|
Aurubin posted:Isn't Hezbollah considered a terrorist organization whose core tenant is the destruction of Israel? Isn't the United States supporting a primarily Sunni rebellion, Al-Nursa aside, while Hezbollah is actively trying to kill the rebels? I know things change on the ground, but from a foreign policy angle, this makes Obama look like a bigger fool than he already does concerning Syria. If the CIA thinks Hezbollah is less kooky than the rebels, I have absolutely no loving clue how the Syrian Civil War ends, except with a lot of dead people. A series of car bombs in Lebanon would not help the situation. Al Qaeda aims to destablize the region so they can get power in the resulting vacuum. Thwarting that plot is more important than letting some civilians die.
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Considering the never ending escalation of demand the only appreciable thing Australian oil reserves could do is further stabilize oil prices preventing the various producer states from receiving incredible cash flows like they enjoyed in 2008. If the United States becoming a net energy producer doesn't upset the market I can't see Australian production having that much of an effect either, especially since it can't come online for at least 5-10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/22/us-usa-syria-arms-idUSBRE96L0W520130722quote:Supporters of the rebels hope the deliveries of U.S.-provided arms will start in August. This may address chronic shortages of ammunition for rebel ground forces and provide a better counter to tank assaults. No anti air craft weaponry, but perhaps Washington is relying on Qatar and Saudi armaments to cover that aspect. I can't find any articles, but I think at least Qatar has taken the fall of Qusayr and the subsequent announcement of support from Washington as cover to start providing anti aircraft weaponry to rebels. Hezbollah's intervention and the string of recent victories for Assad may have only served to trigger a serious arming of rebel forces. Considering the Iranian intervention I wonder if this will do anything except freeze the front lines in place. In an ideal world this will bolster the standing of moderate forces and help the rebellion purge itself of those dickhead jihadists by showing Western support is a real and serious thing but I suppose the past two years have shown us that reality will take a different and more horrifying approach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there four major factions now at play in Syria? The regime, the FSA, the jihadists and the Kurds all seem to be sparring off with each other with increasing intensity and all of them want their own state.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Jut posted:Peaceful protesters don't come to a protest with small arms and molotovs as was the case a month ago. Peaceful protesters don't drag a child froma car and give them a beating, and peaceful protesters don't throw people off the roof of a building. Legitimate governments don't repeatedly organize military assaults on people protesting the overthrow of a democratically elected president. If the Muslim Brotherhood was as armed and dangerous as they're being made out to be why is the casualty numbers so incredibly lop sided? Or are the radical actions of a few being exploited to justify the murder of the many?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Between Hezbollah and the Iranian trained People's Militia, Assad's army account for no more than half of the fighting force presently battling the rebellion correct? What's left of the regime's economy is heavily subsidized by Iranian funds, Russian arms have become a vital lifeline to maintain weapon supremacy, he's struggling to secure an Alawite coastal enclave and has all but lost the north, he's no longer in control of the armed forces and now he's sold off control of the post war development presuming his regime even survives. Foreign powers may have propped up Assad's regime, but it seems that all they've left him is a shell of power. He seems more governor than dictator at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Four times he turned away the crown, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
ISIS's emphasis on aggressive recruitment and subsequent liquidation of their western jihadists through suicide bombings and frontal assaults ranks as one of the most cynical and ruthless things in this conflict. They seize on whatever vulnerable mind they can find, radicalize them, turn them towards one of the most wicked factions on the planet, then once they get their hands on them they're purposefully utilized in tactics that will inevitably get them killed. Whatever shadowy cabal that truly leads ISIS is terrifyingly adept at the exploitation of the human psyche to turn the tide in their favor. That's the real genius, and it's unfortunate to use that term, behind ISIS. They've learned how to degrade society and turn the resulting chaos into military victory. Whether it's instilling order through terror or recruiting from the most vulnerable segments of society or their battle tactics designed to cripple an enemies will to fight, their organization is built around mentally breaking people. The Arab Spring has inadvertently cracked open the door to what a modern dark age would look like, and every day it cracks open just a little bit more. What's going to shut it? Where's the strategy to suture this gaping wound in civilization? We stop ISIS today, maybe Iraq doesn't splinter into more anarchy, can you imagine the horrifying slog it will be to rout them from their captured cities? Even when that happens, they will go underground and continue to conduct guerrilla warfare. Take back every inch of their territory and free Raqqa from them and you'll still be plagued by their attacks. It was a nice fantasy to dismiss ISIS as a fringe group that couldn't alter the big picture, but every week there's a new development that makes the situation dramatically worse. Hopefully our intervention marks the turning of a corner for this conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Saddam is a civilized mass murderer who exploited a chaotic political and security situation to overpower his enemies and co opt the existing structure to expand their influence, like a Caesar or Napoleon. ISIS are barbarian mass murderers who exploited a chaotic political and security situation to over power their enemies and create their own governmental structure to expand their influence, like the Sea Peoples or the dozens of tribes who tore apart the Roman Empire. Both are fairly standard occurrences in human history, and both are highly destabilizing if left unchecked. Saddam could have rewritten the map of the Middle East centered around an Iraqi state if Kuwait and the West hadn't ruined him, and ISIS could have washed over vast amounts of territory if not held back by Western airstrikes. No two events are alike though, and I'm very curious to see what long lasting impact ISIS will have on the Arab world. We'll see where this poo poo show takes us!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
I don't see what rioting is going to do to ensure the long lasting peace and stability of the Middle East. If anything, it will just play into ISIS's hands and make Turkey resolute in never defending Kobane (if that was even a possibility). Honestly, it almost feels like the situation is going to get dramatically worse with chaos spreading into Turkey. What happens if Kobane falls? Does ISIS turn away from the Turkish border and harry Assad and the FSA? Do they sow the seeds of chaos inside Turkey itself? Will the destruction of Kobane trigger war between the Turks and the Kurds? This train wreck is accelerating and ISIS is like a black star of barbarity eating away at everything it touches. I suppose it shows just how stable everything really was. As the weeks go by it feels like I'm flipping through pages in a history book and watching an entire civilization descend into the Dark Ages.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
never trust an elf posted:So why'd ISIS quit with the hostage shenanigans? Seemed to working for them on a PR level It was an extremely stupid thing to do in the first place. It focused world wide attention on them, broadcasted that they were murderous outlaws and solidified political energy against them. It guaranteed that they would be hit as hard as possible in the short term while arms and training were funneled to the appropriate quarters. Those executions didn't trigger the global fight against them, but it certainly expedited and amplified it. At best, ISIS showed a brave face to getting hosed over by airstrikes in their campaign of conquest. They may also have applied a cost benefit analysis of selling Westerners versus chopping their heads off.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
sparatuvs posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32837336 I'd say that Assad just wanted to add fuel to the inevitable civilian fire to show how truly awful life is without him, or perhaps he wanted to create as big a spectacle as possible when ISIS begins to decimate that ancient city. I'd say that it could even have been a calculated move if there weren't so much evidence that Assad's military might is spent.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/10/syria-fsa-isis-media-coverage-palmyra-101-divison.html Without funneling in dozens of thousands of additional soldiers I don't believe that Russia and Iran can destroy the rebellion. The additional soldiers and air support can stabilize Assad's forces and likely close up pockets of rebels, like in Homs or along the Lebanese border, and solidify the front line but Assad was on the brink of collapse without Russian intervention. I don't trust any numbers, or much of anything, I read about this conflict but the Alawaites are a small minority in Syria and they have gone to war against a much larger part of the population. The only solution is a political solution and this is true with or without Russian intervention. There's no telling what those monsters have in mind but they will likely try to get the upper hand militarily while they have the chance before ever approaching a negotiated settlement to this stupid war. It's anyone's guess what this war will bring, but Syria isn't Afghanistan and the powers invested in its struggle are in too deep. Honestly, this all feels like the first World War where each faction keeps dumping more and more of themselves into the cauldron and backing down simply isn't an option, the future of the entire region will play out through the Syrian Civil War. Russia and Iran are extremely lucky that Obama is in charge of the US, because any other politician wouldn't have been so reserved (imagine W Bush in this situation, he'd have bombed Assad out of the gate), but unless they can come up with some brilliant way to settle the conflict politically their audacity may wind up devastating them. It makes you think what would have happened if the nuclear deal hadn't occured, as those tens of billions of dollars are allowing Iran to maneuver at an absolutely critical period of time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
It's hard to have any other response to that rear end in a top hat. He shows up randomly to throw out some radical statement that can only be justified as him playing a balancing act between reformers and hard liners. The only way that the Russian and Iranian intervention makes sense is if they wanted to solidify Assad's control over as much of the country as possible then enact a negotiated settlement from a position of strength. Is this rear end in a top hat just doing what he did with the nuclear negotiations and just playing king poo poo head while pushing the sensible path forward as much as possible? Or was that a necessary tactic for getting the funds to continue his terror campaign against the Syrian people? Either way, if anyone deserves a barrel bombing tumbling down on them at least we know his loving twitter handle. If anyone else needs another reason to despise that prick here you go! http://www.reuters.com/investigates/iran/#article/part1 You can sense from that Twitter statement that Khamanei likely views Syria and Iraq as property of Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Does anyone have a pulse on what's going on with the offensives? For regime momentum I've tracked substantial SAA progress towards the Kuweires airport and they seem to be only a few miles away from it and an expansive push south of Aleppo. I'm not seeing any progress coming from rebels but ISIS has succeeded in cutting the main road into Aleppo from Damascus, triggering a supply shortage for regime civilians in the city but not threatening them militarily. ISIS has also launched an offensive along the border with Lebanon at a relatively narrow junction along a key road going north as well. With the SAA busy acting against non-ISIS rebels they don't appear to have the strength to fully push back ISIS. Everything else I've found seems either minor or rumor mill territory. There are YPG actions against ISIS that appear to be having success but, as reported earlier in the thread, the Kurds cannot take Raqqa without Arab support nor can they push west past of the river without Turkey bombing them. I have found relatively little from rebel sources to note how their effort is going which indicates, but doesn't verify, that things aren't going well for them. I saw reports of dozens of TOW commanders being wiped out and I can only imagine just how scorching this conflict must be right now. With the regime standing with the most amounts of troops (and the most territory to take and defend), heavy weaponry support in addition to Iranian and Russian soldiers I can't see how things are going well for the rebels. Oddly enough the only relief for them appears to come from ISIS focusing their fire in their trademark opportunistic way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
That would have involved our leaders thinking. W Bush was a bat poo poo crusader king backed by cronies who were adept and very competent at exploiting our domestic politics to get what they wanted. C.M. Kruger posted:According to Jane's, the Su-24M can't receive transmissions on the Guard frequencies without a optional radio upgrade. That hardly seems like Turkey's fault.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Can we presume that the rebels have no response to an Iranian army backed with Russian air power? Without anti aircraft weaponry capable of countering modern air power neither the rebels nor ISIS have a chance in the years ahead. It's impressive that the Persians and the Russians have so changed what was thought to be an intractable conflict. If the Kurds are moving against the rebellion to unite their territory I have to imagine that this will spell the end of the rebellion and its disintegration as a standing and governmental force. Aleppo seems destined to fall back into Assad's control and, with it, Syria. Even presuming that the rebellion disintegrates into a guerrilla movement the Assadian faction has shown that it will inflict maximize barbarity to its opponents and we may imagine a situation like the Boer war where even a determined opponent can ultimately be subdued with brutal enough measures. Honestly I imagine rather horrific battles ahead as the jihadist factions fight to the death against an increasingly victorious foe. It turns out Assad had a winning strategy after all. He just had to burn his country to the ground while inviting foreign armies to occupy its ashes. The Kurds Have they been brilliant or naive by maintaining neutrality with the regime? Neither Iran, Turkey nor Assad wish for a Kurdistan to exist within their spheres of influence. The Russian's may aid the Kurds today and sell them out to repair ties with Turkey tomorrow while serving their allies cause as well. That presumes, of course, that the Russians wish to serve their allies interest or would value them more than its relationship with the United States. While it is likely that the United States will continue to back the Kurds what if the Obama doctrine continues and we do not counter our opponents advances abroad in the case of Iranian and Russian action against the Kurds? We may entertain, as surely the Kurds must, that the Russian's view the Kurds as a counter weight to Iranian influence in the region and that may offer valuable protection as the Middle East reconfigures itself. That the rivalry between Turkey and Russia is real and enduring and that Turkish action against the Kurds will result in a Russian response, be it military or civilian. What if the Kurds can successfully play the Russians and Americans off of each other, or at least maintain the support and goodwill of both sides just like Israel through the 50s? It could give them the time they need to form a cohesive and unified nation that stretches like a hat across the Middle East. We may well see a broad and powerful Kurdish nation emerge from the Arab Spring, but we may also see its gutting as well. For all the blood that has been spilled I hope it is for the former and not the latter. One can imagine that the Kurds may even act as a powerful safeguard against what has become the Arab Dark Ages for the civilized world of of Eurasia. A last thought: German's Merkel has stated that the refugees must go back to their home country once the war has ended. I put anyone setting foot back into Assad's territory. the police state will devour so many of them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
When you consider Assad's rhetoric since day 1 has been that the West will suffer from the 'terrorists' that they're supporting in his country and his commitment to destroy any civil structure outside of areas in his control I think it's only reasonable to assume that the influx of refugees into Europe is at least a secondary, if not a primary, goal towards pressuring Europe to accepting him as a 'reasonable' way to end the crisis. When the refugee crisis began to hit critical levels, around when that baby washed up on shore and the world went QQ (a picture is also worth a thousand corpses, apparently), I remember seeing a sudden influx of viewpoints from Europe that pretty much rewarded this strategy. The refugee crisis is actually one of the only weapons Assad ever had against the West and he's used it to its fullest effect.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
That's one of the dumbest ways to die that I've ever seen; it's the equivalent of a drunk Russian back flipping into a pool of ice or any other Youtube compilation of stupid acts of masculinity. Is it an Arab custom to use a persons full name when talking to them? In a truck with 4 people there can only be so many Abu's aboard. That thing looked like a poorly conceived death trap..even if they were good soldiers would it even be possible to shoot out of that vehicle without blasting everyone and everything inside? That RPG blasted the camera and scorched the soldiers, bullet casings were falling right on their comrades and everything seemed too tight for efficiency. Modern warfare is such a nightmare. Abu Hajjar! ABU HAJJAAAAAAARRRR!!!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:So after Manbij there's only Al-Bab, right? I don't see a lotta people talking about it, can anyone give me some details what the SDF's plans are for it? I don't think you'll see an official plan put until it's already been executed. Al-Bab is the most realistic chance the Kurds have of uniting their territory and is smaller (by half? even less?) than Manjib. The Kurds could sprint to seize the city, but that would leave them besieging two fortified ISIS cities with a thin strip of land exposed to three different factions who range from openly hostile to less openly hostile. Additionally it might trigger a Turkish response, either through overt means to suppress Kurdish advancement (like how they shelled Kurds) or covert (flooding North Aleppo with recruits and supplies to anti kurdish jihadists (they already do this probably)). However uniting their territories has great upsides besides the morale boost. The Kurds stuck in northwest Aleppo have an abundance of manpower and, I believe, is an agricultural powerhouse. They lack heavy armor and much more than rifles and have minimal integration with US air support, which is why they remained hemmed in and have only gained territory when other factions were facing catastrophe, such as when they separated the rebels from the regime by seizing rebel land while they were busy behing melted by Russian airpower. Uniting with the SDF will bring a flood of recruits to an already ascendant faction as well as providing material support to an aspiring Kurdish nation. Risky as it is, such a move might cement the foundations of a Kurdish state. I would bet that they're consolidating their supply lines and figuring out how to securely hold their new territory while preparing reserves to support an action to seize the city if the defense crumbles or strike out towards Al Bab if the opportunity arises. If the Kurds trapped in Aleppo succeed in breaking ISIS lines the SDF may immediately move towards Al Bab. It's amazing how fluid this entire situation has become after years of stagnation. Whatever happens I hope to continue our alliance with the Kurds even after they're no longer useful against ISIS. A powerful Kurdish nation may offer a pillar of stability in the region, especially if they continue to cultivate an alliance with the West while being neutral or friendly to Russia. Does anyone know their stance towards Iran?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:
While I agree it was bone chilling reading about ISIS devastate an offensive force as thoroughly as they apparently have done. It reads like when they first emerged a few years ago right down to the stupidity of their opponent allowing ISIS to score a knockout blow. Out of any faction they can score a win against it may as well be the SAA because it weakens them for any of their shenanigans they might pull against the SDF. quote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/21/eu-to-extend-sanctions-against-russia http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-economy-2016-no-gdp-growth-expected-amid-low-oil-prices-sanctions-government-2357358 Russia must be bleeding badly from the sanctions and they don't have the ability to back down without looking weak and yet the situation in Syria is not allowing them to negotiate from a position of strength. The economic toll of sending thousands of soldier is enough of a burden on a crippled economy and every day it's becoming clearer that Russia support != American support. I think the last thing they'll do is launch a full on invasion across an ocean.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Flayer posted:I think the point is that the US military is far more capable in every aspect than the Russian military. Russia cannot achieve what the USA can and is always going to look bad in comparison. However taking into account the general level of Russia's military they have achieved a decent level of success in turning the almost defeated SAA into a force capable of launching offensives on the ground. What surprises me is that after the tremendous momentum Russia injected into the conflict when they first entered the fray has seemingly vanished over the past few months. I honestly thought and remember discussing in this thread how the rebellion seemed doomed because Iranian troops + SAA + Russian airpower was literally melting the opposition that stood in their way. There's a video of two of their helicopters barely above rebel positions blanketing an entire hillside with fire and death and those visuals will always stand out to me from this war. Massive gains and a completely new dynamic was created in its aftermath. I still don't understand that their strategy was in regards to the ceasefire from around the start of this year really was about. Did Russia think that the opposition and their geopolitical enemies would give way after such an impressive show of force and a negotiated settlement was within reach? Maybe, but that seems naive in this conflict and Russia is nothing if not cynical. I remember looking at the scale of Russian air strikes and thinking that they must have been operating their equipment with such frenzy that it must have been impossible to keep with up the maintenance or costing them too much money to continue on a sustained basis. Or maybe they just ran out of good bombs and Turkey shooting down one of their jets affected their thinking. Maybe ~2 or 3 months ago the Assadian faction started losing and it simply hasn't stopped. History may vindicate Obama for saying that Russia was getting itself into something it could never escape from. That ceasefire, whatever the reasons were, allowed the rebel factions to get their footing back and adapt (somewhat) to air strikes. It also had the perhaps unintended side effect of empowering the SDF.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
I've believed the stories of Erdogan submitting to the Assadian faction since I saw the first reports one to two months back. Turkey's baby sultan has a much better time of agreeing with the tyrants of Russia and Iran than the forces of the West. We dress up our emperors much tighter than the naked authority found elsewhere in the world and that has its appeal to barbarians like Erdogan. With the Brexit any hope of greater unity and integration with the West has been dealt a serious, perhaps permanent blow. Turkey has only succeeded in isolating itself from the world and after failing to destroy Assad perhaps it was only a matter of time before priorities shifted and they focused their hatred with racism against the Kurds to secure its petty fiefdom. The distance of justice being dealt to Assad is ever greater and another thread is woven into the tragic cloth of the Arab Spring.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:LOL? How is that. Iran has an actual idenitity. Do you think Syria has an identity? Fires identify as ashes, eventually. I can see Syria acting as an Iranian colony and a slow and methodical genocide and subjugation of the Sunni regions as the decade progresses in the same vein as how we wiped out the Native Americans. Mightypeon posted:If US decisively moves in against Assad, everyone with a bone to grind with Alawites will mass murder them, because mass murdering people while you have US support is really easy compared to doing it when the guys you want to murder have Russian support. It's interesting that you say this because of the blatant genocide and depopulation of Syria Assad has engaged in with the decisive backing of Russia against the civilian faction that had nominal US backing. There are literally mass graves dug outside Assad's palace that have been confirmed from satellite photos having been dug, filled and then turfed over. Talk about grinding bones!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Pro tip: Google the religion of Assads wife. I appreciate points of view from around the world and think it's wonderful that this is a place allows for a melding of opinions. I don't, however, appreciate Kremlin propaganda. Protip: Google Assad sectarianism, or just use common sense, and you'll see the exploitation of ethnicity and religion to cement the Assadian factions grip on power in Syria. Sunni inclusion was window dressing through the past fifty years to allow bullshit like the type you're spewing to purport Assad's regime as inclusive. It's garbage and the minute the chips were placed on the table in 2011 the regime revealed its true face. The true levers are power have always been held by people Assad trusted and no one else. Their ethnicity doesn't matter in that regard, but sectarianism is at the very core of the Assad regime. Point to the highest ranking Sunni in Syria all you want because without actual power those positions are meaningless. Perhaps this is part of why the country unraveled so violently! quote:Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. By this definition the systematic destruction of all rebel held areas through the targeted annihilation of bakeries, schools, hospitals, markets and anything that could allow the population to center itself around and provide itself with services most definitely qualifies as genocide. It just happens that the people he's genociding are overwhelming Sunni, but maybe that's just a side effect from a minority attempting to violently rule over a majority. Perhaps Assad doesn't care if the people he's killing are Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Christians, atheists or any particular thing at all. Perhaps is a sweet man who views all people as equals to be slaughtered if it means he gets to keep his grip on power for a single moment longer. It doesn't matter because of how he treats anything not under his direct control.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Words have meaning. Genocide has a specific meaning in murdering anyone who belongs to a particular ethnic or religious group. Yes, words do have meaning. Like the literal meaning of genocide, for example: quote:Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. As sensitive a soul you must be you don't get to change the definitions of words to serve your arguments. The entirety of the civil war can be seen as the systematic destruction of all assets of civil society not under control by Assad as his strategy to survive the conflict. It has been surprisingly effective, but primarily due to the timidity of Western involvement. Call it racial, political or cultural Assad has engaged in genocidal war crimes. You say that the west under estimates his support yet personally I view his campaign of war crimes against the Syrian population as his chief bulwark in the conflict. It deprives his enemies legitimacy by preventing social structures to take shape under their rule as well as triggering a refugee crisis to put pressure on the West and non aligned countries in the Middle East such as Jordan. Here: https://tcf.org/content/report/assads-broken-base-case-idlib/ It turns out that it's obvious that a family that has ruled for fifty years has deep connections with the society that it has been ruling for fifty years. Those connections have been broken throughout the country and will only be possible to restore over another fifty years. Of course the regime has built a complex and dense web of support throughout Syria over the past half century, otherwise it couldn't even be considered a state. Like many dictators Assad ruled Sunni regions through Sunni aristocratic proxies and, as your sweet soul remembers, Syria descended into violence because Assad's agents gathered up teenagers from both the ruled and ruling families of the Sunni heartland and tortured them to death. I wonder what those Alawites said to those Sunni children as they dismembered them and bored holes into their bodies. But it doesn't matter what the motivation for a war crime may or may not be. Assad is as inclusive as is beneficial, we agree, but his primary support is terror. The notion of sectarianism is a side show and a distraction meant to cast shade over the truth: for half a century the Assadian regime has been underpinned through horrific violence, internal suppression, torture and any other means of coercion. When it came to war, it meant genocide. As for the broader war itself both the rebellion and Assad's army would have collapsed years ago without foreign intervention. South Aleppo is manned by tens of thousands of Iranians and Afghan's promised Iranian citizenship if they live to see the end of the war and thousands of Russian soldiers are supporting defensive and offensive maneuvers. The regime was listing towards defeat until the Iranian deal unlocked the billions Iran needed to fund a major escalation and convince Russia to involve itself. Now that ISIS is contained to Mosul in Iraq we are already seeing thousands of Iraqi militiamen (Shiites, shockingly!) move into Syria just like how that influx was mirrored when ISIS broke out in Iraq and forced them to defend their homes instead of burning down Syrian ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
The developments in Aleppo are coming at a frenzied pace. It appears that the dual assault on both sides of regime territory granted sufficient headway to crumble the lines of defense and cause a rout. The regime seems to be wholly on the back foot and something appears to have snapped behind their lines. I think this map in particular is telling. It's also possible that this map is out dated and the entire college has been captured as well as the Ram town next to it. https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4wfmjm/map_situation_in_southern_aleppo_artillery_base/?st=irjr2kdy&sh=babc926d Video evidence and the trend of battle indicates that this is more true rather than less true. If so it almost looks that the rebels are mirroring how the SDF took Manjib by using major roads to section off what territory to seize. They've captured major fortified areas that they can anchor their lines around right underneath the regime positions in Western Aleppo. If the developments today are true it is safe to expect the rebels will seize all of the territory south of that highway that was the primary supply road. There is a report that the Tiger forces are fortifying their positions in the north and not joining the battle. Is it an accurate reading that the only major objective on the east side of Aleppo would be the water treatment plant? After that the rebels would be pressing into open terrain again. Whatever the long term effect is it appears that the rebels have traded several hundred of their best fighters and copious amounts of equipment in exchange for a gigantic fortress in the center of the most strategic territory of the war. They rushed over open grounds to seize square kilometers of terrain that is much more advantageous for them and gives them a launching pad to initiate a new phase of the siege. I can only imagine how game changing it would be if the rumors about a munitions depot in the artillery college are true, but the video evidence so far just indicates rusted out vehicles and a seemingly ghost town population level. There's also rumors that the rebels have assembled upwards of 9000 men for the campaign and expected to initiate conflict for a month, so at least that appears to be their propaganda line. This battle has every potential to become the civil wars Verdun, from the heavy slaughter on both sides over minimal amounts of terrain to the glittering prize of winning the war on both parties mind if they can secure victory in Aleppo and the utter desperation to land a killing blow. With every incentive to pour everything they have into the fight both sides are bleeding themselves white and the question is who is going to die first. Edit: This appears to be an example of rebel spoils won in Aleppo. http://imgur.com/a/MQdgr Brother Friendship fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
slavatuvs posted:The SAA keeps using the wall of the artillery school in South Aleppo as a rest stop for infantry, so the Fastaqem Union set up an atgm on a building on the wall's flank, so far they have scored 4 devastating hits and the SAA hasn't seemed to notice that the soldiers are in a direct kill zone. SAA incompetence illustrated I saw the third one today and it was hard enough to believe it happened. Seeing that this happened twice before is ridiculous, including three shots from the exact same position. I didn't want to share the video here because I felt they were too graphic because these are some of the most devastating ATGM hits I've seen in the war. Just these four hits alone is easily 40+ dead plus a destroyed vehicle (technical?). What sort of casualties are both sides suffering in this fight? Who can better handle these body blows? Is it possible that the rebels can absorb the damage to their numbers long enough for their cutting of a key supply line into West Aleppo to start having an affect? They have definitely taken to bombing civilian areas, presumably to cause panic and to use up as much medical capacity as possible. This would be the same reason that Russia has launched a full assault on the rebels medical infrastructure. This is such a ruthless conflict. What sort of troops are these shown in the video? I can't imagine that these are the Republican Guards or Tiger forces so perhaps these are the Iraqi militiamen sent to reinforce Aleppo or perhaps the Iranian militias recruited from Afghan refugees? What I don't understand is how tightly all of these soldiers are concentrating even after the attack. They definitely don't understand that they're under threat from a mobile rocket platform, perhaps they think it's a mortar that landed a lucky hit? Or are they under the mistaken belief that they're behind the front lines? In the third video the first attack perhaps killed and wounded a dozen soldiers but because they were stretched along the wall many would have avoided the hit, but in the second one they were clustered together enough that the loving thing exploded right in the middle of them all. Do we have any indication of what's really happening in Aleppo? The SAA was reporting success in both repelling two separate rebel offensives at cement plant and along the western road that leads to the 3000/1070 divide as well as reporting substantial progress against the rebels by pushing if not capturing the 1070 apartment complexes, and now that we're seeing them attacking the artillery school (this is that wall, correct?) that seems at least somewhat accurate. If these attacks are any indication the Assadists are making appreciable progress but are suffering from fighting in this terrain just as surely as the rebels must suffer from being in sight a tight area under the most intense aerial bombardment of the war. I think the failure of the rebels to capture the Cement plant bodes ill for their long term prospects because every day that goes by gives the regime more time to draw men and resources from throughout Syria and it allows them to shore up weak points in their defenses. Conversely, what will it mean if the rebels don't buckle under this pressure for another week? Another month? Another thing to consider is that these men are fighting in 100 degree weather in the middle of the day under no cloud cover with either cut or heavily contested supply lines. It must be a tremendous effort of logistics to keep these men appropriately hydrated, and that goes for both sides and with upwards of a million people on the government sides and anywhere from sixty thousand to a quarter million on the rebel side all of whom are draining the same resources as the armies stationed there. Supplies were already limited and I think there's a good reason there are talks right now over the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Torpor posted:So the US has a new general in command this week; maybe he said something to the YPG which may be the reason for the sudden departure from detente in Hasakah? This recent spat appears to have escalated over nothing. Perhaps the presence of air patrols over Hasakah in order to attempt to protect the nearby US soldiers has caused an unintended side-effect of appear to sanction the take over of the city? There was a new general appointed this week? Maybe he felt that he was being challenged and tested by the regime in Hasakah and wanted to send a message. I wonder if the US might be okay with the Kurds seizing control in Hasakah, or at least trying to do so, because of how dangerous it is to have US special forces in areas that are actively being bombed by the regime. Once Assad continued to antagonize the US air force by continual bombing and refusing to answer radio communications perhaps it was deemed that this would lead to a more stable situation, at least in the near term as far US presence is concerned. There is every reason to deal with Assad as forcefully as possible. Is there any information about the potential spoils the Kurds might seize if they do in fact take control of Hasakah and the rest of the government bubble? Heavy equipment of any variety would be doubly useful for the Kurds, perhaps less so if it costs too many lives to take it. It feels like events in Syria are developing almost too rapidly to grasp their full impact. I'm almost convinced we're seeing the shaping of a new world order, the much fabled multi polar world seems to be rearing its head. But at what cost? Russia has almost burned through its cash reserve from the boom years of the 2000s and there is no clean end in sight for both Ukraine and Syria, which are constantly draining Russian resources while its economy continues to need stimulus as well and reform that Putin is frankly not capable of enacting. While Erdogan's flirtation with the Assadian faction may be the signal of a fundamental shift, it could also just be a sign flailing Turkish foreign policy careening wildly from this idea to that idea, desperately looking for a way out of the mess they've gotten themselves into. Iran meanwhile has no doubt allowed the Syrian war to eat up a significant amount of the resources received from the nuclear deal, and Iran can certainly claim to have the best hand at play in the Middle East with an arc of friendly regimes from Tehran through Damascus, but is it really strong enough to seize the sort of power it wants in the Arab world? Even if it does, those men in South Aleppo are battling one hundred degree temperatures and a brutal sun. Whoever wins control of the Middle East will have to deal with the rapidly escalating ramifications of climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Scuse me but which reserve are you alluding to here? BoR foreign reserves have been increasing for a year and a half: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/12/world/europe/russian-economy-tumbling.html My belief is that Russia has driven itself into a ditch with its actions since Putin returned to power. The seizure of the Crimea may satisfy his real politik itch, but it also landed a body blow against the Russian economy. Crimea also necessitated billions and billions of infrastructure spending in order to make it a part of Russia, and my understanding is that their plans to build a bridge to link Russia and Crimea have hit significant snags (last I checked was 8 months ago though). Combine that with Putin's support not just for Assad but the extremely bloody conflict between Ukraine and Russian backed separatists in conjunction with the sanctions and you have a host of threats to any strategic Reserve fund. On top of all that Russia is a petro state in a post peak oil era with a highly corrupt and poorly diversified economy. With the shale boom trapping oil prices at $50, Iran entering the world oil economy and all of the oil producing states obsessed with market share Russia is in a very precarious position that is being masked by its reserves. If the rebellion doesn't crack and crumble within the next year we may see Russia change its behavior simply because it doesn't have a choice, or the costs of continuing its current path may be insurmountable. After a certain point Russia will be risking its own nations stability for playing empire abroad. I think this line of reasoning is why Russia has continually surprised and upset the West in Ukraine and Syria. Our leadership is much more accountable for any economic pain our citizenry suffers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Seen something odd on Euronews: Azaz and presumably Idlib rebels with a little help from Turkey. They're just going to walk across the border, presumably.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I really don't get why they'd want to expand the conflict beyond Hasakah right now, especially given how precarious the situation on the Turkish border is, but they seem to be doing it.. Sure, Assad is weak right now, so I see the appeal in kicking while he's down, but it still seems really dangerous. Who exactly are they ingratiating themselves with? There's no reason to believe Nusra will be grateful. It's a wild loving move to team up with the Aleppo rebels and tag team Assad and probably the last thing anyone would expect to happen. It would ignore quite a few maniacal threats of mass slaughter and years of suspicion and mistrust. Maybe they feel they're doomed if Assad obtains complete victory against the Arab rebellion but that they could defend themselves against a fragmented field. There's also the potential for US airstrikes against a jihadist rebel faction if it comes to blows and that is something they can't count on at all against the regime.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Even a few hundred troops would be useful in a tight battle such as the one we're seeing in Aleppo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Radio Prune posted:https://youtu.be/3ABi3YbeJrU - drone footage of mortar strikes on pro-Assad forces immediately inside the Air Force college. This is the same spot where that BMP-2 was hit with an ATGM the other day. In fact, I think one of those vehicles is it. This equipment is *Borat* Very Nice. These mortars are from Turkey, correct? My understanding is that they're flooding the Aleppo rebels with material in addition to launching an invasion of North Aleppo. I don't necessarily mind that the Kurds are being blocked from uniting the three cantons. While I support them above any other faction I didn't see the logic in pushing to the third canton because that won't connect them to the sea and I couldn't determine any sort of geographical boundary that would make it easily defensible as the Euphrates. Furthermore, as Afrin is northwest of Aleppo I didn't see any realistic chance of them holding onto all that territory after a political settlement finishes the war. I would think that getting Turkey to accept a federated Syria with the territory east of the Euphrates as Kurdish dominated would be a remarkable success for the Kurds and American diplomacy, but knowing the Obama administration this is likely the start of the destruction of any Kurdish ambitions. Turkey is clearly in collusion with Russia and the Syrian government because their military has pierced Syrian airspace and territory against a common foe, yet if they're giving arms to the rebels who are in a pitched battle against the regime. Am I misreading the names involved with each offensive or is the same faction behind both the South Aleppo battle and the Jarabulus invasion force? It would seem a logical conclusion that the seizure of Al-Bab would trigger a new front against the regime in Aleppo that could threaten to besiege the besiegers unless they close that Aleppo gap soon. It's like the war is on fast forward and everyone is sprinting the negotiation table. Or perhaps the butchers block.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Assad and we burn the country.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
I think this discussion may miss a broader point. While the rebels may have a devastating kill zone to massacre grunts the regime has successfully taken, defended and likely fortified a key hill that overlooks the main road supplying the Aleppo salient. https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/769293699503325184 This position allows ATGM fire on vehicles going right next to it. Supposedly the rebels threw tanks at the position and failed big, not unlike several desperate assaults in Mallah farms. Once experienced soldiers are dug in with dedicated air support it is a heavy cost to remove them, if even possible. The kill zones the regime may have developed is just as savage and lethal to the rebels as the corpse wall they're building. What does this mean to the actual supply into Aleppo? Can the regime squeeze the lines sufficiently to the point where the siege may as well be reinstated? Does this then put an under armed rebel force in an extremely tight defensive battle in a corridor with limited mobility in a battle they couldn't possibly win? If this is a battle of corpses the regime has anywhere from several hundred to over a thousand soldiers to throw into the fire due to the two negotiated settlements in Hasakah and Darya as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3kQUKQQo4Y This is basically Battlefield 1942 where people keep taking the vehicles, bee lining to the enemy base and immediately die. What the hell?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
The Hama front line looks like it's getting a buzz cut and losing about 30 or so kilometers in depth for 80-100 kilometers. The rebels pierced deep enough to bypass the fortifications and while they risked creating a salient they have seized 4 of the 7 sizeable towns north of Hama. After that it's a few small villages eastward and they've connected with their original front line significantly closer to Hama and anchored with a network of towns. Enough time has elapsed that we are seeing regime reinforcements arrive and potentially flood the area in preparation to both hold the offensive in check and counter attack. What happens next is entirely on how much chaos is occuring behind regime lines. Enough time has passed so that the regime is both aware of the situation and throwing everything it can to contain it. While this offensive took a significant portion of land I don't see how it would fundamentally change the situation in Hama. The rebels barely moved closer to the supply line, Hama is defended by a network of mountains and towns the regime currently controls, and the pocket to Hama's south is another front line collapse away from being relieved. One thing to note in regards to Aleppo is that the latest offensives have shown substantial amounts of elite forces making the attacks, which would explain why they've actually captured parts of the artillery base. The regime needs to cement those gains and end that battle because a failure to do so may have broad implications. The situation between Hama and Aleppo should be worrying enough about their lack of competent manpower. To that end, ISIS has taken some territory east of Homs (south east of Hama) after taking advantage of regime redeployments away from those areas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
There has been an increasing number of deaths among ranking Iranians and Tiger forces in addition to the high body count of regular soldiers on both the Hama and Aleppo fronts. It seems that the regime has either run out of or cannot rely on cannon fodder and has been forced to expose it's elite units to the front line with obvious consequences. The regime only uses Hezbollah, Tiger, Republican Guard ect in a controlled manner (such as the Palmyra offensive, closing the encirclement around Aleppo or using sieges to crush rebels) but both Aleppo and Hama have thrown this method out the window. Once the elite forces start being drained it's basically a countdown until catastrophe for the regime because they're depleting their only mobile and professional force. The rebels sacked a missile base that was apparently stocked with ATGMs and Grad rockets and at least one launcher and are apparently putting them to good use to pound regime positions with the sort of bombardment reserved for the rebels. Regime armor and gun emplacements are feeling the effects of this lethal rebel push as can be attested by the dozens of videos of the regime losing everything from machine gun mounted trucks to tanks to, apparently, a helicopter. They're currently assaulting the mountain range directly north of Aleppo with the seized Grads and from what I can tell are actually serious about fighting for the Khatab. Even if it's just a distraction while they take Maan it shows that the rebels want to take advantage of every opportunity Assad has afforded them in Hama. Are there any estimates of casualties or overall manpower for the rebels and the regime? Both sides must be suffering thousands of casualties and with two fronts burning red hot right and eating up every bit of manpower.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:So I'm pretty sure you can see the whole helicopter has been obliterated out from under the blades, which continue to happily spin and gently flutter down under their own momentum... It looks like you are indeed correct. It's a shame Abu Hajaar was filming it because seeing this shot in a crisp resolution would have been an amazing piece of video. Supposedly there was yet another high ranking official in that chopper, although not necessarily anyone notable.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:so basicaly they have pissed away the lives of a ton of their men as well as the men various allied groups and now they are left with their elite groups that are pretty small? The entire war is an exercise in pissing away lives. From what I understand Iran essentially reforged the SAA once the rebels started receiving foreign backing by taking the vast stockpiles of armor and weaponry the SAA had accumulated and then dispersing them to various militias (NDF as a common force focused on local defense, Tigers as an elite force focused on key offensive and defensive actions). Combined with a legal decree that allowed private businessmen to create their own militias this swelled the numbers of fighters loyal to the regime but crippled its integrity as a cohesive armed force loyal to a central government because instead of the strict hierarchy of an army Iran replaced it something more analogous to the rebel forces, where small war bands control their own little fiefdoms and answer only nominally to the greater 'cause' to which they are pledged. Essentially what happened in both South Aleppo and Hama is that the local NDF charged with garrison duty failed in their duties to either prepare their defenses or hold them, which ripped a hole in Assad's lines and allowed the rebels to pour through. The only way to plug those holes is with the elite forces but that then exposes them to the casualties associated with front line fighting in contrast to their preferred method of using the NDF to hem in rebel forces and employ the elite soldiers only when victory can be assured through sheer advantage in firepower. It's impossible for us to determine what the actual fighting strength is of any of these factions. All we can tell is that everyone involved in this fighting is bleeding heavily and it's up in the air to determine who can afford it the least. Personally, I think the elite forces are just beefed up versions of the NDF with unknown loyalties that may crack and bend in unexpected ways when compared to a truly professional force. The elite forces (Tiger, Air force intelligence, Republican Guard, Hezbollah forces and Iranian army) losing their high ranking officers is a sign that they may be suffering losses they cannot easily replace. They could be well trained and deeply experienced professionals and products of a completely different era of Syrian history and you can't just recreate that in in a training ground. The more of these men they lose the more the elite forces become like everyone else in the war. RZApublican posted:I can't remember the name of the formation, but a few months ago when the regime tried to launch an offensive toward Raqqah ISIS beat them back so hard that one of the regime's special forces units completely disintegrated to the point that the government denied that it had ever existed. If Aleppo and Hama keep going the way they've been going for the regime we're probably going to be seeing a lot of division-level unpersoning in the near future. It was Orwellion as gently caress to see the loyalist media try to sweep aside any mention of the division that got wiped out. "No, we suffered no losses in the road to Raqqa. That division never even existed." It's one thing to die fighting in a war, but it's another to have you death swept into a dustbin because someone hosed up. You might like this: http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2016/06/no-end-in-sight-failed-tabqa-offensive.html The offensive was composed of multiple, if not dozens segregated militias that lacked a cohesive command structure and I don't think the regime lost its elite fores in the Taqba offensive. Instead what I think happened was that a failure to secure their perimeter allowed ISIS's own elite fighters to bring in SBVIEDS and tanks right next to regime lines. When the elite forces realized their position they loving booked it and left the regular NDF forces to their own devices. This then caused a panic that ultimately routed the offensive forces and pushed them back all the way past their original positions. Could you imagine the marines abandoning army divisions in the middle of hostile territory like that? This is what I meant that the elite forces are just beefed up versions of the NDF and shouldn't be considered a regular professional force even if they are some of the most effective fighters in the war (any decent faction with material advantage and air supremacy can count itself as effective). I may be mistaken, but this may also be the most severe test of these units yet. Or at the very least in the past two years or since the outbreak of the revolution. Out of all the loyalist forces I would imagine that Hezbollah forces would fight as a the most professional and, if you saw some of the reports of out Southwest Aleppo as the rebels prepared for the breaking of the siege, you'd hear similar reports from the ground. The front would come under attack and only Hezbollah would hold its position, forcing them to suffer loses and still have to retreat under adverse conditions because the other fighters weren't strong enough to stand under fire. This is the key flaw in the loyalist strategy that allowed the rebels to creep so close to Aleppo in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 04:48
|
|