Syrian War: News #14

JohninMK wrote:ISIS have had a long time to prepare the defences as they were well aware of the town's strategic importance.

JohninMK wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

This is really worrisome. Why cant they just smash ISIS with heavy artillery there? There arent any civilians and the SAA can destroy any ISIS position from afar. This is a small city. There shouldn't even  be urban fights there.

The logistics of getting a significant amount of ammo there is pretty horrible. If that had been feasible  tactic then no doubt a couple of Tu-22M overflights would have happened. ISIS have had a long time to prepare the defences as they were well aware of the town's strategic importance.

ISIS are proving to be a pretty formidable adversary when up against the locals. A suicidal force with modern munitions and delivery options is proving to be a very tough nut to crack. It is only the assistance of the Russian and US forces that seems to make any success possible and I have no doubt that we are only seeing the tip of that particular iceberg.

calm wrote:

JohninMK wrote:ISIS have had a long time to prepare the defences as they were well aware of the town's strategic importance.

Yeah, but we will see if they decide to retreat.

They had/have some pretty good defenses around Sukhna
From 1:25

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
they will not retreat, they will fight until the last man is dead. Sukan is just too important for them to abandon

JohninMK wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
they will not retreat, they will fight until the last man is dead. Sukan is just too important for them to abandon

Excuse my ignorance but is Sukan and Sukhnah two names for the same place?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
they will not retreat, they will fight until the last man is dead. Sukan is just too important for them to abandon

Excuse my ignorance but is Sukan and Sukhnah two names for the same place?

I call Sakhnah, sukan.

franco wrote:For all you techies out there. This was reported as a Mig-29smt in Syria to day    There is only a quick view of rear but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_2QW9iGBs&feature=youtu.be

JohninMK wrote:An interesting, thoughtful article on the legality of the US's physical presence in Syria, originally argued on the basis that the Syrian Government was incapable of protecting the world from ISIS so needed external help. A fairly tenuous argument given their success to date but I suspect the Government are pretty happy to have the US supported Kurds fighting ISIS for as long as possible. A small excerpt

As Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, wrote that October:

“The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.”

The UK’s leading security and defense analyst firm IHT Markit observed in an April 2017 report that during the time period in which ISIS suffered its most crippling defeats, Syrian allied forces fought the terror group two and a half times as often as U.S.-backed ones. With the Russian air force providing Syrian allied troops with game-changing air cover, the battle against ISIS and other terror groups began to turn decisively in Syria’s favor. And, with that, out went even the “theoretical” justification for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

As ISIS and Al Qaeda are beaten back in Syria, the American conversation about what comes next is missing a most critical point. In terms of international law, Washington has gone rogue in Syria. Will the world take notice?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-expanding-u-s-military-presence-in-syria-legal/

franco wrote:One of the Syrian reporters just twitted that some Mig-29SMT's have arrived at Khmemeim air base.

Wael Al Hussaini‏ @WaelHussaini 2 hours ago

Exclusive: #Russia deployed few numbers of Mig-29SMT in Khmemeim AB #Syria

On another note it was reported earlier in the week that the sat image aircraft count at Khmemeim was back up to 33. That was without any 29's.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13107/russias-air-base-in-syria-is-now-filled-with-advanced-multi-role-fighters

eehnie wrote:

JohninMK wrote:An interesting, thoughtful article on the legality of the US's physical presence in Syria, originally argued on the basis that the Syrian Government was incapable of protecting the world from ISIS so needed external help. A fairly tenuous argument given their success to date but I suspect the Government are pretty happy to have the US supported Kurds fighting ISIS for as long as possible. A small excerpt

As Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, wrote that October:

“The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.”

The UK’s leading security and defense analyst firm IHT Markit observed in an April 2017 report that during the time period in which ISIS suffered its most crippling defeats, Syrian allied forces fought the terror group two and a half times as often as U.S.-backed ones. With the Russian air force providing Syrian allied troops with game-changing air cover, the battle against ISIS and other terror groups began to turn decisively in Syria’s favor. And, with that, out went even the “theoretical” justification for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

As ISIS and Al Qaeda are beaten back in Syria, the American conversation about what comes next is missing a most critical point. In terms of international law, Washington has gone rogue in Syria. Will the world take notice?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-expanding-u-s-military-presence-in-syria-legal/

Another piece of intoxication in the bolded and red part. Refered to the Syrian gouvernment.

.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

eehnie wrote:

JohninMK wrote:An interesting, thoughtful article on the legality of the US's physical presence in Syria, originally argued on the basis that the Syrian Government was incapable of protecting the world from ISIS so needed external help. A fairly tenuous argument given their success to date but I suspect the Government are pretty happy to have the US supported Kurds fighting ISIS for as long as possible. A small excerpt

As Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, wrote that October:

“The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.”

The UK’s leading security and defense analyst firm IHT Markit observed in an April 2017 report that during the time period in which ISIS suffered its most crippling defeats, Syrian allied forces fought the terror group two and a half times as often as U.S.-backed ones. With the Russian air force providing Syrian allied troops with game-changing air cover, the battle against ISIS and other terror groups began to turn decisively in Syria’s favor. And, with that, out went even the “theoretical” justification for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

As ISIS and Al Qaeda are beaten back in Syria, the American conversation about what comes next is missing a most critical point. In terms of international law, Washington has gone rogue in Syria. Will the world take notice?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-expanding-u-s-military-presence-in-syria-legal/

Another piece of intoxication in the bolded and red part. Refered to the Syrian gouvernment.

.

What is your point? Are you denying that the Kurds are supported by the US and a US proxy? Do you hate people who criticize kurds? It seems like you're not providing any real justification  for calling others intoxicators when nothing anti-Iranian or pro-Israel of not is being claimed. It seems like you're complaining about nothing.

eehnie wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

eehnie wrote:

JohninMK wrote:An interesting, thoughtful article on the legality of the US's physical presence in Syria, originally argued on the basis that the Syrian Government was incapable of protecting the world from ISIS so needed external help. A fairly tenuous argument given their success to date but I suspect the Government are pretty happy to have the US supported Kurds fighting ISIS for as long as possible. A small excerpt

As Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, wrote that October:

“The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.”

The UK’s leading security and defense analyst firm IHT Markit observed in an April 2017 report that during the time period in which ISIS suffered its most crippling defeats, Syrian allied forces fought the terror group two and a half times as often as U.S.-backed ones. With the Russian air force providing Syrian allied troops with game-changing air cover, the battle against ISIS and other terror groups began to turn decisively in Syria’s favor. And, with that, out went even the “theoretical” justification for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

As ISIS and Al Qaeda are beaten back in Syria, the American conversation about what comes next is missing a most critical point. In terms of international law, Washington has gone rogue in Syria. Will the world take notice?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-expanding-u-s-military-presence-in-syria-legal/

Another piece of intoxication in the bolded and red part. Refered to the Syrian gouvernment.

.

What is your point? Are you denying that the Kurds are supported by the US and a US proxy? Do you hate people who criticize kurds? It seems like you're not providing any real justification  for calling others intoxicators when nothing anti-Iranian or pro-Israel of not is being claimed. It seems like you're complaining about nothing.

The intoxicator said he suspects the gouvernment of Syria is "pretty happy" with the help of the US to the Kurds.

Do you think the gouvernment of Syria is "pretty happy" with the 10(?) US bases in the North of Syria?

This is clearly intoxication to justify the invasion of the US.

franco wrote:For all you techies out there. This was reported as a Mig-29smt in Syria to day    There is only a quick view of rear but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_2QW9iGBs&feature=youtu.be

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

eehnie wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

eehnie wrote:

JohninMK wrote:An interesting, thoughtful article on the legality of the US's physical presence in Syria, originally argued on the basis that the Syrian Government was incapable of protecting the world from ISIS so needed external help. A fairly tenuous argument given their success to date but I suspect the Government are pretty happy to have the US supported Kurds fighting ISIS for as long as possible. A small excerpt

As Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, wrote that October:

“The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.”

The UK’s leading security and defense analyst firm IHT Markit observed in an April 2017 report that during the time period in which ISIS suffered its most crippling defeats, Syrian allied forces fought the terror group two and a half times as often as U.S.-backed ones. With the Russian air force providing Syrian allied troops with game-changing air cover, the battle against ISIS and other terror groups began to turn decisively in Syria’s favor. And, with that, out went even the “theoretical” justification for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

As ISIS and Al Qaeda are beaten back in Syria, the American conversation about what comes next is missing a most critical point. In terms of international law, Washington has gone rogue in Syria. Will the world take notice?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-expanding-u-s-military-presence-in-syria-legal/

Another piece of intoxication in the bolded and red part. Refered to the Syrian gouvernment.

.

What is your point? Are you denying that the Kurds are supported by the US and a US proxy? Do you hate people who criticize kurds? It seems like you're not providing any real justification  for calling others intoxicators when nothing anti-Iranian or pro-Israel of not is being claimed. It seems like you're complaining about nothing.

The intoxicator said he suspects the gouvernment of Syria is "pretty happy" with the help of the US to the Kurds.

Do you think the gouvernment of Syria is "pretty happy" with the 10(?) US bases in the North of Syria?

This is clearly intoxication to justify the invasion of the US.

Its pretty happy in the context of making diplomatic resolutions with Kurds and not making them direct military  enemies. Context man, context.

PapaDragon wrote:

franco wrote:For all you techies out there. This was reported as a Mig-29smt in Syria to day    There is only a quick view of rear but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_2QW9iGBs&feature=youtu.be

Could be SyAF, they use 29s