Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Son Of A Vidic

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So much for ISIS being on the run after Russian bombing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-takes-control-of-strategically-important-syrian-town-near-homs-a6716741.html

As predicted by many people they are actually getting stronger while the other opposition were targeted by the Russians.

As predicted? Jaysus, have you not been watching? ISIS have been rapidly expanding and getting stronger and all the time while under apparent US airstrikes since August 2014. ISIS seizing a town in Syria isn't quite the same as ISIS crushing Iraq forces in the city of Ramadi last May. Such an embarrassment should have raised serious questions about the efficacy of US airstrikes. But it seems to have been conveniently brushed under the carpet by most western media sources.

The most obvious & concerning question of all should be, why have ISIS flourished & expanded their dominion in Syria & Iraq and all the time while under alleged US airstrikes? But yet again, that's another question that is ignored by the usual mouthpieces in the West. No wonder the Iraq's have made rumblings about inviting the Russians in...

In the interview with France 24, Abadi criticized the United States, saying it was not doing enough.

“We were expecting the international coalition, Americans, to bring massive air power to protect our forces,” he said.

"We haven't received that. At the moment we are getting support, but it's not major, it's limited. What matters for us is how best to fight Daesh," he added.

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/011020152

In other words, the American air campaign has been limited and is thus an exercise in tokenism. It's also weird that the Americans (via the CJCS) were threatening a withdrawal if the Iraq's brought in the Russians to help. Now if they can cooperate & avoid incidents over the skies of Syria, there should be no problem combining to attack ISIS in Iraq. Shouldn't the US welcome such help, assuming of course that they are genuinely interested in destroying ISIS?

The good thing about the Russian presence in the region is, it appears to have shamed the Americans into reviewing their impotent approach to the likes of ISIS and hopefully that will be a good thing for the region in the long term. On a positive note, Kerry and Lavrov do seem to have a good working relationship & a lot of mutual respect for each other. So hopefully in time, both these guys might be able to forge a more unified strategy to taking out ISIS, aL-Nushra and such fanatical Jihadists secreted throughout the region.

Dannyboy83

It seems the intelligence agencies think the theory of a bomb on board is more likely than not, so this does look similar to Lockerbie - bomb ripped apart fuselage and plane broke up in the air.

The Irish Aviation Authority and the UK have suspended all flights to Sharm el-Sheikh.
The head of the Sharm el-Sheikh Airport has also been replaced.

Putin has traditionally turned a setback into a boost through various forms of retaliation... but this time, it seems it will be much harder to retaliate in a meaningful way against asymmetrical ISIS.

What can be done - that isn't already being done by the US or Russia & which can it be portrayed to the Russian public as domination of the enemy?
What can more airforces do? What targets can they hit with cruise missiles?
Can they risk putting troops on the ground & how would they supply them?

Russia is going to eat through 2/3rds of their entire reserves in the 2016 budget, but I think if it's a question of risking the country's balance sheet or his own reign, Putin will happily choose the latter.

However, if a bomb is confirmed, think the Russian government will claim this vindicates their 'fight the enemy on their territory, not on ours' strategy.
The Russian propaganda machine once again proves chess-like in covering off possibilites.

BoJack Horseman

A bomb is the last thing they want.

We know that the Kremlin media has been in a chest-thumping frenzy over "destroying IS".
The reality has been a few strikes where the regime needed immediate assistance, but little else.

Russia has little practical reason to engage IS, unless they threaten Assad, which aside from a few fronts, they dont.

However this act of terror against Russian citizens could have the unwanted consequence of dragging Russia deeper into conflict..... Their people may demand it.

glued

Egypt are still saying their is no evidence to support the claim despite what intelligence has indicated so far. There are a hundred ways a plane can break up in mid air. It would also make little sense for ISIS to carry out such an attack as the US coalition and the Rebels pose a much bigger threat to ISIS currently.

It would be fairly obvious after inspecting the wreckage if a bomb detonated on the plane. There would be a plethora of indicators. I think at this stage it's much more likely that a defect caused the break up considering the reports of the condition the aircraft was in but, obviously, it's far too early to state the cause at this stage.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

I think at this stage it's much more likely that a defect caused the break up considering the reports of the condition the aircraft was in but, obviously, it's far too early to state the cause at this stage.

I also still think that it was mechanical.

ISare sketchy on the detail of their claim & the 'footage' they released after the crash was debunked.

Britain holds their 'cobra' meetings seemingly because it sounds cool & actioney.... Meanwhile thousands of holidaymakers are stranded

glued

Also, ISIS would essentially be inviting Russian troops to Syria and Iraq if they did bomb the plane. ISIS are relying on the lack of cordination from Russia and the US to make gains in Syria. I doubt Russia would have any problem stepping up a serious assault on ISIS with the US if the intelligence is correct. ISIS are probably the only issue the US and Russia can agree on. Surely ISIS know inviting a Russian assault at this point would be a disaster for them. Particularly as the US are very intent on destroying ISIS too.


Either way claims of ISIS attacking Russia, publicly, may be enough to force Russia to act on ISIS.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

Also, ISIS would essentially be inviting Russian troops to Syria and Iraq if they did bomb the plane. ISIS are relying on the lack of cordination from Russia and the US to make gains in Syria. I doubt Russia would have any problem stepping up a serious assault on ISIS with the US if the intelligence is correct. ISIS are probably the only issue the US and Russia can agree on. Surely ISIS know inviting a Russian assault at this point would be a disaster for them. Particularly as the US are very intent on destroying ISIS too.


Either way claims of ISIS attacking Russia, publicly, may be enough to force Russia to act on ISIS.

Well, lets say it was ISIS who did this.... there is a chance that it was an attack of opportunity rather than direct order from Al-Raqqa.
The wannabe franchises act independently.

So, yes, I imagine if faced with a full assault ISIS would regret the attack.
The flip side is that they may be so confident and so bat-sh*t crazy that they would welcome what would be one hell of a battle.

On the flip side, as I said previously, I don't think Russia would want to have to resort to large scale deployments if it can be avoided.
If they had to do so, Russia would of course have the ability to deploy in sufficient strength, but it would take a few months to do so.

Lockstep

It's a hard one to call: everyone has an interest in blame:
Russia wants it to be ISIS as it allows them to strengthen their claim that ISIS are a threat to everyone and Assad is needed to keep them in check.

ISIS will happily claim responsibility for any terrorist attack: it makes them look more active and gives them more notoriety so it stands to reason they'll say it was them.


It suits Egypt (just about) to say it was a technical problem as Sisi wants to show he's a strong leader and able to keep ISIS at bay.

BoJack Horseman

Lockstep wrote: »

Russia wants it to be ISIS

Do they?

I know I'm just repeating myself, but I just don't see it.

Russia has 2 (fixed wing) combat squadrons & 1 helicopter combat squadron in Syria.... If Russia can achieve the goal of preventing the regime from falling, there is no point in committing more resources to the fight.

Now if Russia does want to shift its attention to ISIS, I can see an increase in planes, maybe doubling in number & certainly perhaps a battalion of special forces.... but I just don't see the need to commit more & to commit heavy equipment.

Russia is as strong there as it needs to be for now..... Assad is safe for now.

glued

Russia don't want ISIS to bomb them. That's a bizarre notion. Russia have said previously that they want a coalition with the US and Assad to fight ISIS. This has been rejected by the Western powers. The only thing ISIS bombing Russia does is force Putin to act. ISIS bombing Russia doesn't benefit Russia or Assad in anyway.

Russia have already offered the US the opportunity to form a deeper cordination of efforts in Syria which was rejected by the US. How do the US expect to resolve the situation without further cordination with Russia? The US's policy in Syria is completely bizarre to say the least.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

Russia have said previously that they want a coalition with the US and Assad to fight ISIS.

Of course!

This would only adds legitimacy to the Assad dictatorship.

but why coalesce with the tyrant responsible for the vast majority of Syrian death, destruction & displacement?
It does nothing but make Assad stronger.

Assad could always do the right thing & stop killing & displacing his own people, step down & flee to Russia to live out his days.
I don't doubt western & Arabic nations will gladly assist in ISIS's final destruction..... thing is though, with the Syrian dictatorship gone, so to would be Russia..... they don't give a fig about ISIS unless its affecting their vassal in Damascus.

bilston

It is definitely in Russia's interests to say it wasn't terrorism. The strange thing was they announced it wasn't terrorism only a couple of hours after the plane crashed which was at best jumping the gun.

Equally the Eygptians don't want it to be terrorism because of the damage it will do to its tourism industry.

I suppose the next question is whether it is in the West's interests to say it was terrorism, but then would not that just invite more aggressive Russian action in Syria which I'm not sure is what the Americans want?

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Of course!

This would only adds legitimacy to the Assad dictatorship.

but why coalesce with the tyrant responsible for the vast majority of Syrian death, destruction & displacement?
It does nothing but make Assad stronger.

Assad could always do the right thing & stop killing & displacing his own people, step down & flee to Russia to live out his days.
I don't doubt western & Arabic nations will gladly assist in ISIS's final destruction..... thing is though, with the Syrian dictatorship gone, so to would be Russia..... they don't give a fig about ISIS unless its affecting their vassal in Damascus.

I doubt Assad will ever have to leave Syria but I don't think he will be in power. Russia will never leave Syria. They have too many intelligence based incentives not to do so. No matter what the Alawis have to be protected and Israel is the only state to consider their fate post Assad. American forced democracy on Syria, with its current borders, would be a complete disaster, particularly for the Alawis.

The Arabic nations have no intention of killing ISIS. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are too embedded in supporting Salafist groups in order to force it's ideal religion on the citizens of Syria. Saudi Arabia has no place at the table for the discussion of Syria's future. Syria has no future as long as the US keeps blocking a resolution. Russia are not tied to Assad either.

Dohnjoe

Looking more likely it was a bomb placed in the hold at Sharm El-Sheikh airport

Dohnjoe

glued wrote: »

The Arabic nations have no intention of killing ISIS

Sorry, but that's about as crude and simplistic as saying Catholic nations had no interest in removing the IRA

Much of the blame for the creation of ISIS can be placed firmly at the feet of wealthy Gulf financiers, but that doesn't mean absolute guilt by association and Arab countries have had to severely distance themselves from the group

All regional nations affected should have the option to engage in talks, that includes Iran.. and Saudi/Qatar

donaghs

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Russia..... they don't give a fig about ISIS unless its affecting their vassal in Damascus.

In fairness, Russia also has concerns about the 2000 or more Russian citizens (e.g. mainly chechen, ingush) who are fighting with ISIL and other al-Qaida affiliated group.

Shurimgreat

I think Russia would prefer to fight ISIL etc in Syria than in Chechnya or closer to home. In any case, Bojack is right, Russia aren't interested in solely fighting ISIL. They are interested in fighting anyone who threathens Assad and/or their interests in western Syria.

What they have succeeded in doing however is making Russian citizens targets of ISIL type groups. I'm fairly sure a large number of Russians will fear flying from now on. They have also succeeded in contributing to an all time popularity low of Russia around the world. And they have succeeded in propping up Assad and giving him a belief he can tough it out again, which in turn makes a peaceful negotiated solution to Syria impossible. Assad has no intention of stepping down, resigning or going anywhere, not while he has probably the second most powerful military in the world supporting him.

Russian's main motivation for getting involved in Syria is to give two fingers to the US and the West. In the long run it will be interesting to see what the implications are for Russia, but so far its not going well. And yes it is already turning into a second Afghanistan.

Shurimgreat

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Of course!

This would only adds legitimacy to the Assad dictatorship.

but why coalesce with the tyrant responsible for the vast majority of Syrian death, destruction & displacement?
It does nothing but make Assad stronger.

Assad could always do the right thing & stop killing & displacing his own people, step down & flee to Russia to live out his days.
I don't doubt western & Arabic nations will gladly assist in ISIS's final destruction..... thing is though, with the Syrian dictatorship gone, so to would be Russia..... they don't give a fig about ISIS unless its affecting their vassal in Damascus.

Agreed. I don't think ISIL can be defeated while Assad is in power. He's a recruiting sergent for them for a start. He's the reason thousands travel to Syria to fight. He also doesn't have the military strength to fight them, certainly not enough boots on the ground. If the Sunni and Alawites united to fight them maybe, but that's not going to happen while Assad is in power.

ISIL have prospered in the vacuam left behind by the retreat of the government and because of his unpopularity. As long as he remains in power, so also will ISIL be a powerful force in the country.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Russian's main motivation for getting involved in Syria is to give two fingers to the US and the West. In the long run it will be interesting to see what the implications are for Russia, but so far its not going well. And yes it is already turning into a second Afghanistan.

That's not true at all and is quite an ill-informed statement to make. Russia's main motivation is securing the naval base in Tartus, expanding the air base in Latakia and protecting Russia's largest eavesdropping facility, also in Latakia. To say that their involvement is mainly down to sticking it to the US is a complete oversimplification of their involvement. Syria is important to Russia, militarily.

I'm not sure how you can draw the conclusion that it's not going well for them. In reality, it's been quite the opposite and Russia have been quite successful in protecting their own interests to date.

glued

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sorry, but that's about as crude and simplistic as saying Catholic nations had no interest in removing the IRA

Much of the blame for the creation of ISIS can be placed firmly at the feet of wealthy Gulf financiers, but that doesn't mean absolute guilt by association and Arab countries have had to severely distance themselves from the group

All regional nations affected should have the option to engage in talks, that includes Iran.. and Saudi/Qatar

When I'm referring to Arabic nations in a Syrian context I'm talking about Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Both of whom should have no place deciding the future of Syria and have no intention of killing ISIS.

Lockstep

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Agreed. I don't think ISIL can be defeated while Assad is in power. He's a recruiting sergent for them for a start. He's the reason thousands travel to Syria to fight. He also doesn't have the military strength to fight them, certainly not enough boots on the ground. If the Sunni and Alawites united to fight them maybe, but that's not going to happen while Assad is in power.

ISIL have prospered in the vacuam left behind by the retreat of the government and because of his unpopularity. As long as he remains in power, so also will ISIL be a powerful force in the country.

I'd say Assad needs ISIS more than ISIS need Assad: given the large numbers of foreign fighters in ISIS, they'll be less motivated by a need to tackle Assad. By contrast, ISIS are a great prop for Assad to lean on and portray himself as the only alternative. At any rate, the two groups have a tendency to avoid tackling one another.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

That's not true at all and is quite an ill-informed statement to make. Russia's main motivation is securing the naval base in Tartus, expanding the air base in Latakia and protecting Russia's largest eavesdropping facility, also in Latakia. To say that their involvement is mainly down to sticking it to the US is a complete oversimplification of their involvement. Syria is important to Russia, militarily.

I'm not sure how you can draw the conclusion that it's not going well for them. In reality, it's been quite the opposite and Russia have been quite successful in protecting their own interests to date.

Agreed. Russia's main motivation is securing its own interests in the Middle East and ensuring one of its few regional allies remains in power. This is far more important to Russia than simply sticking two fingers at the west.

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

That's not true at all and is quite an ill-informed statement to make. Russia's main motivation is securing the naval base in Tartus, expanding the air base in Latakia and protecting Russia's largest eavesdropping facility, also in Latakia. To say that their involvement is mainly down to sticking it to the US is a complete oversimplification of their involvement. Syria is important to Russia, militarily.

I'm not sure how you can draw the conclusion that it's not going well for them. In reality, it's been quite the opposite and Russia have been quite successful in protecting their own interests to date.

hmm let me see...they are just after suffering their worst ever air disaster, with a high probability its linked to ISIS and their involvement to Syria. Had they stayed out of Syria or not being involved in airstrikes, its unlikely it would have happened.

Its a high price to pay, ie constant threat of terrorist attack on their own citizens, for propping up Assad.

There is also the cost of maintaining their military adventure in Syria, a cost they can ill afford. And it will take years to keep Assad in office. And Assad doesn't have enough troops to take back the rest of the country, so it may mean Russian troops.

There are lots and lots of variables at play here. America found out in Iraq winning a conventional war is the easy part. Its dealing with all the snipers, IEDs, guerrilla groups that melt into the general population and so on is the hard part.

Russia have made the same mistake in Syria as the Americans did in Iraq - no long term plan.

I should add the Russians showed no interest from the start in meeting the west half way with a compromise on Syria which could have protected their interests. No-one would have any problem with a government of national unity made up of moderate sunnis and moderate alawites and which would have I'm sure protected Russian bases etc with the right guarantees in place.

I think Russia has taken the view its much easier to deal with a single ruthless dictator in Syria than with the vagaries of a democracy. Assad is their man and they are determined to keep him. They have supported him to the hilt and are as guilty as him for all the crimes committed by him in Syria.

Elmer Blooker

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There is also the cost of maintaining their military adventure in Syria, a cost they can ill afford. And it will take years to keep Assad in office. And Assad doesn't have enough troops to take back the rest of the country, so it may mean Russian troops.

There are lots and lots of variables at play here. America found out in Iraq winning a conventional war is the easy part. Its dealing with all the snipers, IEDs, guerrilla groups that melt into the general population and so on is the hard part.

Russia have made the same mistake in Syria as the Americans did in Iraq - no long term plan.

....... or Iranian troops?
The Americans have been involved in Iraq for 12 years and the Russians involved in Syria for just over a month- a bit premature to be talking about long term plans don't you think?
Putin knows that if the Jihadists get a foothold in Syria Chechnya will more than likely be next, a great read here from many years ago and still very relevant today in my opinion.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia

Allegations are even being made in Russia that the west itself is somehow behind the Chechen rebellion, and that the purpose of such support is to weaken Russia, and to drive her out of the Caucasus. The fact that the Chechens are believed to use as a base the Pankisi gorge in neighbouring Georgia - a country which aspires to join Nato, has an extremely pro-American government, and where the US already has a significant military presence - only encourages such speculation. Putin himself even seemed to lend credence to the idea in his interview with foreign journalists on Monday.

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

....... or Iranian troops?
The Americans have been involved in Iraq for 12 years and the Russians involved in Syria for just over a month- a bit premature to be talking about long term plans don't you think?
Putin knows that if the Jihadists get a foothold in Syria Chechnya will more than likely be next, a great read here from many years ago and still very relevant today in my opinion.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia

We will see how far the Iranians are willing to commit. They are already showing a reluctance to send their best commanders to Syria and are starting to send lesser officers instead. They are sending Afghan refugees to fight and also Hezbollah. Syria is a quagmire, no two ways about it. Body bags are coming back to Lebanon, Iran and even Russia.

As I said earlier, Syria has attracted thousands of fighters from Chechnya and the like where many of them are dying. The Russians are quite happy for them to go to Syria and die there. There's not much danger of anything kicking off in Chechnya.

As for Putin "lending credence" to anything, surely you have learnt by now that anything Putin says he means the opposite. Recently he said he wasn't against Assad stepping down. This can be interpreted as him being totally against Assad stepping down. He rarely means what he says.

riffmongous

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

....... or Iranian troops?
The Americans have been involved in Iraq for 12 years and the Russians involved in Syria for just over a month- a bit premature to be talking about long term plans don't you think?
Putin knows that if the Jihadists get a foothold in Syria Chechnya will more than likely be next, a great read here from many years ago and still very relevant today in my opinion.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia

I'm not sure how relevant it is anymore, the Chechen situation has changed vastly since 2004, back then Mashkadov was still alive and gave the separatist movement some sort of credibility internationally.

Dannyboy83

Russia suspended all flights to Egypt:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/stranded-uk-tourists-fly-home-egypt-sharm-151106002227707.html

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Russia suspended all flights to Egypt:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/stranded-uk-tourists-fly-home-egypt-sharm-151106002227707.html

Russian Media speculating that it may have been the British who stowed a bomb on board the MetroJet plane:

Cameron and Obama are evidently being fed intelligence assessments of a bomb being stowed in the airplane's hold by terrorists.
But here is a big one. The confidence by which these assessments of terror methodology are being made raises an even more troubling, darker question: was it really terrorists, or was it British MI6 agents palming the deed off as terrorists?


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151106/1029694767/sinai-isil-russia-a321-crash.html#ixzz3qr6QiAj1

BoJack Horseman

Good o'l Sputnik...

From the bosses mind to their mouths.

riffmongous

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Good o'l Sputnik...

From the bosses mind to their mouths.

Well it's probably pretty believable in russia, considering their own history of doing it

Elmer Blooker

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Russian Media speculating that it may have been the British who stowed a bomb on board the MetroJet plane:

You didn't see the disclaimer at the end? No?

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

It seems the author is Irish with a name like that. His thinking may be influenced by British underhand tactics in Northern Ireland. I don't know?

glued

Russia have requested assistance from the NTSB and FBI with the plane crash. Obviously Russia wants the absolute benchmark in aviation expertise. Hopefully they can start to co-ordinate in Syria now too.

Dannyboy83

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

You didn't see the disclaimer at the end? No?

A plaintiff (person who has potentially been defamed) often has choices of whom to sue. If a defamatory story was published in a newspaper, the plaintiff may choose to sue the news service, the author of the letter, the newspaper itself, or a combination of the three. Regardless of who else is sued, if the newspaper published the defamatory material they can also be found liable. “The simple point is that anyone who publishes libelous material is legally responsible for it.”

As a publisher, it is important to remember that “Those who publish statements should assume a reasonable level of responsibility.” The media is responsible for everything they publish, regardless of the source of the statements. This means that a media outlet must take care to ensure they are not publishing defamatory statements, as they could be held responsible for them, even if they are not; a) the original source of the statements, b) don’t agree with the statements, or c) if they were not aware the publication was defamatory.

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It seems the author is Irish with a name like that. His thinking may be influenced by British underhand tactics in Northern Ireland. I don't know?

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism.

I doubt it, he was content to take British money & work for British institutions.

His body of work is an oracle of moral hypocrisy:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/finian-cunningham.html?p=2&s=date&op=10

Elmer Blooker

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I doubt it, he was content to take British money & work for British institutions.

His body of work is an oracle of moral hypocrisy:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/finian-cunningham.html?p=2&s=date&op=10

How dare he "work" for British institutions before taking up journalism!
Will the mainstream British press be publishing any of his articles? We have a free press here in the morally superior west don't we?
Is he not trying to expose hypocrisy here?
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/06/03/never-mind-fifa-how-about-crackdown-banksters.html
I never heard of strategic-culture until today. Thanks.

IrishTrajan

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Will the mainstream British press be publishing any of his articles? We have a free press here in the morally superior west don't we?

The press being free doesn't mean it has to carry every bloody article or be called hypocritical.

Elmer Blooker

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The press being free doesn't mean it has to carry every bloody article or be called hypocritical.

I was being sarcastic when I said the press is free, if someone told me a couple of years ago that the Guardian would be indistinguishable from the Telegraph/Express/Mail or any of the right wing gutter press I would have laughed at them!

bilston

Aye I would imagine blowing up 200 plus Russian holidaymakers is right at the top of the British government's agenda...FFS...

glued

There is a new moderate rebel group in Syria called the Syrian Democratic Forces. They're the first diverse group to join forces on a large scale in Syria. The SDF are made up of Sunnis, Christians, Turks and Kurds.

They're mostly focused in the north east but hopefully this movement can expand. They mostly oppose ISIS and are backed by the Americans. The Russians have opposed the backing of this group due to the majority of American weapons benefitting Extremist groups to date.

Hopefully this group can make some gains but more importantly form a political opposition to Assad and Sunni Extremism.

Lockstep

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

You didn't see the disclaimer at the end? No?

It seems the author is Irish with a name like that. His thinking may be influenced by British underhand tactics in Northern Ireland. I don't know?

Eh, giving a platform to a journalist, they're making themselves responsible for what they say.
The Irish Times can't just print an article saying "Enda Kenny has stabbed children to death" and then dodge responsibility by saying that was the journalist's claim, not theirs.

BoJack Horseman

Lockstep wrote: »

Eh, giving a platform to a journalist, they're making themselves responsible for what they say.
The Irish Times can't just print an article saying "Enda Kenny has stabbed children to death" and then dodge responsibility by saying that was the journalist's claim, not theirs.

Those western corporate media shills are just protecting ol' kiddy stabber Kenny.

Indeed if the platform didn't edorse, they wouldn't publish.... There are plenty of blogging services for the jaded to use alternatively.

IrishTrajan

The Kurds have launched an offensive against Sinjar with roughly 7500 men and US air support. Russian air support also helped Assadist forces break the siege of Kuweiris.

Gatling

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The Kurds have launched an offensive against Sinjar with roughly 7500 men and US air support. Russian air support also helped Assadist forces break the siege of Kuweiris.

Wonder what will happen If the kurds take enough isis territory back will they themselves be targeted by Russian forces

IrishTrajan

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder what will happen If the kurds take enough isis territory back will they themselves be targeted by Russian forces

Some analysts believe the greatest danger to the Kurdish position is over-extension for political goals. Sinjar is claimed by the Kurdish and their Arab-allies. Taking Sinjar helps them in the long-term. The Kurdish won't be marching on Mosul, they'll stick to Kurdish areas.

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder what will happen If the kurds take enough isis territory back will they themselves be targeted by Russian forces

The Russians won't have to, the Kurds are already targeted by NATO.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The Kurds have launched an offensive against Sinjar with roughly 7500 men and US air support.

God speed to the Kurds & Yazidis.
7,500 is a huge assault for something like this.....it could be the biggest Kurdish assault yet.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The Russians won't have to, the Kurds are already targeted by NATO.

No not nato,

turkey

Why do people keep blaming this country nato on everything bet they can't find it on a map

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

No not nato,

turkey

Why do people keep blaming this country nato on everything bet they can't find it on a map

dont you just hate the way the UN are bombing the kurds!

cos... you know... turkey are in the UN.... ergo...ipso-facto..!

Elmer & his anti-logic, itnever fails

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

dont you just hate the way the UN are bombing the kurds!

cos... you know... turkey are in the UN.... ergo...ipso-facto..!

Elmer & his anti-logic, itnever fails

Aren't Russia a permanent member of UN too

DarkyHughes

At least one country has the balls to stand up to the Americans.

The Russians, Syrian Army & Hezbollah will be far to strong for ISIS & their American allies.

BoJack Horseman

DarkyHughes wrote: »

At least one country has the balls to stand up to the Americans.

The Russians, Syrian Army & Hezbollah will be far to strong for ISIS & their American allies.

You are very confused....

IS are gaining thanks to Russia close air support.