Meanwhile, In Syria

[tom2019]

zygalski said:

So what I learnt today from SKY, BBC etc.
Russian bombs; bad nasty things, lacking accuracy & causing indiscriminate deaths in unimaginably terrible ways.
I suppose our (NATO) air strikes tickle our enemies to death, causing almost no 'collateral' civillian damage.

Those children that are being rescued in the sky video looked clean , without injury, and somewhat bemused.

[Langweilig]

Alright, I know it's the Daily Mail and for that I apologize profusely. But...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3257633/Ch...

[Langweilig]

zygalski said:

So what I learnt today from SKY, BBC etc.
Russian bombs; bad nasty things, lacking accuracy & causing indiscriminate deaths in unimaginably terrible ways.
I suppose our (NATO) air strikes tickle our enemies to death, causing almost no 'collateral' civillian damage.

From what I saw on Russia Today, Russia is claiming victory. They're saying that the total defeat of ISIS is near, having bombed their headquarters.

[pete a]

zygalski said:

So what I learnt today from SKY, BBC etc.
Russian bombs; bad nasty things, lacking accuracy & causing indiscriminate deaths in unimaginably terrible ways.
I suppose our (NATO) air strikes tickle our enemies to death, causing almost no 'collateral' civillian damage.

You are quite correct, the western media propaganda machine is in full motion.

It's funny how our bombs deliver freedom and democracy, yet Russian bombs are nothing but civilian killers.


How thick are people?

Though reading Sky news comments every comment was critizing them as lies and propaganda.

[Transmitter Man]

zygalski said:

So what I learnt today from SKY, BBC etc.
Russian bombs; bad nasty things, lacking accuracy & causing indiscriminate deaths in unimaginably terrible ways.
I suppose our (NATO) air strikes tickle our enemies to death, causing almost no 'collateral' civillian damage.

I'm sure there's always 'some' collateral damage but they are maybe somewhat smarter: https://youtu.be/26XYeQK1lm4

Phil

[QuantumTokoloshi]

zygalski said:

So what I learnt today from SKY, BBC etc.
Russian bombs; bad nasty things, lacking accuracy & causing indiscriminate deaths in unimaginably terrible ways.
I suppose our (NATO) air strikes tickle our enemies to death, causing almost no 'collateral' civillian damage.

Do not forget the terrible, monstrous "barrel bombs". Which are metal cylinders holding high explosives, much worse than normal freedom and democracy bombs, which are metal cylinders containing high explosives.

Oh..

[Ian Geary]

Langweilig said:

Alright, I know it's the Daily Mail and for that I apologize profusely. But...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3257633/Ch...

I do recall reading a quite good account of the lead up to the current Syria conflicts, and a drout / harvest failure and subsequent civil unrest was mentioned as causing Assad's original crackdown on desent a few years ago.

This was around the time of the Arab spring, and his crackdown was viewed by many - mostly middle class Syrians - to be heavier handed than normal, thus causing a reaction, and counter reaction, before the decent into ISIS chaos we see now.

As Charlotte says, no issue is an island. It's not like before this drout the country were all best of friends.


Of course, its written up to read as if she's blaming it on Range Rover Sport drivers, or people who don't recycle properly.

Note: Charlotte was astute enough to say climate change, rather than "man made" climate change, as she must know as well as us that the climate does change every now and then, and has done so long before Range Rovers were around.


Ian

[Puggit]

Charlotte Church said:

'Another interesting thing with Syria, actually, which a lot of people don't seem to know about this – there is evidence to suggest that climate change was a big factor in how the Syrian conflict came about.

'From 2006 to 2011 they experienced one of the worst droughts in its history, which of course meant there were water shortages and crops weren't growing.

'There was a mass migration from rural areas of Syria into the urban centres, which put more strain and resources were scarce et cetera, which apparently did contribute to the conflict their today.

'No issue is an island you know and we are trying to look at all the different factors in this. We also need to look at what we are doing to the planet and how that might actually cause more conflict in the world.'

Church's mistake is her first paragraph. Without that, her statement would stand much more easily.

[Octoposse]

Ian Geary said:

do recall reading a quite good account of the lead up to the current Syria conflicts, and a drout / harvest failure and subsequent civil unrest was mentioned as causing Assad's original crackdown on desent a few years ago.

Briefly (I'll write something tonight in depth), of more significance were most probably (although rising food prices can't have helped):
1) The regime wrongfooted by the level of support among Syrian Sunnis for their co-religionists resisting a Shia dominated regime and the Americans over the border in Iraq;
2) The nature of the regime itself. Assad snr built a security system that was clearly brilliant at keeping him and his family in power, through networks of self-interest and, especially, multiple competing intelligence and security agencies. Unfortunately the model also appeared incapable of reform which - it appears genuinely - Bashad al-Assad did want to do. Once you stuck your head above the political parapet, there was no going back . . . if you 'made peace' with the first intelligence agency to arrest you, don't worry . . . they'll be another one along in a moment to out-do it. Hold onto your genitals whilst they fetch the jumpstart cables. Over reaction bred instability and further protest.

I would specualte now that the varying intelligence agencies have not survived four years of cival war unchanged, and there is an opportunity to broker a peace deal with Assad. He has a constituency he is genuinely popular with, and there appear to be only two routes to peace in Syria - a deal with Assad or an alternative figurehead from the regime, or carry on until every last Syrian is dead or resident in Munich or Malmo.

[Adam Ansel]

It looks like the Russian bomb of choice in Syria is the OFAB 250-270 (OФAБ 250- 270), a thick cased High Explosive Fragmentation bomb.
This is a dumb weapon with no guidance.

In contrast the alliance are using 100% smart weapons. In the case of the RAF this is Brimstone, which cost £105,000 each of our money.
The Americans like their JDAM smart bombs which come in various sizes and which the IDF use lots of to kill Gaza women and children.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Adam Ansel said:

It looks like the Russian bomb of choice in Syria is the OFAB 250-270 (O?A? 250- 270), a thick cased High Explosive Fragmentation bomb.
This is a dumb weapon with no guidance.

In contrast the alliance are using 100% smart weapons. In the case of the RAF this is Brimstone, which cost £105,000 each of our money.
The Americans like their JDAM smart bombs which come in various sizes and which the IDF use lots of to kill Gaza women and children.

These smart weapons work well then, such smart super accurate, high tech bombs, hitting MSF hospitals ? And this is only in the last few days, never mind the last 10 years of operations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afg...

They are only collateral damage, not like they are the terrible civilian casualties the Russians bombs cause.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Saturday 3rd October 11:21

[Transmitter Man]

Adam Ansel said:

the IDF use lots of to kill Gaza women and children.

Oh please.

Phil

[Octoposse]

Adam Ansel said:

the IDF use lots of to kill Gaza women and children.

And Lebanese women and children - usually in "safe areas" they have been told to gather in, or on roads after they have been told to flee.

[zygalski]

Transmitter Man said:

zygalski said:

So what I learnt today from SKY, BBC etc.
Russian bombs; bad nasty things, lacking accuracy & causing indiscriminate deaths in unimaginably terrible ways.
I suppose our (NATO) air strikes tickle our enemies to death, causing almost no 'collateral' civillian damage.

I'm sure there's always 'some' collateral damage but they are maybe somewhat smarter: https://youtu.be/26XYeQK1lm4

Phil

Yes Phil.
I see only today the US sent medicines sans frontiers hospital workers in Afghanistan a nice present using the latest in technological know-how.
If the Russians had done that I wonder how our media would've reported such a catastrophic disaster?

[pete a]

zygalski said:

If the Russians had done that I wonder how our media would've reported such a catastrophic disaster?

Imagine it.

[jimmybobby]

pete a said:

zygalski said:

If the Russians had done that I wonder how our media would've reported such a catastrophic disaster?

Imagine it.

It was a accident innit..

[superkartracer]

Adam Ansel said:

100% smart weapons.

Like 100% smart , like.

[AreOut]

Transmitter Man said:

Areout,

Would you like a small wager with any winnings going to charity of your choice.

I'll give you 5:1 odds.

Phil

but what's the bet?

[Scuffers]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Adam Ansel said:

It looks like the Russian bomb of choice in Syria is the OFAB 250-270 (O?A? 250- 270), a thick cased High Explosive Fragmentation bomb.
This is a dumb weapon with no guidance.

In contrast the alliance are using 100% smart weapons. In the case of the RAF this is Brimstone, which cost £105,000 each of our money.
The Americans like their JDAM smart bombs which come in various sizes and which the IDF use lots of to kill Gaza women and children.

These smart weapons work well then, such smart super accurate, high tech bombs, hitting MSF hospitals ? And this is only in the last few days, never mind the last 10 years of operations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afg...

They are only collateral damage, not like they are the terrible civilian casualties the Russians bombs cause.

Might be just me, but if you look at the film/pictures of this hospital, does it really look like it was subjected to an (US) air attack?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34432471

all the walls are still standing, and the interiors on fire, so what exactly are the US planes dropping that's small enough not to blow the buildings apart?

anybody got any thoughts on this?

[Transmitter Man]

AreOut said:

but what's the bet?

Whatever you're happy with.

Phil