Russian Air Campaign in Syria

[lastdingo]

Yes, and Volkswagen told us they have developed really great eco diesel engines.

I understand you drank the Kool-Aid, but at some point you ought to understand you're sounding extremely naive.
Besides, nothing you just wrote contradicts what I wrote, even though you aren't aware of it.


BTW, many smaller PGMs were developed because Reaper drones have limited payload x endurance, and F-35/F-22 weapons bays are restricting munition size and quantity.
The existence of inert bombs does not explain away the video I linked to above. Those damages were not done with infantry munitions, tiny PGMs or concrete bombs. That was done with 500 lbs and 1,000 lbs JDAMs with explosive fillers.

 

[sferrin]

Yes, and Volkswagen told us they have developed really great eco diesel engines.

I understand you drank the Kool-Aid, but at some point you ought to understand you're sounding extremely naive.

Truth hurts eh? LOL

Besides, nothing you just wrote contradicts what I wrote, even though you aren't aware of it.

Except for this, "To be fair, there's little reason to believe our politicians or soldiers have much more concern for civilians."

or did you forget that already?

The existence of inert bombs does not explain away the video I linked to above. Those damages were not done with infantry munitions, tiny PGMs or concrete bombs. That was done with 500 lbs and 1,000 lbs JDAMs with explosive fillers.

ROFL. Wow. I'm surprised you didn't dredge up the Hiroshima bomb.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Incorrect. ISIS or IS are correct; ISIL is not. "Islamic State" is of course correct. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is correct, because IS of course runs sizable territories in Iraq and Syria. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is *not* correct, because the Levant basically means Israel, Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, portions of Turkey and portions of Syria. You might as well call them "Islamic State of Iraq and Monte Carlo."

the next target of ISIL is the capture of Istanbul , hence practically entire Turkey .

IS doesn't *have* Turkey. And if they try, someone will probably remind them that Turkey is a NATO member state, which comes with consequences for anyone who attacks.

And even if ISIS did manage to conquer Istanbul... when IS is inevitably laid low, Istanbul can be returned to Greece and renamed Constantinople (and things like the Hagia Sophia museum/mosque can be returned to the Greek Orthodox and restored as a Christian church). So, that would be a good (or at least highly entertaining) thing.

...

Some people get all pissy that the US is the "United States of America," because the US doesn't own all of the Americas, and thus the name isn't appropriate. Well... screw it. If IS can be called ISIL, even though it doesn't own even a small fraction of the Levant... then I want this the be the United States of Earth. Anybody who's not a part of the USE is just backwards.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

it is really sad when from your side of river you see it so simple

My comment "morally repugnant" is based on current events in Russia e.g. Ukraine, criminalization and vilification of dissidents and homosexuals, etc, attacks on freedom of the press...

 

[starviking]

I'm not trying to establish any moral equivalence here. For obvious reasons, comparing Iraqi manners of 1990 with Soviet manners of 1945 or other such cases would have been a different argument. "Western" or "U.S." is the relevant benchmark, and thus often gets compared.
My point was that Iraqis didn't do much outrageous in Kuwait (it was really almost entirely propaganda fabrications, and anybody who wants can learn this with little research nowadays), about half of Kuwait's population was actually more free under Saddam than under its usual dictatorship. The propaganda of 1990-2003 has had lasting effects, so many people in the U.S. still have a very warped idea of what happened for real there, and what didn't.

Didn't do much outrageous? Human shields, torture, rape, murder, looting of hospitals, and causing massive environmental damage.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20030320/iraqicrimes.pdf


And of course, if we hadn't opposed him, then the Kuwaitis would have been overjoyed to experience everyday summary executions, rapes of juveniles, and day-by-day slides in the standards of living.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg
http://www.globaljusticecenter.net/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=173&cf_id=34
http://www.atour.com/news/international/20010710l.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_human_rights_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf

about half of Kuwait's population was actually more free under Saddam than under its usual dictatorship.

Really? Any evidence for that?

 

[Orionblamblam]

And of course, if we hadn't opposed him, then the Kuwaitis would have been overjoyed to experience everyday summary executions, rapes of juveniles, and day-by-day slides in the standards of living.

And nukes! Don't forget the nukes. Without GW1, Saddam should have had the bomb by the early 2000's. And since Saddam has the bomb, the Iranians would have to have it. And the Saudis. And probably the Egyptians and Libyans. How exciting!

 

[lastdingo]

Starviking, Orionblabla,
you should do your homework yourself and at least try to look up the long-existing debunking of 1990/91 and 2002/03 horror propaganda fabrications, and maybe also think about what a person might mean when writing about "almost half of a population". What does about half of any population have in common, typically?

Kuwait is a tyranny by Western standards. This, of course, doesn't interest those who prefer to see the world as good guys vs. bad guys you're allowed/expected to hate.

 

[sferrin]

Starviking, Orionblabla,
you should do your homework yourself and at least try to look up the long-existing debunking of 1990/91 and 2002/03 horror propaganda fabrications, and maybe also think about what a person might mean when writing about "almost half of a population". What does about half of any population have in common, typically?

Kuwait is a tyranny by Western standards. This, of course, doesn't interest those who prefer to see the world as good guys vs. bad guys you're allowed/expected to hate.

How many of their own people have the Kuwaiti government gased?

 

[starviking]

Starviking, Orionblabla,
you should do your homework yourself and at least try to look up the long-existing debunking of 1990/91 and 2002/03 horror propaganda fabrications, and maybe also think about what a person might mean when writing about "almost half of a population". What does about half of any population have in common, typically?

Kuwait is a tyranny by Western standards. This, of course, doesn't interest those who prefer to see the world as good guys vs. bad guys you're allowed/expected to hate.

And yet Freedom House classifies Kuwait as the most free country amongst its neighbors.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2015#.ViWz2NIrLmU


As for "half of a population", why don't you just be specific at the start?

 

[lastdingo]

As for "half of a population", why don't you just be specific at the start?

I presumed intelligence and an interest in thinking.
I know, I know, my bad. By then I should have known I was facing primitive hostility, not people interested in thinking on their own.


Well, let's go back to the Russians in Syria topic. You guys won't understand my points no matter how much they'd be explained. Understanding requires intent; I only see the intent to oppose. The discussion path is thus pointless.



related:
Russia's participation in the Syrian War, the Su-34 'Fullback' has arrived

 

[starviking]

As for "half of a population", why don't you just be specific at the start?

I presumed intelligence and an interest in thinking.
I know, I know, my bad. By then I should have known I was facing primitive hostility, not people interested in thinking on their own.

Presumption is the mother of all disasters. You could have easily have been referring to religious, ethnic, or political divides.


How solid were the rights granted to Iraqi Women? All the raped and decapitated women suggest not very solid.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Starviking, Orionblabla,
you should do your homework yourself ...

So you think the Iraqis weren't working on nukes?

 

[Rickshaw]

And of course, if we hadn't opposed him, then the Kuwaitis would have been overjoyed to experience everyday summary executions, rapes of juveniles, and day-by-day slides in the standards of living.

And nukes! Don't forget the nukes. Without GW1, Saddam should have had the bomb by the early 2000's. And since Saddam has the bomb, the Iranians would have to have it. And the Saudis. And probably the Egyptians and Libyans. How exciting!

You mean with that WMD programme that didn't exist? The WMD programme that had been dismantled after 1990 war? You mean the WMD programme that the US forces COULDN'T FIND any evidence of? :

 

[Rickshaw]

Starviking, Orionblabla,
you should do your homework yourself ...

So you think the Iraqis weren't working on nukes?

You have evidence that they had a working Nuclear weapons programme in 2003? Please present it.

 

[lastdingo]

He was talking of '91, not '03.

---------

Iraqi nukes wouldn't have been more scary than the Pakistani nukes to me, though.
Same story as with Pakistan, Soviet Union, China, India, Israel; the offensive use of nuclear weapons equals suicide.

The people of 1991 weren't such pussies as the people of 2002 yet; they had lived through the Cold War, threatened by ten thousands of Soviet nukes, expecting WW3 to end human civilization if not existence. "WMD" claims didn't quite freak them out yet as they did after a decade of Hollywood propaganda in 2002.
Nowadays, even shampoo on a plane or a dissected clock freaks some people out.

 

[Orionblamblam]

He was talking of '91, not '03.

He who? And obviously.

---------

Iraqi nukes wouldn't have been more scary than the Pakistani nukes to me, though.

Are you Iran or Saudi Arabia? In 1991, the Iran/Iraq War which had killed IIRC several million, was still fresh in Irans memory. In the hypothetical alternate 1991 when the west simply allowed Iraq to conquer Kuwait, Saudi Arabia would almost certainly see themselves as the next target, as they did in the *real* 1991.

Same story as with Pakistan, Soviet Union, China, India, Israel; the offensive use of nuclear weapons equals suicide.

Also equating to suicide: being a non-nuclear power next to an imperialistic nuclear-armed Iraq. Thus why the neighbors of a Kuwait-conquering nuclear Iraq would have armed themselves with nukes as well.

 

[sferrin]

In the hypothetical alternate 1991 when the west simply allowed Iraq to conquer Kuwait, Saudi Arabia would almost certainly see themselves as the next target, as they did in the *real* 1991.

And in fact the 1st TFW had planned to fight its way in, if necessary, when it deployed. In the event Iraq tried to prevent US F-15s from entering Saudi airspace half the F-15s in the first wave were to fly air cover while the other half landed, refueled, and rearmed. Then they'd switch. That's how concerned everybody was at the time. Gotta love these Monday morning apologists trying to white-wash history.

 

[Rickshaw]

In the hypothetical alternate 1991 when the west simply allowed Iraq to conquer Kuwait, Saudi Arabia would almost certainly see themselves as the next target, as they did in the *real* 1991.

And in fact the 1st TFW had planned to fight its way in, if necessary, when it deployed. In the event Iraq tried to prevent US F-15s from entering Saudi airspace half the F-15s in the first wave were to fly air cover while the other half landed, refueled, and rearmed. Then they'd switch. That's how concerned everybody was at the time. Gotta love these Monday morning apologists trying to white-wash history.

Everybody feared a paper tiger. Iraq wasn't interested in fighting the US, on the US's terms. They wanted and expected a repeat of the Iran-Iraq War, with the US forces in the air and on the ground throwing themselves on their prepared defences. Fortunately for the US, they'd spent the previous 50 years preparing to fight the Soviets who weren't a paper tiger. Now, if the US hadn't been so terrified of a repeat of 1941, imagine how 1991 would have turned out...

 

[sferrin]

In the hypothetical alternate 1991 when the west simply allowed Iraq to conquer Kuwait, Saudi Arabia would almost certainly see themselves as the next target, as they did in the *real* 1991.

And in fact the 1st TFW had planned to fight its way in, if necessary, when it deployed. In the event Iraq tried to prevent US F-15s from entering Saudi airspace half the F-15s in the first wave were to fly air cover while the other half landed, refueled, and rearmed. Then they'd switch. That's how concerned everybody was at the time. Gotta love these Monday morning apologists trying to white-wash history.

Everybody feared a paper tiger.

Only a "paper tiger" by comparison to what we put against them. Certainly they were more than a "paper tiger" to Kuwait. Nobody thought they were a paper tiger at the time.

 

[lastdingo]

There was no more evidence in 1990 for Iraqi intent to invade Saudi-Arabia than about Iraqi WMDs in 2002.
I still remember the claims about satellite imagery supposedly showing such intent, but no such satellite imagery was ever released afaik and it#s questionable how imagery could possibly show such intent at all.


Iraq invaded Kuwait over some border and oil dispute and because it was broke and Kuwait a major lender. An alternative to a war would have been to stick with a long oil and arms embargo, turning the booty worthless to Saddam.

It's similar as with the Falklands War; due to the success of the campaign people forgot about the many alternatives, the well-founded skepticism and ignored the downsides. Nowadays most people are so very much convinced of the path taken that they cannot really see the alternatives any more, and what's worse.

Unsuccessful conflicts are the only ones after which people still pay attention to what alternatives there were, pay attention to the downsides - they try to learn from the experience unless they've become emotionally invested too much.
Afghanistan for example; many people would agree that the occupation (AKA "nation-building") should not have happened, and Western troops should have left in 2002 when it was known that more than 95% of AQ in AFG were dead or otherwise gone already.
Much fewer people are able to think of promising alternatives to the successful initial invasion and overthrow of the TB, because after all, that one was kinda a success.


Sadly, nobody had learned from the Russian behaviour in Georgia and Ukraine that today's Russia is no push-over as it was 20 years ago. The already unconvincing path taken by the West in Syria became quite pointless due to the Russian intervention.



In the end, Russia is fighting with and for the Assad regime, whereas the FSA appears to be so pointless that Western intervention can only be against Da'esh and Al-Nusra. The outcome without further major changes of course may be that Assad prevails, and Da'esh loses apeal to foreign wannabe jihadists due to defeats in battle and goes into hiding like AQ did.The Russians will end up having a naval and air base in the Eastern Medieterranean, in striking distance to Suez and they'll have a recommendation as a protector against the West and against Israel.

I suppose that's what you get when you punish Russia becuase of Ukraine and Russia thus has little to lose by expanding its great power games beyond its backyard.

 

[sferrin]

There was no more evidence in 1990 for Iraqi intent to invade Saudi-Arabia than about Iraqi WMDs in 2002.

Given that they'd just rolled over Kuwait there was no reason NOT to think it. And both the US and SA did.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Getting back on topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11942480/Russia-posts-Syria-attack-drone-footage-amid-propaganda-drive.html​

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/10/russian-airstrikes-are-killing-1-syrian-civilian-every-2-combatants/122957/?oref=DefenseOneFB&&

 

[r16]

Incorrect. ISIS or IS are correct; ISIL is not. "Islamic State" is of course correct. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is correct, because IS of course runs sizable territories in Iraq and Syria. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is *not* correct, because the Levant basically means Israel, Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, portions of Turkey and portions of Syria. You might as well call them "Islamic State of Iraq and Monte Carlo."

the next target of ISIL is the capture of Istanbul , hence practically entire Turkey .

IS doesn't *have* Turkey. And if they try, someone will probably remind them that Turkey is a NATO member state, which comes with consequences for anyone who attacks.

And even if ISIS did manage to conquer Istanbul... when IS is inevitably laid low, Istanbul can be returned to Greece and renamed Constantinople (and things like the Hagia Sophia museum/mosque can be returned to the Greek Orthodox and restored as a Christian church). So, that would be a good (or at least highly entertaining) thing.

the start of operations were solely meant to avoid political repercussions in the country , never minding the US stopping the "airattacks" that wasn't hitting anyhow . On the grounds of too much air traffic in the area .

and while ISIL is definitely not Islamic , nor it's a state considering all the services in the areas under their control is done by officials of the Regime held hostage , their claim is for the old usage of Syria . Which is indeed met by the word Levant . And you can certainly trust the Voice of Russia to discover reports that the kinda Americanized World Bank to come up with a research that the unification of the said Levant under a single political entity would cause a 3 to 7% increase in the Turkish GNP . Only if we "allowed" the southern parts of the country to that union .

and of course , Istanbul and all the stuff to be turned over to the Greeks ... It's a standart Turkish thing to remind something about coming and taking ; but then it will hurt .

 

[Jemiba]

This is another thread, that seems to go down the tube !
The theme is "Russians bombing Syria", so, please, stick to the point. And
if someone is unhappy with opinions of other members posts, adding them
to the ignore-list is an option. Or simply ignoring without technical support
should work as well.
The warning level for this thread to be closed soon is at about 50 %, I'm afraid.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/what-just-happened-syria

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/us-syria-russia-shipping-exclusive-idUSKCN0SF2PY20151021

 

[Orionblamblam]

U.S. believes Russian bombing in Syria hit hospital: State Department

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/29/us-mideast-crisis-russia-hospital-idUSKCN0SN2TC20151029?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

The medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres told Reuters on Thursday that air strikes in northern Syria had hit 12 hospitals, but it did not specify which country carried out the bombings.

 

[Steve Pace]

That is not a good thing! -SP

 

[Orionblamblam]

That is not a good thing! -SP

Oh, come now. It's just wacky hijinks, Putin style.

 

[Rickshaw]

"Logistics is the key to expeditionary warfare".

 

[Rickshaw]

Turkish F-16 fighter jets shoot down Russian warplane near Syrian border

 

[cluttonfred]

Turkish F-16 fighter jets shoot down Russian warplane near Syrian border

Good coverage here, including a radar track released by Turkey:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-by-turkish-planes-near-syrian-border-live-updates#block-56543119e4b0c004dd3af7d8

 

[sferrin]

Things will definitely get interesting. Su-24:

 

[TomS]

In the "definitely not helping" department, Turkish press are pretty gleefully repeating statements from the local Turkmen Syrian rebel forces (which Turkey supports) that they shot both aircrew in their parachutes.

It also sounds like a CSAR helo was either shot down or landed for mechanical reasons north of Latakia.

 

[sferrin]

In the "definitely not helping" department, Turkish press are pretty gleefully repeating statements from the local Turkmen Syrian rebel forces (which Turkey supports) that they shot both aircrew in their parachutes.

It also sounds like a CSAR helo was either shot down or landed for mechanical reasons north of Latakia.

And (of course) Turkey is saying it was over Turkey, Russia is saying it was over Syria. Radar plot here:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=28413&p=309854#p309854

 

[TomS]

That's a pretty small incursion. Makes it look like the Turks were really looking for an excuse. I imagine they were trying to protect the Turkmen Syrian rebels up there.

 

[sferrin]

That's a pretty small incursion. Makes it look like the Turks were really looking for an excuse. I imagine they were trying to protect the Turkmen Syrian rebels up there.

Just looking at the flight path it could be either the pilot was unaware he was over Turkey (unlikely IMO, especially with the repeated warning that were apparently given), showing complete disregard to Turkey's airspace and just tooling along without a care, or intentionally seeing if they could "get away with it". As it's not the first incursion into Turkey's airspace maybe they decided to get a two-fer and make an example while protecting the Turkmen forces.

 

[Boxman]

In the "definitely not helping" department, Turkish press are pretty gleefully repeating statements from the local Turkmen Syrian rebel forces (which Turkey supports) that they shot both aircrew in their parachutes.

It also sounds like a CSAR helo was either shot down or landed for mechanical reasons north of Latakia.

Here's video showing a TOW taking out what appears to be a (presumably) just-landed Mil Mi-17 (Mi-8AMTSh?) reportedly involved in the CSAR effort to locate/recover the Russian air crew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KflNHxQErdk

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm sure this was not the first incident...that being said, a less drastic solution would have been to use said F-16s to exert some "gentle persuasion" and in no uncertain terms tell the Russians to follow them to an airport on Turkish soil.
I'm aware that that's not always possible, but shooting down the Su-24 is a drastic escalation...of course it could be precisely what the Turkish were looking for, but I would like to believe that's not the case. Seems bloody silly to add fire to the powder keg.