Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

[spidergoat]

By the way, the territory will be ultimately controlled by the Syrian people, not the Russians.

Except for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus

Russia plans to expand its supply base in the Syrian port city of Tartus into a permanent naval base, Deputy Defence Minister Nikolai Pankov said on Monday, according to state news agency TASS.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/middleeast/russia-navy-base-tartus-syria/

 

[CptBork]

And another good news

Nice Borat accent there. "I am loyal German citizen, not ultranationalist Russian spy!"

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.

Ok great, vote for the platform you want enacted and the candidate who proposes it, and try not to be upset or surprised if you get what you voted for. Just don't be like Iceaura telling everyone that Donald Trump and the Republicans forced Bernie Sanders out of the race, unless there's some basic evidence of them tampering with Democratic primaries in Hillary's favour.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Schmetzer,
Is this the best Russia can do?

Something to be proud of yes?

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Schmetzer,
You do realize that all Russia is achieving in Aleppo is a greater consolidation of opposition towards Russian interests don't you?
every child killed generates another anti-Russian terrorist for the future...

 

[iceaura]

Just don't be like Iceaura telling everyone that Donald Trump and the Republicans forced Bernie Sanders out of the race, unless there's some basic evidence of them tampering with Democratic primaries in Hillary's favour.

Absolutely nowhere do I argue that the Republicans had any influence on the Democratic primary. Where do you get this stuff, and why can't you deal with the actual posting in front of your face?

Look at this list:

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

The point is, and has been, this:

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

And this inability of the rightwing and conservative in the US to recognize that specific pattern - their promotion of devils so great that almost any alternatives must be supported by the sane and responsible - seems to have been significant in getting the US caught in its current situation in Syria.

 

[spidergoat]

@Schmetzer,
You do realize that all Russia is achieving in Aleppo is a greater consolidation of opposition towards Russian interests don't you?
every child killed generates another anti-Russian terrorist for the future...

I don't believe for a minute in the argument that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists. But Russia is fighting for access to the Mediterranean. And for the principle that a dictator has a right to be authoritarian towards it's citizens, putting down modest political oppositions with deadly force.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't believe for a minute in the argument that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists.

Oh I agree however I was referring to innocent children and civilians being deliberately slaughtered (cleansed) that generates the hatred that goes on to create a terrorist.

The excuse that they are being used as human shields doesn't wash with me either. There is no rush to "cleanse' Aleppo other than the expediency that Putin or Assad may feel inclined to exercise. They could just simply stand down and wait for a better solution than doing what they are doing. No rush at all.

 

[Schmelzer]

Except for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus

Yes. Given that the US is known to attack other states for no reason at all, except that they don't behave as the US likes, it may be necessary for survival as a sovereign state to have such a base. We will see during the next time if this preserves Syria from an open US aggression or not, it is certainly not sure, Clinton may be insane enough to go to war with Russia.

@Schmetzer,
Is this the best Russia can do?

What Russia can do? You seem to forget that Aleppo is in a state of permanent war now already for more than 5 years. Russia participates only 1 year now.

You seem not to know that in the numbers of "civilians killed" by some Western propaganda sources the relation men to women is around 9:1. In a state of war, where many men are fighters, one would, among civilians, expect not the usual 1:1, but something different, say, 1:2 in favor of women, not? So, even if one takes the claimed numbers of "civilian" deads only, and corrects for obvious lie to count dead terrorists as dead civilians, down to a reasonable relation of civilian men:woman death counts, one obtains a quite reasonable relation of terrorists killed vs. civilians killed. Which is much better than the American record, say, for Dresden, Hiroshima, or Falludsha.

@Schmetzer,
You do realize that all Russia is achieving in Aleppo is a greater consolidation of opposition towards Russian interests don't you?
every child killed generates another anti-Russian terrorist for the future...

It depends very much on how you fight. If you fight like the Americans in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, yes, you create much more terrorists. As you can see, look at the results. If you fight like the Russians in Chechnya in the first Chechen war (time of pro-American Jeltzin rule), yes.

If you fight like Russians in the second Chechen war (Putin rule), you can see that the Chechens became strong supporters of the Russian state and Putin personally, and that Chechnya became the most safe region in the Causasus.

Oh I agree however I was referring to innocent children and civilians being deliberately slaughtered (cleansed) that generates the hatred that goes on to create a terrorist.

But this is not what happens in East Aleppo, except in joepistole-level anti-Russian propaganda. That's why I refer to you as a believer of low level war propaganda.

Russia is fighting for access to the Mediterranean. And for the principle that a dictator has a right to be authoritarian towards it's citizens, putting down modest political oppositions with deadly force.

Above is Western propaganda fantasy. Russia recognizes that Syria is transformed into a base for terrorism directed against Russia. There have been large amounts of Russian-speaking jihadist emigrants, from Russia as well as other former Soviet Union states, all ready to go back and fight there. Russia fights them in Syria. This is much cheaper and much less dangerous than fighting them in Russia or other neighbor states, already because they have, as foreigners, much less local support in Syria than at home.

Then, Putin as well as Assad have repeatedly said that they agree to free democratic elections. You want observers? No problem. It is the West who opposes free elections - the West wants to have the right to decide who can participate. In particular, the West insists that Assad should not participate. This is the main point of disagreement, because all sides know that if Assad participates in fair free elections, Assad will win them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is the main point of disagreement, because all sides know that if Assad participates in fair free elections, Assad will win them.

you might be correct given that most Syrians no longer reside in Syria and have escaped Assad's control or have been cleansed by him
Maybe a absentee postal vote? ( I think not)

 

[Schmelzer]

And here some new maps from Northern Aleppo:

The next days will be interesting, because there will be a change of the terrain where the fight is going on in the North. As one can see, up to now there were hills, quarries, industrial regions. Except for Handarat, which was heavily fortified over the years, and parts of Oweija. Now there will be living regions. This may change the situation.

The pessimistic view is that such regions may be much easier to defend, already because airforce as well as artillery is of much less help. The optimist view is that it becomes much easier to make small advances (take another house) and then to defend this advance. Moreover, there are no prepared lines of defense at that region in the North, simply because it was too far away from the front to prepare there a lot. Thus, advancing in the North will be much easier than in the other parts close to old fortified defense lines. Another point is that the terrorists will concentrate their forces not in the North, but in the South West, where they have yet reasonable hopes for breaking out.

Who is right? The next days will show. I would expect the speed of the advances will slow down, but there will nonetheless remain advances.

you might be correct given that most Syrians no longer reside in Syria and have escaped Assad's control or have been cleansed by him

Wrong. Most Syrian people continue to live in Syria, most internal refugees run away from the islamists and are today living in government-controlled regions. And the government controls the regions with the highest population density. Wike writes:

In what the UN has described as "the biggest humanitarian emergency of our era",[168] about 9.5 million Syrians, half the population, have been displaced since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in March 2011;[169] 4 million are outside the country as refugees.[170]

in comparison with a population 2014 of roughly 18 million.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So I gather you would agree Schmelzer,
this is the best Russia can do?

this is their best and only solution?

 

[Schmelzer]

So I gather you would agree Schmelzer,
this is the best Russia can do?

Already answered. This is what has been reached by the US during a 5 year war where it supported various islamist terrorists. What can be attributed to Assad alone you can see by looking at how Aleppo looked like before the terrorist attacks. What can be attributed to the US can be seen by looking how Aleppo looked like one year ago, before the Russians have started to act.

To identify in Syria something which can be clearly attributed to Russia alone is difficult. A better idea would be to compare with Grozny, which can be attributed to Russia alone:

What to compare with, so that it can be attributed to US alone? Hm, maybe Kunduz in Afghanistan:

Not fair? Above came under control of the Russian vs. US troops at comparable times, nothing can be attributed to airforce of a enemy, the main difference is the ability to handle a terrorist problem on the territory in question.

 

[Quantum Quack]

so yes it's the best Russia and Assad can do...

It is the best solution they can come up with....

 

[Quantum Quack]

What to compare with, so that it can be attributed to US alone?

Try Japan, Germany post ww2.
Try Manila in the Philippines...post ww2

So uhm is Russia going to pay to fix all that rubble once the fighting is over?
(it'll never end btw... as what happened in Afghanistan for Russia... )

 

[Schmelzer]

So, you appear unable to understand simple arguments, as evidenced by repeating three times the same stupid argument?

Try Japan, Germany post ww2.

Far too long ago. This was a quite different America at that time. And Japan and Germany were, of course, states where all one has to do to see them developing nicely was not to prevent it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

the main difference is the ability to handle a terrorist problem on the territory in question.

Do you know the difference between terrorism and revolution?
The reason for the revolution hasn't gone away in fact it is even more evident today. Do you seriously think that it will ever be over whilst Assad clings to power?

hint : how many refugees did you say had to evacuate Syria?

 

[iceaura]

Which is much better than the American record, say, for Dresden, Hiroshima, or Falludsha.

Uh, you are comparing the Russian involvement in Aleppo with WWII assaults against entire countries. The assumption there would be that Assad and Russia are going to war against the entire population of Syria. Is that what you meant to imply?

Your comparison with Fallujah would be more to the point, but even there the US was attacking - unforgivably, but still - the entire country. Russia is not supposed to be helping Assad attack Syria, is it?

 

[Schmelzer]

Do you know the difference between terrorism and revolution?

Yes. If you like it, you name it revolution, if you don't like it, you name it terrorism.

The reason for the revolution hasn't gone away in fact it is even more evident today. Do you seriously think that it will ever be over whilst Assad clings to power?

I agree. The reason for the "revolution" hasn't gone away, it sits in the US and Saudi Arabia. But I have, nonetheless, some hope that it will be over after some time. At least Saudi Arabia has quite big own problems in Yemen, so it may decide to stop to remain a reason for "revolution" in Syria.

Uh, you are comparing the Russian involvement in Aleppo with WWII assaults against entire countries. The assumption there would be that Assad and Russia are going to war against the entire population of Syria. Is that what you meant to imply?

No. I'm simple about the technique of carpet bombardments of civilians in big towns, with other military means to take them. This is a classical anglo-american technique. Russia has not used it, nor in WW II, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Chechnya. The Western propaganda is suggesting, at least in Germany openly claiming, that Russia/Syria use this technique in Aleppo. Which is a propaganda lie.

Your comparison with Fallujah would be more to the point, but even there the US was attacking - unforgivably, but still - the entire country. Russia is not supposed to be helping Assad attack Syria, is it?

No, Falludsha played not a big role at all in the war itself. Falludsha became famous for another operation, at 2004, one against terrorists, with full agreement of the Iraq government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre

 

[iceaura]

No. I'm simple about the technique of carpet bombardments of civilians in big towns, with other military means to take them. This is a classical anglo-american technique.

"Carpet bombing" of big towns was used by some Western military forces that have the necessary air forces when attacking entire countries and entire populations. As in WWII.

It has also been used against civilian populations of individual subpopulations in rebellion, within a country, not by the US but by Franco's Spain, Saddam's Iraq, maybe a couple of others. What's going on in Aleppo looks like that.

It's odd to find you comparing Russia's and Syria's bombing of Aleppo with something like Dresden or Hiroshima - The implication is that Russia and Assad are at war with the entire country.

No, Falludsha played not a big role at all in the war itself. Falludsha became famous for another operation, at 2004, one against terrorists, with full agreement of the Iraq government.

Iraq had no legitimate government at the time. The Sunni revolt was hardly "terrorists" - they were targeting armed military forces in combat zones, and a fair number of the combatants were military soldiers and military personnel from Saddam's army. The ordinary term would be "partisan" or "guerrilla".

Are you comparing the US atrocity in Fallujah with the Russian atrocities in Syria? Because the implication would be that the Russian role in Syria is comparable with the American role in Iraq - something I think Putin would rather deny.

 

[Schmelzer]

"Carpet bombing" of big towns was used by some Western military forces ... What's going on in Aleppo looks like that.

No. How it is presented in Western media sounds like that. This is a big difference.

It's odd to find you comparing Russia's and Syria's bombing of Aleppo with something like Dresden or Hiroshima - The implication is that Russia and Assad are at war with the entire country.

To compare makes sense to show the differences. The point is to compare the number of civilian deaths and their relation to deaths of fighters in Dresden and Aleppo. Once you have done it, you understand that there is a big difference between the two cases, namely that between terrorist carpet bombing and a reasonable use of aircraft and artillery to support fighters on the ground.

Of course, a lot of stupid people seem to think that the only point of a comparison is something like a claim "that's the same". So one can often read "you should not compare X with Y, they are very different". As if it would make sense to compare things which are not different. You seem to follow the same error, thinking that by comparing them I somehow want to say "this is the same":

Are you comparing the US atrocity in Fallujah with the Russian atrocities in Syria? Because the implication would be that the Russian role in Syria is comparable with the American role in Iraq - something I think Putin would rather deny.

No, this is not the implication of a comparison. The point of comparing different things is to get a better understanding of the similarities as well as the differences. And it should be obvious to you that my emphasis was on the differences. As well, it is not at all about the many things which are also different but irrelevant in the context. The context was a purely military one: You have a military situation, namely a town controlled by the enemy, and now the problem is what to do to change this, how to fight this enemy. Everything else is irrelevant.

Iraq had no legitimate government at the time.

Ok, it was only an Interim government, preparing elections, a constitution and so on. But, irrelevant in this context, see above.

The Sunni revolt was hardly "terrorists" - they were targeting armed military forces in combat zones, and a fair number of the combatants were military soldiers and military personnel from Saddam's army. The ordinary term would be "partisan" or "guerrilla".

No problem. The comparison was about the military techniques used, not about the ideological classification. The military situation was comparable.

Anyway, news from Aleppo: Mistura's idea to evacuate the terrorists from Aleppo, even if, afaik, it was rejected by Al Qaeda, seems not completely hopeless. It seems, there have been found some factions of the terrorists ready to use this possibility. At least https://sputniknews.com/world/201610151046365764-un-aleppo-mistura-arrival/ claims that in Bustan al Qasr there is already such an operation ongoing, even with busses already nearby.

Another news is also a little unexpected for me, I have guessed that the main operation would be a continuation of the operation from the North. But actually the news come from the East. Starting from the airport, which is government-controlled East of Aleppo, the Syrian army is advancing West and North-West. North-West of the airport, the region al-Ard al-Hamra has been cleared, in the West, they have advanced some 200 m. This may not be important, it may be simply an attempt to check the weak points in the terrorists defenses. But there may be more behind this.

First of all, it may be a preference to take, at first, what can be taken without endangering civilian population too much. Last but not least, in the suburbs the population density is lower, so a suburbs first strategy would protect civilians. Then, this may be an attempt to split the terrorist-controlled region into parts. Last but not least, as in the Western direction, as in the North-Western direction from the airport one would have to advance only around 2-2,5 km to cut it. This would be two weeks of the same 200 m per day. Such an attempt to cut would clearly make sense - once there is anyway no hope to break out in the North, the terrorists would not have much motivation to remain in the North once there appears a danger of a cut, thus, it may be that they simply give up the Northern part without much resistance.