• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia launches airstrikes in northern Syria, senior military official says

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
EXCLUSIVE: Russian warplanes have begun bombarding Syrian opposition targets in the war torn nation's north, working on behalf of dictator Bashar al Assad, according to a senior military official.

The official said airstrikes targeted fighters in the vicinity of Homs, located roughly 60 miles east of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, and were carried out by a "couple" of Russian bombers. It was not clear if the strikes targeted ISIS, Al Qaeda or other forces opposed to Assad, who Moscow is aiding. According to a Twitter handle belonging to the Syrian government, the Russian strikes were initiated at the request of Assad.

The development came after Pentagon officials brushed aside an official request from Russia to clear air space over northern Syria, where Moscow intends to conduct airstrikes against ISIS on behalf of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, according to sources who spoke to Fox News.


snip...

Russia launches airstrikes in northern Syria, senior military official says | Fox News
 
We knew this was going to happen, Russia is there to prop up al-Assad. Why is this news?
 
We knew this was going to happen, Russia is there to prop up al-Assad. Why is this news?

News - definition of news by The Free Dictionary

Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media
 
We knew this was going to happen, Russia is there to prop up al-Assad. Why is this news?

More importantly, why stop Russia?

Dictators in the ME are good. Look at what happened when we toppled the first dictator... Installed by us...
 
News - definition of news by The Free Dictionary

Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media


Well what he said flew right over your head. I guess I can give you the foreigner's pass on this.
 
More importantly, why stop Russia?

Dictators in the ME are good. Look at what happened when we toppled the first dictator... Installed by us...

As we have said before, the primary reason the US opposes al-Assad is Syrian alliance with Russia. Now that Russia is more involved in protecting al-Assad and going after ISIS, we look even more foolish.
 
As we have said before, the primary reason the US opposes al-Assad is Syrian alliance with Russia. Now that Russia is more involved in protecting al-Assad and going after ISIS, we look even more foolish.

Ooooooh spooky! Syria has an alliance with russia!

Watch out for the 100 billion dollar powerhouse! I think we donate over 6 times that a year. Whatever.
 
We knew this was going to happen, Russia is there to prop up al-Assad. Why is this news?

It is news because Russia's first air strike was not aimed at ISIS. It was aimed at anti-regime forces fighting Assad.
 
It is news because Russia's first air strike was not aimed at ISIS. It was aimed at anti-regime forces fighting Assad.

You talking about those so-called "moderates" that McCain wanted to arm? (Good luck answering that question.)
 
Now the cluster **** just got bigger!

"The US says it was informed an hour before they took place.... In a televised address, Mr Putin said the air strikes were targeting Islamist militants - including Russian citizens - who have taken over large parts of Syria and Iraq. He added that Russia was not going to send ground troops to Syria, and that its role in Syrian army operations would be limited. "We certainly are not going to plunge head-on into this conflict... we will be supporting the Syrian army purely in its legitimate fight with terrorist groups."" Syria crisis: Russian air strikes against Assad enemies - BBC News

Its being reported they bombed these areas in rural Homs: "Talbiseh, Rastan, Zaafaraneh, Latamneh & Ghanto" https://twitter.com/RamiSafadi93/status/649206927923224576

Its being reported that their are no ISIS in the area.
1.)All rebel forces retreated from Homs in early May and the city itself has been under control by Assad forces and citizens have been allowed to return
2.)All of the locations bombed by Russia are in northern rural Homs.
3.)After the Syrian Arab Army was victorious in pushing out rebels during the "Siege of Homs" all rebels were to be allowed to leave the city to the north
4.)The rebels that were involved in the Siege of Homs were the FSA, the Islamic Front, and Al-Nusra front
5.)ISIS has attacked homes but they have attacked it from the East, not the North Islamic Extremists Target Homs, Syria This means Russia is not likely targeting ISIS.
6.)However ISIS does have some influence in the northern rural ares of Homs. A map of who controls what can be found here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Syrian_civil_war.png You will also find that Al-Nusra has influence and is working with the "moderate rebels" (FSA, Islamic Front), and they have many times in the past.
7.)Al-Nusra is currently working with the FSA and Islamic Front in the Northern rural area of Homs. They have launched attacks from that area "Rebels of Nusra Front attacked regime headquarters in several villages in the northern countryside of Homs, using heavy artillery and mortars." Thirty pro-Assad forces killed in Nusra-led attack in Homs - ARA News
8.)It is being reported that Al-Nusra have come into alliance with the FSA and Islamic Front and are fighitng with them in Northern Homs. "The Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra” and their allies from the Free Syrian Army” launched another offensive in the contested Al-Rastan Plains of the Homs Governorate’s northern countryside, targeting the National Defense Forces (NDF) at the imperative towns of Jiboureen and Tisneen on Saturday morning." http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jabhat-al-nusra-conducts-another-offensive-in-northern-homs/ "The Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) offensive in northern Homs continued today, with the latter targeting a number of militant strongholds in the city of Talbeiseh; this resulted in the death of a number of enemy combatants from the Al-Qaeda linked “Al-Nusra Front” (Jabhat Al-Nusra) and local rebel contingents that pledged allegiance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA)." http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/homs-violence-erupts-talbeiseh-saa-al-nusra-front/
9.)It is expected that AL-Nusra and the FSA will have an official alliance in the area to combat these problems. "Hama and Homs: Create a new military operations room to launch offensive
against pro-regime forces, likely NW of Hama City.. Establish joint governance structure in the Homs Countryside.. Establish joint governance structure in the Homs Countryside" http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/90 Day Strategic Forecast - JN in Syria.pdf It seems they are doing just that.


So I guess in conclusion, did Russia bomb ISIS targets? It does not appear that way. But they most likely bombed al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda) targets in the northern rural area of Homs. Most likely bombed a combination of al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) and FSA/Islamic Front targets.
 
Not entirely surprising.
 
More importantly, why stop Russia?

Dictators in the ME are good. Look at what happened when we toppled the first dictator... Installed by us...

Actually, I always laugh at that claim when people make it.

How often did the US install Marxist-Communist dictators into power? I can tell you, not to damned often (I can't think of any in fact). In fact, we were normally so obsessed with removing such individuals from power, I can't see a single reason why we would actually put one into power.

And there is no question that the Ba'ath Party is Marxist-Communist. And that Saddam acted no different then most other Marxist Dictators when he came into power. And the only person I am aware of who tries to claim that the US (specifically the CIA) put the Ba'ath Party in power is of questionable reliability. Especially when you consider the fact that King Faisal II was an ally of the United States. It is Con Coughlin, the same individual who claims to have found a document from Saddam's Intelligence Service to Mohammed Atta, and that both Libya and Turkey had been being paid off or connected to the government of Iran.

So in closing, installed by "us"? Not bloody likely. At that time our 2 closest allies in that region were Israel and Iran. Supporting a Marxist-Communist dictatorship right next to Iran would have been like us supporting a Communist take-over of Spain while our closest allies were Portugal and Italy. While Spain was an ally of the US at the same time.
 
Actually, I always laugh at that claim when people make it.

How often did the US install Marxist-Communist dictators into power? I can tell you, not to damned often (I can't think of any in fact). In fact, we were normally so obsessed with removing such individuals from power, I can't see a single reason why we would actually put one into power.

And there is no question that the Ba'ath Party is Marxist-Communist. And that Saddam acted no different then most other Marxist Dictators when he came into power. And the only person I am aware of who tries to claim that the US (specifically the CIA) put the Ba'ath Party in power is of questionable reliability. Especially when you consider the fact that King Faisal II was an ally of the United States. It is Con Coughlin, the same individual who claims to have found a document from Saddam's Intelligence Service to Mohammed Atta, and that both Libya and Turkey had been being paid off or connected to the government of Iran.

So in closing, installed by "us"? Not bloody likely. At that time our 2 closest allies in that region were Israel and Iran. Supporting a Marxist-Communist dictatorship right next to Iran would have been like us supporting a Communist take-over of Spain while our closest allies were Portugal and Italy. While Spain was an ally of the US at the same time.

I concede the secondary installed by us point. Although, we did help his ass when he went up against Iran.

Now, why the **** do we care about taking other dictators out? We've been having quite the **** show in the ME since we took down Saddam.
 
It is news because Russia's first air strike was not aimed at ISIS. It was aimed at anti-regime forces fighting Assad.

And this is what worries me.

Currently, the tensions between Russia and the US are the highest I have seen them since the early 1980's. And my biggest fear at this time is that something will accidentially excalate things in that region and may turn into conflict between the US and Russia. Both nations are literally operating in their own ideological spheres, right next to each other. And that has a high potential for disaster.

6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776feb21970c-pi.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Power_(video_game)
 
I concede the secondary installed by us point. Although, we did help his ass when he went up against Iran.

Now, why the **** do we care about taking other dictators out? We've been having quite the **** show in the ME since we took down Saddam.

I personally do not see dictators as nessicarily a bad thing. It is how the dictator behaves towards his people and neighbors that concerns me.

We have supported a great many dictators, Tito and Franco come immediately to mind. Not every dictator is a murderous war mongering maniac. And some actually do try to put the needs of their people as a major consideration.

As far as helping Iraq, sure we did. Look at the political climate when we did also.

Iran had taken over our embassy, and was a de facto state of conflict with the US. They were still holding our diplomatic staff hostage, they were even moved when Iraqi air strikes came to close to where they were being held (many hostages later reported that they initially thought the air strikes were done by the US).

But we were never realy an ally of Iraq. And remember, we also helped out Iran when Iraq was making it's largest advances and looked most likely it could break them.

When it comes to the Iran-Iraq War, I think the actual stance of the US was more along the lines of a long stalemate, neither side winning. We sat most of that out, only getting actually involved when both sides started to attack the ships of other nations. Whenever people bring up the help the US gave Iraq, I am reminded of an awesome quote from "Lord of War":

Simeon Weisz: I don't think you and I are in the same business. You think I just sell guns, don't you? I don't. I take sides.
Yuri: But in the Iran-Iraq War, you sold guns to both sides.
Simeon Weisz: Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose? Bullets change governments far surer than votes. You're in the wrong place, my young friend; this is no place for amateurs.
 
I concede the secondary installed by us point. Although, we did help his ass when he went up against Iran.

Now, why the **** do we care about taking other dictators out? We've been having quite the **** show in the ME since we took down Saddam.

It was long before saddam, we overthrew or atleast aided in overthrowing irans leader to install the shah in iran. since then his cruelty on level with stalin caused the iranian people to revolt. We later teamed up with saddam because he was at war with iran who had overthrown our puppet, while israel our own ally backed iran. iraq proved to be the greatest threat to israel yet we backed them while iran was all talk and always did the opposite of what they said.

In the end we we put our own ally in jeapordy to support its enemy, while now wanting to destroy iran who has spouted threats yet has been much kinder to israel than leaders we propped up. It is literally just the us installing dictators who agree with our policy with no regard to the region, or even its allies.

Syria for example we have fought hard to get him overthrown with any means except boots on ground, to the point of supplying isis and other groups that became later threats to us. Another example is libya, which ghadaffi was previously tied to terrorism, but later denounced it and tried to make libya peacefull with europe and america, modernize its economy, and reform its standing worldwide.

With libya, we pretty much let them be with sanctions until he tried to switch to a gold standard,which was not enough reason. But he also tried to use his planned gold standard to create an african central banking system, which would remove american and european banks from absolute financial control of africa. Shortly after the us govt pushed arab spring to have him and other leaders overhtrown.
 
It was long before saddam, we overthrew or atleast aided in overthrowing irans leader to install the shah in iran.

Do not history much, do you?

The last Shah was placed in power by the British and Soviets in 1941, as his father's neutrality extended to not allowing any allied overflights of his territory, or anything else. So Shah Reza Pahlavi was forced to abdicate, and his son Shah Mohammad Pahlavi took over. And that same shah ruled until he left in exile in 1979.

I so love how people try to insist the Shah throwing out his own Prime Minister (a power given to him in the Iranian Constitution) is described by so many as a "coup". As far as I know, that makes it the only coup where the head of state held the coup, and remained as head of state after the coup.

But please, continue to believe your deluded idea if it makes you happy.
 
Can't help but have a perverse chuckle over the recent turn of events.

Russia strikes targets in Syria, and the US media government complex quickly claims they were hitting the wrong targets and hitting civilian targets.

The next day the US/NATO forces bomb a hospital in Afghanistan.

Truth is stranger than fiction, all the way. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom