View Full Version : ISIS on the offensive in Iraq
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.
A huge oversimplification (why does one single news organisation have to cover it all? why are you excluding independent journalists and analysts?). The are sources on the ground, verifiable social media reports (videos), IS' own propaganda videos etc.
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.
Thus far, they do not appear to be attacking IS much at all. It'll be interesting to see when/if that changes.
That implies that they are attracting mercenaries.
No, it implies that they are attracting fighters practising common sense. You are more likely to reach your goal of defeating Assad with a strong group than a weak; and the more money you are paid, the easier it is for you to take of yourself without having to rely on the structures of the group you fight with.
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.
The FSA appears no less real than it did earlier (as per my link), although it seems to a great extent to be made up of islamists (which is different from extremists with most definitions). Russia does not appear to have much interest in discriminating between these categories.
Why the US is not interested in co-coordinating with Russia on the matter we can only speculate on. Maybe the US don't have any specific groups in mind, maybe they don't want to hand Russia this kind of information, maybe they realise how much rebel groups rely on each other because most individual groups are too weak on their own - who knows.
Any group that wishes to create a shariah state is most certainly not a moderate.
Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature. Actual application and interpretation of 'Sharia' can be done in different ways. None of which are good, but Assad isn't good, either. If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.
Sarmatian
10-18-2015, 12:45
A huge oversimplification (why does one single news organisation have to cover it all? why are you excluding independent journalists and analysts?). The are sources on the ground, verifiable social media reports (videos), IS' own propaganda videos etc.
Because they don't have the expertise, the means and the funds. They don't the satellites, air force or intelligence structure to do that. They don't have the experts who could analyze millions of satellite photos.
They can stumble upon something sometimes, or make a decent report about a single, small aspect, but for the bulk of information, they rely on what was provided to them by the authorities.
Read the articles, it's in there - "a state official said...", "an official report by...", "sources from a department...", "according to the intelligence data provided by..." and so on...
Social media :rolleyes:... You're having a laugh.
No, it implies that they are attracting fighters practising common sense. You are more likely to reach your goal of defeating Assad with a strong group than a weak; and the more money you are paid, the easier it is for you to take of yourself without having to rely on the structures of the group you fight with.
If it were so, there would have already been a strong group formed already. In reality it is much more sectarian. It's not so much about beating Assad but imposing your own order in Syria (or a part of it).
The FSA appears no less real than it did earlier (as per my link), although it seems to a great extent to be made up of islamists (which is different from extremists with most definitions). Russia does not appear to have much interest in discriminating between these categories.
Anyone trying to bring shariah laws to a secular country is an extremist.
Why the US is not interested in co-coordinating with Russia on the matter we can only speculate on. Maybe the US don't have any specific groups in mind, maybe they don't want to hand Russia this kind of information, maybe they realise how much rebel groups rely on each other because most individual groups are too weak on their own - who knows.
Maybe...
Maybe they don't have a strategy at all or their strategy is different from the one they espouse publicly.
Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature. Actual application and interpretation of 'Sharia' can be done in different ways. None of which are good, but Assad isn't good, either. If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.
How can anyone be talking about democracy and shariah law at the same time?
If you don't know what to say, don't say anything. Just don't troll, please.
Because they don't have the expertise, the means and the funds. They don't the satellites, air force or intelligence structure to do that. They don't have the experts who could analyze millions of satellite photos.
They can stumble upon something sometimes, or make a decent report about a single, small aspect, but for the bulk of information, they rely on what was provided to them by the authorities.
Read the articles, it's in there - "a state official said...", "an official report by...", "sources from a department...", "according to the intelligence data provided by..." and so on...
Again, I don't get what your argument is. No one is interested in every rock IS controls, but the greater trends. I am not basing the assumption that IS has not lost territory on what some spokesperson said, but on the lack of credible evidence showing the opposite.
Social media :rolleyes:... You're having a laugh.
YouTube videos, primarily. They can be geolocated. Fake videos do exist; but I am not aware that this is a huge problem (and do not typically focus on location anyway, AFAIK). Biggest problem is establishing that the date is correct.
Categorically dismissing such evidence is silly. They are one small part of the toolkit.
If it were so, there would have already been a strong group formed already.
That's in part because strong groups are forming: those with more resources cannibalise those with less.
Anyone trying to bring shariah laws to a secular country is an extremist.
But does every islamist want to introduce sharia?
Maybe...
Indeed.
How can anyone be talking about democracy and shariah law at the same time?
Why - what's the problem? How can anyone talk about death penalty and democracy at the same time? (is it democratic to kill potential voters?) How can anyone talk about voting restrictions and democracy at the same time? (aren't people under 18 humans too?)
There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. The most important thing is that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country. There's no inherent reason sharia laws, like any other laws, cannot be amended or abolished by a democratically elected parliament.
CrossLOPER
10-18-2015, 16:19
Why - what's the problem? How can anyone talk about death penalty and democracy at the same time? (is it democratic to kill potential voters?) How can anyone talk about voting restrictions and democracy at the same time? (aren't people under 18 humans too?).
Do you honestly think that those things are comparable with full-scale introduction of shariah law? Your best defense of this is
There is no such thing as a perfect democracy.
You are right. There is no perfect democracy. Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.
Do you honestly think that those things are comparable with full-scale introduction of shariah law?
They are not supposed to be comparable. What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.
Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.
Maybe in some parallel reality this comment will make sense.
AE Bravo
10-18-2015, 19:02
YouTube videos, primarily. They can be geolocated. Fake videos do exist; but I am not aware that this is a huge problem (and do not typically focus on location anyway, AFAIK). Biggest problem is establishing that the date is correct.
Videos prove nothing, anyone can dress up in a hockey mask and throw an orgy saying this is IS it's not that difficult. I can link you to how happy the people of Mosul are since they've been liberated by the Islamic state, whoopwhoop. Youtube videos are to be categorically dismissed yes and it's silly to bring them up in a discussion, leave that shit to facebook.
But does every islamist want to introduce sharia?
Absolutely.
What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.
Seeing as how rebel movements denounce these as desecration of Sharia I don't see how they can be reconciled. There is no framework for Sharia, just fragments you either follow or you don't, no middle ground to the Salafi.
"Moderate" rebel movements in Syria = myth. Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!
Videos prove nothing, anyone can dress up in a hockey mask and throw an orgy saying this is IS it's not that difficult. I can link you to how happy the people of Mosul are since they've been liberated by the Islamic state, whoopwhoop. Youtube videos are to be categorically dismissed yes and it's silly to bring them up in a discussion, leave that shit to facebook.
Again a silly simplification. If a video contains fighting with tanks exploding, how many people would be able to upload dozens of such videos with perfect CGI and sound effects? If you can can geolocate it and the date seems right, then that town is almost certainly being fought over in the physical world, too.
Absolutely.
If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..
rebel movements
Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.
Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!
Yeah, linking to an article written by someone who has been a Pulitzer finalist several (http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2005-International-Reporting) times (http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2010-International-Reporting) for coverage of the Middle East is probably no good idea.
CrossLOPER
10-18-2015, 21:36
They are not supposed to be comparable. What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.
So the definition of what qualifies as a "democracy" should be made more accessible? Does that mean that Russia is A-OK? Zimbabwe?
Maybe in some parallel reality this comment will make sense.
Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".
So the definition of what qualifies as a "democracy" should be made more accessible? Does that mean that Russia is A-OK? Zimbabwe?
It's not about being "OK" - democracy should be a neutral (technical) term that describes how the government is, in effect, chosen. I've already indirectly defined democracy (crudely) as "[...] that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country".
The greater the part of the population can have a say, the more democratic. Rigged votes are not democratic because they bar the population from having a say. Oppressing political opposition is not democratic since it limits the choice.
Once moral judgements are made part of what constitutes a democracy (like requiring 'human rights'), the definition will likely become fleeting and change according to common opinions on how a state should be run.
Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".
Just stop reading all kinds of weird things between the lines.
Sarmatian
10-19-2015, 16:26
that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country".
That's not crude, that's wrong.
You just defined pre Civil War America as a democratic state, because the "sizeable" majority had a say in who controlled the country.
If there's a country where slavery is legal, it would be totally democratic, if a "sizeable" majority still has a say. Or, if you want, the old "two wolves and a sheep voting what's gonna be for dinner" democracy.
Go back to the drawing board.
That's not crude, that's wrong.
You just defined pre Civil War America as a democratic state, because the "sizeable" majority had a say in who controlled the country.
If there's a country where slavery is legal, it would be totally democratic, if a "sizeable" majority still has a say. Or, if you want, the old "two wolves and a sheep voting what's gonna be for dinner" democracy.
Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy. What else would it be when e.g. a majority of the population can vote? What's the name for it?
No, slavery is not "totally democratic" just like any voting restriction is not "totally democratic"; but the presence of slavery does not negate an otherwise functioning democracy, just like not allowing people below x years of age to vote doesn't, either.
Is it democracy when
a) all slaves can vote?
b) slaves are captured abroad and only kept for x years before they are returned to their home country? (c.f. guest workers)
c) one part of the population is in deep monetary debt to another part of the population? (c.f. real life)
d) one part of the population is much richer than the other? (c.f. real life)
CrossLOPER
10-19-2015, 20:09
Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy.
A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights. Slavery violates human rights.
Sarmatian
10-19-2015, 20:23
Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy. What else would it be when e.g. a majority of the population can vote? What's the name for it?
Go back to the drawing board. It was a perfectly good advice. Don't try to claw out of this. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
AE Bravo
10-19-2015, 20:29
Again a silly simplification. If a video contains fighting with tanks exploding, how many people would be able to upload dozens of such videos with perfect CGI and sound effects? If you can can geolocate it and the date seems right, then that town is almost certainly being fought over in the physical world, too.
Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.
If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..
Like who?
Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.
They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.
Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.
Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
I think his definition is valid in the ancient Greek sense but you are absolutely right in the quoted part. There is no reason for us to promote or support a democracy that is basically a tyranny of the majority.
A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights.
Some democracies (claim to) do so; like liberal democracies.
And of course 'human rights' can be defined in all sorts of ways. 400 hundred years ago, they might have been defined in a way that did not exclude slavery. 100 years from now they might be defined in a way that extends to certain animal species.
Go back to the drawing board. It was a perfectly good advice. Don't try to claw out of this. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
lol
Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
When I said sharia is bad and that sharia and democracy can coexist, I am implicitly saying that not every democratic society is a desirable society. The equation democracy > not democracy will still hold in most situations, all other variables held fixed. Furthermore, democracy without slavery >> democracy with slavery > slavery without democracy.
Whether or not you should call such people 'moderates' or support them is a different question entirely.
Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.
That's something you'll find even with so-called professional reporting.
Like who?
Just saying that it is important to be clear on definitions. When I use the word islamist, I don't think it is a requirement that they want to implement sharia. When is a politician merely strongly motivated by Islam and an actual islamist?
They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.
Sources?
Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.
Pulitzer finalist. I don't care whether he calls them 'moderate' or bedwetters; his article is the source for their statements on democracy. That's all I am interested in (for now).
Sarmatian
10-20-2015, 14:07
When I said sharia is bad and that sharia and democracy can coexist, I am implicitly saying that not every democratic society is a desirable society. The equation democracy > not democracy will still hold in most situations, all other variables held fixed. Furthermore, democracy without slavery >> democracy with slavery > slavery without democracy.
Your argument was in favour of those groups as "moderate" and "democratic", under (supposedly) modern, broader meaning of the word. When showed otherwise, you said you used a very narrow, dictionary definition of democracy. Not wrong per se, but invalidates your starting point.
Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.
Your argument was in favour of those groups as "moderate" and "democratic", under (supposedly) modern, broader meaning of the word.
No, I did not argue that they were 'moderate' - I argued that we need to know what they mean by 'sharia' before can properly judge whether or not they are 'moderate' - after a definition of 'moderate' has been agreed upon, obviously:
Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature.
I dispute the idea that modern usage of 'democracy' implies things like respect for 'human rights' (just look to the dictionaries (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)), and I've also argued why such a definition is a really bad idea - regardless.
But the original point was not whether or not we could call what they wanted democracy (which is ultimately semantics), but that it offers a way for Syrians to change the way Syria is ruled (including the abolition of sharia). That's all - anything else is a straw man.
Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.
If you are as right as you seem to think you are, you don't need to rely on such hostility in order to win the argument. Think about it.
Sarmatian
10-20-2015, 16:07
No, I did not argue that they were 'moderate' - I argued that we need to know what they mean by 'sharia' before can properly judge whether or not they are 'moderate' - after a definition of 'moderate' has been agreed upon, obviously:
It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race.
But go ahead and research it. While you're there, check up on what they mean by "human sacrifice" and "cannibalism". It's a little vague and some people aren't sure.
If you are as right as you seem to think you are, you don't need to rely on hostility in order to win the argument. Think about it.
Whatever gave you that idea? I don't do this to win the argument. I'm having fun showing how clueless you are. The last shred of decency prompted me to try to help you for your own good.
CrossLOPER
10-20-2015, 16:34
400 hundred years ago, they might have been defined in a way that did not exclude slavery
8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?
It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race.
Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country). Isn't that strange.
I'm having fun showing how clueless you are.
In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.
8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?
Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.
It's like if death penalty only counts as death penalty if it was issued for 'non-serious crimes', where the collection of serious crimes can be defined and re-defined over and over.
"They don't practice death penalty in the US; only serious crimes can get anyone executed by the state after trial."
"They practice democracy in the US; the state there respects human rights."
See how robust either of the two statements are when it comes to preserving the deeper information they are capable of storing.
Sarmatian
10-20-2015, 20:00
Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country). Isn't that strange.
It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia?
In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.
Well, I couldn't have done it before now, since I've just started doing it.
Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.
So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
CrossLOPER
10-20-2015, 22:22
Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
Viking is Robert Mugabe.
a completely inoffensive name
10-21-2015, 04:37
I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.
AE Bravo
10-21-2015, 06:49
You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.
Source?
http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855
The Levant Front’s charter, released in June, called for the establishment of Islamic government with Sharia as the sole source of law.
“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.”
In the Arabic language it's perfectly fine to talk about democracy and consensus when describing Islamic governance, because this provides something to aspire to considering nobody knows what Islamic governance really is. Like you argue in your last few posts, there is a spectrum of democracy and this is what you'd find on the Islamist end of it. If I was fighting under a jihad banner a shura council would be the extent of democracy in my book, this is what Saudi Arabia already has for example so that's not saying much. Putting aside the fact that Islamists like to put on a pretty face for the media to attract air support against its enemies, which has been working for a long time.
No non-state actor has shown any willingness to introduce the democratic capabilities of sharia you'd find in Egypt and Iran for example. An exception *might* be Muslim Brotherhood, because they at least start with grassroots and peaceful attempts at reform rather than violent movements.
Sarmatian
10-21-2015, 07:01
I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.
I'm southern European. Know your geography.
a completely inoffensive name
10-21-2015, 07:17
I'm southern European. Know your geography.
Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?
Sarmatian
10-21-2015, 07:34
Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?
1. Croatians are also former commies
2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.
a completely inoffensive name
10-21-2015, 07:50
1. Croatians are also former commies
2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.
1. Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.
Sarmatian
10-21-2015, 09:02
1. Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.
1. If we can do it arbitrarily, I choose Mariana trench
2. Did you read the rest of the sentence? Topless volleyball, coctails, huge beaches - who cares about income equality? In fact, who cares about income.
Papewaio
10-21-2015, 12:35
How about South Eastern European?
Sarmatian
10-21-2015, 13:02
How about South Eastern European?
That would be wrong again. Most of Serbia is located there, but, the Danube is taken to be natural border between Southeastern Europe and Central Europe, and, since I live in Novi Sad...
https://i.imgur.com/e56HNJL.jpg
the big blue squiggly thing is the Danube, for the uninitiated
...I'm actually Central European, so in this case I'm lumped with Germans, Austrians and Swiss (not to shabby, you could do worse, you know. Yes, even worse than the Germans. It is possible.). I do travel south, across the river often, though, and let me tell you, there are all kinds of uncouth barbarians living in the Balkans.
How about South Eastern European?
There are resorts mosrly, but I wouldn't call that income inequality, just people who can afford nice houses,bthe person who transports the toothpaste didn't invent toothpaste. Life isn't bad there, cheap products, nice houses, nice people. I could live in a mansion there for what I payed for a single etage here.
edit, it is SMALL
It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia?
That's an oversimplification. There is theory, and there is practice. As an example, the UAE seems fond of handing out the odd death by stoning sentence, but they don't appear to be carrying them out very often (if at all):
He added that Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced defendants in similar cases to death by stoning, but the sentences were never carried out.
A judicial expert said that although UAE laws are based on Sharia law, the courts exercise leniency as much as possible on people charged with such offences.
http://7days.ae/expat-faces-death-stoning-admitting-court-cheating-husband
Furthermore, the legal system of different countries appear to be flirting with sharia to different degrees.
So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
I am using it with a very common and meaningful sense of the word (like it is used e.g. here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml) and countless other places). When one wants to specify a certain type of democracy, one uses modifiers: modern democracy, liberal democracy, Western democracy etc. Such use with modifiers is extremely common; just look around.
You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.
Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.
It's not just a matter of how you and me use the word, but also potential sources describing the situation in Syria.
http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855
I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".
AE Bravo
10-22-2015, 01:45
Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.
I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.
I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".
I can't find those words specifically in English. You should look into them, they are hardline Salafis who turned it down in order to attract more people with sketchy unIslamic past to confront Al Nusra. After their defeat quite a few of them turned over to Al Nusra now as well. Just a bunch of disgruntled rebel officials switching allegiances nothing to see here.
In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.
CrossLOPER
10-22-2015, 04:43
Using different sources I can find different definitions
How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?
I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.
I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.
In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.
That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.
How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?
Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.
AE Bravo
10-22-2015, 15:52
I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.
They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.
That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.
This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/ahrar-al-sham-s-apocalyptic-vision-syria-and-beyond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.
That group has a charter (and that charter is obviously islamist), yes, but I was having Syrian rebel groups in general in mind.
This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/ahrar-al-sham-s-apocalyptic-vision-syria-and-beyond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
Wiki says something else, and the other source does not appear to mention the Levant Front at all.
CrossLOPER
10-22-2015, 17:33
Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.
You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection.
I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.
You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection.
I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.
Yet another example of a straw man argument. I have said nothing about a 'healthy' democracy, I said this:
If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.
In other words, what matters is if they can vote for representatives that can alter the constitution, the legal frame work etc. - it doesn't matter whether or not adulterers are stoned to death at the time of voting any more than the amount of Syrian pounds they have to pay for speeding. There is an opening for change.
Now if you could argue against what I said rather than what you imagine I said, that would be a massive improvement.
The argument about what constitutes an islamist was a minor sub-thread that had nothing to do with the democracy line of debate.
AE Bravo
10-22-2015, 20:09
Show me an Islamist group with no charter.
Part of
Islamic Front[10]
Syrian Revolutionary Command Council[1]
Army of Conquest[11]
Levant Front
Fatah Halab[12]
Unified Military Command of Eastern Ghouta[13][14]
Ansar al-Sharia[15]
Jund al-Malahm[16]
Jaish al-Haramoun[17]
Northern Homs Countryside Operations Room[18]
Itisam bi Allah[19]
it doesnt matter that the other source doesnt mention this. Levant front is a subordinate movement, which isn't moderate.
CrossLOPER
10-22-2015, 22:02
I have said nothing about a 'healthy' democracy
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society and now you are trying to peddle that, because its a democracy, it is more likely to go away and is therefore acceptable. It's hilarious.
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society and now you are trying to peddle that, because its a democracy, it is more likely to go away and is therefore acceptable. It's hilarious.
What's really hilarious is how people are trying to judge ancient societies by modern standards. Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, were some of the most advanced social constructs of their time, slavery or not. But oh, it's sooooo easy to piss on them from a high horse of the 21st century.
CrossLOPER
10-23-2015, 00:51
What's really hilarious is how people are trying to judge ancient societies by modern standards. Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, were some of the most advanced social constructs of their time, slavery or not. But oh, it's sooooo easy to piss on them from a high horse of the 21st century.
No one did this itt.
AE Bravo
10-23-2015, 03:10
This "moderate" thing is getting stupid too. There is little to NO opposition in the countries that are **cked that isn't completely INSANE that's why we're in this mess. All of their goals are completely unrealistic.
it doesnt matter that the other source doesnt mention this. Levant front is a subordinate movement, which isn't moderate.
We'll see.
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society
Nope. I said that a democratic state allowing slavery is better than a non-democratic state allowing slavery (everything else equal).
It's hilarious.
No, it's been rather silly for a while.
CrossLOPER
10-23-2015, 17:18
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society
I said that a democratic state allowing slavery is better than a non-democratic state allowing slavery
OK, well if that is the case, why don't we let Islamic State take over, but first let them draft a democratic institution. I mean let them have all of it. The Balkans, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and anything else that they want. All of it. But they will be a *democratic state*, so it will be OK.
https://i.imgur.com/izgYZ7V.png
ALL OF IT. BUT IT WILL BE DEMOCRATIC SO IT WILL BE OK.
AE Bravo
10-23-2015, 21:57
We'll see.
There's nothing to see bud, their time is almost up.
Headshot. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287566/Al-Qaeda-s-leader-Syria-Sheikh-Abu-Sulaiman-Al-Masri-killed-Aleppo.html)
An ally of the ghostly entity named FSA was killed in action.
I am sure that some of his soldiers might have 18th century democratic ideas. A terrible loss to the world's activism against secularism movement.
Gilrandir
11-04-2015, 15:46
A summary of Putin's adventure in Syria:
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=44552&no_cache=1#.VjoacLfhBMx
http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/11/11/719457/story.html
Almost three years were these heroes of Secular Syria besieged by the opposition. Moderate wahhabists, at first, followed by not so moderate wahhabists. A great strategic and prestige victory for the Syrian state. It must be quite a terrible experience living for several months under the threat of being beheaded by your captors in case of a successful offensive.
Papewaio
11-12-2015, 09:26
I really do wonder why we are in such a rush to get rid of the dictators when we are then put in a position to kill many more to resolve the power vacuum we create.
Or overthrow democratically elected governments and wonder why the terrorist groups we invested in don't play nicely when they are in power.
AE Bravo
11-12-2015, 19:29
If the goal is to destabilize a country, taking out the incumbent is the way to go.
I'm sure this was the goal, or else it would've been resolved years ago.
This article about researching the background of ISIS fighters is interesting. Not really bought into the caliphate.
http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/
Pissing off a bombmer jet is never smart:
https://www.facebook.com/675144422617824/videos/749825858483013/
ICantSpellDawg
11-21-2015, 03:46
16987
I think that we now have the opportunity to coax forces on the ground. We can enact and enforce a ceasefire/dmz line (black line on map) coupled with a no-fly zone. Jordanian and Saudi ground forces could enforce this in the southern DMZ (yellow arrows), Turkish ground forces could enforce this in the Northern DMZ (blue arrows). This would force both the Alawite/Russian coalition as well as the Rebel coalition to focus in the center and East simultaneously (generally less populated and more prone to ISIS influence)
This will assist the Rebels as it diminishes both Assad and ISIS. Once the rebels secure Homs, the DMZ can be extended to isolate Alawite Syria into a Lebanon like mini-state (removing both them and the Russians from the conflict) and further concentrate rebel forces eastward as Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi ground forces police the Western areas.
Western Air and intelligence services enforce the DMZ/No Fly and continue to hammer ISIS.
Good idea? Terrible Idea?
Montmorency
11-21-2015, 04:14
Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.
At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.
As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.
ICantSpellDawg
11-21-2015, 05:41
Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.
At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.
As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.
Assad isnt focused on ISIS, he spends his ordinance attacking western rebels. Blocking that would focus him along his borders in the East - which would bring him into more regular and exclusive contact with ISIS controlled towns.
Additionally, the cover which this woulf buy the Rebels would allow them to re-focus East as well; rather than in every direction. They would have more regular and less clandestine access to supplies and more constant influence from establishment/moderate forces. This would allow them to focus on clearing their limited areas of regime/isis forces and also move eastward into renewed conflict with ISIS held towns.
We have no interest in re-establishing the Iraqi governments sectarian control over the West of Iraq - we did that already and their policies failed in in record time. It would be better to keep Western Iraq and Central/Eastern Syria apart, as semi-autonomous regions within distinct nations (Iraq and, what would probably be a former segment of Syria) - this would help to avoid a Sunni "Jihadistan" under the influence of Saudi Arabia - ensuring that the Turks, The Kurds, the Shiaa & Moderate Sunni Iraqi's, the Gulf States, Saudis and Jordanians have a balanced stake in a divided region.
I envision a single nation of Syria controlled like Berlin or Bosnia; Sunni Arabs & Kurds in the North and East (with the Arab areas under the security of Turkish and Emirati Forces), Sunni Arabs in the South, (under the joint security of Saudi and Jordanians, bordering with the Israeli occupied Golan Heights) and an overwhelmingly Alawite Shia Coastal Region under the control of the Baathist party and their Russian Benefactors, just a bit larger than Lebanon.
Montmorency
11-21-2015, 06:09
So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?
What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?
Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations. :dizzy2:
Good idea? Terrible Idea?
Pretty terrible, even if it was applicable.
To begin with, I would prefer it if states that actively supported Al-Nusra, the representative of AQ in Syria, whose leader is a former lieutenant of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have no military presence in Syria. Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.
Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by rebels securing Homs. Thankfully, there are no rebels in the city itself, since they were wiped out in May 2014, during what is the most decisive victory of the Syrian Army:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs
ICantSpellDawg
11-21-2015, 19:38
So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?
What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?
Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations. :dizzy2:
That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.
When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.
ICantSpellDawg
11-21-2015, 19:46
Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.
Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?
That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.
When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.
And you seriously think there could be no bad side effects to pushing and shoving Putin and Assad around and telling them who and where they can bomb and not? Who is going to enforce that and how do you justify it? Do you just tell them that you do it because you do not want them to bomb "your" rebel kittens or do you spin an RT-level story that everybody knows is completely made up?
And at what point of this are you actually proud of yourself or improving your image with anyone?
HopAlongBunny
11-22-2015, 08:18
The beauty of the Caliphate is that once declared, all opposition is termed external/alien.
The danger is no longer the existence of the Caliphate, but the very idea.
A purely military solution will leave the idea, therefore the poles of conflict, very much in tact.
Battle of hearts and minds: Caliphate 1, opposition 0.
The beauty of the Caliphate is that once declared, all opposition is termed external/alien.
The danger is no longer the existence of the Caliphate, but the very idea.
A purely military solution will leave the idea, therefore the poles of conflict, very much in tact.
Battle of hearts and minds: Caliphate 1, opposition 0.
There's a silver lining for only containing it, draws the nutjobs out of here, must be a lot of preassure on wannabees in Europe to go there. Just don't allow them to get back. We have a major problem thanks to Merkel who made it possible to get in and spread out though. Every security-agency and their mother warned against the risks but a relinut with a messias-complex will never listen.
Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.
As I said, they (including ISIL) have a small presence in the suburbs of the town. The opposition in the city of Homs has been completely eradicated, they didn't retreat, no. Thousands of them were either killed or captured, since the Syrian Army made a surprising encirclement.
Currently, I would say that taking Homs is the most difficult task for the opposition, with the exception of Lattakia. They are simply inexistent and keep in mind that they disastrously failed to even capture Daraa, a city very sympathetic towards sunni extremism and sunder siege by a large group of rebels directly equipped from USA.
Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?
It would be, because it would signify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs or Kurds. Turkey has already assimilated Alexandretta (having incorporated it in the early 20th century), in spite of the fact that there were no Turks at all.
ICantSpellDawg
11-22-2015, 17:53
It would be, because it would signify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs or Kurds. Turkey has already assimilated Alexandretta (having incorporated it in the early 20th century), in spite of the fact that there were no Turks at all.
You think that Turks, when given nominal defensive control over the North - but not to occupy the Kurdish territory - would exterminate and cleanse Arabs? I dont think this is a realistic fear at the moment.
Well, they haven't hesitated to arm the ex-ally of ISIL, Al-Nusra or Al-Qaeda of Syria.
Speaking of Al-Qaeda, a video has been uploaded, where the terrorist commander of Al-Nusra thanks the moderate commander of FSA, for giving him TOWs.
Not that they need them, considering that Saudi Arabia arms them directly, but it's alright, guys, they don't belong to the Axis of Evil.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/28444/53/
Might be bad, Turkey admitted they shot down a Russian jet, but it wasn't flying over Turkish territory. Putin is probably not able to sell a diplomatic solution back home, he would look weak. Bad idea in Russia
HopAlongBunny
11-24-2015, 12:32
After reading about it...I'm still not sure what happened:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34907983
After reading about it...I'm still not sure what happened:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34907983
Don't we all. If Russia flew over Turkey Turkey did nothing wrong, If they didn't things are getting even more complicated.
Sarmatian
11-24-2015, 13:11
BBC article says the plane was warned about violations of airspace. Reuters article (http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/11/24/mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-idINKBN0TD0P020151124) mentions an "official" who said planes were approaching Turkish territory and were given warnings they are getting too close, but also mentions multiple airspace violations.
Gonna be funny. Turkey has its own interests in Syria. Prop up Sunnis, annex the north where Turkmen live, help everyone (including Al Nusra and ISIS) who fight Assad and Kurds.
ICantSpellDawg
11-26-2015, 12:20
Might be bad, Turkey admitted they shot down a Russian jet, but it wasn't flying over Turkish territory. Putin is probably not able to sell a diplomatic solution back home, he would look weak. Bad idea in Russia
Putin has the benefit of not needing to respond to a public. That makes his actions more predictable in some ways, less so in others- which is good and bad for him.
I doubt that Russia could take Turkey in any offensive war, notwithstanding their 4x higher military expenditure, and notwithstanding any NATO support. Turkey is economically self-contained and has a modernized military. The amount of money it would cost to do significant damage would bankrupt the Russian State
Putin has the benefit of not needing to respond to a public. That makes his actions more predictable in some ways, less so in others- which is good and bad for him.
I doubt that Russia could take Turkey in any offensive war, notwithstanding their 4x higher military expenditure, and notwithstanding any NATO support. Turkey is economically self-contained and has a modernized military. The amount of money it would cost to do significant damage would bankrupt the Russian State
You are probably right, so far only some economic sanctions, not retaliations on the rotaliations on the Turkoman rebels who killed the pilot. Would still be good if Turkey apoligizes though.
Putin has the benefit of not needing to respond to a public. That makes his actions more predictable in some ways, less so in others- which is good and bad for him.
I doubt that Russia could take Turkey in any offensive war, notwithstanding their 4x higher military expenditure, and notwithstanding any NATO support. Turkey is economically self-contained and has a modernized military. The amount of money it would cost to do significant damage would bankrupt the Russian State
A year or two ago some predicted he would be marching on Berlin by now, now he can't even take on Turkey.
Politics are confusing.
Sarmatian
11-26-2015, 17:30
A year or two ago some predicted he would be marching on Berlin by now, now he can't even take on Turkey.
Politics are confusing.
Turkey has a rather large and modern military. In a conventional total war, Turkey would stand no chance (even with nukes taken out of the equation), but Russia couldn't take on Turkey painlessly, they would suffer serious casualties, and the funds needed would be quite significant indeed.
Turkey has a rather large and modern military. In a conventional total war, Turkey would stand no chance (even with nukes taken out of the equation), but Russia couldn't take on Turkey painlessly, they would suffer serious casualties, and the funds needed would be quite significant indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_Turkish_Land_Forces#Vehicles
You mean all those modern Patton tanks would stop them for long?
Of course they would suffer serious casualties, even the Pattons are not a complete pushover, but I was comparing this to an evasion of the EU, so...
Montmorency
11-26-2015, 18:01
Turkey stands no chance in what sense? Of not losing the war? That obviously depends on what the political goals are for the participants. Of not being conquered? Russia would find it easier to conquer Finland and Scandinavia than to conquer Turkey.
Russia would find it easier to conquer Finland and Scandinavia than to conquer Turkey.
Or Luxembourg and Monaco, much easier.
Turkey stands no chance in what sense? Of not losing the war? That obviously depends on what the political goals are for the participants. Of not being conquered? Russia would find it easier to conquer Finland and Scandinavia than to conquer Turkey.
Conquering Finland might not be that hard now that they could attempt it with combined arms rather than just millions of poorly trained and ill equipped foot soldiers conscripted from the rural areas. Running these poor sods at the Mannertheim line with the NKVD behind their backs was comrade Stalin's way to do it. It's like whipping a bunch of kindergarteners untill they can pull a truck up a hill. Enough kindergarteners and enough whipping and it can probably happen.
Now though that land connection to Finland and the improved infrastructure on it would mean that Russia will have an easy time to provide logistics for its tanks, artillery, airforce and so on. Oh, and modern day missile cruisers will cause heaps of trouble for the finns as well.
In the case of a 1v1 war between Russia and Turkey where nukes are banned I don't see how anyone can favour Turkey. The Russians can have a safe route through Georgia (Russian-Georgian relations are pretty warm) and just roll over Turkey. Alternatively they can gather their fleet and choke Istanbul out. It will be harder to land troops through the Black Sea or to get permission to pass through Romania and Bulgaria. But it's possible.
Gilrandir
11-27-2015, 15:48
The Russians can have a safe route through Georgia (Russian-Georgian relations are pretty warm) and just roll over Turkey.
I think you are misinterpreting the character of relations between Georgia and Russia. After 2008 war and losing its territories Georgia will never allow any passage of the Russian military in spite of the fact that the new president is pre-disposed towards Russia. He would face popular dissatisfaction (to put it mildly). Besides, for a massive land operation Russia will need quite a time for passing through Georgia and, most importantly, KEEPING THAT ROAD OPEN for even longer time what with the purpose of bringing in reinforcements and withdrawing the wounded and suppying the fielded armies. The longer the road through Georgia is open, the greater is the likelihood of popular discontent (even if the Georgian president is lenient) and still greater is the likelihood that Turkey would try to stop that corridor by using its aiforce, which Georgia (both in the meaning "the people" and "the authorities") would not relish. So land operation via Georgia is out of question for Russia.
Alternatively they can gather their fleet and choke Istanbul out.
:laugh4: Those rusty tubs? I would advise you to find a video from the Russian fleet military parade in Sevastopol this year. You will see how effective that navy is.
Besides, I guess that Turkey has its own fleet (and a more modern one) in the Black Sea which will offer its resistance. And don't forget the NATO support in case Turkey is openly attacked.
It will be harder to land troops through the Black Sea
Landing troops will mean introducing isolated detachments which will be forced to act without the hope of reinforcements or supplies in the hostile environment. Any Turkish territory is not Donbas or the Crimea,so it will be sheer waste of manpower. Not that Putin would mind it much, though.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-27-2015, 22:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_Turkish_Land_Forces#Vehicles
You mean all those modern Patton tanks would stop them for long?
Of course they would suffer serious casualties, even the Pattons are not a complete pushover, but I was comparing this to an evasion of the EU, so...
No, he means the 750 Leopard I and II tanks.
Turkey has more Leopard II tanks than Germany.
Also, unlike the Germans, the Turks mean business and any Russian invasion would be made to suffer as much as possible - no punches would be pulled.
No, he means the 750 Leopard I and II tanks.
Turkey has more Leopard II tanks than Germany.
Also, unlike the Germans, the Turks mean business and any Russian invasion would be made to suffer as much as possible - no punches would be pulled.
That's ridiculous....
How is the Leopard 1 modern? Their Leopard 2 are only like 30 or 40 more than Germany has and the A4 standard is not entirely new either, the A5 was introduced in the early 90s...
Not to forget that Germany would not be the only country they'd have to face when invading Europe.
Even if I take your comment about the Germans not meaning business seriously, the glorious British would obviously bravely send their superior tanks and singlehandedly beat back the evil red flood, so there, invading Turkey is much easier...
ICantSpellDawg
11-28-2015, 00:36
Turkey has the second largest standing army in NATO.
Remember, the US couldn't defeat Vietnam.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-28-2015, 01:22
That's ridiculous....
How is the Leopard 1 modern? Their Leopard 2 are only like 30 or 40 more than Germany has and the A4 standard is not entirely new either, the A5 was introduced in the early 90s...
Not to forget that Germany would not be the only country they'd have to face when invading Europe.
Even if I take your comment about the Germans not meaning business seriously, the glorious British would obviously bravely send their superior tanks and singlehandedly beat back the evil red flood, so there, invading Turkey is much easier...
Sorry Husar - our army is in a pretty bad way too, our armour has been even more ground down that yours.
If you need to stop the Red Flood may I suggest the Greeks?
I'm sure they're only too happy to help fellow Europeans.
Back when you were serious about defending the Fulda Gap you had over two thousand tanks - now you have a tenth of that.
Turkey has a massive tank force, yes they have many older tanks but the spearhead are the Leopard II and Leopard I tanks in that order. Russia doesn't have a huge number of modern tanks either, remember, the majority of their tanks are still T-80s.
Add to that the fact that Anatolia is one of the worst places to invade in the world and you rapidly conclude it's not worth it for the Russians, it would require a general mobalisation and I don't think Russia can afford that financially or domestically.
If we want to stop the "Red Storm" we have to built tanks, APC, heavy guns and trained the crews and troops. I don't know for you guys, but thanks to the strain of Presidents on France, we don't have any more the capacity to do so, as Sarkozy sold France to NATO, dismantled our factories (including the one producing special metal to Mittal who shut it down) producing weapons, and sold the premises and field where we were training to friends and relatives. The Infantry Combat School where I trained doesn't exist any more and is now a area of nice (but expensive) flats. All went for so-called inter-arms school, on the principal that a mechanic has the same needs than a grunt. All the "savoir-faire" based on experience and traditions is just gone.
Like others, France sacrificed the heavy gears for light intervention brigades, light infantry brigade type Legion/paratroopers/overseas troops, equipped with magnified APC, well, even not APC but glorified lorries (VAB)... And even not enough of them. Operations type Mali put an unsustainable strain on the French Army: No troops, no helicopters, no planes, limit of ammunition, logistic just good enough thanks to US Air force back-up. With a more robust enemy... So, Red Storm, let have a laugh...
And that why I think Hollande went to see Putin for Iraq. If France want to sent boots (Foreign Legion first, I suppose), France will need the MI-24 and the Russian Controlled facilities...
Turkey has the second largest standing army in NATO.
Larger than all EU countries together?
Sorry Husar - our army is in a pretty bad way too, our armour has been even more ground down that yours.
If you need to stop the Red Flood may I suggest the Greeks?
I'm sure they're only too happy to help fellow Europeans.
Back when you were serious about defending the Fulda Gap you had over two thousand tanks - now you have a tenth of that.
That was my point, most of these tanks are still in service in EU countries: Spain, Poland, Sweden, Greece...
Add to that the British tanks, the Italian ones, the French Leclercs, the Polish Twardys and you're seriously going to argue that attacking the EU is easier than Turkey? Or did you just forget how we started this argument? We didn't even get to the Air Forces and other assets yet...
Turkey has a massive tank force, yes they have many older tanks but the spearhead are the Leopard II and Leopard I tanks in that order. Russia doesn't have a huge number of modern tanks either, remember, the majority of their tanks are still T-80s.
These T-80s can take on all of these Turkish tanks, especially upgraded T-80s that are more modern than pretty much all the active tanks Turkey has.
Add to that the fact that Anatolia is one of the worst places to invade in the world and you rapidly conclude it's not worth it for the Russians, it would require a general mobalisation and I don't think Russia can afford that financially or domestically.
I never said they're going to invade, I said it's strange how people used to say Putin is coming for Europe and now even Turkey is too much for him...
That is this strange "schizophrenia": Putin will invade all the world, but Putin can't attack even Georgia as his armies are made of tin foiled tanks/planes/whatever manned by drunken crews...
And they believed both proposals...
Fisherking
11-28-2015, 12:22
This article on the situation in Turkey is actually being rather kind to Erdogan. They speak of smuggled oil from ISIS and don’t bring up Erdogan’s son, who seems involved with it and is the Turkish equivalent of a Mafia Don.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335819/Double-dealing-tyrant-s-sabotaging-West-s-battle-crush-ISIS-Turkey-s-Erdogan-doing-cripple-forces-actually-fighting-ISIS-writes-MICHAEL-BURLEIGH.html
It tells us the Turkish Army is around 500,000 strong.
Yesterday, I here of two prominent Turkish Journalists were arrested, charged with espionage, and helping a terror organisation, (a US based opposition group to Erdogan) when in fact what they did was expose government cooperation and aid to ISIS.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/two-journalists-arrested-for-story-on-intelligence-trucks-bound-for-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=91722&NewsCatID=339
Greyblades
11-28-2015, 12:36
That is this strange "schizophrenia": Putin will invade all the world, but Putin can't attack even Georgia as his armies are made of tin foiled tanks/planes/whatever manned by drunken crews...
And they believed both proposals...
Eh. Either russia would fail to beat the turkish army or they win but end up in another afghanistan.
Gilrandir
11-28-2015, 15:17
That is this strange "schizophrenia": Putin will invade all the world, but Putin can't attack even Georgia as his armies are made of tin foiled tanks/planes/whatever manned by drunken crews...
And they believed both proposals...
If you mean my comment, then you again misread it. I said of zero likelihood for Russians TO BE LET THROUGH Georgia. I don't doubt Russia can FIGHT ITS WAY through Georgia and win. But it will mean fighting one enemy to create a landbridge to fight another. Too much fighting OPENLY. Putin will do things in his favorite surreptitious mean way. Perhaps we will soon hear of oppressed Armenians, their Orthodox brethren, living amid bloodthirsty Nazi Turks and calling on Putin the Deliverer to free them from the yoke.
If you mean my comment, then you again misread it.
At least as far as I'm concerned, these arguments come more from the direction of our two resident doomsday posters who can't wait to die in a glorious explosion in WW3, PFFF and ICPFFF (obviously I don't want to spell either ~;) ).
"If you mean my comment, then you again misread it" Nope, wasn't yours. A bit like Husar, but not really aimed at someone in particular... But you probably remember some comments about Russian being drunk and their armies crap. And as well some comments Russia was massing troops at the borders reading to take Berlin...
"First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin"
https://youtu.be/JTTC_fD598A
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-29-2015, 05:02
That was my point, most of these tanks are still in service in EU countries: Spain, Poland, Sweden, Greece...
Add to that the British tanks, the Italian ones, the French Leclercs, the Polish Twardys and you're seriously going to argue that attacking the EU is easier than Turkey? Or did you just forget how we started this argument? We didn't even get to the Air Forces and other assets yet...
Tanks in Greece do you no good if Russia invades Germany - by the time you can transfer the tanks between fronts the Russians are through the Gap. By contrast Turkey has 3,000 tanks in Anatolia.
These T-80s can take on all of these Turkish tanks, especially upgraded T-80s that are more modern than pretty much all the active tanks Turkey has.
If Russia deployed all it's T-80 tanks it could probably beat Turkey, but that means stripping a lot of its garrisons and Russia is unlike to do that. Like the Turks Russia would be likely to use a mix of older and newer tanks. Turks are reputed to be good tankmen and if you're invading Anatolia it can be hell on Earth, like Russia itself.
I never said they're going to invade, I said it's strange how people used to say Putin is coming for Europe and now even Turkey is too much for him...
The amount of armour in German is between 1/4 and 1/5 of what's in Germany including all German, British and American formations. the German army has recieved a reputation in recent years for being demoralised and overweight, while the UK army today has very low morale due to constant cutting of men and fun stuff like tanks.
Even so, nobody was saying that Putin would invade NATO/the EU but that we would struggle to stop him from annexing parts of EU countries because of our unwilingness to fight. You don't want to fight - you've openly said that in the event of war you'll run away and hide.
Me, I know I'm of draftable age and if the proverbial hits the air circulation mechanism I'm going to end up in the Green. So I'd prefer SigInt or failing that Artillery because I might actually be not-terrible at those.
I don't want to fight, thanks, but I'm perfectly willing to if required.
Tanks in Greece do you no good if Russia invades Germany - by the time you can transfer the tanks between fronts the Russians are through the Gap. By contrast Turkey has 3,000 tanks in Anatolia.
Germany and Greece are not the only countries in the EU.
If Russia deployed all it's T-80 tanks it could probably beat Turkey, but that means stripping a lot of its garrisons and Russia is unlike to do that. Like the Turks Russia would be likely to use a mix of older and newer tanks. Turks are reputed to be good tankmen and if you're invading Anatolia it can be hell on Earth, like Russia itself.
Good for them.
The amount of armour in German is between 1/4 and 1/5 of what's in Germany including all German, British and American formations.
¿Qué?
the German army has recieved a reputation in recent years for being demoralised and overweight, while the UK army today has very low morale due to constant cutting of men and fun stuff like tanks.
And the Russians are all drunk, so I guess we're even.
Even so, nobody was saying that Putin would invade NATO/the EU but that we would struggle to stop him from annexing parts of EU countries because of our unwilingness to fight.
I'm pretty sure that you or someone else talked about that it may be better to strike against Russia now before Putin comes or something like that back in the Ukraine thread.
You don't want to fight - you've openly said that in the event of war you'll run away and hide.
Yes, it depends on the circumstances as well, but especially if it is a war over something I consider a stupid political event where "my side" may even be to blame for the escalation.
I don't want to fight, thanks, but I'm perfectly willing to if required.
Define "required" in this context.
"Germany and Greece are not the only countries in the EU." Is it not the Greece made of overpaid lazy greedy tax dodgers we speak about here? The one who should have been expel from EU?
Well, apparently the French, Spanish, Italian and others are not in Europe, or perhaps not considered as forces...
Breaking news.
Fateh Halab (Conquest of Aleppo) is a member of the Free Syrian Army, an organisation with a media-friendly name that conquers cities very moderately. They are also allies of the West and today they claimed that , after heroic and intense fighting, they manage to... conquer the villages of Kashtar and Taneb. From whom?
Not from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Not from the Syrian Army.
Not from Al-Qaeda.
Not from the Lebanese, the Iranians, the Israelis or the Turks.
From the Kurds? Well, not exactly.
They captured them from the equally moderate Syrian Democratic Forces, a new moderate coalition between Arabs and Kurds, an ally of the West, with the task of liberating Syria and giving the media a new catchy name, to replace the exhausted FSA.
So, whom are we supposed to attack and whom to arm? The Free or the Democratic guys? Who are the terrorists and who the partisans, for god's sake?!
Gilrandir
11-29-2015, 15:15
If Russia deployed all it's T-80 tanks it could probably beat Turkey, but that means stripping a lot of its garrisons and Russia is unlike to do that.
The key word here is "if". It doesn't explain HOW Russians are going to get their tanks in contacts with the Turks.
CrossLOPER
11-30-2015, 00:43
So, whom are we supposed to attack and whom to arm? The Free or the Democratic guys? Who are the terrorists and who the partisans, for god's sake?!
The freedomest ones.
Kralizec
12-01-2015, 02:02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_Turkish_Land_Forces#Vehicles
You mean all those modern Patton tanks would stop them for long?
Of course they would suffer serious casualties, even the Pattons are not a complete pushover, but I was comparing this to an evasion of the EU, so...
The bulk of Russia's armory consists of T-72 and T-80 tanks. Granted those are modernized and are not as crappy as some would believe, but the Patton tanks still used by Turkey and others have also been heavily pimped.
In a dick measuring contest between Turkey and Russia the latter would obviously win, but Putin isn't stupid and he's not going to attack a NATO country in retaliation for a single jet fighter. Even if Turkey wasn't a NATO member it would not be worth it. Things will stay flaccid.
Allthough if Turkey weren't a NATO member and got into a fight with Russia, I would not root for either of them. Both countries are run by complete scumbags. Most NATO countries dissaprove when al-Assad kills civilians, but Erdogan is bothered because most of those happen to be Sunni muslims, and more than a few Turkic.
I don't even understand anymore why the "Assad question" is discussed at all, or why people such as Hollande are so determined to get rid of him. I can understand the argument that a peace settlement with al-Assad remaining isn't workable because more than half of the country hates him, but at the same time it's clear that the Syrian state isn't going to collapse any time soon. Even now the Syrian state is still the biggest player in that quagmire and any sort of peace settlement will need its support. And by that I mean the support of the military and the bureaucracy, which is held together mostly by its loyalty to al-Assad and his family.
Montmorency
12-01-2015, 02:24
In a dick measuring contest between Turkey and Russia the latter would obviously win
Those of you who believe this seem to be looking at raw counts of available materiel and troops, which is rather stupid; for example, it suggests that the United States would have a good shot at conquering Russia.
War is not like a game of RISK, in which 8 chits against 5 chits by definition results in total victory for the former. Militaries have to cover actual ground to get to their enemy and their enemy's strategic places, unless you figure that wars are about to be fought entirely by Space Marines coming down on in drop-pods.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2015, 02:35
There's the question of quality of personnel, too.
Kralizec
12-01-2015, 02:53
Those of you who believe this seem to be looking at raw counts of available materiel and troops, which is rather stupid; for example, it suggests that the United States would have a good shot at conquering Russia.
War is not like a game of RISK, in which 8 chits against 5 chits by definition results in total victory for the former. Militaries have to cover actual ground to get to their enemy and their enemy's strategic places, unless you figure that wars are about to be fought entirely by Space Marines coming down on in drop-pods.
All true, an invasion/occupation wouldn't work. I didn't mean to imply so, but I guess my bit about tanks gave that impression.
What it boils down to: if the gloves where off, could Russia deter Turkey from interfering in Syria again and tolerate the occasional violation of its airspace? Assuming that NATO wouldn't intervene, yes they could.
Russia would simply pull their reserve aircraft out of storage and move them into position to attack Turkey. No need for land forces to cross any uninvolved countries. The quality of Russia's navy in the Black sea doesn't matter that much, either. Realisticly Russia doesn't want to resort to this, but Turkey wants it even less, because it couldn't fight them off.
EDIT: I don't think hypothetical dick contests are important though, because it's not going to happen anyway. You should all be glorifying the exalted ruler Assad and debate wether he should rule for 40 more years. Or not.
In all fairness pulling the reserve aircraft and bombing Turkey sounds bad too. Static defences will mean russian planes being shot down. An expensive endeavour for little gain. Bombing anything other than ragheads is pointless, unless you supplement it with a ground based invasion. Otherwise you're basically feeding jets to the enemy SAM sites.
Neither Russia nor Turkey have any interest whatsoever in an armed conflict. It's all just posturing.
Sarmatian
12-01-2015, 17:26
Syrian rebels in Homs strike a deal with the government to leave Homs. (http://news.yahoo.com/syria-deal-rebels-leave-last-homs-district-governor-131754086.html)
In the next two months the rebels will leave the last areas of Homs they were controlling, bringing the "capital of the revolution" fully under government control for the first time since the conflict erupted. The agreement also specifies that only the police, and not the army may enter that quarter of the city, and an exchange of prisoners will also follow.
Shaka_Khan
12-01-2015, 19:21
This was uploaded last year so I assume that the numbers would be higher now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WBbIA20eE4
Montmorency
12-01-2015, 19:32
Interesting video. At first I was confused about where (in the room) she was speaking from.
Those of you who believe this seem to be looking at raw counts of available materiel and troops, which is rather stupid; for example, it suggests that the United States would have a good shot at conquering Russia.
War is not like a game of RISK, in which 8 chits against 5 chits by definition results in total victory for the former. Militaries have to cover actual ground to get to their enemy and their enemy's strategic places, unless you figure that wars are about to be fought entirely by Space Marines coming down on in drop-pods.
Drop pods? Ekranoplans!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0UNvL37vo
Why attack over land if you have a sea-capable craft that can go >500km/h, can transport 1000 troops or several tanks and other vehicles/cargo and is invisible to radar? So no, they do not have to cover ground, they can also cover sea and air.
(that they don't really have any operational ones is beside the point, mind you!!!)
Or why don't you just land in Antalya like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRPwkCDuSUQ
You know I've been told by a lot of people, that you can achieve everything as long as you want it enough!
Your communist defeatism cannot infect me.
unless you figure that wars are about to be fought entirely by Space Marines coming down on in drop-pods.
It would be the Turks doing the drops, the Emperor is from Anatolia after all...
Sarmatian
12-01-2015, 22:11
Or why don't you just land in Antalya like this?
If I landed in Antalya, I couldn't be bothered to conquer Turkey. I'd just conquer the beach.
Just let your pretty serbian girlfriend take a walk through a turkish marketplace without supervision, then you'll want to remove kebab.
Gilrandir
12-02-2015, 14:26
Syrian rebels in Homs strike a deal with the government to leave Homs. (http://news.yahoo.com/syria-deal-rebels-leave-last-homs-district-governor-131754086.html)
In the next two months the rebels will leave the last areas of Homs they were controlling, bringing the "capital of the revolution" fully under government control for the first time since the conflict erupted. The agreement also specifies that only the police, and not the army may enter that quarter of the city, and an exchange of prisoners will also follow.
It means nothing. Two months is too long a time needed (I'm sure) by both sides for a respite. Remember the Minsk agreements. Such protracted agreements tend to be overlooked and violated at the most propitious moment by the side which deems itself ready. Especially if we know how quickly the situation can take a U-turn.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-03-2015, 01:53
It would be the Turks doing the drops, the Emperor is from Anatolia after all...
He doesn't wear purple, he's NOT the Emperor.
Greyblades
12-03-2015, 02:53
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/567/244/3ec.jpg
With so many interested parties having involvement in Syria, can't we all at least agree that whatever solution we come to, it's not going to be for the actual Syrians to decide on?
Preferred solutions:
America - like Kansas, but with more brown people. But can we have one of those democracies where there isn't any elections?
UK - er.. ok.. is Kansas anything like Surrey?
France - We want it just like it was in the 60s
Saudi - Tin pot Sunni dictator beholden to us please
Turkey - Don't care as long as it's stable and the north of the country is entirely uninhabited
Iran - Like Iraq, but without any Sunnis, or war, or like Iraq
Iraq - What he said, but said differently.
Israel - It will always be a threat to us, especially when it is either less or more of a threat
Gilrandir
12-06-2015, 15:01
It seems that ISIS is on the offensive in one more country:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article4633105.ece
And on Putin's successes in Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/opinion/02friedman.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-l-friedman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1
Sarmatian
12-07-2015, 11:03
US bombed (http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-led-isis-coalition-hits-a-syrian-army-camp-in-deir-ezzor-1-soldier-killed/) Syrian army camp.
This has the potential to get ugly. On purpose or a mistake?
Gilrandir
12-07-2015, 14:16
US bombed (http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-led-isis-coalition-hits-a-syrian-army-camp-in-deir-ezzor-1-soldier-killed/) Syrian army camp.
This has the potential to get ugly. On purpose or a mistake?
The same words were heard when the Crimea was annaexed or when the Russian bomber was brought down. Ugly will have to wait. For a couple hundred years.
US bombed (http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-led-isis-coalition-hits-a-syrian-army-camp-in-deir-ezzor-1-soldier-killed/) Syrian army camp.
This has the potential to get ugly. On purpose or a mistake?
I'd put my money on the latter. But really, can it get more uglier than it already is. Such a mess.
Gilrandir
12-07-2015, 17:34
But really, can it get more uglier than it already is.
Are you sure?
http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/12/06/russian-ships-flaunting-missiles-during-bosporus-strait-passing-is-provocation-fm-cavusoglu
Are you sure?
http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/12/06/russian-ships-flaunting-missiles-during-bosporus-strait-passing-is-provocation-fm-cavusoglu
of course I'm not sure, who is or can be
Kinda brilliant http://nieuws.tpo.nl/2015/12/08/video-syrische-strijdgroep-spaart-isis-gevangenen-na-nep-executie/ (vid)
Don't worry about watching the video, nothing ugly. IS isn't the only one who is good at making video's.
Greyblades
12-08-2015, 15:51
I think I get the general gist but I cant read dutch, what's going on?
I think I get the general gist but I cant read dutch, what's going on?
Fake execution
Sorry, should have posted explantion with it. These IS militants think they are going to be executed but they are just let go after they got a lecture. It's pretty brilliant imho. Instead of killing them they take of their bivak-masks and unchain their captives and just let them go unharmed. Nice act of chivalry imho.
Greyblades
12-08-2015, 17:36
Brilliant if it works. But it will be interesting to see how it plays out, I dont think we have much of a precident using that tactic on religious extremists.
We do got it, but I'm not sure about actually usiing it but there is nothing I would like about myself
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.