Syria

[UGagain]

You do realise that's one attack out of dozens? I wrote that the majority of attacks were against non ISIL targets, not that there were none.

Your first statement was they weren't attacking 'ISIS' at all.

You do realise that Russian airstrikes have done more damage to 'ISIS' in 3 months than the US and its poodles have done in 18 months, don't you?

The US doesn't really want to bomb it's own proxies and it doesn't really want to cut the oil flow to Sultan Erdogan and Israel after all. There's big money being made in that trade. And it cost a lot of money to create the 'ISIS' boogeyman operation.

That they are bombing the other liver eaters more is not in contention. The entire point of their mission is to assist Syria in expelling the western backed jihadis from Syria, and that obviously started with the populated areas and the supply lines from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

Your black pajama clad friends and all their US supplied equipment control a lot of uninhabited wasteland but not much in the way of civilisation.

Your real problem, aside from your ingrained bigotry and automatic loathing against all things Russian, stems from the fact that you think the western ruling class psychopaths and their GCC monarchist buds that you channel have some sort of right to dictate to Syrians how they are governed and who will lead them. And the Russians don't agree.

And no person of conscience, Russian, Western or other could. Syria is for Syrians.

But it seems your neoconservative intellectual inspirations are quite prepared to start WW3 to prove their mastery of the universe.

I suspect cooler heads will prevail in the short term. But unless your neoconservative faction is rooted out of power these flash points will continue and one day it will all go wrong and we really will have a nuclear war. And that won't go the way they think it would.

[Sandydragon]

I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

One also has to question the rules of engagement. Many western sorties end in no shots being fired due to a lack of clear targets. Russia seems quite happy to hit anything in the general area and claim a success.Remember all those times you shouted against western carpet bombing and other war crimes, how do you justify this UG? Sta ngely the usual suspects have been very quieting condemning Russia for the way in which it Is using air power in Syria, I'm curious why they aren't being held to the same standard as western forces?

[UGagain]

I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

On the contrary. 'ISIS' is losing territory now, in clear distinction to when the US was pretend fighting them. They expanded then. There is a consistent, credible pattern of evidence that the US and its puppets were assisting ISIS.

Which isn't surprising given that 'ISIS' is a US invention.

One also has to question the rules of engagement. Many western sorties end in no shots being fired due to a lack of clear targets. Russia seems quite happy to hit anything in the general area and claim a success.

There is no credible evidence that this is the case. And given that it is your war, where 250,000 odd people have been killed by your actions, your protestations are obscene.

Remember all those times you shouted against western carpet bombing and other war crimes, how do you justify this UG? Sta ngely the usual suspects have been very quieting condemning Russia for the way in which it Is using air power in Syria, I'm curious why they aren't being held to the same standard as western forces?

Russia is defending Syria in agreement with the legitimate Syrian authorities. There is no symmetry between US/NATO assaults on countries and those countries' defence.

One is the supreme international crime. The other is not a crime but a right.

[cashead]

So when you say "IS is a US invention," do you want to clarify that one a bit? Are you saying "they're more-or-less the outcome of the US' fuck-ups in the region in general and more specifically, a poorly planned out and executed invasion of a couple of nearby countries due to a lack of any realistic planning in regards to what to do afterwards, along with a poorly implemented destabilisation of an existing government in Syria," or are you saying "the US has been involved with IS from word go?"

[UGagain]

So when you say "IS is a US invention," do you want to clarify that one a bit? Are you saying "they're more-or-less the outcome of the US' fuck-ups in the region in general and more specifically, a poorly planned out and executed invasion of a couple of nearby countries due to a lack of any realistic planning in regards to what to do afterwards, along with a poorly implemented destabilisation of an existing government in Syria," or are you saying "the US has been involved with IS from word go?"

The US and its puppies actively created 'ISIS'. But the 'ISIS' you see on the prolefeed doesn't really exist.

[Zhivago]

I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

Simply lies. ISIS has lost significant ground to Russia/Syria. At the moment this is taking place East of Aleppo and in Raqqa province.

By contrast, your beloved RAF has inflicted just 7 ISIS casualties in Syria. None via those famous Brimstone missiles our MPs claimed would be our unique contribution. Any comment Sandy? Source is FoI request from Indy.

Time period is 2nd Dec 15 - 29th Jan 16.

[Stones of granite]

I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

Simply lies. ISIS has lost significant ground to Russia/Syria. At the moment this is taking place East of Aleppo and in Raqqa province.

By contrast, your beloved RAF has inflicted just 7 ISIS casualties in Syria. None via those famous Brimstone missiles our MPs claimed would be our unique contribution. Any comment Sandy? Source is FoI request from Indy.

Time period is 2nd Dec 15 - 29th Jan 16.

It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

[Zhivago]

I think your claim that Russia has done more damage to ISis than the west is debatable. Russian air strikes against ISIS have failed to influence the war on the ground against them.

Simply lies. ISIS has lost significant ground to Russia/Syria. At the moment this is taking place East of Aleppo and in Raqqa province.

By contrast, your beloved RAF has inflicted just 7 ISIS casualties in Syria. None via those famous Brimstone missiles our MPs claimed would be our unique contribution. Any comment Sandy? Source is FoI request from Indy.

Time period is 2nd Dec 15 - 29th Jan 16.

It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

[Galfon]

Will Russia defend Syria's territory and attack Turkey's forces now in Rojava ?
If so, where does that leave NATO..?
I think as it follows a unilateral act of crossing a recognised border, there is no de facto military alignment.

[Sandydragon]

I think you need to look at what brimstone is used for. I also point ed out that the western air forces are being more restrictive in their use given their rules of engagement. Russian attacks are less discriminatory. It's this no surprise that they are inflicting greater casualties and hitting more targets. What is questionable is what those targets are.

The weight of the Russian attacks has been against supporting Assad offensive I the west of the country. This is not proving damaging to ISIS. No where near as much as he western use of air power on Iraq where huge swathes of country were reclaimed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity. Doc using on brimstone, as the media did, is complete rubbish. ISOS doesn't have the infrastructure to hit with a standoff capability on a lawful way in the same way that another nation state may.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jared_7]

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.

Tell that to Israel, LOL.

[OptimisticJock]

Should just tell the lads to go weapons free. Bollocks to Roe

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.

Tell that to Israel, LOL.

4 pages, not bad.

[Zhivago]

Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity.

Uh... I hardly think we're paying good money for radar and laser guided homing missiles if they can't attack fast moving targets.

and indeed a quick search of the net proves that you're talking bollocks.

The Brimstone missile, deployed on the Royal Air Force Tornado jets that went into action over Syria within hours of the House of Commons vote, uses a combined radar and laser guidance system to hit targets including fast-moving vehicles, while deploying a relatively small warhead to limit the blast zone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -syria-war

So what's your next excuse?

[Zhivago]

indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime.

It is indeed, I'm glad you agree. You are presumably therefore against nuclear weapons due to their extremely indiscriminate nature, right?

[Stones of granite]

Simply lies. ISIS has lost significant ground to Russia/Syria. At the moment this is taking place East of Aleppo and in Raqqa province.

By contrast, your beloved RAF has inflicted just 7 ISIS casualties in Syria. None via those famous Brimstone missiles our MPs claimed would be our unique contribution. Any comment Sandy? Source is FoI request from Indy.

Time period is 2nd Dec 15 - 29th Jan 16.

It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

What on earth are you on about? The RuAF has not killed a single civilian. Not. One. Single. Civilian.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/164001/201 ... alties.htm

It's amazing what the RuAF can do with iron bombs and cluster munitions...

[Stones of granite]

Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity.

Uh... I hardly think we're paying good money for radar and laser guided homing missiles if they can't attack fast moving targets.

and indeed a quick search of the net proves that you're talking bollocks.

The Brimstone missile, deployed on the Royal Air Force Tornado jets that went into action over Syria within hours of the House of Commons vote, uses a combined radar and laser guidance system to hit targets including fast-moving vehicles, while deploying a relatively small warhead to limit the blast zone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -syria-war

So what's your next excuse?

This is correct, Brimstone's key feature is it's ability to independently track moving targets as well as be guided onto stationary targets. It also has a very small warhead, so it is ideal for precision strikes while minimising collateral damage. Because of this it is a poor choice for hardened targets, which is probably why the RAF have been using Paveway in Syria.

Brimstone is also shit at taking out hospitals.

[Zhivago]

It is a pretty poor result - fired none, killed none. Instead of arming up with Brimstone, the RAF should be bombing hospitals with 500Kg gravity bombs and marketplaces with cluster bombs like the RuAF. That'll get the kill ratio up a bit.

What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

What on earth are you on about? The RuAF has not killed a single civilian. Not. One. Single. Civilian.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/164001/201 ... alties.htm

It's amazing what the RuAF can do with iron bombs and cluster munitions...

Yes it's a lie of course. There are always civilian deaths in war. Anyone who tell you otherwise just wants your agreement to go to war.

In Iraq in 2015, there were 7,000 civilian deaths caused by ISIS, and 845 civilian deaths caused by coalition airforces (13,000 and 2,000 if you include the period from June 2014 onwards).

Guess what, Cameron alsoclaims we didn't cause any civilian deaths in Iraq. That claim is equally credible as the RuAF claim.

[Zhivago]

On the subject of civilian deaths in media. The usual source quoted by our media is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It is UK based, ran by a Syrian national out of a 2 bedroom house in Coventry. In their civilian casualty figures, they include opposition combatants among the number of civilian casualties, as long as these are not former members of the military. This source is often quoted in our media about Russian inflicted civilian casualties. The fact that this source includes combatants as civilians undermines its credibility significantly in my opinion, as it shows a lack of understanding of what a civilian is, and also betrays an innate bias.

So next time you read a report about civilian deaths, please remember this context about the statistical method/definition.

[UGagain]

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to overthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

[Stones of granite]

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to overthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

[UGagain]

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to overthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

[Stones of granite]

There is no credible evidence that the Syrian defence forces are indiscriminately bombing non-combatants.

Trying to open verthrow a government by force is the supreme war crime.

You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

[UGagain]

You're right, it's not indiscriminate. They are targeting civilians.

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Yes. Your mistake is to accept unreliable, uncorroborated reports from propaganda outlets.

It's kind of absurd to think that the Syrian defence would be targeting Syrians, don't you think?