Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Eugene Norman

Of course the FSA are terrorists. They are involved in terror against the sovereign nation of Syria. Same as ISIS.

Elmer Blooker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

BBC news @ 10 had some good footage of Russian attacks on FSA positions in Talbisah (between Homs & Hamah)....
18 killed... some very big ordnance dropped.

Some Russian Air force footage dropping what appeared to be cluster munitions aswell.

Lavrov actually said today that the FSA are not a terrorist organisation & are part of the Syrian solution.
He should let his colleagues in the air-force know.

But the FSA are defunct as you said a few hours ago? Aren't they?

The FSA as an organised deployable entity is all but defunct.

I saw the BBC news, the usual stuff - "according to reports" .... pictures of children injured by the Russian barbarians .... all courtesy of social media of course. Very amateurish propaganda from the BBC this evening.

Dohnjoe

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The rebels were always Sunni sectarian rebels

Syria was relatively secular. The moderates were unsurprising not keen on creating a religious prison, just getting rid of Assad and replacing him for someone more progressive

Gatling

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Of course the FSA are terrorists. They are involved in terror against the sovereign nation of Syria. Same as ISIS.

But isn't assad a terrorist to using that retoric he's seen his military action against his own population kill 200,000 + people

Dohnjoe

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Of course the FSA are terrorists.

Russian foreign ministry disagrees

#Russian FM: We don't consider #FSA as a terrorist group, but we see them as a part of the political solution in #Syria.

They are involved in terror against the sovereign nation of Syria. Same as ISIS.

Well then, using that logic, same as Assad's forces.

Eugene Norman

Gatling wrote: »

But isn't assad a terrorist to using that retoric he's seen his military action against his own population kill 200,000 + people

If Assad is a terroristic so is anybody who bombs civilians or enemy combatants. Like the US, NATO, Obama etc.

BoJack Horseman

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

But the FSA are defunct as you said a few hours ago? Aren't they?

They almost are.... They aren't even the biggest rebel military faction anymore...

Makes Moscow's haphazard bombing strange, considering they appear to have no beef with the FSA.

Perhaps it was opening night jitters...

They'll find ISIS eventually I'm sure

BoJack Horseman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If Assad is a terroristic so is anybody who bombs civilians.

You won't find anyone disagreeing.

Eugene Norman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Russian foreign ministry disagrees

#Russian FM: We don't consider #FSA as a terrorist group, but we see them as a part of the political solution in #Syria.



Well then, using that logic, same as Assad's forces.

Is Assad fighting Assads forces? The legitimate government of Syria is Assads regime. As recognised by the UN. Is it perfect, no. Neither is Saudi Arabia or the other myriad kingdoms and dictatorships supported by the US.

Ranged against this flawed but secular dictatorship were the largely Sunni forces of the FSA, ISIS and Al Qaeda. Because the US and it's likudist wing didn't like Assad, not because he is a dictator but because he is not their dictator, they armed this sectarian grouping to overthrow the secular regime because that's what the neo conservative era US does. It destabilises secular dictatorships and calls it peace.

smurgen

So John McCain had publically stated he's worried that Russia has bombed CIA backed rebels.What is the CIA doing training and arming rebels in Syria?is this legal?also some of these rebels are not just FSA.is it possible the U.S has a problem with Russia bombing Al Qaeda? What nonsense from the U.S and the U.K!The Russian's have the West in a sticky situation now and can do whatever they want really.I hope the evaporate every last Saudi and U.S funded terrorists out there.

Junkyard Tom

The moral bankruptcy of our mainstream media is astonishing - it's suddenly developed a deep concern about the accuracy, identification of bad guys, and civilian casualties when the Russians carry out 8 air strikes (US/Coalition have launched over 2,500+).

Dohnjoe

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Is Assad fighting Assads forces

They seem to have their hands full killing their own countrymen.

The legitimate government of Syria is Assads regime.

In the same way the Khmer Rouge was the legitimate government of Cambodia

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

it's suddenly developed a deep concern about the accuracy, identification of bad guys, and civilian casualties when the Russians carry out 8 air strikes (US/Coalition have launched over 2,500+).

The Islamic State just need to get casualty reports out better for the territories they control.

Then we'll know more regarding deaths.

smurgen

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The moral bankruptcy of our mainstream media is astonishing - it's suddenly developed a deep concern about the accuracy, identification of bad guys, and civilian casualties when the Russians carry out 8 air strikes (US/Coalition have launched over 2,500+).

The Syrian civil war has been going on for years now without much concern or movement from the West.now the Russians are being proactive they suddenly have all these opinions about what's need to resolve the situation? Where were they the last few years?they do not want Assad in power but cannot admit it.

The west likes to downplay Russia alot.This is a significant situation in my opinion because Russia have put their necks on the lines and intervened directly in a conflict for the first time in decades.they will take this thing to the wire and bulldoze anyone that gets in their way.the West would do well to keep their noses out.

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Islamic State just need to get casualty reports out better for the territories they control.

Then we'll know more regarding deaths.

Why did you quote my post?

Captain Chaos

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The moral bankruptcy of our mainstream media is astonishing - it's suddenly developed a deep concern about the accuracy, identification of bad guys, and civilian casualties when the Russians carry out 8 air strikes (US/Coalition have launched over 2,500+).

That's because the Russians don't have real time intelligence of targets like the US or France does. They are relying on word of mouth reports from Syrian troops loyal to Assad also the Russian weapons are no where near as accurate as those used by the US or France.

The Russian bomber has also been spotted using higher yield explosive bombs than the smaller warheads being dropped by the US, UK and France to date.

BoJack Horseman

smurgen wrote: »

The Syrian civil war has been going on for years now without much concern or movement from the West

Except there has been tonnes!
Western aid agencies have been there from day 1.
Western leaders have had scores of summits et al with neighbouring states regarding Syria

Where were they the last few years?

To say there have been idle is stupid.
Ireland has been pouring money into Syria for the last few years....

they do not want Assad in power but cannot admit it.

Eh.... Every wicked western leader has been calling for the end of that dictatorship since day 1!

100,000 slaughtered civilians later, they are still calling for it.

So so much error.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Why did you quote my post?

To address your concern about the media.

It's possible that casualty reports from ISIS territories are not as forthcoming as they are from other areas.

It's not necessarily that the media lacks concern for IS casualties.... it's quite possible that the info simply isn't forthcoming from IS in the first place.

Junkyard Tom

Captain Chaos wrote: »

That's because the Russians don't have real time intelligence of targets like the US or France does. They are relying on word of mouth reports from Syrian troops loyal to Assad also the Russian weapons are no where near as accurate as those used by the US or France.

The Russian bomber has also been spotted using higher yield explosive bombs than the smaller warheads being dropped by the US, UK and France to date.

'Russians bad at blowing stuff up and intelligence' versus 'US/Coalition good at blowing stuff up and intelligence'? Is this your point?

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

To address your concern about the media.

It was an observation.

It's possible that casualty reports from ISIS territories are not as forthcoming as they are from other areas.

How does this address my observation? Do you think I'm trying to defend ISIS or the Russians?

it's not necessarily that the media lacks concern for IS casualties.... it's quite possible that the info simply isn't forthcoming from IS in the first place.

Again, what's that got to with our media discussing the accuracy, concern for civilians, etc of Russian air strikes (in coalition with its ally) in great detail while not displaying similar concern when it's US/Coalition actions. Isn't the media supposed to be unbiased and neutral? [rhetoric]

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Again, what's that got to with our media discussing the accuracy, concern for civilians, etc of Russian air strikes

Were RTE doing that?

I didn't catch the evening bulletin, so don't know.

I did watch the BBC at 10 & while they arent "our media",no mention was made of concerning Russia's use of unguided bombs..... No assessment of weapon accuracy of any kind if I recall.

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Were RTE doing that?

I didn't catch the evening bulletin, so don't know.

Definitely Irish radio news was bringing up concerns of civilian casualties or at least the 'concerns' of representatives of those who launched the other 2500+ air strikes.

I did watch the BBC at 10 & while they arent "our media",no mention was made of concerning Russia's use of unguided bombs..... No assessment of weapon accuracy of any kind if I recall.

Just gooled 'BBC News Russian air strikes'. Check out what google's search algorithms have placed at the top of the page.

Syria conflict: US says Russian air strikes 'indiscriminate'

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Definitely Irish radio news was bringing up concerns of civilian casualties or at least the 'concerns' of representatives of those who launched the other 2500+ air strikes.

I take that.
It would be interesting to hear if they would use the same lines regarding bombing in Al Raqqa.

Syria conflict: US says Russian air strikes 'indiscriminate'

I take that too.
Russia is discriminating in its bombing campaign thus far....
A better line from the Whitehouse spokesperson would have been "imprecise".

Though with the Russian's dropping dumb bombs that you can see the relevance of " 'indiscriminate' ".

robindch

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The moral bankruptcy of our mainstream media is astonishing - it's suddenly developed a deep concern about the accuracy, identification of bad guys, and civilian casualties when the Russians carry out 8 air strikes (US/Coalition have launched over 2,500+).

It's good that somebody's concerned, coz sure as eggs are eggs, there's certainly nobody in the Kremlin who gives a tupenny-hoot about accuracy, identification of bad guys or civilian casualties.

Junkyard Tom

robindch wrote: »

It's good that somebody's concerned

Concerned about what? The MSM didn't seem too concerned when it wasn't Russia doing the bombing and now we hear all this 'concern' about civilians, accuracy, and geopolitical posturing.

there's certainly nobody in the Kremlin who gives a tupenny-hoot about accuracy, identification of bad guys or civilian casualties.

So them evil Ruskis are in Syria lobbing bombs at anything that moves just because that's why? Are you a fan of Tom Clancy novels?

jank

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Concerned about what? The MSM didn't seem too concerned when it wasn't Russia doing the bombing and now we hear all this 'concern' about civilians, accuracy, and geopolitical posturing.

You may take that view if of course you think the West and Russia are morally equivalent, many people seem to fall into that simple trap. The BBC for all its fault is not RT or any other Kremlin backed media organisation.

Anyway, its all mute as the MSM as you put if have debated countless times what and if the situation be escalated from a military point of view. Australian Royal Air Force pilots are involved in bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and recently in Syria. Believe you me, it has been debated through the normal public mediums.

If wonder if such a public debate occurred in Russia? Me thinks not.

Jelle1880

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So them evil Ruskis are in Syria lobbing bombs at anything that moves just because that's why? Are you a fan of Tom Clancy novels?

Chechnya, Beslan, the Moscow theater hostage situation, Georgia,...

Collateral damage is acceptable to them and they have time and time again proven that they have no problems firing on places where civilians are located.

The only other option would be that they are grossly incompetent, I'm not sure which is the worse.

Elmer Blooker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I take that too.
Russia is discriminating in its bombing campaign thus far....
A better line from the Whitehouse spokesperson would have been "imprecise".

Though with the Russian's dropping dumb bombs that you can see the relevance of " 'indiscriminate' ".

The problem is NATO are terrified that the Russians WILL hit their terrorist targets! ISIS are parading around Iraq and Syria in tanks yet the coalition can't find them let alone hit them! But the coalition can provide extremely clear satellite images like this one.
http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/21/new-satellite-image-unveils-an-impressive-line-up-of-12-ru

Jelle1880

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The problem is NATO are terrified that the Russians WILL hit their terrorist targets! ISIS are parading around Iraq and Syria in tanks yet the coalition can't find them let alone hit them! But the coalition can provide extremely clear satellite images like this one.
http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/21/new-satellite-image-unveils-an-impressive-line-up-of-12-ru

US-led bombing runs have hit countless IS targets

Gatling

Jelle1880 wrote: »

US-led bombing runs have hit countless IS targets

10,000 isis dead and thousands of vehicles and other military equipment destroyed to this date all down to precision strikes

Count Dooku

Gatling wrote: »

10,000 isis dead and thousands of vehicles and other military equipment destroyed to this date all down to precision strikes

Only in Pentagon imagination

Jelle1880

Count Dooku wrote: »

Only in Pentagon imagination

The number is probably far higher than in reality, but there's no doubt that they have been hitting IS targets for a long time now, leading to a lot of dead terrorists. So what Elmer Blooker said doesn't hold up.

Gatling

Count Dooku wrote: »

Only in Pentagon imagination

Vs Kremlin imagination

BoJack Horseman

Count Dooku wrote: »

Only in Pentagon imagination

What does your data tally?

Remembering that it's been 18 months, 3,000+ sorties, multiples of that in dropped ordnance, across your two countries.

Come back when you've crunched the numbers!

glued

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Chechnya, Beslan, the Moscow theater hostage situation, Georgia,...

Collateral damage is acceptable to them and they have time and time again proven that they have no problems firing on places where civilians are located.

The only other option would be that they are grossly incompetent, I'm not sure which is the worse.

And collateral damage isn't acceptable to the US? Tell that to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghan civilians who were killed by the United States through bombings, murder, poor CIA Intel etc.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai Massacre etc.

The United States has the blood on it's hands of millions of innocent people.

It's hard to believe that there are still people who are quite dim enough to buy into the old cold war narrative.

gandalf

It's obvious that Russia has stepped in to help Assads regime. Based on Lavrovs statement yesterday it is clear that they are using Assads definition of terrorist as their basis on who to engage with.

Let's hope the Free Syrian Army has a good number of MANPADS, it looks like they are going to need them.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
It's hard to believe that there are still people who are quite dim .

It's actually very hard to believe especially that statement

gandalf

glued wrote: »

And collateral damage isn't acceptable to the US? Tell that to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghan civilians who were killed by the United States through bombings, murder, poor CIA Intel etc.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai Massacre etc.

The United States has the blood on it's hands of millions of innocent people.

It's hard to believe that there are still people who are quite dim enough to buy into the old cold war narrative.

It's also quite clear that people try to justify Russia's action by cited another countries sins. It doesn't mitigate Russia from the wrongs that they are committing.

It's hard to believe that some people are still perpetuating this playground train of though when confronted with the reality of a wrong that doesn't play into their skewed world narrative :rolleyes:

glued

Gatling wrote: »

10,000 isis dead and thousands of vehicles and other military equipment destroyed to this date all down to precision strikes

The most creditable figure is just over 8,000 ISIS confirmed dead with almost 80% of them killed by the YPG.

The US have killed hundreds of civilians so far in their air strikes with the number estimated to be around 459. The US themselves have estimated that they (coalition) have killed about 15,000 Daesh fighters but they also only have claimed responsibility for about 200 civilians deaths.

Whatever the actual figure is; their air strikes have been a massive failure so far.

IrishTrajan

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I'm watching BBC news now, could someone please tell me who these US backed rebels are? The FSA has ceased to exist, the "moderate" rebels were invented by the media. The only conclusion I can come to is that the US is backing al-Nusra/al-Qaeda.

It's a good thing you're not a defence analyst.

Chemical Byrne

With the way things are going, he might as well be. It's not like things can get any more FUBAR than they already are.

glued

Gatling wrote: »

It's actually very hard to believe especially that statement

That makes no sense in English.

gandalf wrote: »

It's also quite clear that people try to justify Russia's action by cited another countries sins. It doesn't mitigate Russia from the wrongs that they are committing.

It's hard to believe that some people are still perpetuating this playground train of though when confronted with the reality of a wrong that doesn't play into their skewed world narrative :rolleyes:

Have you bothered to read the thread? :rolleyes:

cerastes

Gatling wrote: »

But isn't assad a terrorist to using that retoric he's seen his military action against his own population kill 200,000 + people

where did you get that figure? would the US or the UK act any differently if there were under the same level of attack from within their countries?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If Assad is a terroristic so is anybody who bombs civilians or enemy combatants. Like the US, NATO, Obama etc.

Gatling wrote: »

10,000 isis dead and thousands of vehicles and other military equipment destroyed to this date all down to precision strikes

10K, who counted them?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What does your data tally?

Remembering that it's been 18 months, 3,000+ sorties, multiples of that in dropped ordnance, across your two countries.

Come back when you've crunched the numbers!

so its a guesstimate? sorties doesnt mean anything

IrishTrajan

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The moral bankruptcy of our mainstream media is astonishing - it's suddenly developed a deep concern about the accuracy, identification of bad guys, and civilian casualties when the Russians carry out 8 air strikes (US/Coalition have launched over 2,500+).

75% of US sorties came back without having carried out strikes. During the invasion of Iraq, the US bombed everything. Now, it's relying on precision strikes and trying to minimize civilian losses. Russia's dumb bombs are in no way comparable to the current stock of US smart-bombs and JDAMs.

The fact that the US has carried out 2500 airstrikes without incurring massive civilian losses, yet the Russians couldn't avoid that with less than 10, should really speak volumes about the priorities of each group.

IrishTrajan

smurgen wrote: »

The Syrian civil war has been going on for years now without much concern or movement from the West.now the Russians are being proactive they suddenly have all these opinions about what's need to resolve the situation? Where were they the last few years?they do not want Assad in power but cannot admit it.

The west likes to downplay Russia alot.This is a significant situation in my opinion because Russia have put their necks on the lines and intervened directly in a conflict for the first time in decades.they will take this thing to the wire and bulldoze anyone that gets in their way.the West would do well to keep their noses out.

They were carrying out 2500 airstrikes that was stated in the previous post, and making sure to avoid killing civilians, something Russia doesn't much care for.

Skylinehead

gandalf wrote: »

It's also quite clear that people try to justify Russia's action by cited another countries sins. It doesn't mitigate Russia from the wrongs that they are committing.

It is hugely hypocritical to be damning of Russia in this instance while remaining completely silent on the USA doing the same thing, lets be fair.

glued

IrishTrajan wrote: »

75% of US sorties came back without having carried out strikes. During the invasion of Iraq, the US bombed everything. Now, it's relying on precision strikes and trying to minimize civilian losses. Russia's dumb bombs are in no way comparable to the current stock of US smart-bombs and JDAMs.

The fact that the US has carried out 2500 airstrikes without incurring massive civilian losses, yet the Russians couldn't avoid that with less than 10, should really speak volumes about the priorities of each group.

The US Military have murdered more innocent civilians than any other countries military in the past 15 years, that should really speak volumes about the priorities of each group.

Are people really trying to say the US are anything else than morally bankrupt? Really? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay.

The only difference between the US and Russia is that Putin isn't pretending that he's the world's little superhero.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

The most creditable figure is just over 8,000 ISIS confirmed dead .

Where are the most credible figures from

6,700 US airstrikes alone on isis targets it's safe to say your looking at 2-3 dead minimum dead per strike

gandalf

glued wrote: »

Have you bothered to read the thread? :rolleyes:

Yes it's the usual America is evil ****e that you spouted regarding collateral damage. I don't think anyone has challenged the notion that the US are causing civilian deaths in this conflict or any others in the past but it doesn't obligate Russia from their responsibility in the civilians deaths they are causing with their current actions, actions that are quite clearly not against ISIS but against the factions that are pressing the regime of Assad in Syria.

In reality you should read back over what you posted because you sound like an awful lot of the Pro-Russian apologists who permeated any thread about the Ukraine both here in Politics and After Hours with exactly the same "but the US did bad things line of thought" to deflect from the fact that Russia is behaving in exactly the same way.

Just because people are pointing out that Russia is doing wrong doesn't automatically mean they are saying the US is right. :rolleyes:

cerastes

IrishTrajan wrote: »

75% of US sorties came back without having carried out strikes. During the invasion of Iraq, the US bombed everything. Now, it's relying on precision strikes and trying to minimize civilian losses. Russia's dumb bombs are in no way comparable to the current stock of US smart-bombs and JDAMs.

The fact that the US has carried out 2500 airstrikes without incurring massive civilian losses, yet the Russians couldn't avoid that with less than 10, should really speak volumes about the priorities of each group.

Whats massive civilian losses? and how many is allowed by the US/UK, not that these bombings are being reported in the mainstream media, people might ask questions if they realise how many sorties are being carried out, questions like what the hell are we spending this money for and why is Assad any worse than what might follow? see iraq/libya.

What of the bombs of the Gulf states, were they also using smart bombs?

It seems like ISIS is embedded into areas with civilians, it'd be hard to get at them without hitting civilians, so whats acceptable losses? and to who?

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They were carrying out 2500 airstrikes that was stated in the previous post, and making sure to avoid killing civilians, something Russia doesn't much care for.

Now that Russia has been mentioned, the US/Western bombings are "making sure to avoid killing civilians"
I wonder how many civilians the gulf state airforces killed? or the Jordanians?