Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

[iceaura]

If Russia wants to take on responsibility for imposing some order on Syria, I say more power to them. It's in the US, European and Australian interest.

One of my bigger concerns at the moment is the influence that Hezbollah and Iran are gaining over Syria. (When Schmelzer refers to the rebels as "terrorists", we mustn't forget that Assad employs terrorists on his side too.) Syria devolving into an Iranian client state, or playing host to a Hezbollah state-within-a-state (like there already is in Lebanon) is not in the US interest. So if increased Russian influence in Syria serves to reduce Iranian and Hezbollah influence, if Syria becoming a Russian client prevents it from becoming an full fledged Iranian client, then that's a net good in my opinion.

I think that the United States should probably seek ways to cooperate with Russia in Syria.

What's the actual objection to the US cooperating with Iran instead of Russia, in Syria? The US needs to begin rapprochement with Iran, and Iran is in a better position to bring order to Syria than Russia is.

 

[Schmelzer]

Their use of these sorts of weapons has been corroborated by Médecins Sans Frontières, after their hospital was shelled by Assad's forces, resulting in the same type of injuries, in the Hama region.
Or do you think that Médecins Sans Frontières is also an unreliable propaganda source?

A hospital supported by MSF is not their hospital. They support some hospital, and then redistribute some claims made by those in the hospital. So, this is not MSF itself, but second hand. I see no reason to trust such second hand reports simply because MSF distributes them.

Do you approve of the use of chemical weapons in warfare?

No.

Your lack of objectivity has resulted in every source that reports on the realities of this war being propaganda, because it does not fit into the narrative of what you wish to report. So when you report on the greatness of villages being taken, you refuse to acknowledge the loss of civilian life, and you instead seem to infer that those killed are terrorists. They are not all terrorists. Many of them are literally men, women and children, caught up in an impossibly deadly conflict, where the use of chemical weapons has now become the norm. But you just seem to prefer to refer to all the dead as 'terrorists'.

False. I refuse to report information where I have no ways to verify them independently, and which are known to be heavily distorted in all wars for propaganda reasons. That's all. The question is not if the information about these questions comes from a side I support or from the side of my enemies, I do not distribute them all. With the only exception of such information distributed by the side who is guilty of them. Say, the information of the headcutting of the palestinensian boy distributed on the video of the Zinki gang itself.

Chemical attacks on civilians should be deplored, regardless of who uses it. You seem to refuse to even believe it is happening, referring to all who report on their use as being 'pro Western propaganda'. Despite their use being corroborated by organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières, but also flagged by Human Rights Watch, for their use of it in Aleppo late last year.

Yes, in case of chemical weapons the simple question cui bono gives an answer. Assad knows very well what the West would make in the propaganda out of use of chemical weapons by Assad. On the other hand, it gives no advantage to use them. So, it would be extremely stupid to use them. Instead, fake chemical weapon attacks give the, hm, islamists a large advantage in the propaganda war. If you think MSF or HRW are beyond any doubt, ok, your choice. They are Western organizations, so, in no way neutral.

Let's look at your refusal to provide any information on casualties. It's actually quite obvious. If you were to provide information on casualties, you would be forced to recognise the use of illegal weapons against civilians. Which is why your posts read like propaganda. You refuse to acknowledge civilian loss because you choose to paint the casualties as being terrorists. So these villages are "liberated" from the terrorists, inferring those who died are terrorists, ignoring civilian casualties, which again, perpetuates the myth that all who oppose Assad are terrorists.

Wrong. If I would provide information about casualties, I would be forced to make decisions about which sources give reliable information about casualties and which sources cannot be trusted. It is quite clear that you will trust different sources, given that you have quoted SOHR. So, you would name all my sources Russian or Syrian state propaganda sources, I would name your sources NATO propaganda sources, and that would be predictably all.

You do this anyway, but actually your accusations are unproblematic for me, because you do not even provide your sources telling anything different about the actual frontlines. So, here we have my information vs. no information. That's sufficiently comfortable for me. I don't plan to start discussions where I would be on roughly equal foot with NATO propagandists, for the simple reason that I have no means which I can present here to prove that my sources are more reliable than NATO sources. All I would be able to do would be to prove that some NATO sources are unreliable. Say, your SOHR with its policy to count as civilians all those who are not soldiers or defected soldiers.

 

[Schmelzer]

Then you aren't a libertarian. The people of Syria want free elections. Those supported by the Assad regime, obviously do not, as they stand to gain from the Assad regime. But the rest of the population want free elections, without the opposition being systematically killed or imprisoned.

Again, libertarian anarchists do not care about elections. Then, Assad is in no way against free elections - as long as he is allowed to participate. It is the West who objects against free elections, the West insists that he has the right to preselect the candidates, and, in particular, to insist that Assad should not be allowed to participate.

Any who oppose the Assad regime are labeled terrorists.

No, only those who fight with weapons in their hand against the government. Which is the usual standard definition of terrorism. If people start to use weapons to fight the police and army in the US, they will be certainly also named terrorists. Not? The "Encyclopedia of terrorism" mentions even the Branch Davidians.

Considering Assad had 15 boys arrested and tortured, one murdered, for daring to post graffiti that was anti-Assad, what type of amnesty do you think would be on offer?

I cannot comment about these claims, given that I have not researched them. What I can tell about the actual offer is that it is a general law, for a limited amount of time, but regularly extended. It is used in many of the agreements between various enclaves, where the fighters have the choice or to be transported to Idlib, with hand weapons, or to use the amnesty. I have no ways to prove the numbers, but the number of those fighters who decide to use the amnesty instead of being transferred to Idlib is quite large, at least of comparable size with those transferred to Idlib, if not the majority. If this would not be a reliable offer (which would be quite clear a short time after one of such agreement) nobody would use this possibility.

You choose to ignore the accounts of civilians who came under fire by the regime as they protested peacefully against Assad, asking for free elections.

Initially I have believed such nonsense too. At that time. Then there was some NATO paper writing about evil Assad using tanks against these "peaceful protesters". This sounded quite strange to me, I made a little bit more research, and it appeared that there already was a full scale civil war in Syria. But the NATO media were continuing to talk about "peaceful protests".

How do you know they are all Al Qaida?

The sources I use give information about the names of the gangs involved in the fighting. They refer usually to the actual name of Al Qaida, which is Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS). They are "officially" no longer Al Qaida, but nobody sees this as different from cosmetics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Sham

I would have thought it was clear. You post as if this is your blog.

Anyway this makes no sense to me. If there are other people objecting, I answer. Of course, sometimes, in particular if joepistole writes something, I do not answer. But this has nothing to do with this thread, but with the quality of joepistoles "arguments", I often find it unnecessary to reply in other threads too. I understand that you don't like my answers, such is life.

The accusation of "flooding" seems nonsensical to me. The aim of the thread is to collect information about the actual military events, so, given that every day there may be new events, there may be every day something new worth to be posted. About links: I doubt links to Russian, German or Arabic sources will be helpful here. Once a lot of my information comes from twitter, links will not be helpful, simply because twitter is full of unreliable BS, and you have to evaluate sources some time until you can make a reasonable decision if they are reliable or not.

All I ask is that you leave the propaganda out of it. It's not that hard, surely?

It is impossible, given that you name "propaganda" even simple factual information about the actual frontline. You have yet failed to show examples where the information I have given was inaccurate. Without this, naming it "propaganda" makes not much sense.

Or you can report on the facts, and leave the propaganda and rhetoric out of it. How does that sound to you?
I don't care if you post daily updates about the events in Syria, I do care about the level of propaganda in those updates. Be a bit more objective. That shouldn't be too hard, surely?

Problematic, because all what I would accept as being characterized as "propaganda and rhetoric" - the use of "good news", "terrorists", and "liberated" - I have already offered. But your answer sounds like you my offer is not sufficient for you, that means, you have in mind something more. And this something more is unclear.

It sounds like you insist that I have to give information about casualties, moreover from sources which I classify as NATO propaganda sources, to meet your criteria of "leave the propaganda and rhetoric out". Quite Orwellian.

So, I will no longer use "good news", "terrorists", and "liberated" any more. Is this sufficient, or do you require more? Do you continue to insist that I have, for "objectivity", to add some information about questions where I have no reliable information or not? Do you insist that I have, for "objectivity", to rely on sources which I reject as NATO propaganda, instead of using sources which I consider as reliable but you, without any justification, name "Russian/Syrian state propaganda"?

 

[Bells]

A hospital supported by MSF is not their hospital. They support some hospital, and then redistribute some claims made by those in the hospital. So, this is not MSF itself, but second hand. I see no reason to trust such second hand reports simply because MSF distributes them.

So you don't trust what MSF say either?

Too Western for your liking?

No.

But you declared those attacks as "good days"?

False. I refuse to report information where I have no ways to verify them independently, and which are known to be heavily distorted in all wars for propaganda reasons. That's all. The question is not if the information about these questions comes from a side I support or from the side of my enemies, I do not distribute them all. With the only exception of such information distributed by the side who is guilty of them. Say, the information of the headcutting of the palestinensian boy distributed on the video of the Zinki gang itself.

Well, how do we know where you are getting from, since you rarely cite your sources?

The few links you have provided do not seem exactly reliable either. One required that readers swallow the "red pill".

How do you know what you are citing is from a reliable source?

It is interesting that you seem to believe the media in the case of the boy that was beheaded, but you refuse to believe them when they report on things like chemical weapon use by the Syrian Government. How come?

Yes, in case of chemical weapons the simple question cui bono gives an answer. Assad knows very well what the West would make in the propaganda out of use of chemical weapons by Assad. On the other hand, it gives no advantage to use them. So, it would be extremely stupid to use them. Instead, fake chemical weapon attacks give the, hm, islamists a large advantage in the propaganda war. If you think MSF or HRW are beyond any doubt, ok, your choice. They are Western organizations, so, in no way neutral.

Fake chemical weapons..

Assad knows that the West will do nothing because of Russia's involvement in the war. So Assad can do as he very well pleases and he does, because he knows that if the West became more involved or bombed Assad's troops, that it could very well start WWIII because of Russia's close involvement in the conflict itself.

Assad's propaganda is to declare any who oppose him to be terrorists. It is actually quite effective as the gullible will just turn a blind eye when he does do things like use chemical weapons and bomb civilian strongholds, because well, 'they be terrorists'.

Wrong. If I would provide information about casualties, I would be forced to make decisions about which sources give reliable information about casualties and which sources cannot be trusted. It is quite clear that you will trust different sources, given that you have quoted SOHR. So, you would name all my sources Russian or Syrian state propaganda sources, I would name your sources NATO propaganda sources, and that would be predictably all.

I think it's more a case that if you were to provide information on casualties, you would be forced to face the fact that Assad's regime is just as brutal as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

It seems to me that you do not trust any source that is not Russian or Assad, or sites that spread their propaganda. Hence why their "liberating villages", is parroted by you, without even acknowledging the casualties. When it is brought up, you declare that you are happy when terrorists die, while ignoring that civilian deaths are numerous.. Seems you are more impressed with the "liberating" of buildings and damn the civilians caught in the middle.

You do this anyway, but actually your accusations are unproblematic for me, because you do not even provide your sources telling anything different about the actual frontlines. So, here we have my information vs. no information. That's sufficiently comfortable for me. I don't plan to start discussions where I would be on roughly equal foot with NATO propagandists, for the simple reason that I have no means which I can present here to prove that my sources are more reliable than NATO sources. All I would be able to do would be to prove that some NATO sources are unreliable. Say, your SOHR with its policy to count as civilians all those who are not soldiers or defected soldiers.

Well of course it is not problematic for you. It's a "good day" when chemical weapons are used, resulting in dozens of deaths and hospitals bombed. You celebrate that as 'liberation'.

And what you have proven is that any source that is not pro Assad is unreliable. Hell, even video footage of people foaming at the mouth and dying from chemical weapon use is unreliable and you declare them to be fake, with absolutely no proof or reason to support such assertions.

The actual frontlines are in people's villages, farms, places of work, schools and hospitals. What do you think the result of these battles are going to be?

You have a regime that is supported by Russia, armed by Russia and the West can do nothing about it without risking war with another regime that has threatened the use of nuclear weapons. Of course you think everything that is not from Syria or Russia or sites who spread their propaganda is unreliable. And of course you think gassing civilians with chemicals is a "good day", because hey, at least their village was liberated. Shame few are alive to enjoy said liberation.

 

[Bells]

Again, libertarian anarchists do not care about elections. Then, Assad is in no way against free elections - as long as he is allowed to participate. It is the West who objects against free elections, the West insists that he has the right to preselect the candidates, and, in particular, to insist that Assad should not be allowed to participate.

*Chortle*

Assad is happy with free elections if he is the only one on the ballot for President. It's not about participation for dictators, Schmelzer. It's about being the only one who can actually win.

That's not how free elections actually go. The people of Syria want free elections and this war started because of it. If anything, as a so called libertarian anarchist, you should be on the side of the rebels. So why aren't you?

No, only those who fight with weapons in their hand against the government. Which is the usual standard definition of terrorism. If people start to use weapons to fight the police and army in the US, they will be certainly also named terrorists. Not? The "Encyclopedia of terrorism" mentions even the Branch Davidians.

I don't think you understand the definition of terrorism.

Assad labeled any who opposed his regime as terrorists, that included political opponents and the opposition. It's a propaganda tool, an excuse to brutalise the populace and destroy any who oppose him.

And Kushner is the only person I have seen to label the Branch Davidians as terrorists.

I cannot comment about these claims, given that I have not researched them. What I can tell about the actual offer is that it is a general law, for a limited amount of time, but regularly extended. It is used in many of the agreements between various enclaves, where the fighters have the choice or to be transported to Idlib, with hand weapons, or to use the amnesty. I have no ways to prove the numbers, but the number of those fighters who decide to use the amnesty instead of being transferred to Idlib is quite large, at least of comparable size with those transferred to Idlib, if not the majority. If this would not be a reliable offer (which would be quite clear a short time after one of such agreement) nobody would use this possibility.

Assad would be brutal. Any who oppose him, those fighters would be murdered. He has labeled all of them as terrorists, even though many are not. Political opposition is not exactly welcome in Syria, before the war and certainly, it won't be after the war. Assad is only concerned about consolidating his power and Russia is only interested in helping do that because of the amount of money this war is generating for Russia's coffers. This conflict allows Assad to destroy his opposition by any means necessary and his labeling his opposition as terrorists says a lot and Russia gains financially from the conflict. A peace deal won't be on the table for a long while.

Too many people stand to benefit.

Initially I have believed such nonsense too. At that time. Then there was some NATO paper writing about evil Assad using tanks against these "peaceful protesters". This sounded quite strange to me, I made a little bit more research, and it appeared that there already was a full scale civil war in Syria. But the NATO media were continuing to talk about "peaceful protests".

You don't really know how all of this started in Syria, do you?

The sources I use give information about the names of the gangs involved in the fighting. They refer usually to the actual name of Al Qaida, which is Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS). They are "officially" no longer Al Qaida, but nobody sees this as different from cosmetics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Sham

What are your actual sources?

Anyway this makes no sense to me. If there are other people objecting, I answer. Of course, sometimes, in particular if joepistole writes something, I do not answer. But this has nothing to do with this thread, but with the quality of joepistoles "arguments", I often find it unnecessary to reply in other threads too. I understand that you don't like my answers, such is life.

When you do respond, it is simply to dismiss everything as 'propaganda' and you carry on.

Or you ignore them entirely.

The accusation of "flooding" seems nonsensical to me. The aim of the thread is to collect information about the actual military events, so, given that every day there may be new events, there may be every day something new worth to be posted. About links: I doubt links to Russian, German or Arabic sources will be helpful here. Once a lot of my information comes from twitter, links will not be helpful, simply because twitter is full of unreliable BS, and you have to evaluate sources some time until you can make a reasonable decision if they are reliable or not.

Is that why you so rarely cite your sources?

It's a good excuse, isn't it, to just say that no one will understand it anyway. How do we know your sources are reliable?

It is impossible, given that you name "propaganda" even simple factual information about the actual frontline. You have yet failed to show examples where the information I have given was inaccurate. Without this, naming it "propaganda" makes not much sense.

I never said what you posted was exactly inaccurate. I said it lacked objectivity and read like propaganda pieces. Can you tell the difference?

Problematic, because all what I would accept as being characterized as "propaganda and rhetoric" - the use of "good news", "terrorists", and "liberated" - I have already offered. But your answer sounds like you my offer is not sufficient for you, that means, you have in mind something more. And this something more is unclear.

It sounds like you insist that I have to give information about casualties, moreover from sources which I classify as NATO propaganda sources, to meet your criteria of "leave the propaganda and rhetoric out". Quite Orwellian.

So, I will no longer use "good news", "terrorists", and "liberated" any more. Is this sufficient, or do you require more? Do you continue to insist that I have, for "objectivity", to add some information about questions where I have no reliable information or not? Do you insist that I have, for "objectivity", to rely on sources which I reject as NATO propaganda, instead of using sources which I consider as reliable but you, without any justification, name "Russian/Syrian state propaganda"?

I was pretty clear.

What's so hard to understand about leaving the propaganda out of it?

 

[Schmelzer]

So you don't trust what MSF say either?

It depends, as explained. First hand information from them would be much more reliable than simply information from some hospitals which they somehow support. There is no information source which I trust 100%.

But you declared those attacks as "good days"?

No. I have not made any statements about these attacks.

Well, how do we know where you are getting from, since you rarely cite your sources?

Feel free to ask me about them if you are interested.

The few links you have provided do not seem exactly reliable either.

I do not expect that you would consider them as reliable. So what? What matters for me is that I consider the source as reliable.

How do you know what you are citing is from a reliable source?

I evaluate the reliability of various sources by seeing the information they provide, and how much of that information appears later as wrong.

It is interesting that you seem to believe the media in the case of the boy that was beheaded, but you refuse to believe them when they report on things like chemical weapon use by the Syrian Government. How come?

Very simple, the video of the beheading of the boy was distributed by those guys who have beheaded him. They were proud of it. In the case of the chemical weapons, nobody has up to now distributed videos of the own side using them. (To be accurate, I have seen claims that a video of the terrorists shootiwng chemical weapons was distributed by them, but I have not seen it.)

Assad knows that the West will do nothing because of Russia's involvement in the war.

Assad, and even more Putin, care very well about the informational warfare, and would not do things which harm them on this front of the war. Moreover given that using such weapons gives nothing from a military point of view.

I think it's more a case that if you were to provide information on casualties, you would be forced to face the fact that Assad's regime is just as brutal as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

You may believe so, I know that I could make a good case that the US coalition kills much more civilians than Russians and Syrians. But, as explained, this would end only in a stupid "your sources are propaganda" flame war. This is obvious, given that I give only information only about the frontline, where you do not even claim to have better information, but you nonetheless use this "your sources are propaganda" flames.

It seems to me that you do not trust any source that is not Russian or Assad, or sites that spread their propaganda.

More, I do not even trust such sources. There are a lot of Russian, pro-Russian, Syrian and pro-Syrian sources I do not trust. And even for those where I have a lot of trust, it is not 100% too.

Hell, even video footage of people foaming at the mouth and dying from chemical weapon use is unreliable and you declare them to be fake, with absolutely no proof or reason to support such assertions.

Such videos distributed from terrorists are certainly questionable. But I do not declare them to be fake. I leave the evaluation of such videos to specialists. You, instead, lie about what I'm doing - I have not made any claim about any video.

The actual frontlines are in people's villages, farms, places of work, schools and hospitals. What do you think the result of these battles are going to be?

One side wins in the battle, and after this the surviving people will be ruled by the winning side. I think it is much better if the winning side is a secular government than a fundamentalist islamic state.

Polemical lies about what I think disposed.

 

[Schmelzer]

Assad is happy with free elections if he is the only one on the ballot for President. It's not about participation for dictators, Schmelzer. It's about being the only one who can actually win.

This may be so in your parallel reality made by NATO media. The diplomatic disagreement is about the question if Assad can participate (the Russian position - the Syrians have to decide themselves) or is not allowed ("Assad must go", independent of any wishes of the Syrian people).

I don't think you understand the definition of terrorism.
Assad labeled any who opposed his regime as terrorists, that included political opponents and the opposition. It's a propaganda tool, an excuse to brutalise the populace and destroy any who oppose him.

Do you at least read your own sources?

The president lashed out against the main opposition National Coalition, describing it as a "failure".
"This opposition is not reliable... and it has no role in solving the crisis," Mr Assad said.
He accused the opposition of "being on the payroll of more than one Gulf country", and of "blaming the [Syrian] state for terrorism rather than blaming the armed men", or rebels.

"Failure" and "not reliable" is something different than "terrorist".

And Kushner is the only person I have seen to label the Branch Davidians as terrorists.

Maybe, I have not counted them. That was simply a first try to see if even they would be named terrorists, with success. But at least the Oklahoma bombing was not simply revenge for Waco, but terrorism, not?

You don't really know how all of this started in Syria, do you? What are your actual sources?

Once I have not checked the details, I don't really know. That's why I make no claims, except about what I know, because I have seen it myself in the media, namely that the civil war was already fully started, when Western media continued to lie about "peaceful demonstrations". What I know is that wikipedia and CNN are completely unreliable about such questions, therefore I have not even looked at your links.
Al Masdar, reddit, militarymaps, liveuamap, otvaga, glav.su, nocheinparteibuch, a lot of twitter accounts.

When you do respond, it is simply to dismiss everything as 'propaganda' and you carry on.

You do the same.

How do we know your sources are reliable?

You don't. You have to decide yourself. Check the maps I give here with other sources if you have doubt.

I never said what you posted was exactly inaccurate. I said it lacked objectivity and read like propaganda pieces. Can you tell the difference?

Yes I can. The first claim you would have to support with evidence, with some quote, and information which shows that what I said is wrong. The second one is something you can simply claim without presenting any evidence.

I was pretty clear. What's so hard to understand about leaving the propaganda out of it?

No, you were not. The meaning of "propaganda" is ill-defined, and it became clear that we have quite different opinions about what is propaganda and what is not. So, my questions are yet unanswered: Do you continue to insist that I have, for "objectivity", to add some information about questions where I have no reliable information or not? Do you insist that I have, for "objectivity", to rely on sources which I reject as NATO propaganda, instead of using sources which I consider as reliable but you, without any justification, name "Russian/Syrian state propaganda"?

 

[CptBork]

A hospital supported by MSF is not their hospital. They support some hospital, and then redistribute some claims made by those in the hospital. So, this is not MSF itself, but second hand. I see no reason to trust such second hand reports simply because MSF distributes them.

If you don't trust MSF reports passed on from medical personnel with whom they directly interact and support, then why do you automatically trust Syrian state websites when they pass on reports from the leaders of terrorist Shia militias?

 

[joepistole]

Trump declared Assad crossed several lines with Assad's latest gassing of civilians. So the question now is what does Trump do about it? Trump likes to view himself as a strong man. Will he bomb Assad's airbases thus preventing him from launching his bombers?

America continues its troop buildup in Syria even under Trump's administration. How does Trump punish Assad? That's the question. Maybe Trump is pissed because he met with King Abdullah II today. Maybe his position will change after a talk with Putina. He's a crazy guy! His opinions do change frequently.

 

[CptBork]

Trump declared Assad crossed several lines with Assad's latest gassing of civilians. So the question now is what does Trump do about it? There is talk of taking out Assad's airbases. America continues its troop buildup in Syria even under Trump's administration. How does Trump punish Assad? Maybe Trump is pissed because he met with King Abdullah II today. Maybe his position will change after a talk with Putina. He's a crazy guy! His opinions do change frequently.

Trump should start by cutting off all travel and trade between Russia and the West (including oil and gas), and punishing any would-be intermediaries that refuse to fall in line. Dry up Putin's war chest first, then worry about war later if he still thinks he can murder his way out of bankruptcy. Obama should have done that years ago, but it's never too late.

 

[joepistole]

Trump should start by cutting off all travel and trade between Russia and the West (including oil and gas), and punishing any would-be intermediaries that refuse to fall in line. Dry up Putin's war chest first, then worry about war later if he still thinks he can murder his way out of bankruptcy. Obama should have done that years ago, but it's never too late.

We can do all those things and more. Russia is under light sanctions. They could be frozen out of the interbank system and that would be some serious hurt.

But this isn't about attacking Russia; it's about attacking Assad's airports. If Russia doesn't like it, tough. They need to get their guy under control, and they need to stop using weapons of mass destruction.

 

[spidergoat]

Trump should start by cutting off all travel and trade between Russia and the West (including oil and gas), and punishing any would-be intermediaries that refuse to fall in line.

Europe would freeze to death. No one wants that.

 

[joepistole]

Europe would freeze to death. No one wants that.

Yeah, that is a concern. Europe is dependent upon Russia for oil and natural gas. But, that is changing. The US is now exporting natural gas and oil.

 

[CptBork]

Europe would freeze to death. No one wants that.

It's spring now, not as much of a concern as it was a few months ago, and there's more than enough oil and gas coming out of North America to make up for any shortfalls. If Europe prefers imports from Russia because they think no environmental monitoring = no CO2, then they deserve to freeze in the sense of being frozen out of North American trade.

 

[CptBork]

But this isn't about attacking Russia; it's about attacking Assad's airports. If Russia doesn't like it, tough. They need to get their guy under control, and they need to stop using weapons of mass destruction.

My suggestion is premised on Russia stepping up to the plate on Assad's behalf.

 

[joepistole]

My suggestion is premised on Russia stepping up to the plate on Assad's behalf.

I understand that. But I don't think Russia will be willing to step up to the plate. I don't think Putin wants a fight he knows he cannot win and will certainly lose. I see no reason for Putin to step up to the plate.

 

[Schmelzer]

If you don't trust MSF reports passed on from medical personnel with whom they directly interact and support, then why do you automatically trust Syrian state websites when they pass on reports from the leaders of terrorist Shia militias?

I do not automatically trust.

I don't think Putin wants a fight he knows he cannot win and will certainly lose.

Putin knows that if he is not willing to step up to the plate Russia will be lost. He has made a similar decision in Georgia 8.8.8, where one could have as well guessed that will not fight for South-Ossetians or Abkhasians. And he has already explained, to Obama as well as the whole world, that the S-400 in Syria are not only for the defense of the airbase itself against ISIS airforce.

 

[joepistole]

I do not automatically trust.

Oh, but you do and you have. You have repeatedly believed whatever Comrade Putin tells you and you automatically and without merit dismiss everything to the contrary as NATO propaganda. Are you telling you you don't believe your assertions?

Putin knows that if he is not willing to step up to the plate Russia will be lost. He has made a similar decision in Georgia 8.8.8, where one could have as well guessed that will not fight for South-Ossetians or Abkhasians. And he has already explained, to Obama as well as the whole world, that the S-400 in Syria are not only for the defense of the airbase itself against ISIS airforce.

How will Russia be lost? Russia is already lost and has been for years now. It's economy is stuck in a prolonged recession. Per capital GDP has been cut from 15.5 thousand dollars in 2013 to less than 9,000 dollars. Russia is under international sanctions for its repeated invasions and annexations of neighboring states. Russia has been lost for some time now. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=RU

Here is another unfortunate fact for you, no one is afraid of your S-400 anti-aircraft system. If you want to use it, you won't have it for long. ISIS doesn't have an air force comrade. Didn't Putina tell you? So why do you need an anti-aircraft system to defend you against an enemy who has no aircraft?

Putin's stepping up to the plate hasn't worked out well for Mother Russia.

 

[joepistole]

The US has attacked Assad's forces with 50 to 60 cruise missles.

 

[Yazata]

Reportedly 59 cruise missiles were launched from ships in the Med. That's a lot.

Apparently Shayrat air base outside Homs was hit, one of Assad's limited number of operational air bases (6 of them?). It's where the Sukhoi fighter-bomber that released the recent chemical attack was launched.

Multiple military-to-military warnings were given to the Russians prior to the attack, including to the Russian Syria-theatre commanders in Latakia. They reportedly have kind of a hot-line with the 'coalition' commanders to keep each other informed of events (like today's).

But it's known that in the past a small number of Russians have been seen at the base. (Probably technicians such as aircraft mechanics, I guessing.)

Given the large number of missiles, I'm kind of hoping that any chemical weapons facilities that we know about (probably most of them) including manufacturing and storage sites were struck as well.

Having said that, US attacks on the Syrian government should then stop. A forceful message has been sent, and any more strikes would threaten to turn the US into the rebel air force. We shouldn't take our eye off the Daesh ball in Raqqah.