View Full Version : ISIS on the offensive in Iraq
Rhyfelwyr
03-07-2015, 16:20
Hax,
I'm not trying to turn this into a Christianity v Islam point-scoring exercise. I don't think I should have to point out that when I give my opinion on what the Christian position is on an issue, I am not speaking for all of Christendom. I am also aware that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims (today and throughout history) oppose the cultural destruction of Islamic State - otherwise, these artefacts would not be around for IS to destroy today, considering the area has been Muslim almost since Islam existed (afaik).
My point was simply, that as a Christian fundamentalist, I do not believe it is necessary or right to destroy artefacts from ancient cultures.
My point was simply, that as a Christian fundamentalist, I do not believe it is necessary or right to destroy artefacts from ancient cultures.
Would you display them in a cupboard in your living room or advocate sending school children to museums to look at them and learn about them?
Please note that this is just a question, I'm just curious.
Rhyfelwyr
03-07-2015, 19:45
Would you display them in a cupboard in your living room or advocate sending school children to museums to look at them and learn about them?
Please note that this is just a question, I'm just curious.
Yes I would.
Pannonian
03-08-2015, 00:47
Compare with the British WWI graves being meticulously maintained under Saddam. 2003 looks more stupid the more one thinks about the aftermath.
But an entire civilization is being destroyed, no trace is being left, if you destroy ancient artifacts what to say. This is different.
Kagemusha
03-08-2015, 08:39
But an entire civilization is being destroyed, no trace is being left, if you destroy ancient artifacts what to say. This is different.
There are Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian ruins outside the sphere of influence IS. Nimrod is not only ancient city of that area. It is just a showing the hypocrisy of IS that they are demolishing the larger statues and constructions at the site, which they cant move, while they have little problems selling everything they can move to black market. I guess money comes first even for these religious lunatics.
Hax,
I'm not trying to turn this into a Christianity v Islam point-scoring exercise. I don't think I should have to point out that when I give my opinion on what the Christian position is on an issue, I am not speaking for all of Christendom. I am also aware that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims (today and throughout history) oppose the cultural destruction of Islamic State - otherwise, these artefacts would not be around for IS to destroy today, considering the area has been Muslim almost since Islam existed (afaik).
My point was simply, that as a Christian fundamentalist, I do not believe it is necessary or right to destroy artefacts from ancient cultures.
But those are the best arguments!
Nah man, I hear you, and personally, I think you're actually probably right. I also really appreciate your contributions to any discussion. :bow:
It is just a showing the hypocrisy of IS that they are demolishing the larger statues and constructions at the site, which they cant move, while they have little problems selling everything they can move to black market.
Yes, you'd almost start to think that they're actually humans. :D
Well, destroying artifacts increase the price of the ones you are selling...
They know they will collapse, and make as much money they can.
All will be forgiven (general pardon) in the name of keeping unity, the surviving slaves, if lucky, will be shipped back home, and the criminals will be able to enjoys the women in bikini at Cannes' festival...
Papewaio
03-12-2015, 00:03
Since they are burning alive military prisoners and beheading most others... is ISIS once beaten going to have all its key members go through a Nuremburg version of trials?
Since they are not taking prisoners and have committed to total war both in their war zone and overseas... does the rest of the world have to take prisoners or is this now not considered a war crime due to the nature of the conflict that ISIS have escalated it too?
Seamus Fermanagh
03-12-2015, 01:53
Since they are burning alive military prisoners and beheading most others... is ISIS once beaten going to have all its key members go through a Nuremburg version of trials?
Since they are not taking prisoners and have committed to total war both in their war zone and overseas... does the rest of the world have to take prisoners or is this now not considered a war crime due to the nature of the conflict that ISIS have escalated it too?
The majority of nations around the world condemned the US use of "extraordinary interrogation" (torture) against Taliban and Al Queada members despite their complicity in the terror strikes of 2001, their abduction and murder of journalists, and their "who cares about collateral damage" efforts in Iraq.
Consistency would suggest that prisoners must be taken and where appropriate remanded to custody for trial.
And it's called iconoclasm. It's like literally in the post you quoted.
EDIT: I was going to point out the historical destruction of Graeco-Roman sites, but whatever. It's happening in South Korea right now (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/06/26/south-koreas-religious-harmony-put-to-the-test-by-christian-president/).
So what, I got the word wrong. I am not being payed for this.
Kagemusha
03-12-2015, 12:10
Things are getting rather hard for Is forces at Tikrit.:yes: Apparently the Shia militant/Iraq army/ Iranian force is pushing towards city center from all directions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31849794
I am not being payed for this.
Correction: I am not getting paid for this.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/payed.html
Are you always a bad friend unless someone pays for your friendship?
So, IS used chemical weapons.
Hmm, I though only Assad had the technical capacity to use them. Well, it was what I was told...:creep:
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2015, 11:20
So, IS used chemical weapons.
Hmm, I though only Assad had the technical capacity to use them. Well, it was what I was told...:creep:
That probably changed when Saddam's old generals started being recruited into IS.
That probably changed when Saddam's old generals started being recruited into IS.
Al-Douri, the Scottish leader of the Iraqi Baathists, cancelled his alliance with ISIS half a year ago, under the pretext of the Crhistians in Mosul being mistreated by the jihadists, so officially the baathists are in war with the Caliphate.
On the other hand, there's a possibility that not all the Saddam's supporters followed Al-Douri's example.
Kagemusha
04-02-2015, 12:52
Iraq declares victory at Tikrit.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32153836
Good news and also to good to see that at the end phase of the operation US joined in and supported from air the land forces comprised of mostly Iran backed Shia militants. Apparently there are still pockets of Isis fighters in the city, but things look rather good as it is.
Let's keep these pockets intact as long as jihadi's want to go there, perfect killing room. Extra hilarity bonus if they reincartanate as a teacher of toddlers, 'hey I told you you would get 72 virgins, and you did'. In'Shallah
Seamus Fermanagh
04-02-2015, 14:28
Let's keep these pockets intact as long as jihadi's want to go there, perfect killing room. Extra hilarity bonus if they reincartanate as a teacher of toddlers, 'hey I told you you would get 72 virgins, and you did'. In'Shallah
Those "perfect" killing zones you describe still contain any number of folks who would rather just go back to a mostly normal life. Those zones also contain a -- steadily decreasing :shame: -- number of Christians and "unacceptable" Arab groups (Druze, Yazidi, etc.). Perhaps they would prefer a change of ownership?
Reincarnation comment was cute, but reincarnation is not a doctrine of Islam. As far as I know, only Frank Herbert suggested Islam/Buddhist hybrid.
Those "perfect" killing zones you describe still contain any number of folks who would rather just go back to a mostly normal life. Those zones also contain a -- steadily decreasing :shame: -- number of Christians and "unacceptable" Arab groups (Druze, Yazidi, etc.). Perhaps they would prefer a change of ownership?
You are absolutily right, it's inherently immoral to make a killing-zone out of IS. But do you have any better ideas. As long as it exists we could as well make tbe best out of it, and I am probably not the first one who thought of that. I am just glad that nothing was ever done on my account because it's probably going to get even uglier. Arab-spring, lol@those who thought that was happening, wash your own hands if you ever believed in it.
I really do care, but I am not stupid either
The Prague Spring was in 1968 and in 1990 the iron curtain fell. Sometimes these things look like they won't work at first but in the long term they erode existing sturctures and do lead to improvements. That's not to say the Prague Spring alone led to the fall of the Soviet Union, just that these events are often indicative of a brewing unrest and longing for change in the population that doesn't just disappear due to a lack of immediate satisfaction.
The Prague Spring was in 1968 and in 1990 the iron curtain fell. Sometimes these things look like they won't work at first but in the long term they erode existing sturctures and do lead to improvements. That's not to say the Prague Spring alone led to the fall of the Soviet Union, just that these events are often indicative of a brewing unrest and longing for change in the population that doesn't just disappear due to a lack of immediate satisfaction.
Why should I care about their satisfaction, why should I be concerned about them, they are idiots who lost their camel and suddenly showed up here by accident, and are stupid enough to go back. Let them, bye.
Why should I care about their satisfaction, why should I be concerned about them, they are idiots who lost their camel and suddenly showed up here by accident, and are stupid enough to go back. Let them, bye.
When I say that the movement hasn't necessarily failed it's not the same as saying you should love them and go hug them. And where does the "showed up here" come from? Do you live in North Africa now or did the arab spring thing happen in the Netherlands?
Kadagar_AV
04-02-2015, 17:48
I believe it when I see it...
As soon as air support is withdrawn I'm rather sure things will swing back again... When they have cleared the whole city AND held it steady for half a year or so, I will start to put some faith in it...
But the Iraqi army is just too... Incompetent... To handle a fight on their own.
When I say that the movement hasn't necessarily failed it's not the same as saying you should love them and go hug them. And where does the "showed up here" come from? Do you live in North Africa now or did the arab spring thing happen in the Netherlands?
In a way it did, because real experts who were never were inivited were right all the time. Right know they just don't want to talk about it anymore, that is normal when everybody gets it absolutily wrong. They just lose all interest in what they got wrong. That it afffects thousands of people doesn't matter, they fill their pipe and get another wine and read another book. How narcistic can you be before you understand that you are a narcist.
I believe it when I see it...
As soon as air support is withdrawn I'm rather sure things will swing back again... When they have cleared the whole city AND held it steady for half a year or so, I will start to put some faith in it...
But the Iraqi army is just too... Incompetent... To handle a fight on their own.
What Iraqi Army? Tikrit was captured by the Shia militias and the Quds Force. The bombardment didn't offer much, it was mostly done for propagandistic purposes, to show that America is committed to the war against the Caliph.
IS branches appearing in Afghanistan (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/06/asia/npw-isis-reach-in-afghanistan/index.html)? Interesting.
Kadagar_AV
04-06-2015, 21:10
IS branches appearing in Afghanistan (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/06/asia/npw-isis-reach-in-afghanistan/index.html)? Interesting.
Who was it that I made the bet with?
Seamus Fermanagh
04-06-2015, 21:55
I am beginning to think that I will need to talk with either a high-end Wall Street LBO specialist or a mafia capo-regime (presuming there exists a strategic difference between the two, it may only be a tactical difference) to understand the current by-play between Al-Queada and IS. It seems to me that the two are in a "horror show" competition while competing for the same labor pool.
Kadagar_AV
04-06-2015, 23:21
I am beginning to think that I will need to talk with either a high-end Wall Street LBO specialist or a mafia capo-regime (presuming there exists a strategic difference between the two, it may only be a tactical difference) to understand the current by-play between Al-Queada and IS. It seems to me that the two are in a "horror show" competition while competing for the same labor pool.
LOL!! Word...
I do understand it from a muslim perspective though... ISIS you know, IS the new caliphate (self proclaimed at least)... Any muslim against it are thus no true muslim...
Sidenote: I actually welcome this view... Let the idiots drag out all the other idiots... Way easier to kill them off when they are all bunched up in numbers and carry clear flags.
I don't LIKE it, but it's much preferable to have an enemy you KNOW.
LOL!! Word...
I do understand it from a muslim perspective though... ISIS you know, IS the new caliphate (self proclaimed at least)... Any muslim against it are thus no true muslim...
Sidenote: I actually welcome this view... Let the idiots drag out all the other idiots... Way easier to kill them off when they are all bunched up in numbers and carry clear flags.
I don't LIKE it, but it's much preferable to have an enemy you KNOW.
Agreed, best to kill them just a little bit so they keep their appeal for nutjobs here. As long as they think they can win they will go there and we are rid of them. IS as a killing room, perfect.
Not so nice for those who live there though, but everybody who is against IS is probably already dead.
Amhed Abdullah Abid Kalaf, the Governor of the Saladin Mazrpanate, who, to be sincere, has a reputation of being slightly mythomaniac, announced that Ibrahim al-Douri, the current leader of the outlawed Baathist party and the most wanted Iraqi since 2003 (he was the "King of the Clubs" in the infamous deck) was killed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/17/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-douri-idUSKBN0N81EZ20150417
It would be a considerable success on behalf of Iran and Her Shia Militias, if they managed to get rid of the "Scotsman", as his force, the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order was mainly responsible for the fall of Nineveh (Mosul), last year.
On the other hand, it has been reported that he had quarrelled with the Caliphate, when they refused to follow his advice on how they are supposed to govern the occupied lands.
http://anysoldier.com/brian/Iraq/184e.jpg
Also, a rahter informative video about the military superiority of Iran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehbnYxPgV-I&feature=player_detailpage
Rhyfelwyr
04-18-2015, 10:54
Al-Douri looks like he could be my grandfather. Crusader genes?
Montmorency
04-18-2015, 11:13
Older. Apparently, he's from a line of Arabized Assyrians. He's closer to rvg than anyone else here, probably.
Al-Douri looks like he could be my grandfather. Crusader genes?
implying all people in the middle east look the same
I do understand it from a muslim perspective though... ISIS you know, IS the new caliphate (self proclaimed at least)... Any muslim against it are thus no true muslim...
well it's nice to see you got a degree in Islamic theology
Rhyfelwyr
04-19-2015, 10:29
implying all people in the middle east look the same
Wut?
How is being surprised that a Baathist general could pass for a Scotsman implying that everybody in the Middle East looks the same?
I would be pretty surprised if a native of my neck of the woods was born looking like your average Bedouin Arab, it doesn't mean I think all white people look the same.
Wut?
How is being surprised that a Baathist general could pass for a Scotsman implying that everybody in the Middle East looks the same?
Your surprise at his looks shows that he does not fit the image you had of a "typical" Middle Easterner. Having a typical Middle Easterner in your head means that you think they all look the same and basically fit your stereotype. Or that's what Hax and his ultra-liberal feminazi PC-police friends would say to terrorize you with thought-control. I found your statement rather understandable and harmless. In fact I thought that guy on the picture was some crazy bavarian because of the hat, but I'm probably racist towards bavarians according to the pinko libraul thought police.
He's probably dead:
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/confirmed-izzat-al-douri-former-saddam-hussein-deputy-killed-by-asaib-ahl-al-haq-forces/
WARNING: Its content might be shocking.
He was an efficient commander, even the pro-Assadists and Iran (the most bitter of his enemies) respected him as a man of particular shrewdness.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RXvw-hkmGEI/UqM1giXOjHI/AAAAAAAAAnw/ady5ZQFKfIg/s1600/7247_474645629283517_2121586354_n.jpg
We have looked into your soul, Rhyfelwyr, and we know your thoughs. Allahu akbar.
I understand where it comes from, but you have to understand that Iraq is an incredibly ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan place (or used to be, until everything went to hell). For the bedouin, you'll have to go deeper into Arabia (:
Rhyfelwyr
04-19-2015, 19:21
Fair enough, it was a cool thing to learn.
Another day in paradise, people with culture killed 500 people in a single day. Don't know if it is true but they kinda have a record for mutually respecting everything that's not holy and mercifull. Political correct people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with... ah fuck it that is also a religion you can't argue with
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-20-2015, 15:10
well it's nice to see you got a degree in Islamic theology
Oh come now, Kad is absolutely correct. If you believe the Caliph is the Caliph then you must follow his orders, those who do not follow him do not believe he is the Caliph and that means they are not "true" or "right thinking" Muslims.
Now, to be fair, that doesn't mean you automatically kill them but to suggest that killing the infidel and the heretic are not theologically robust responses is disingenuous.
We have looked into your soul, Rhyfelwyr, and we know your thoughs. Allahu akbar.
I understand where it comes from, but you have to understand that Iraq is an incredibly ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan place (or used to be, until everything went to hell). For the bedouin, you'll have to go deeper into Arabia (:
You could have just said, "most people who speak Arabic are not Arabs in the same what that most people in the Roman Empire who spoke Latin were not Latins". If he is from a very old and "pureblooded" Assyrian family he will look different to the majority of the people you see in the middle east in the same way an Aristocratic Spanish (Visgothic) family will look rather different to the average Spaniard today.
...If you believe the Caliph is the Caliph then you must follow his orders, those who do not follow him do not believe he is the Caliph and that means they are not "true" or "right thinking" Muslims...
There's no God but the Lord.
This message is brought to you by Caliph rvg.
Follow me, and you are guaranteed a spot in Heaven with your choice of 72 girls/boys/whatevers.
Well, rather surprisingly, it seems that the Mazrpanate of the Saladin Province lied. In Baghdad, they refuse to clarify the fate of Al-Douri, under the pretext of lack of DNA, while a new video has been released, where the Ginger of Nineveh commented on his alleged death, the Persians who try to repeat the battle of Opis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Opis), while he also insulted the Caliph.
So, good news for the Iraqi Baathists, I suppose.
http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2015/04/18/534x0/4618557_3_0707_2015-04-18-dc2eb6c-25730-17ypl74_6479c977f192be59a2e561cc5bce6d9d.jpg
https://news.yahoo.com/baath-party-tv-releases-recording-saddam-deputy-165604017.html
For a moment I was wondering again why this picture of an SNP politician is in this thread and what a strange scottish word Mazrpanate is...
Oh come now, Kad is absolutely correct. If you believe the Caliph is the Caliph then you must follow his orders, those who do not follow him do not believe he is the Caliph and that means they are not "true" or "right thinking" Muslims.
For the ones who follow the Caliph or for everyone? If I'm not mistaken Hax was complaining that Kad was basically saying the version of Islam that ISIS preach is the true Islam. The way you sound you agree with Kadagar but in defense of both of you you might mean that for a follower of the Caliph, everyone who isn't a follower of the Caliph is not a true muslim. The way you both worded your posts it sounds as though you are telling millions of muslims that they should join the caliphate if they want to be true muslims, which is quite an absurd statement according to Hax. So this is either a misunderstanding or you and Kadagar claim to know better what Islam is about than all the millions of Muslims on earth who do not want to join ISIS.
It's a bit like a Muslim coming here, saying 'I do understand it from a christian perspective though... America you know, IS god's country (self proclaimed at least)... Any christians against it are thus no true christians...'.
It's either a statement so generic as to be superfluous or indeed quite absurd.
How is IS not the true version of islam? Not all muslims submit to islam, they are just born muslim, but IS absolutily is doing what their holy book tells them to do.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-20-2015, 21:14
For a moment I was wondering again why this picture of an SNP politician is in this thread and what a strange scottish word Mazrpanate is...
For the ones who follow the Caliph or for everyone? If I'm not mistaken Hax was complaining that Kad was basically saying the version of Islam that ISIS preach is the true Islam. The way you sound you agree with Kadagar but in defense of both of you you might mean that for a follower of the Caliph, everyone who isn't a follower of the Caliph is not a true muslim. The way you both worded your posts it sounds as though you are telling millions of muslims that they should join the caliphate if they want to be true muslims, which is quite an absurd statement according to Hax. So this is either a misunderstanding or you and Kadagar claim to know better what Islam is about than all the millions of Muslims on earth who do not want to join ISIS.
It's a bit like a Muslim coming here, saying 'I do understand it from a christian perspective though... America you know, IS god's country (self proclaimed at least)... Any christians against it are thus no true christians...'.
It's either a statement so generic as to be superfluous or indeed quite absurd.
Eh, I thought it was obvious - if you believe in the self-proclaimed Caliphate it follows you have to believe in the Caliph, but the fact that it's self-proclaimed and not generally supported by the Mullah and Mufti's outside ISIS shows it isn't the "Universal Caliphate".
Maybe I'm just better at reading Kad, or maybe I'm miss reading him. We shall have ti wait until he comes back.
Eh, I thought it was obvious - if you believe in the self-proclaimed Caliphate it follows you have to believe in the Caliph, but the fact that it's self-proclaimed and not generally supported by the Mullah and Mufti's outside ISIS shows it isn't the "Universal Caliphate".
Maybe I'm just better at reading Kad, or maybe I'm miss reading him. We shall have ti wait until he comes back.
Well, for Fragony it is certainly not that way as you can see above, and since Kad used to defend Fragony a lot, I can see how it is easily confusing. And what is so informative about saying that the people who believe in the caliphate believe in the caliphate and act as the caliphate wishes? If they didn't then they wouldn't believe in the caliphate. Fragony does at least have some sort of message, even if it's wrong, maybe that led Hax to take it that way because otherwise it's not really saying a lot. Not to forget that Kad talks about a muslim perspective and then goes on talking about an ISIS-follower perspective if your interpretation is correct. Fragony clearly claims that ISIS has the only true muslim perspective and therefore all muslims should follow ISIS or they are not true muslims. Except that Fragony thinks ISIS follow Islam and muslims don't so he doesn't really think that, he instead thinks that all followers of Islam should follow ISIS and Muslims follow.....I don't know....muslimism, the religion of musli??
a completely inoffensive name
05-20-2015, 22:56
Just read that ISIS has taken control of Palmyra. What a sad day for historians everywhere.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-20-2015, 23:26
Well, for Fragony it is certainly not that way as you can see above, and since Kad used to defend Fragony a lot, I can see how it is easily confusing. And what is so informative about saying that the people who believe in the caliphate believe in the caliphate and act as the caliphate wishes? If they didn't then they wouldn't believe in the caliphate. Fragony does at least have some sort of message, even if it's wrong, maybe that led Hax to take it that way because otherwise it's not really saying a lot. Not to forget that Kad talks about a muslim perspective and then goes on talking about an ISIS-follower perspective if your interpretation is correct. Fragony clearly claims that ISIS has the only true muslim perspective and therefore all muslims should follow ISIS or they are not true muslims. Except that Fragony thinks ISIS follow Islam and muslims don't so he doesn't really think that, he instead thinks that all followers of Islam should follow ISIS and Muslims follow.....I don't know....muslimism, the religion of musli??
Well, I don't think Kad was trying to be profound, he was just saying ISIS has a sort of internal logic and he likes the idea of all the Muslim fundies being in one basket, as that makes it easier to know who they are and take them out.
I can't really fault that if you think killing all Muslim fundamentalists is the way to go, and I'm not sure it isn't.
Fragony, now Fragony is really quite brilliant and subtle and his underlying argument is entirely lucid and coherent, even when he isn't.
It comes down to this - what makes one a follower of Islam? Fragony believes the answer is following the Koran, and he's correct that doing so brings you much closer to ISIS than a moderate Western Muslim.
Well, for Fragony it is certainly not that way as you can see above, and since Kad used to defend Fragony a lot, I can see how it is easily confusing. And what is so informative about saying that the people who believe in the caliphate believe in the caliphate and act as the caliphate wishes? If they didn't then they wouldn't believe in the caliphate. Fragony does at least have some sort of message, even if it's wrong, maybe that led Hax to take it that way because otherwise it's not really saying a lot. Not to forget that Kad talks about a muslim perspective and then goes on talking about an ISIS-follower perspective if your interpretation is correct. Fragony clearly claims that ISIS has the only true muslim perspective and therefore all muslims should follow ISIS or they are not true muslims. Except that Fragony thinks ISIS follow Islam and muslims don't so he doesn't really think that, he instead thinks that all followers of Islam should follow ISIS and Muslims follow.....I don't know....muslimism, the religion of musli??
nuance spotted sonebody wake me up
It comes down to this - what makes one a follower of Islam? Fragony believes the answer is following the Koran, and he's correct that doing so brings you much closer to ISIS than a moderate Western Muslim.
And following the bible brings you quite a bit closer to a pentecostal than a catholic.
It's quite funny when a dutchman and a swede who are both apparently atheists come and tell us they understand the quran better than thousands of people who studied it and millions of people who try to live by its rules.
And Fragony, I've understood your argument for more than a year now, you just tend to write things that don't sound like you still hold on to it once in a while, creating new confusion.
Am I supposed to make a disclaimer every time? Nobody assumes that when you say something about christians you mean all christians, it's kinda tiring that they do if you say something about muslims
Am I supposed to make a disclaimer every time? Nobody assumes that when you say something about christians you mean all christians, it's kinda tiring that they do if you say something about muslims
The problem is that you seem to mean completely different things every time you say muslims and a lot of them do not fit what most people mean when they say muslims. If it confuses me, what will new members think who do not know what you usually mean?
You cannot expect everyone to read your entire post history before they reply to one of your posts. Just express yourself clearly, it's not tiring if you do it right, sometimes it just takes an additional word or two to make your position clear.
The problem is that you seem to mean completely different things every time you say muslims and a lot of them do not fit what most people mean when they say muslims. If it confuses me, what will new members think who do not know what you usually mean?
You cannot expect everyone to read your entire post history before they reply to one of your posts. Just express yourself clearly, it's not tiring if you do it right, sometimes it just takes an additional word or two to make your position clear.
I have made it very clear so many times that I make a difference between muslims and submitting to islam, if they assume otherwise that isn't my fault. You are the moderater, if they report you can set it straight as you understand where I stand.
I have made it very clear so many times that I make a difference between muslims and submitting to islam, if they assume otherwise that isn't my fault. You are the moderater, if they report you can set it straight as you understand where I stand.
I'm not a moderator, I do not warn people and I also won't do your job of explaining what you mean. What kind of silly insinuation is that, am I supposed to clean up behind you or what?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-21-2015, 14:18
And following the bible brings you quite a bit closer to a pentecostal than a catholic.
It's quite funny when a dutchman and a swede who are both apparently atheists come and tell us they understand the quran better than thousands of people who studied it and millions of people who try to live by its rules.
And Fragony, I've understood your argument for more than a year now, you just tend to write things that don't sound like you still hold on to it once in a while, creating new confusion.
Pentecostals?
Not even the Amish are that close to the Bible.
I'm not a moderator, I do not warn people and I also won't do your job of explaining what you mean. What kind of silly insinuation is that, am I supposed to clean up behind you or what?
Thought you were my bad. But if people can't read, not my problem
How is IS not the true version of islam? Not all muslims submit to islam, they are just born muslim, but IS absolutily is doing what their holy book tells them to do.
Newsflash: there is no true version of Islam. It's a meaningless statement, there's not going to be a single person that says "oh yeah, I don't follow the true faith".
Thought you were my bad. But if people can't read, not my problem
If you can't express yourself, not peoples' problem.
Newsflash: there is no true version of Islam. It's a meaningless statement, there's not going to be a single person that says "oh yeah, I don't follow the true faith".
Yes there is, it's IS. Does exactly what the quran tells them to do, litteraly. That most muslims are perfectly harmless and only care about what's for dinner doesn't change that.
Papewaio
05-22-2015, 02:42
Newsflash: there is no true version of Islam. It's a meaningless statement, there's not going to be a single person that says "oh yeah, I don't follow the true faith".
Newsflash I'm an atheist and hence do not follow the true faith.
Unless you include Tim Tams because I like totally worship them.
*there is not going to be a single religious person claiming to adhere to religion x, y, z, that says "oh yeah, I don't follow the true faith".
Yes there is, it's IS. Does exactly what the quran tells them to do, litteraly. That most muslims are perfectly harmless and only care about what's for dinner doesn't change that.
yeah, and what exactly gives you the authority to say that?
Everyday reality? Not all people die from ebola, but a lot do. Does that make ebola harmless?
lol yeah, I'm in Turkey right now, I'll just tell everyone I meet they're all suffering from a super dangerous disease, and if they want to be a true Muslim, they should go to Syria.
man, what the hell is your problem?
lol yeah, I'm in Turkey right now, I'll just tell everyone I meet they're all suffering from a super dangerous disease, and if they want to be a true Muslim, they should go to Syria.
man, what the hell is your problem?
Your inability to read, how many times must I repeat that I differentiate between being a muslim and submitting to islam. Look back, you might not be able to read it because your brains blocks the inpuf but it's really there. Focus and you will see.
yeah, only because to a muslim there is no difference. it is literally the meaning of the word "muslim", which you would know if you knew Arabic -- but I mean, let's not get ahead of ourselves haha.
look, your point of view only makes sense -- and it's not completely wrong either -- if you submit (see what I did there) to ISIS' propaganda in the first place, which is indeed that "no islam is violent and if you don't join us, you're not a real muslim", which is a completely retarded statement anyway.
additionally, you mentioned that everything that ISIS does is in the quran: fine, I'll grant you that; but they're also very good at discarding a very sizable part of the quran that does not condone massacring people left and right just because you feel like it. and as a side note, when you actually read the quran, you're gonna find that it's so vague and minimal in terms of lifestyle rules, that you can pretty much just do with it what you want anyway.
just like literally any other religious work
IS is not propaganda, it's what islam tells you to do. You are trying to be clever by saying the quran without mentioning the hadith, everything IS does is what they have to do when submitted to islam. Not just IS, also Boko Haram and Al Shehaab, hundreds of people allahu-hakbarred almost every week. Islam is a vile ideoligy, simple as that. A muslim is just someone born muslim, my sometimes girlfriend is a fine specimen. She does ramadan and we make fun of her when she does that but that's about how great god is for her.
So just to get some more clarification Fragony, are you basically saying that all muslims who do not slaughter us are basically atheists or what would you call the religion they follow? Are you saying they are all unable to read or just lying to themselves? And what would you call the one and only true christian denomination that is the only one actually based on the bible?
So just to get some more clarification Fragony, are you basically saying that all muslims who do not slaughter us are basically atheists or what would you call the religion they follow? Are you saying they are all unable to read or just lying to themselves? And what would you call the one and only true christian denomination that is the only one actually based on the bible?
No, a muslim is just someone who was born muslim and celebrates ramadan and all that stuff like we celebrate christmas, everybody has a christmas-tree it has nothing to do with christianity it's just a tradition, same for ramadan and sugar-fest for muslims, nothing bad about it. But submitting to islam is something entirely different, the rules and obligations are very clear if you submit, and I don't want it here. Muslims are welcome, the islam is not. Don't forget that the islam is a political ideoligy that is completily at odds with our values, it has no place here, just like communism and nazism. Islam dictates sharia LAW. We already have laws, laws that are much more humane, we don't stone people, we don't kill gays, women are equal, etc etc
Montmorency
05-22-2015, 10:36
IS is not propaganda, it's what islam tells you to do.
You are trying to be clever by saying the quran without mentioning the hadith
You just contradicted yourself.
No, a muslim is just someone who was born muslim and celebrates ramadan and all that stuff like we celebrate christmas, everybody has a christmas-tree it has nothing to do with christianity it's just a tradition, same for ramadan and sugar-fest for muslims, nothing bad about it. But submitting to islam is something entirely different, the rules and obligations are very clear if you submit, and I don't want it here. Muslims are welcome, the islam is not. Don't forget that the islam is a political ideoligy that is completily at odds with our values, it has no place here, just like communism and nazism. Islam dictates sharia LAW. We already have laws, laws that are much more humane, we don't stone people, we don't kill gays, women are equal, etc etc
So muslims are basically atheists or at best "spiritual people" in most cases even if they read the quran regularly?
And what does the bible want people to do to be true christians? What is required to get to heaven? If you wanted to be a true christian hypothetically, what would you do?
So muslims are basically atheists or at best "spiritual people" in most cases even if they read the quran regularly?
And what does the bible want people to do to be true christians? What is required to get to heaven? If you wanted to be a true christian hypothetically, what would you do?
Ah, the 'but christians', such a falacy to compare christianty to islam, christianity is not a political system hiding behind a religion, took a while of course, but why import what is lagging centuries behind and call it 'respect'.
Ah, the 'but christians', such a falacy to compare christianty to islam, christianity is not a political system hiding behind a religion, took a while of course, but why import what is lagging centuries behind and call it 'respect'.
Ah the "I'll just ignore your question and answer by repeating what I say all the time to distract from it". You say that christianity once was a political system hiding behind a religion but has changed after a while but Islam has not. That means that you apparently think that the one true interpretation can change? If so, do you think it will change for Islam some time in the future? And what is the one true intepretation of christianity? Why would one book have one true interpretation and the other not?
Ah the "I'll just ignore your question and answer by repeating what I say all the time to distract from it". You say that christianity once was a political system hiding behind a religion but has changed after a while but Islam has not. That means that you apparently think that the one true interpretation can change? If so, do you think it will change for Islam some time in the future? And what is the one true intepretation of christianity? Why would one book have one true interpretation and the other not?
How would I know if it can change, I can only see what it is right now, and what it has been before right now.
Montmorency
05-22-2015, 13:17
The problem with Fragony's position on (what we call) Islam is that such a rickety assemblage can only be held together by the invidious device of altogether ignoring all usages of "Islam" other than in the sense of "Salafism".
Thus, he confuses us because he speaks in tautologies. 'Why, of course Salafists are Salafists! It is what it is. How could it be any other way?'
It's sort of like saying that the Greek language is extinct because Homeric Greek is extinct, and that therefore only a relative handful of individuals, mostly scholars, can be said to be "Greek-speakers".
This is what passes for nuance in Fragony's land.
How would I know if it can change, I can only see what it is right now, and what it has been before right now.
Or maybe there is no one true interpretation and most people go with whatever they like the most? And even if we assume that you are right and ISIS have the one true interpretation, why would you think it were useful to run around and tell everyone that true muslims should kill you? Looking for a Darwin award?
The problem with Fragony's position on (what we call) Islam is that such a rickety assemblage can only be held together by the invidious device of altogether ignoring all usages of "Islam" other than in the sense of "Salafism".
Thus, he confuses us because he speaks in tautologies. 'Why, of course Salafists are Salafists! It is what it is. How could it be any other way?'
It's sort of like saying that the Greek language is extinct because Homeric Greek is extinct, and that therefore only a relative handful of individuals, mostly scholars, can be said to be "Greek-speakers".
This is what passes for nuance in Fragony's land.
Salafists aren't really keen on IS actually, aparantly there is passage predicting the 'hounds of hell'
just saying
Salafists aren't really keen on IS actually, aparantly there is passage predicting the 'hounds of hell'
just saying
I think I get it now. The fulfilment of the prophecy has turned you into an ISIS follower and this whole anti-islam persona is just your taqqiya disguise!
Seamus Fermanagh
05-22-2015, 16:22
I think I get it now. The fulfilment of the prophecy has turned you into an ISIS follower and this whole anti-islam persona is just your taqqiya disguise!
So, you believe you have found him out on "Methinks he doth protest too much" grounds eh? It is always the "moles" that create the most problems at home....
I think I get it now. The fulfilment of the prophecy has turned you into an ISIS follower and this whole anti-islam persona is just your taqqiya disguise!
yeahyeah, redicule is so boring because it's so very very normal. It's not clever, it's boring
Kagemusha
05-23-2015, 01:54
Palmyra has fallen.:stwshame:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/20/syrian-city-of-palmyra-falls-under-control-of-isis
Damn, these savages are bound to destroy it
An interesting reading about the "Caliphate's" internal structure (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html).
GenosseGeneral
05-25-2015, 15:00
A good comparative perspective on the IS. Clears possibly some of the myths surrounding it and laying the base for a less hysteric analysis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/14/how-the-islamic-state-compares-with-other-armed-non-state-groups/?wpisrc=nl_cage&wpmm=1
Somebody please stuff his pipe and gently escort him to his library, geez
Montmorency
05-26-2015, 02:26
An interesting reading about the "Caliphate's" internal structure (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html).
Gat dam, that's one of the best pieces I've read on anything in a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfZ7FDmEX8c&feature=youtu.be&t=1m21s
Apparently ISIS says it won't bulldoze the ruins of Palmyra. Thank goodness.
"A good comparative perspective on the IS. Clears possibly some of the myths surrounding it and laying the base for a less hysteric analysis." Good exemplar on how some succeed to normalise the ab-normal... Well done them, the keep the bakeries running after burning people alive... The Nazi did succeed in doing this absolutely amazing things as well, you know, tunneling under the mountains thanks to slavery and death camps...
Hey, IS is selling slaves, perhaps it is just good human resources management for some newspapers...:soapbox:
Israel is supposed to hold a neutral stance concerning the Syrian Civil War, enjoying the fact that the Iranians and their allies are busy fighting the salafists.
Or maybe not, because it is hardly a coincidence that one of the rebels' strongholds is located near the illegally occupied by Israel Golan Heights.
Some say that the salafists use the occupied land to perform military manoeuvres, while Israel also provides them logistical support. After all, even Israel admits that injured Syrians, with rather long beards are admitted to her hospitals.
Well, Al-Nusra started an offensive against the pro-Assad Druze of Syria, resulting in a massacre of some Syrian citizens and the death of three terrorists, which was ended after an intervention of Israel, that tried to solve the misunderstanding.
An ambulance transporting some wounded Syrians was stopped by local Druze of Israel, who had its drivers, members of the IDF beaten, and its occupants lynched. Well, they had it coming, in my opinion...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/several-injured-as-druze-attack-idf-ambulance-carrying-syrians/
HopAlongBunny
08-12-2015, 22:51
The "blame game" has branched into fantasy:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/jeb-bush-blames-clinton-obama-for-iraq-isis
Of course we knew this was all Clinton's fault all along...:laugh4:
Shaka_Khan
08-15-2015, 15:53
http://news.yahoo.com/u-woman-hostage-raped-islamic-state-leader-death-214409079.html
I want to see a successful rescue for a change.
I found an article on the BBC that goes into more detail about the Turkey-Kurd-ISIS situation I was talking about: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33690060
Here's a good map on the current situation in Syria/Iraq: https://twitter.com/LCarabinier/status/636951713509937152
And an interesting article on how ISIS' rise isn't mysterious and they've actually been very adept at using standard guerilla tactics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/08/27/the-islamic-state-is-no-mystery/
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2015, 03:36
http://news.yahoo.com/u-woman-hostage-raped-islamic-state-leader-death-214409079.html
I want to see a successful rescue for a change.
The UAE managed to rescue a British man recently.
Most American and British hostages are murdered because out governments refuse to pay, so unless your family are rich enough to be able to bypass the government you're better off fighting as hard as you can if they try to take you, hope you either get away or they end up shooting you dead because otherwise it's a couple of years on death row and a beheading.
On the other hand, if you're German or French you'll get released after your government pays.
For those who are late to the thread or have just lost overview of the situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4FIo89Ll4E
AE Bravo
08-28-2015, 05:33
That British man was rescued in Yemen, he's now in the UAE.
I hate to admit it but I'm fairly certain that the UAE and the kingdom are in a tactical alliance with AQAP. Embarrassingly obvious. There is no way they could've deployed in Aden if this wasn't the case.
rory_20_uk
08-28-2015, 11:13
The UAE managed to rescue a British man recently.
Most American and British hostages are murdered because out governments refuse to pay, so unless your family are rich enough to be able to bypass the government you're better off fighting as hard as you can if they try to take you, hope you either get away or they end up shooting you dead because otherwise it's a couple of years on death row and a beheading.
On the other hand, if you're German or French you'll get released after your government pays.
Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2015, 14:38
Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.
~:smoking:
That is the view of the UK and the US - other countries prefer their people alive.
I suppose it depends on what you want in the world.
rory_20_uk
08-28-2015, 15:02
That is the view of the UK and the US - other countries prefer their people alive.
I suppose it depends on what you want in the world.
I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.
~:smoking:
Kagemusha
08-28-2015, 15:29
All these ISIS fellows need is death. Bloody lot of them.
I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.
~:smoking:
Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?
rory_20_uk
08-28-2015, 17:24
Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?
Running a society with the rules as if they were your own child is nonsensical. We get this a lot with massively expensive medical treatments that extend life for a month or so - fine if it's your child but ruinous to the whole system.
I doubt that it is easy and sometimes yes it would be impossible. Hostages is always an issue when using any form of armed force that isn't a drone. But it should be the first option to rule out rather than a last resort. Barring fanatics who are doing it for their own internal reasons, those who are doing it to get money to finance their activities would soon look elsewhere.
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2015, 18:07
Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?
All excellent points.
It comes down to this - pay for the release of your child and the hostage-takers will take five more people because EVERYBODY is someone's child.
Were it my child I'd kill whoever was in my way to get them back because every one I kill is one less hostage-taker, but I wouldn't pay an enable them to take more hostages.
If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible - if I pay and they take five more people because of that I AM responsible.
That's not to say I wouldn't scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with.
So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?
I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
Pannonian
08-28-2015, 20:49
We should tell everyone that they travel to the middle east at their own risk, and that their government will not hold themselves responsible for anything that happens while they're out there. That includes aid agencies, and everyone who isn't there with government sanction and protection. It will mean that these countries will go to :daisy: for want of help, but that's fine by me. I'd couple that with the declaration that, if anyone does travel there of their own accord, the British government reserves the right to strip them of their UK citizenship. I'd like us to have as little to do with that hellhole as possible, and to make any travelling there a one way affair.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2015, 21:00
So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?
That's not what I said, though it often is what the US and UK do, covertly.
I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.
And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."
So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.
Montmorency
08-28-2015, 21:07
If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible
By your logic you would be responsible - but you would also be absolved through "taking the hit".
AE Bravo
08-28-2015, 21:10
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
In reality that was to secure the mina of Aden. The government would not risk putting inexperienced Emirati boots on the ground over a British guy. That war is all about Aden port in the first place (for the UAE at least), if they wanted Saleh or the Houthis they would've bombed Saada or Sanaa.
I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.
I didn't read it that way because you personally going to the middle east and shooting everybody you can to rescue your child sounds like a Rambo movie plot, but I accept your explanation.
I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."
I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.
It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.
I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release. ~;)
So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.
I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.
The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.
Yes, as above, I would try not to get citizens kidnapped or tell them right away that certain regions are only accessible at their own risk as Pannonian suggests.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2015, 01:13
I didn't read it that way because you personally going to the middle east and shooting everybody you can to rescue your child sounds like a Rambo movie plot, but I accept your explanation.
Actually, it's the plot of Taken. The point was the intent, not necessarily the direct action. I would say that "I would kill anyone between me and my child" should evoke an image of me with a minigun rather than me with a headset telling the SAS to use a minigun.
I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.
Gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is cold? What do you consider expressive?
You may well think me strange, but I have considered this issue before and I am decided - there is only one correct decision, and that is not to facilitate the monsters who do these things. The best way to do that is to slit their throats and rip out their windpipes, but failing that not paying accomplishes the same goal.
It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.
One should attempt a rescue is it is feasible, it is of course not defensible to get ten soldiers killed to rescue one civilian - though it's more likely all the soldiers get out alive and the civilian is executed.
I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release. ~;)
Actually, we DO do this - the Foreign Office will advise Britons not to travel, and if they do so it is at their own risk. That doesn't mean the government will do nothing if you get captured by IS, but it does mean that if you DO get captured you've been told there's not much they can do.
I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.
I honestly find that hard to believe when the last thing in that post was, "... scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head..." sic. I could have said "I would still have been anguished" but I actually painted a picture for you and you still missed it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2015, 01:16
By your logic you would be responsible - but you would also be absolved through "taking the hit".
No, not at all. If you hold a gun to my mother's head and demand I strangle a little girl I am not responsible for my mother's death if you shoot her - but I am responsible if I kill the little girl. Likewise, if you kidnap a member of my family and demand money to fund your terrorism for their release I am responsible for what you do with that money.
To be a little more technical - I become responsible when I engage with you on your terms, because then I agree your terms are reasonable and I enter into a contract with you, my family member's life for the lives of others.
Actually, we DO do this - the Foreign Office will advise Britons not to travel, and if they do so it is at their own risk. That doesn't mean the government will do nothing if you get captured by IS, but it does mean that if you DO get captured you've been told there's not much they can do.
I think most countries do this, I just wasn't aware of whether it change their behavior a lot when you go to the country anyway.
Gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is cold? What do you consider expressive?
You may well think me strange, but I have considered this issue before and I am decided - there is only one correct decision, and that is not to facilitate the monsters who do these things. The best way to do that is to slit their throats and rip out their windpipes, but failing that not paying accomplishes the same goal.
[...]
I honestly find that hard to believe when the last thing in that post was, "... scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head..." sic. I could have said "I would still have been anguished" but I actually painted a picture for you and you still missed it.
Yes, I actually must have missed it, twice...my apologies. It did not happen on purpose. :bow:
I need to finish my assignment, maybe it's distracting me too much.
Montmorency
08-29-2015, 03:23
No, not at all. If you hold a gun to my mother's head and demand I strangle a little girl I am not responsible for my mother's death if you shoot her - but I am responsible if I kill the little girl. Likewise, if you kidnap a member of my family and demand money to fund your terrorism for their release I am responsible for what you do with that money.
To be a little more technical - I become responsible when I engage with you on your terms, because then I agree your terms are reasonable and I enter into a contract with you, my family member's life for the lives of others.
Seriously? By my recollection, this makes your position different than in 2012. At any rate, pseudo-solipsism is not a moral device that can rescue the continually-benighted.
HopAlongBunny
08-29-2015, 12:42
But "engaging with them on their terms" sort of defines the entire "War on Terror".
The suspensions of rights, the breaking of the rule of law, torture, deportation and identifying a class of citizen as enemy.
The terrorists have roundly won the battle of ideology.
Pannonian
08-29-2015, 13:00
But "engaging with them on their terms" sort of defines the entire "War on Terror".
The suspensions of rights, the breaking of the rule of law, torture, deportation and identifying a class of citizen as enemy.
The terrorists have roundly won the battle of ideology.
Engaging the enemy on their terms isn't by definition a bad thing. Engaging them on terms that benefit them is a bad thing. There are any number of ways in which we can engage ISIS on their terms which would harm them and protect us. There are any number of ways in which we can keep to our liberal democratic ideals which would benefit ISIS.
Gilrandir
08-29-2015, 14:09
Actually, it's the plot of Taken.
And Commando.
HopAlongBunny
08-29-2015, 18:30
Engaging the enemy on their terms isn't by definition a bad thing. Engaging them on terms that benefit them is a bad thing. There are any number of ways in which we can engage ISIS on their terms which would harm them and protect us. There are any number of ways in which we can keep to our liberal democratic ideals which would benefit ISIS.
That sounds much like the: "well they won't be coming for me" defence. Good luck with that.
The War on Terror has mission creep written all over it. What exactly is terrorism? What public dissent rates as an act of terror? What communication?
Much of the legislation amounts to "Humpty Dumpty Laws: It means whatever I say it means, no more no less.
And good luck with a challenge. Evidence can be "secret"; though governments have been forced to lift the veil in some cases, that requires a request, a judgement and pretty much the good will of the gov't.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/mission-creep-when-everything-is-terrorism/277844/
Pannonian
08-29-2015, 20:05
That sounds much like the: "well they won't be coming for me" defence. Good luck with that.
The War on Terror has mission creep written all over it. What exactly is terrorism? What public dissent rates as an act of terror? What communication?
Much of the legislation amounts to "Humpty Dumpty Laws: It means whatever I say it means, no more no less.
And good luck with a challenge. Evidence can be "secret"; though governments have been forced to lift the veil in some cases, that requires a request, a judgement and pretty much the good will of the gov't.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/mission-creep-when-everything-is-terrorism/277844/
There are Muslim preachers who are taking the :daisy: with our acceptance of all cultures as relative and their knowledge of our liberal tendencies. Promoting the most backward forms of Islam and arguing that it has a place here and so on. I take Ataturk's line on this; there are many cultures, but only one civilisation. If they want to undermine our civilisation, they can bugger off to where their ideas have a history.
I can't find the url at the moment, but I've read one Guardian interview with one of these preachers, who argued that man and woman were biologically different, and therefore Islam's treatment of the sexes was correct, and our treatment of them was corrupt. Corrupt it may or may not be, but equality of the sexes is also a British thing, and if he doesn't like it, then he can bugger off. If he's actively preaching that we're corrupt because of stuff like that, then we should bugger him off whether he likes it or not.
Well, it is quite easy to deal with these preachers. Apply the law. Ah, I forgot. No law in UK. Hate speeches are the one against religions, not the against the religions that spread hate and discrimination...
And call to murder is freedom of speech as well, no?
In France, to call to kill the gays and the infidels is not considered as an opinion, but an incitement to murder/violence. To wear a burka is not considered as an element of fashion but an element of fascism as the tenets of this faith are against the principles written in the Constitution and basic human rights. So, as such, it is recognised as a political statement from a political party that doesn't respect the Constitution so is not legal.
See, it is easy. Common sense and no hypocrisy.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-30-2015, 14:08
I think most countries do this, I just wasn't aware of whether it change their behavior a lot when you go to the country anyway.
Well, can a government really abandon someone because they travelled to a particular part of the world? Not really, not unless you want to accept the principle that yyou citizens are, in effect, only citizens within your borders.
Yes, I actually must have missed it, twice...my apologies. It did not happen on purpose. :bow:
I need to finish my assignment, maybe it's distracting me too much.
Your apology is accepted.
http://www.conflictarm.com/publications/
Plenty of US weapons. Some assault rifles have "Property of the US government" on them. What is this?
rory_20_uk
09-15-2015, 15:01
Given the Iraqi army (financed and supposedly trained by the USA) ran away abandoning pretty much everything I'm hardly surprised.
~:smoking:
According to this (http://www.newsweek.com/hunting-isis-were-killing-1000-fighters-month-372663) article, coalition airstrikes are killing 1 000 IS fighters a month:
Overall, Operation Inherent Resolve (the U.S.-led combined joint task force in Iraq and Syria) is killing about 1,000 ISIS fighters a month. The death toll roughly matches the number of new recruits ISIS is able to field each month, effectively capping its manpower strength at about 30,000 to 40,000 fighters.
That sounds rather extreme. But if it is true, and IS fighters also happen to have lower empathy levels and higher psychopathy scores than average, it would in effect be a eugenics program. :wink3:
According to [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/hunting-isis-were-killing-1000-fighters-month-[/URL]
Stupid numbers. On the one hand, they claim that ISIS has 30,000 fighters and on the other, they pretend that the Kurds and their aristrikes kill several thousands of them.
It's a typical contradiction of an overblown propaganda, if it was true, the half of Iraq would be controlled by a couple of patrols.
Never trust the participants to give you an accurate casualty figure. The world has improved since Arrian and his Persian genocide, but not much.
Doesn't look like you read what it said. They say IS recruits ~ 1000 new fighters a month, and that their airstrikes kill ~ 1000 IS fighters a month; so those numbers add up. Verifying them is another matter. The core of the statements seems to be that they think the number of IS fighters is currently about constant.
The problem is that ISIS is also fighting against Syria, Iraq, the Kurds, AQ, various islamists, Hezbollah and Soleimani. And according to them, they lose some hundreds of men in every battle.
They all lie, from the Americans to the Iranians and a claim that 30 ISIS soldiers die on a daily basis is simply absurd and misleading.
Greyblades
09-19-2015, 23:05
Oh I don't know, I could see it averaging out to that considering how many fronts they are fighting.
Montmorency
09-20-2015, 00:04
Crandar, I'm afraid I don't see the crux of your argument. As far as I can tell, you are saying that we shouldn't take those particular figures seriously because "they all lie".
But that would be a very crude and jejune approach, so I must be mistaken. What are you saying then?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-20-2015, 01:37
He's saying that if the Coalition was likking 1,000 IS fighters a month then their numbers would be falling - he seems immune to the idea that we're underestimating the numbers they are recruiting.
It's likely all IS's enemies "round up" kill and "round down" IS recruits.
900 is "about a thousand" for a given value of 1,000.
Montmorency
09-20-2015, 05:01
Do recall also that, out of the tens of thousands of sorties flown by the coalition, a large proportion act as close air support for Syrian rebels, Kurd militias, and the like. Honestly, the reported numbers are embarrassingly-low if accurate. What it translates to is, if taking an arbitrary flight mission composed of 10 warplanes, that mission only kills a single IS fighter on average. I mean jeez, even if we weren't coordinating with ground forces in many cases, that would be a doleful figure. I'm pretty sure 1915 fighter-craft got better results strafing trenches...
So, Russia's heavy intervention in Syria starts (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164). The US and activists claim that the struck areas were not controlled by IS, but by other rebel groups.
So, Russia's heavy intervention in Syria starts (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164). The US and activists claim that the struck areas were not controlled by IS, but by other rebel groups.
So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then? Not to forget that the US are already striking hard against the IS, no? If they want to hit the same people, they probably have to coordinate their attacks anyway.
Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?
So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then? Not to forget that the US are already striking hard against the IS, no? If they want to hit the same people, they probably have to coordinate their attacks anyway.
Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Well there are some moderate rebels within the opposition, and I hate to see the Assad regime get propped up by Russia which is I think their biggest motivation for getting involved.
So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then? Not to forget that the US are already striking hard against the IS, no? If they want to hit the same people, they probably have to coordinate their attacks anyway.
Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?
I think they are more interested in the FSA
Well there are some moderate rebels within the opposition, and I hate to see the Assad regime get propped up by Russia which is I think their biggest motivation for getting involved.
FSA (islamists with a media-friendly name) is pretty much inexistent in Homs, as the region is mainly infested by Al-Nusra, the Syrian department of AQ, which is not as evil as the rest of AQ, because they're allied with our islamist allies.
Off course, it has also been reported that ISIS has a presence in Rastan (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brutal-isis-militants-publicly-execute-6494171), the region that was bombed by the Russian Airforce, so ISIS members could have potentially been bombed..
America, on the other hand, focused her bombing and spying campaign, strictly against ISIS... (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31932233) The hypocrisy of the media is outstanding.
Gilrandir
10-01-2015, 12:16
Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?
:laugh4: Russia uses this involvement as a smokescreen to divert the world's attention from Donbas/Crimea and as a bargaining chip to exchange its "crackdown on terrorism" for the Crimea and solution of the Donbas crisis. Plus turmoils in the Arab world are likely to keep oil prices higher which is also good for Russia.
Never thought I'd be cheering on the current Russian regime, but yeah, go Russkies! I have no love for Bashar, but this sonuvabitch just won the lottery by becoming a useful pawn for Putin.
Now for the situation at hand, most likely first victims:
1. Al Nusra. A bunch of islamist scumbags, much smaller than ISIS, thus much easier to bomb into smithereens, have Assad's tanks roll all over them, producing tons of PR for Putin. If Putin is serious about making Syria a publicity showcase, these guys are screwed.
2. FSA. The "moderate" opposition. Moderate, my ass. I don't trust them one bit. Likely to get their clocks cleaned right after Al Nusra. Good riddance. Potentially problematic if some Einstein from the DoD decides that giving these guys AA capability would be a good idea. While we're on the topic of FSA, it's time to stop the CIA gravy train. These guys are finished.
3. ISIS. I think Russians will do a showcase coordinated bombing run against these guys every once in a while, just to show that Russia is helping the overall fight against them. Mostly they'll stay away for two reasons:
1. An anti-ISIS campaign would be long and expensive.
2. We're already there, and it's best to stay out of each other's way.
4. The Kurds. The only ones in this entire conflict who at least partially resemble the good guys. I doubt Russia will touch them at all.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-02-2015, 01:23
I'm gonna put money on the Kurds getting crushed HARD because ethnically based dissident movements, especially secular and democratic ones, are more dangerous to Putin than IS.
I'm gonna put money on the Kurds getting crushed HARD because ethnically based dissident movements, especially secular and democratic ones, are more dangerous to Putin than IS.
I disagree. Kurds, while very willing to secede from Syria, have absolutely no interest in dethroning Assad. They mind their own business and stay in Kurdish areas. Since they are no threat to Assad's regime, Russia is unlikely to touch them.
Isn't Erdogan already bombing the kurds?
Erdogan has been bombing the PKK, which is classified as a terrorist group and has been fighting a guerrilla war against Turkey. The Syrian Kurds have been mostly left alone.
Somehow I agree with Gilrandir, but I don't think it is just a smokescreen.
In taking part actively in Syria, Putin obliged other countries to determine their policies in conjunction with his. He regained (or gained) the centre point in negotiation and obliged USA to reconsider their stance.
He gave the signal to USA that they are not any more free to bomb, he can do it as well.
Considering there is a meeting today about Ukraine, he will have some political advantage in showing how he has the capacity to intervene.
He showed to CIA that he can hit their "protégés", even better he showed CIA's "protégés" they are not any more out of target.
Now, former USSR was supporting Kurdish fighters in the 50-60's. I don't know if this will or have an impact on Putin's political/geo-strategical decisions.
Gilrandir
10-02-2015, 13:28
Never thought I'd be cheering on the current Russian regime, but yeah, go Russkies! I have no love for Bashar, but this sonuvabitch just won the lottery by becoming a useful pawn for Putin.
The problem (if it is a problem) is that Russia will not gain anything serious (except its umpteen planes shot down) unless they start a land operation. Bombing was what the West has been doing on and off for a couple of years and it didn't really change the balance between the beligerents. If Putin means business he ought to send his little beige (I think they will use this camouflage color) men. But if he does he will be bogged there for eternity (as he is in Donbas). So he has to choose - to send men and propel Asad into the offensive (but risk reputational damage at home and have no chance for reversal of his actions) or continue bombing and remain just one more nuisance for the bombed and one more target for their stingers.
The problem (if it is a problem) is that Russia will not gain anything serious (except its umpteen planes shot down) unless they start a land operation. Bombing was what the West has been doing on and off for a couple of years and it didn't really change the balance between the beligerents.
Overall, yes. However, we really haven't been bombing Al Nusra much, and Assad hasn't been conducting ground ops vs ISIS much. Thus, Al Nusra has been fighting on the ground without getting bombed while ISIS has been getting bombed without meeting any meaningful opposition on the ground. Well, except the Kurds. They tried to go against the Kurds and got their asses handed back to them.
Anyway, now Al Nusra will be getting it both from the air and the ground forces. I'm anxious to see what happens to them.
If Putin means business he ought to send his little beige (I think they will use this camouflage color) men. But if he does he will be bogged there for eternity (as he is in Donbas).
If Putin get bogged down, that's Putin's problem. The more problems Putin has, the better.
So he has to choose - to send men and propel Asad into the offensive (but risk reputational damage at home and have no chance for reversal of his actions) or continue bombing and remain just one more nuisance for the bombed and one more target for their stingers.
The guy is doubling down on his delusions of grandeur. If this serves to further isolate him, that's fine by me. If he is digging his own political grave, there's no reason to try to take away his shovel. Let him dig.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-02-2015, 14:15
I disagree. Kurds, while very willing to secede from Syria, have absolutely no interest in dethroning Assad. They mind their own business and stay in Kurdish areas. Since they are no threat to Assad's regime, Russia is unlikely to touch them.
The Kurds set a bad precedent for similar Muslim groups in Russia.
Erdogan has been bombing the PKK, which is classified as a terrorist group and has been fighting a guerrilla war against Turkey. The Syrian Kurds have been mostly left alone.
Well, the PKK are not all that easy to separate from the Syrian Kurds they are operating with - Turkey is carrying out bombings in Syria against the PKK, which means they're bombing the Syrian Kurd too. Turkey has the same problem as Russia, the Kurds set a bad precedent.
The Kurds set a bad precedent for similar Muslim groups in Russia.
IMHO they are too far away from Russia for their example to matter.
Gilrandir
10-02-2015, 15:31
The guy is doubling down on his delusions of grandeur. If this serves to further isolate him, that's fine by me. If he is digging his own political grave, there's no reason to try to take away his shovel. Let him dig.
It depends. If the West thinks the same, then he will go down. But Obama and Merkel can take Putin's Syrian wild goose chase at its face value (as a crackdown on ISIS) and see in him an ally they need to do the dirty job for them. In this case Putin will start his bargaining and who knows what he may get.
Once again, don't underestimated Putin. He is not bog down in Ukraine, he's got what he wanted, a neutralised Ukraine. Not any more one country, with NATO try to be out but in as well, troops but without intention to use them in it, Western Countries unable to have a real clear policy.
With Iran and the nuclear deal and now Syria, he is back as major player. No one can ignore him, and he will play n this. Even US are now obliged to change plan.
If you believe he has the same goals than US and EU, you are badly mistaken.
I read so many times in our debates he was finished, and each times it was so wrong.
Russian base in Syria is bigger and stronger.
USA and EU can't do what ever they want (as in Iraq and Libya).
He is able to impose himself on the map.
Not bad for a start.
Will he be bogged down? At this stage, I can't see how, as he plays for the moment as US, UK and France.
If he decides to go on the ground, that might change, but few recent Russian wars showed that their militaries don't hesitate too much on lateral damages, as the school siege by rebels Chechen or in the theatre in Moscow.
Gilrandir
10-02-2015, 16:57
Once again, don't underestimated Putin. He is not bog down in Ukraine, he's got what he wanted, a neutralised Ukraine.
I thought we have had this out.
He had wanted much more than what he got. His initial design to split Ukraine "along culture lines" has failed. His Ukrainian adventure got him under sanctions. He was kicked out of G8 and won many new enemies. NATO increased its presence just over his fence. His burden of financing Donbas and Crimea under such conditions is growing harder to endure but he can't just withdraw from either since it would be impossible to explain to his admirers why he left "suffering under the fascitst heel of Kyiv junta populace of Russian speaking brethren" in lurch. Russia's economy is declining steadily if not dramatically because of all this and of oil price drop. His only option is to push the game further and raise stakes by starting another war.
If he decides to go on the ground, that might change, but few recent Russian wars showed that their militaries don't hesitate too much on lateral damages, as the school siege by rebels Chechen or in the theatre in Moscow.
Militaries don't. But the civilians will start asking questions if zink boxes start pouring from Syria. There are no splinters of "the Russian world" there for Russian public opinion to feel the pride at defending them at whatever cost.
"I thought we have had this out." You can believe what your heart wishes it happened. The reality check is what I describe. Crimea is Russian, Ukraine is not united, Russia is suffering economically as all countries due the fall of commodities (oil, iron, copper etc), and now, even the political attempt of isolation of Russia is fast vanishing in front of the Iran deal and Syria.
"if zink boxes start pouring from Syria" IF, and IF, Russia can do what USA did for Afghanistan, hind them.
Gilrandir
10-03-2015, 14:35
"I thought we have had this out." You can believe what your heart wishes it happened. The reality check is what I describe. Crimea is Russian, Ukraine is not united, Russia is suffering economically as all countries due the fall of commodities (oil, iron, copper etc), and now, even the political attempt of isolation of Russia is fast vanishing in front of the Iran deal and Syria.
You choose to focus only on Ukraine's losses (which are no doubt significant) disregarding the setbacks Russia suffered.
What was severed off Ukraine made the rest of it more united than it was before Russia's aggression. And in 2012-2013 the number of Ukrainians who supported joining NATO fluctuated around 20-25%. The latest polls never show a figure below 60%. Before the war Russia could hope to exercise a hold on such aspirations since they were popular among a small number of citizens and politicians. By doing what it has done Russia gave a decisive push to Ukraine in NATO's direction. Strategically, it is the main setback, because even after Putin's age is over it would be almost impossible for Russia to change anything and lure Ukraine back into its orbit.
"if zink boxes start pouring from Syria" IF, and IF, Russia can do what USA did for Afghanistan, hind them.
They will, no doubt. But it has appeared hard to do in case of caskets from Ukraine. So news of them will find its way to the ears of the people. The problem is that most Russians seem to be ready to lump it. Until the casualties are too great to disregard them any longer.
And on why Putin is making a bad mistake with Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/opinion/thomas-friedman-syria-obama-and-putin.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-l-friedman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1
:laugh4: Russia uses this involvement as a smokescreen to divert the world's attention from Donbas/Crimea and as a bargaining chip to exchange its "crackdown on terrorism" for the Crimea and solution of the Donbas crisis. Plus turmoils in the Arab world are likely to keep oil prices higher which is also good for Russia.
Not to mention it's a highly convenient tool to distract the Russian populace about the deteriorating Russian economy. Now that Russia illegally annexed Crimea, Syria is only area outside of Russia that Russia still maintains a naval base. I'm fairly sure they do not want to lose it which is understandable.
So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then?
If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.
"The latest polls never show a figure below 60%." Including the "Ukrainian Russian" territories?. And it is in fact irrelevant. Until Ukraine is reunited in a "peaceful" manner, even 100 % would not be enough.
"So news of them will find its way to the ears of the people. The problem is that most Russians seem to be ready to lump it. Until the casualties are too great to disregard them any longer." Agree, but it was a discussion I remember having with USA invasion of Iraq. And it change nothing.
"Not to mention it's a highly convenient tool to distract the Russian populace about the deteriorating Russian economy." Really? As much I watch BBC Economic News and the jokes about Roubles/rubles, and the weekly predictions of the fall of Putin in the Russian opinion (which will probably happen one day), it doesn't yet happen.
The worst is when you start to believe your own propaganda.
In fact, it is quite easy to blame everybody else for economic deterioration, look at EU unable to have a economical recovery (created by laws imposed by EU) and blaming all but its policy.
If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.
You mean like how you support the Taliban in order to weaken the Soviets?
AE Bravo
10-05-2015, 04:48
If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.
Don't see how making the only solution to IS stronger is a bad idea.
Gilrandir
10-05-2015, 15:31
"The latest polls never show a figure below 60%." Including the "Ukrainian Russian" territories?. And it is in fact irrelevant.
In fact you are right. It is irrelevant. If a referendum on joining NATO is held, it will be the ALL-NATIONAL referendum, so the regional dimensions of the voting will be interesting only as the sociological food for thinking. Only the overall result will matter.
Until Ukraine is reunited in a "peaceful" manner, even 100 % would not be enough.
Not enough for NATO to accept Ukraine? Perhaps. But inside Ukraine, if there is a majority of votes in favor of it, it will be enough for the government to start taking practical steps in the procedure of application for admittance.
"Not to mention it's a highly convenient tool to distract the Russian populace about the deteriorating Russian economy." Really? As much I watch BBC Economic News and the jokes about Roubles/rubles, and the weekly predictions of the fall of Putin in the Russian opinion (which will probably happen one day), it doesn't yet happen.
The worst is when you start to believe your own propaganda.
In fact, it is quite easy to blame everybody else for economic deterioration, look at EU unable to have a economical recovery (created by laws imposed by EU) and blaming all but its policy.
So BBC Economic News claims that the economic situation in Russia hasn't deteriorated since the sanctions were introduced? BBC claims that oil prices haven't dropped? BBC claims that the exchange course of rouble hasn't changed since 2013?
I doubt it.
Perhaps BBC claims that these setbacks are unlikely to throw Putin off the throne (and in this case it is not Economic News any more). But I agree on it. Russians are told (by their mass media) that all the hardships they are experiencing are not because Putin has led them to where they are, but because the evil gay-loving West's mind is set on destroying Highly Moral Russia. Consequently they are inclined to grin and bear it. Hitherto.
Gilrandir
10-05-2015, 15:44
Here we go again. Russian "volunteers" are likely to appear in Syria - evidenlty to help their Orthodox Arab brethren.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/world/europe/nato-russia-warplane-turkey.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
In fact, Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, the head of the armed forces committee in Russia’s Parliament, told news services that pro-Russian veterans of the conflict in eastern Ukraine side will most “likely” start showing up as a volunteer battalion in Syria.
You mean like how you support the Taliban in order to weaken the Soviets?
No, like bombing Vietnam in order to weaken China.
Don't see how making the only solution to IS stronger is a bad idea.
It might just make IS stronger instead. Let's see who's better at filling any vacuum - IS or the dictator.
Of course, IS expanding at the cost of other rebel groups would fit Russia's narrative: that Assad is a misunderstood youth who should be showered with love.
No, like bombing Vietnam in order to weaken China.
If that would allow Japan to conquer Vietnam, how would it weaken the position of US allies?
Because I assume the Russians are bombing positions to help the Syrian army take them, how does it benefit the IS if the Syrian army retakes land?
AE Bravo
10-06-2015, 00:50
Of course, IS expanding at the cost of other rebel groups would fit Russia's narrative: that Assad is a misunderstood youth who should be showered with love.
As if the other groups haven't already made this narrative.
HopAlongBunny
10-06-2015, 01:51
The calculus is pretty simple.
Russia will be a complete and utter dickweasel in the area on behalf of its ally.
Likewise they will defend/ignore any shortcomings, even at the UN; even in the face of clear evidence.
It sounds exactly like another relationship in the area, though the names escape me at the moment...:cool4:
Greyblades
10-06-2015, 13:07
Likewise they will defend/ignore any shortcomings, even at the UN; even in the face of clear evidence.
What do you mean "even at the UN"? The UN's been run by toothless fools for decades.
A GoPro cam attached to a Su-24M.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=57&v=bJqz_ItIjZI
Because I assume the Russians are bombing positions to help the Syrian army take them, how does it benefit the IS if the Syrian army retakes land?
Like I pointed out in the post right above yours, it benefits IS if they take the territory instead of Assad.
And once IS has taken the territory, Putin, Eternal President of Russia, dies of a heart attack. Russia is afflicted with great apathy at the loss of their great leader and pulls out of Syria. IS, the only remaining rebel group in Syria, conquers the rest of Syria and now has a proper caliphate. Everyone lived happily ever after.
CrossLOPER
10-06-2015, 21:24
Like I pointed out in the post right above yours, it benefits IS if they take the territory instead of Assad.
And once IS has taken the territory, Putin, Eternal President of Russia, dies of a heart attack. Russia is afflicted with great apathy at the loss of their great leader and pulls out of Syria. IS, the only remaining rebel group in Syria, conquers the rest of Syria and now has a proper caliphate. Everyone lived happily ever after.
In an alternative universe, US-backed rebels are victorious, and the new regime totally does not end up like Egypt or Libya, and for once things end up working out like someone's hallucinatory delusion.
This is fun. We should do this more often.
AE Bravo
10-06-2015, 22:39
IS, the only remaining rebel group in Syria, conquers the rest of Syria and now has a proper caliphate. Everyone lived happily ever after.
You can't have a caliphate without Makkah under your control nowadays, since it's defiled by the unholy presence of the kaaba and prophet's grave ISIS hates so much.
Whip up your magic lamp and tell us what happens next.
Like I pointed out in the post right above yours, it benefits IS if they take the territory instead of Assad.
And why would Russia bomb territory that is most likely to be taken by the IS instead of Assad? Can you show that they do?
I was watching image from RT about the Russian attack in Syria against various rebels groups.
Hmmm... Air strikes, cruise missiles, co-ordinated ground attacks with Syrian Army, assault/gun helicopters in support, more ships and grounds troops (to be?) deployed.
The message is clear to the West, and to take one of the best lines from Mass effect 2, "Don't F***k with Russia/Aria).
In response the UK Prime Minister will deploy 48 more British Troopers in the Baltic States if necessary.
In an alternative universe, US-backed rebels are victorious, and the new regime totally does not end up like Egypt or Libya, and for once things end up working out like someone's hallucinatory delusion.
This is fun. We should do this more often.
Your text has a disturbing lack of sarcasm and absurdity. You shouldn't do it again.
And why would Russia bomb territory that is most likely to be taken by the IS instead of Assad? Can you show that they do?
They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.
It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.
Montmorency
10-08-2015, 08:50
They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.
It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.
The main problem with your evaluations along these lines is that military power over territories does not operate either like chits in RISK nor like gaseous matter in an enclosed environment.
The analysis is of what might happen, not what will. Some actual (initial) trends should be clear in the next few weeks.
They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.
It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.
Shifting goal posts won't help you. It is entirely obvious that the Russians are helping Assad, he is a Russian ally after all. Your point was that they're aiding the IS in the end but they're actually just aiding Assad. Though whether Assad can stay in power after this may remain to be seen. Even if the IS can take a few meters from other rebel groups due to Russian attacks, guess who will be attacked by the Russians in the next wave of attacks?
And why should Russia help other nations support their favorite rebels? When was the last time some other nation did something like that for Russia?
AE Bravo
10-08-2015, 16:26
Russia bombing non-IS opposition makes strategic sense. They are the ones on Assad's doorstep - IS is not.
Shifting goal posts won't help you. It is entirely obvious that the Russians are helping Assad, he is a Russian ally after all. Your point was that they're aiding the IS in the end but they're actually just aiding Assad. Though whether Assad can stay in power after this may remain to be seen. Even if the IS can take a few meters from other rebel groups due to Russian attacks, guess who will be attacked by the Russians in the next wave of attacks?
And why should Russia help other nations support their favorite rebels? When was the last time some other nation did something like that for Russia?
No, my point is and was that by having the aim of strengthening Assad as their first priority, they risk making IS stronger instead of weakening it.
If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.
They are the ones on Assad's doorstep - IS is not.
Regime forces have front lines with IS many places. E.g. at Palmyra, from where there is IS control all the way to Raqqah as well as to the border with Iraq.
CrossLOPER
10-08-2015, 21:33
No, my point is and was that by having the aim of strengthening Assad as their first priority, they risk making IS stronger instead of weakening it.
Regime forces have front lines with IS many places. E.g. at Palmyra, from where there is IS control all the way to Raqqah as well as to the border with Iraq.
Russia is bombing everyone who is not Assad.
Papewaio
10-08-2015, 23:42
Fight a war on one front if possible.
First step finish off the other fronts.
Hence Russia attacks the rebels
No, my point is and was that by having the aim of strengthening Assad as their first priority, they risk making IS stronger instead of weakening it.
So your point is still BS then.
Now that was simple. :sweatdrop:
Funny, but Putin said it in his UN speech: He supports Assad.
USA and EU (EU not really important now) disagree as they support "moderate" rebels that few week ago were an army of 5 but still holding vast amount of territory for the Russian to be be able, first to find them, then to bomb them.
USA is losing control of the situation...
For USA & EU, the first target was Assad because in reality, they can get rid of ISIL.
The problem now is, what if Russia succeed (reason why propaganda & media campaign about Russian missiles hitting the wrong country, which is a little bit too much when the US Air Force just destroyed an hospital, but there)?
What is the Syrian army really succeeded to retake some part of territory, or even worst, routs out ISIL and others?
We all investigate and question the situation if Russia become bog-down, which some of us wish, but what if Russia win?
The images of a group of men firing AK 47 on the Hind made me laugh, but what if the US decide like they did in Afghanistan than to defeat Russia is more important that to defeat Muslim fanatic extremists and murderers, and as in Afghanistan, provide them with anti-aircraft missiles?
Gilrandir
10-09-2015, 16:45
We all investigate and question the situation if Russia become bog-down, which some of us wish, but what if Russia win?
:laugh4:
For 5 years NO COUNTRY has been able to effectively stem ISIL's expansion. And Russia by sending a score of SU's and MIG's and launching a score of rockets will? It will take a more serious involvement and an international scale land operation to defeat them military-wise. However, even this type if victory will not eradicate the phenomenon completely as new shoots will sprout elsewhere.
Gilrandir
10-09-2015, 17:15
How effective Russian propaganda is:
September 29: 69% of Russians oppose Russia's military involvement in Syria
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-poll-finds-russians-against-troops-to-syria/27277333.html
October 8: more than 70% of Russians support air strikes against terrorists in Syria
https://www.rt.com/politics/317988-over-70-percent-of-russians/
"For 5 years NO COUNTRY has been able to effectively stem ISIL's expansion. And Russia by sending a score of SU's and MIG's and launching a score of rockets will? It will take a more serious involvement and an international scale land operation to defeat them military-wise. However, even this type if victory will not eradicate the phenomenon completely as new shoots will sprout elsewhere." That is not the question. What if Russia win? Will USA sell the Stringer as they did to the Talibans? Will USA and EU accept to be out-maneuvered?
Even under the drunk Boris Yeltsin and a very damage Russian Army, the Chechen were defeated, if not completely, they were not able to gain independence. Ukraine is the result of a complete disaster in Western Intelligence Agencies in assessing Russian capacity and reaction.
So, what if?
Kagemusha
10-09-2015, 18:51
Apparently after the latest shipments to Syria there is now about 1000 Spetnaz and paratroopers already in Syria. Though these fellows are most likely there to support the air operations, lazing targets etc from the ground.
Not yet, they are attacking others rebels, if I believed the very reliable Yahoo information things.
What is ironic is, if Russia does succeed, it will a hint that USA never really want IS gone...
And look at that:
ISIS Makes Gains in Syria Territory Bombed by Russia (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/hussein-hamedani-iran-general-killed-in-syria.html?_r=0)
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Islamic State registered significant gains on Friday in the area of northwestern Syria that Russian warplanes have been bombing, taking six villages near Aleppo and threatening to cut off an important route north to the Turkish border. Late in the day, there were reports that rebels had reasserted control in one village.
[...]
“Daesh has exploited the Russian airstrikes and the preoccupation of the Free Syrian Army in its battles in Hama, and advanced in Aleppo,” one rebel commander told Reuters.
Just needs some independent verification.
Fight a war on one front if possible.
First step finish off the other fronts.
Hence Russia attacks the rebels
Question is if the regime forces have enough strength left to beat an enemy at one front; let alone more fronts after that.
And look at that:
ISIS Makes Gains in Syria Territory Bombed by Russia (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/hussein-hamedani-iran-general-killed-in-syria.html?_r=0)
Just needs some independent verification.
Question is if the regime forces have enough strength left to beat an enemy at one front; let alone more fronts after that.
The advance had already begun before the airstrikes. The moderate salafists of FSA and Al-Nusra are paying the price for concentrating their forces against the real enemy, the Shia, the Christians and the secular Syrians. After all, no airstrikes have been made against the moderate Salafists of the region.
Gilrandir
10-10-2015, 14:05
What if Russia win?
Specify, what you would consider a victory for Russia. Assad taking Homs or any other important city? Well, there are other cities he will have to take. The disappearance of any opposition to Assad? With the West's attitude it is a priori inachievable. The disappearance of ISIS? See above. The withdrawal of ISIS from Syria? They can return any time later. The withdrawal of the West/the USA from Middle East? Impossible.
So specify, please.
ISIL destroyed, vanishing, imploding, exploding: End of it, all theirs "fighters" and followers becoming bands of whatever: If Russia pushes them enough, the equivalent or even less than the GIA (Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, not Gemological Group of America). dust in the win.
The French more or less succeed to do this in Chad (sorry Mali). Yes, the number are different, but so are the means that Russia can deployed. It is all depending on what Russia will be willing to deploy, and the political will.
But until now, Putin never fail about political will, and he has the backing of his Parliament.
Now, he might be happy enough to push ISIL out of almost all Syria, then let the USA & EU to deal with the left over.
I think in political terms, he already won. No one can now put Russia aside and ignore it.
The big looser in this game is of course France.
USA Obama had to meet Putin, so others leaders, even if they still, for public display, play game of words. Putin put back Assad on the agenda, and if regime change comes, it will come with/according Putin's agenda.
You do realise that ISIL has no chance to stay alive if the real power wish it to disappear, do you?
Gilrandir
10-10-2015, 16:30
ISIL destroyed, vanishing, imploding, exploding: End of it, all theirs "fighters" and followers becoming bands of whatever: If Russia pushes them enough, the equivalent or even less than the GIA (Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, not Gemological Group of America). dust in the win.
Now, he might be happy enough to push ISIL out of almost all Syria, then let the USA & EU to deal with the left over.
So far Russia has been more inclined to crush moderate Sunni opposition, not ISIS. I believe this is the real aim of Putin (well, one of his aims). And Assad's army is on the offensive against them, not ISIS.
To turn his ire against ISIS Putin will have:
1) to deploy in Syria a large force (having an experience of war in corresponding climate and terrain) for land operations;
2) to provide and sustain effective logistics thereof;
3) to watch Russian Muslims closely;
4) to prevent any terroristic attacks from Muslims (either local or foreign) within Russia.
With current financial situation of Russia, too many bills to foot, to my mind.
But even if he surmounts suchlike obstacles he will have to win military-wise. As the Soviet experience in Afghanistan showed, one can never have a complete victory in a guerilla war in such countries (both because of climate and terrain and because of the type of adversary they will face), especially if the borders of Syria can't be secured. If he tries to do that he will have to deploy even a larger force and get embroiled with Kurds which means finding another enemy for himself.
But even if he does it (which is almost unreal) ISIS may arise at any time, since it is not a state, but a religious group likely to refill its dwindling ranks by recruiting new local and foreign adherents. And you can't start indisriminate massacres on suspicion that those are prospective ISIS militants. And if you do, the Muslim world will surely not like it.
The bottomline: a complete MILITARY victory by one country over ISIS (like it was over Hitler) is impossible by default, IMHO.
But until now, Putin never fail about political will, and he has the backing of his Parliament.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.
I think in political terms, he already won. No one can now put Russia aside and ignore it.
Oh yes, this is a big victory - to have the world pay attention to you.
“1) to deploy in Syria a large force (having an experience of war in corresponding climate and terrain) for land operations;
2) to provide and sustain effective logistics thereof;
3) to watch Russian Muslims closely;
4) to prevent any terroristic attacks from Muslims (either local or foreign) within Russia.”
Really? ISIL has no army. They were successful just because the West let them be successful in having one of the stupidest policy for the last roughly 10 years . Do you really think that if the West would have put all its might on it, IS would still exist? ISIL is surrounded by enemies just ready to kill it. BTW, the Red Army was winning the war in Afghanistan, reason why the CIA decided to step in and to provide weapons to the Al-Qaida to come to stop the then Soviets to win.
2) Lol. Not really a problem to feed and equip 15,000 people. MSF and other Charities do it all the time (it is the equivalent of a very tiny refugee’s camp).
3) Re-lol. Chechen perhaps?
4) Re re lol.
The problem is, because you hate Putin, you try to convince your-self it is a very complex and difficult operation. Military speaking, it is not. All is in the political will.
Because USA and EU wanted to have first the skin of Assad, they didn’t put enough to defeat IS in order to gain it all later. Now, they started to feel the win of the bullet, as Iraq might call for Russians if they are successful in Syria. With Turkey playing the same game (Kurds are more a problem for Turkey than IS, as Turkish President, being a Islamist himself, thinks he can deal with ISIL. He is selling IS' oil for them. He just forgot, like the US in Afghanistan that if you want to have supper with the Devil, better to have a very long spoon).
“With current financial situation of Russia, too many bills to foot, to my mind.” Really? It is the same cost to have a Mig or Sukhoi 34 flying, or a T I don’t know the number to roll. Yeap, you might have to pay a little bit more the foot-soldiers, but it is just a margin. But again, we don’t speak of a massive army. And if it is a win, lot of weapons system to sell.
ISIL never face a modern Army willing to fight, and me thinking that they are probably hated in the region they control, and they will not defend their country as it is not their country. The Foreign volunteer who will not desert will soon discovered that they are not part of this part of the world, as much of them probably already know. They join IS because they wanted to be on the winning side, with the 4X4 car, sexual slaves at will and cool uniforms. Under real artillery barrage (and the Russian Army used to know to do really good ones), followed by advancing tanks and infantry, they might reconsider.
“As the Soviet experience in Afghanistan showed, one can never have a complete victory in a guerrilla war in such countries (both because of climate and terrain and because of the type of adversary they will face), especially if the borders of Syria can't be secured.” The Soviet defeat is, most of it, is a legend built by Western propaganda in order to match the USA defeat in Vietnam.
It is also a legend that you cannot win against a guerrilla, as several countries did exactly that.
ISIL is not the Vietcong/Vietminh.
The French did crush the Algerian guerrilla. It is due to the intelligence to the then French President Gal de Gaulle to give the independence for good political reasons.
“The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.” Your opinion, not a fact backed by any real facts. All elections were recognised as fair by all international organisations. I could easily (and I do), say the same thing for the French Assembly that so far from the real population that more than 60 % of voters don’t go to vote. It is the George Carlin’s illusion of choice
https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ
“Oh yes, this is a big victory - to have the world pay attention to you.” They tried hard not to do, and, well failed. Unfortunately for your country, you were the first to pay for this disdain.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2015, 02:04
Well, Putin is cunning, like a hungry wolfe.
If he wipes out all the less insane forces and it's just ISIS and Assad then he will force the West to back Assad - thye only Western play here is to try to crush ISIS before Putin crushes the other factions.
Of the Four Great Powers within NATAO Obama is disinclined to get involved and be seen as a "war monger" when he's looking to his legacy, Cameron is otherwise occupied with Domestic issues, Hollande is a fool and Merkel likely does not care overmuch, she'd rather take in the resulting refugees and distribute them throughout the EU thereby enhancing German standing that way.
Things were different in 2011 when the British and French governments were looking to assert themselves on the world-stage and Cameron and Sarkozy were of a mind on this sort of thing.
So I predict that by the time the West wakes up Putin will have pretty much achieved his aims and we move closer to war in Central Europe.
Yay.
Montmorency
10-11-2015, 02:08
Or, we might possibly consider that - and this is definitely a stretch - Russian involvement will not materially affect the situation on the ground and no grand aims will be met, nor sea changes effected, in any short period of time, for any state, organization, or faction with a stake in the events.
:rolleyes:
So I predict that by the time the West wakes up Putin will have pretty much achieved his aims and we move closer to war in Central Europe.
¿Qué?
How does one follow from the other?
Wouldn't you be happy if Putin wins and the evil people from Syria who don't belong here are contained by Assad once again?
And how does an Assad in control over Syria lead to war in central Europe? Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe. :inquisitive:
Montmorency
10-11-2015, 02:39
Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe.
Well, that's not quite it.
PVC has said many times that would love to participate in a new European war, despite not being a "war-lover".
His his conviction in the inevitability of such a war doesn't come from his desire to participate, or vice-versa, but in the underlying personality and belief-set that bring him the auguries.
Gilrandir
10-11-2015, 12:55
ISIL is surrounded by enemies just ready to kill it.
Yet somehow in this desperate position it thrives and flourishes and recruits more supporters.
BTW, the Red Army was winning the war in Afghanistan, reason why the CIA decided to step in and to provide weapons to the Al-Qaida to come to stop the then Soviets to win.
They were not. They were holding the most important cities, yet outside them the guerillas reigned supreme. Just because when the Soviets entered a village they hid their weapons and were meek peasants, when they left, the Afghans dug out their AK's and went on fighting. All Soviet army movements from a camp to a camp were fraught with danger and roads in a mountaineous terrain were very suitable for setting ambushes. Most casualties were inflicted in such ambushes.
So Gorbachev had to own up to the fact that 10 years later the USSR was no closer to any victory and withdrew the troops.
Al-qaeda was founded in 1988-1989 when the USSR was already contemplating this withdrawal, so if the USA started to help that late, it didn't really matter.
2) Lol. Not really a problem to feed and equip 15,000 people. MSF and other Charities do it all the time (it is the equivalent of a very tiny refugee’s camp).
The number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was more than 80 000 in 1979 and 120 000 in 1986. Shall I remind you what was the outcome of the war?
The problem is, because you hate Putin, you try to convince your-self it is a very complex and difficult operation. Military speaking, it is not.
See above.
Yeap, you might have to pay a little bit more the foot-soldiers, but it is just a margin. But again, we don’t speak of a massive army.
On numbers in such wars see above.
ISIL never face a modern Army willing to fight,
Neither did Afghans, nor Donbas rebels. Yet somehow they succeeded in withstanding the regular armies' offensive.
The Foreign volunteer who will not desert will soon discovered that they are not part of this part of the world, as much of them probably already know. They join IS because they wanted to be on the winning side, with the 4X4 car, sexual slaves at will and cool uniforms. Under real artillery barrage (and the Russian Army used to know to do really good ones), followed by advancing tanks and infantry, they might reconsider.
The same was supposed about Russian "volunteers" in Donbas. Yet they are still there, no mass defection happened even when the Ukrainian army almost surrounded them in Donetsk and Luhansk.
The Soviet defeat is, most of it, is a legend built by Western propaganda in order to match the USA defeat in Vietnam.
So you claim that the USSR won the Afghan war? And this is the person who accused ME of revisionism!
It is also a legend that you cannot win against a guerrilla, as several countries did exactly that.
ISIL is not the Vietcong/Vietminh.
The French did crush the Algerian guerrilla. It is due to the intelligence to the then French President Gal de Gaulle to give the independence for good political reasons.
I didn't speak of impossibility to win. I said RUSSIA WON'T WIN. The French have a long and successful experience of colonial warfare under such conditions. Russians' recent experience was, to put it mildly, disappointing.
“The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.” Your opinion, not a fact backed by any real facts. All elections were recognised as fair by all international organisations.
Did I claim the opposite? I just said that the Russian Duma does everything Putin wants because 238 out of 450 deputies represent his party, others vote in its wake. Can you name at least one decision of it that Putin didn't like?
“Yet somehow in this desperate position it thrives and flourishes and recruits more supporters.” Really? What I read recently was more about people deserting IS…
“Al-qaeda was founded in 1988-1989 when the USSR was already contemplating this withdrawal, so if the USA started to help that late, it didn't really matter.” That is why I said “will become then”. Bin Laden and Co were recruited much earlier, and this for the purpose to provide AA missile to the Mudjahdins/Talibans.
However, I was mistaken about the actual role of the Stingers.
The Mujahedeen victory was due to the Boris Yeltsin’s decision to cut all aid to the Afghan government then triggered desertion and changes in alliances.
Shall I remind you what was the outcome of the war?:
Reality check:
“ Morton Abramowitz, who directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the time, said in 1997: "In 1985, there was a real concern that the [mujahideen] were losing, that they were sort of being diminished, falling apart. Losses were high and their impact on the Soviets was not great." In:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/27/10-myths-about-afghanistan
You can as well read the excellent series Ospreys series men-at-arms
“Neither did Afghans, nor Donbas rebels. Yet somehow they succeeded in withstanding the regular armies' offensive.” The fall of the “communist” government was when one of the bid supporter changed side, not on the value of the Rebels themselves. In fact, the Afghan Army did quite well, considering circumstances, better than the South Vietnamese Army…
I would say that the Ukrainian Army was not ready for the kind of “stab in the back” operations, and, but this is a blind guess, to the Russian’s back-up for the rebels. A probably a problem with how the legal government for Ukraine became legal…
“The same was supposed about Russian "volunteers" in Donbas. Yet they are still there, no mass defection happened even when the Ukrainian army almost surrounded them in Donetsk and Luhansk.” That might be explained because there were not foreigners. I tried (and not only me) few times to say it, but it fall in dead ears. So they were defending their lands.
“So you claim that the USSR won the Afghan war? And this is the person who accused ME of revisionism!” Not me, but Morton Abramowitz, see note above.
And this is confirmed but facts on the grounds, not by Rambo 3, the movie.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2015, 17:57
Or, we might possibly consider that - and this is definitely a stretch - Russian involvement will not materially affect the situation on the ground and no grand aims will be met, nor sea changes effected, in any short period of time, for any state, organization, or faction with a stake in the events.
:rolleyes:
Gaddafi well quickly once the rebels had the backing of NATO Air-Power. How much easier will it be for the Syrian army (a trained force) to crush the disparate rebels with Russian Air-Power, especially given that the Russians will be even less discriminating in their targets than the Americans.
IS is the hardest nut to crap and it being somewhat suppressed by NATO, even then they have made gains, whilst Assad's ability to deal with the other rebels has been hampered by NATO.
I believe Russia can tip that balance, and already has.
¿Qué?
How does one follow from the other?
Wouldn't you be happy if Putin wins and the evil people from Syria who don't belong here are contained by Assad once again?
And how does an Assad in control over Syria lead to war in central Europe? Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe. :inquisitive:
Well, that's not quite it.
PVC has said many times that would love to participate in a new European war, despite not being a "war-lover".
His his conviction in the inevitability of such a war doesn't come from his desire to participate, or vice-versa, but in the underlying personality and belief-set that bring him the auguries.
My belief there will be a new war in Central Europe is based on four factors.
1. Putin considers "the West" the enemy of Russia, both ideologically and economically. This affects his perception of the West's actions and motivations. For a microcosm of that consider that Idaho described my views as "repugnant" because I don't support the attacks the Left have levelled at Cameron over Tragedy-gate. He has interpreted that as support for Cameron and then labelled be "Tory Scum" although he hasn't used the word yet.
2. Western inaction over Ukraine and Syria has led Putin to believe that the West is weak willed, conversely the Western belief that Putin was "reasonable" led us to suppose he would not start a new war in Europe, but in fact he confounded our expectations. If our expectations of Putin's actions are wrong and vice versa this greatly increases the likelihood of a military miss-step which will be misinterpreted by the other side and lead to war.
3. Putin has designs on certain countries within the EU in NATO, specifically the Baltics and the Warsaw Pact nations - he sees their joining the EU and NATO as a "betrayal" by the Western Great Powers rather than attributing their alignment to an internal desire to distance themselves from Russia and cleave to the West. In Putin's mind this must be a Western Plot.
4. Putin is already fighting an illegal and undeclared war in Ukraine and he is now engaged in a game of Brinkmanship with the NATO Bloc, if he is not checked he will believe he can escalate, and the more he escalates the more likely "checking" him will actually involve open warfare.
As to my "love" of war - I've just been more honest that most men and admitted that a part of me finds the prospect thrilling - but a part of me finds the prospect of jumping off a cliff without a parachute thrilling too. I don't think either is a good idea, or morally defensible.
Montmorency
10-11-2015, 18:56
I have to disagree again with most of your posits, but I want to comment on the last bit.
I think a good succinct way to put your feelings is that while you abhor war, the thought of "doing your bit" in a "good war" gets your blood up.
~:pat: little Frodo :clown:
Sarmatian
10-11-2015, 19:53
There is no good war, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Like listening to a child thinking how cool it would be to run away from home because then there wouldn't be a bedtime.
AE Bravo
10-11-2015, 20:12
As to my "love" of war - I've just been more honest that most men and admitted that a part of me finds the prospect thrilling - but a part of me finds the prospect of jumping off a cliff without a parachute thrilling too.
I assure you it's more thrilling.
Context.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2015, 20:16
I assure you it's more thrilling.
Congrats, you failed the test.
But you can console yourself with the knowledge that because you said it, everyone else passes by default.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2015, 20:19
I have to disagree again with most of your posits, but I want to comment on the last bit.
I think a good succinct way to put your feelings is that while you abhor war, the thought of "doing your bit" in a "good war" gets your blood up.
~:pat: little Frodo :clown:
There's a bit of that, but it's more to do with the prospect of controlling massively destructive engines of war and of being in battle and surviving.
People have called war a game but really it's much more of a sport - with all that entails.
Of course, in an actual war I'd either go full on Rambo PTSD meltdown or just meltdown and be gibbering in the corner - and I would have killed people, which would be terrible.
Like I said, I'm being honest about how the prospect makes me feel, but that has nothing to do with what I think or what I believe we should be doing.
AE Bravo
10-11-2015, 21:10
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151008/1028235236/Hajji-Putin.html#ixzz3oAPdpgJQ
Abdulamir Abu Tin!
Kagemusha
10-11-2015, 22:09
There's a bit of that, but it's more to do with the prospect of controlling massively destructive engines of war and of being in battle and surviving.
People have called war a game but really it's much more of a sport - with all that entails.
Of course, in an actual war I'd either go full on Rambo PTSD meltdown or just meltdown and be gibbering in the corner - and I would have killed people, which would be terrible.
Like I said, I'm being honest about how the prospect makes me feel, but that has nothing to do with what I think or what I believe we should be doing.
Would it not be better to focus on real life, rather then fantasizing about war?
According to some rumours, the Iraqi airforce has injured/killed Abu Bark. These are very great news, I was really worried about the ability of the Iraqi government to spam imaginary claims. Almost nothing since the time they announced the death of the Baathist Scotsman and despite the fact that Abu Bakr must have been injured 6 or 7 times by now...
Reminds me of how many times the sons of Gaddafi were killed.
Montmorency
10-11-2015, 23:37
Would it not be better to focus on real life, rather then fantasizing about war?
Not in this venue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-12-2015, 00:20
Would it not be better to focus on real life, rather then fantasizing about war?
I suppose I could just fantasise about sex with pornstars instead.
Kagemusha
10-12-2015, 05:08
I suppose I could just fantasise about sex with pornstars instead.
Sounds lot more healthy. In such bouts no one hardly ever gets killed or maimed.
According to some rumours, the Iraqi airforce has injured/killed Abu Bark. These are very great news, I was really worried about the ability of the Iraqi government to spam imaginary claims. Almost nothing since the time they announced the death of the Baathist Scotsman and despite the fact that Abu Bakr must have been injured 6 or 7 times by now...
Reminds me of how many times the sons of Gaddafi were killed.
Already debunked
Gilrandir
10-12-2015, 13:20
“Yet somehow in this desperate position it thrives and flourishes and recruits more supporters.” Really? What I read recently was more about people deserting IS…
You shouldn't listen to what propaganda tells you.
The Mujahedeen victory was due to the Boris Yeltsin’s decision to cut all aid to the Afghan government then triggered desertion and changes in alliances.
At that time Yeltsin had no power to cut anything since he was the head of Russia and Russia was still a part of the USSR and the head of the USSR was Gorbachev.
Shall I remind you what was the outcome of the war?:
Reality check:
“ Morton Abramowitz, who directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the time, said in 1997: "In 1985, there was a real concern that the [mujahideen] were losing, that they were sort of being diminished, falling apart. Losses were high and their impact on the Soviets was not great." In:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/27/10-myths-about-afghanistan
You can as well read the excellent series Ospreys series men-at-arms
You know, there was a famous Ukrainian football coach Valery Lobanovsky. When he was critisized that his team won without displaying a good play he said: "Look at the scoreboard and you will see everything."
The same here. Experts may claim whatever they want yet we all know the outcome of the war - the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?
“The same was supposed about Russian "volunteers" in Donbas. Yet they are still there, no mass defection happened even when the Ukrainian army almost surrounded them in Donetsk and Luhansk.” That might be explained because there were not foreigners. I tried (and not only me) few times to say it, but it fall in dead ears. So they were defending their lands.
I won't post any texts, let's work with visual images.
I don't know if you are good at distinguishing peoples at first sight (their phenotypes), but those in the videos are definitely neither Ukrainians nor Russians. The first two videos feature Buryats in Donbas (and they openly admit it naming the places in Buryatia they come from), in the third it is either a Buryat of a Yakut. Take a map and see where those ethnicities live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRju7Z6Iyts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxmm5oC77lA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrKjQgaSYUw&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxrKjQgaSYUw&has_verified=1&bpctr=1444653646
In the next two videos there are Chechens (in the first) again openly admitting it and even saying that they are REGULAR Russian army soldiers (some are from spetznaz) and Ossetians (in the second).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHHlaZ0Uj3M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEFDsxpdam8
And pay attention to chevrons on their sleeves and find out yourself what flags are those.
The first leaders of the separatists to become well known were Russian citizens Girkin (Strelkov) and Borodai.
Perhaps the ears are deaf because you are wrong?
“So you claim that the USSR won the Afghan war? And this is the person who accused ME of revisionism!” Not me, but Morton Abramowitz, see note above.
You did too. A couple of sentences before:
The Mujahedeen victory was due to the Boris Yeltsin’s decision to cut all aid to the Afghan government then triggered desertion and changes in alliances.
There is no good war, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Like listening to a child thinking how cool it would be to run away from home because then there wouldn't be a bedtime.
Let's lay down our weapons all ye good people and stop resisting those murderous villains. We will only increase suffering and pain if we do.
Sounds lot more healthy. In such bouts no one hardly ever gets killed or maimed.
The latter is disputable.
An interesting reading about the man who saved Iraq and Baghdad from daesh and managed to liberate Tikrit.
Porbably the only man who can match al-Dourri in strategic and tactical thinking:
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/dec/07/qassem-suleimani-middle-east-mastermind-islamic-state?CMP=edi_2117
“At that time Yeltsin had no power to cut anything since he was the head of Russia and Russia was still a part of the USSR and the head of the USSR was Gorbachev.” Chronology is and always has been your enemy. Read the link I provided earlier: "In August 1991, following his arrival in power, Boris Yeltsin announced that all direct assistance to Najibullah's regime would be curtailed. In January 1992, the Afghan Air Force, which had proved vital to the survival of the regime, could no longer fly any aircraft through lack of fuel. The army suffered from crippling food shortages, causing the desertion rate to rise by 60 percent between 1990 and 1991"
“You did too. A couple of sentences before” Another of your recurrent problem: You don’t read the entire sentence. “The Mujahedeen victory was due to the Boris Yeltsin’s decision to cut all aid to the Afghan government then triggered desertion and changes in alliances.” The victory of the Mujahedeen was not against Russians but against the now abandoned Afghan Government. And it was not an easy victory as they suffered several set-backs.
“I don't know if you are good at distinguishing peoples at first sight” No, I am not: Can’t see the difference between a Croat a Serb or a Muslim, nor between a Kurd or a Arab, sorry.
I watched all your videos: Is it your proof? Because I saw, yes, 2 guys, one wearing a Russian insignia (by the way, after my trip to MSF in Chechenia, I have the same at home, in a box) who are clearly not European type, but, personally, I would be incapable to say from where, 2 in the middle of a lot of others clearly not from the same ethnicity. But I will start here the sterile exchange we had before, so I stop here.
“You know, there was a famous Ukrainian football coach Valery Lobanovsky. When he was critisized that his team won without displaying a good play he said: "Look at the scoreboard and you will see everything." You should apply this wisdom and look at the facts as they are, not you want to see them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1989%E2%80%9392)
:yes:
Montmorency
10-12-2015, 20:08
An interesting reading about the man who saved Iraq and Baghdad from daesh and managed to liberate Tikrit.
Porbably the only man who can match al-Dourri in strategic and tactical thinking:
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/dec/07/qassem-suleimani-middle-east-mastermind-islamic-state?CMP=edi_2117
“This is ideological for Suleimani and for [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei [to whom he directly reports]. This is not a battle for the future of Iraq. This is a war for Shiism. Of all the conflicts of the past 10 years, this is the one that has Suleimani most rattled. It is testing him.”
+1
You know, there's one interesting thing to consider about these irregular conflicts. I've wondered how these sorts of rebellions, civil wars, and the like can often go on for so many years at a stretch, but really it's for a reason similar to the length of "wars" (broadly-defined) between European powers in the Medieval and Early-modern periods.
For an industrial state built upon popular support of some kind, a major war (with another such state) is an enormous, top-heavy undertaking with heavy costs. For the soldiers themselves in an industrial war, the stress of organization, attrition, and constant battle readiness demands regular rotations of manpower to prevent exhaustion and outright insubordination. In a war like this, a government is putting its state on the line. So whether it's millions of conscripts or thousands of specialists, sustained operations are thus for industrial states.
For sub-state organizations and irregular troops, however, there are notable differences that fundamentally change the shape of the conflict, for example:
1. Most fighters are light-infantry
2. No or little sustained threat from heavy artillery
3. Proportionately-less time spent in intense fighting, or high alertness in general
4. Reduced and more-variable strategic value of fixed locations like cities, bases, etc.
So part of it is that irregular troops in irregular conflicts are under less strain, not necessarily in the sense of physical labor or exertion, but in the sense of scale - the scale of what they must endure, and of the demands placed on them. This may overlap with the classic John Keegan perspective on the "Face of Battle".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-12-2015, 22:16
Sounds lot more healthy. In such bouts no one hardly ever gets killed or maimed.
No, one just devolves to seeing women as sex objects.
Your irony meter is broken, you should get that checked.
Montmorency
10-12-2015, 23:58
No, one just devolves to seeing women as sex objects.
Well, you said from the beginning that you would be fantasizing about porn stars, so it's there from the outset.
As for me, I fantasize about cuddling with a woman I care about while we talk about feelings; I don't usually include anything about profession or the like.
:sweatdrop:
Gilrandir
10-13-2015, 11:53
“At that time Yeltsin had no power to cut anything since he was the head of Russia and Russia was still a part of the USSR and the head of the USSR was Gorbachev.” Chronology is and always has been your enemy. Read the link I provided earlier: "In August 1991, following his arrival in power, Boris Yeltsin announced that all direct assistance to Najibullah's regime would be curtailed. In January 1992, the Afghan Air Force, which had proved vital to the survival of the regime, could no longer fly any aircraft through lack of fuel. The army suffered from crippling food shortages, causing the desertion rate to rise by 60 percent between 1990 and 1991"
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan
The withdrawal of Soviet combatant forces from the Afghanistan began on 15 May 1988 and successfully executed on 15 February 1989 under the leadership of Colonel-General Boris Gromov who also was the last Soviet general officer to walk from Afghanistan back into Soviet territory through the Afghan-Uzbek Bridge.
Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try.
“You did too. A couple of sentences before” Another of your recurrent problem: You don’t read the entire sentence. “The Mujahedeen victory was due to the Boris Yeltsin’s decision to cut all aid to the Afghan government then triggered desertion and changes in alliances.” The victory of the Mujahedeen was not against Russians but against the now abandoned Afghan Government. And it was not an easy victory as they suffered several set-backs.
Another problem of yours is that you stubbornly disregard parts of messages you have no answer to. So let me quote myself:
the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?
“I don't know if you are good at distinguishing peoples at first sight” No, I am not: Can’t see the difference between a Croat a Serb or a Muslim, nor between a Kurd or a Arab, sorry.
I watched all your videos: Is it your proof? Because I saw, yes, 2 guys, one wearing a Russian insignia (by the way, after my trip to MSF in Chechenia, I have the same at home, in a box) who are clearly not European type, but, personally, I would be incapable to say from where, 2 in the middle of a lot of others clearly not from the same ethnicity. But I will start here the sterile exchange we had before, so I stop here.
Like I said: a color-blind person claims that there is no such a thing as red dawn just because he never saw one.
If you can't tell by sight the difference between Caucasians, mongolean-type asians and Europeans (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians living in Donbas), don't claim there IS no difference. Live and learn, you know.
And about insignia: in video 4 they wear Chechen flag on their sleeve.
“You know, there was a famous Ukrainian football coach Valery Lobanovsky. When he was critisized that his team won without displaying a good play he said: "Look at the scoreboard and you will see everything." You should apply this wisdom and look at the facts as they are, not you want to see them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1989%E2%80%9392)
:yes:
How true this is! I mean the italicized part. We were talking about RUSSIAN (then the Soviet) INVOLVEMENT IN WARS DOWN SOUTH AND THEIR ABILITY TO HANDLE THEM, and not about CIVIL WARS that ensued such involvement.
CrossLOPER
10-13-2015, 16:24
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan
Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try.
That isn't what he was arguing.
"Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try." So in 1989, the Soviets went, then in 1993, the Afghan government fall, so this is a Russian defeat... Sure... I would say that it is a political defeat, but certainly not a military defeat, and had nothing to do with how the Soviets managed or not the military operations.
"the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?" You link 2 proposals as they are real. The Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan. They never returned (they vanish in history, but I see your point). The victory of the Mujaheddin was against the Afghan Government.
With the same kind of "logic" I can say then Mullah Omar won, then the USA were attacked and lost the war in Iraq to ISIL. Whose victory it is? The Soviet Union?
"Like I said: a color-blind person claims that there is no such a thing as red dawn just because he never saw one.
If you can't tell by sight the difference between Caucasians, mongolean-type asians and Europeans (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians living in Donbas), don't claim there IS no difference. Live and learn, you know." Err, your point is? Apart a special gift in racism, I mean? The fact is your genes don't determines where you live or your nationality.
"We were talking about RUSSIAN (then the Soviet) INVOLVEMENT IN WARS DOWN SOUTH AND THEIR ABILITY TO HANDLE THEM" And in all specialist books I read, including from high ranking personnels in USA army and Intelligence, they all agree they were quite successful.
Just in case you forgot: I have no sympathy for the Red Army. At the time I was in the Army, we were trained to face the Red Storm, with a life expectancy of 15 minutes after first encounter, and as member of an Armoured Divison, probably burned in my APC.
However, to underestimated an enemy is not the way to fight him/her, so from an ex-professional point of view, I think the Soviets/Russians showed a lot of skills and did control the situation, not entirely, but nothing compare what happened to the USA in Vietnam.
With that pace, we'll run out of good guys before the first collision between russo-american jets takes place. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34511134):no:
Gilrandir
10-14-2015, 12:09
"Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try." So in 1989, the Soviets went, then in 1993, the Afghan government fall, so this is a Russian defeat... Sure... I would say that it is a political defeat, but certainly not a military defeat, and had nothing to do with how the Soviets managed or not the military operations.
"the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?" You link 2 proposals as they are real. The Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan. They never returned (they vanish in history, but I see your point). The victory of the Mujaheddin was against the Afghan Government.
With the same kind of "logic" I can say then Mullah Omar won, then the USA were attacked and lost the war in Iraq to ISIL. Whose victory it is? The Soviet Union?
Perhaps this will come as a surprise for you, but all this while we were talking of RUSSIA'S DOUBTFUL LIKELIHOOD TO HAVE A COMLETE MILITARY VICTORY IN HOT MOUNTAINEOUS COUNTRY POPULATED BY HOSTILE MUSLIMS, not about civil wars between the locals. While the latter may have quite a different outcome, Russia's latest campaign of this kind ended in unconditional withdrawal. I don't call this a victory which lets me presume that the current Russian involvement in Syria in case of land operations is likely to bring a similar outcome, i.e. withdrawing after incurring numerous casualties or a stalemate (holding some locations surrounded by territories infested by guerillas) and subsequent withdrawal without attaining tangible results, i.e. without defeating the enemy once and for all.
"Like I said: a color-blind person claims that there is no such a thing as red dawn just because he never saw one.
If you can't tell by sight the difference between Caucasians, mongolean-type asians and Europeans (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians living in Donbas), don't claim there IS no difference. Live and learn, you know." Err, your point is? Apart a special gift in racism, I mean? The fact is your genes don't determines where you live or your nationality.
So when you see a difference in appearence between a Chinese and a black it is racism? I applaud your value scale.
You may not be aware that the population of Ukraine is pretty much racially homogeneous (is is racism yet?). Of course there are people of other phenotypes (Caucasians are the most numerous of those) but even they don't form communities large enough to live in separate neighborhoods to say nothing of in separate locations (cities, towns or even villages). The same goes for Donbas - Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Greeks, Bulgarians and other nationalities who live there are physically white European type (is it racism yet?). So when a large quantity of people of a different appearence (forming a separate military unit) is spotted it definitely points to the fact that they are aliens there. To deduct where they came from you are to answer the question: where do people of this nationality/race live? It is obvious that Caucasians (Chechens, Ossetians and others) live in the Northern Caucasus (Russia), the mongolean-type Asians live either in Buryatia or Yakutia (both Russia).
Moreover, as a linguist I can see the difference between a Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian speaking Russian, a Russian-speaking Ukrainian speaking Russian, a Russian-speaking Russian from Ukraine (and Southern Russia) speaking Russian and a Russian-speaking Russian (from other parts of Russia) speaking Russian. So I can tell you that many (not all of them, but many, mind you) of those in the videos speak the Russian as they do in Northern Russia.
"We were talking about RUSSIAN (then the Soviet) INVOLVEMENT IN WARS DOWN SOUTH AND THEIR ABILITY TO HANDLE THEM" And in all specialist books I read, including from high ranking personnels in USA army and Intelligence, they all agree they were quite successful.
However good they might have been considered, one can't deny the facts that I drew your attention to:
1. The success of the Soviet army boiled down to holding strategic locations (mainly cities and some mountains controlling the roads). Elsewhere was the domain of the guerillas.
2. Being successful (as you and others claim) they eventually legged it.
This is what I argue is likely to happen to Russians in Syria.
“So when you see a difference in appearence between a Chinese and a black it is racism? I applaud your value scale.” And I applaud your total ignorance: To be Chinese is to be a citizen of China (nationality), when to be black is part of skin coloration due to biology. They are blond and blue eyes Chinese, someone told me.
“RUSSIA'S DOUBTFUL LIKELIHOOD TO HAVE A COMLETE MILITARY VICTORY IN HOT MOUNTAINEOUS COUNTRY POPULATED BY HOSTILE MUSLIMS, not about civil wars between the locals.” Ooh, I didn’t know that ISIL was in complete agreement with the Kurds, the Alawits and others Arab populations or Christians minority (Syro-Chaldean).
“You may not be aware that the population of Ukraine is pretty much racially homogeneous (is is racism yet?)”: There is only one human race, so per definition, all humans are racially homogenous… So, to answer your question, to artificially create differences within the human race is racism.
“ The success of the Soviet army boiled down to holding strategic locations (mainly cities and some mountains controlling the roads). Elsewhere was the domain of the guerillas.” So, the Russians and their allies had (controlled) the rich towns and valleys and the Guerrillas controlled the barren rocks. All right…
“Being successful (as you and others claim) they eventually legged it.” As you pointed out, that was not the debate, but your claim that Russia couldn’t win against ISIL as show by their military defeat in Afghanistan. So case closed as you agree they were not, in fact, defeated.
“This is what I argue is likely to happen to Russians in Syria.” That is not impossible indeed, but even Yahoo had to agree that the Syrian Army had retaken some village, and Hezbollah is preparing for major offensive against ISIL, thanks to Russian bombing campaign. So, it is possible that Russia did play well.
Gilrandir
10-15-2015, 16:11
“So when you see a difference in appearence between a Chinese and a black it is racism? I applaud your value scale.” And I applaud your total ignorance: To be Chinese is to be a citizen of China (nationality), when to be black is part of skin coloration due to biology. They are blond and blue eyes Chinese, someone told me.
So the Chinese and the blacks aren't any different to look at? If they are one can tell the one from the other. And that is what I claimed.
“RUSSIA'S DOUBTFUL LIKELIHOOD TO HAVE A COMLETE MILITARY VICTORY IN HOT MOUNTAINEOUS COUNTRY POPULATED BY HOSTILE MUSLIMS, not about civil wars between the locals.” Ooh, I didn’t know that ISIL was in complete agreement with the Kurds, the Alawits and others Arab populations or Christians minority (Syro-Chaldean).
Russia claims it is at war EXCLUSIVELY with ISIS.
“You may not be aware that the population of Ukraine is pretty much racially homogeneous (is is racism yet?)”: There is only one human race, so per definition, all humans are racially homogenous… So, to answer your question, to artificially create differences within the human race is racism.
Nitpicking at terms used in their broad and narrow sense. In the latter, I'm afarid, those outward differences have been already created. By God/nature/Aliens. So in your terms they were the first racists.
“ The success of the Soviet army boiled down to holding strategic locations (mainly cities and some mountains controlling the roads). Elsewhere was the domain of the guerillas.” So, the Russians and their allies had (controlled) the rich towns and valleys and the Guerrillas controlled the barren rocks…
and afflicted them in any way they could so that the Soviets had to always be on their guard and didn't feel secure outside their strongholds (and sometimes within them).
“Being successful (as you and others claim) they eventually legged it.” As you pointed out, that was not the debate, but your claim that Russia couldn’t win against ISIL as show by their military defeat in Afghanistan. So case closed as you agree they were not, in fact, defeated.
Legged it =/= won. Quite the contrary.
“This is what I argue is likely to happen to Russians in Syria.” That is not impossible indeed, but even Yahoo had to agree that the Syrian Army had retaken some village, and Hezbollah is preparing for major offensive against ISIL, thanks to Russian bombing campaign. So, it is possible that Russia did play well.
So far it did. As well as at the initial stage of their Afghanistan adventure. But there (as well as in Syria) at this stage was also only airstrikes. Like I said: let's wait for Putin to engage his infantry. And my arguments about the deplorable outcome of such a choice referred only to the consequences of THIS VERY CHOICE. Otherwise they can bomb indefinitely. It will not change the situation drastically. Like Hitler was bombing Britain for several years, but it didn't get him any closer to subduing it, rather the contrary - infuriated the locals and confirmed them in their decision to weather it no matter what.
Sarmatian
10-15-2015, 16:29
Airforce on its own can't do much. In coordination with ground troops, that changes.
There's Syrian army, there's Iran, there's Hezbollah. Proper coordination of those three with Russian air support means ISIS doesn't stand a chance.
Gilrandir
10-15-2015, 16:48
Airforce on its own can't do much. In coordination with ground troops, that changes.
There's Syrian army, there's Iran, there's Hezbollah. Proper coordination of those three with Russian air support means ISIS doesn't stand a chance.
We'll see. But to my mind the problem is not to defeat ISIS in Syria military-wise, but to hold the victory. And that seems more problematic when the neighboring countries offer ISIS a chance to withdraw and come back with a vengeance.
So the Chinese and the blacks aren't any different to look at? If they are one can tell the one from the other. And that is what I claimed.
So you have a blue Ford Focus and a red Ford Focus....
What I'm saying is that your "Chinese" guy is actually Taiwanese, so you failed that one.
Sarmatian
10-15-2015, 16:54
We'll see. But to my mind the problem is not to defeat ISIS in Syria military-wise, but to hold the victory. And that seems more problematic when the neighboring countries offer ISIS a chance to withdraw and come back with a vengeance.
The only neighbouring country that could do that is Turkey, and it's a stretch.
Holding the victory wouldn't be a problem as ISIS is the only significant force in the area in opposition to Assad. Kurds are a potential problem but that's a different kind of problem.
The only neighbouring country that could do that is Turkey, and it's a stretch.
Holding the victory wouldn't be a problem as ISIS is the only significant force in the area in opposition to Assad. Kurds are a potential problem but that's a different kind of problem.
I don't think this is true, the rebels are extremely fractured and don't hold as much territory as ISIS does but they are still a major force. According Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War) the FSA has between 40-50 thousand fighters, the Islamic Front has between 40-70 thousand, and there are several other smaller rebel factions. ISIS has between 31,500 to 100 thousand fighters. And according this map (http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Syria-30-sept-2015-HD.jpg), the amount of ISIS held territory that is actually populated appears to be roughly equal to the amount of rebel held territory.
...the amount of ISIS held territory that is actually populated appears to be roughly equal to the amount of rebel held territory.
Yeah, they're pretty good at depopulating controlled territory.
AE Bravo
10-16-2015, 02:17
Thought this was interesting: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
Skip the beginning the good stuff is omitted. Page 5 - C is where it's at. Should be common knowledge now, just found it surprising myself.
Sarmatian
10-16-2015, 13:49
I don't think this is true, the rebels are extremely fractured and don't hold as much territory as ISIS does but they are still a major force. According Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War) the FSA has between 40-50 thousand fighters, the Islamic Front has between 40-70 thousand, and there are several other smaller rebel factions. ISIS has between 31,500 to 100 thousand fighters. And according this map (http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Syria-30-sept-2015-HD.jpg), the amount of ISIS held territory that is actually populated appears to be roughly equal to the amount of rebel held territory.
1) You need to be aware how many population centers and strategic areas they are actually in control of.
2) Those are all various rebel groups put together. There are dozens of them and they very often aren't friendly to each other.
Crandar posted an interview in the Backroom video thread a couple weeks ago where the journalist who was actually there says the FSA seems to be a non-factor that is overrated in the West and usually just runs away, so I'm not sure why some people are still somewhat fixated on them. I assume most of the moderate intelligent Syrians are on their way to refugee camps because they don't have a death wish to get involved in this mess. And if they can't decide for a side to support, why should I? I know much less about their country and the people than they do.
If Pegida were to start a civil war against the salafists and the biker gangs and catholic militias got involved while the army split up into supporting Merkel for Chancellor for life and a neo-nazi splinter army, plus a Gerhard Schröder in charge of Cossack mercenaries, I would also rather leave than join any of them even if there were another small faction with similar values to mine.
Which leads me to believe that there still isn't really any good option. The Kurds will be eradicated by Erdogan and may not be so nice after all.
Any rebel group that may have somewhat supportable values is probably too small to win this without sending them the US Marines as backup and the only really strong factions seem to be the proper Syrian army, who now got strong Russian backup and ISIS who are an army of supermen where each of their fighters can make up for ten fighters of any of the other factions (maybe they DO have god's blessing after all?).
There are also allegations (by Kurdish people I guess) that Erdogan is the one selling ISIS' oil for them, so maybe NATO is actually propping up ISIS to take control of the region. :clown:
This could also be supported by the fact that the US-led bombing campaign has not managed to stop ISIS yet and there seem to have been no terror attacks on the Muslim countries that are partaking in it. Is ISIS an inside job? How can their fighters be so strong? Am I Glenn Beck or am I just asking the right questions? You may find out in my next post if I decide to write one.
AE Bravo
10-16-2015, 21:30
So you didn't know Turkey coordinated with ISIS on more than one occasion? Like when they went to recover that Ottoman tomb in IS territory?
Here, take this L sir.
So you didn't know Turkey coordinated with ISIS on more than one occasion? Like when they went to recover that Ottoman tomb in IS territory?
Here, take this L sir.
I think whether that was actual cooperation or mutual "acceptance" since ISIS do not want to fight the Turkish military (yet) is not entirely established. But that Erdogan was treating ISIS with a lot of restraint and was basically just watching them was quite obvious. I haven't seen a reliable report of actual cooperation so far.
1) You need to be aware how many population centers and strategic areas they are actually in control of.
2) Those are all various rebel groups put together. There are dozens of them and they very often aren't friendly to each other.
I know that, that's why I said the rebels are "extremely fractured" and why I mentioned that there are several other smaller rebel factions. The rebels hold territory just outside of Aleppo and Damascus, they are still a threat to the regime and they are not insignificant. Why do you think the Russian airstrikes have been focusing more on the rebels than on ISIS?
http://po.combatfootagearchive.com/Visit%20Anbar.mp4
Sarmatian
10-17-2015, 09:11
Why do you think the Russian airstrikes have been focusing more on the rebels than on ISIS?
It is a big question if the airstrikes have been focusing more on rebels other than extremists.
I know that, that's why I said the rebels are "extremely fractured" and why I mentioned that there are several other smaller rebel factions. The rebels hold territory just outside of Aleppo and Damascus, they are still a threat to the regime and they are not insignificant. Why do you think the Russian airstrikes have been focusing more on the rebels than on ISIS?
Well. perhaps the answer is why the USA & EU were keener to go for regime change than to fight ISIL. Geopolitic.
I think USA & EU think ISIL not real danger... Too extremist, it will collapse by itself, and still in need of Western Technology/medicament/goods, so it will tamed itself to become an "Saudi Arabia", potentially. Not a place to leave yourself, but you can trade with. So, they focused on letting ISIL to grab as much as lands and population to enslave as possible, then wait for the change. But Assad was on the way, so, they aimed at him. A little bit of bombing ISIL (not too much), a bit a money and weapons to "moderate" opposition they knew will end in ISIL hands, looking the other way when Crucifixion, burning people alive and women sold to slavery, campaigning against destruction of all temples, well, routine.
Then Putin racked the game. Bombing and helping Syrian Army, not good. Even worst, look that he got result.
And just after the public admission that there is in fact no more moderate opposition, and 1,000,000 refugees who had enough to wait to be sold to ISIL by USA & EU lack of real action (as it was not the plan anyway), walking into Europe.
So whom Putin is bombing?
the public admission that there is in fact no more moderate opposition
Huh?
So whom Putin is bombing?
The fact that IS has been gaining rather than loosing ground in Syria after Russia started bombing should provide some clues.
"The fact that IS has been gaining rather than loosing ground in Syria" Fact?
"Huh?" Can't find the approximately the 25 soldiers left trained by US money... So more in now cut, and weapons parachuted, don't know really where, but it might be in the rightist hands.
"The fact that IS has been gaining rather than loosing ground in Syria" Fact?
Yes (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147515-ISIS-on-the-offensive-in-Iraq&p=2053662818&viewfull=1#post2053662818). I've seen no independent confirmation that IS is on the back foot anywhere in Syria.
"Huh?" Can't find the approximately the 25 soldiers left trained by US money... So more in now cut, and weapons parachuted, don't know really where, but it might be in the rightist hands.
The rebels trained by the US aren't the only 'moderates' in Syria. Have never been.
Well, that settles it, with backing from Erdogan and Putin, ISIS is there to stay.
Sarmatian
10-17-2015, 21:19
Yes (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147515-ISIS-on-the-offensive-in-Iraq&p=2053662818&viewfull=1#post2053662818). I've seen no independent confirmation that IS is on the back foot anywhere in Syria.
So you naturally assumed that the opposite must be true.
Taking into account that you have no idea what ISIS is actually in control of, their command structure, their production capabilities, their combat readiness, number of troops, supplies, weapons, reserves, money.....
...how would you even know if they're on the back foot or not?
The rebels trained by the US aren't the only 'moderates' in Syria. Have never been.
Oh, please do share...
So you naturally assumed that the opposite must be true.
Or, it could just possibly be based on the news item right there.
...how would you even know if they're on the back foot or not?
When no news reports say that they are on the back foot, chances are it is because they are not on the back foot.
Oh, please do share...
These (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33049904/syrian-activists-come-out-in-support-of-caitlyn-jenner) seem pretty moderate..
Of course, just because people join islamist groups doesn't mean that they are islamists. If the US can extract non-islamist elements from such groups, they'd have more people to provide arms to.
Sarmatian
10-17-2015, 23:15
Or, it could just possibly be based on the news item right there.
Possibly, but not certainly.
When no news reports say that they are on the back foot, chances are it is because they are not on the back foot.
There are plenty of news reports that do say that.
You have to understand one thing - reporters don't have a ****ing clue what they are talking about. 99% of the "reports" are actually statements from a military representative. That's why you have practically all western newspapers parroting -> Russian attacks don't target extremists, are wrong, counterproductive, doomed to fail and make Jesus cry; while Russian newspapers are all about -> Russian strikes are like, super effective, they kill only baddies and extremists will soon been defeated.
These (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33049904/syrian-activists-come-out-in-support-of-caitlyn-jenner) seem pretty moderate..
They also seem like they need a brain transplant.
Of course, just because people join islamist groups doesn't mean that they are islamists. If the US can extract non-islamist elements from such groups, they'd have more people to provide arms to
That's not terribly hard since after 3 years of training and arming, more than a billion of dollars, US managed to get 4 (yes, four) people armed and ready to fight ISIS.
The sad thing is if they manage to get 5 in the next three years, that's a 25% increase in performance.
CrossLOPER
10-18-2015, 02:32
Russian newspapers are all about -> Russian strikes are like, super effective, they kill only baddies and extremists will soon been defeated.
Well you can't have human conflict if all humans have been obliterated. Humans that are not named Assad, that is.
There are plenty of news reports that do say that.
From where? RT? PressTV?
You have to understand one thing - reporters don't have a ****ing clue what they are talking about. 99% of the "reports" are actually statements from a military representative. That's why you have practically all western newspapers parroting -> Russian attacks don't target extremists, are wrong, counterproductive, doomed to fail and make Jesus cry; while Russian newspapers are all about -> Russian strikes are like, super effective, they kill only baddies and extremists will soon been defeated.
Some reporters do have a clue about what they are talking about. One of the biggest problems is that reports of regime advances appear to be coming from areas where IS has no presence.
One of the groups Russia appear to be attacking is the Nusra front, who are hardly any better than IS. Yet, they are also hostile to IS, so it's likely not bad for IS that Nusra gets weakened.
In fact, foreign fighters originally headed for Nusra might go to IS instead, as they appear to have a lot of foreign fighters among them:
"the overwhelming majority of Al-Nusra members want to stay in Al-Qaeda, particularly foreign fighters who represent at least one-third of the organisation," said Romain Caillet, a French expert on jihadists.
http://news.yahoo.com/qaeda-syria-denies-plan-break-away-194745608.html
That's not terribly hard since after 3 years of training and arming, more than a billion of dollars, US managed to get 4 (yes, four) people armed and ready to fight ISIS.
The sad thing is if they manage to get 5 in the next three years, that's a 25% increase in performance.
The US abandoned their training program and switched to arming already existing groups. All they need to find is a small division of a rebel group that can be described as 'moderate' to get somewhere. Groups that pay their soldiers well and receive good arms will attract more fighters.
Btw, is this more or less 'moderate' than George W. Bush?
The Levant Front’s charter, released in June, called for the establishment of Islamic government with Sharia as the sole source of law. The group calls itself part of the Syrian Free Army, vehemently opposes both ISIS and al-Qaeda, and argues for the protection of Syria’s minorities. “The Levant Front is part of the Syrian revolution,” said Hassan Sheikh, a leader in the group. “Our main goal is to bring down the regime, and to achieve the aims of the people for a democratic civil state with multiple religions and sects.”
Salem, a former electrical engineer, says his group is “very moderate” and believes in a democratic Syria that is a home to Christians, members of the Alawite sect, which Assad belongs to, and the country’s Sunni majority. “We don’t have a problem with anyone who has not taken up arms against us,” he said, noting that his own mother was Christian.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaragahi/syrian-rebels-say-they-may-not-be-doing-well-but-are-very-mu#.ffG4YvwEv
Sarmatian
10-18-2015, 10:38
From where? RT? PressTV?
Some reporters do have a clue about what they are talking about. One of the biggest problems is that reports of regime advances appear to be coming from areas where IS has no presence.
Get real. There isn't a single news organization that can afford to independently cover a war zone as large as Syria, or to research all armed groups involved and their relations with each other and foreign patrons. They rely on military intelligence for that.
One of the groups Russia appear to be attacking is the Nusra front, who are hardly any better than IS. Yet, they are also hostile to IS, so it's likely not bad for IS that Nusra gets weakened.
In fact, foreign fighters originally headed for Nusra might go to IS instead, as they appear to have a lot of foreign fighters among them:
Russia already stated they are fighting against extremists, not IS exclusively. Al Nusra isn't much better than ISIS and both (and many others) need to be defeated.
The US abandoned their training program and switched to arming already existing groups. All they need to find is a small division of a rebel group that can be described as 'moderate' to get somewhere. Groups that pay their soldiers well and receive good arms will attract more fighters.
That implies that they are attracting mercenaries.
This line has kind of proven false. US accused Russia of bombing Syrian moderates (FSA). Russia responded with "well, obviously your intelligence is different from ours. Tell us about FSA, how many soldiers they have, who are their leaders, what is their command structure, which territory they control. If they are indeed moderates, we are willing to contact them and coordinate with them."
There has been no contact from the US about FSA after that. Washington refused to send a delegation to Moscow to discuss it, and then refused to accept a Russian delegation.
Russia has so far made two very clear conditions on who they are willing to work with in Syria. They must be:
1) Made up of Syrians or be there with sanction of the Syrian government
2) Not extremists
It is getting pretty clear that FSA is a phantom structure.
Btw, is this more or less 'moderate' than George W. Bush?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaragahi/syrian-rebels-say-they-may-not-be-doing-well-but-are-very-mu#.ffG4YvwEv
Any group that wishes to create a shariah state is most certainly not a moderate.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.