International Isis/syria/iraq thread

[Squall Leonhart]

What will likely come of this?

 

[carlos cadona]

Here a video of a couple of SAA guy talking some shit to the rebels after a recent victory in Aleppo.

 

[BBT13]

Houthis claim to have hit a UAE HSV-2 Swift vessel in a missile attack featuring the return of the sandal sound system.

Good hit

 

[BBT13]

What will likely come of this?

Time will tell. But I think it will take another 2-3 years for SAA to take if not all then most of the country back, if the Russians manage to cooperate with Kurds more then it will be a significant help in the fight to take the country back. But at the moment it seems Russians decided to punish the Kurds with the help of Turkey for the Hasakah.

 

[Rod1]

Assuming it would lead to war that is
And that of course avoids the obvious question...why would putin want ww3 or even a short 'clash' he clearly cant win?

This one has the medias attention esp now with un being targetted
Its you russians assume theres never any consequences for any attrocity

1.- Because it works both ways, the Russians know the US will never go to war with them, so why listen to threats in the first place?

2.- There are consequences, like for example the sanctions Russians are suffering for their invasion of Ukraine. The issue is how far is the US willing to go to stop said attrocities, and the answer is not that much. Specially when there is no guarantee that the "good guys" will actually be "Good".

You see Assad may be an asshole, but he was an asshole in Syria, if Nusra and other jihadis take over Syria, they wont be content within its border.

 

[BBT13]

Here a video of a couple of SAA guy talking some shit to the rebels after a recent victory in Aleppo.

Some trolling it is, any way too early to cheer for anything super significant. If Iran went full throttle it would be much easier in Syria but any way, Iranians so far are not showing to be too competent.

 

[whougonnacall]

1.- Because it works both ways, the Russians know the US will never go to war with them, so why listen to threats in the first place?

2.- There are consequences, like for example the sanctions Russians are suffering for their invasion of Ukraine. The issue is how far is the US willing to go to stop said attrocities, and the answer is not that much. Specially when there is no guarantee that the "good guys" will actually be "Good".

You see Assad may be an asshole, but he was an asshole in Syria, if Nusra and other jihadis take over Syria, they wont be content within its border.

1) then like the cold war its a game of chicken ie we declare no fly zone and then they have to decide to escalate by trying to breach it or not
But bear in mind one side has such an advantage it would be almost comical if it came down to even a short confinded clash thus have mlre incentive to back down.

2) Thats the u.s under current administration against what seems to be a consensus that stronger action needs to be taken.

The final statement has so much wrong with it i dont know where to start
No he didnt stay within his borders(iraq war,hezbollah,lebanon assasinations ), nor have any rebel force declared any intnetion to fight outside borders (outside of hezbollah and russia but fuck them) nor is he an option for all of syria anymore

 

[Squall Leonhart]

1) then like the cold war its a game of chicken ie we declare no fly zone and then they have to decide to escalate by trying to breach it or not
But bear in mind one side has such an advantage it would be almost comical if it came down to even a short confinded clash thus have mlre incentive to back down.

2) Thats the u.s under current administration against what seems to be a consensus that stronger action needs to be taken.

The final statement has so much wrong with it i dont know where to start
No he didnt stay within his borders(iraq war,hezbollah,lebanon assasinations ), nor have any rebel force declared any intnetion to fight outside borders (outside of hezbollah and russia but fuck them) nor is he an option for all of syria anymore

Why the hell would we declare a no-fly zone now? That is insanity

 

[Rod1]

1) then like the cold war its a game of chicken ie we declare no fly zone and then they have to decide to escalate by trying to breach it or not
But bear in mind one side has such an advantage it would be almost comical if it came down to even a short confinded clash thus have mlre incentive to back down.

2) Thats the u.s under current administration against what seems to be a consensus that stronger action needs to be taken.

The final statement has so much wrong with it i dont know where to start
No he didnt stay within his borders(iraq war,hezbollah,lebanon assasinations ), nor have any rebel force declared any intnetion to fight outside borders (outside of hezbollah and russia but fuck them) nor is he an option for all of syria anymore

1) Your opinion, against that of a 4 star general, ill take the 4 star general over yours.

2) Consensus by whom?

3) No rebel force decided to go outside of its borders? gee and here i thought that Iraq was invaded from Syria.

The rebels have not shown they are capable of reining in the islamists, the US wont go to war for a maybe.

 

[Rod1]

Why the hell would we declare a no-fly zone now? That is insanity

Because he is a crazy arab who thinks the US public would rather go to war with Russia than letting a side in a civil war in a shitty country half the globe away lose.

 

[whougonnacall]

Why the hell would we declare a no-fly zone now? That is insanity

I said it was ONE option a new president deciding to take a tougher stance could do ,an extreme one among many and prob if taken prob not directly...ie more like a no fly zone declared for syrian jets to protect civilians /get in aid etc but obviously that would mean it applied to russias as well unless they agree to finaly properly co operate so their jets can be identified.

3 pages later were still talkkng about it though

 

[Rod1]

I said it was ONE option a new president deciding to take a tougher stance could do ,an extreme one among many and prob if taken prob not directly...ie more like a no fly zone declared for syrian jets to protect civilians /get in aid etc but obviously that would mean it applied to russias as well unless they agree to finaly properly co operate so their jets can be identified.

3 pages later were still talkkng about it though

Because you are insane.

 

[Lonesome Crow]

Found a vid of whougonnacall as he posts feverishly in this thread:

 

[whougonnacall]

1) Your opinion, against that of a 4 star general, ill take the 4 star general over yours.

2) Consensus by whom?

3) No rebel force decided to go outside of its borders? gee and here i thought that Iraq was invaded from Syria.

The rebels have not shown they are capable of reining in the islamists, the US wont go to war for a maybe.

1)cool you do that
2) a lettter from.numerous state dept officals, the sec of state saying behind closed doors it needs enforcement , literaly every expert onearth saying there must be enforcement on bothbsides for a deal to hold

3)so were counting isis now ...awesome

4)reigning in for what exactly?

 

[whougonnacall]

Because you are insane.

Cool

 

[Rod1]

1)cool you do that
2) a lettter from.numerous state dept officals, the sec of state saying behind closed doors it needs enforcement , literaly every expert onearth saying there must be enforcement on bothbsides for a deal to hold

3)so were counting isis now ...awesome

4)reigning in for what exactly?

1) Of course, myself and every single sane individual out there including presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinto would listen to a 4 star US general over a crazy nutjob arab.

2) Yes, and Russia is not budging so there is no both sides cooperating on the issue, you are claiming that Russia must be engaged militarily if they dont budge, there is absolutely no consensus there.

3) ISIS are not rebels? Nusra are not rebels? you think these groups will be content with Syria alone?

4) Neither ISIS, nor Nusra will stop fighting once Assad falls. And the US doesnt trusts the moderate rebels enough, so there is no guarantee that the fall of Assad will end the civil war.

 

[whougonnacall]

1) Of course, myself and every single sane individual out there including presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinto would listen to a 4 star US general over a crazy nutjob arab.

2) Yes, and Russia is not budging so there is no both sides cooperating on the issue, you are claiming that Russia must be engaged militarily if they dont budge, there is absolutely no consensus there.

3) ISIS are not rebels? Nusra are not rebels? you think these groups will be content with Syria alone?

4) Neither ISIS, nor Nusra will stop fighting once Assad falls. And the US doesnt trusts the moderate rebels enough, so there is no guarantee that the fall of Assad will end the civil war.

1)the one talking about no fly zones?

2)doesnt nexessarily have to be military nor does every single pushback end in ww3
..putin isnt the madman hes made oit to be

3) like everyone else id count isis as a seperate 3rd entity
Nursra is one part of large coalition and they have declared any attention to fight outside their borders (bar revenge on hezbollah and russia ..and fuck those guys)
Nor do we know if any of their troops would even bother after assads fall

4) id be shocked if all the fighting ended right after assads fall ..but at this point thats a given so its just damage control

 

[Rod1]

1)the one talking about no fly zones?

2)doesnt nexessarily have to be military nor does every single pushback end in ww3
..putin isnt the madman hes made oit to be

3) like everyone else id count isis as a seperate 3rd entity
Nursra is one part of large coalition and they have declared any attention to fight outside their borders (bar revenge on hezbollah and russia ..and fuck those guys)
Nor do we know if any of their troops would even bother after assads fall

4) id be shocked if all the fighting ended right after assads fall ..but at this point thats a given so its just damage control

1) Yes, Joseph Dunford who is currently the highest ranking military officer in the USA. Im sure he is just an amateur though, its not like he is a high ranking chinese admiral or a crazy arab.

2) Neither is Hillary the madman you portray either.

3) Yes, Alqaeda is perfectly content to sit on its borders, and why arent you counting ISIS now?

4) So why would the US risk so much in the geopolitical scale to topple a regime when its a given that fighting will continue even after the regime is gone?

See thats the issue here, the US wants stability in the region, thats its goal, and since you arabs cant guarantee stability the US will let Russia take a bigger role into providing such stability. Even if "stability" means bombing until everything stops moving for the Russians.

 

[whougonnacall]

1) Yes, Joseph Dunford who is currently the highest ranking military officer in the USA. Im sure he is just an amateur though, its not like he is a high ranking chinese admiral or a crazy arab.

2) Neither is Hillary the madman you portray either.

3) Yes, Alqaeda is perfectly content to sit on its borders, and why arent you counting ISIS now?

4) So why would the US risk so much in the geopolitical scale to topple a regime when its a given that fighting will continue even after the regime is gone?

See thats the issue here, the US wants stability in the region, thats its goal, and since you arabs cant guarantee stability the US will let Russia take a bigger role into providing such stability. Even if "stability" means bombing until everything stops moving for the Russians.

1) yes military generals are always 100% right esp on political matters

2) neither is putin so what we are left with is is one option among many that could be persued given the huge tech disparity and the correct diplomatic presentation

3) they are an affiliate who arent linked to al queda anymore ,nor have they ever expressed a desire to operate pitside syrias borders
Nor would their men even want to
.they signed up from smaller groups mergers to fight assad

Counting isis as a rebel group? Just like the kurds technicaly they are rebels but almost everyome counts them as a seperate party in the war...besides isis is dying they have no future.

4)we havent really tried hard to topple assad otherwise hed be gone
But as you russians cant bring stabiliy with his regime its simply prolonging the fighting ie having iranians and ruaf try and enforce the delusional dream of his rule everywhere again

 

[BBT13]

Russia deploys advanced anti-missile system to Syria for first time, US officials say
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10...cials-say.html
http://tass.com/defense/898884 - Types of missiles for the launcher.