Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[pjdude1219]

There is simply the point that once a big rich power like the US misuses freedom of the press and democratic freedoms to install puppet governments in other countries, they will start to defend themselves. And this, naturally, reduces these freedoms. This is simply a consequence of this misuse. Which, of course, may be misused itself by those who govern these countries, to restrict the freedoms of the legitimate opposition of the citizens of these countries.

installing puppet governments is a traditional russia endeavor not an american. in fact most of the modern terminolgy for a state acting in the manner your talking were devolped to talk about russian interactions with states. this is more of your delusional belief that the us is the source for all evil in the world and russia is some sort of paragon among states.

Indeed, the international law, as a contract law between states, does not care at all about the interest of whatever people. The only way to create a new Kurdish state is either via negotiations, supported by civil resistance or so, or by war, being a strong enough force to win a civil war. International law is certainly not a libertarian ideal world.

customary international law is not contracual

Once Putin supports a multipolar world ruled by international law, he will certainly not support local civil wars for independence. It makes no sense for Putin to support Kurdish independence, given that some Kurdistan, hated by all neighbor states, would be nothing but a large US base with local criminal gangs around it, like Kosovo.

putin is a thug who wants to establish a new russian hegemony and cant deal with the fact russia time in the sun is over and despite its size and power will only ever more be a second rate power with a third world economy.

Putin's support for the international law is, of course, not unconditional. Putin is, first of all, pragmatic, and tit for tat is a principle which is superior.

this is of course bullshit.

So, once the US regularly violates international law without hesitation, you should not expect that Putin will follow international law 100% so that you can play him by violating international law as you like.

russia has always violated international law with impunity.

So, once the West almost openly supported terrorists in Syria,

the US has not supported terrorists in syria this is a lie spawned by the fact your delusional and have lost grasp with reality. they support rebels who are done with assad reign of tyranny but they dont support isis.

Putin has also supported the separatists in the Donbass. Nonetheless, he does not support a separation of the Donbass, but has forced them to accept the Minsk II ceasefire, which does not question that the Donbass is part of Ukraine.

more lies. donbass is a russian client state like a few other supposed breakaway movements. the russian military was involved in these from day 1

 

[iceaura]

Maybe, but once you don't give links to evidence, this remains a worthless claim.

Your ignorance does not make other people's claims worth less than your own.

I don't understand this point. If the US damages other countries, this is, of course, bad, but it is not Putin's job to stop this

It simply illustrates the situation. Putin is doing harm to other countries, and there is no mystery if they object - even, say, jail the perps they can catch, and sanction the Russian government and oligarchs involved in these criminal enterprises, and in general treat Russia as it has demonstrated it should be treated.

. "But that does not mean installing authoritarian and totalitarian governments allied with other such governments would be helpful as well."
There are no such plans and proposals.

There are such actions and consequences, easily predicted. Why do think they are unplanned?

There is simply the point that once a big rich power like the US misuses freedom of the press and democratic freedoms to install puppet governments in other countries, they will start to defend themselves. And this, naturally, reduces these freedoms.

Nothing natural about that. If the US does that same injury to itself defending against Putin or the Chinese, that will be an unnatural error - a self inflicted injury.

The US would be better off doing something like Estonia did, when the Russian cyberthugs targeted them - take security seriously, set up defenses, pay closer attention to the nature of the Russian State.

It makes no sense for Putin to support Kurdish independence, given that some Kurdistan, hated by all neighbor states, would be nothing but a large US base with local criminal gangs around it, like Kosovo.

The Kurds would hardly end up a US base if Russia supported their desire for independence, and backed them in the UN. But Russia prefers to support Assad and other authoritarian regimes - those are the kinds of governments Putin finds more congenial.

So, once the US regularly violates international law without hesitation, you should not expect that Putin will follow international law 100% so that you can play him by violating international law as you like

And so we expect that Putin will never follow international law - in Iraq, or Syria, or Donbas, or Ukraine, or Georgia, or anywhere else.

 

[mathman]

The Kurds would hardly end up a US base if Russia supported their desire for independence, and backed them in the UN. But Russia prefers to support Assad and other authoritarian regimes - those are the kinds of governments Putin finds more congenial.
↑

The main reason for US support of the Kurds was that they are the best anti-ISIS force in Syria. Once ISIS is gone, US support will fade away.

 

[pjdude1219]

The main reason for US support of the Kurds was that they are the best anti-ISIS force in Syria. Once ISIS is gone, US support will fade away.

yeah we got a long history of fucking people like that

 

[Schmelzer]

The jihadists in Quneitra have given up and accepted reconciliation. Nawa also seems to have accepted reconciliation. The Syrian army has already taken control of many hills around Nawa so that Nawa is more or less encircled anyway. A first hill, Tal Ashtara, has been taken from IS. So, the Syrian army is not losing much time but starts to fight the IS enclave, once the green jihadists have essentially given up.

Your ignorance does not make other people's claims worth less than your own.

It is not my ignorance but the non-existence of evidence which makes your claim worthless.
Many of my claims are also given without evidence. I'm also lazy. But so what - I do not make claims that they are worth a lot. And if someone questions them, I can give some evidence. Or explain why I don't give it.

Anti-Russian propaganda disposed of.

There are such actions and consequences, easily predicted. Why do think they are unplanned?

Governments who feel endangered by US color revolutions, without doubt, plan various actions to gain the ability to resist. Some misuse this for personal aims, only pretending that their aim is national security, and this misuse is also planned. But the original

"But that does not mean installing authoritarian and totalitarian governments allied with other such governments would be helpful as well." (The context was "for freedom of press and democracy")

is nonsense anyway, nobody has proposed such things "for freedom of press and democracy".

Nothing natural about that. If the US does that same injury to itself defending against Putin or the Chinese, that will be an unnatural error - a self inflicted injury.

I agree that such measures are, in the long range, harmful. But even as an error, it is a quite natural one, and one has a hard time to explain that such things are errors to those who think it is a necessity.

The Kurds would hardly end up a US base if Russia supported their desire for independence, and backed them in the UN. But Russia prefers to support Assad and other authoritarian regimes - those are the kinds of governments Putin finds more congenial.

Putin prefers to support international law. Because he knows very well, that starting civil wars cause more harm to all participants than peace with peaceful movements negotiating for more independence.

And so we expect that Putin will never follow international law - in Iraq, or Syria, or Donbas, or Ukraine, or Georgia, or anywhere else.

In Western propaganda, of course, not.

 

[Schmelzer]

Just another map:

It shows that the green (that means FSA + Al Qaida) region consists now of two parts, essentially of Quneitra (the white dotted lines are the borders between the governorates) and in Daraa essentially only the single town Nawa.

And there is now a reconciliation agreement with both parts - the Quneitra part as well as Daraa. Thus, the fight with the "green" forces in the South is finished.

It also means that there will be almost no fighting near the border with the occupied Golan Heights. What has been a problem all the time (whenever the Syrian army has reached some progress, Israel claimed its territory was hit and "retaliated" supporting the terrorists - it is not an accident that almost all the Golan Heights line was controlled by the "rebels") has disappeared into nothing. What remains is a small piece of IS control.

 

[iceaura]

In Western propaganda, of course, not.

Or in physical reality.
They occasionally coincide - not the Republican agitprop you rely on for your analyses of US politics, though. That almost never coincides (its conflict with physical reality is its reason for existing in the first place, usually).

It is not my ignorance but the non-existence of evidence which makes your claim worthless.

Your claims, not mine, are based on your ignorance. You have apparently confused yourself again.
Now you are mistaking your ignorance - carefully defended here for months now - for non-existence of things.
Mere ignorance cannot make things vanish from the world - that is beyond its powers.

Many of my claims are also given without evidence.

Especially in matters of which you obviously know little or nothing. (Compare your posts here about Syrian military matters).
And many are presented with "evidence" and "argument" cribbed naively from US wingnut propaganda feeds - same kinds of matters.

And if someone questions them, I can give some evidence

So you say.
You need evidence for that claim.

Governments who feel endangered by US color revolutions, without doubt, plan various actions to gain the ability to resist.

Irrelevant. What is confusing you?

"But that does not mean installing authoritarian and totalitarian governments allied with other such governments would be helpful as well." (The context was "for freedom of press and democracy")

is nonsense anyway, nobody has proposed such things "for freedom of press and democracy".

More confusion. My observation was the opposite. You denied that people installed authoritarian and totalitarian governments on purpose, according to plan. I observed that their actions and consequences would be in that case quite difficult to explain.

Which brings us back to Syria, where the number of different plans significantly involved is by my count 11 - not counting China. And every single one of them revolves around oil.

 

[CptBork]

I'm still waiting for Schmelzer to explain how the US rigged Ukraine's elections. Have any of the other major candidates complained about election fraud, or are the only complaints coming from Russia?

 

[sculptor]

I'm still waiting for Schmelzer to explain how the US rigged Ukraine's elections. Have any of the other major candidates complained about election fraud, or are the only complaints coming from Russia?

Has anyone but you used the word rigged?

 

[CptBork]

Has anyone but you used the word rigged?

If I'm not interpreting the following correctly, please explain why I'm mistaken.

This is because that trade treaty played, in reality, no role. Who decided about who will rule Ukraine after the coup was the US. Remember "f*ck the EU" Nuland telling who was the American choice? The German choice ended as the mayor of Kiev.

So what's Schmelzer's complaint about here? That the US ensured that the Ukrainian people themselves chose their new President and parliament, rather than permitting a foreign power like Russia or Germany to dictate the choice? Or is he trying to allege that the election was faked? If it's the latter, who are the complainants making such claims and where do they reside?

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army has, based on the reconciliation agreements, taken control of some villages in Quneitra and the border region between Quneitra and Daraa. Some villages in the Southern part near the IS pocket have been simply left by the "moderate rebels" and now taken by the IS, or these "moderate rebels" have now become IS fighters themselves - whatever, some villages West of Nawa are now under IS control. But it looks like the Syrian army cares that this will not continue - in the village which would be the next for the IS on the way North near the border, Ghadir al-Bustan, is already under Syrian army control.

So what's Schmelzer's complaint about here? That the US ensured that the Ukrainian people themselves chose their new President and parliament, rather than permitting a foreign power like Russia or Germany to dictate the choice?

No. That the democratic choice of the Ukranian people, in more or less acceptable elections to choose Yanukovich as the president, was overthrown 22 February 2014 and replaced by Turchynov, with a new government formed, which was lead by the US-supported candidate Yatsenyuk. This was a military coup. No election. And this is what I object to.

The elections, where Poroshenko won, came later. And they were irrelevant, given that they have been provided only in the parts of the country under putschist control, not in the Donbass and Crimea so that this "elected" president has no democratic legitimation to rule over Donbass and Crimea. They were rigged too, but I don't care about this. If the US influenced these elections or not is not the point - anyway the local fascists cared themselves that no pro-Russian candidate was able to participate, and the only question was which supporter of the fascists gets the power.

 

[pjdude1219]

No. That the democratic choice of the Ukranian people, in more or less acceptable elections to choose Yanukovich as the president, was overthrown 22 February 2014 and replaced by Turchynov, with a new government formed, which was lead by the US-supported candidate Yatsenyuk.

it was a popular movement because people felt a the election was rigged and i believe and yanukovich brutal policies.

This was a military coup.

no it wasnt a military coup by its very nature needs the military in control of it.

No election. And this is what I object to.

your objection is that it removed a russiian puppet.

The elections, where Poroshenko won, came later. And they were irrelevant, given that they have been provided only in the parts of the country under putschist control, not in the Donbass and Crimea so that this "elected" president has no democratic legitimation to rule over Donbass and Crimea. They were rigged too, but I don't care about this. If the US influenced these elections or not is not the point - anyway the local fascists cared themselves that no pro-Russian candidate was able to participate, and the only question was which supporter of the fascists gets the power.

no they werent rigged and why would they hold election in putin supported sepreatist areas?

 

[CptBork]

The elections, where Poroshenko won, came later. And they were irrelevant, given that they have been provided only in the parts of the country under putschist control, not in the Donbass and Crimea so that this "elected" president has no democratic legitimation to rule over Donbass and Crimea. They were rigged too, but I don't care about this. If the US influenced these elections or not is not the point - anyway the local fascists cared themselves that no pro-Russian candidate was able to participate, and the only question was which supporter of the fascists gets the power.

Hold on a second, how come the rigged government of Crimea gets to separate without a vote from the rest of Ukraine, if the rest of Ukraine can't legitimately govern without the votes of Crimea? Why did Russian special forces prevent the people of Donbass and Crimea from participating in the national elections? Why was Poroshenko not allowed to gather votes and supporters there?

Sounds a lot like "Any policy is acceptable as long as it lets me and my commie parents mooch off the system just like we used to."

 

[Schmelzer]

Some expected progress along the border in Quneitra, some heavy weapons have been given to the Syrian army, some busses used to transport some fighters with families to Idlib. The map I consider to be the most reasonable is the following:

The green areas here are all part of the reconciliation process, so it is a question of time when the Syrian army takes it all. Some information about some progress in the fight against the IS South of this which I have given above has been confirmed. Nawa is under Army control.

it was a popular movement because people felt a the election was rigged and i believe and yanukovich brutal policies. no it wasnt a military coup by its very nature needs the military in control of it. your objection is that it removed a russiian puppet.

Ok, name it a paramilitary coup. The fascist gangs which took power were paramilitary gangs. The election which elected was not claimed to be rigged, or at least nobody cared about this a year before. There was some popular support for the Maidan, but not that big - those that have demonstrated there regularly have been organized by the fascists and been paid for this.

And Yanukovich was not a Russian puppet - instead, Putin had supported Timoshenko in the elections before, for a simple reason - he has known she was corrupt, and she has made a quite good (for Russia) gas contract with Russia. She was imprisoned for this contract by Yanukovich - quite correctly, she was corrupt. Yanukovich was a puppet of a Ukrainian oligarch - Achmetov - who had its main power base in Donezk. (And who started, btw, the separatist movement in Donezk behind the scene, to play some political power games with this. But he lost control of it after a short time.) My objection was not because Yanukovich has been removed, but that open fascists have taken power after this. Without the coup, Yanukovich would have any way lost the next elections, but nobody would have cared.

no they werent rigged and why would they hold election in putin supported sepreatist areas?

Hm, because in a democracy the elections have to be in the whole country, not? But, ok, if the elected government does not pretend to rule those areas where there has been no election, that would be fine.

Hold on a second, how come the rigged government of Crimea gets to separate without a vote from the rest of Ukraine, if the rest of Ukraine can't legitimately govern without the votes of Crimea?

The government of Crimea does not claim to have any power to rule Kiev - given that it was elected only by the people of Crimea. They did not object that they have not been asked to elect Poroshenko. They are comfortable as it is. Except that that foreign power - Ukraine - wants to occupy them. The government of Ukraine can legitimately govern the parts where it has been elected, nobody objects against this. But this does not include Crimea.

Why did Russian special forces prevent the people of Donbass and Crimea from participating in the national elections? Why was Poroshenko not allowed to gather votes and supporters there?

The putschists have, before, tried to prevent the people of Donbass to vote about the separation from Ukraine. With some force - some voters have been killed. Russian special forces had nothing to do with this - the civil war has already started in the Donbass, by the Ukrainian fascist. Ok, the civil war was not yet full scale, but there were already territories controlled by different sides, and block posts on the roads, with shootings from time to time. And the fascists had already burned peaceful demonstrators in Odessa. Why would they, in such a situation, allow the fascists to provide elections of a fascist leader on the territory they controlled? One anti-fascist has, btw, tried to participate in the elections, but has given up after he was beaten on the territory ruled by the fascists. Which was a reasonable decision - he could have easily been killed if he would have continued.

 

[pjdude1219]

Ok, name it a paramilitary coup.

again not even close to being accurate

The fascist gangs which took power were paramilitary gangs.

Euromaiden was led by fascists. fascists had nothing to do with it. it was a purely popular uprising do to the abuses of yanukoviches abuses of power.

The election which elected was not claimed to be rigged, or at least nobody cared about this a year before.

https://jamestown.org/program/berkut-riot-police-used-to-falsify-ukrainian-parliamentary-elections/ euromadian was against him tampering with elections and his general levels of corruption and brutality.

There was some popular support for the Maidan, but not that big - those that have demonstrated there regularly have been organized by the fascists and been paid for this.

repeating lies wont make it true. just under half the population supported euromaidan. more people supported it than opposed it.

And Yanukovich was not a Russian puppet

yes he was.

- instead, Putin had supported Timoshenko in the elections before, for a simple reason - he has known she was corrupt, and she has made a quite good (for Russia) gas contract with Russia.

that he wasnt putins prefered puppet doesnt mean he wasnt putins puppet.

She was imprisoned for this contract by Yanukovich - quite correctly, she was corrupt. Yanukovich was a puppet of a Ukrainian oligarch - Achmetov - who had its main power base in Donezk.

which took its marching orders from moscow.

(And who started, btw, the separatist movement in Donezk behind the scene, to play some political power games with this. But he lost control of it after a short time.)

he didnt lose control of it. it was putins show.

My objection was not because Yanukovich has been removed, but that open fascists have taken power after this. Without the coup, Yanukovich would have any way lost the next elections, but nobody would have cared.

no your objection is that a russian puppet was removed. you like fascists as long as they are pro russian. no yanukovich would have been reelected. he was tampering with elections.

 

[Schmelzer]

There has been an attack against Ghadir al Bustan by the IS, but it was repelled. After this, there was started a counterattack and the Syrian army has taken two villages near the Golan Heights. The full control of Nawa by the Syrian army is confirmed, with videos from the town. It is less clear who controls Tal al Jumou - it seems the reports that it is was taken two days ago were wrong, but this is also only a guess..

Even if the following video is in Russian, it nicely shows the specifics of the fighting in this area. There are a few mountains, but except for these mountains, the area is quite plane. So, controlling these mountains is what is decisive.

Up to 2:50, it is about Tal Hara, I have written about it, which was taken around a week ago. So, almost all of these mountains have been taken in quite serious fights, using artillery, tanks and airforce to bomb them until the terrorists give up and run away, and taking them was nonetheless not easy, with some jihad mobiles and attacks with anti-tank weapons leading to some losses.
From 5:50, it is about the operation for taking Tal Jabiyah, the dark place North of the 119 between Nawa and Ghadir al Bustan. The control of this allowed the Syrian army today to repel the IS attack and to advance and take two more villages. Initially, up to 8:20, the way toward the mountain, which included taking the village Sykariya on the way, described by the correspondent as quite easy, with the terrorists running away after half an hour. The taking of the mountain itself after 8:20 was described as much more problematic, and a heavy fight.

Euromaiden was led by fascists.

You have, obviously, made an error, because you have written something which is correct.

https://jamestown.org/program/berkut-riot-police-used-to-falsify-ukrainian-parliamentary-elections/

Whatever, even from that article, it follows that Yanukovich has won the 2008 elections without such possibility, and only his reelection is questioned. In fact, I have been at that time in Ukraine, and nobody cared about this. I did not care much too, to be honest, so I cannot exclude the possibility that some people cared about this. But it was not a question to be discussed in everyday life.

just under half the population supported euromaidan. more people supported it than opposed it.

Ukraine was divided into two parts at that time too. The Western part and the Eastern part. The Eastern part elected Yanukovich, the Western part supported Maidan and so on. The heartland of Ukrainian fascism was the Western part - the one taken by Stalin from Poland. With essential parts of the Eastern part - Crimea and Donbass - no longer voting, the candidate of the Western part will always win. But nonetheless, be hated in the Eastern parts remaining under Ukrainian control.

About Achmetov:

which took its marching orders from moscow.

No. While he was a Donetsk-based oligarch, and even initially supported some separatism, his property in Donetsk has been, afaik, expropriated, and he is on the Ukrainian side. The most important of his factories are yet controlled by the Ukrainian army. There have been various rumors that there was some hidden collusion with the Donetsk republic not to take them - some key fabrics in Mariupol and Avdijevka are quite close to the front line. But these are rumors, and even if true he is now on the Ukrainian side., and an enemy of the republics.

no your objection is that a russian puppet was removed. you like fascists as long as they are pro russian. no yanukovich would have been reelected. he was tampering with elections.

You think you know better what I object to? Laughable, but I like to quote it because it discredits only you, not me.

Moreover, you have no idea about the realities on the ground. The pro-Russians have despised Yanukovich too, as for corruption, as for not beating all those Maidan fascists as they deserve. But their support would have been necessary. The only chance for the Eastern part to win elections would have been some newcomer, some of the leaders of the Antimaidan movement.

 

[pjdude1219]

You have, obviously, made an error, because you have written something which is correct.

typo wasnt. no euromaidian wasnt led by fascists. that you think that is only because you believe what ever russia tells you to.

Whatever, even from that article, it follows that Yanukovich has won the 2008 elections without such possibility, and only his reelection is questioned. In fact, I have been at that time in Ukraine, and nobody cared about this. I did not care much too, to be honest, so I cannot exclude the possibility that some people cared about this. But it was not a question to be discussed in everyday life.

what a known liars says he believes is irrelevant. the fact is euromadian happened do to yanukovichs election tampering

Ukraine was divided into two parts at that time too. The Western part and the Eastern part. The Eastern part elected Yanukovich, the Western part supported Maidan and so on. The heartland of Ukrainian fascism was the Western part - the one taken by Stalin from Poland. With essential parts of the Eastern part - Crimea and Donbass - no longer voting, the candidate of the Western part will always win. But nonetheless, be hated in the Eastern parts remaining under Ukrainian control.

im familiar with the divide. nice switch though. you lie got proven so you just move the fucking goal posts.

About Achmetov:

No. While he was a Donetsk-based oligarch, and even initially supported some separatism, his property in Donetsk has been, afaik, expropriated, and he is on the Ukrainian side. The most important of his factories are yet controlled by the Ukrainian army. There have been various rumors that there was some hidden collusion with the Donetsk republic not to take them - some key fabrics in Mariupol and Avdijevka are quite close to the front line. But these are rumors, and even if true he is now on the Ukrainian side., and an enemy of the republics.

no he is on russias side. eastern ukraine is a hotbed for pro russian activity mainly due to the old russian empire colonize the eartern parts of the ukranie. and the Donetsk republic is a russian puppet state.

You think you know better what I object to? Laughable, but I like to quote it because it discredits only you, not me.

correction. i think you a liar so im just stating what i think more acurately is your beliefs. considering you support fascists in putin nd call anyone opposed to him a fascist.

Moreover, you have no idea about the realities on the ground. The pro-Russians have despised Yanukovich too, as for corruption, as for not beating all those Maidan fascists as they deserve. But their support would have been necessary. The only chance for the Eastern part to win elections would have been some newcomer, some of the leaders of the Antimaidan movement.

correction i have a better idea than you though i dont claim to be an expert. you peddle in delusions and conspricy theories. the entire reason euromaidian blew up is because yanukovich sent in his stormtroopers to break it up like the jackbooted thug he is. Yanukovich is far more of a fascist than the euromaidan revolutionaries.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army has taken some villages in the North of the IS pocket:

Israel decided to become the IS air defense and shot a Syrian airplane. They may have a formal excuse, namely that the Syrian plane has accidentally entered the occupied Golan Heights. Nonetheless, even with such a formal excuse, this makes Israel an open IS supporter.

The irrelevant rant of some dude is ignored.

 

[sculptor]

The Syrian army has taken some villages in the North of the IS pocket:

Israel decided to become the IS air defense and shot a Syrian airplane. They may have a formal excuse, namely that the Syrian plane has accidentally entered the occupied Golan Heights. Nonetheless, even with such a formal excuse, this makes Israel an open IS supporter.

The irrelevant rant of some dude is ignored.

Why am I NOT surprised....................
(imagine a series of deleted expletives)

Does it now seem that Israel has likely been supporting IS all along..................?

 

[CptBork]

Why am I NOT surprised....................
(imagine a series of deleted expletives)

Does it now seem that Israel has likely been supporting IS all along..................?

1) What makes you think ISIS is the only rebel force near the Israeli border? What's your source on rebel concentrations and allegiances?
2) Who was supporting ISIS and allowing it to operate in Syria during the US occupation of Iraq?
3) If Israel were supporting ISIS, why does Putin not personally say anything about it? Why does he treat Israel like it's worthy of a deal while treating the US like it's a nuissance?
4) If Palestinians fighting Assad in Syria are automatically labeled ISIS because they don't take their orders from droopy-eyed white people, are Palestinians in Gaza fighting for ISIS too?
5) ISIS has staged more attacks against Israel, and Jews overseas (such as in France and UK), than they have against Russia. Does that mean they're working for Russia? Is that why most Russian bombs fell on the secular opposition instead?

ISIS hates Jews and Israel more than anyone else on the planet. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely batshit insane. ISIS also knows they don't have the power to defeat Israel militarily, and they're already overwhelmed with the forces they're fighting as is, hence as they've openly stated several times, the fight with Israel is for another day.

As for the missiles, I already noted Israel's warning about Assad violating the DMZ a couple weeks ago. Obviously he didn't listen. Plus, as I said before, Sukhois are crappy planes built by crappy Russian engineers.