a picture in which we see John McCain with Free Syrian Army Commander Salim Idriss and a man who looks like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (behind McCain).

Piss-poor journalism.

Lockstep

alcaline wrote: »

If you can use google, seek the help of someone who can.

It's not our job to source your arguments for you.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You believe everyone in Syria (including the Kurds, Druze, Assuri, and former defected Syrian officers) are all sunni headchoppers so is there any point continuing to argue this with you?

Everyone is evil in Syria except Assad or at least he's the least evil in your view. And none of the opposition want democracy.

You clearly believe the opposition are one monolithic group intent on chopping off the heads of everyone and anyone, ignoring the fact the opposition are made up of hundreds of different groups of various hues.

But that's probably too complex for you to comprehend. So instead you will usually opt for the "they are all head choppers" description since its an idea you feel more comfortable with clearly.

So you can't back up your claim then? Thanks for the pathetic insult too.

alcaline

Lockstep wrote: »

Eh, the BBC isn't a "mouthpiece" for the British government. It's independent from it.

Lockstep wrote: »

It's not our job to source your arguments for you.

Why are we still waiting for you to prove the independence of the BBC?
You can't have it both ways, no sources required when you make a statement, but the opposing view to yours must be back up with proof/links.

alcaline

Russia, US sign cooperation deal on Syria airstrikes
https://www.rt.com/news/319198-russia-us-syria-agreement/
Looks like the US is trying to save face and is grabbing onto the coat tails of Russia who are doing a fine job in taking the fight to ISIS.

Lockstep

alcaline wrote: »

Why are we still waiting for you to prove the independence of the BBC?
You can't have it both ways, no sources required when you make a statement, but the opposing view to yours must be back up with proof/links.

You never asked for proof? If you're going to simply state that the BBC is a government mouthpiece, surely the onus is on you to prove it is?

Check out the BBC's especially Article 6

At any rate, check out the complaints it receives for being pro and anti Israeli here

Lockstep

alcaline wrote: »

Russia, US sign cooperation deal on Syria airstrikes
https://www.rt.com/news/319198-russia-us-syria-agreement/
Looks like the US is trying to save face and is grabbing onto the coat tails of Russia who are doing a fine job in taking the fight to ISIS.

Yeah. That must be it. Because of all Russia's airstrikes on ISIS.
Ah wait, they've barely done any

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

Russia who are doing a fine job in taking the fight to ISIS.

But there not and we've yet to see any proof that proves otherwise

coolemon

ISIS are not the biggest threat to the stability of Syria, of which 80% of the population are in government controlled areas. The "moderate opposition" terrorists are. Of course Russia wouldn't focus its attention on distant eastern regions that pose no threat to stability.

They are 100% right to target the terrorists in the Latakia region.

BoJack Horseman

coolemon wrote: »

ISIS are not the biggest threat to the stability of Syria, of which 80% of the population are in government controlled areas. The "moderate opposition" terrorists are. Of course Russia wouldn't focus its attention on distant eastern regions that pose no threat to stability

People need to get on message!

Czar Vlad insists he only bombs ISIS, meanwhile Russia is A-ok with the FSA

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

People need to get on message!

Czar Vlad insists he only bombs ISIS, meanwhile Russia is A-ok with the FSA

The legitimate Syrian state deems them terrorists, and the Russians were invited to assist the Syrian state in combating terrorism.

BoJack Horseman

coolemon wrote: »

The legitimate Syrian state deems them terrorists.

Well, they would wouldn't they!

anyone not licking the dictatorships boot is a terrorist.

Doesn't get around Russia's curious double-speak.

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, they would wouldn't they!

anyone not licking the dictatorships boot is a terrorist.

Doesn't get around Russia's curious double-speak.

Double speak is necessary in international relations. The Russians play it well as they did when seizing Crimea.

alcaline

http://www.kp.ru/daily/26446/3316981/
Use google to translate, anyway here is a few highlights. As you can see the Russians are not fooling around, they are going all out to defeat ISIS.

Interview with Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov the Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff, who is directing the operation in Syria.
We constantly know what is occurring there and how.
We created a coordinating committee that is now working in Baghdad, the US did not want to be part of this.
The US did not join the Baghdad committee for number of reasons.They consider it humiliating to admit that without Russia they cannot solve the problem .They do not want it to be said about them that they are somehow cooperating with Assad. And another thing. They hardly possess the necessary quantity of information on ISIS objects, which is, actually, evident from the results of their attacks. They have a vague idea of the real objects of the rebels, and probably, they were ashamed to admit this.
Russia has an entire system of forces and means of reconnaissance that has been activated it is In constant operational mode, we have better intel than the US regarding ISIS in Syria.
He gives a warning to those who might help the ISIS, so far no surface to air missiles fired at Russian jets, Therefore the appearance of such arms among the militants can now provide evidence of someone’s ill-advised approach to the resolution of this issue. If this happens Russia won’t be happy.

The coalition headed by the USA has been bombing ISIS positions for more than a year. But yet we saw that the Syrian territory controlled by ISIS has extended to almost 75%. How can you comment on this?
– The coalition headed by the United States conducts air strikes against objects of the ISIS infrastructure. These are bridges, overpasses, electrical substations, thermal grids, hydraulic pump systems, and water pump stations. This makes the people’ life intolerable. This does not so much hinder the ISIS actions, as it substantially complicates the actions of governmental armies of President Assad. By so doing, announcing one thing, they have, by and large, reduced the fighting potential of the armed forces of Syria. Due to which, these have surrendered more and more positions, because transport was made difficult, because there was no water, there was no heat, and there were no products. But ISIS does not need this, they just bought food in various adjacent countries, and this was delivered to them (we know who, but will not at this time speak about these organizations and states). Hence the result.

Everything that the coalition headed by the United States does is window-dressing… It is an imitation of strikes
Why has the USA refused to provide to us data about the positions of the so-called Syrian Free Army and about ISIS positions? Are they now giving us this information or not?
– They are not providing us this information. We addressed them more than once directly, and more than once spoke about this even in the mass media. The reasons for this position are still not clear to us. Either they do not have these data, or if they do they are hiding it from us – which means that they do not want us to strike the actual positions of ISIS.
At the moment, are the Americans striking ISIS positions?
– Americans are striking objects that are located on the territory that ISIS controls.

Why did the USA react so spitefully to the launch of our Missiles from the Caspian Sea?
– Because they absolutely missed the sea-based cruise missile salvo.
– And why?
– Because all their capabilities, about which they speak as if they were limitless, are just a fairy tale for children.

Plenty of info here to discuss, even more info in the link.

Gatling

Not really no,

Obsession with Russia telling the truth when in fact the world knows it's not fighting Isis if anything there scared of isis

alcaline

Gatling wrote: »

Not really no,

Obsession with Russia telling the truth when in fact the world knows it's not fighting Isis if anything there scared of isis

"Lalalalalal im not listening, have my fingers in my ears Llalalalalall" that the attitude yourself has taken.
Time and time again you have been shown what is happening in Syria and you can't accept that you are wrong, you should really step away from any news from Syria for a few weeks, cleanse your thought process and you will then be able to accept what is happening in Syria when you start looking at Syrian news.
You believe Russia is scared of ISIS, you are delusional.

Gatling

alcaline wrote: »

"Lalalalalal im not listening, have my fingers in my ears Llalalalalall" that the attitude yourself has taken.
Time and time again you have been shown what is happening in Syria and you can't accept that you are wrong, you should really step away from any news from Syria for a few weeks, cleanse your thought process and you will then be able to accept what is happening in Syria when you start looking at Syrian news.
You believe Russia is scared of ISIS, you are delusional.

I know there scared last thing Russia wants is chechnia 3 or worse fighting Islamic extremist on multiple fronts.
Less Russia more real world

Shurimgreat

It is completely in Assads power to invite back to Syria all the exiled moderate political groups such as the Syrian National Council and to organise free and fair elections. He could have done this all along and allowed the people have a say.

Instead, rather than commit to a free and fair democracy he chose to start a civil war and attract almost every jihadist nutter in the world to Syria, deliberately in my view. Easier to say you are fighting jihadist nutters than non violent moderate opposition groups like the Syrian National Council (who he labelled a terrorist organisation by the way after a pathetic attempt to negotiate with them).

At the end of the day Assad and his admirers cannot run from these facts. Rather than hand over power, he'd rather let Syria as a country die. That's generally how these dictators work. Hitler was the same, didn't want a single building left standing in Germany after him. Luckily some people were intelligent enough to disobey his orders.

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

http://www.kp.ru/daily/26446/3316981/
Use google to translate, anyway here is a few highlights. As you can see the Russians are not fooling around, they are going all out to defeat ISIS.

Interview with Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov the Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff, who is directing the operation in Syria.
We constantly know what is occurring there and how.
We created a coordinating committee that is now working in Baghdad, the US did not want to be part of this.
The US did not join the Baghdad committee for number of reasons.They consider it humiliating to admit that without Russia they cannot solve the problem .They do not want it to be said about them that they are somehow cooperating with Assad. And another thing. They hardly possess the necessary quantity of information on ISIS objects, which is, actually, evident from the results of their attacks. They have a vague idea of the real objects of the rebels, and probably, they were ashamed to admit this.
Russia has an entire system of forces and means of reconnaissance that has been activated it is In constant operational mode, we have better intel than the US regarding ISIS in Syria.
He gives a warning to those who might help the ISIS, so far no surface to air missiles fired at Russian jets, Therefore the appearance of such arms among the militants can now provide evidence of someone’s ill-advised approach to the resolution of this issue. If this happens Russia won’t be happy.

The coalition headed by the USA has been bombing ISIS positions for more than a year. But yet we saw that the Syrian territory controlled by ISIS has extended to almost 75%. How can you comment on this?
– The coalition headed by the United States conducts air strikes against objects of the ISIS infrastructure. These are bridges, overpasses, electrical substations, thermal grids, hydraulic pump systems, and water pump stations. This makes the people’ life intolerable. This does not so much hinder the ISIS actions, as it substantially complicates the actions of governmental armies of President Assad. By so doing, announcing one thing, they have, by and large, reduced the fighting potential of the armed forces of Syria. Due to which, these have surrendered more and more positions, because transport was made difficult, because there was no water, there was no heat, and there were no products. But ISIS does not need this, they just bought food in various adjacent countries, and this was delivered to them (we know who, but will not at this time speak about these organizations and states). Hence the result.

Everything that the coalition headed by the United States does is window-dressing… It is an imitation of strikes
Why has the USA refused to provide to us data about the positions of the so-called Syrian Free Army and about ISIS positions? Are they now giving us this information or not?
– They are not providing us this information. We addressed them more than once directly, and more than once spoke about this even in the mass media. The reasons for this position are still not clear to us. Either they do not have these data, or if they do they are hiding it from us – which means that they do not want us to strike the actual positions of ISIS.
At the moment, are the Americans striking ISIS positions?
– Americans are striking objects that are located on the territory that ISIS controls.

Why did the USA react so spitefully to the launch of our Missiles from the Caspian Sea?
– Because they absolutely missed the sea-based cruise missile salvo.
– And why?
– Because all their capabilities, about which they speak as if they were limitless, are just a fairy tale for children.

Plenty of info here to discuss, even more info in the link.

I seriously think you are over-egging Russian military capabilities in comparison to the west.

I heard an estimate that something like 90% of Russian bombs dropped recently in Syria were good old fashioned dumb bombs. I've also read reports of numerous civilians been struck by them. The Russians are also still using cluster bombs in civilian areas, a nice legacy for future Syrian generations.

How many fully functional aircraft carriers do Russia have currently? How many have they ever used in a real combat situation?

How many 5th generation fighters do Russia have?

How many stealth bombers?

They fired their first cruise missiles a couple of weeks ago.

The Americans were using cruise missiles in the 1980s.

The Americans were using laser guided bombs during the Vietnam war. The Russians are still struggling with the technology.

In most bar a few areas, the Americans are light years ahead.

I read an RT article the other day where the Russians boast they are using Syrian civilians as "spotters" to call in airstrikes.
Like many more have said on this thread, you can treat anything the Russians say with a large portion of salt.

Just this week, the Iraqi's with American support have surrounded Ramadi, taken back the Baji oil refinery and are pursuing ISIS in the area, while in Syria, ISIS have been pushed back to the suburbs of Raqqa with the aid of American airstrikes.

Now tell us exactly what the Russians have done to ISIS, with independent Non Russian confirmation, and without resorting to calling the BBC mouthpieces of the UK government etc.

Lockstep

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Now tell us exactly what the Russians have done to ISIS, with independent Non Russian confirmation, and without resorting to calling the BBC mouthpieces of the UK government etc.

I'm interested in seeing this as well. An independent source for just how Russia have damaged ISIS would be greatly appreciated.

glued

There are very little to no independent media sources in Syria. That's become pretty clear at this point since the UN aren't even bothering to keep body counts anymore and most media agencies are citing biased groups such as the SOHR.

ancapailldorcha

alcaline, do not post in this thread again.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

There are very little to no independent media sources in Syria. That's become pretty clear at this point since the UN aren't even bothering to keep body counts anymore and most media agencies are citing biased groups such as the SOHR.

It doesn't need to be an independent Syrian media source. More like any reputable international news source.

Skylinehead

Shurimgreat wrote: »

They fired their first cruise missiles a couple of weeks ago.

The Americans were using cruise missiles in the 1980s.

Where are you pulling this (wrong) fact from?

glued

Skylinehead wrote: »

Where are you pulling this (wrong) fact from?

From his head I'd imagine. Yet another gross misrepresentation of the Russian military on his behalf.

He's still yet to back up any of his points on the 'moderate rebels' being taken out by the Russians.

Shurimgreat

Skylinehead wrote: »

Where are you pulling this (wrong) fact from?

The primary cruise missile used by the US is the tomahawk. In service since the 1980s. Used in gulf war 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

He's still yet to back up any of his points on the 'moderate rebels' being taken out by the Russians.

Here you go
Of course, Russia claims it was hitting ISIS...in north-western Syria where they've a small presence. Hardly credible.

Further proof Russia is bombing moderate groups like the FSA

This is despite the fact that Russia denies the FSA is a terrorist group

Gatling

glued wrote: »

From his head I'd imagine. Yet another gross misrepresentation of the Russian military on his behalf.

Another pro russian poster linked to the Russian missles that had only been previously tested 3 times and never fired in combat unlike the American Tomahawk which has been in service since '82/'83

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Here you go
Of course, Russia claims it was hitting ISIS...in north-western Syria where they've a small presence. Hardly credible.

Further proof Russia is bombing moderate groups like the FSA

This is despite the fact that Russia denies the FSA is a terrorist group

It's not the BBC's story it's from the SOHR, who are an extremely biased source.

The BBC's reporting of the war in Syria has been abysmal.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

It's not the BBC's story it's from the SOHR, who are an extremely biased source.

The BBC's reporting of the war in Syria has been abysmal.

A blanket refusal to accept the SOHR as a source seems to be a common theme in this thread. Even though they're viewed as a reputable source by media outlets (BBC, CNN, the Independent) and NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

At any rate, why was Russia bombing "ISIS" in Latakia when it's far away from ISIS territory? Likewise, are you denying Vox as a new source as well when it highlights the bombing of FSA positions?

You demanded proof Russia was bombing moderate rebels. It was provided to you but you just ignore it.

BoJack Horseman

Lockstep wrote: »

You demanded proof Russia was bombing moderate rebels. It was provided to you but you just ignore it.

Default tactic tbh.

Boards was saturated by it last year with the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine.

"We want proof"
Proof provided
"That's not proof.... We want proof"

Rinse, repeat.

Skylinehead

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The primary cruise missile used by the US is the tomahawk. In service since the 1980s. Used in gulf war 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Yeah I know the Americans have had cruise missiles for decades. So have the Russians, which you seem to think is wrong.

Lockstep

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah I know the Americans have had cruise missiles for decades. So have the Russians, which you seem to think is wrong.

He was claiming that the Russians haven't used them in combat before: not that Russians never had them to begin with.

Elmer Blooker

Lockstep wrote: »

A blanket refusal to accept the SOHR as a source seems to be a common theme in this thread. Even though they're viewed as a reputable source by media outlets (BBC, CNN, the Independent) and NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

At any rate, why was Russia bombing "ISIS" in Latakia when it's far away from ISIS territory? Likewise, are you denying Vox as a new source as well when it highlights the bombing of FSA positions?

You demanded proof Russia was bombing moderate rebels. It was provided to you but you just ignore it.

'they're" viewed as a reputable source? You mean HE is viewed as a reputable source. The SOHR is a one man show! He hasn't set foot in Syria since 2000. I'm not saying he doesn't know whats going on in Syria but media outlets depending on an individual as a reputable source ......

The United Kingdom-based SOHR is run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry by one person, Rami Abdulrahman,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights

Skylinehead

Lockstep wrote: »

He was claiming that the Russians haven't used them in combat before: not that Russians never had them to begin with.

Ah fair enough. Bit of a silly statement though, it's not like combat is any different to testing when it's a cruise missile that we're talking about. Point at target and fire. It either works or it doesn't.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

A blanket refusal to accept the SOHR as a source seems to be a common theme in this thread. Even though they're viewed as a reputable source by media outlets (BBC, CNN, the Independent) and NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

At any rate, why was Russia bombing "ISIS" in Latakia when it's far away from ISIS territory? Likewise, are you denying Vox as a new source as well when it highlights the bombing of FSA positions?

You demanded proof Russia was bombing moderate rebels. It was provided to you but you just ignore it.

Hold on here for a minute. There you go again with this 'I provided proof' nonsense. The SOHR aren't a reliable organisation. You have not provided a reputable shred of evidence that isn't skewed with SOHR 'facts'.

I'm not going to bother replying to you any longer. The fact that you state the FSA and AoM are moderates tells its own story. Never mind the fact that the FSA doesn't actually exist. Just because every lazy journalist in the main stream media is saying something doesn't make it true.

Using the SOHR is like using Russia Today, complete nonsense and nobody of any competence should use them as a source.

karma_

Lockstep wrote: »

A blanket refusal to accept the SOHR as a source seems to be a common theme in this thread. Even though they're viewed as a reputable source by media outlets (BBC, CNN, the Independent) and NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

At any rate, why was Russia bombing "ISIS" in Latakia when it's far away from ISIS territory? Likewise, are you denying Vox as a new source as well when it highlights the bombing of FSA positions?

You demanded proof Russia was bombing moderate rebels. It was provided to you but you just ignore it.

I'd guess it's because that's where their command centre and base is at, they would be crazy not to.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I seriously think you are over-egging Russian military capabilities in comparison to the west.

I heard an estimate that something like 90% of Russian bombs dropped recently in Syria were good old fashioned dumb bombs. I've also read reports of numerous civilians been struck by them. The Russians are also still using cluster bombs in civilian areas, a nice legacy for future Syrian generations.

How many fully functional aircraft carriers do Russia have currently? How many have they ever used in a real combat situation?

How many 5th generation fighters do Russia have?

How many stealth bombers?

They fired their first cruise missiles a couple of weeks ago.

The Americans were using cruise missiles in the 1980s.

The Americans were using laser guided bombs during the Vietnam war. The Russians are still struggling with the technology.

In most bar a few areas, the Americans are light years ahead.

I read an RT article the other day where the Russians boast they are using Syrian civilians as "spotters" to call in airstrikes.
Like many more have said on this thread, you can treat anything the Russians say with a large portion of salt.

Just this week, the Iraqi's with American support have surrounded Ramadi, taken back the Baji oil refinery and are pursuing ISIS in the area, while in Syria, ISIS have been pushed back to the suburbs of Raqqa with the aid of American airstrikes.

Now tell us exactly what the Russians have done to ISIS, with independent Non Russian confirmation, and without resorting to calling the BBC mouthpieces of the UK government etc.

You listed off a whole raft of things here and I'll not address each individually, but for sure I'd put their capabilities on par with any western force. We have a tendency to under estimate their capabilities, but they are completely ruthless and they just have a vastly different doctrine for war. History has taught this over and over, and one of their biggest advantages over a military like the US is that casualties don't really concern them, the West has no such appetite for that.

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

You listed off a whole raft of things here and I'll not address each individually, but for sure I'd put their capabilities on par with any western force. We have a tendency to under estimate their capabilities, but they are completely ruthless and they just have a vastly different doctrine for war. History has taught this over and over, and one of their biggest advantages over a military like the US is that casualties don't really concern them, the West has no such appetite for that.

On a par with western? They've one aircraft carrier that they've never used in combat. They have no 5th generation fighters. These are not small differences. You are talking of them being a full generation at least behind in key areas. And the difference is only increasing by the year.