Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

IrishTrajan

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 correct, Russia, the SAA and Hizbullah have done more to strengthen ISIS than the American-backed groups. May Russia's intervention against the Caliphate bring greater prosperity to Daesh and the Caliph. Masha'allah Insha'allah!

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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

But which sky fairy?

glued

Russia is currently the only country attempting to bring peace to Syria. They have drawn up a plan which will see democratic elections. It's not perfect but it's a start.

ISIS haven't made any material gains as a direct result of Russian involvement in Syria. Assad has recently made gains against ISIS and this has resulted in ISIS and the Rebels fighting side by side against Assad. It won't be long until Aleppo is captured and with the possibility of Russian boots on the ground; would spell the end of any negotiation in Syria.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Russia is currently the only country attempting to bring peace to Syria. They have drawn up a plan which will see democratic elections.

Russia and democratic elections yeah right ,

Two words that are incompatible russia and democracy

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

Russia is currently the only country attempting to bring peace to Syria.

Cluster bombing for peace....
..
Yup.

ISIS haven't made any material gains as a direct result of Russian involvement in Syria

Objectively this isn't true

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Cluster bombing for peace....
..
Yup.


Objectively this isn't true

Assad has since made more significant gains around Aleppo.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Assad has since made more significant gains around Aleppo.

Don't you mean Iranian, Hezbollah and Russians made grounds in aleppo

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

Assad has since made more significant gains around Aleppo.

Indeed, they've both made gains!

So, whether its CAS for the dictatorship or ISIS, its bad news for the Syrian people.

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Cluster bombing for peace....
..
Yup.


Objectively this isn't true

Cmon, thats no different than anyone dropping any kind of bomb on anyone, the result is the same.
ie the US was bombing democracy into the middle east long before the Russians came on the scene and the effect is the same, even with "smart" guided munitions.

And to deflect against the inevitable "whataboutery" the US and their proxies have been bombing democracy into Syria too.

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed, they've both made gains!

So, whether its CAS for the dictatorship or ISIS, its bad news for the Syrian people.

What's bad news for the Syrian people is that they don't have a credible opposition to Assad which is quite alarming.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

What's bad news for the Syrian people is that they don't have a credible opposition to Assad

That's an opinion.

Much of the world recognises the Syrian National Coalition as the legitimate government of Syria.
As for "credible", they certainly seem more credible than the Assad dictatorship, which by default lack credibility anyway.
(governance by brutality, fear & murder without any democratic mandate is not very credible!)

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's an opinion.

Much of the world recognises the Syrian National Coalition as the legitimate government of Syria.
As for "credible", they certainly seem more credible than the Assad dictatorship, which by default lack credibility anyway.
(governance by brutality, fear & murder is not very credible!)

Of course it's an opinion, what else would it be? They aren't credible at all. They have no real material presence anywhere in Syria. Many have resigned from the SNC citing corruption and a lack of leadership. They're overrun with members from the Muslim Brotherhood, with former SNC members saying that 'half the council are Islamists'. For an organisation that sprung up in 2011 they have done nothing for Syria and its people.

Syria has no opposition. That's clearly the problem. Assad needs to be removed but there is no viable alternative. Syria will never be democratic unless there is a real push for democracy from Russia, which is extremely unlikely. The Western powers have failed miserably in Syria to date. When Assad captures Aleppo and regains more supply lines he will be able to start running part of the country again. Why would Assad or Russia come back to the table when Russia has its ally in power and Assad has control over the most economically viable section of the country?

The fact that Syria still has no viable alternative to Assad is a massive failure from the US and its allies.

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's an opinion.

Much of the world recognises the Syrian National Coalition as the legitimate government of Syria.
As for "credible", they certainly seem more credible than the Assad dictatorship, which by default lack credibility anyway.
(governance by brutality, fear & murder without any democratic mandate is not very credible!)

This is your opinion,
I believe youve already stated that you have/had the same opinion of Saddam and Gaddafi, yet you have also given the real politik view that the west must deal with bad men too, one outstanding example being Saudi.
And how did those countries fare with an imposed coalition? an unwanted and certainly not a democratically instituted system.
Its the belief that the West or allegedly democratic countries have the right to impose their will in other sovereign nations, it seems to be incongruous with democracy.

Posters and papers bang on about Islam extremism this and that, but it wouldnt have a foothold if there wasnt a sense of hope, so there must not be. Very easy for circumstances to be manipulated in a global economy. The question shouldnt be about Islam or democracy or bombs, its back to basics, poverty, so its all well and good someone being up on a high horse talking about democracy, when people have reduced access or no access to food.

If people had their basic needs met, then really it wouldnt matter what leader was in power.

Considering what has occurred in Libya and Iraq, I think if we tallied up the death list and the brutality of it, I think it would be a lot smaller had those countries been left alone, and as the West seems to have no longterm plan for improving the security and wellbeing of the people there, other than foisting an imposed "democracy" on them, well thats just dandy, but you cant eat democracy, thats not going to feed you or your children.

I question the democratic mandate of those nations imposing their will and their bombs on other nations, why dont they feed them instead, allocate their resources to managing population and then a lesser need instead of spending it on bombs.
I consider the current means to alter the circumstances of millions of people without asking them as brutal as any ongoing status quo by any Dictator.
http://www.academia.edu/5743155/World_food_crisis_and_the_Arab_Spring

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/bread-food-arab-spring

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

They're overrun with members from the Muslim Brotherhood

When you represent all people, you are going to have MB members... but so what? They are members of a coalition.... I'll take it over a brutal dictator any day..

And when people look at the membership, it is very much representative, not all 'overrun' as you want to paint it.

Again... I'll take it over one dictator, propped up by the Ayatollah & the Kremlin, I'll take it every day of the week.

For an organisation that sprung up in 2011 they have done nothing for Syria and its people.

Pray, how on earth could they!!
How are the main opposition supposed to "do anything for its people" when their armed forces are being crushed by the dictatorship & its islamist sponsors??

Its not like they can start actually governing or anything.

That's like criticising the IRB or IRA for not "doing anything" during the war of independence.... despite being in no position to do so... its just not logical & a poor effort ti discredit.

The fact that Syria still has no viable alternative to Assad is a massive failure from the US

Again, this makes no sense.

A brutal dictatorship kills & exiles political opposition..... ergo Merica's fault.

Not logical.

Many (including me) will say that there is no credible alternative to the Fine Gael/Labour government... is that America's fault?

Many UK voters felt there was no alternative to David Cameron, is that too America's fault?

It's a fallacy to cite the lack of opponents to a brutal dictatorship as the fault (somehow) of the US, but not the brutal dictator doing the killing and exiling!.... it makes less than no sense whatsoever

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

When you represent all people, you are going to have MB members... but so what? They are members of a coalition.... I'll take it over a brutal dictator any day..

And when people look at the membership, it is very much representative.

Again... I'll take it over one dictator, propped up by the Ayatollah & the Kremlin, I'll take it every day of the week.


Pray, how on earth could they!!
How are the main opposition supposed to "do anything for its people" when their armed forces are being crushed by the dictatorship & its islamist sponsors??

Its not like they can start actually governing or anything.

That's like criticising the IRB or IRA for not "doing anything" during the war of independence.... despite being in no position to do so... its just not logical & a poor effort ti discredit.


Again, this makes no sense.

A brutal dictatorship kills & exiles political opposition..... ergo Merica's fault.

Not logical.

Many (including me) will say that there is no credible alternative to the Fine Gael/Labour government... is that America's fault?

Many UK voters felt there was no alternative to David Cameron, is that too America's fault?

It's a fallacy to cite the lack of opponents to a brutal dictatorship as the fault (somehow) of the US, but not the brutal dictator doing the killing and exiling!.... it makes less than no sense whatsoever

So you accept that an extremist element is tolerable, to you.
When you go and ask the Syrian people and come back and tell its the case or have lived under it yourself, then you can accept it, till then I dont think you should accept that on their behalf.
You say you'll have brutal extremism over a brutal dictator? well I dont think Assad is as bad as the extreme elements opposing him.
You seem to oppose islamic extremism on one hand and then support it on the other, but becuase your central theme is get rid of Assad at any cost for any reason and you're painted in a corner with this belief (Im not saying you dont belive it) but you cant do a u turn, you simply cant get out of that view no matter how bad or poor the opposition alternative is.

So you propose the SNC as the legitimate govt accepted by democratic (aka the west aligned) nations (but nothing about what the Syrians want) and you compare this to the IRA/IRB by stating its not their (The SNC) fault they are in no position to do anything about being not credible, due to being militarily struck down.

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

When you represent all people, you are going to have MB members... but so what? They are members of a coalition.... I'll take it over a brutal dictator any day..

What have they done in Syria? They aren't a viable alternative and I'd suspect that you're able to recognise that.

And when people look at the membership, it is very much representative, not all 'overrun' as you want to paint it.

Again... I'll take it over one dictator, propped up by the Ayatollah & the Kremlin, I'll take it every day of the week.

Good for you. I'd much rather an intelligent secular government in Syria which isn't corrupt and rammed with extremists.

Pray, how on earth could they!!
How are the main opposition supposed to "do anything for its people" when their armed forces are being crushed by the dictatorship & its islamist sponsors??

Its not like they can start actually governing or anything.

That's like criticising the IRB or IRA for not "doing anything" during the war of independence.... despite being in no position to do so... its just not logical & a poor effort ti discredit.

Huh? You seem to be completely missing the point. The IRA are very different to the SNC and the FSA. There is very little comparison, if any, between the groups. How can they do anything? They can't. They've proven to be a completely useless organisation. Syria needs an opposition that is able to politically oppose Assad. SNC have proven that they can't do that. How do you suggest Syria will ever get to the polls if there is no opposition capable of doing anything?

Of course they can do something. Don't be so naive.

Again, this makes no sense.

A brutal dictatorship kills & exiles political opposition..... ergo Merica's fault.

Not logical.

Well why are the US in Syria? It's either to remove ISIS and leave Syria in a complete disaster for Assad to run or to remove ISIS and support an alternative government. From the rhetoric from the White House it would appear to be the latter. Something in which they have failed miserably. I'm not quite sure what you can't grasp about that.

Many (including me) will say that there is no credible alternative to the Fine Gael/Labour government... is that America's fault?

Many UK voters felt there was no alternative to David Cameron, is that too America's fault?

It's a fallacy to cite the lack of opponents to a brutal dictatorship as the fault (somehow) of the US, but not the brutal dictator doing the killing and exiling!.... it makes less than no sense whatsoever

This is the biggest strawman argument I've seen on this thread. What a preposterous statement to make. The US oversaw the rise of ISIS and predicted it. At the very least they are responsible for the rise of ISIS in Syria by their complete inaction. They're overseeing a bizarre military and political strategy in Syria which is failing.

Your belief that anything is better than Assad doesn't hold water. The SNC are not a viable alternative. You seem so willing to blindly support anything that opposes Assad, which would appear to be America's policy in Syria too.

If you can't see how the US have failed in Syria then there is not much point in dragging this out any further. It's blindingly obvious how inept they have been to date.

jcdf

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It's more a case of Russia protecting its military installations in Tartus and keeping access to the Mediterranean Sea. To achieve that it needs to keep the current Government in power. This is also an opportunity for Russia to enhance its long established military presence in Latakia Governorate.

This is the primary reason for Russia's support of the Assad administration. That and selling weapons.

But then there is the future. Where will this all go? If Assad and ISIS and the other rebels were a closed system, telling this would be easier. They are not!

Then there is that thing called mission creep. When interacting in a system with more dimensions and a smallish outlay of assets the likelihood of being dragged into things not of ones own design increases. Even if Russia puts a large number of boots on the ground, it will still be a force beholden to Assad and his multitude of unreliable allies like Hezbollah and Iran.

What happens if Assad is successful and he beheads the FSA? Will he go after the Sunni's of ISIS and attempt to destroy them wholesale? How would the Iraqi's interpret that, would they jump on the bandwagon and start their own genocide? Would Iran over see and perhaps endorse this on the basis of what is happening in Yemen? What would Turkey and GCC do?

Count Dooku

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's an opinion.

Much of the world recognises the Syrian National Coalition as the legitimate government of Syria.

I see only US puppets in this list

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Again, this makes no sense.

A brutal dictatorship kills & exiles political opposition..... ergo Merica's fault.

Not logical.

Like all other countries in Middle East, apart from Israel

BoJack Horseman

Count Dooku wrote: »

I see only US puppets in this list

Of course you do!

Your impartiality komrade, lying very low, somewhere alongside credibility.

ancapailldorcha

Count Dooku wrote: »

I see only US puppets in this list


Like all other countries in Middle East, apart from Israel

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Of course you do!

Your impartiality komrade, lying very low, somewhere alongside credibility.

Knock it off the pair of you.

Gatling

French Airforce hammered raqqa tonight a 10 ship sortie hit the isis stronghold earlier tonight in what's probably going to be the start of a sustained effort ,

they found the isis stronghold on the first attempt hope russia is watching

Count Dooku

Gatling wrote: »

French Airforce hammered raqqa tonight a 10 ship sortie hit the isis stronghold earlier tonight in what's probably going to be the start of a sustained effort ,

they found the isis stronghold on the first attempt hope russia is watching

Actually Raqqa was always under attack of Russian jets

but due low importance from military point of view, Russia was more concentrating on bombing Al Nusra and ISIS near frontline with SAA, where results of bombing could be easily picked by ground forces
BTW, British media reports that French managed to hit only civilian targets
Syrian activists claim 'stadium, museum and medical clinics' hit after France launched air strikes on ISIS

Gatling

Count Dooku wrote: »

Actually Raqqa was always under attack of Russian]

That would be a No actually as repeatedly proved on here russia avoided isis for what ever reason fear or lack of ability

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

French Airforce hammered raqqa tonight a 10 ship sortie hit the isis stronghold earlier tonight in what's probably going to be the start of a sustained effort ,

they found the isis stronghold on the first attempt hope russia is watching

Great! The French are hitting the terrorists hard as the Russians concentrate their attacks on the freedom loving moderates!

glued

Gatling wrote: »

That would be a No actually as repeatedly proved on here russia avoided isis for what ever reason fear or lack of ability

What a bizarre post. Russia has attacked ISIS and Raqqa. It's amazing how some people will lie to try and further their argument against Russia.

Can you show me where someone has proved that Russia haven't attacked ISIS and Raqqa?

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Can you show me where someone has proved that Russia haven't attacked ISIS and Raqqa?

It's Been proved on this thread multiple times what you find bizarre about that is odd to say the least

weisses

Hopefully after the events the last couple of weeks the "superpowers" will work together to wipe this evil of the face of the earth ... ISIS is affecting them all

glued

Gatling wrote: »

It's Been proved on this thread multiple times what you find bizarre about that is odd to say the least

Who has it been proven by? It's a complete myth and fabrication. Russia have attacked ISIS in Raqqa.

It's very odd seeing somebody propagate lies...

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Who has it been proven by? It's a complete myth and fabrication. Russia have attacked ISIS in Raqqa.

It's very odd seeing somebody propagate lies...

Multiple posters on this very thread have proved it .

Gatling

weisses wrote: »

Hopefully after the events the last couple of weeks the "superpowers" will work together to wipe this evil of the face of the earth ... ISIS is affecting them all

Apparently Obama and vladi had an animated discussion over the weekend,

They will need to put boots on the ground in big numbers to achieve that .
But unfortunately no country seems to be willing to step up ,
I wouldn't blame the Americans either they know Iraq will kick off big time if they have to put boots in substantial numbers on the ground and it won't just be isis they would have to fight

glued

Gatling wrote: »

Multiple posters on this very thread have proved it .

Can you provide evidence of the posters that have 'proved' this?

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Can you provide evidence of the posters that have 'proved' this?

As I said multiple posters have proved it ,

Count Dooku

Gatling wrote: »

That would be a No actually as repeatedly proved on here russia avoided isis for what ever reason fear or lack of ability

Lol
Are you saying tat reuters was lying mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SV14L20151106

ancapailldorcha

Count Dooku wrote: »

Lol
Are you saying tat reuters was lying mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SV14L20151106

If this is all you have to add then please do not post here.

Lockstep

I don't think anyone is saying Russia has completely avoided attacking ISIS: to be fair, they have conducted some operations against them.
However, the vast majority of their attacks have been against other rebel groups, particularly in the north-west.

As such, while NATO is focussing on ISIS, Russia is focussing on other rebel groups. So personally, I'd be more supportive of NATO in the fight against ISIS as with Russia, it seems to be a fig leaf more than anything.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying Russia has completely avoided attacking ISIS: to be fair, they have conducted some operations against them.
However, the vast majority of their attacks have been against other rebel groups, particularly in the north-west.

As such, while NATO is focussing on ISIS, Russia is focussing on other rebel groups. So personally, I'd be more supportive of NATO in the fight against ISIS as with Russia, it seems to be a fig leaf more than anything.

This is correct. Russia, currently, have no real interest in attacking ISIS as it's not in their strategic interest, in the short term, to do so. They have attacked ISIS but it's been a minimal effort in comparison to Russia's attempts to destroy the Rebels.

I think we may see more of a Russian effort to attack ISIS as a result of the agreement in Vienna. Although, that will depend on Putin's appetite to actually help removing ISIS from Syria. Although, Assad has worked with and against ISIS I think he will try and propagate himself further as the only alternative to ISIS, considering the events in Paris.

I think the Vienna agreement will only intensify fighting until the proposed ceasefire in May. I'm not sure why everybody is intent on keeping the Syrian state intact. The Alawis and Christians will not want to be ruled by the Sunnis. The Kurds will not want to be ruled by the Sunnis. Despite the rhetoric coming from the SNC, they are not fit to run a country. The only hope you have for Syria is groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces being able to form a solid political opposition to Assad.

Sierra Oscar

Gatling wrote: »

That would be a No actually as repeatedly proved on here russia avoided isis for what ever reason fear or lack of ability

Russia has been targeting ISIS, but has also predominately focused on targeting groups affiliated to Al-Qaeda (which NATO are essentially ignoring).

NATO are focusing on targeting the group that most threatens their state security - i.e. ISIS.

Russia are focusing on targeting the groups that are an immediate threat to their ally (it's what you do when you enter an alliance) and groups which are the greatest threat to their state security - in particular groups with a high number of Chechen fighters.

NATO & Russia are both doing exactly what you would expect. They are focusing their efforts on the groups that are the greatest short-term threat to them and their allies.

cerastes

glued wrote: »

Can you provide evidence of the posters that have 'proved' this?

They wont, they will simply reply as below as they keep doing, you just end up going around in circles with them as they fail time and time to prove their point if asked to back something up, they repeatedly make claims without backing it up and state it as fact, I'm sure some things they say are accurate but they will also post others mixed in that are just statements of fact but without backing it up for the most part, I think their view is just wear people down, if you keep drumming an opinion into people, they eventually just accept it as fact.

Gatling wrote: »

As I said multiple posters have proved it ,

So why if asked wont you provide one of the links provided by many (mainly two) posters, instead you are being argumentative.

If its proven absolutely, then it would be reasonable and easy for you to provide the links and by which poster to further your point.

Dannyboy83

Kremlin confirms it was a bomb that brought down the Russian plane over Egypt.

But four days after Islamist gunmen and bombers killed at least 129 people in Paris, Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the FSB, told a late night meeting that traces of foreign-made explosive had been found on fragments of the downed plane and on passengers' personal belongings.

"According to an analysis by our specialists, a homemade bomb containing up to 1 kilogram of TNT detonated during the flight, causing the plane to break up in mid air, which explains why parts of the fuselage were spread over such a large distance," said Bortnikov at the meeting in footage released by the Kremlin.

"We can unequivocally say it was a terrorist act," he said.


Read more at Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/17/us-egypt-crash-russia-blast-idUSKCN0T60PS20151117#VZqsxqCouyFFfamQ.99

They have yet to clarify whether the bomb originated from MI6 or ISIL however... (or FSB???)

Gatling

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Russia has been targeting ISIS, but has also predominately focused on targeting groups affiliated to Al-Qaeda (which NATO are essentially ignoring).

The majority of Russia's strikes have been against non isis targets ,
With an exception today where there currently hitting raqqa from the air with long range bombers and cruise missles from the sea ,

I noticed they thanked other counties for supplying the intelligence that was required to hit isis targets which suggests ,
There own intelligence in the area wasn't up to much standard's,

What i don't get in the whole glee associated with vladi Putin's involvement in syria when's he's only interested a naval base and airfield

Lockstep

cerastes wrote: »

They wont, they will simply reply as below as they keep doing, you just end up going around in circles with them as they fail time and time to prove their point if asked to back something up, they repeatedly make claims without backing it up and state it as fact, I'm sure some things they say are accurate but they will also post others mixed in that are just statements of fact but without backing it up for the most part, I think their view is just wear people down, if you keep drumming an opinion into people, they eventually just accept it as fact.



So why if asked wont you provide one of the links provided by many (mainly two) posters, instead you are being argumentative.

If its proven absolutely, then it would be reasonable and easy for you to provide the links and by which poster to further your point.

To be fair, I think this was a misunderstanding more than anything: it's been demonstrated numerous times that Russia was doing little against ISIS and focussing on other groups. They certainly did some airstrikes but these pale in their attacks on non-ISIS rebels.
I posted about this numerous times but it got very frustrating being expected to back it up again and again by posters. I don't mind clarifying if they want the source again but when you know the poster has seen your previous post, it's very irritating for them to start demanding proof again. Repeatedly.

Gatling

Lockstep wrote: »

To be fair, I think this was a misunderstanding more than anything: it's been demonstrated numerous times that Russia was doing little against ISIS and focussing on other groups.
I posted about this numerous times but it got very frustrating being expected to back it up again and again by posters. I don't mind clarifying but when you know the poster has seen your previous post, it's very irritating when they start demanding proof for it. Repeatedly.

The very reason I ignored the game play .

I welcome your post

Gatling

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

They have yet to clarify whether the bomb originated from MI6 or ISIL however... (or FSB???)

Suprised it was never mentioned yet ,

Do you remember the Moscow theater bombing the led to the 2nd chechen war ,
Which allowed Putin to go back to war under anti terror operations

Sobko

Gatling wrote: »

Suprised it was never mentioned yet ,

Do you remember the Moscow theater bombing the led to the 2nd chechen war ,
Which allowed Putin to go back to war under anti terror operations

Are you suggesting the Russian government is responsible for bringing down their own civilian plane?

donaghs

Sobko wrote: »

Are you suggesting the Russian government is responsible for bringing down their own civilian plane?

Your getting into conspiracy theory territory, but if you believe that the Theatre attack was suspicious, or the strange 1999 "Russian Apartment Bombings" which had higher death toll of 293 dead, you would not rule out the possibility.

Lockstep

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Russia has been targeting ISIS, but has also predominately focused on targeting groups affiliated to Al-Qaeda (which NATO are essentially ignoring).

Source? I've yet to see any evidence that Russia's bombs are mainly on Al-Nusra and their affiliates.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Source? I've yet to see any evidence that Russia's bombs are mainly on Al-Nusra and their affiliates.

Initially it appears as if the Russians were concentrating on Homs and Hama and their surrounding areas. Mainly focusing on rebel held positions but they also targeted Chechen fighters and the Islamic Front in the initial series of air strikes. In the next series of air-strikes they attacked ISIS, in Raqqa, and the Army of Conquest. The next series focused on ISIS again, this time in Al-Qaryatayn, which is south-east of Homs. This time they focused on a command centre and ISIS convoys. These particular airstrikes allowed government forces to recapture Mheen and re-take the main road in Al-Qaryatayn.

Then it was Al-Nusra's turn. They bombed Al-Nusra in Kafr Zita, Al-Ghaab Plains, Kafr Nabl, Kafr Sijnah, and Al-Rakaya in the Hama province and al-Rastan and Talbiseh in the Homs province.

I think it would be unfair to describe Russia as focusing on one group in Syria. They aren't there to remove one group. They're there to prop up the regime and to allow Assad to control more of the country, with the sole purpose of protecting Russian interests in Syria.

Some people will try and convince you that ISIS have actually made gains as a result of Russian intervention which is simply not true. Assad and the US-coalition forces did nothing to stop ISIS from going on a massive offensive from May to early September of this year, which saw Palmyra, Qaryatayn and Hassia fall into the hands of ISIS. Reportedly, the fall of Hassia prompted Assad to request Russian intervention as ISIS then had control of the main road to Latakia.

It's the same situation with the rebels, who are being dressed up as 'moderates' when that couldn't be further from the truth. The FSA have proven themselves to be a false banner which many different rebels militias that operate under; entirely independently with no central command. A telling fact is that out of the groups that the CIA identified as 'moderate'; all have since disappeared. Groups that still operate under the FSA army include Al-Queda affiliates such as Homs Liberation Movement.

The political opposition is non-existent in Syria. Who is actually going to stand and oppose Assad next year?

Skylinehead

Gatling wrote: »

Suprised it was never mentioned yet ,

Do you remember the Moscow theater bombing the led to the 2nd chechen war ,
Which allowed Putin to go back to war under anti terror operations

The 2nd Chechen War was already finished by the time of the theatre crisis.

Gatling

Skylinehead wrote: »

The 2nd Chechen War was already finished by the time of the theatre crisis.

Meant apartment bombings

cerastes

Lockstep wrote: »

To be fair, I think this was a misunderstanding more than anything: it's been demonstrated numerous times that Russia was doing little against ISIS and focussing on other groups. They certainly did some airstrikes but these pale in their attacks on non-ISIS rebels.
I posted about this numerous times but it got very frustrating being expected to back it up again and again by posters. I don't mind clarifying if they want the source again but when you know the poster has seen your previous post, it's very irritating for them to start demanding proof again. Repeatedly.

I agree with what you say about Russia and who they may be focussed on but they aren't making any statements or doing anything to suggest that they are doing otherwise.
As for the other poster they could simply post a link, yet repeatedly reply that it's been said, without pointing to the specific statement or link, I had the same experience with that kind of reply, inre read the entire thread only to find no such link, at best only opinions by others, even to clarify what specific statement they might be referring to but it just goes around in circles.

Gatling wrote: »

Multiple posters on this very thread have proved it .

How? By saying it repeatedly, if this poster wanted to further prove a point or even change someone's view, why not show the proff they are referring to?

Gatling wrote: »

As I said multiple posters have proved it ,

Why don't they simply provide the information or post they are referring to, tbh a link would be better, something repeatedly being mentioned by multiple posters doesn't make it fact, yet similarly multiple or single posts by anyone else are questioned.

Gatling wrote: »

The majority of Russia's strikes have been against non isis targets ,
With an exception today where there currently hitting raqqa from the air with long range bombers and cruise missles from the sea ,

I noticed they thanked other counties for supplying the intelligence that was required to hit isis targets which suggests ,
There own intelligence in the area wasn't up to much standard's,

What i don't get in the whole glee associated with vladi Putin's involvement in syria when's he's only interested a naval base and airfield

What's anyone's interest in syria only self interest? At least Russia appears to want and has asked for cooperative action, the west stood by as Isis made huge advances, Russia steps in and in a short space of time is able to make an impact where Syrian ground forces can turn things around.
Maybe now with recent events other European nations will see that the cooperation requested by Russia is everyone's best interests instead of listening to john Kerry's threats.the us having done very little about stopping the Isis problem till Russia's entry unsurprisingly doesn't want Russia to swoop in and steal the glory.the US could easily have done something about isis,more so than any other nation but didn't.
It has been said a number of times, Russia doesn't seem to be doing anything contrary to what they are claiming.
But they aren't leaving Isis completely.