The Syrian Conflict Thread

[Xarog]

Besides the air campaign they are involved in logistics, battle tactics and artillery. The heavy lifting is being done by the SAA and Iranians. They might have some unofficial troops (volunteer type guys) near the front line, there were reports from a high ranking Syrian official that a few of them died recently. They are also providing the Syrians with tanks and artillery systems like the buratino. That seems to be the extent of their involvement at this stage.

It makes no sense to send in Russian regulars when you've got Hezbollah and Shiite militias on the ground doing what the Russians want them to do anyway.

 

[Seriously]

No, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of such things is very one-sided. That's not at all the same as justifying it.

And given that the civilian to militant casualties are more or less even, that is honestly the best civilian to militant casualty ratio I've ever seen in this kind of conflict. In other words, I think other countries could learn to do it more like the Russians if this is the kind of results they get.

Not to mention the hospital claims in the first place are dubious. It would be nice if the claims could be corroborated by someone other than American shills.

Like America or Al Jeera will corroborate same. What Utopia with wet dreams you live in?

Your criticisms is not one sided at all is it? Shame. The [-]face[/-]farce you present are very clearer by the day.

 

[Xarog]

Like America or Al Jeera will corroborate same. What Utopia with wet dreams you live in?

Russia's foreign ministry has made exactly the argument I did. So far no one has replied to their challenge, thus I'm waiting to see what the response is. You seem to know more than everybody else, so I'm asking you to share with the class what your secret font of wisdom is. You can do that, surely?

Your criticisms is not one sided at all is it? Shame. The [-]face[/-]farce you present are very clearer by the day.

No, my criticisms are very one-sided, but they're also even handed. That's the difference. I can admit that collateral damage is a bad thing. But you're welcome to show me what the civilian to terrorist ratios of the United States and Israel are. Hint: the US rate of civilians to "terrorists" is 9:1. For Israel it's in the same ballpark.

But I will bet you that you cannot produce one post in those 11 439 you've made (as I write this) that says anything critical of either case of collateral damage by either Israel or the United States.

So, time to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Seriously]

Russia's foreign ministry has made exactly the argument I did. So far no one has replied to their challenge, thus I'm waiting to see what the response is. You seem to know more than everybody else, so I'm asking you to share with the class what your secret font of wisdom is. You can do that, surely?


No, my criticisms are very one-sided, but they're also even handed. That's the difference. I can admit that collateral damage is a bad thing. But you're welcome to show me what the civilian to terrorist ratios of the United States and Israel are. Hint: the US rate of civilians to "terrorists" is 9:1. For Israel it's in the same ballpark.

But I will bet you that you cannot produce one post in those 11 439 you've made (as I write this) that says anything critical of either case of collateral damage by either Israel or the United States.

So, time to put your money where your mouth is.

No, my criticisms are very one-sided, but they're also even handed.

LoL. Do you even know what you say? Shame.

Just like the Ukraine thread you are as biased as any bigot can be. You did not criticize the bombing and civilian deaths as you normally would do in the Israeli conflict but rather apologetically "justified" Russian action by comparing it against other countries. So by your standards as long as the death of civilians is lower than the USA el al then it's ok. Sad raely but fine as you are stating to show your true colours.

 

[Xarog]

LoL. Do you even know what you say? Shame.

It means that you get more flak than most, but that doesn't mean I'm not being fair to everyone involved. In other words, it's your lack of fairness which gets you into trouble. So yes, I know what I say, and I mean what I say; and what I say makes sense in general if you take the time to think about it.

Just like the Ukraine thread you are as biased as any bigot can be.

Ipse dixit. More accusations without proof, cuz you can never provide the proof. I gave you two direct challenges which would prove to me and everyone that I was wrong and you were right, and you failed to meet either of them. I think they were fair challenges, and I again think that anyone impartial to the conversation would agree. So again, you accuse me of bias, but when invited to prove it, you somehow have to find a different claim to show what you mean. And this happens time and time and time and time and time again. Your arguments are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, emotionally challenged tirades which have no intellectual grounding whatsoever. It is honestly amazing to see an adult perform in such an infantile manner.

You did not criticize the bombing and civilian deaths as you normally would do in the Israeli conflict but rather apologetically "justified" Russian action by comparing it against other countries.

Show me exactly where I criticised Israel for collateral damage in the recent Israel Palestine conversations. Go ahead. Find some evidence to prove the claim for once.

So by your standards as long as the death of civilians is lower than the USA el al then it's ok.

And here you are again putting words in my mouth. I do not like "collateral damage", period. I think it's sad that anyone has to die, nevermind civilians. And I think that countries should think long and hard about what they're doing before they get involved in a conflict. The original point was that you don't actually care about the collateral damage, you just say you do to stick it to Russia. If you cared about collateral damage, you would also criticise Israel and America, but you don't despite the fact that their crimes are greater in magnitude. Hence, your hypocrisy is clear for everyone to see.

Sad raely but fine as you are stating to show your true colours.

Would those be the colours you're trying to paint on me because you can't actually provide evidence for your initial assertions?

 

[TriGuN]

Hint: the US rate of civilians to "terrorists" is 9:1.

Not against ISIL in this conflict it isn't.

From the reports I've been looking at, even if we were to to not investigate claims of civilian deaths by US airstrikes against ISIL and friends, and we were just to assume that they ALL happened like some humanitarian organisation said they might have, then we would still only be looking at say between 1:5 and 1:10 ratio, based on the claims being made by the US military on combatants killed, and the claims of deaths of civilians being made by humanitarian organisations regarding US airstrikes.

The Observatory, which is also where the Russian estimates quoted come from seemed to suggest it's closer to 1:10 for "coalition" strikes IN SYRIA.

Note that they apparently try to confirm their data, so we can assume all of the numbers to be less than the actual numbers which would include unconfirmed deaths.
They admit that ISIL deaths are harder to confirm, and are probably significantly higher than their own figures, because ISIL doesn't want people knowing how many of them are dying, because it makes recruiting more difficult and destroys morale. They say a little over 3 000 ISIL combatants have been killed by coalition airstrikes.

If they are under-estimating ISIL deaths to a significant degree, then the ratios of forces primarily bombing ISIL would be significantly better than the observatory would suggest. I'm sure it's under estimating civilian deaths as well, but not to the same degree as ISIL deaths. It's easier to confirm civilian deaths.

 

[Seriously]

It means that you get more flak than most, but that doesn't mean I'm not being fair to everyone involved. In other words, it's your lack of fairness which gets you into trouble. So yes, I know what I say, and I mean what I say; and what I say makes sense in general if you take the time to think about it.


Ipse dixit. More accusations without proof, cuz you can never provide the proof. I gave you two direct challenges which would prove to me and everyone that I was wrong and you were right, and you failed to meet either of them. I think they were fair challenges, and I again think that anyone impartial to the conversation would agree. So again, you accuse me of bias, but when invited to prove it, you somehow have to find a different claim to show what you mean. And this happens time and time and time and time and time again. Your arguments are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, emotionally challenged tirades which have no intellectual grounding whatsoever. It is honestly amazing to see an adult perform in such an infantile manner.


Show me exactly where I criticised Israel for collateral damage in the recent Israel Palestine conversations. Go ahead. Find some evidence to prove the claim for once.



And here you are again putting words in my mouth. I do not like "collateral damage", period. I think it's sad that anyone has to die, nevermind civilians. And I think that countries should think long and hard about what they're doing before they get involved in a conflict. The original point was that you don't actually care about the collateral damage, you just say you do to stick it to Russia. If you cared about collateral damage, you would also criticise Israel and America, but you don't despite the fact that their crimes are greater in magnitude. Hence, your hypocrisy is clear for everyone to see.


Would those be the colours you're trying to paint on me because you can't actually provide evidence for your initial assertions?

Whatever suits your wet dream lad.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/23/middleeast/syria-hospital-attack-russia/

Watch the video ... Oh I forgot you refuse to watch evidence that may make you mind conflict with your own personal reality and conscience!

 

[Xarog]

Whatever suits your wet dream lad.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/23/middleeast/syria-hospital-attack-russia/

Watch the video ... Oh I forgot you refuse to watch evidence that may make you mind conflict with your own personal reality and conscience!

Lol. You point at the video of evidence that there's racist propaganda in the media, then when I say I don't need to watch the video to accept that it is what you claim it to be, you still crap your pants. It's honestly so lame it inspires pity.

Funnily enough, the foundation CNN cites gives no report of the hospital attack on their website. But what we do have is the Russian response to that claim, which can be found here :

https://www.rt.com/news/319444-russia-hospital-media-ministry/

The Russian Foreign Ministry has disputed Western media reports accusing Russia of hitting a field hospital in northwestern Syria and killing 13 people. The reports cited “sources” provided by the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

So Russia is questioning the source of the claims, which so far no one has corroborated. Nice try, but no cigar, my original point stands. What is it that you know that no one else seems to? I really want to know.

 

[Seriously]

Lol. You point at the video of evidence that there's racist propaganda in the media, then when I say I don't need to watch the video to accept that it is what you claim it to be, you still crap your pants. It's honestly so lame it inspires pity.

Funnily enough, the foundation CNN cites gives no report of the hospital attack on their website. But what we do have is the Russian response to that claim, which can be found here :

https://www.rt.com/news/319444-russia-hospital-media-ministry/


So Russia is questioning the source of the claims, which so far no one has corroborated. Nice try, but no cigar, my original point stands. What is it that you know that no one else seems to? I really want to know.

Do you think after Crimea and Ukraine the russian claims are sincere? You must be joking lad. Catch a wake up.

Why would Russia admit they have bombed the hospital. LOL

Why would they admit they have troop soldiers in Syria. LOL

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...elping-dictator-Bashar-Al-Assad-ve-APRIL.html

 

[Xarog]

Do you think after Crimea and Ukraine the russian claims are sincere? You must be joking lad. Catch a wake up.

I think that if they're not, you ought to be able to show it. That's not so hard, is it?

Why would Russia admit they have bombed the hospital. LOL

That presupposes the Russians in fact bombed the hospital. The evidence on that is currently unclear. You make no attempt to dispute this, you only assert that it isn't. But where's your proof?

Why would they admit they have troop soldiers in Syria. LOL

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to assert that they don't have troops in Syria. They definitely have troops on the airbases etc. and the pilots inside Syrian airspace definitely counts. So one wonders what your point is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...elping-dictator-Bashar-Al-Assad-ve-APRIL.html

And? Yet another pathetic smoke and mirror attempt to shift the goalposts because the original goal cannot be met. 11,444 posts now. Should we keep a running total of how many posts it takes for you to show something that reasonably justifies your views?

 

[AntiGanda]

Do you think after Crimea and Ukraine the russian claims are sincere? You must be joking lad. Catch a wake up.

Why would Russia admit they have bombed the hospital. LOL

Why would they admit they have troop soldiers in Syria. LOL

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...elping-dictator-Bashar-Al-Assad-ve-APRIL.html

The people you see being hit are affiliated with Al-Nusra (Al-Quaeda). A so-called humanitarian group who carry guns and produce fake pictures for the news. It was not a bomb either, which is what I suspected from the start. We see the hospital in the video and the people inside are not harmed.

The Syrian 'observers' quoted above are based in London - a single man in a bedsite who last visited Syria 15 years ago.

 

[Space_Chief]

The people you see being hit are affiliated with Al-Nusra (Al-Quaeda). A so-called humanitarian group who carry guns and produce fake pictures for the news. It was not a bomb either, which is what I suspected from the start. We see the hospital in the video and the people inside are not harmed.

The Syrian 'observers' quoted above are based in London - a single man in a bedsite who last visited Syria 15 years ago.

Yes. The Syrian Observatory seems to not be verified. West just believes them because it's the most dominant non-Assad observer presence and it fits the anti-Assad agenda. Once it was decided in London and Washington that Assad must go, he must go.

 

[Xarog]

Not against ISIL in this conflict it isn't.

Yeah, but we both know they're not really targeting ISIS. That's just a cover for trying to bottle up Syria until Assad was gone.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...als-obamas-secret-drone-assassination-program

The documents show that during a five-month stretch of the campaign, nearly nine out of 10 people who died in airstrikes were not the Americans’ direct targets.

 

[Unhappy1]

Russia Said to Redeploy Special-Ops Forces From Ukraine to Syria

Russia has sent a few dozen special-operations troops to Syria in recent weeks, Russian and Western officials say, redeploying the elite units from Ukraine as the Kremlin shifts its focus to supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Russia in late September launched a campaign of airstrikes in support of Mr. Assad’s government, and President Vladimir Putin has said Russian troops won't play a role in ground combat. But Russian military experts and officials say small numbers of special-forces units—whose missions are rarely acknowledged publicly—are also on the ground in Syria.

“The special forces were pulled out of Ukraine and sent to Syria,“ a Russian Ministry of Defense official said, adding that they had been serving in territories in eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russia rebels. The official described them as “akin to a Delta Force,” the U.S. Army’s elite counterterrorism unit.

A senior Western official also said a contingent of elite Russian forces was on the ground in Syria from eastern Ukraine. A U.S. defense official said one of their roles is to provide coordination between Syrian troops and Russian aircraft conducting airstrikes in support of the regime’s ground offensive.

“The Russians are operating very closely with Syrian units,” the defense official said.

Full article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-...l-ops-forces-from-ukraine-to-syria-1445636834

 

[AntiGanda]

Russia Said to Redeploy Special-Ops Forces From Ukraine to Syria



Full article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-...l-ops-forces-from-ukraine-to-syria-1445636834

"an official said"

The whole article is bollocks.

 

[AntiGanda]

[video=youtube;Bi9JHqyS_0k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi9JHqyS_0k[/video]
RT's Oksana Boyko vs. Kirsty Wark.

BBC hasn't uploaded this yet and probably will not. Notice how Wark repeatedly refers to "state funded network" and "state funded television". Boyko picked her up on that but didn't mention how the BBC is funded. Wark doesn't get away with misquoting Boyko as well as using dodgy sources for her figures and gets told off again.

 

[Dave]

BBC hasn't uploaded this yet and probably will not. Notice how Wark repeatedly refers to "state funded network" and "state funded television". Boyko picked her up on that but didn't mention how the BBC is funded.

You do realise that the BBC isn't actually state funded?

According to the BBC's 2013/14 Annual Report, its total income was £5 billion (£5,066.0 million),[1] which can be broken down as follows:

£3,726.1 million in licence fees collected from householders;
£1,023.2 million from the BBC's Commercial Businesses;
£244.6 million from government grants, of which £238.5 million is from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the BBC World Service;
£72.1 million from other income, such as rental collections and royalties from overseas broadcasts of programming.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

 

[AntiGanda]

You do realise that the BBC isn't actually state funded?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Here we go.

Just like in SA, every household with a TV set has (by threat of criminal proceedings) to pay for a TV license to the government, who in turn gives it to the BBC (see your own quote).

Of course it is state funded and you provide links to show that (thank you!).

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You do realise that the BBC isn't actually state funded?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Government grants...?

 

[Xarog]

I like how the grants themselves are pretty much what funds the BBC World Service in its entirety.