|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
"Several magnitudes lower" than 10k would mean that there were at most a 100 casualties. Unless that is what you want to say, know what the words you use actually mean.
And none of us are air force guy, so we don't know if coming back without dropping bombs 75% of the time is average, good, bad, or anything along those lines. It takes time for a jet to fly to a place to bomb it. Sometimes situations change during that time. So obviously sometimes they will decide not to drop their bombs because situations have changed or become unclear.
At this point, i am not quite sure what you want to say. The way it looks is that you want to announce some american conspiracy where they want to prop up ISIS on purpose, and are just playacting fighting them.
I am going with Occams razor and just assume that the US simply fucked up in Iraq and Syria. Don't attribute to malice that which can sufficiently be explained through incompetence. Can you actually provide some evidence for your narrative except the effects of the whole thing?
|
mag·ni·tude (măg′nĭ-to͞od′, -tyo͞od′)
n.
1.
a. Greatness of rank or position
b. Greatness in size or extent
c. Greatness in significance or influence
but mathematically speaking, it was the wrong term used.
i can go withI am going with Occams razor and just assume that the US simply fucked up in Iraq and Syria. Don't attribute to malice that which can sufficiently be explained through incompetence. Can you actually provide some evidence for your narrative except the effects of the whole thing? if you define better fucked up and incompetence and why there should be no consequences for them.
also, what evidence do you expect me to have(that would satisfy you) about US using and needing Daesh in their fight against Assad besides those links, articles, leaks which detail+assume some US strategies?. it's not like somewhere out there there's a paper signed by US&allies detailing all the above.
Edit:
and about thisAnd none of us are air force guy, so we don't know if coming back without dropping bombs 75% of the time is average, good, bad, or anything along those lines. It takes time for a jet to fly to a place to bomb it. Sometimes situations change during that time. So obviously sometimes they will decide not to drop their bombs because situations have changed or become unclear. i said in the begging that i'll go with the statements from a kurdish commander in Iraq that saidI 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.
Iraqi and coalition jets offered limited assistance. The Americans weren’t really that serious in hitting ISIS to help us.
ps: this circle-jerking lasted for several(more than 2)pages. if you come and cherry-pick the last quotes it'll obviously get you nowhere.
|
("Order of magnitude" often refers to the scale used to measure earthquakes, so 1 order of magnitude = 10x in that direction. FYI.)
On October 31 2015 18:30 Simberto wrote:
I am going with Occams razor and just assume that the US simply fucked up in Iraq and Syria. Don't attribute to malice that which can sufficiently be explained through incompetence.
As a general rule, I would probably agree with this interpretation of US foreign policy. Sometimes it seems that they have more money than common sense, so expensive blunders are not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Turkey has general parliamentary elections tomorrow and Erdogan is hoping for an AKP majority win which would help him pass war related laws/votes smoothly through the parliament.
turks have been trying to provoke the kurds for the past weeks engaging in stupid skirmishes with them just to make them snap which would then play into Erdogans election strategy(=terrorist kurds are evil and must die/must be stopped) giving him more votes from the undecided turks.
it's why Turkey went silent for the past weeks. it's election time!.
|
The difference between USA and Russia is that for the USA, there's good terrorist and bad terrorist, for Russia there is only terrorist, which is the right view.
|
On November 01 2015 10:34 AssyrianKing wrote:
The difference between USA and Russia is that for the USA, there's good terrorist and bad terrorist, for Russia there is only terrorist, which is the right view.
Except when suddenly pretty much everyone becomes a terrorist in their eyes - which is pretty much what happened in that Assad-Interview.
|
United States43283 Posts
On November 01 2015 10:34 AssyrianKing wrote:
The difference between USA and Russia is that for the USA, there's good terrorist and bad terrorist, for Russia there is only terrorist, which is the right view.
er, that's not at all accurate. Have you forgotten the Russian backed militias fighting in the Ukraine? Russia is as big a sponsor of paramilitary terrorist organizations as the US.
|
Syria: At least 550 wounded in horrific market-bombing in Damascus besieged area
MSF urges five permanent members of the UN Security Council to stop the massacres in Syria
At least 70 people have been killed and 550 injured in an air strike on a marketplace in the Douma neighbourhood near Damascus, Syria.
As the nearest makeshift hospital had been bombed the previous day, medical workers struggled to cope with the influx of injured people. MSF fears the intensification of bombing that has been seen in northern and central Syria over the course of October could become even more horrific if it spreads to besieged areas around Damascus, where almost a million people are trapped with no way to escape, few medical facilities, and no options for medical evacuations of seriously wounded.
The devastation caused by the initial air strike on the market was exacerbated by further shelling on the rescue teams who were attending to the wounded. Two hundred and fifty patients required surgery, and a further 300 patients have been treated for non-surgical wounds. The multi-trauma wounds are described by medics as being worse than anything they have seen before.
"This was an extremely violent bombing," says the director of a nearby MSF-supported hospital who assisted in the first wave of mass-casualty response. "The wounds were worse than anything we've seen before, and there were large numbers of dead. We had to do many amputations. And a lot of the wounded had massive blood-loss, which means we needed large amounts of IV-fluid and blood bags. We did out best to cope, but the number of critically wounded was far beyond what we could handle with our limited means."
Because so many hospitals have been destroyed in Syria's conflict, many facilities have moved services underground or split up services across different locations in a bid to remain operational. The entrance gate of the Douma makeshift hospital had been struck by bombing on Thursday, causing 15 dead and 100 wounded. Because the services had recently been split across several buildings, the hospital was able to respond to part of the mass casualty influx. However, the overwhelming numbers of critically wounded meant that no one single hospital could have coped, and six other makeshift hospitals also launched mass casualty response plans to help treat the wounded from the marketplace bombing.
In the besieged areas around Damascus there has been a marked intensification of bombing on civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals and markets, during 2015. To date this year nearly 40 percent of people killed and war wounded patients treated in MSF-supported medical facilities in the East Ghouta area have been women and children under 15 years old. This extraordinarily high percentage of civilian deaths and casualties can be explained by repeated targeting of densely populated areas, and also because in besieged zones people are captive human targets, with nowhere to run to escape the bombing.
"This massive bombing on a crowded market and the repeated destruction of the few available medical facilities breaches everything that the rules of war stand for," says Brice de le Vingne, Director of Syria Operations for MSF. "In two of the besieged neighbourhoods in East Ghouta there are makeshift hospitals that have been particularly frequently bombed - we are now, for the fourth time this year, financing and providing logistical support to reinstate both facilities. With sniper-fire preventing people escaping from the besieged areas, we can only imagine with dread what would happen if the slow-death approach of putting people under siege turns into a fast-aerial-massacre approach."
Douma hospital has used up 1,000 litres of IV fluids and 300 blood-bags, and MSF has sent an urgent emergency resupply of some of the essentials they need, as well as providing logistical support such as fuel to the ambulance teams responding to the airstrike. MSF may also assist with further emergency medical supply donations and technical advice.
MSF is urging the permanent member states of the United Nations Security Council to comply with the mandate of protection they have been given[1] and to stop as fast as possible the escalating aerial massacres in Syria.
MSF operates six medical facilities in the north of Syria and directly supports more than 150 health posts and field hospitals throughout the country, with a particular focus on the besieged areas. These are mostly makeshift facilities with no MSF staff present, where MSF provides both material support and distance training support to help the Syrian medics cope with the extreme medical needs. This support network has been built up over the past four years.
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-least-550-wounded-horrific-market-bombing-damascus-besieged-area
|
|
|
On November 01 2015 11:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2015 10:34 AssyrianKing wrote:
The difference between USA and Russia is that for the USA, there's good terrorist and bad terrorist, for Russia there is only terrorist, which is the right view. er, that's not at all accurate. Have you forgotten the Russian backed militias fighting in the Ukraine? Russia is as big a sponsor of paramilitary terrorist organizations as the US.
Some high-quality ignorance right here. Even most people who are strongly against what Russia is doing in Ukraine agree that they are separatists in the most standard sense, not terrorists such as those who bomb markets in Damascus and cut off heads on camera for example.
What AssyrianKing was saying is that there are no "moderate rebels" in Syria, and that the groups that the US funds are no different from ISIS itself. Which is true, and is in no way comparable to Ukraine, a whole different story in many ways.
|
On November 02 2015 23:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2015 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 01 2015 10:34 AssyrianKing wrote:
The difference between USA and Russia is that for the USA, there's good terrorist and bad terrorist, for Russia there is only terrorist, which is the right view. er, that's not at all accurate. Have you forgotten the Russian backed militias fighting in the Ukraine? Russia is as big a sponsor of paramilitary terrorist organizations as the US. Some high-quality ignorance right here. Even most people who are strongly against what Russia is doing in Ukraine agree that they are separatists in the most standard sense, not terrorists such as those who bomb markets in Damascus and cut off heads on camera for example. (...)
"Cititation needed"
Also, they are the kind of terrorists who shoot down airliners, much better......
What are your thoughts on the little green men I wonder?
But right now, I also see some very high quality ignorance, right there.
|
One and only one response out of me. Anything more would be a derail.
On November 02 2015 23:19 Evotroid wrote:
"Cititation needed"
Don't bring memes into this.
On November 02 2015 23:19 Evotroid wrote:
Also, they are the kind of terrorists who shoot down airliners, much better......
1. Try waiting for proof before making an accusation like that. The investigators have reached no such conclusion.
2. Even if it were proven, unless it was an intentional attack (for which there would need to be a motive, which no one has or claims to have), it was an accident. And that is not terrorism - it's terrible and worth severe public outcry, but nevertheless not terrorism.
On November 02 2015 23:19 Evotroid wrote:
What are your thoughts on the little green men I wonder?
Not terrorism. Not Iraq and Syria. Not relevant. Discuss that elsewhere.
|
United States43283 Posts
On November 02 2015 23:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2015 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 01 2015 10:34 AssyrianKing wrote:
The difference between USA and Russia is that for the USA, there's good terrorist and bad terrorist, for Russia there is only terrorist, which is the right view. er, that's not at all accurate. Have you forgotten the Russian backed militias fighting in the Ukraine? Russia is as big a sponsor of paramilitary terrorist organizations as the US. Some high-quality ignorance right here. Even most people who are strongly against what Russia is doing in Ukraine agree that they are separatists in the most standard sense, not terrorists such as those who bomb markets in Damascus and cut off heads on camera for example. What AssyrianKing was saying is that there are no "moderate rebels" in Syria, and that the groups that the US funds are no different from ISIS itself. Which is true, and is in no way comparable to Ukraine, a whole different story in many ways.
Ah, so one group of separatists fighting against a government in order to achieve their territorial and political goals are different from a different group of separatists fighting against a government in order to achieve their territorial and political goals. How silly of me to think those two groups may be comparable.
Could you be any more partisan?
Also everyone everywhere at this point knows that Russian backed terrorists shot down that plane over the Ukraine, albeit probably by mistake.
|
On November 03 2015 00:10 LegalLord wrote:One and only one response out of me. Anything more would be a derail. Don't bring memes into this. Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 23:19 Evotroid wrote:
Also, they are the kind of terrorists who shoot down airliners, much better...... 1. Try waiting for proof before making an accusation like that. The investigators have reached no such conclusion. 2. Even if it were proven, unless it was an intentional attack (for which there would need to be a motive, which no one has or claims to have), it was an accident. And that is not terrorism - it's terrible and worth severe public outcry, but nevertheless not terrorism. Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 23:19 Evotroid wrote:
What are your thoughts on the little green men I wonder? Not terrorism. Not Iraq and Syria. Not relevant. Discuss that elsewhere.
Yeah, I also think you just derail:
First, you make a claim, and when I ask for proof (yeah using a meme was my bad...) you dismiss it without a second thought.
Then I make a claim, and all of a sudden an unquestionable proof is imperative?
Also if the Ukraine situation is not relevant, why bring it up?
I hope you keep your word, and not derail the thread more.
|
On November 03 2015 00:27 KwarK wrote:
Ah, so one group of separatists fighting against a government in order to achieve their territorial and political goals are different from a different group of separatists fighting against a government in order to achieve their territorial and political goals. How silly of me to think those two groups may be comparable.
If and only if said group does target civilians, they are terrorists rather than separatists. The groups currently fighting in Syria qualify as terrorists, as the Islamic terror movement has essentially hijacked the more legitimate revolutionary movement within Syria (which isn't a separatist movement; they're trying to overthrow the government, not secede). Collateral damage is an unfortunate fact of life in any active conflict, but unless they specifically target civilians (as ISIS and friends have been known to do), separatists and terrorists are not comparable.
On November 03 2015 00:27 KwarK wrote:
Could you be any more partisan?
Hey, you brought up Ukraine. Personally I'd rather not discuss it because that discussion has proven to be extremely unproductive. Not to mention it was done in a rather accusatory and unproductive way.
And I will repeat the major point, which you may or may not agree with, which is more useful than any of this Ukraine argument.
What AssyrianKing was saying is that there are no "moderate rebels" in Syria, and that the groups that the US funds are no different from ISIS itself.
On November 03 2015 00:27 KwarK wrote:
Also everyone everywhere at this point knows that Russian backed terrorists shot down that plane over the Ukraine, albeit probably by mistake.
"Public wisdom" is not proof. I wait for real proof of who did it before assigning blame because "everyone knows" has a tendency to be an unreliable criteria.
|
Yeah, but you only accept proof if it is being published by Russia Today, that makes that kind of hard.
|
I don't like RT either. But I do like solid evidence, which no one has managed to provide yet.
Assuming guilt before it is decided by evidence is generally an unreliable method.
And this is the last post on Ukraine that I will make right now. I would personally appreciate if every other poster didn't butt in with an opinion on Ukraine wherever Russia is involved because frankly it rarely has anything to do with anything. This is what really matters and is the only part that is on topic:
What AssyrianKing was saying is that there are no "moderate rebels" in Syria, and that the groups that the US funds are no different from ISIS itself.
|
On November 03 2015 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like RT either. But I do like solid evidence, which no one has managed to provide yet.
Assuming guilt before it is decided by evidence is generally an unreliable method.
www.abc.net.au
There is this link that shows aerial photographs of Russia sending artillery and tanks into Ukraine (see the bottom of the page, move the images to the right a few times). Also all of the pictures of soldiers with Russian weapons, but no visible identifying markings are pretty suspicious. In the latter case this group surrounded a Ukrainian military base and eventually led to their surrender.
Why send such firepower if not to aid the local militants? These same local militants openly attacked many government offices across Ukraine (you can find info on what was attacked and when freely online). These offices were inhabited by civilians. So if Russia is actively supporting these continued attacks by sending heavy weaponry, even though they ended up targeting civilians working in government offices, then that's effectively state sponsored terrorism. Also artillery are not known for being tremendously accurate.
There are also a few Russian links on this link, not sure how useful they might be.
worldaffairsjournal.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
