Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

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?

Is there a source for this? I've yet to see any sources which differentiates any further than ISIS and other groups. Obviously, Russia will claim it's focussing on Al-Nusra (as even the West is repulsed by Al-Nusra) but I've yet to see any evidence of this.

Furthermore, there are still moderate rebel groups within Syria. The Southern Front and the Syrian Democratic Forces for example.

Lockstep

cerastes wrote: »

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.

I'd see it as the other way around: Russia has yet to show its focussing on Jihadist rebels raising grave questions on what exactly it's doing.
Clearly, Russia and NATO are operating in their own interests (propping up Assad for Russia, hitting ISIS for NATO) but at least NATO's attacks are hitting a powerful terrorist group.

Personally, I'm fairly fed up of having to prove that Russia is overwhelmingly focussing on groups other than ISIS. I get asked it so many times in this thread and I've provided it so many times already. It's fairly frustrating at this point.

Gatling

Seen an interesting video earlier that relates to this ,
Video consisted of bombing runs by russian bombers both medium and heavy ,
Though there was something slightly odd about the various scenes ,
In all the videos the big bad Russians were been escorted by Unarmed ancient iranian jets,namely F4 phantoms us airforce Vietnam cast offs ,

leavingirl

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

Firstly, Russia is the only invited country in Syria. The rest of the countries bombing there are breaking international law. Russia have done more to wipe out ISIS in a week than the rest have done in three years.

Lockstep

leavingirl wrote: »

Firstly, Russia is the only invited country in Syria. The rest of the countries bombing there are breaking international law. Russia have done more to wipe out ISIS in a week than the rest have done in three years.

Its far more nuanced than that:NATO states are bombing ISIS and where international law is concerned, states can use force against terrorist groups where the host state is unable or unwilling to tackle them.

As for Russia having done more to wipe out ISIS, source please? As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Russia is hardly targetting ISIS compared to other Syrian rebels.

leavingirl

Lockstep wrote: »

Its far more nuanced than that:NATO states are bombing ISIS and where international law is concerned, states can use force against terrorist groups where the host state is unable or unwilling to tackle them.

As for Russia having done more to wipe out ISIS, source please? As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Russia is hardly targetting ISIS compared to other Syrian rebels.

ISIS are armed, trained and backed by Western countries. The quicker people realise this the better.

Syria is a sovereign country and of course has the right to defend itself. It invited Russia in. The rest are war criminals

Gatling

Lockstep wrote: »

As for Russia having done more to wipe out ISIS, source please? As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Russia is hardly targetting ISIS compared to other Syrian rebels.

Isn't it just ,

Day one of Russian bombing isis was wiped out completely,
Isis fighters were fleeing in the tens of thousands, One Russian media stated several countries were airlifting isis fighter's from Syria to Yemen .
Then we have the whole russia in Ukraine going on but there not in Ukraine ...... just there tanks ,men and heavy artillery that are on vacation in East Ukraine

Gatling

leavingirl wrote: »

ISIS are armed, trained and backed by Western countries. The quicker people realise this the better.

No its not

InTheTrees

leavingirl wrote: »

ISIS are armed, trained and backed by Western countries. The quicker people realise this the better.

Which western countries?

BoJack Horseman

alcaline wrote: »

The Russians have done more damage in a week to ISIS than the USA in a year.

leavingirl wrote: »

Russia have done more to wipe out ISIS in a week than the rest have done in three years.

One gets banned and another clone takes it's place.

leavingirl

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

One gets banned and another clone takes it's place.

Is that the best you can reply with?

I heard lots of them shaved their beards and ran out of the so called ISIS strongholds with their tails between their legs once Russia arrived on the scene

IrishTrajan

leavingirl wrote: »

I heard

On RT?

leavingirl

IrishTrajan wrote: »

On RT?

Glad you are taking an interest!

Lockstep

leavingirl wrote: »

ISIS are armed, trained and backed by Western countries. The quicker people realise this the better.

Syria is a sovereign country and of course has the right to defend itself. It invited Russia in. The rest are war criminals

Once again, source? Especially for the claim that the West is backing ISIS.

Lockstep

leavingirl wrote: »

Is that the best you can reply with?

I heard lots of them shaved their beards and ran out of the so called ISIS strongholds with their tails between their legs once Russia arrived on the scene

You heard? I asked for a source that Russia has done more to tackle ISIS. Conjecture isn't proof.

Lockstep

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

One gets banned and another clone takes it's place.

Don't accuse other posters of being re-regs.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic please. I've deleted the last few posts.

Gatling

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Back on topic please. I've deleted the last few posts.

Was one of mine deleted which was on topic?

ancapailldorcha

Gatling wrote: »

Was one of mine deleted which was on topic?

Yes. It quoted a deleted, off topic post.

leavingirl

A US Congresswoman begins to see the light:

Citing that the US should stop its illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-paris-keep-assad/

leavingirl

Lockstep wrote: »

Its far more nuanced than that:NATO states are bombing ISIS and where international law is concerned, states can use force against terrorist groups where the host state is unable or unwilling to tackle them.
.

Not so. See my previous post.

I will get back to you about what Russia have achieved so far

leavingirl

Lockstep wrote: »

Once again, source? Especially for the claim that the West is backing ISIS.

Well, let's start with Tom McInerney

Gatling

leavingirl wrote: »

Well, let's start with Tom McInerney

Says they may have backed the wrong types and I'd love to what weapons from bengazi he's talking about unless it's a political statement against one certain presidential candidate other wise known as Hillary Clinton.
Also the same one who claimed MH370 landed safely in Pakistan!!!!

Lockstep

leavingirl wrote: »

Well, let's start with Tom McInerney

That doesn't prove the West is supporting ISIS. At all.
This thread has repeatedly shown that NATO has overwhelmingly been bombing ISIS while Russia has targetted non-ISIS rebel groups.
If you want to claim otherwise, the onus is on you to show this.

Lockstep

leavingirl wrote: »

Not so. See my previous post.

Actually, it is. Unless you're going by a Cold War interpretation (ie: pre 1990) of the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, its far more complicated than you seem to think.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Its far more nuanced than that:NATO states are bombing ISIS and where international law is concerned, states can use force against terrorist groups where the host state is unable or unwilling to tackle them.

As for Russia having done more to wipe out ISIS, source please? As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Russia is hardly targetting ISIS compared to other Syrian rebels.

Do you have a source that Russia is actually targeting Syrian Rebels more than any other group?

You keep saying this and so do NATO but it appears to be very much false. The articles I've seen reporting that Russia are mainly targeting Rebels seem to rehash quotes from a coalition spokesperson without providing any data to back up that claim. Also, its important to differentiate which rebels the Russians have targeted.

Also, US intervention in Syria was 100% illegal. Their involvement in Syria has been nothing short of an embarrassment both militarily and politically.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

Do you have a source that Russia is actually targeting Syrian Rebels more than any other group?

You keep saying this and so do NATO but it appears to be very much false. The articles I've seen reporting that Russia are mainly targeting Rebels seem to rehash quotes from a coalition spokesperson without providing any data to back up that claim. Also, its important to differentiate which rebels the Russians have targeted.

Also, US intervention in Syria was 100% illegal. Their involvement in Syria has been nothing short of an embarrassment both militarily and politically.

You gotta be kidding me. I've shown you multiple times in this thread. here for example.
In this post I've highlighted your tendency to ignore evidence then claim it hasn't been provided. It's extremely irritating that you're being either wilfully dishonest or have a shockingly poor memory.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

You gotta be kidding me. I've shown you multiple times in this thread. here for example.
In this post I've highlighted your tendency to ignore evidence then claim it hasn't been provided. It's extremely irritating that you're being either wilfully dishonest or have a shockingly poor memory.

You have got to be kidding me. You've provided a map that is grossly misleading to back up your point.

Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the economist but their coverage of the war in Syria has been laughable to say the least. They have lumped al-Nusra in with the rebels which is grossly misleading. They also seem to claim that ISIS control no territory and don't exist near Rastan.

They have also changed their map on numerous occasions to suit the narrative in their articles. They removed Al-Nusra from the map you linked.

It's a laughable source to say the least. Try providing a decent source in future.

See

https://espresso.economist.com/0511c74339446a24dd942bd10ec7581a

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21667947-russias-intervention-side-bashar-assad-just-might-increase-chances

Tea drinker

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.

US, Turkey, Qatar etc train and finance rebels to attack Assad, and yes sometimes they attack ISIS.
How is this not the same as the criticism levelled at the Russians who have a mandate to be there? They can conduct the war in any way they want to achieve long term victory.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

You have got to be kidding me. You've provided a map that is grossly misleading to back up your point.

Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the economist but their coverage of the war in Syria has been laughable to say the least. They have lumped al-Nusra in with the rebels which is grossly misleading. They also seem to claim that ISIS control no territory and don't exist near Rastan.

They have also changed their map on numerous occasions to suit the narrative in their articles. They removed Al-Nusra from the map you linked.

It's a laughable source to say the least. Try providing a decent source in future.

See

https://espresso.economist.com/0511c74339446a24dd942bd10ec7581a

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21667947-russias-intervention-side-bashar-assad-just-might-increase-chances

So once your "Demanding sources for stuff that has already been pointed out to you", you're falling back on "I refuse to accept this as a source because reasons". You've done this already in the thread and disregarded well-known news sources for not adhering to your opinion. Presumably this means anything that's not RT.

For the record, yes, I regularly follow the Economist's coverage on world affairs, given I have a subscription. I'm currently doing a PhD in international law and the Economist's world coverage is excellent, resulting it being one of the most trusted news sources around

Rastan is a contested territory and ISIS controlled territory nearby is tiny, resulting in it barely being visible on maps of Syria, especially when placing airstrikes.
The BBC have a similar map

Don't disregard a news source (like the Economist) just because it doesn't fit your bias.

Lockstep

Tea drinker wrote: »

US, Turkey, Qatar etc train and finance rebels to attack Assad, and yes sometimes they attack ISIS.
How is this not the same as the criticism levelled at the Russians who have a mandate to be there? They can conduct the war in any way they want to achieve long term victory.

I'm certainly not going to defend Middle Eastern states interference in Syria but as has been pointed out repeatedly in the thread, US involvement has been to anti ISIS rather than anti-Assad rebels. Remember, the key failure for Division 30 was US insistence they tackle ISIS and not Assad

Russia's mandate is extremely debatable given their support to a regime engaging in crimes against humanity. Were the US to bomb pro-democracy rebels in Saudi Arabia, the European anti-establishment would be up in arms.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

So once your "Demanding sources for stuff that has already been pointed out to you", you're falling back on "I refuse to accept this as a source because reasons". You've done this already in the thread and disregarded well-known news sources for not adhering to your opinion. Presumably this means anything that's not RT.

For the record, yes, I regularly follow the Economist's coverage on world affairs, given I have a subscription. I'm currently doing a PhD in international law and the Economist's world coverage is excellent, resulting it being one of the most trusted news sources around

Rastan is a contested territory and ISIS controlled territory nearby is tiny, resulting in it barely being visible on maps of Syria, especially when placing airstrikes.
The BBC have a similar map

Don't disregard a news source (like the Economist) just because it doesn't fit your bias.

The Economist have intentionally mislead their readers by altering a map and it's description in order to fit the narrative of the article. Just because the Economist is a reputable publication doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. In this instance, the source is, quite simply, rubbish. I find it deeply troubling that somebody who is undertaking a PHD can use such poor sources of information in order to further their argument.

Also, don't accuse me of bias when you have just used a manipulated map in order to fit in with your obvious anti-Russian bias.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

The Economist have intentionally mislead their readers by altering a map and it's description in order to fit the narrative of the article. Just because the Economist is a reputable publication doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. In this instance, the source is, quite simply, rubbish.

It's clearly two different maps: one from September and one from October. You can question why they conflate the rebels with Al Nusra (which would be extremely hard to distinguish when placing the airstrikes, as the BBC map shows but this doesn't mean the Economist is intentionally misleading their readers or is wrong. If you have any info which disproves their article, please provide it.

glued wrote: »

I find it deeply troubling that somebody who is undertaking a PHD can use such poor sources of information in order to further their argument.

Fortunately, you're not my supervisor, funder or in any way involved with my research so your claims that I use "poor sources of information" carry no weight.

glued wrote: »

Also, don't accuse me of bias when you have just used a manipulated map in order to fit in with your obvious anti-Russian bias.

I was wondering how long it would take before you started accusing everyone of being anti-Russian again.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

It's clearly two different maps: one from September and one from October. You can question why they conflate the rebels with Al Nusra (which would be extremely hard to distinguish when placing the airstrikes, as the BBC map shows but this doesn't mean the Economist is intentionally misleading their readers or is wrong. If you have any info which disproves their article, please provide it.

The first map is from the 26th of September and the second is the 8th of October. Did Al-Nusra go on holidays during this period? It's obvious why the map was altered; to fit the narrative of the article and mislead the reader.

I was wondering how long it would take before you started accusing everyone of being anti-Russian again.

When someone resorts to providing false information accompanied with a false narrative in order to further their view then the only reasonable conclusion I can draw would be that you must be anti-Russian.

It's not that bizarre a notion to hold especially considering that the proof you've provided for your argument is false, misleading and grossly inappropriate.

I'm done with this debate now. You have proven yourself to be incapable of accepting another point of view and have obviously done very little research on the matter; instead you have backed up your points with misleading information.

I hope your research on your PHD is of a far higher standard.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

The first map is from the 26th of September and the second is the 8th of October. Did Al-Nusra go on holidays during this period? It's obvious why the map was altered; to fit the narrative of the article and mislead the reader.

Given the Economist already showed where Al-Nusra's bases are in the previous map, I dunno why you're claiming they're posting wrong information. If you look at the BBC map (which shows where Al-Nusra's bases are), it's impossible to tell who has been hit when they show the locations of airstrikes.
Sure, you can say it'd be great if they had a map showing the difference but this doesn't detract from the relevance of the map to your original claim.
The Economist isn't a tool of US foreign policy or a Neo-Con standard bearer so I dunno why you think they're so keen on bolstering US policy.

glued wrote: »

When someone resorts to providing false information accompanied with a false narrative in order to further their view then the only reasonable conclusion I can draw would be that you must be anti-Russian.
It's not that bizarre a notion to hold especially considering that the proof you've provided for your argument is false, misleading and grossly inappropriate.

What false information? You wanted a source that the West is mainly targetting ISIS. I provided it for you (again) and you started claiming it's wrong because it doesn't show where Al-Nusra's territory is. What's the problem here?

glued wrote: »

I'm done with this debate now. You have proven yourself to be incapable of accepting another point of view and have obviously done very little research on the matter; instead you have backed up your points with misleading information.
I hope your research on your PHD is of a far higher standard.

I appreciate you concern in my PhD, but rest assured it's progressing well. It was successful in securing funding and has passed each successive stage of the review process so rest assured there's no problems there.

johnnyskeleton

glued wrote: »

I'm done with this debate now. You have proven yourself to be incapable of accepting another point of view and have obviously done very little research on the matter; instead you have backed up your points with misleading information.

I hope your research on your PHD is of a far higher standard.

Mod Note:

Play the ball not the man.

glued

Syrian government are continuing their recent run of success and have retaken Mahin and Hawwarin from IS. The Kurds have also had success today just outside Raqqa.

A small group in Raqqa, according to the New Yorker, have claimed that the US have been focusing on the outskirts of Raqqa and that very few bombs have hit ISIS in the city. They also claim that Russia have destroyed a hospital and a bridge in Raqqa. I'm not quite sure how exactly they can support either claim seeing as the city is under the control of ISIS and I doubt they would tolerate people inspecting bomb sites and fragments.

It seems to me as if most outlets will print anything they're being fed on Syria.

Elmer Blooker

glued wrote: »

Syrian government are continuing their recent run of success and have retaken Mahin and Hawwarin from IS. The Kurds have also had success today just outside Raqqa.

A small group in Raqqa, according to the New Yorker, have claimed that the US have been focusing on the outskirts of Raqqa and that very few bombs have hit ISIS in the city. They also claim that Russia have destroyed a hospital and a bridge in Raqqa. I'm not quite sure how exactly they can support either claim seeing as the city is under the control of ISIS and I doubt they would tolerate people inspecting bomb sites and fragments.

It seems to me as if most outlets will print anything they're being fed on Syria.

Exactly, how can "activists" in Raqqa tell the difference between French bombs and Russian bombs?
Of course the Guardian has the answers,
The good guys bomb "precisley"

“The French airstrikes were precise and targeted Daesh positions,” said one activist, using an Arabic acronym for Isis.

...... the bad guys target residential areas!

Russian planes also bombed what activists said was a residential neighbourhood, killing five people. They said no civilians were reported killed in the French strikes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/raqqa-activists-french-airstrikes-syria-isis-paris-attacks
The propaganda has now become so amateurish and simplistic you'd think its written for a class of junior infants!

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Exactly, how can "activists" in Raqqa tell the difference between French bombs and Russian bombs?
Of course the Guardian has the answers,
The good guys bomb "precisley"

Fact of the matter Russia has been using dumb bombs and cluster bombs for most part ,

How can you tell if there Russian or French bombs ,

Quite easily the russians are from syria and back to their base ,

The french are flying from Iraq using fighter jets which are quite individual compared to Russian and Iranian Vietnam cast offs the Iranians are flying ,

The french are flying north to south and back again

Russia are flying south to north and back again .

Pretty easy to figure out if you have visuals on the aircraft doing the bombing

glued

Gatling wrote: »

Fact of the matter Russia has been using dumb bombs and cluster bombs for most part ,

How can you tell if there Russian or French bombs ,

Quite easily the russians are from syria and back to their base ,

The french are flying from Iraq using fighter jets which are quite individual compared to Russian and Iranian Vietnam cast offs the Iranians are flying ,

The french are flying north to south and back again

Russia are flying south to north and back again .

Pretty easy to figure out if you have visuals on the aircraft doing the bombing

Aren't the French planes flying from the Eastern Mediterranean? I doubt the French would put their fleet at risk flying via Iraq to Raqqa.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

Aren't the French planes flying from the Eastern Mediterranean? I doubt the French would put their fleet at risk flying via Iraq to Raqqa.

No, assets are thin in the ME.

They have 6 planes in Jordan & 6 + support craft in the UAE....

The CDG carrier was indeed in the Persian Gulf when it was last depolyed.
After departing from Toulon last wednesday, it is supposed to be on station in the first week of December (apparently).

The Rafaels from the CDG will be flying over Iraq, as all the western planes have been.

leavingirl

Lockstep wrote: »

Once again, source? Especially for the claim that the West is backing ISIS.

Barack Obama. 😠Go to 6:39.

http://youtu.be/vkxFT_hJCdQ

Also John McCain at 7:01. But I would take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Those years in captivity in Nam messed with his head.

Gatling

leavingirl wrote: »

Barack Obama. 😠Go to 6:39.

http://youtu.be/vkxFT_hJCdQ

Also John McCain at 7:01. But I would take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Those years in captivity in Nam messed with his head.

Right is there anything other than conspiracy theories you'd like to discuss

leavingirl

Lockstep wrote: »

That doesn't prove the West is supporting ISIS. At all.
This thread has repeatedly shown that NATO has overwhelmingly been bombing ISIS while Russia has targetted non-ISIS rebel groups.
If you want to claim otherwise, the onus is on you to show this.

See previous post and again see 6:39 on this video where Obama admits training them. What say you now?
http://youtu.be/vkxFT_hJCdQ

Gatling

So russia and iran had a interesting meeting yesterday.

From AP

23 NOV 2015
Associated Press | by Vladimir Isachenkov
"
TEHRAN, Iran -- Russia's President Vladimir Putin visited Tehran on Monday for talks with Iranian leaders that focused on the Syrian crisis and an international peace plan intended to end the conflict.
During his meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, both Putin and the top cleric warned against any effort to impose a political settlement on Syria.
"No one from the outside can and should enforce models of government on the Syrian people and determine who should be in charge," Putin said. "Only the Syrian people should decide that."
Khamenei accused the United States and its allies of trying "to achieve through diplomacy and at the negotiating table the goals they could not achieve by military means in Syria."
"This must be prevented through wisdom and active interaction," Khamenei told Putin at the start of their meeting that lasted more than an hour and a half"

So basically iran and Russia will likely block any diplomatic solutions in syria unless put forward by themselves .

Fair and free elections in 18 months was said just after Putin got involved but there's been no suggestions of involvement of any opposition parties but they will talk about constitutional changes and maybe a new government but no change in the assad regime .

What russia and iran think will come of this is anyone's guess they will probably announce there is no civil war in syria at some point

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

"Only the Syrian people should decide that."

Oh the irony of dictators!

BoJack Horseman

Some more footage from Foxtrot Alpha featuring Russian helis just doing their thing

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/syrians-are-paying-a-high-price-for-russia-s-cheap-bomb-1744082828

- Russian AF aren't at all concerned with precision.
- The rebels have zero anti-air capabilities (weren't the villainous CIA supposed to be supplying stingers?)

Less "Admiral Snackbars" & more Strelas, & these lads wouldn't be getting hammered so badly.

Gatling

Turkey has shot down a russian jet over the last half hour.

https://twitter.com/HaberturkTV/status/669061103884734464

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Turkey has shot down a russian jet over the last half hour

An SU-24..

A rather old bird, with its distinctive white nose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24



Russia said the pilots ejected.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

An SU-24..

A rather old bird, with its distinctive white nose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24



Russia said the pilots ejected.

The same old bird that russia claimed was used by Ukraine to shoot down MH17