The Syrian Conflict Thread

 
‘Russia a major military’: President Obama backtracks on Moscow’s defense capabilities

Russia’s military campaign in Syria seems to have changed President Barack Obama’s opinion of its armed forces. He now says it’s “the second-most powerful military in the world.” Just two years ago he labeled Moscow as nothing more than a “regional power.”

Speaking at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) conference in California, Obama conceded that “Russia is a major military” and that “obviously a bunch of rebels are not going to be able to compete with the hardware of the second-most powerful military in the world.”

This is quite a statement from the US president, who almost two years ago derided Moscow as nothing more than a “regional power” that “is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness,” in regards to his belief that Russia had ‘annexed’ Crimea from Ukraine.
Click to expand...

https://www.rt.com/news/332867-russia-major-military-obama/

This Obama guy is a clown and has turned the world into his circus
 
snoopdoggydog said:
“obviously a bunch of rebels are not going to be able to compete with the hardware of the second-most powerful military in the world.”
Click to expand...

That's quite funny :D he's been giving them the hardware of the most powerful military in the world by the tonnes and still reckons they have no chance against the hardware of the second-most powerful?

Did he just accidentally concede that Russia builds better military hardware? :p
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
That's quite funny :D he's been giving them the hardware of the most powerful military in the world by the tonnes and still reckons they have no chance against the hardware of the second-most powerful?

Did he just accidentally concede that Russia builds better military hardware? :p
Click to expand...

NarrowBandFtw, you better watch your back here. Anytime now someone (grantza) is going to accuse you of being a clone of someone that has been banned (shoot the messenger not the message syndrome). I have to say you quite brave for voicing your opinions that goes against the generally accepted views across these forums (USA Good & Russia Bad)
 
snoopdoggydog said:
NarrowBandFtw, you better watch your back here. Anytime now someone (grantza) is going to accuse you of being a clone of someone that has been banned (shoot the messenger not the message syndrome). I have to say you quite brave for voicing your opinions that goes against the generally accepted views across these forums (USA Good & Russia Bad)
Click to expand...
quite the little trompoppie you are, aren't you - kicking those legs in the air and waving your tinsel pompoms.


skeptik / antiganda, etc etc etc etc (your comrade idol) was banned multiple times - in which case the messenger indeed needs to be shot for continually choosing to ignore the forum rules, along with the creating clones & continuing as usual.

you sir, should perhaps also familiarize yourself with posting rules
 
snoopdoggydog said:
NarrowBandFtw, you better watch your back here. Anytime now someone (grantza) is going to accuse you of being a clone of someone that has been banned (shoot the messenger not the message syndrome). I have to say you quite brave for voicing your opinions that goes against the generally accepted views across these forums (USA Good & Russia Bad)
Click to expand...

lol, I don't care, if anyone wants to assume I'm a clone they are welcome to, my join date and historic posts debunk such nonsense quickly, I'm new-ish to the current affairs threads, but not new in general

I wouldn't say I'm being brave in voicing a different view, just trying to be real, I'm waiting for USA to do some real good again someday so I can vigorously support it just so the anti-Russia brigade sees I'm not as blindly anti-USA as they might assume.

Most members are mostly fair in their utterances, however wrong they may be :D ofc there are exceptions ...
 
Unhappy438 said:
You seem to have comprehension problems, i posted a link. You replied to that link, the subsequent discussion is based on that link. Your red herrings are rather juvenile and tiresome.
Click to expand...

A pattern is emerging, seems a common retort to facts being stated is one of bringing one's comprehension into question.

I'm juvenile you say? ... :wtf:

I replied to the link yes, in the subsequent discussion you insist on repeating the term barrel bomb without ever questioning it's validity, I pointed out what the majority is saying in the press, you point back at your link?!?

Is your link from God himself that it is so special that no amount of evidence will sway you to any other view?
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
lol, I don't care, if anyone wants to assume I'm a clone they are welcome to, my join date and historic posts debunk such nonsense quickly, I'm new-ish to the current affairs threads, but not new in general

I wouldn't say I'm being brave in voicing a different view, just trying to be real, I'm waiting for USA to do some real good again someday so I can vigorously support it just so the anti-Russia brigade sees I'm not as blindly anti-USA as they might assume.

Most members are mostly fair in their utterances, however wrong they may be :D ofc there are exceptions ...
Click to expand...

reality is the snoep is actually the one trying to insinuate things
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
lol, I don't care, if anyone wants to assume I'm a clone they are welcome to, my join date and historic posts debunk such nonsense quickly, I'm new-ish to the current affairs threads, but not new in general

I wouldn't say I'm being brave in voicing a different view, just trying to be real, I'm waiting for USA to do some real good again someday so I can vigorously support it just so the anti-Russia brigade sees I'm not as blindly anti-USA as they might assume.

Most members are mostly fair in their utterances, however wrong they may be :D ofc there are exceptions ...
Click to expand...

I actually feel the exact same way
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
A pattern is emerging, seems a common retort to facts being stated is one of bringing one's comprehension into question.

I'm juvenile you say? ... :wtf:
Click to expand...

Yes a comprehension pattern is emerging indeed, i said your red herrings are juvenile, there is a clear difference.

NarrowBandFtw said:
I replied to the link yes, in the subsequent discussion you insist on repeating the term barrel bomb without ever questioning it's validity, I pointed out what the majority is saying in the press, you point back at your link?!?

Is your link from God himself that it is so special that no amount of evidence will sway you to any other view?
Click to expand...

You replied to a link and then jumped into a conversation i was having with Xarog, or did you forget that as well? The point is rather clear and carrying on from the conversation i was having with Xarog, barrel bombing hospitals is not acceptable, and the argument of duress isn't either. So you're welcome to debate that point or agree with it, anything else would be more of your red herrings.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Yes a comprehension pattern is emerging indeed
Click to expand...

and around we go ...

Unhappy438 said:
jumped into a conversation i was having with Xarog
Click to expand...

my humblest apologies your majesty, I was not aware that I have no right to comment on something two other people are discussing on a public forum

Unhappy438 said:
barrel bombing hospitals is not acceptable, and the argument of duress isn't either. So you're welcome to debate that point or agree with it, anything else would be more of your red herrings.
Click to expand...

Wow you love that word, which btw is a red herring in itself, you are using a term that is not being used by the majority, a term that specifically seeks to impress upon people the barbarous nature of the aggressor (that's how the press use it, not implying that is your intent, but by using it you reinforce their intent)

I did indeed debate the point if you paid attention, I used the word "allegation" many times, too subtle? The entire thing you say is not acceptable has not been proven, which makes it a complete hypothetical, was that your intent? If so, of course, barrel bombing a hospital is not acceptable. So what? Who has barrel bombed a hospital? Nobody that is who, because firstly it is alleged, secondly the allegation is about cluster bombs and thirdly there is no proof of intentional targeting.

Intentional targeting is also required before your view on duress becomes valid, using your own intruder metaphor: if I shoot an intruder and the paramedic rocks up and starts treating him, but the guy regains some composure, grabs his gun and starts shooting at me. Am I acting under duress in shooting back? If I accidentally hit the paramedic too is that not the result of acting under duress?
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
my humblest apologies your majesty, I was not aware that I have no right to comment on something two other people are discussing on a public forum
Click to expand...

What are you waffling on about now? The comment was to remind you of the discussion at point, not to admonish you for jumping in. Interesting neuroticism you have there.

NarrowBandFtw said:
Wow you love that word, which btw is a red herring in itself, you are using a term that is not being used by the majority, a term that specifically seeks to impress upon people the barbarous nature of the aggressor (that's how the press use it, not implying that is your intent, but by using it you reinforce their intent)
Click to expand...

Yes I've used it twice, sorry i forgot the golden rule , "use a word twice, declare your undying love for it":rolleyes: , perhaps you should stay on topic and the word wont pop up.

NarrowBandFtw said:
I did indeed debate the point if you paid attention, I used the word "allegation" many times, too subtle? The entire thing you say is not acceptable has not been proven, which makes it a complete hypothetical, was that your intent? If so, of course, barrel bombing a hospital is not acceptable. So what? Who has barrel bombed a hospital? Nobody that is who, because firstly it is alleged, secondly the allegation is about cluster bombs and thirdly there is no proof of intentional targeting.

Intentional targeting is also required before your view on duress becomes valid, using your own intruder metaphor: if I shoot an intruder and the paramedic rocks up and starts treating him, but the guy regains some composure, grabs his gun and starts shooting at me. Am I acting under duress in shooting back? If I accidentally hit the paramedic too is that not the result of acting under duress?
Click to expand...


Ok so you're saying MSF are lying, they didn't actually hear helicopters over head and those weren't actually barrel bombs dropped on them? The ruins of the hospitals was all an illusion. Oh and one or two hospitals can be a mistake, but 10, please that's intentional targeting if I've ever seen it.

I see how it is though, MSF only tell the truth when it fits your preconceived bias.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Yes I've used it twice, sorry i forgot the golden rule , "use a word twice, declare your undying love for it":rolleyes: , perhaps you should stay on topic and the word wont pop up.
Click to expand...

You mentioned it once in post #2726 to which I responded, stating that I'm aware I'm "digressing a bit" and highlighting the term is being used as a propaganda tool, this is where Ron Paul entered into it.

Two more mentions in post #2736, I attempted to clarify your intent in post #2741, didn't get an answer.

More use of the word in posts #2754, #2756, #2758, #2760 and #2772

That is a total of eight which is quite a bit different from the "twice" you claim ... of course the context makes a difference, one might say many of those uses were simply responses in the same vein as the conversation, it doesn't particularly matter it still sounds quite repetitive.

Unhappy438 said:
Ok so you're saying MSF are lying, they didn't actually hear helicopters over head and those weren't actually barrel bombs dropped on them? The ruins of the hospitals was all an illusion. Oh and one or two hospitals can be a mistake, but 10, please that's intentional targeting if I've ever seen it.

I see how it is though, MSF only tell the truth when it fits your preconceived bias.
Click to expand...

Where did I say any such thing? I merely pointed out what the majority of news outlets are reporting, which is different from the MSF's version. They are doctors btw, I wouldn't expect them to positively identify munitions from the air while it is falling on them. Nor would I expect them to positively identify who is dropping them. Hence both of those remain allegations until proven otherwise.

And when the US committed their atrocious war-crime I didn't need to care about MSF being truthful or not, it is not an allegation because the US put out a statement to confirm it was them, and to confirm it was a AC-130 specifically targeting the hospital as there were militants inside.

The guilty party confirmed the weapon, the intent and the guilt, no MSF required, fyi the MSF also claimed it was a bombing in that case which is false, as I jokingly, but factually pointed out in posts #2710 and #2712 so at least once before they were wrong about the weapons being used to kill them ...
 
UK Has Hit 'Just Seven IS Fighters In Syria'

Only four RAF strikes have resulted in Islamic State casualties since the PM won support to extend military action to Syria.

British airstrikes in Syria have killed or injured just seven Islamic State militants, according to Ministry of Defence estimates.

Four attacks have resulted in IS casualties since David Cameron won parliamentary support to extend airstrikes in December, the MoD revealed.

The Prime Minister had cited the high-precision Brimstone missile as a UK asset that could make a "meaningful difference" to the international efforts in Syria.

But the figures - accurate to the end of January - show none of the RAF strikes have so far used the Brimstone.
Click to expand...

http://news.sky.com/story/1644385/uk-has-hit-just-seven-is-fighters-in-syria

What a pathetic joke. All MSF hospitals it seems are safe from British barrelbombs and Isis terrorists
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Where did I say any such thing? I merely pointed out what the majority of news outlets are reporting, which is different from the MSF's version. They are doctors btw, I wouldn't expect them to positively identify munitions from the air while it is falling on them. Nor would I expect them to positively identify who is dropping them. Hence both of those remain allegations until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Ah yes the appeal to authority, as if you need to be a military expert to identify a helicopter and the subsequent explosions. And as if there is some other force besides Assad's flying around in helicopters dropping bombs.

NarrowBandFtw said:
And when the US committed their atrocious war-crime I didn't need to care about MSF being truthful or not, it is not an allegation because the US put out a statement to confirm it was them, and to confirm it was a AC-130 specifically targeting the hospital as there were militants inside..
Click to expand...

Your colourful use of language further reveals your preconceived bias. Fyi Assad will never admit his war crimes, dictators don't do that.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Ah yes the appeal to authority, as if you need to be a military expert to identify a helicopter and the subsequent explosions. And as if there is some other force besides Assad's flying around in helicopters dropping bombs.
Click to expand...

Sidestepping the fact I question their ability to identify the actual munitions falling on them and the flag on the helicopter as opposed to the fact there was a helicopter and explosions? Or you just missed it somehow?

Unhappy438 said:
Your colourful use of language further reveals your preconceived bias. Fyi Assad will never admit his war crimes, dictators don't do that.
Click to expand...

I readily admit I'm biased against anyone who attacks a god damn hospital, wasn't aware it is a non-PC bias ... :whistle:

Mark my words, I will use the same colourful language in reference to anyone else who is proven beyond any doubt to be guilty of the same. There just happens to be no such party in the latest allegation yet. fwiw the US denied it numerous times before enough proof emerged to leave them no choice but to admit it. I wouldn't expect a dictator to cave any sooner than that at the very least.

EDIT:
Upon rereading your link I also spotted: "They targeted the building at about 11 pm with four drums that broke doors and windows. When we arrived we heard the helicopters still flying around and we evacuated the medical team and the patients. After an hour, they dropped six more bombs"

So not only are we expecting doctors to identify munitions while it is falling on them, but we also expect them to do it in the dark between 11pm and midnight?
 
Last edited:
NarrowBandFtw said:
Sidestepping the fact I question their ability to identify the actual munitions falling on them and the flag on the helicopter as opposed to the fact there was a helicopter and explosions? Or you just missed it somehow?
Click to expand...

Sidestepping the fact i questioned you to name one other side that drops bombs with helicopters in Syria? Or you just somehow missed it? Well lets say its standard bombs and not barrel bombs, still an "atrocious war-crime" using your exact quote and description.

NarrowBandFtw said:
I readily admit I'm biased against anyone who attacks a god damn hospital, wasn't aware it is a non-PC bias ... :whistle:

Mark my words, I will use the same colourful language in reference to anyone else who is proven beyond any doubt to be guilty of the same. There just happens to be no such party in the latest allegation yet. fwiw the US denied it numerous times before enough proof emerged to leave them no choice but to admit it. I wouldn't expect a dictator to cave any sooner than that at the very least.
Click to expand...

No you wont, you will only accept evidence that fits your preconceived bias. If the only type of proof you accept is people actually admitting to the crime you will be waiting a long time. I also question your ability to discern between a dictator and a democratic country. Its far harder to keep the American public oblivious than it is to keep the Syrians loyal to Assad. Basically there is no reason why Assad would admit to bombing hospitals despite the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X