Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?

[joepistole]

It is.

No it isn't. Asking you to support your assertion, isn't Nazi propaganda.

Because the Ukrainian Nazis are completely open about this, that their Hero is the Ukrainian fascist Stepan Bandera is not hidden at all, they have memorials for him, they have made the official day of the UPA, the Ukrainian armed fascist organization, which has murdered a lot of Russians, Poles and Jews, an official holiday, and use the Ukrainian version of Heil Hitler even if they make speeches in the US congress. So, these are not simply right-wing parties defamed by the same NATO propaganda as neonazi simply because they are right wing, they are completely open about being Nazis. In this situation it is Nazi propaganda to ask for evidence that these are Nazis, as if this would be questionable.

You are being disingenuous yet again. Just because there are some fascist organizations in Ukraine, it doesn't mean the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government are fascists. There are fascist organizations in Russia and virtually every country around the world. The fact is, as with almost everything with you, you have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion.

I think you should ask yourself, why is it you view a request for information as Nazi. The truth is, of all the governments in the world today, Mother Russia is among the most fascist and most Nazi like. It uses nationalism to maintain power. As pointed out to you many times now, Russia uses militarism to invade, occupy and annex the lands of its neighbors and it uses Hitler's excuses to rationalize its blatantly illegal actions.

 

[sculptor]

back to russia:
for potemkin

 

[Quantum Quack]

back to russia:
for potemkin

such passion!

 

[Schmelzer]

sculptor, only Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is correct. (But if I write names, I often use German transcriptions of kyrillic letters, or even mix them with English transcriptions).

Possibly the strategy is to ensure IS insurgents have no escape ( Retreat for IS) and that every one of them will be caught?

Certainly not, I have read that they even use the reverse tactic, they intentionally leave the insurgent a way to run away. Reasonable, if you otherwise risc a suicide attack instead of simply giving up.

Well since none of us has likely ever seen a working nuke up close let alone assessed its condition, we're just going to have to take your word for it as the resident military expert on these forums.

I'm not a specialist or expert too, I simply have read such claims from military experts which are IMHO reliable.

Your Russian media has interviewed what, a dozen Ukrainian Nazis, the same people over and over again, and they're supposed to represent the entire country?

Of course not, but what I refer to are the guys in the parliament. Ok, if you claim that the elections were faked, I will even agree. The Ukrainian "Heil Hitler" is "Slava Ukraine", and has been used by Poroschenko in his speech in the US congress, receiving standing ovations. Would they give Merkel standing ovations too, if she would finish a speech with "Heil Hitler"? The founding date of the Ukrainian version of SS has been made a holiday, day of defender of the fatherland or so, by the actual parliament.

Like I said, there are neo-Nazis rallying in Moscow all the time, you can see videos on Youtube of them luring and then beating gays to death while the police stand around and watch.

Russian Nazis often enough end in prison.

 

[Schmelzer]

Just because there are some fascist organizations in Ukraine, it doesn't mean the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government are fascists.

If the Ukrainian president regularly uses the Ukrainian-fascist greeting "Slava Ukraine", he is a fascist. If the parliament makes the founding day of the UPA, the Ukrainian SS, a holiday, they are fascists. Because they openly use fascist symbols.

There are fascist organizations in Russia and virtually every country around the world. The fact is, as with almost everything with you, you have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/...-breaks-ukraine-free-from-the-soviet-embrace/

On October 14, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko proclaimed October 14, the day of celebrating Pokrova, or Intercession, of the Virgin Mary, a new state holiday – the Day of Defender of Ukraine.
The Orthodox feast day of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary, October 14, is considered to be the symbolic day of the founding of the UPA, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army active during World War II

I think you should ask yourself, why is it you view a request for information as Nazi.

Because there is no reason to doubt that the Ukrainian powers are Nazis. Because hiding that these openly fascists guys are Nazis is a standard feature of NATO propaganda. And because this is usually combined with propaganda of the following type:

The truth is, of all the governments in the world today, Mother Russia is among the most fascist and most Nazi like.

Of course, it is really uncomfortable, especially for the German NATO-propagandists, who present themself as the most staunched antifascists of the whole world, that their government, together with the NATO, supports movements in the Ukraine which do not even hide their fascist ideas. So, they have to hide this.

For me, this is nothing really relevant, but I have a lot of fun confronting these propagandists with their lies. For me, Nazis are not very different from communists, and democrats are also not that much better. The economic system - corporatism - is the same everywhere.

But it is really funny to observe how the same German NATO-papers present quite modest people a little bit right from Merkel as neonazis and right-wing extremist, despite the fact they have nothing in common with fascism and distance themself all the time from everything Nazi, but those guys in the Ukraine, who completely open celebrate Bandera and use Nazi greetings, flags and symbols, are presented as, ok, maybe a little bit nationalist or patriotic.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Certainly not, I have read that they even use the reverse tactic, they intentionally leave the insurgent a way to run away. Reasonable, if you otherwise rise a suicide attack instead of simply giving up.

Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of what IS is about and what methods they have been using on their hostages, and any one who is not aligned correctly with their belief systems.
Suicide bombing is probably the least concerning when you have such a hateful brutal and ruthless ideology.
Entrapping them so that they can not escape and start again elsewhere would make for sound strategy.

 

[Quantum Quack]

An interesting point which I do not understand yet is that the attacks in Southern Aleppo revert what I expect. The typical situation in an uprising is that the the big towns and the roads are controlled by the government, and the villages controlled by the insurgents.

Do you have any other ideas about your puzzle?
mine is "to entrap and exterminate (eliminate)"
yours is to?

 

[Schmelzer]

So you don't think the US introduction of ground troops into Syria is an escalation?

This was a new declaration. Anyway, it is only symbolic. 50 guys or so, who are already working there, and now will officially working there.

As explained to you before, as demonstrated by your reference, the number of airstrikes varies over time for a variety of reasons.

That's why I have looked at the averages.

I wrote that. You have plagiarized my writing.

Ups, a horrible error. What a shame, because of such a stupid error now everybody thinks that I write such stupid nonsense. Thank you for pointing out this.

You omitted the fact Sunni Muslims are among the Syrian refugees and are the vast majority of Syrian refugees and at the same time labeling Sunni Muslims as Syrian terrorists.

The first "fact" is a triviality not worth to be mentioned, the second one is your claim, without evidence, and that I have labeled Sunni Muslims as terrorists is a lie. The terrorists are Sunni Muslims, at least the majority, that's all.

In the paragraph above you write, "And I have in no way Sunnis accused to be terrorists, as usual a defamation.", and in the very next sentence you contradict your self with, "Most of the terrorists are Sunnis".

There is no contradiction. Learn elementary logic. If there are 100 Sunni, 100 Shiites, and among the Sunni 1 terrorist, but among the Shiites none, then all terrorists are Sunnis, but to say "Sunnis are terrorists" would be defamation of the Sunnis, and I would not say this.

And where is your evidence CIA guys are terrorists?

The admission of McCain on CNN that among those attacked by the Russians were rebel forces supported by the CIA. Of course, I do not care about your choice to name terrorists fighting for the US "moderate rebels", and prefer, in this case, to name all those who fight the government with weapons terrorists. And, of course, those who support terrorists with money, weapons and training are also terrorists, not?

Have Russia's nukes been stored in facilities and guarded? Sure they have been stored and to some degree guarded. But if Russia's nukes had been adequately maintained as you have asserted, then there would be no need for Mother Russia to update its nuclear weapons as Mother Russia is now doing.

Of course, there was not really a need - all the evidence I have shows that the US missile protection is actually so bad that it is even unable to catch even very old Soviet rockets, Saudi patriot fails even against export variants of Soviet rockets which the Houti have somewhere found in Yemen. But the Russians know what is really possible in missile defense, they have their own, and so they know that to improve the nuclear forces is necessary.

The number of Russian nukes which are actually workable is unknown. But some portion of Russia's nukes are in all likelihood inoperable.

Unknown to you. The US military knows they are operable. Because they are regularly tested.

Not about nuclear weapons, but about much less important things like the navy, which really has been severely neglected during the Yeltsin time:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/orde...-russian-military-capabilities-syria-campbell

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of course, there was not really a need - all the evidence I have shows that the US missile protection is actually so bad that it is even unable to catch even very old Soviet rockets, Saudi patriot fails even against export variants of Soviet rockets which the Houti have somewhere found in Yemen. But the Russians know what is really possible in missile defense, they have their own, and so they know that to improve the nuclear forces is necessary.

Are McDonalds hamburgers that much of a threat to Moscow?
The USA gonna Nuke Moscow with Maccas? ( with or with out cucumber?)
What intentions do you seriously think the West has over Russia?

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is no contradiction. Learn elementary logic. If there are 100 Sunni, 100 Shiites, and among the Sunni 1 terrorist, but among the Shiites none, then all terrorists are Sunnis, but to say "Sunnis are terrorists" would be defamation of the Sunnis, and I would not say this.

Obviously you do not understand the silly nuances of the English language well enough to see why your words could be seriously misinterpreted.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Seriously though I think it is a good question to ask you Schmelzer. You seem intelligent and articulate enough to explain.
What do you feel are the democratic West's intentions towards Mother Russia and all it's peoples in the longer term?

 

[Schmelzer]

Do you have any other ideas about your puzzle? mine is "to entrap and exterminate (eliminate)" yours is to?

My is that outside the cities air support is much more powerful, one does not have to care that much about civil collateral damage. As long as they are fanatic enough to run out of the cities to recapture the surroundings this would be a reasonable strategy.

About the strategy of leaving them a way to run I have read, that's not my invention. And it makes sense - if one terrorist sees no way out, and switches into suicide modus, he can kill a lot of people. If he simply runs away, one can shoot him in the back, troops who run have usually much higher casualties than the winners. To encirle makes sense in the long run (they run out of amunition) or against low moral enemies (Ukrainian army). Say, in Debalzewo the Ukrainians had stocks sufficient for weeks, and fanatics would have stayed for months, but the Ukrainians were simply running away.

What intentions do you seriously think the West has over Russia?

He wants to rule Russia, because he wants to rule the whole world. That's simply the New World Order.

Getting first strike capability is, of course, also a thing they want. Of course, not for using it really, but for blackmailing. But it these evil states do not submit, who knows?

And democracy with freedom of press are simply the methods to rule a country, much cheaper than as a colony where one has to pay for troops. "Freedom of press" means the US oligarchs can buy media concerns. This allows them, in a democracy, to get rid of any politician they don't like, by a smear campaign. And with a strong enough media support, one can win elections. Investment: One has to buy the media. Not really expensive, because the media can even make profits, beyond their political aim. In the past, the US has supported also a lot of dictators, but they often think they can do what they like, as Noriega and Saddam, and to get rid of them in such a case is not that easy, requires military. To get rid, instead, of Strauss-Kahn was much cheaper, a faked accusation of sexual assault is sufficient in a democracy.

Obviously you do not understand the silly nuances of the English language well enough to see why your words could be seriously misinterpreted.

Probable, it would not be the first time. Explain which error I have made here.

 

[joepistole]

This was a new declaration. Anyway, it is only symbolic. 50 guys or so, who are already working there, and now will officially working there.

No it wasn't. It demonstrates your assertion is wrong. And how do you know they were already there? You don't. You are just making shit up again. As with almost all of your assertions you have zero evidence to support it.

That's why I have looked at the averages.

Well if you are a scientist as you have claimed, then you should know averages are a very poor measure of consistency or frequency because averages are vulnerable extremes in variation. Additionally, as previously stated, one month isn't sufficient because frequency varies by target availability, intelligence, battle strategies, and many other factors. The unpleasant reality for you is US intervention in escalated Syria with Russian intervention in Syria. If Russian air forces bomb Americans...well it won't go well for Mother Russia.

These initial 50 American troops are not like your average Russian troop. They are force multipliers. These initial 50 American troops are probably at least equal to a brigade of Russian troops. The unpleasant fact is instead of retreating as you want to believe, Americans responded with more aggression, by moving US foot soldiers into Syria.

Ups, a horrible error. What a shame, because of such a stupid error now everybody thinks that I write such stupid nonsense. Thank you for pointing out this.

Well, that's probably because you do write stupid stuff and more specifically, you post Russian propaganda and you routinely ignore everything which is inconsistent with Russian propaganda.

The first "fact" is a triviality not worth to be mentioned, the second one is your claim, without evidence, and that I have labeled Sunni Muslims as terrorists is a lie. The terrorists are Sunni Muslims, at least the majority, that's all.

Your lies are not trivial. ISIS is an organization whose membership are Sunni Muslims. But that doesn't mean all Sunni Muslims are terrorists. The fact that Assad's opponents are mostly Sunni Muslims does not make Sunni Muslims terrorists. You have labeled Sunni Muslims as terrorists in no small part because they are Assad's opposition in Syria. The Free Syrian Army is mostly Sunni Muslim.

There is no contradiction. Learn elementary logic. If there are 100 Sunni, 100 Shiites, and among the Sunni 1 terrorist, but among the Shiites none, then all terrorists are Sunnis, but to say "Sunnis are terrorists" would be defamation of the Sunnis, and I would not say this.

But as previously demonstrated there was a very clear contradiction. Before you go telling anyone else to learn "elementary logic" you would do well to take your own advice.

The admission of McCain on CNN that among those attacked by the Russians were rebel forces supported by the CIA. Of course, I do not care about your choice to name terrorists fighting for the US "moderate rebels", and prefer, in this case, to name all those who fight the government with weapons terrorists. And, of course, those who support terrorists with money, weapons and training are also terrorists, not?

Well here is the deal there are only two terrorists groups in Syria, Assad and ISIS. Only Assad has gassed his people, innocent men, women and children with sarin gas and barrel bombs. Not even ISIS has done that. The Free Syrian Army hasn't done anything even remotely similar to what ISIS has done. It hasn't invaded other countries. It hasn't enslaved people. It hasn't conducted mass murders. The Free Syrian is composed and led largely by defectors from Assad's military who oppose Assad's tyranny. You deliberately miss use words. Using your words Mother Russia is a terrorist, because Mother Russia is supporting Assad who has done all the previously mentioned things to terrorize his people. And whither Russia ever admits its folly is largely immaterial, because the world has seen and the world knows the truth of the matter.

Of course, there was not really a need - all the evidence I have shows that the US missile protection is actually so bad that it is even unable to catch even very old Soviet rockets, Saudi patriot fails even against export variants of Soviet rockets which the Houti have somewhere found in Yemen. But the Russians know what is really possible in missile defense, they have their own, and so they know that to improve the nuclear forces is necessary.

Ah yeah, only a Russia would be a big enough sucker to believe that load of crap. The unfortunate fact for you is no one in the West is losing any sleep over Mother Russia. You need to tell that to Israel, but they won't believe you because they have a rather primitive US ballistic missile defense system and it has worked very well for them. As previously mentioned, the US has lasers aboard its ships and in its aircraft. The US doesn't need missiles to shoot down other missiles.

And as previously pointed out to you, Mother Russia cannot possibly win an arms race against the US. Mother Russia just isn't big enough or wealthy enough or smart enough. If Russia wants to repeat the collapse of the Soviet Union, so be it.

Unknown to you. The US military knows they are operable. Because they are regularly tested.

Not about nuclear weapons, but about much less important things like the navy, which really has been severely neglected during the Yeltsin time:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/orde...-russian-military-capabilities-syria-campbell

You don't know how many Russia nukes actually work. Russian nuclear forces are antiquated. That's why Putin is upgrading them and the completion date for those upgrades are years away.

Putin has been upgrading all Russian military capabilities, of that there is no doubt. But Mother Russia is beginning from a very low state of combat readiness. It will take many years to finish Putin's rearming program. But has previously pointed out to you, even then, whatever Russia does it will be insufficient. And also as previously pointed out to you Putin's rearmament program is falling behind schedule.

The article you referenced was not in anyway related to the US government. But the US government is watching Russia's military capabilities. It watches China's and those of every other nation which has a military capability. It would be remiss if it didn't. But that doesn't make Russia a boogie man which keeps US leaders or American citizens up at night.

Russia's militarization efforts are no doubt underway. But Russia's military is starting from a very low place. There's a reason why Russia's navy has been referred to as a rust bucket fleet. And even when Putin has completed his rearmament plans, Mother Russia will still not be a match for US forces. Russia cannot win and will not win an arms race with the US. As I have told you many times now, if Russia wants to get involved with another arms race, if Mother Russia wants to repeat the mistakes of its past, so be it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

My is that outside the cities air support is much more powerful, one does not have to care that much about civil collateral damage. As long as they are fanatic enough to run out of the cities to recapture the surroundings this would be a reasonable strategy.

About the strategy of leaving them a way to run I have read, that's not my invention. And it makes sense - if one terrorist sees no way out, and switches into suicide modus, he can kill a lot of people. If he simply runs away, one can shoot him in the back, troops who run have usually much higher casualties than the winners. To encirle makes sense in the long run (they run out of amunition) or against low moral enemies (Ukrainian army). Say, in Debalzewo the Ukrainians had stocks sufficient for weeks, and fanatics would have stayed for months, but the Ukrainians were simply running away.

Ok I see, and you may be right...
My first concern with your position is that IS does not easily fall with in the definition of a terrorist organization. IS purpose is not directly the over throw of Assad's regime. It's purpose is to convert or exterminate those who do not believe the extreme religious dogma as they do. if overthrowing the Assad regime helps facilitate their greater purpose then that is what they will attempt to do.
My second concern is that IS has proven itself to behave militarily in very different manner to other conventional terrorist organizations in that it has no hesitation to torture, kill, maim etc any one who does not agree to convert regardless of whether or not they pose a threat to IS or not. There appears to be no IS held prisoners only hostages. ( note the difference ) (extreme Jihad)
My third concern is that the opposing forces to IS have to consider every IS operative as a desperate suicidal maniac ( As repeatedly demonstrated by the radicalization issues demonstrated around the globe and the atrocities they have routinely perpetrated in the Middle East.)

I, believe with some justification that not a single one, IS operative, will ever face the international court for crimes against humanity. Therefore either they are good at hiding, the get asylum in their home country or they will be eliminated Entrapping them will make it far more difficult to hide.

He wants to rule Russia, because he wants to rule the whole world. That's simply the New World Order.

ahhh the ole "new world order" fear!
So many in the west fear this too. You are not alone.

Tell me, if you wish, how do you feel about globalization and how inevitably the world is moving irrevocably to being one nation called Earth. ( scary hey!?)

Getting first strike capability is, of course, also a thing they want. Of course, not for using it really, but for blackmailing. But it these evil states do not submit, who knows?

...and the managing director of Mc Dooonas stands up and says to his marketing team."The golden rule of marketing is thou shall not bomb our future customers" hee hee.. sorry

And democracy with freedom of press are simply the methods to rule a country, much cheaper than as a colony where one has to pay for troops. "Freedom of press" means the US oligarchs can buy media concerns. This allows them, in a democracy, to get rid of any politician they don't like, by a smear campaign. And with a strong enough media support, one can win elections. Investment: One has to buy the media. Not really expensive, because the media can even make profits, beyond their political aim. In the past, the US has supported also a lot of dictators, but they often think they can do what they like, as Noriega and Saddam, and to get rid of them in such a case is not that easy, requires military. To get rid, instead, of Strauss-Kahn was much cheaper, a faked accusation of sexual assault is sufficient in a democracy.

so you have a choice:
Freedom of press (managed by a so called free market)
or government controlled press...

lousy choices hey as both have their problems. But at least with freedom of the press, especially with "fair reporting laws" in force, market forces ( the people) have an opportunity to use their own influence where as with Gov. controlled press they have little to no influence.

A government controlled press will always slant media coverage towards it's favor. It is human nature to do so.

Probable, it would not be the first time. Explain which error I have made here.

The words you failed to realize that were important in your sentence are inserted for you.

There is no contradiction. Learn elementary logic. If there are 100 Sunni, 100 Shiites, and among the Sunni 1 terrorist, but among the Shiites none, then all terrorists with in the sample group are Sunnis, but to say "Sunnis are terrorists" would be defamation of the Sunnis, and I would not say this.​

By stating as you have in a heated conversation means that you have contradicted yourself due to a loss of general context. ( all terrorists in Syria )

"I believe that translation from Russian to English and vice-verse is actually extremely difficult if precision is required."
Я считаю, что перевод с русского на английский и наоборот на самом деле крайне сложно, если требуется точность.
which when reverse translated reads:
"I believe that the translation from Russian into English and vice versa is really very difficult, if required accuracy."
which is a bit different to "if precision is required" or "if accuracy is required"
Guess work by an angry reader has to be avoided IMO
translation c/o Google

 

[Schmelzer]

These initial 50 American troops are probably at least equal to a brigade of Russian troops. The unpleasant fact is instead of retreating as you want to believe, Americans responded with more aggression, by moving US foot soldiers into Syria.

Poor Kurds if they really multiply their forces as they usually so - it means, thousands of Kurds will run away if a few hundred Islamists become visible, like the US-paid Iraq army. Thanks for openly acknowledging that the US are aggressors.

You have labeled Sunni Muslims as terrorists in no small part because they are Assad's opposition in Syria.

I have not labeled Sunni Muslims as terrorists, prove your defamation with a quote (which should not be one where I simply name some terrorists Sunni Muslims). But I have named, and continue to name, the Free Syrian Army a terrorist organization.

And as previously pointed out to you, Mother Russia cannot possibly win an arms race against the US. Mother Russia just isn't big enough or wealthy enough or smart enough.

Russia is certainly smart enough to create, with 10% of the budget, thinks the US does not have, like small cheap ships able to start cruise missiles with 2000 km range. And, no, Russia does not even want to win an arms race. It has a focus on its nuclear weapons and on air defense, which includes means to fight US carriers. Everything else is not obligatory. Defense systems against airforce and navy have a nice potential to be sold to different states, which are, for whatever reason, afraid of being attacked by some navy with aircraft carriers. A good way to diversify export.

What for Russian security is essential Russia can reach, at least in the foreseeable future: To prevent a first strike ability of the US is possible. A US missile defense is yet not even able to catch old Soviet rockets, so it would have, first, to learn to catch old Soviet rockets, and then to win an arms race between improving the rockets (Russian side) and improving anti-rockets (US side). All the Russians need are some rockets the US defense is unable to catch. An asymmetric race, which Russia can win with much less money.

The next is air defense and defense against navy with carriers. This is also asymmetric, airbases as well as carriers are static resp. slow big targets. And it is much cheaper for Russia because it can easily sell air defense systems to all nations in favour of the multipolar world, without having to be afraid very much that those systems can be misused very much - Russia does not want to attack them, and does not need big aircraft carriers.

 

[Schmelzer]

My third concern is that the opposing forces to IS have to consider every IS operative as a desperate suicidal maniac ( As repeatedly demonstrated by the radicalization issues demonstrated around the globe and the atrocities they have routinely perpetrated in the Middle East.)

As a potential one, yes. In fact, many of them run away. But, indeed, their moral is higher than that of the Ukrainian Nazi gangs, which are simply mafia gangs which use Nazi symbolics to look a little bit more terrible to their opponents. If encircled, the IS fighter will be much more likely to become suicidal.

Tell me, if you wish, how do you feel about globalization and how inevitably the world is moving irrevocably to being one nation called Earth. ( scary hey!?)

Globalization is one thing, world government a quite different one. Trade is already global, tourism too, and I have no problem with this. I would even like a little bit more globalization, without all the visa restrictions.

The increasing cultural uniformity is something I don't like at all. I would like a world with many very different cultures much more - with a possibility to look which culture is the best one for oneself, so that one could emigrate to this culture. So, this is a point where I'm in favour of a localization (every neighbourhood a different culture, in all aspects, with different laws? Very nice. But please without strong immigration rules - you have to accept the local rules, if you do, you are welcome).

What I would really hate is a world government. It would be, almost by necessity, totalitarian.

so you have a choice:
Freedom of press (managed by a so called free market)
or government controlled press...

No, this is only the choice between local-government-controlled press and US-controlled press. The people have no choice anyway.

The only defense against mass media is the internet. "Fair reporting laws" are simply a special form of government control of the media, and they will never work. They may be fair to politically strong established groups, that's all. Imagine US press being fair to pedofiles, LOL.

The words you failed to realize that were important in your sentence are inserted for you.

There is no contradiction. Learn elementary logic. If there are 100 Sunni, 100 Shiites, and among the Sunni 1 terrorist, but among the Shiites none, then all terrorists with in the sample group are Sunnis, but to say "Sunnis are terrorists" would be defamation of the Sunnis, and I would not say this.​

Ok, this is not a language problem, but a problem of how much self-evident context you have to include and what can be omitted. If you formulate a mathematical theorem, you have to include everything. Else, you can omit some parts of the context. Not very much in a scientific paper, but a lot in a forum posting.

 

[Schmelzer]

Along the highway, http://www.almasdarnews.com/article...llah-capture-the-ahad-mountains-in-east-hama/ reports some success, namely that some Ahad mountains have been captures near the highway. But it mentions yet some IS forces entrenched near the highway, which are actually under attack.

The forces in Aleppo itself continue their attacks unrelated to the highway, as in South Aleppo, where they have taken several villages Khirbat Al-Shalash, Tal Dadeen, Kafr Haddad, and Al-Shughaydilah and have started now to attack the town Al Hadher http://www.almasdarnews.com/article...leppo-military-operations-begin-in-al-hadher/ as in the South-East of Aleppo where they have retaken Jabboul http://www.almasdarnews.com/article...st-aleppo-while-isis-reinforces-sheikh-ahmad/ So, given that IS has attacked the forces who try to deblock Kuweires as from the North toward As-Safira, as from the East toward Jabboul, and failed in above directions, and there seems to be nothing serious remaining between the railway line they have already crossed and the M15 highway which is at least in some part controlled by the Kuweires forces themself, the deblocking seems close.

 

[joepistole]

Poor Kurds if they really multiply their forces as they usually so - it means, thousands of Kurds will run away if a few hundred Islamists become visible, like the US-paid Iraq army. Thanks for openly acknowledging that the US are aggressors.

Uh, no. When have the Kurds every run away from anything? The reason ISIS now controls 30% less land area today is very clear evidence the Kurds and Iraqis are not running from the battlefield.

And where did I acknowledge the US is the aggressor? Dropping bombs isn't a peaceful act. Raiding ISIS installations isn't a peaceful act. It's aggression. Using your logic, Mother Russia is also an aggressor. Russian air operations, aside from bombing innocent Syrians, is doing the same thing the US and allied nations have been doing for months on the rare occasions when Mother Russia bombs ISIS targets.

I have not labeled Sunni Muslims as terrorists, prove your defamation with a quote (which should not be one where I simply name some terrorists Sunni Muslims). But I have named, and continue to name, the Free Syrian Army a terrorist organization.

Except you have, you have repeatedly named Sunni Muslims as terrorists. I suggest you go back and read your previous posts. As previously pointed out to you, when you wrote about Syrian refugees, you mentioned the Alewites and Christians but failed to mention the bulk of Syrian refugees, the Sunni Muslims.

Russia is certainly smart enough to create, with 10% of the budget, thinks the US does not have, like small cheap ships able to start cruise missiles with 2000 km range. And, no, Russia does not even want to win an arms race. It has a focus on its nuclear weapons and on air defense, which includes means to fight US carriers. Everything else is not obligatory. Defense systems against airforce and navy have a nice potential to be sold to different states, which are, for whatever reason, afraid of being attacked by some navy with aircraft carriers. A good way to diversify export.

Fine, even if Mother Russia spent all of its budget, even if Mother Russia spent every last ruble in the country on defense, it would not be enough to compete with the US much less all allied nations. Whatever Mother Russia does, the US can produce 10 times more and if you include allies 20 times more. It's just a number of basic math. Mother Russia Russia can never win an arms war with the West or the US. Mother Russia failed once, it looks like you want to try again as you are repeating all of Russia's previous mistakes.

What for Russian security is essential Russia can reach, at least in the foreseeable future: To prevent a first strike ability of the US is possible. A US missile defense is yet not even able to catch old Soviet rockets, so it would have, first, to learn to catch old Soviet rockets, and then to win an arms race between improving the rockets (Russian side) and improving anti-rockets (US side). All the Russians need are some rockets the US defense is unable to catch. An asymmetric race, which Russia can win with much less money.

Except as bruising as this is for your Russian ego, no one really cares about Mother Russia. No one wants to invade Mother Russia. Mother Russia just isn't that important.

The next is air defense and defense against navy with carriers. This is also asymmetric, airbases as well as carriers are static resp. slow big targets. And it is much cheaper for Russia because it can easily sell air defense systems to all nations in favour of the multipolar world, without having to be afraid very much that those systems can be misused very much - Russia does not want to attack them, and does not need big aircraft carriers.

Most of that doesn't make any kind of sense, I don't know what your point is, if you have one. But we do live in a multi polar world and a wold in which compliance with international law is increasingly important. But apparently Mother Russia didn't get the memo.

 

[Schmelzer]

Uh, no. When have the Kurds every run away from anything?

They have not. This was not the point of my joke.

The reason ISIS now controls 30% less land area today is very clear evidence the Kurds and Iraqis are not running from the battlefield.

But you know that the most powerful Iraq forces are not the US-created Iraq army but some Shiit militias?

And where did I acknowledge the US is the aggressor? Dropping bombs isn't a peaceful act. Raiding ISIS installations isn't a peaceful act. It's aggression. Using your logic, Mother Russia is also an aggressor.

You have used the word aggression. And, of course, self-defense and defense of others may be violent, but is not aggression, so those who do such things are not aggressors. At least this is the libertarian use of the word "aggression". If you name legitime self-defense aggression, your choice.

Except you have, you have repeatedly named Sunni Muslims as terrorists.

Defamation. Quote please. Its not my job, but your job, to support your claims.

As previously pointed out to you, when you wrote about Syrian refugees, you mentioned the Alewites and Christians but failed to mention the bulk of Syrian refugees, the Sunni Muslims.

So what? I also did not mention Armenians, does it follow that I have called them terrorists?

Fine, even if Mother Russia spent all of its budget, even if Mother Russia spent every last ruble in the country on defense, it would not be enough to compete with the US much less all allied nations. Whatever Mother Russia does, the US can produce 10 times more and if you include allies 20 times more.

But all what Russia needs is self-defense. It is not its aim to become the strongest bully to terrorize others. It does not need aircraft carriers to terrorize other continents.

 

[joepistole]

They have not. This was not the point of my joke.

Joke?

But you know that the most powerful Iraq forces are not the US-created Iraq army but some Shiit militias?

Oh, and you know this how?

You have used the word aggression. And, of course, self-defense and defense of others may be violent, but is not aggression, so those who do such things are not aggressors. At least this is the libertarian use of the word "aggression". If you name legitime self-defense aggression, your choice.

Yes I have used the word aggression, but I never said the US was the aggressor nation. Your are yet again not being honest.

Defamation. Quote please. Its not my job, but your job, to support your claims.

Well if you think I have defamed you, you should be able to point to some evidence of same. And reading of your past posts clearly show you have defamed Sunni Muslims. Just because Sunni Muslims area opposed to Assad, that does not make them terrorists as you have repeatedly asserted. I have repeatedly supported this claim. This is the umpteenth refutation. Your words have been repeatedly quoted and referenced.

Your repeated refusal to recognize evidence isn't my problem.

So what? I also did not mention Armenians, does it follow that I have called them terrorists?

Well, Armenians are not in any way close to a majority population in Syria. They are a tiny sliver of Syria's population. As previously pointed out to you, Sunni Muslims are 75% of the Syrian population, yet while mentioning Syrian refugees you didn't mention Sunni refugees and you went on to accuse Syrian "terrorists" as being Sunni. Again, you were either being very ignorant or you were not being honest.

But all what Russia needs is self-defense. It is not its aim to become the strongest bully to terrorize others. It does not need aircraft carriers to terrorize other continents.

Oh, but it does need its military to illegally invade, occupy, and annex neighboring states. Russia's neighbors don't share your beliefs in the benign nature of Russia's military ambitions. They have lived with Mother Russia for a very long time and their experience with Mother Russia hasn't engendered trust. That's why they want NATO protection and US troops within their borders.