Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

[CptBork]

I can link you to liberal and lefty blogs full of such analysis going back ten years or more, if you like. Usually it's asked in the other direction: why do those guys keep voting for the politicians who keep doing them wrong over and over?

Obviously I never claimed to be some political genius with unprecedented proposals for radical change, and it's always a pleasure to find others with far greater credentials than myself independently arriving at virtually identical conclusions. That having been said, both liberals and conservatives are guilty on this count, voting for politicians as if they have no options other than making deals with lesser devils.

At any rate, in Syria the US had better not do the same thing as created the mess, over and over.

I think the US is light years away from repeating the kind of action it took against Saddam Hussein under any imaginable scenarios, if that's your concern. In any case, my proposals for action all begin with economics and the presumption that America's enemies depend on access to American-allied markets far more than America depends on theirs, and I also believe that any form of military action is ultimately useless in any case without accompanying economic action to prevent military targets from replenishing their losses.

 

[iceaura]

Obviously I never claimed to be some political genius with unprecedented proposals for radical change, and it's always a pleasure to find others with far greater credentials than myself independently arriving at virtually identical conclusions.

That's not the point. The point is that such "conclusions" were obvious, and standard, and taken for granted among entire political factions, twenty years ago. It's not a conclusion that these people are "arriving at".

So it's not a matter of political genius. It's a matter of which side you've been on, and are on. Or as the bloggers put it, it's a bit late for "conservatives" to be noticing that the Republican Party is full of Republicans.

Remember the scene in Braveheart when Sugartits Gibson's character traps the King's men in the barn they were ambushing him from, and burns it? The uncharitable among the Left wish we had a barn for the fleeing rats of the Grand O'Trump Party. Or a tattoo we could put on their faces. Something to prevent them from disavowing the Donald they made.

That having been said, both liberals and conservatives are guilty on this count, voting for politicians as if they have no options other than making deals with lesser devils.

There is no equivalence, and it's misleading to speak as if there were one.

The conservatives have been providing the greater devils, and forcing the lesser devil deals. That is a different level of guilt.

I think the US is light years away from repeating the kind of action it took against Saddam Hussein under any imaginable scenarios, if that's your concern.

My concern is a continuation of the kinds of interventions I linked, under W, that created and exacerbated this mess. And they are on the table.

As far as organizing economic sanctions against Russia - we've described elsewhere the dangers of creating an alliance among the various parties currently standing to benefit from a weaker US in the Middle East, and forcing bystanders to choose. Even if China doesn't take the opportunity, it's dangerous. Extreme care and foresight would be essential.

"So far all humanitarian help, regardless of source or transparency has been prevented by the Russians and Syrian government. Meanwhile, the Russians as well as the Syrians have targeted hospitals and the like."
Nonsense. This is simply what the propaganda sells, nothing serious.

Doctors Without Borders is a propaganda outfit? https://thinkprogress.org/four-hosp...hout-borders-facility-9e7018591dec#.rukbxgr9q
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/syria-civil-war-daraya-hospital-bombed-160819101838839.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/middleeast/syria-save-the-children-hospital/
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...pital-bombing-are-the-rules-of-war-blowing-up

 

[Schmelzer]

Feel free to believe the Al Qaeda propaganda section named "White Helmets". http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...d-runs-towards-camera-43-staged-pictures.html http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...helmets-shtick-fake-child-rescued-videos.html

In general, I would not exclude that sometimes hospitals are hit. War is war, and such things happen. But there have been simply too much faked hits. So, there was a moment where I have decided not to care anymore about bombed hospital claims. The reason is quite simple: It would be too much work to verify such claims, and without such checks the probability is too big to believe a fake.

Of course, MSF would be the most reliable organization from the Western side. But most reliable does not mean reliable too for me anymore.

 

[iceaura]

Feel free to believe the Al Qaeda propaganda section named "White Helmets". http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...d-runs-towards-camera-43-staged-pictures.html http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...helmets-shtick-fake-child-rescued-videos.html

I don't get much of my info from videos at all, and I've never seen any of the videos you post until you post them. You need to lay off the video feeds - you have no defense against that shit.

What's your point - that the hospital bombings in Syria were staged? Fake explosions, fake dead doctors and nurses, fake rubble where there never was a hospital? Yesterday's appeal from Doctors Without Borders for more doctors for the Russian targeted areas of Syria is part of a disinformation campaign?

 

[Schmelzer]

There have been many different fakes. Bombed hospitals in villages where has never been any hospital, fake bombings of existing hospitals, where some hits of nearby buildings have been sold as hits of the hospital, wrong timing (hospitals destroyed already long time ago but now sold as destoyed by the Russians). It was a case of hospitals claimed to exist in villages where never has been a hospital which has caused my decision no longer to care about such hospital bombings at all. Or the last case of Kerry's claim of a hospital bombing where even the US was unable to support this with any details. This is what I have seen evidence for.

There is, of course, no such animal as "the hospital bombings". There are lots of claims of hospital bombings, and a lot of them are fakes. Almost certainly some White Helmets involved means fake. Some may be real cases. If MSF makes such claims, it would be a reason to look more careful. In this case, one would have to start the next round of questions: Who was it? There is, for example, in Idlib a lot of infighting between various terror groups, so simply saying the area was controlled by terrorists, thus, Russia or Syria was it is not sufficient. Azaz was also target for Kurds as well as Daesh. Then, there is the possibility of collateral damage given that terrorists have done something in the environment or from the hospital itself, and the possibility that nobody on Russian/Syrian side has known that there is a working hospital.

Feel free to research this. But, sorry, this is not my job. I have seen enough fakes to decide not to believe them all. The point is, the Russians are very well aware about what the Western propaganda does in the informational war if they would really hit a hospital. So, they care a lot not to hit them. And they have the ability to do this. The Syrians have the same interest, but less precise weapons, so even if they don't want to, the probability that they will sometimes hit them will be greater.

Note also that the decision that all the hospital bombings are with high probability fakes I have made at a time when the strategic situation was quite clear: The Russian side has bombed far away from the front only special known targets with high precision, and supported attacks by the Syrian army, which has attacked essentially preferably hills, and then mainly small villages. Thus, regions where you usually do not find hospitals at all. Despite this, the Western media were already full of hospital bombings.

In Aleppo, the Western propaganda has another problem, they have too often cried about the last hospital been already destroyed. Somewhere a guy has found evidence about the increasing number of doctors in Aleppo: One guy has posted "only x doctors remaining in Aleppo", a day later another one "only y doctors left in Aleppo", with x < y.

 

[iceaura]

There have been many different fakes. Bombed hospitals in villages where has never been any hospital, fake bombings of existing hospitals, where some hits of nearby buildings have been sold as hits of the hospital, wrong timing (hospitals destroyed already long time ago but now sold as destoyed by the Russians). It was a case of hospitals claimed to exist in villages where never has been a hospital which has caused my decision no longer to care about such hospital bombings at all.

Unless you are claiming that they are all fakes, including the deaths and shortages of medical care we have from Doctors Without Borders and similar organizations, you don't seem to be saying anything of relevance.

The Russians and Syrians have bombed hospitals. This is consistent with both Russian and Syrian past behavior.

Feel free to research this. But, sorry, this is not my job.

It is if you want to claim that the Russians and Syrians have not been bombing hospitals.

Note also that the decision that all the hospital bombings are with high probability fakes I have made at a time when the strategic situation was quite clear: The Russian side has bombed far away from the front only special known targets with high precision, and supported attacks by the Syrian army, which has attacked essentially preferably hills, and then mainly small villages. Thus, regions where you usually do not find hospitals at all.

When the Russians bomb only special known targets with high precision, and repeatedly hit hospitals, that's worse - not better. It's like when the Americans invading Iraq used high precision weapons and repeatedly hit the hotels in which journalists covering the war were staying.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So... uhm the West get's what it wants and Assad is no longer in power.. Putin seems to be instead... didn't see that coming did we...

 

[iceaura]

So... uhm the West get's what it wants and Assad is no longer in power.. Putin seems to be instead... didn't see that coming did we...

And the big winner from the Iraq War so far has been Iran.

Some of us (cough) did see that coming, though, and said so - score!

 

[Quantum Quack]

And the big winner from the Iraq War so far has been Iran.

Some of us (cough) did see that coming, though, and said so - score!

When oh when will we humans ever learn... 'There are NO winners when it comes to war'" Every one looses

 

[iceaura]

When oh when will we humans ever learn... 'There are NO winners when it comes to war'" Every one looses

Loses. But in Iran's case, the war came to them - their losses were a given, not of their own cause or invitation. With that as the base, "winning" becomes a relative assessment.

Iran is better off now than it was when the Iraq War was launched. Nobody else involved can say that.

 

[Schmelzer]

Unless you are claiming that they are all fakes, including the deaths and shortages of medical care we have from Doctors Without Borders and similar organizations, you don't seem to be saying anything of relevance.

Feel free to consider this as irrelevant.

To take claims of bombed hospitals seriously, after the long list of fakes, I require extraordinary evidence. I don't have to prove that Russians and Syrians have not been bombing hospitals, because such a proof is impossible in principle. Once you claim it, you have to prove it, and, given that Western resources are already discredited, this will be a very difficult job, close to impossible.
Of course, for joepistole any claim of SOHR is sufficient evidence.
Your criteria seem to be something between, with complete trust of MSF or so. So we can agree here to disagree.

When the Russians bomb only special known targets with high precision, and repeatedly hit hospitals, that's worse - not better.

Indeed. The point is that I don't believe that they have. As I said, it may be plausible that the Syrians sometimes hit hospitals, because they have less precise weapons, thus, one has to expect more collateral damage.

Whatever, today was a good day for Syria, with progress at several places. In West Ghouta, some Air Battalion Base has been taken. In Northern Hama, the village, or small town, Maan. It can be seen on the map in #181. The village Kawkab has been taken already before.

In the North of Aleppo, several hills have been taken, including the most important one which until now remained under terrorist control, Tal Al-Asfar. It can be seen named at #167. The following map does not seem completely actual, but to describe the situation in the morning, before the capture, or even of yesterday:

 

[Schmelzer]

Here a variant, which seems more accurate about the actual situation. The differences between the two maps are also a nice illustration about the inaccuracies one has to expect in general: Essentially, these maps are made by laymen based on the information they find in the net.

so it makes sense to compare different maps to see the uncertainties.

 

[Yazata]

ISIS appears to be pulling its forces out of the increasingly encircled salient north of Dabiq and east of Azaz.

http://www.edmaps.com/Syria_Battle_for_Azaz_AlBab_October_12.png

 

[CptBork]

There is no equivalence, and it's misleading to speak as if there were one.

The conservatives have been providing the greater devils, and forcing the lesser devil deals. That is a different level of guilt.

Are you speaking for American conservatives, or international conservatives in general? I'll have you know there's nothing fundamentally evil about free markets, you yourself appear unable to live without them. I'm against trading with labour-exploiting, free-polluting dictatorships, but that kind of trade isn't "free" anyhow since it involves slavery similar to that employed in pre-Civil War America.

As far as America is concerned, the latter part of your assertion is utterly ridiculously and a perfect example of how self-righteous people from both the right and left wings are responsible for undermining Western democracy and competent government. No Republican on Earth has the power to force you or your "liberal" friends to vote for Hillary Clinton or to have enabled her rise to this level in lieu of far more qualified candidates. Your vote counts, and you can't complain about getting whatever result you voted for when that candidate happens to win.

 

[iceaura]

Are you speaking for American conservatives, or international conservatives in general? I'll have you know there's nothing fundamentally evil about free markets, you yourself appear unable to live without them

The ones I know about are the American ones. I would imagine the specific stances of a genuine conservative would vary by culture - a conservative Saudi would lean toward traditional polygamy, for example, and a conservative Polynesian toward traditionally arranged promiscuity for his teenage daughter, and that would be different from the preferences of a conservative American.

Free markets of course have nothing to do with "conservative" politics so called, one way or the other. US liberals have long favored free markets in most situations - US "neo" liberals have been known to make something of a fetish of them.

As far as America is concerned, the latter part of your assertion is utterly ridiculously and a perfect example of how self-righteous people from both the right and left wings are responsible for undermining Western democracy and competent government. No Republican on Earth has the power to force you or your "liberal" friends to vote for Hillary Clinton or to have enabled her rise to this level in lieu of far more qualified candidates.

On the contrary, they do have the ability - most splendidly illustrated as we speak - to force a "lesser devil" deal upon me a few weeks from now: a vote for Hillary Clinton, the first of my life, and something I swore I would never do, 13 years ago.

And this is far from the first time this pattern has played out. Finding oneself trapped in lesser evil choices by having the American authoritarian corporate Right, self-styled "conservatives", put up a significantly greater evil as the alternative, is as common as not these past few decades.

We see it in Syria, where all the choices available to Americans are some degree of evil, thanks primarily to the policies and behavior of the W&Cheney administration.

Thank you all so very much.

 

[CptBork]

On the contrary, they do have the ability - most splendidly illustrated as we speak - to force a "lesser devil" deal upon me a few weeks from now: a vote for Hillary Clinton, the first of my life, and something I swore I would never do, 13 years ago.

Donald Trump has single-handedly forced you to vote for a politician you despise; what is he, your babysitter? You had a chance to vote at the primaries, you could choose to sit this one out, you could pencil in some longshot candidate's name and put them on the map for the next go-around. The election hasn't even happened yet, no one's voted, but you've already decided you're going to throw your vote away on a woman you swore for years to never touch with a ten foot pole and it's all the fault of Donald Trump and the Republican party? I'm missing something here, did the Republicans pick Hillary to run the Dems or what?

And this is far from the first time this pattern has played out.

LolWhut? Oh so this isn't the first time you've thrown your vote away, it keeps getting snatched from you every time just a few months before the big show. Dang, them vote snatchers sure are pesky creatures, and then as if that ain't enough, they gotta go enact all that crazy stuff you voted for too.

Finding oneself trapped in lesser evil choices by having the American authoritarian corporate Right, self-styled "conservatives", put up a significantly greater evil as the alternative, is as common as not these past few decades.

So then if so many Americans like you are so upset about having such terrible choices in your 18th century two-party horse messenger democracy, why have you sat around all these decades complaining instead of starting a grassroots movement to change the game and recruit an overwhelming majority to support it? In the meantime, you always do have this thing called Congress which can act as a check on your president and was originally intended to have just such a purpose when necessary, and the variety of candidates available at that level is at least slightly more representative of the national demographics. If you don't let Hillary Clinton have entitlement over your vote and Trump wins on 30% of the national vote with a majority splitting amongst other candidates or abstaining, I believe Congress can still impeach him before he's even taken his first piss on the White House lawn.

We see it in Syria, where all the choices available to Americans are some degree of evil, thanks primarily to the policies and behavior of the W&Cheney administration.

Because we all know massively violent revolutions and suppressions have never happened before in modern Syria, and there was never a massive ethnic disparity in the demographic representation of the government, army and all positions and privileges trickling down thereafter. This war was the stock market bubble that should never have been popped, 'til George W. came along and gave Facebook to all their protesters.

Thank you all so very much.

They thank you back for handing them your vote.

 

[iceaura]

Donald Trump has single-handedly forced you to vote for a politician you despise; what is he, your babysitter?

Not Donald: the Republican core voter and Party.

He's a monstrous threat, that forces a lesser evil choice. And yes, they are the ones making that threat.

The election hasn't even happened yet, no one's voted, but you've already decided you're going to throw your vote away on a woman you swore for years to never touch with a ten foot pole and it's all the fault of Donald Trump and the Republican party?

Of course. The Republican Party and its electoral core, though - not Donald - he's not his own fault.

So then if so many Americans like you are so upset about having such terrible choices in your 18th century two-party horse messenger democracy, why have you sat around all these decades complaining instead of starting a grassroots movement to change the game and recruit an overwhelming majority to support it?

Now what ? Look, the claim was a simple one: the people who force a lesser devil choice on the unwilling, by presenting and backing and making a real threat of a greater devil, are to blame for doing that. Their guilt is on a different level from the guilt of those who do not threaten with greater devils.

If you don't let Hillary Clinton have entitlement over your vote and Trump wins on 30% of the national vote with a majority splitting amongst other candidates or abstaining, I believe Congress can still impeach him before he's even taken his first piss on the White House lawn.

1) I can't vote for "Congress", and 2) that situation is among the great threats I am forced to choose lesser devil Clinton to try to stave off.

Because we all know massively violent revolutions and suppressions have never happened before in modern Syria, and there was never a massive ethnic disparity in the demographic representation of the government, army and all positions and privileges trickling down thereafter.

The question was not whether Syria was a bad scene, but whether America had - at one time - good options for involvement. We don't any more. They are all bad to some degree, nothing but lesser evil choices are available. That is due to W&Cheney's policies and behaviors.

 

[Schmelzer]

Back from off-topic to Syria, a map from West Ghouta:

and here one of Hama. The green lines are: The starting position before the great Hama offensive of the terrorists (with the aim to occupy Hama), and the line of their greatest advance. So one can see that there is yet a lot to do of recovering toward the state before the offensive. But this is explainable - Aleppo was clearly much more important, therefore the only aim of the loyalists was not to loose Hama itself.

And yet another map from Aleppo:

 

[Schmelzer]

This day is also a good one for Syria.

First of all, the Hamah and Qudsiyah suburbs of Damascus are now under government control, after the successful realization of a peace agreement. Some 1,200 people, Islamist rebels and their families, have been transported toward the terrorist-controlled region of Idlib. The majority remained at home and has accepted Syrian army. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-surrender-two-major-suburbs-damascus-syrian-army/

Then, in West Ghouta the town Der Khabeyah has been taken by the Syrian army. So, this will probably lead to a split of that enclave into two parts, one around Khan Al-Sheih in the West of it, and another one around Zakiyah.

There are also claims about advantages in the Northern suburbs of Aleppo. In particular, the region of the Majbal Sawmills is completely cleared, other claims are that Al Manasher is under SAA control, Yusha Yusef https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/786999957979013122 claims that "Syrian Army & Lewaa alquds advance now into Baabdin Square"

whatever "advance into" may mean.

And another good news: There is a water station for Aleppo in Suleiman Al Chalabi, near the border. There has been a lot of fighting around it during the last week, but I have not even seen a final claim that it is completely controlled by the Syrian army. But today there is the news that the pumps have been started to work, so that in short time there will be, again, water in Aleppo.

 

[spidergoat]

why have you sat around all these decades complaining instead of starting a grassroots movement to change the game and recruit an overwhelming majority to support it?

It takes time. Bernie almost won, a Democratic Socialist! If I can't have Bernie, I at least want Trump to lose, he's much worse than Clinton in almost every measurable way.