|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On October 25 2015 03:07 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 02:06 sgtnoobkilla wrote:On October 24 2015 17:04 zeo wrote: The Russian bombing campaign has signaled the beginning of the end for this horrible war, Not even close. Even if the civil war somehow ended tomorrow there would immediately be a new insurgency starting the next day. If anything, Russian involvement has merely given more of an incentive to the Gulf crew to do more for their "allies" (which means more TOWs for everyone!). I said we were in the final faze so to speak. Russia has done more damage to the Islamic State and other terrorist groups in two weeks than the US lead coalition has done in 13 months. Al Nusra and ISIS are throwing everything they have got into beating off the Syrian Army and yet they are still losing significant ground, at the same time their infrastructure lays in ruins and no amount of '50 tons of ammunition air dropped for moderate islamic extremists has suddenly gone missing' is going to change the fact that within 4 months most of Syria will be under the control of the Syrian people and their government. Any ISIS or salafi wahabi insurgency is going to be destroyed and the ground that they pop out of will be salted. In any case Syria has already started rebuilding itself in the areas that have been freed and the country can at least start to heal after the civil war ends. Yes, it has been ruined by war. Yes, the industrial heartland of the country has been a military front for years. Yes, a large chunk of the university educated population has gotten out of the county or been killed but Syria will survive and they will rebuild. A small insurgency is better than this war in every sense. Show nested quote +The SAA are retaking former territories that were lost a few months back while also simultaneously losing ground in other regions. Unless of course, you consider getting bottled up in Kweirs and the rest of your forces being bogged down in Aleppo's districts as being a sign of significant progress? And that doesn't account for whether they have the manpower to actually hold them without assistance from Hezbollah and the IRGC; which has its own problems as more and more Iranian advisers are being killed on a regular basis (with two alone being killed today actually). So unless the SAA manages to seize opposition strongholds like Aleppo (the entire city, not a small section...), seal the Bab al-Hawa border, retake key regions like all of Idlib and manage to hold them for more than a few days without creating a cauldron for themselves, then you can say that there have been "massive" changes. Until then, nothing significant has happened at all. The Syrian Army up until a month ago was completely written off, as I've said earlier in the post al Nusra and ISIS are throwing everything they've got at defending their positions and they are still being pushed back. Kweires air base has been under complete siege for 3 years now and its going to be lifted. The 'moderates' and ISIS are coordinating attacks to cut of SAA supply lines to Aleppo and they still couldn't break it. ISIS and al Nusra are just losing too much infrastructure and supplies to afford losing so much at the front lines. Many times in past wars you see an army spend itself on a front and then the whole thing just collapses. ISIS will be beyond saving within 4 months. News sources that take what one guy in his flat in Coventry that hasn't been to Syria in 15 years, who gets 'facts' from random people called 'activists' with no kind of fact-checking whatsoever.... well they don't really show the reality of the situation on the ground. Once they mop up the pockets in Hama ect. the Syrian army will have more than enough manpower to take Aleppo and the rest of Syria, there are more than 4 million internally displaced refugees which will want to go home and we see people who are very happy to see the Syrian army in the towns the SAA has taken from ISIS and al Nusra. Syria will have little to no problem holding onto whatever ground they take from whatever shade of terrorist. As for Saudi Arabia sending help... judging by how hard they are getting their butts kicked in Yemen they wont be in a position to help anyone very soon. In any case I won't be posting anymore in this thread, weather anyone agrees or disagrees with me, quote my post in February 2016 and see who was right. At least I got people talking about the war again. EDIT: @ImFromPortugal 2 posts below: What are you even talking about? Where did I say YPG were wahabi terrorists? The Kurds and Assad have the same goals, the very few secular opposition rebels left joined the YPG long ago though basically they are a non-factor in the war now. Assads power has always come from the religious minorities in Syria, the Shias, Kurds, Assyrian and other Christian communities, Palastinians as well as secular Sunnis ect. All these groups work together to prevent the Sunni Arabs who live in the in-land area of Syria (on the Euphrates river mainly) from going on massive genocidal sectarian rampages every few decades. This is not the first time the Sunni Arabs (who feel they are entitled to rule all this area) have tried massacring these minority groups. You can work this out by the fact the minorities all live in very mountainous areas (good places to hide), whereas the Sunni Arabs live on the good quality fertile land that surrounds the euphrates valley and goes all the way to Baghdad (Raqqa and Deir Azzour being the two largest cities on the Syrian section of the Euphratest). The Syrian government (all the Syrian minorities) and the Kurds are the only parties willing to fight against ISIS, why you would imply I was saying they are terrorists is beyond me. They are working together otherwise if they actually were terrorists Russia would be bombing them too.
Finally someone who actually knows what's going on....
|
On October 29 2015 01:47 xM(Z wrote:was in my links - the US needed Daesh/IS to occupy half the Syria and some 30% of Iraq. it's emphasized that they needed it in the fight against Assad. now, how stupid do you believe americans were + Show Spoiler +in this situation of course it's what will get you through the argument. - when you see reports about Pentagon and how it foresaw the emergence of IS and then claim that they didn't have any knowledge about the sectarian hate/violence going on in Iraq, you're just being delusional. - US has economic interests in the region; the airstrikes were for IS to understand what they were not allowed to conquer(some airstrikes were obviously real since they needed some to appear in the news). also, as far as airstrikes go, i chose to believe that kurdish commander who said Show nested quote +I don’t think all the airstrikes and attacks on ISIS in the past year and half have degraded any of the ISIS capacity. In fact, ISIS is getting stronger and has weapons that we don’t have. Show nested quote +Iraqi and coalition jets offered limited assistance. The Americans weren’t really that serious in hitting ISIS to help us.
Well you will have to ask the Kurds who defended kobane from isis.. where were the russians? drinking vodka i bet. The US airstrikes have killed more than 10k isis fighters and you claim they were just for show?
Talking about airstrikes: NSFL - Douma market hit by several air 2 ground rockets. 45 dead claimed so far.
NOTE: VERY GRAPHIC CONTENT
+ Show Spoiler +
|
russians don't work with the kurds(they never did). i've no idea where did you get those expectations. earlier this year http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/23/politics/pentagon-isis-casualties-territory/
Washington (CNN)The Pentagon confirmed Friday its estimate that U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have killed about 6,000 ISIS fighters since the air campaign began in August.
If the Pentagon estimates are in line with the a separate calculation of ISIS casualties only in Syria from the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, the coalition effort is mostly degrading ISIS in Iraq. The human rights group documented more than 1,200 ISIS casualties in Syria since coalition airstrikes started in that country in September, the group announced Friday.
so unless they killed the rest of ISIS in iraq, they're lying. even so, those numbers are no way near 10k.
russians have 1 - 2 months since they started the air raids. in that time, do you expect them to also kill 10k ISIS troops?
|
ISIS seems to have a conveyer belt of troops. It may start slowing down, but for awhile it seemed that extremists from every country around the world were showing up in ISIS pictures. I don't really trust the troop estimates either as destabilization in the region has made people movements hard to track.
The US and GB wanted ISIS to keep the region destabilized and from falling into Syria/Iran/Russia's influence. This Obama guy is just like the old guy who was just like all the other old guy's since WW2.
|
On October 30 2015 22:48 xM(Z wrote:russians don't work with the kurds(they never did). i've no idea where did you get those expectations. earlier this year http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/23/politics/pentagon-isis-casualties-territory/Show nested quote +Washington (CNN)The Pentagon confirmed Friday its estimate that U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have killed about 6,000 ISIS fighters since the air campaign began in August. Show nested quote +If the Pentagon estimates are in line with the a separate calculation of ISIS casualties only in Syria from the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, the coalition effort is mostly degrading ISIS in Iraq. The human rights group documented more than 1,200 ISIS casualties in Syria since coalition airstrikes started in that country in September, the group announced Friday.
so unless they killed the rest of ISIS in iraq, they're lying. even so, those numbers are no way near 10k. russians have 1 - 2 months since they started the air raids. in that time, do you expect them to also kill 10k ISIS troops?
No expectations at all we all know we can't count the russians for much.
U.S. official: 10,000-plus ISIS fighters killed in 9-month campaign
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/03/middleeast/isis-conflict/
The russians won't kill that many isis militants because they have been mostly attacking the FSA and other rebel groups and also they don't have the capabilities in the region to be able to strike as many targets and with the precision the coalition was doing. So far the SAA advances have been minimal and isis has gained some ground as of late.
|
yep, thisas many targets and with the precision the coalition was doing for sure...
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/03/report-finds-hundreds-civilians-killed-u-s-led-bombing-isis-iraq-syria/
A new report from a group of journalists and researchers says that hundreds of civilians have died during airstrikes by the U.S. and other nations fighting the Islamic State, a marked contrast to the Pentagon’s official admission of just two civilian deaths.
The report, from the nonprofit group Airwars, which tracks coalition airstrikes on Iraq and Syria, says that it has documented between 459 and 591 civilian deaths in 52 credible incidents. In one of the worst cases, in Al Bab, Syria, a U.S. strike on a local Islamic State headquarters being used as a jail killed up to 58 non-combatants, including women and teenagers. and while you're at it, read this http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/isis-us-led-airstrikes-civilian-deaths-claimed and this http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/26/pentagon-scrambles-to-explain-iraqi-civilian-deaths-in-anti-isis-hawija-bombing The restrained U.S. presence in Iraq and Syria also trickles down to those who might take risks for the sake of victory. Pilots in the early stages of the last Iraq War felt the political and popular atmosphere at the time encouraged their going after what the military calls “targets of opportunity" – likely enemy targets that were not included in a pilot's pre-planned mission, but appear mid-flight.
Political emphasis today on avoiding all civilian casualties and making local forces fight their wars for themselves, however, has translated back to the American pilots above: Do not take such risks anymore.
This accounts for recent reports that as many as three-quarters of all U.S. sorties return to their home bases or carriers without having dropped any bombs.
“It’s insane,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said last week, citing the number of undropped bombs, according to The Hill. “The air campaign is totally ineffectual.”
dude just stop trying to come up with good guys here. it's pathetic.
|
U.S. officials disclosed plans on Friday to station the first American boots on the ground in Syria in the war against Islamic State fighters, saying dozens of special forces troops would be sent as advisers to groups fighting against the jihadists.
The announcement of the small ground force came as diplomats from more than a dozen countries held talks over Syria, which for the first time in the more than four-year-old civil war were attended by President Bashar al-Assad's ally Iran.
In a rare hint of diplomatic progress, Tehran signaled it would back a six-month political "transition" period in Syria followed by elections to decide Assad's fate, although his foes rejected the proposal as a trick to keep the president in power.
The Vienna talks ended without a specific conclusion apart from an agreement to reconvene in some form next week, delegates said. In addition to Assad's fate, key sticking points have long included the question of which rebel groups should be considered terrorists and who should be involved in the political process.
In Washington, U.S. officials said the small special forces contingent in Syria would work with local "moderate rebel" groups to fight against Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Washington has targeted the group with air strikes for more than a year since fighters seized swathes of eastern Syria and northern Iraq and proclaimed a caliphate to rule over all Muslims.
Russia's decision a month ago to join the conflict in Syria by bombing Assad's enemies has upended the strategy of the United States and its allies, who say Assad must go, as his presence makes it harder to fight the jihadists.
A senior U.S. administration official said President Barack Obama had authorized sending fewer than 50 U.S. special forces troops to northern Syria to work with local groups. Washington has acknowledged conducting special forces raids into Syria in the past but has not stationed troops there.
Its main friends in northern Syria are Kurdish forces, who captured a swathe of territory from Islamic State along the border with Turkey over the past year with the aid of U.S. air strikes. Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to helping the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. ally Turkey.
The measure would be part of a package of other steps to beef up the fight against Islamic State, including sending more warplanes to the region and discussing with Iraq the establishment of a special forces task force there.
For Syria, it is part of what U.S. officials call a two-pronged strategy of increasing aid to groups they describe as "moderate rebels" fighting against Islamic State, while also working on diplomacy to remove Assad from power. www.reuters.com
|
What would happen if an American soldier died in a Russian air strike?
|
probably nothing. there are already some agreements on the rules of combat there and since russians won't purposely kill an american, it'll be written of as a misunderstanding/accident.
|
On October 31 2015 03:39 Sent. wrote: What would happen if an American soldier died in a Russian air strike? nothing, besides lots of finger pointing. And maybe some republican candidates telling everyone that this would have never happened, if they were president, because they would have been respected!
|
Wouldn't be surprised if both sides would try to cover it up if it happened by accident, to big of a situation for both if it would became publicly known.
|
On October 31 2015 04:20 Gorsameth wrote: Wouldn't be surprised if both sides would try to cover it up if it happened by accident, to big of a situation for both if it would became publicly known.
It would be suicide for a sitting administration to hide it, these things come out. Its way too risky even if it is election year. If it comes out that you covered it up your basically done.
There will be lots of kicking and screaming from republicans and probably 20,000 more inquiries to waste tax payer dollars but it will be the lesser evil for sure.
|
On October 31 2015 03:39 Sent. wrote: What would happen if an American soldier died in a Russian air strike? The US can't let a soldier die by Russians and do nothing. My guess would be more sanctions. Not sure if they'll only be symbolic ones like the first ones over Ukraine or if it will be more.
|
On October 31 2015 01:50 xM(Z wrote:yep, this for sure... https://theintercept.com/2015/08/03/report-finds-hundreds-civilians-killed-u-s-led-bombing-isis-iraq-syria/Show nested quote +A new report from a group of journalists and researchers says that hundreds of civilians have died during airstrikes by the U.S. and other nations fighting the Islamic State, a marked contrast to the Pentagon’s official admission of just two civilian deaths.
The report, from the nonprofit group Airwars, which tracks coalition airstrikes on Iraq and Syria, says that it has documented between 459 and 591 civilian deaths in 52 credible incidents. In one of the worst cases, in Al Bab, Syria, a U.S. strike on a local Islamic State headquarters being used as a jail killed up to 58 non-combatants, including women and teenagers. and while you're at it, read this http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/isis-us-led-airstrikes-civilian-deaths-claimed and this http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/26/pentagon-scrambles-to-explain-iraqi-civilian-deaths-in-anti-isis-hawija-bombing Show nested quote +The restrained U.S. presence in Iraq and Syria also trickles down to those who might take risks for the sake of victory. Pilots in the early stages of the last Iraq War felt the political and popular atmosphere at the time encouraged their going after what the military calls “targets of opportunity" – likely enemy targets that were not included in a pilot's pre-planned mission, but appear mid-flight.
Political emphasis today on avoiding all civilian casualties and making local forces fight their wars for themselves, however, has translated back to the American pilots above: Do not take such risks anymore.
This accounts for recent reports that as many as three-quarters of all U.S. sorties return to their home bases or carriers without having dropped any bombs.
“It’s insane,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said last week, citing the number of undropped bombs, according to The Hill. “The air campaign is totally ineffectual.” dude just stop trying to come up with good guys here. it's pathetic.
I don't think anyone said anything about good guys if you check my posts on TL i have mostly spoken against US interventions, but Kobane was a "good" one and had to be done. Your point was about the number of IS militants killed by airstrikes as you said they were just for show, those reports contradict your point.
|
yea ... you can't spin this shit around. i said US used airstrikes to defend its interests and to look good; killing ISIS was secondary+ Show Spoiler +(you started with lies about 10k ISIS terrorists killed by US while shittin' on the russians at the same; that's whiteknighting) and that's exactly what those reports say with: as many as three-quarters of all U.S. sorties return to their home bases or carriers without having dropped any bombs and “The air campaign is totally ineffectual.”
|
On October 31 2015 07:38 xM(Z wrote:yea ... you can't spin this shit around. i said US used airstrikes to defend its interests and to look good; killing ISIS was secondary + Show Spoiler +(you started with lies about 10k ISIS terrorists killed by US while shittin' on the russians at the same; that's whiteknighting) and that's exactly what those reports say with: as many as three-quarters of all U.S. sorties return to their home bases or carriers without having dropped any bombs and “The air campaign is totally ineffectual.” Yeah I am sure the Russians will drop their unguided bombs almost every time they take off because they dont cost anything and who cares if you dont find a good target right? Its not like you could aim at anything with those anyway.
|
On October 31 2015 07:42 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2015 07:38 xM(Z wrote:yea ... you can't spin this shit around. i said US used airstrikes to defend its interests and to look good; killing ISIS was secondary + Show Spoiler +(you started with lies about 10k ISIS terrorists killed by US while shittin' on the russians at the same; that's whiteknighting) and that's exactly what those reports say with: as many as three-quarters of all U.S. sorties return to their home bases or carriers without having dropped any bombs and “The air campaign is totally ineffectual.” Yeah I am sure the Russians will drop their unguided bombs almost every time they take off because they dont cost anything and who cares if you dont find a good target right? Its not like you could aim at anything with those anyway. well they aimed their expensive guided bombs at "The report ... says that it has documented between 459 and 591 civilian deaths in 52 credible incidents..." so that's a thing.
i'm not defending the russians so get off your horses. russians will eventually kill civilians. the more the war goes on, the more civilians will die by their hands/bombs/strikes. still, the fuck is your point? - russians killing civilians is bad and americans killing civilians is good?.
|
On October 31 2015 07:38 xM(Z wrote:yea ... you can't spin this shit around. i said US used airstrikes to defend its interests and to look good; killing ISIS was secondary + Show Spoiler +(you started with lies about 10k ISIS terrorists killed by US while shittin' on the russians at the same; that's whiteknighting) and that's exactly what those reports say with: as many as three-quarters of all U.S. sorties return to their home bases or carriers without having dropped any bombs and “The air campaign is totally ineffectual.”
I provided the sources for the 10k isis militants killed how did i lie? We can talk about facts and the impact those strikes had on the ground, Kobane was saved thanks to the coalition airstrikes thats a fact... the russian strikes have not accomplished much for the SAA advances that's also a fact.
|
On October 31 2015 07:52 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2015 07:42 Redox wrote:On October 31 2015 07:38 xM(Z wrote:yea ... you can't spin this shit around. i said US used airstrikes to defend its interests and to look good; killing ISIS was secondary + Show Spoiler +(you started with lies about 10k ISIS terrorists killed by US while shittin' on the russians at the same; that's whiteknighting) and that's exactly what those reports say with: as many as three-quarters of all U.S. sorties return to their home bases or carriers without having dropped any bombs and “The air campaign is totally ineffectual.” Yeah I am sure the Russians will drop their unguided bombs almost every time they take off because they dont cost anything and who cares if you dont find a good target right? Its not like you could aim at anything with those anyway. well they aimed their expensive guided bombs at "The report ... says that it has documented between 459 and 591 civilian deaths in 52 credible incidents..." so that's a thing. i'm not defending the russians so get off your horses. russians will eventually kill civilians. the more the war goes on, the more civilians will die by their hands/bombs/strikes. still, the fuck is your point?. Obviously the point is that you can not simply drop bombs if you dont find a good target. Which is exactly what the article said you apparently have read. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/31/us-bombers-hold-fire-on-islamic-state-targets-amid/?page=all
And despite reading this you still cling to your lunatic idea about the US not wanting to hit ISIS or even supporting them. And you support this with facts like "they dont drop bombs on 75% of their sorties". The bs you contantly spew is just aggrevating to read.
russians killing civilians is bad and americans killing civilians is good? What? You were the one that critisized Americans for not dropping bombs on all of their sorties. If they dropped them more freely and more often then obviously that would mean way more civilian casualties than there already are. Which is exactly what will happen (and is already happening) with the Russian bombings you guys are fanboying for. Not because they want to hit civilians, but because they lack precision guided bombs and have even worse intel than the Americans.
|
@ImFromPortugal - 10k is a lie because ISIS casualties reported by the Human Rights observers in Syria and Iraq are several magnitudes lower.
@Redox - this is asinine - "Obviously the point is that you can not simply drop bombs if you dont find a good target" because you don't even start the engine on your fighter jet if you don't already have a target/a mission. recons are done with drones and satellites not with jets; you do not start your fully loaded fighter jet in the morning and cruise the skies of Iraq and Syria hoping to find something to shoot at ...
and this - What? You were the one that critisized Americans for not dropping bombs on all of their sorties is half-assed because in some of those missions pilots already knew they wouldn't drop those bombs; they would increase that number of sorties and strikes so you'd have something to brag about though.
|
|
|
|