In Syria

[RETAC21]

Whatever they are, they are not good news to non-pure islamic arabs, such as cristians, alawites and others who know what comes with them.

[Roman Alymov]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?_r=2"Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors"

 

My own thought on reading that story on CNN was that Kerry's protestations on the Congress ring hollow, given how much time the Obama Administration spent earning the congressional rebuffs it has received. Starting with Obamacare and going on through every insult and slight Obama has heaped on Republicans in Congress, and ending with his open attempts to go around Congress via executive orders, President Obama spent years earning congressional hostility and he should not be shocked by it. I also wonder why Obama and Kerry also think Russia should go along with their ideas in spite of their poor track record where foresight and planning is concerned.

 

Seems like US establishment got own internal war

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-russian-blitzkrieg-on-aleppo-is-a-direct-challenge-to-washington/

" Even before Kerry and Lavrov completed their accord, the secretary was having an easier time with the Russians than with Ashton Carter and his generals. It is now plain, as a very few of us have argued for months, that the defense secretary wages a second front against anything Kerry might accomplish by way of diplomacy."

[GARGEAN]

Al Nusra wants an Islamist state yes, as do many of the tribal groups in Syria. Al Nusra is not the same as Al Qaeda. Not wanting democracy is not the same as genocide. I think Democracy in Syria is a bridge too far considering the tribal/ethnic divisions that existed prior to the war and are only exacerbated now.

 

The only thing that unites them is removing Assad from power.

 

ISIS and Al Queda are very different. Both are external groups that have agendas that go far beyond removing Assad from power. The US National Security Apparatus is well aware of the difference.

 

There are many countries that recognize Islamic law that aren't terrorist states, from Africa to Asia. Indonesia being the largest. Eleven countries follow Sharia law, many more recognize some form of it.

Yeah, definitely Al-Nusra is not the same as Al-Qaeda. And only thing that unites the, in hate to Assad. Well, almost only. Except that Al-Nusra is part of Al-Qaeda, local cell of it. Otherwise it's absolutely different things.

[Paul G.]

It was until August, but conflict existed since 2013, and they formally broke ties with Al Queda. They have begun moderating their ideology, trying to make it a more main-stream movement.

 

The reasons are Tribal, Al Queda is a foreign group, Al Nusra wants to focus exclusively on Syria. The US still lists them as a terrorist group, but targeting them may be complicated by their cooperation with FSA groups against ISIS.

[Panzermann]

Didn't al-nusra relabel as jhahabt fateh al sham? (or something like that)

[GARGEAN]

Oh, tho they broke their ties with Al-Qaeda in August(more that month ago!) and even renamed! Well, yes, I agree, totally no connection with Al-Qaeda left.

[Dark_Falcon]

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?_r=2"Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors"

 

My own thought on reading that story on CNN was that Kerry's protestations on the Congress ring hollow, given how much time the Obama Administration spent earning the congressional rebuffs it has received. Starting with Obamacare and going on through every insult and slight Obama has heaped on Republicans in Congress, and ending with his open attempts to go around Congress via executive orders, President Obama spent years earning congressional hostility and he should not be shocked by it. I also wonder why Obama and Kerry also think Russia should go along with their ideas in spite of their poor track record where foresight and planning is concerned.

 

Seems like US establishment got own internal war

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-russian-blitzkrieg-on-aleppo-is-a-direct-challenge-to-washington/

" Even before Kerry and Lavrov completed their accord, the secretary was having an easier time with the Russians than with Ashton Carter and his generals. It is now plain, as a very few of us have argued for months, that the defense secretary wages a second front against anything Kerry might accomplish by way of diplomacy."

 

 

Both the Republican congressional leadership and the Department of Defense (DoD) have been at odds with the Department of State (DoS) regarding Syria for some time now. Both DoD and the Congress think that DoS isn't paying enough attention to the practicalities and so it focuses on objectives that either aren't achievable without careful preparation that State declines to undertake or it focuses on objectives to cannot reasonably be achieved at all.

[Gregory]

 

 

Again - all of those things you mention fall under definition of "economy". They all require money or money-equivalents. The time a doctor is spending tending her garden instead of treating patients? Money. Time engineer is spending rebuilding his bedroom instead of working in a factory? Money. Extra 48 hours trucker has to drive to get from Aleppo to Damascus because bridges are blown out and the fastest road from here to there is patrolled by a militia which the government has no money to put down? Also money. So will every last Syrian die of hunger? No. Will their standard of living remain somewhere around 1950s level for the next 10 years without major investments which nobody will provide? Yes.

 

Nice example of present-day economic thinking, where money are product of FRS or US Treasury, not convenient equivalent of human labor. With working hands in place, plus some basic organization, plus basic law enforcement, plus climate\environment conditions - it is all components of steady rebuilding in place. Not to create high-tech stuff, but returning to 1960th level would be much better then many countries on the planet have. And do not forget that most of Gov-controlled areas are almost untouched by war.

 

 

Nice example of completely missing my point. If I meant that money was "product of FRS or US Treasury", then I would've said something stupid like "But Syrian bank can just print dinars and everybody will have jobs".

 

I'm sure somebody from jungles of Papua New Guinea would be pretty amazed to live in Syria circa 2026 (with 1960s levels of infrastructure, medicine, etc). Something tells me that Syrians won't regard that as a huge accomplishment.

[Gregory]

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?_r=2"Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors"

 

My own thought on reading that story on CNN was that Kerry's protestations on the Congress ring hollow, given how much time the Obama Administration spent earning the congressional rebuffs it has received. Starting with Obamacare and going on through every insult and slight Obama has heaped on Republicans in Congress, and ending with his open attempts to go around Congress via executive orders, President Obama spent years earning congressional hostility and he should not be shocked by it. I also wonder why Obama and Kerry also think Russia should go along with their ideas in spite of their poor track record where foresight and planning is concerned.

 

Seems like US establishment got own internal war

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-russian-blitzkrieg-on-aleppo-is-a-direct-challenge-to-washington/

" Even before Kerry and Lavrov completed their accord, the secretary was having an easier time with the Russians than with Ashton Carter and his generals. It is now plain, as a very few of us have argued for months, that the defense secretary wages a second front against anything Kerry might accomplish by way of diplomacy."

 

 

Yeah, I could see how Russians would be much more receptive to his suggestion to bomb Assad's forces than DoD. Not.

[Marcello]

Didn't al-nusra relabel as jhahabt fateh al sham? (or something like that)

As a matter of fact I wondered if somebody in the west was falling for such PR attempts... Edited October 4, 2016 by Marcello

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice example of completely missing my point. If I meant that money was "product of FRS or US Treasury", then I would've said something stupid like "But Syrian bank can just print dinars and everybody will have jobs".

 

I'm sure somebody from jungles of Papua New Guinea would be pretty amazed to live in Syria circa 2026 (with 1960s levels of infrastructure, medicine, etc). Something tells me that Syrians won't regard that as a huge accomplishment.

 

You mentioned “They all require money or money-equivalents”. They have both money circulation (local and hard currency) and money-equivalents produced by households (in hard years in Russia loaf of bread, bag of potato or bottle of oil served both in exchange and in “paying” professionals like doctors and teachers for their service). So enough to start economy going, and they got untouched regions.

 

Regarding “Syrians won't regard that as a huge accomplishment” – again, it is point of view of European, but not somebody who was on the edge of starvation or under threat of his head cut off because neighbors from another block consider his religion not correct enough.

[Stuart Galbraith]

These "barrel bombs" have the wrong ratio of case weight to explosive fill to be very effective (and adding nails and junk inside is no substitute). They're making very inefficient use of their explosives and sortees. Not that that's a bad thing, here; incompetently slaughtering civilians is preferable to competently slaughtering civilians.

I think the main beef the media have with them is less the explosive content (and a FAB250 is probably more than good enough for most purposes) the problem is the accuracy. You cant dump one on a civilian area and pretend you are targeting carefully.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Roman Alymov]

 

These "barrel bombs" have the wrong ratio of case weight to explosive fill to be very effective (and adding nails and junk inside is no substitute). They're making very inefficient use of their explosives and sortees. Not that that's a bad thing, here; incompetently slaughtering civilians is preferable to competently slaughtering civilians.

I think the main beef the media have with them is less the explosive content (and a FAB250 is probably more than good enough for most purposes) the problem is the accuracy. You cant dump one on a civilian area and pretend you are targeting carefully.

 

Barrel bomb dropped from helicopter or 1960th jet is not less accurate then WWII bomb from level bomber. During WWII bombs where used in civilian areas, or even directly targeting them.

[Roman Alymov]

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

These "barrel bombs" have the wrong ratio of case weight to explosive fill to be very effective (and adding nails and junk inside is no substitute). They're making very inefficient use of their explosives and sortees. Not that that's a bad thing, here; incompetently slaughtering civilians is preferable to competently slaughtering civilians.

I think the main beef the media have with them is less the explosive content (and a FAB250 is probably more than good enough for most purposes) the problem is the accuracy. You cant dump one on a civilian area and pretend you are targeting carefully.

 

Barrel bomb dropped from helicopter or 1960th jet is not less accurate then WWII bomb from level bomber. During WWII bombs where used in civilian areas, or even directly targeting them.

 

Yes Roman, but you dont have Il2's in service, and we dont use Lancasters any-more. One might regret it, but the world moved on. More to the point, that was a total war based on warding off the destruction of our respective civilisations. Can Aleppo be viewed in the same context we once viewed Berlin? Not really.

[Marcello]

Can Aleppo be viewed in the same context we once viewed Berlin? Not really.

From the point of view of a local? Yes. Hence barrel bombs, car bombs, hell cannon etc. When for example, some"religious conservative" showing up at the front door and killing your family is in the cards or you are a believer fighting for the true religion anything goes.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Marcello

[Roman Alymov]

 

Yes Roman, but you dont have Il2's in service, and we dont use Lancasters any-more. One might regret it, but the world moved on. More to the point, that was a total war based on warding off the destruction of our respective civilisations. Can Aleppo be viewed in the same context we once viewed Berlin? Not really.

 

Probably you are right about Berlin. Opposing side is widely using kamikaze, is practicing head cutting and other nice things coming from dark ages – so probably closest analogy is another theater of WWII.

 

Note not long time ago senior US representative again promised attacks on Russian cities by people linked to this war – what else we need to consider this war total?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Can Aleppo be viewed in the same context we once viewed Berlin? Not really.

From the point of view of a local? Yes. Hence barrel bombs, car bombs, hell cannon etc. When for example, some"religious conservative" showing up at the front door and killing your family is in the cards anything goes.

 

So If Aleppo is an existential threat to western civilisation, why didnt Russia use an SS 18 on it? Because despite claims to the contrary, its not a total war. But its alright to carpet bomb a town with no restrictions because its a total war. Hmm, work that one out, im not so smart clearly.

 

You cant compare this to a total war, because it isn't. People love playing with words to turn them into weapons and pretending the present events are different from they are. My own view, if you want comparison, compare it to Rotterdam or Guernica. Cities that were destroyed just to make a political point.

 

You know, maybe Bojan is right and im naive. But if you think such bestiality should have been behind the door of the 20th century, we have absolutely no business happy clapping this now. Should you do so, you are just encouraging Russia and others to do it again in the future, and doubtless there will be excuses again why targeting civilians is such a great idea.

 

 

 

 

Yes Roman, but you dont have Il2's in service, and we dont use Lancasters any-more. One might regret it, but the world moved on. More to the point, that was a total war based on warding off the destruction of our respective civilisations. Can Aleppo be viewed in the same context we once viewed Berlin? Not really.

 

Probably you are right about Berlin. Opposing side is widely using kamikaze, is practicing head cutting and other nice things coming from dark ages – so probably closest analogy is another theater of WWII.

 

Note not long time ago senior US representative again promised attacks on Russian cities by people linked to this war – what else we need to consider this war total?

 

 

 

And they have actually done so on French cities. Are the French conducting wholly unrestricted air operations on urban areas? No. Have America and France that have suffered from Jihadists far worse than your country endorsing your actions? No. So what's Russia's justification?

[Marcello]

 

 

 

Can Aleppo be viewed in the same context we once viewed Berlin? Not really.

From the point of view of a local? Yes. Hence barrel bombs, car bombs, hell cannon etc. When for example, some"religious conservative" showing up at the front door and killing your family is in the cards anything goes.

So If Aleppo is an existential threat to western civilisation, why didnt Russia use an SS 18 on it?

Read again, please. It's plain English.

 

As for the rest I expect that with all the future moderates we are letting in we might have to resort to blowing up residential blocks in our own cities at some point and we will use whatever we will have in stock.

[Roman Alymov]

 

And they have actually done so on French cities. Are the French conducting wholly unrestricted air operations on urban areas? No. Have America and France that have suffered from Jihadists far worse than your country endorsing your actions? No. So what's Russia's justification?

 

Is Russia really running “wholly unrestricted air operations on urban areas”? If yes, then why wasting lives of Syrians and Iranians on taking rebel strongholds in house by house fighting with hand grenades and small arms, instead of just carpet bombing them with Tu-22Ms?

 

Not so long ago in Europe

[Roman Alymov]

Doublepost

Edited October 4, 2016 by Roman Alymov

[Stuart Galbraith]

And yet, point to an unrestricted air campaign by NATO that used unguided munitions. Guess what Roman, you will have grave difficulty finding one.

 

I know its very fashionable to say 'well gee we are doing just what you guys are doing'. When this campaign started, it was true. You used targeted missions in short of limited aims. Just like us. Now you want to win a war by blowing an entire town to ratshit using unguided weapons. Which is absolutely not like us at all.

 

Look how many western nations still retain unguided weapons? Hardly any. The RAF disposed of their entire stockpile of unguided bombs. Why do you suppose that was?

[GARGEAN]

Now you want to win a war by blowing an entire town to ratshit using unguided weapons

Prove this.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

Can Aleppo be viewed in the same context we once viewed Berlin? Not really.

From the point of view of a local? Yes. Hence barrel bombs, car bombs, hell cannon etc. When for example, some"religious conservative" showing up at the front door and killing your family is in the cards anything goes.

So If Aleppo is an existential threat to western civilisation, why didnt Russia use an SS 18 on it?

Read again, please. It's plain English.

 

As for the rest I expect that with all the future moderates we are letting in we might have to resort to blowing up residential blocks in our own cities at some point and we will use whatever we will have in stock.

 

All the the more reason to set the precedent by not endorsing it now dont you think?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Now you want to win a war by blowing an entire town to ratshit using unguided weapons

Prove this.

 

I dont need to. Ill just sit back and watch the feat of arms that assures us final victory in Syria will be achieved when the Obama backed rebels are defeated in Aleppo and they keep dumping unguided weapons on civilian neighbourhoods and tell us its targeted. I dont need to do anything, I let the footage I posted above say all i need to prove.

 

In my view, you can remove every grid square of every city in Syria and still have a security problem. Is it that hard to understand that you remove the population you have a failed state every terrorist group under the sun will use as a training facility? Look at Afghanistan and Somalia and tell me im wrong. In fact this is pretty much exactly what happened in Chechnya after the first Chechen war, which precipitated the second war. These are issues easy to understand, but the Russian Government wholly ignores them because its operating off its own narrative which increasingly seems to depart from reality.

 

The USSR fought for nearly 10 years in Afghanistan and won every single battle, and it did NOT add up to security. Russia is making the same mistake again, using pretty much identical tactics and significantly less manpower. And the cry goes up, take this town, and its all over. Really?

 

You have your own narrative, and im happy for you. Come back and 10 years and tell me im full of it, and if I am Ill happily concede it. Ive noticed that when I am sometimes right over Ukraine or Syria, nobody acknowledges the fact. Wonder why that is?

Edited October 4, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith