Printable View
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 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.
I assure you it's more thrilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Context.
Congrats, you failed the test.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
But you can console yourself with the knowledge that because you said it, everyone else passes by default.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
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.
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20...#ixzz3oAPdpgJQ
Abdulamir Abu Tin!
Would it not be better to focus on real life, rather then fantasizing about war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
Not in this venue.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Sounds lot more healthy. In such bouts no one hardly ever gets killed or maimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Already debunkedQuote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
You shouldn't listen to what propaganda tells you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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?
I won't post any texts, let's work with visual images.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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=xrKj...ctr=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?
You did too. A couple of sentences before:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The latter is disputable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
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/theobserv...e?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_...89%E2%80%9392)
:yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
+1Quote:
“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.”
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".
No, one just devolves to seeing women as sex objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Your irony meter is broken, you should get that checked.
Well, you said from the beginning that you would be fantasizing about porn stars, so it's there from the outset.Quote:
No, one just devolves to seeing women as sex objects.
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:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...om_Afghanistan
Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try.Quote:
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.
Another problem of yours is that you stubbornly disregard parts of messages you have no answer to. So let me quote myself:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?
Like I said: a color-blind person claims that there is no such a thing as red dawn just because he never saw one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
That isn't what he was arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So when you see a difference in appearence between a Chinese and a black it is racism? I applaud your value scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
However good they might have been considered, one can't deny the facts that I drew your attention to:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Russia claims it is at war EXCLUSIVELY with ISIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Legged it =/= won. Quite the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
So you have a blue Ford Focus and a red Ford Focus....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
What I'm saying is that your "Chinese" guy is actually Taiwanese, so you failed that one.
The only neighbouring country that could do that is Turkey, and it's a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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 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, the amount of ISIS held territory that is actually populated appears to be roughly equal to the amount of rebel held territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Yeah, they're pretty good at depopulating controlled territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Thought this was interesting: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-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.
1) You need to be aware how many population centers and strategic areas they are actually in control of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It is a big question if the airstrikes have been focusing more on rebels other than extremists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Well. perhaps the answer is why the USA & EU were keener to go for regime change than to fight ISIL. Geopolitic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
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?
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The fact that IS has been gaining rather than loosing ground in Syria after Russia started bombing should provide some clues.Quote:
So whom Putin is bombing?
"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.
Yes. I've seen no independent confirmation that IS is on the back foot anywhere in Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The rebels trained by the US aren't the only 'moderates' in Syria. Have never been.Quote:
"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.
Well, that settles it, with backing from Erdogan and Putin, ISIS is there to stay.
So you naturally assumed that the opposite must be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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?
Oh, please do share...Quote:
The rebels trained by the US aren't the only 'moderates' in Syria. Have never been.
Or, it could just possibly be based on the news item right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
When no news reports say that they are on the back foot, chances are it is because they are not on the back foot.Quote:
...how would you even know if they're on the back foot or not?
These seem pretty moderate..Quote:
Oh, please do share...
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.
Possibly, but not certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
There are plenty of news reports that do say that.Quote:
When no news reports say that they are on the back foot, chances are it is because they are not on the back foot.
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.
They also seem like they need a brain transplant.Quote:
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.Quote:
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
The sad thing is if they manage to get 5 in the next three years, that's a 25% increase in performance.
Well you can't have human conflict if all humans have been obliterated. Humans that are not named Assad, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
From where? RT? PressTV?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
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.
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:
http://news.yahoo.com/qaeda-syria-de...194745608.htmlQuote:
"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.
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.Quote:
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.
Btw, is this more or less 'moderate' than George W. Bush?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaraga...-mu#.ffG4YvwEvQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.Quote:
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:
That implies that they are attracting mercenaries.Quote:
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.
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.
Any group that wishes to create a shariah state is most certainly not a moderate.Quote:
Btw, is this more or less 'moderate' than George W. Bush?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaraga...-mu#.ffG4YvwEv
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Thus far, they do not appear to be attacking IS much at all. It'll be interesting to see when/if that changes.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
That implies that they are attracting mercenaries.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Any group that wishes to create a shariah state is most certainly not a moderate.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
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).Quote:
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.
Anyone trying to bring shariah laws to a secular country is an extremist.Quote:
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.
Maybe...Quote:
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 they don't have a strategy at all or their strategy is different from the one they espouse publicly.
How can anyone be talking about democracy and shariah law at the same time?Quote:
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.
If you don't know what to say, don't say anything. Just don't troll, please.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Social media :rolleyes:... You're having a laugh.
Categorically dismissing such evidence is silly. They are one small part of the toolkit.
That's in part because strong groups are forming: those with more resources cannibalise those with less.Quote:
If it were so, there would have already been a strong group formed already.
But does every islamist want to introduce sharia?Quote:
Anyone trying to bring shariah laws to a secular country is an extremist.
Indeed.Quote:
Maybe...
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?)Quote:
How can anyone be talking about democracy and shariah law at the same time?
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.
Do you honestly think that those things are comparable with full-scale introduction of shariah law? Your best defense of this isQuote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You are right. There is no perfect democracy. Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Maybe in some parallel reality this comment will make sense.Quote:
Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Absolutely.Quote:
But does every islamist want to introduce sharia?
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.Quote:
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.
"Moderate" rebel movements in Syria = myth. Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..Quote:
Absolutely.
Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.Quote:
rebel movements
Yeah, linking to an article written by someone who has been a Pulitzer finalist several times for coverage of the Middle East is probably no good idea.Quote:
Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!
So the definition of what qualifies as a "democracy" should be made more accessible? Does that mean that Russia is A-OK? Zimbabwe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
Just stop reading all kinds of weird things between the lines.Quote:
Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".
That's not crude, that's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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)
A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights. Slavery violates human rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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?
Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Like who?Quote:
If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..
They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.Quote:
Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.
Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Some democracies (claim to) do so; like liberal democracies.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
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?
Whether or not you should call such people 'moderates' or support them is a different question entirely.
That's something you'll find even with so-called professional reporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
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?Quote:
Like who?
Sources?Quote:
They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.
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).Quote:
Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I dispute the idea that modern usage of 'democracy' implies things like respect for 'human rights' (just look to the dictionaries), and I've also argued why such a definition is a really bad idea - regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
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.Quote:
Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
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.Quote:
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.
8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.Quote:
I'm having fun showing how clueless you are.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Well, I couldn't have done it before now, since I've just started doing it.Quote:
In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.
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?Quote:
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.
Viking is Robert Mugabe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.
You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.
http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855Quote:
Source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Buzzfeed article
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.Quote:
“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.”
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.
I'm southern European. Know your geography.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
1. Croatians are also former commiesQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.
1. If we can do it arbitrarily, I choose Mariana trenchQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.