Russian MOD warned of 'False Flag' Syrian Chemical Attack 33 days ago

What's Hot
24

Comments

  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 114
    Clarky said:

    I'm just trying to think this through..
    what makes sense and what does not
    thing is... most of the information out there makes little sense..
    a lot of it it plausible until you think it through..
    then it stops making sense.. and I think it's deliberately so..

    Not looking to get involved in the current bun fight, just here to flag up this book review I spotted in the Guardian earlier today...

    The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America by Timothy Snyder

    Looks like a good read for those looking to get a take on the current downward trajectory of global political discourse, and get a background in the origins of fake news.  Touches on Putin, Brexit, Trump and all that good shiz.  Snyder's written some good thoughtful stuff from a more historical perspective, so this should be good.
    Nice..will check it out  :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 114
    Fretwired said:
    Marshall said:


    1. I expressed no opinion and no critique - the significance of the article and it's timing is self explanatory - Repeated ad nauseam

    2. The timing of the article is the significance - by this point the wilful intention to avoid that point and take issue with the person who posted it speaks for itself - Noted

    3. Misquoting and misattributing statements and beliefs - Fully noted. Unilaterally Defining 'Rules' of grammatical and vocabular use in an open public forum debating politics and economics to discredit other opinions made - standard observable modus operandi. "Sides"?! What "side" did I "choose" Heartfeltdawn? Becoming puerile. 

    4. This is not a belief system, nor is it controversial to anyone with an iota of grey matter worth speaking about - political observation and commentary does not = "Belief System" 

    5. More 'words in the mouth' Heartfeltdawn.. evidently the significance of the timing of events eludes you and no amount of further discussion will address the matter..

      

    So look at the facts:

    Was there a chemical attack?
    Sifting through the data the answer is yes. What evidence? Feedback from multiple sources. Civil defence personnel, doctors at the local hospital experienced with dealing with the symptoms of such an attack and descriptions of people frothing at the mouth from the victims. Again consistent with such an attack.

    The Russians have not denied that there was an attack. They have blamed the British and rebels so they think such an attack took place.

    Verdict: there was a chemical weapons attack.

    Who is to blame?
    The last British chemical weapons attack was actually on Russian Bolsheviks in 1919 on the orders of Winston Churchill. It was a total failure and the remainder of the weapons were destroyed. Britain has abided by the international ban on chemical weapons use. There is no evidence of Britain carrying out chemical weapons attacks since so the Russian claims that we did it or conspired with others to do it is rubbish.

    It was the rebels. Unlikely. There are many eye witnesses from all sides who said they saw a barrel bomb dropped by a helicopter which was followed by a large cloud of gas. The rebels don't have any helicopters.

    Is there anyone with a track record in using chemical weapons? Yes - the Russians. They used them in Afghanistan in the 1980s and they have used them in Syria with Syrian forces. The allies attacked Syria in 2013 after a chemical attack. So the Russians and Syrians have a track record of using chemical weapons. The Syrians are known to have stocks and have access to helicopters.

    Russia has also blocked investigators from looking into the attack at the UN. If it wasn't them they'd have nothing to hide. The Russian states online media campaign is easy to spot and lacks credibility for all but the most gullible.

    The French state they have incontrovertible evidence that the Syrians/Russians carried out the attack.

    Syria and Russia have a motive - they are fighting a war. The British, US and France do not have a motive. They are not after regime change.

    Verdict: in all probability the attack was carried out by Syrian forces.

    Did the attack breach international law?
    This is a grey area but it is unlikely that it did. There has never been any need for a Security Council resolution approving action to stop, punish or deter a crime against humanity. Before the UN or League of Nations were established there were well-recognised situations where action was taken against piracy, against slavery.

    More recently, we have action taken via Nato to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. That did not require a UN resolution, which Russia would have blocked. However, any force used must be proportionate; The world cannot ban chemical weapons and then sit idly by by while a state uses them to kill civilians.

    Verdict: the attack is unlikely to breach international law

    The allies are warmongers?
    The US/UK/France have stated they are not after regime change. There are no troops on the ground so an air war would be a pointless exercise. The attacks were limited to three sites engaged in the storage and manufacture of chemical weapons. Notice was given so that when the attacks took place the facilities were destroyed and no civilians were killed.

    The Russians and Iran's weren't targeted and nor was Assad's military. They will continue to fight and it looks like win their war. There will not be any further attacks by the allies.

    Verdict: the attacks were proportionate.


    The rest is froth.



    TY 'Good Cop' (No, not trying to incite anything, just an attempt to lighten the atmosphere!).

    A meaty and thoughtful post ;) certainly thought provoking. Much potential for response/debate, but perhaps the single point that jumps out more than any other is "There will not be any further attacks by the allies" .

    Time will surely and definitively tell here.. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Marshall said:


    2.  The timing of the article is significant - period!


    Yes it was. There's going to be a chemical attack and low and behold there was one. Bet the bastard who predicted that can't give me next week's winning lottery numbers. This is straight out of the Goebbels book of propaganda. A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

    You're either:

    a) Gullible, or
    b) A Russian troll, or
    c) Both.

    Apparently the rebels don't have any helicopters (independent witnesses said a helicopter dropped a bomb) and even if they did it wouldn't get very far with Russian and Syrian planes patrolling the skies.

    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2751
    Clarky said:


    one thing I've not fully understood...
    why does Russia care so much about Assad at all [apart from their naval base being in Syria]?
    Arms deals is one reason. 

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html

    War is good for defense companies and the military. The best way to justify increases in military spending at times of societal tightness of cash is when there is conflict to be involved with. Trump's first term will see an enormous boom in military spending with a huge deficit increase: in this country, military spending is always an issue and our defense industry is important to our economy. 
    the interesting thing here is that Russia didn't get involved until Assad looked like he was about to lose the civil war..
    then Russia and Iran showed up just in the nick of time to turn the tide..
    my instincts tell me that something may have happened to trigger this..
    what that is though I have no idea..

    I do appreciate though that over the last 10 or more years, Russia's wealth has tanked compared to what it used to be
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Clarky said:
    Clarky said:


    one thing I've not fully understood...
    why does Russia care so much about Assad at all [apart from their naval base being in Syria]?
    Arms deals is one reason. 

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html

    War is good for defense companies and the military. The best way to justify increases in military spending at times of societal tightness of cash is when there is conflict to be involved with. Trump's first term will see an enormous boom in military spending with a huge deficit increase: in this country, military spending is always an issue and our defense industry is important to our economy. 
    the interesting thing here is that Russia didn't get involved until Assad looked like he was about to lose the civil war..
    then Russia and Iran showed up just in the nick of time to turn the tide..
    my instincts tell me that something may have happened to trigger this..
    what that is though I have no idea..

    I do appreciate though that over the last 10 or more years, Russia's wealth has tanked compared to what it used to be
    Syria is the only area of influence for Russia left n the Middle East. The thought of it becoming a western friendly open democracy rang alarm bells in the Kremlin. They decided to prop up Assad.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39554171/why-does-russia-support-syria-and-president-assad

    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Marshall said:
    Fretwired said:
    Marshall said:


    2.  The timing of the article is significant - period!


    Yes it was. There's going to be a chemical attack and low and behold there was one. Bet the bastard who predicted that can't give me next week's winning lottery numbers. This is straight out of the Goebbels book of propaganda. A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

    You're either:

    a) Gullible, or
    b) A Russian troll, or
    c) Both.

    Apparently the rebels don't have any helicopters (independent witnesses said a helicopter dropped a bomb) and even if they did it wouldn't get very far with Russian and Syrian planes patrolling the skies.

    It must be quite disorientating having your world view continually updated for you, on the hour every hour

    Resorting to randomly accusing strangers of being "Russian Trolls" or whatever other "conspiracy theory" you can dream up to constantly reaffirm your heavily shaken subscription to the 'News' being pumped out of your tv, radio, computer, news stand, must be exhausting    
    I don't post links to dodgy Russian funded websites. You are pretty much on message comrade.

    Cпокойной ночи и спасибо
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2751

    Clarky said:

    I'm just trying to think this through..
    what makes sense and what does not
    thing is... most of the information out there makes little sense..
    a lot of it it plausible until you think it through..
    then it stops making sense.. and I think it's deliberately so..

    Not looking to get involved in the current bun fight, just here to flag up this book review I spotted in the Guardian earlier today...

    The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America by Timothy Snyder

    Looks like a good read for those looking to get a take on the current downward trajectory of global political discourse, and get a background in the origins of fake news.  Touches on Putin, Brexit, Trump and all that good shiz.  Snyder's written some good thoughtful stuff from a more historical perspective, so this should be good.
    I think that fake news / misinformation has always existed...
    just look at the German 'reason' to trigger the invasion of Poland in WWII..
    and the German soldiers [the regular troops] convinced they were fighting a defensive war to save their country
    misinformation and propaganda simply has to exist to convince people that they are on the side of all things right and just..
    it's the means to get people to fight in the belief that they are protecting something that matters..

    the massive difference this time around is the internet..
    the ability to propagate information directly into the minds of people at a few key strokes..
    thing is.. where is this information coming from?
    in the pre internet world, kings / presidents / popes etc would tell their people what they needed to hear to fire them up..
    the 'enemy' could do very little to sway their minds because they did not have the tools or access to do so to a foreign population..
    now though.. the internet enables anyone to say anything to everyone no matter where they are..
    so propaganda and misinformation from all sides can hit everyone no matter what country they're in..
    it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 114
    Fretwired said:
    Marshall said:
    Fretwired said:
    Marshall said:


    2.  The timing of the article is significant - period!


    Yes it was. There's going to be a chemical attack and low and behold there was one. Bet the bastard who predicted that can't give me next week's winning lottery numbers. This is straight out of the Goebbels book of propaganda. A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

    You're either:

    a) Gullible, or
    b) A Russian troll, or
    c) Both.

    Apparently the rebels don't have any helicopters (independent witnesses said a helicopter dropped a bomb) and even if they did it wouldn't get very far with Russian and Syrian planes patrolling the skies.

    It must be quite disorientating having your world view continually updated for you, on the hour every hour

    Resorting to randomly accusing strangers of being "Russian Trolls" or whatever other "conspiracy theory" you can dream up to constantly reaffirm your heavily shaken subscription to the 'News' being pumped out of your tv, radio, computer, news stand, must be exhausting    
    I don't post links to dodgy Russian funded websites. You are pretty much on message comrade.

    Cпокойной ночи и спасибо
    Whatever that means..

    But there you go again, parroting the news with your bbc links and regurgitated 'news'.. if it's on the bbc it must be true after all, along the lines of "The French state they have incontrovertible evidence that the Syrians/Russians carried out the attack." 

    Oh well then, if Macron said it 'case closed'
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Marshall said:

    Whatever that means..

    But there you go again, parroting the news with your bbc links and regurgitated 'news'.. if it's on the bbc it must be true after all, along the lines of "The French state they have incontrovertible evidence that the Syrians/Russians carried out the attack." 

    Oh well then, if Macron said it 'case closed'
    I trust the French far more than you and your links to dodgy Russian funded websites.  Tell me - will the Russians predict the start of WW3? I'll like to make sure I have enough cold beer, some new sunglasses and enough sun cream when the bombs drop. Any chance you could give us a heads up ..
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 114
    Clarky said:

    Clarky said:

    I'm just trying to think this through..
    what makes sense and what does not
    thing is... most of the information out there makes little sense..
    a lot of it it plausible until you think it through..
    then it stops making sense.. and I think it's deliberately so..

    Not looking to get involved in the current bun fight, just here to flag up this book review I spotted in the Guardian earlier today...

    The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America by Timothy Snyder

    Looks like a good read for those looking to get a take on the current downward trajectory of global political discourse, and get a background in the origins of fake news.  Touches on Putin, Brexit, Trump and all that good shiz.  Snyder's written some good thoughtful stuff from a more historical perspective, so this should be good.
    I think that fake news / misinformation has always existed...
    just look at the German 'reason' to trigger the invasion of Poland in WWII..
    and the German soldiers [the regular troops] convinced they were fighting a defensive war to save their country
    misinformation and propaganda simply has to exist to convince people that they are on the side of all things right and just..
    it's the means to get people to fight in the belief that they are protecting something that matters..

    the massive difference this time around is the internet..
    the ability to propagate information directly into the minds of people at a few key strokes..
    thing is.. where is this information coming from?
    in the pre internet world, kings / presidents / popes etc would tell their people what they needed to hear to fire them up..
    the 'enemy' could do very little to sway their minds because they did not have the tools or access to do so to a foreign population..
    now though.. the internet enables anyone to say anything to everyone no matter where they are..
    so propaganda and misinformation from all sides can hit everyone no matter what country they're in..
    it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this
    agree with most of this but what then leads to the conclusion "it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this"  ?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2751
    Fretwired said:
    Clarky said:
    Clarky said:


    one thing I've not fully understood...
    why does Russia care so much about Assad at all [apart from their naval base being in Syria]?
    Arms deals is one reason. 

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html

    War is good for defense companies and the military. The best way to justify increases in military spending at times of societal tightness of cash is when there is conflict to be involved with. Trump's first term will see an enormous boom in military spending with a huge deficit increase: in this country, military spending is always an issue and our defense industry is important to our economy. 
    the interesting thing here is that Russia didn't get involved until Assad looked like he was about to lose the civil war..
    then Russia and Iran showed up just in the nick of time to turn the tide..
    my instincts tell me that something may have happened to trigger this..
    what that is though I have no idea..

    I do appreciate though that over the last 10 or more years, Russia's wealth has tanked compared to what it used to be
    Syria is the only area of influence for Russia left n the Middle East. The thought of it becoming a western friendly open democracy rang alarm bells in the Kremlin. They decided to prop up Assad.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39554171/why-does-russia-support-syria-and-president-assad

    interesting article...
    has touches of NAZI German in Spain in the 30's about it too
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2751
    something conspicuous about the missile attacks on Syria...
    the very low body / casualty count... 3 reported as being wounded

    if the buildings hit contained convention weapons I'd expect them to be guarded pretty heavily..
    if they contained something more.. they'd be guarded more yes?

    why were there almost no casualties?
    did the west blow up empty buildings?
    or was the low casualty count just more misinformation?

    this is not a conspiracy thing.. just an observation..
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2751
    Marshall said:
    Clarky said:

    Clarky said:

    I'm just trying to think this through..
    what makes sense and what does not
    thing is... most of the information out there makes little sense..
    a lot of it it plausible until you think it through..
    then it stops making sense.. and I think it's deliberately so..

    Not looking to get involved in the current bun fight, just here to flag up this book review I spotted in the Guardian earlier today...

    The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America by Timothy Snyder

    Looks like a good read for those looking to get a take on the current downward trajectory of global political discourse, and get a background in the origins of fake news.  Touches on Putin, Brexit, Trump and all that good shiz.  Snyder's written some good thoughtful stuff from a more historical perspective, so this should be good.
    I think that fake news / misinformation has always existed...
    just look at the German 'reason' to trigger the invasion of Poland in WWII..
    and the German soldiers [the regular troops] convinced they were fighting a defensive war to save their country
    misinformation and propaganda simply has to exist to convince people that they are on the side of all things right and just..
    it's the means to get people to fight in the belief that they are protecting something that matters..

    the massive difference this time around is the internet..
    the ability to propagate information directly into the minds of people at a few key strokes..
    thing is.. where is this information coming from?
    in the pre internet world, kings / presidents / popes etc would tell their people what they needed to hear to fire them up..
    the 'enemy' could do very little to sway their minds because they did not have the tools or access to do so to a foreign population..
    now though.. the internet enables anyone to say anything to everyone no matter where they are..
    so propaganda and misinformation from all sides can hit everyone no matter what country they're in..
    it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this
    agree with most of this but what then leads to the conclusion "it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this"  ?
    concluding about the way they use the internet..
    it's not really been done before quite this way.. well not in a way that I've noticed..
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 114
    Clarky said:
    Marshall said:
    Clarky said:

    Clarky said:

    I'm just trying to think this through..
    what makes sense and what does not
    thing is... most of the information out there makes little sense..
    a lot of it it plausible until you think it through..
    then it stops making sense.. and I think it's deliberately so..

    Not looking to get involved in the current bun fight, just here to flag up this book review I spotted in the Guardian earlier today...

    The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America by Timothy Snyder

    Looks like a good read for those looking to get a take on the current downward trajectory of global political discourse, and get a background in the origins of fake news.  Touches on Putin, Brexit, Trump and all that good shiz.  Snyder's written some good thoughtful stuff from a more historical perspective, so this should be good.
    I think that fake news / misinformation has always existed...
    just look at the German 'reason' to trigger the invasion of Poland in WWII..
    and the German soldiers [the regular troops] convinced they were fighting a defensive war to save their country
    misinformation and propaganda simply has to exist to convince people that they are on the side of all things right and just..
    it's the means to get people to fight in the belief that they are protecting something that matters..

    the massive difference this time around is the internet..
    the ability to propagate information directly into the minds of people at a few key strokes..
    thing is.. where is this information coming from?
    in the pre internet world, kings / presidents / popes etc would tell their people what they needed to hear to fire them up..
    the 'enemy' could do very little to sway their minds because they did not have the tools or access to do so to a foreign population..
    now though.. the internet enables anyone to say anything to everyone no matter where they are..
    so propaganda and misinformation from all sides can hit everyone no matter what country they're in..
    it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this
    agree with most of this but what then leads to the conclusion "it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this"  ?
    concluding about the way they use the internet..
    it's not really been done before quite this way.. well not in a way that I've noticed.. 

    Have to say I have no idea about this.

    The only 'Evidence' that I've encountered is what we've all been hearing in the media about Russia meddling with US elections, etc...as usual, the 'evidence' as such is simply that we were told about it by the media!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 114
    Fretwired said:
    Clarky said:
    Clarky said:


    one thing I've not fully understood...
    why does Russia care so much about Assad at all [apart from their naval base being in Syria]?
    Arms deals is one reason. 

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html

    War is good for defense companies and the military. The best way to justify increases in military spending at times of societal tightness of cash is when there is conflict to be involved with. Trump's first term will see an enormous boom in military spending with a huge deficit increase: in this country, military spending is always an issue and our defense industry is important to our economy. 
    the interesting thing here is that Russia didn't get involved until Assad looked like he was about to lose the civil war..
    then Russia and Iran showed up just in the nick of time to turn the tide..
    my instincts tell me that something may have happened to trigger this..
    what that is though I have no idea..

    I do appreciate though that over the last 10 or more years, Russia's wealth has tanked compared to what it used to be
    Syria is the only area of influence for Russia left n the Middle East. The thought of it becoming a western friendly open democracy rang alarm bells in the Kremlin. They decided to prop up Assad.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39554171/why-does-russia-support-syria-and-president-assad

    Absolute nonsense btw - Iran is a far larger and more significant ally than Syria
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Marshall said:


    Absolute nonsense btw - Iran is a far larger and more significant ally than Syria
    Not in the same way as Syria. Russia has a Muslim population and is wary of Iran and the way it exports extremism and supports extremist groups. They are 'allies' in the sense they have the same main enemy - the USA - but they do not agree on everything. Iran hates Israel. Russia actually has good relations and does business with Israel.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Clarky said:
    something conspicuous about the missile attacks on Syria...
    the very low body / casualty count... 3 reported as being wounded

    if the buildings hit contained convention weapons I'd expect them to be guarded pretty heavily..
    if they contained something more.. they'd be guarded more yes?

    why were there almost no casualties?
    did the west blow up empty buildings?
    or was the low casualty count just more misinformation?

    this is not a conspiracy thing.. just an observation..
    Not really. According to a news item on R4 this morning Trump deliberately gave notice of an attack. I suspect all stock of weapons were moved along with the personal so the allies bombed empty buildings. It was a symbolic attack and meant as a warning. Nobody was killed. The Russian and Iran bases were left intact and Assad's forces were not targeted.

    As I have said before I don't think Trump is interested in getting dragged into a war. However, he is mindful of the fact that the allies pulled back from an attack in the past when Russia agreed to broker a deal at the UN. The deal was agreed but Assad broke it and used chemical weapons. So to those who say we should use the UN we have done in the past and it didn't work.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    edited April 16
    Marshall said:
    Fretwired said:
    Marshall said:


    Absolute nonsense btw - Iran is a far larger and more significant ally than Syria
    Not in the same way as Syria. Russia has a Muslim population and is wary of Iran and the way it exports extremism and supports extremist groups. They are 'allies' in the sense they have the same main enemy - the USA - but they do not agree on everything. Iran hates Israel. Russia actually has good relations and does business with Israel.
    No bulletproof bullshit broadcasting conspiracy link to entertain us with this time Fretboy ?

    As I said "Syria is the only area of influence for Russia left n the Middle East" is absolute nonsense 
    Enlighten me then .. where else does Russia have the same level of influence as Syria? It has none in the Gulf States, it lost its influence in Iraq and Libya (ISIS don't like Russia) and Egypt is closer to the west and Israel than Russia. 

    Personally I tend to trust the BBC as its staffed by independent journalists who are not in the pay of the government. Listen to the BBC and you'll find plenty of criticism of our government and their policies. Doubt Russian TV criticises Putin. And today R4 interviewed some people with real world experience of dealing with Russia, the UN and international crises.  All you'll hear in Russia are state puppets toeing the party line .. evil Britain.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Clarky said:

    now though.. the internet enables anyone to say anything to everyone no matter where they are..
    so propaganda and misinformation from all sides can hit everyone no matter what country they're in..
    it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this
    Which is why you have some much ideological blurring around the world and why you have dynamics like religious Republicans supporting Putin because he presents the image of a religious conservative alpha male. 

    I'm moving to the Outer Hebrides to be safe from it all. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Clarky said:

    now though.. the internet enables anyone to say anything to everyone no matter where they are..
    so propaganda and misinformation from all sides can hit everyone no matter what country they're in..
    it seems like the Russians were the first to really understand and master this
    Which is why you have some much ideological blurring around the world and why you have dynamics like religious Republicans supporting Putin because he presents the image of a religious conservative alpha male. 

    I'm moving to the Outer Hebrides to be safe from it all. 
    Careful of the locals .. think Wicker Man .. ;-)
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    Marshall said:
    "Syria is the only area of influence for Russia left n the Middle East"

    "where else does Russia have the same level of influence as Syria?"

    Which of your 2 comments are we talking about again fretboy.?  

    Because as you know, I've been quoting and referring to your original comment, not your later modification..

    A tried, tired and puerile tactic to be diplomatic about it
    Let's keep this simple.

    You wrote "Syria is the only area of influence for Russia left n the Middle East" is absolute nonsense.

    Please clarify. Where else in the Middle East does Russia have influence?


    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Marshall said:
    Coming down with 'Heartfeltdawn syndrome' fretboy..

    "what was the first part again?.."..".right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j3adcbEwSM

    I know it has some long challenging words for you, but take it slow and break them into smaller chunks :- 

    "Absolute nonsense btw - Iran is a far larger and more significant ally than Syria"
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



    Marshall, you've spent more time in the last 48 hours putting up comedy comeback Youtube clips than putting up anything that backs up your beliefs. 

    So instead of doing that, why not put up some things that add more weight to the idea that this is a staged attack by US-backed militants? 

    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Historically Syria has been a Russian ally of great importance. 

    https://jamestown.org/program/tactical-side-russias-arms-sales-middle-east/

    It has a naval station and air base in Syria: it does not have any equivalent in Iran and Russia discouraged Iran from building a military base in Syria not so long ago. 0.67% of Russia's exports go to Iran ($1.88B in 2016). Sadly the same website for that figure doesn't have a figure for Russian exports to Syria but in 2007 to 2010 Russia to Syria arms deal went to £4.7B so it's not unreasonable to surmise that Russia exports to Syria aren;'t quite as high as Russia to Iran but are not insignificant by comparison. 

    Russia and Iran deals will continue to increase in size. Deals like this will lead to greater trading. So I'd say that Syria right now is the most significant ally in terms of military and strategic importance but Iran is more significant financially. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Marshall said:
    Marshall said:
    Coming down with 'Heartfeltdawn syndrome' fretboy..

    "what was the first part again?.."..".right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j3adcbEwSM

    I know it has some long challenging words for you, but take it slow and break them into smaller chunks :- 

    "Absolute nonsense btw - Iran is a far larger and more significant ally than Syria"
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



    Marshall, you've spent more time in the last 48 hours putting up comedy comeback Youtube clips than putting up anything that backs up your beliefs. 

    So instead of doing that, why not put up some things that add more weight to the idea that this is a staged attack by US-backed militants? 

    there you go again Heartfeltdawn (touching moniker btw) spouting on about "beliefs" and the like.. did you get your 5 minutes break from your latest spanking session. 

    Last I checked we agreed to your suggestion to "..shut the fuck up.." .

    What's the matter - was your festival of ignorance interrupted 

    repeat: there's help available for your trauma child - talk to your GP

    I'll repeat the question then: why not put up some things that add more weight to the idea that this is a staged attack by US-backed militants? 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 15343
    edited April 17
    Marshall said:

    Coming down with 'Heartfeltdawn syndrome' fretboy..

    "what was the first part again?.."..".right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j3adcbEwSM

    I know it has some long challenging words for you, but take it slow and break them into smaller chunks :- 

    "Absolute nonsense btw - Iran is a far larger and more significant ally than Syria"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


    Russia and Iran aren't allies. They put on a united front in Syria as they have a common enemy - the USA. However, that's where their cooperation ends.

    Iran and Russia have conflicting strategic visions for the Middle East regional system.

    Russia’s strategic vision is chiefly focused on eliminating sources of instability and preventing U.S.-led military interventions, which from Moscow’s perspective facilitate the creation of failed states. The Russian government justified its September 2015 military intervention in Syria as a necessary measure to restore stability to the country, and to deter Washington from using force to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Russia views its Syria campaign as an integral step toward achieving its broader goal of establishing itself as an indispensable guarantor of collective security in the Middle East.

    Although Iranian policymakers frequently tout Tehran’s role as a stabilizing force in the Middle East, collective security promotion is only a peripheral goal in Iran’s strategic vision. Iranian policymakers are primarily focused on expanding Tehran’s sphere of influence in the Middle East and containing Saudi Arabia’s power projection capacity across the Arab world. These expansionist objectives have caused Iran to cooperate more extensively with belligerent non-state actors than Russia and engage in military activities that undercut the effectiveness of Moscow-backed political settlement initiatives.

    These divergent objectives threaten to unravel Russia-Iran cooperation in Syria, as the conflict transitions from the military to diplomatic phase. Even though Russian military officials have praised the effectiveness of Hezbollah troops during pro-Assad military operations, Iran’s use of Syrian territory to create a permanent transit point for weaponry to Hezbollah has alarmed Russian policymakers who seek to preserve strong relations with Israel.

    Iran’s unwillingness to suspend military operations in Syria until Assad has completely vanquished opposition forces also deviates from Russia’s more limited objective of ensuring that Assad controls enough territory to negotiate with Syrian opposition factions from a position of strength. Iran’s belief in the feasibility of a military solution in Syria has made it less willing than Russia to diplomatically engage with Syrian opposition or Kurdish factions during diplomatic negotiations, limiting the scope of the Moscow-Tehran partnership.

    Prospects for constructive cooperation between Russia and Iran on resolving other regional conflicts, like Yemen and Afghanistan, also appear dim. In Yemen, the already-strained relations between Russia and Iran-aligned Houthi rebels have deteriorated further since the assassination of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh on December 5. These tensions have prompted Moscow to establish stronger lines of communication with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on resolving the crisis.

    A similar divergence in objectives restricts the potential for Russia-Iran cooperation in Afghanistan. Russia is seeking to implement an Afghan political settlement, which includes the Taliban, as swiftly as possible. While Iran wants a peace settlement in Afghanistan to be achieved in the long term, it is unwilling to suspend military action until anti-US forces have gained a position of primacy in western Afghanistan. As Iran continues to provide military assistance to Taliban forces near its borders, Russian policymakers are concerned that Tehran will obstruct the Afghan peace process to advance its own objectives.

    Hope that's clear.

    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    I know perfectly well who the Jamestown Foundation are and that their mission is rather anti-Russian. But the history they detail is not bullshit. I'll paste the passage here. Feel free to point out which bits are nonsense and lies.

    "Syria

    Damascus is historically not only Moscow’s closest ally in the Arab world, but also one of its biggest arms customers. Putin improved bilateral ties further after meeting with President Bashar al-Assad in January 2005. Upon the meeting’s conclusion, Moscow announced it would write off most of Syria’s $13.4 billion debt and sell arms to Damascus in return for Syria’s permission to establish permanent Russian naval facilities in Tartus and Latakia.[xxx]Soon Russia emerged as Syria’s primary weapons supplier. From 2007 through 2010, Russian arms sales to Syria reached $4.7 billion, more than twice the figure for the previous four years.[xxxi] According to SIPRI, Russia accounted for 78 percent of Syria’s weapons purchases between 2007 and 2012. And press reports indicate that Russian ships have been involved in several Syria-related incidents in international waters.[xxxii]

    When anti-al-Assad protests broke out in Damascus in March 2011, Putin supported the Syrian president unequivocally and in multiple ways—politically, diplomatically and economically. But Moscow’s Syria intervention in September 2015 was a game changer that officially returned Russia to the Middle East. The Kremlin had many interests in Syria. While, from an arms sales perspective, it was the perfect advertising arena.

    In early October 2015, just days after launching its intervention, Moscow fired 26 cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea Flotilla. The cruise missiles travelled across Iran and Iraq into Syria to strike what Moscow claimed were Islamic State targets. From a military standpoint, it was questionable at best whether strikes from this location were truly necessary.[xxxiii] For one thing, Moscow could have easily hit the same targets from Russia’s existing assets in Syria. But the advertising benefits for Moscow were clear. The attack displayed formidable capabilities of the relatively new Kalibr cruise missile, which Moscow exports as the shorter-range “Club.” Moscow also showed that even Russia’s small missile corvettes are quite powerful, and that a country on a budget looking for strong naval capabilities does not need to pay for a large and expensive ship.[xxxiv]

    During the next two years, Moscow amplified Russia’s military presence by expanding the Tartus port and the Khmeimim airbase. These ensured Russia’s military presence for the next 49 years, providing Russia with ideal strategic military access to the region while limiting the West’s ability to maneuver. Indeed, after Putin announced yet another faux “withdrawal” from Syria in December 2017,[xxxv] he almost immediately called for further expanding Russia’s naval presence in Tartus.[xxxvi] At the same time, Moscow used Syria to test weaponry and equipment in real battles, advertise these efforts, project power and train the Russian military, especially the pilots. That Moscow went to great lengths to publicize Russia’s arms exports shows how important the arms sales element has been for Moscow’s Syria campaign.[xxxvii]

    Meanwhile, Moscow’s advertising efforts paid off. “This [Russia’s Syria operations] is colossal advertising and Russia expects new purchases worth tens of billions of dollars,” said Alexander Markov, a political analyst and member of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Politics, in April 2016.[xl] More recently, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said in August 2017, “Customers have started queuing up for the weapons that have proven themselves in Syria.”[xli] To give one example of such success, Russian Su-34 and Su-35 jets, which Moscow tested and used extensively in Syria, began to sell well.[xlii] China bought 24 Su-35 jets in November 2015, and Algeria ordered 12 Su-34s in January 2016.[xliii] The United Arab Emirates began discussion with Russia in February 2017 about purchasing Su-35s.[xliv]Many other countries have expressed interest, such as India and Indonesia, but also many African countries, including Nigeria, Uganda and Ethiopia.[xlv] Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin said, in October 2016, “[W]e know that the African continent has a great potential and it [cooperation] can be market-oriented and based on mutual interest.”[xlvi] Africa is a region increasingly important to watch for Russia’s arms sales as a tactic to enter the Sahel.[xlvii]"


    The curious way you've been talking about me being fucked and spanked by Freemasons is noted. 

    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Marshall said:
    Copy and Paste Fretboy.
    I'd expect nothing less (or more) from you
    Then supply us with something better. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Then please demonstrate which bits are wrong and supply something better. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • TTonyTTony Frets: 14029
    @Marshall.

    Read the terms for posting in this section please, specifically;


    TTony said:

    As of today, the politics section is moved into BCD, and re-titled to encompass economics too.

    BUT

    It's intended/expected to be used for reasonably grown-up political discussion.  If threads descend into posts of personal insults that have characterised some politics/economics threads in the past, then those comments will just be deleted. 

    No debate, no argument, deleted.

    A number of your posts fail the test and include personal insults.  Consequently I have deleted them.  If you continue to post such content, you also will be deleted.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.