Russia in Syria

[bmk1245]

[...]

Freakin' hilarious!

[Occult1]

The West has the media and Russia has a bunch of talented cartoonists... Seems like a fair fight.

I think that's a Syrian Army idea, not Russia. If you look at the video in the link, the leaflets are being handled and dropped by Syrian pilots.

They have done the same thing in 2012: http://www.dailymail...able-death.html

Edited October 6, 2015 by Draco20

[Deleted]

I think that's a Syrian Army idea, not Russia. If you look at the video in the link, the leaflets are being handled and dropped by Syrian pilots.

They have done the same thing in 2012: http://www.dailymail...able-death.html

But this time they have Russia, China and Iran backing them up.

[bmk1245]

But this time they have Russia, China and Iran backing them up.

China? They don't give a **** about ME. China would like to see Russia falling apart... And grab most precious pieces first.

[Deleted]

http://debka.com/art...litary-buildup-

Chinese aircraft carrier says this site. Also China has an interest in the alliance with Russia, they got great deals from Russia (gas deals) and also support in the Chinese sea against USA and Japan. Also their economies are working together and they are forming a lot of agreements.

Also:

https://www.rt.com/news/316705-china-syria-isis-fight/

Edited October 6, 2015 by hellwyr

[Occult1]

Demonstrating a fear of standing up to Putin will accomplish exactly that. I am not talking about threatening him with nukes. I am saying that he should not be given a free pass to act as he wishes with zero concern for a NATO response. A bully will take just as much as he is given.

Why do some people complain when Russia is helping an ally in need but say nothing when the US-NATO are bombing Afghanistan to protect the gov or boosting support for the intervention in Yemen? There is some faulty logic at play here. Putin isn't nearly belligerent as the West has been in the Middle-East for the last 20 years.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Draco20

[Frank Merton]

Why do some people complain when Russia is helping an ally in need but say nothing when the US-NATO are bombing Afghanistan or boosting support for the military intervention in Yemen? There is some faulty logic at play here. Putin isn't nearly belligerent as the West has been in the Middle-East for the last 20 years.

Your agenda is plain enough. You should cool it a little.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and Russia's motives are imperialistic while those in the West are ideological. There is a difference.

[Occult1]

Two wrongs don't make a right, and Russia's motives are imperialistic while those in the West are ideological. There is a difference.

Western interventionist policies in the Middle-East have been nothing but imperalistic in nature. Let's not kid ourselves here. Now we see Putin and Russia - also a world superpower - do a similar thing in Syria to protect it's interests by helping an ally on the verge of defeat due to jihadists including US-backed rebels. How dare he!

Edited October 7, 2015 by Draco20

[Shiloh17]

Why do some people complain when Russia is helping an ally in need but say nothing when the US-NATO are bombing Afghanistan to protect the gov or boosting support for the intervention in Yemen? There is some faulty logic at play here. Putin isn't nearly belligerent as the West has been in the Middle-East for the last 20 years.

Because the uninformed will listen to anything the media and US government tells them. As in a few previous post, Assad met with Tony Blair and Queen Elizebeth and was reccomended to be Knighted by her Majesty for the turn around and treatment of the Syrian people, but when the Arab Spring came, the U.S saw this as a chance to support a regime change and hopefully another middle eastern military base of operations. This link will show Assad also with Kerry, Kunich, President Carter and a few others, then suddenly the west demonizes him to try and fulfill their purposes http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023538868

As for Putin, I remember when Bush and Putin were getting along really great, then Bush supported a European missile defense program

and Putin grew cold towards. It was almost like a slap in the face to Russia. And I can't say I blame them.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1628289,00.html

Like it or not Assad was elected by the Syrian people, and rebels are rebels. Like i've said before, we here in the U.S have a massive uprising to try and overthow our government we wouldn't be labeled "rebels" . We would be labeled "terrorist" and shot dead in the streets. And Assad has been fighting "terrorist" just as he said. I'm not sure why the US calls them rebels, when they have wiped out entire villages, killed Christians, other Muslim sects, and behead and killed even children. Those are terrorist in my book.

He even held elections, which naturally was called "a farce" by U.S and other western powers.

So, once more an early election will be held, to even share power to help defeat ISIS http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/09/04/putin-assad-will-hold-early-elections.html But what do you think the Western powers will say of the outcome?

[Shiloh17]

And this video has been posted at least twice so far in this topic. Listen to the man speak. Find out who really has been creating all this worlds turmoil in the middle east.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Shiloh17

[Harry_Dresden]

I think that's a Syrian Army idea, not Russia. If you look at the video in the link, the leaflets are being handled and dropped by Syrian pilots.

They have done the same thing in 2012: http://www.dailymail...able-death.html

It's an interesting cartoon on many levels. I checked your link and the title only mentions a cartoon and does not show a picture. Not that it matters of course, since the cartoon serves the same purpose.

[Harry_Dresden]

Your agenda is plain enough. You should cool it a little.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and Russia's motives are imperialistic while those in the West are ideological. There is a difference.

Just to add to Draco's excellent response. The only imperialist motives are those coming outta Washingtonople. While Russia is fighting for a strategic foothold in the Middle East. One that physically separates Turkey from the rest of the Arab world. From Syria to Iraq and Iran. Effectively depreciating Turkey's importance and NATO's reach into the Middle East and stoping Pax Americana from dominating the Middle East. Ideology has nothing to do with America dominating and a declining Russia trying hard to stay relevant.

[Shiloh17]

Western interventionist policies in the Middle-East have been nothing but imperalistic in nature. Let's not kid ourselves here. Now we see Putin and Russia - also a world superpower - do a similar thing in Syria to protect it's interests by helping an ally on the verge of defeat due to jihadists including US-backed rebels. How dare he!

God forbid Russia put a base in Syria, then they would flex their muscle and beat their Imperialistic chest.

Oh wait... They've had one in Syria since 1971. It's actually a naval facility saving Russia the trouble of long trips for resupply.

Now, If a US installed or freindly government in Syria was to happen, would that base cease to exist? Certainly. Maybe we see the real reason to topple Assad who was ok with everyone, till the Arab spring came, then the west tried to demonize him for thier own agenda.

https://en.wikipedia...ility_in_Tartus

Edited October 7, 2015 by Shiloh17

[Mr.United_Nations]

Ships in the caspian sea have launched missiles. Its guna get really big really fast.

[+and-then]

Western interventionist policies in the Middle-East have been nothing but imperalistic in nature. Let's not kid ourselves here. Now we see Putin and Russia - also a world superpower - do a similar thing in Syria to protect it's interests by helping an ally on the verge of defeat due to jihadists including US-backed rebels. How dare he!

No, not a super power. A nuclear nation with the means to end the world but still rational enough to never do so. And I grew up listening to air raid drills monthly because of the animosity between Russia and the US. People can support who ever they choose, no harm no foul. But if you think Putin's moves are about loyalty to Assad then I think you seriously misjudge. Once Assad has been secured I believe we will see Russian forces digging in on a grand scale. They are going to own the rump state known as Syria. They are going to have a major fleet stationed in the Med. They may even station intermediate ballistic missiles in the M.E. Do THOSE actions please you Draco? If so, I'd be curious to know your thoughts as to why it would be a positive.

[Dark_Grey]

To pretend either side has a moral high ground is folly. Has there ever been a war fought only for ideals?

What we are witnessing is the posturing of world powers as we move past the age of peak oil and American imperialism. I suspect there could be a big power vacuum opening up (especially in the middle-east), but who's going to fill that void is anyone's guess

[Occult1]

No, not a super power. A nuclear nation with the means to end the world but still rational enough to never do so. And I grew up listening to air raid drills monthly because of the animosity between Russia and the US. People can support who ever they choose, no harm no foul. But if you think Putin's moves are about loyalty to Assad then I think you seriously misjudge. Once Assad has been secured I believe we will see Russian forces digging in on a grand scale. They are going to own the rump state known as Syria. They are going to have a major fleet stationed in the Med. They may even station intermediate ballistic missiles in the M.E. Do THOSE actions please you Draco? If so, I'd be curious to know your thoughts as to why it would be a positive.

Putin is killing two birds with one stone. They are in Syria to secure their interests first and that means maintaining the Assad regime - a faithful ally - in place but also to show the world that Russia can be a superpower, that they can deal with this ISIS problem where no one else seems to have any desire to.

I am not concerned with Russia's influence in Syria, since as Shiloh17 pointed out, they have been there since the 1970s.

If they can degrade these extremist groups, I think that's certainly positive.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Draco20

[Occult1]

Syrian Forces Begin Ground Offensive Backed By Russia Air And Sea Power

''BEIRUT — Russian missiles fired from Caspian Sea warships traveled more than 900 miles to strike targets in Syria on Wednesday as Syrian government forces opened a ground offensive into areas that include Western-backed rebel factions, officials said.

The bombardment marked the first naval salvos in Russia’s week-old military intervention, and another sharp escalation of Moscow’s firepower in Syria’s multi-faction civil war.''

Link: https://www.washingt...3871_story.html

Edited October 7, 2015 by Draco20

[stevewinn]

Its all going a little wrong for the West in Syria, First:

in the Caspian Sea have launched dozens of missiles into Syria. and secondly, worrying news out of Iraq, as Iraq leans toward Russia in war on Islamic State. - Iraqi Parliament official says Iraq may seek Russian help soon and Wants Moscow to have bigger role in Iraq than Washington. All we need now is China to get involved. and the West/NATO will be outfoxed and surely at that point asked to leave.

[Occult1]

Its all going a little wrong for the West in Syria, First:

in the Caspian Sea have launched dozens of missiles into Syria. and secondly, worrying news out of Iraq, as Iraq leans toward Russia in war on Islamic State. - Iraqi Parliamentofficial says Iraq may seek Russian help soon and Wants Moscow to have bigger role in Iraq than Washington. All we need now is China to get involved. and the West/NATO will be outfoxed and surely at that point asked to leave.

Iraq's President has wanted more coordination with the Assad regime in Syria in their fight against ISIS but the US did not support that.

There's also the fact that Iraq has been leaning towards Iran even since a Shiite government was put in place. By removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, we have been delivering Iraq on a gold plate to the Russia-Iran-China axis of influence. That's what we are seeing right now.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Draco20

[SHaYap]

Money buys a soul but not honor and dignity is never included ...

pretty apt considering how little we do know about the back stories ...

`

[Occult1]

Iran Lobbied For Russian Campaign In Syria, Officials Say

BAGHDAD -- Iran played an integral role leading up to Russia's move to launch its air campaign in Syria and play a stronger role in Iraq, with one of Tehran's most powerful generals meeting for three hours with President Vladimir Putin to push for intervention, Iraqi government officials tell The Associated Press.

Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force, went to Moscow in August with the message that Russian airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Syria were imperative, said the two senior officials, who were later briefed on the meeting. Soleimani and Putin reviewed maps and surveillance photos and shared intelligence, all suggesting the militant group would expand its reach to Russia's doorstep in the Caucuses if Moscow didn't act, the two officials said.

Link: http://www.cbsnews.c...-officials-say/

Edited October 8, 2015 by Draco20

[acidhead]

Money buys a soul but not honor and dignity is never included ...

pretty apt considering how little we do know about the back stories ...

`

How true. We're subject to an endless stream of 'official' information from unnamed sources and its repeated through social media like gospel. Seems like everybody attaches themselves to whatever info they receive and 'know whats happening'. There is so much going on with 'he said she says' its become practically impossible to get everybody to agree on what the truth actually is. I'll be the first yoyo to admit that I have absolutely no freaking idea whats going on. I dont trust any politician or nation who goes out of their way to kill another human being. I feel too many are allowing themselves.... allowing their inner conscience to be taken advantage of by a collective force. Its like a massive black magic spell has been cast through all forms of media and everybodys ego is being taken for a ride.

[MordorOrc]

Because the uninformed will listen to anything the media and US government tells them.

Well, let's test your knowledge on this, shall we?

As in a few previous post, Assad met with Tony Blair and Queen Elizebeth and was reccomended to be Knighted by her Majesty for the turn around and treatment of the Syrian people, but when the Arab Spring came, the U.S saw this as a chance to support a regime change and hopefully another middle eastern military base of operations.

Sounds nefarious and expensive. Tell me, as someone who clearly is informed on the subject at hand, why the United States want the expense to construct a military base in Syria? A country that is bordered by the pro-American regime in Saudi Arabia, a pro-Western king in Jordan, a reasonably pro-Western government in Lebanon, a pro-Western government in Iraq (for the time being anyway), a pro-American government in Israel and a NATO member state? Seems like a waste of time, given that Syria at the moment is fairly isolated when it comes to allegiances, not to mention it's away from any potential flash points in the Middle East.

Secondly, the United States already has a sizable naval presence in Bahrain as well as in the Mediterranean. What added benefits would any military facility in Syria have?

As for Putin, I remember when Bush and Putin were getting along really great, then Bush supported a European missile defense program

and Putin grew cold towards. It was almost like a slap in the face to Russia. And I can't say I blame them.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a great relationship but one that was borne out of convenience. The American-led invasion of Afghanistan was welcomed by Russia because Al-Qaeda had supported Islamic fundamentalists who were fighting the Russians in Chechnya. Hence, when the Taliban approached the Russians for assistance, the Russians told them to bugger off.

The relationship between the United States and Russia was never really that warm to begin with. It hasn't become worse but has instead reverted to a more natural state of affairs. This is less to do with George Bush and more to do with the rise in Russian nationalism and the idea that America went from someone they could work with to a traditional enemy of the Russian state and the Russian people. This, coupled with massive economic growth, prosperity and a rise in national pride after the rather embarrassing decade under Yeltsin has manifested itself in a new sense of Russian pride and thus, the sense that Russia is now back and more willing to take action in international affairs.

Like it or not Assad was elected by the Syrian people, and rebels are rebels.

And like it or not, this is where your post goes off the rails. Bashar al-Assad was never elected as President. Democracy and Syria are words that are not usually synonymous and given that the majority of transitions of power between presidents in Syria have been through forced resignations or outright coups, it's not really surprising that the Syrians haven't really been overly familiar with the basic concept of free and or fair elections.

Nonetheless, to say that Syria is a democracy and that Bashar el-Assad was elected by the Syrian people is, well, ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that Syria really isn't a democracy (even Russia is better at it, even with allegations of voter fraud) and ignores the recent history of Syria and the domination of the Syrian branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party which has ruled the country through various presidents for the last four decades.

Ba'athist control was cemented in Syria following the dissolution of the United Arab Republic and Syria becoming an independent state once again. After this, the government had reverted back to the old days of tensions and underlying instability. The Ba'athists themselves came to power via what they called the "Corrective Revolution" of 1970, which in itself was a coup and ushered in the current Ba'athist control over Syria (the previous period having been between 1963 and 1966, following a coup styled as a "revolution"). This is important because the coup was launched by Hafez al-Assad, the father of current president, Bashar al-Assad.

What Hafez did was centralize power within Syria and around himself. Prior to the outbreak of the civil war, the Syrian Arab Ba'athist Party was deemed the "leading party of society and the state" which ensured that the Ba'athists, and in turn the Assads, retained control over Syria. There were also emergency laws that were enacted by the Ba'athists when they first took power in 1963 and were retained by Hafez when he took power. These laws gave security forces sweeping powers of detention and arrest, which greatly inhibited the ability of individuals and groups to form opposition parties and political organizations, as well as to mobilize. These laws were still enforced when Bashar assumed power in 2090 and were only removed during the uprising. The Syrian government also has at least 4,000 political prisoners currently incarcerated and has made numerous arbitrary arrests against political opposition, which faces routine harassment and strict censorship.

My point, is that elections in Syria cannot be called such because Syrian opposition parties are not able to effectively contest elections. During the 2014 elections, the United Nations said that the elections lacked any form of independent monitoring and that all the countries from whom monitors did arrive from were all from those whose governments were friendly or allied with the Assad regime. Not only that, but the election was held during a civil war and therefore not all Syrians were able to vote, thus limiting those who could vote to areas who were controlled by pro-regime or Syrian military forces. I'm not sure about you, but that doesn't look like a legitimate election, despite being the only actual election to be held in the country in decades.

If we want to take a look back at the previous "elections", they were not elections as such but referendums, specifically on whether or not Bashar al-Assad should remain in power. As there were no contestants in the 2000 or 2007 "elections", Bashar had no opposition and was therefore essentially able to "win" a majority of the vote (97.6% to be exact). I should also mention that Bashar "inherited" his position from his father, who originally had picked Bashar's older brother to succeed him as president, but was killed in a car crash.

Therefore, he was not elected.

Like i've said before, we here in the U.S have a massive uprising to try and overthow our government we wouldn't be labeled "rebels" . We would be labeled "terrorist" and shot dead in the streets.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what happened in Syria. But this wouldn't be the case in the United States for three reasons. Firstly, despite what people on this website may think, the situation in the United States and the situation in Syria prior to the uprising aren't really comparable. In Syria, the internet was and remains, heavily censored and open criticism of the president could have very well landed you in a jail cell and even seen you subjected to horrific torture by the security forces.

Secondly, the uprising in Syria wasn't to overthrow the government. Syrians made demands that the emergency laws that the current government was using to arbitrarily arrest and imprison thousands of people should be repealed, as well as censorship laws. A number of the areas which saw the biggest protests and the most support for the rebel cause, such as Homs and Daraa, were very poor and disadvantaged, meaning that tens of thousands of people felt that the government was not aware of their needs. Syria was also facing a general decline in standards of living, thanks to government policies which only benefited those with government connections, a severe drought and the influx of 1.5 million refugees from Iraq. It only turned into an armed conflict because the state responded with force and shot unarmed people dead in the streets.

Thirdly, such protests wouldn't be seen in America, because even with its current issues, America is nowhere near in as bad a state as Syria was. In addition, foreign journalists were barred from Syria and most videos that surface were taken by average Syrians who were there on the ground. The massive media presence at any major protest in the United States, including those at Ferguson, would basically throw away any notion of mass shootings by security forces.

And Assad has been fighting "terrorist" just as he said.

What is your first language, by the way? *SNIP*

I'm not sure why the US calls them rebels, when they have wiped out entire villages, killed Christians, other Muslim sects, and behead and killed even children. Those are terrorist in my book.

Because they are rebelling against a government whom they do not feel represents the people and is unjust? Nevertheless, the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" applies to this.

He even held elections, which naturally was called "a farce" by U.S and other western powers.

Because they were. Bashar's "elections" in 2000 and 2007 were uncontested and the 2014 presidential election did not have independent monitoring by any foreign agency and not all Syrians were able to vote.

[so, once more an early election will be held, to even share power to help defeat ISIS http://www.thedailyb...-elections.html But what do you think the Western powers will say of the outcome?

It's basically a given that any result will always benefit Assad because those that are able to vote are only living in government held areas of Syria. How can an election be legitimate if not all Syrians of voting age can vote?

Edited October 9, 2015 by Lilly
removed insulting remark

[bee]

What is your first language, by the way? *SNIP*

and with that one sentence you have cast a shadow over everything you said in your post....

Bottom line...if the mythical moderate Syrian Rebels ever really existed independently of any outside

influence and encouragement they must have surely disappeared, been merged with other groups or been

killed by now (by terrorist groups or Syrian Army).....

and even if some still exist they do not have a hope in hell of opposing the Islamic State lot...

so essentially they are out of the 'game' - gone.

Unless you want to count the four or five that have been trained by the US - as a top general testified..

http://www.theguardi...n-isis-fighters

.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Lilly
insult removed from quote