Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

iraqidabab wrote:Is it true Russia might establish itself in that Kuwaires or something airbase in Aleppo when the siege is broken

No need for that from what I can tell.

Coastline and Lebanese border are prime realestate in Syria and Russia already has those in the bag. Rest of it is mostly desert and even helicopters can make round trip around the country from Latakia with extra fuel tanks, to say nothing about jets.

^ The problem is not religion per se, it's human beings. In the end, it's pretty inconsequential if Jesus was/wasn't a better example of a "man of peace" than Muhammad. If it can be argued that Jesus' message was one of peace and empathy, then look at how his teaching could, none-the-less, be used by those who subsequently administered the faith that bore his name to spread misery, war, persecution and ignorance. We know the history.

For reasons due to its path of historic, cultural and economic development, the West no longer wages war for religion. But, once you strip away the nonsense and propaganda, it's obvious that the reason why it does so now is money and the future potential to control resources from which more money can be made. What is worse or better in this? In the end, there are consequences for the human condition.

BKP wrote:^ The problem is not religion per se, it's human beings. In the end, it's pretty inconsequential if Jesus was/wasn't a better example of a "man of peace" than Muhammad was. If it can be argued that Jesus' message was one of peace and empathy, then look at how his teaching could, none-the-less, be used by those who subsequently administered the faith that bore his name to spread misery, war, persecution and ignorance. We know the history.

For reasons due to its path of historic, cultural and economic development, the West no longer wages war for religion. But, once you strip away the nonsense and propaganda, it's obvious that the reason why it does so now is money and the future potential to control resources from which more money can be made. What is worse or better in this? In the end, there are consequences for the human condition.

that is partially correct.. but you can't deny the major influence that Religions can have
in the human behavior. Is more easier dialogue about territorial issues ,than any dialogue
about Religion or ideologies or talk to anyone who believe that what he does is in the name
of a God. That said.. you will never see wars in the west in the name of religion . Only for
territorial issues but that was 50 years ago or more when the geographical lines were not officially set in stone under international laws. That said ..there is a higher level of tolerance
with different opinions in the west than in the middle east. that can be noticed and religion is a major reason for the differences .

alright no more off topic.

Vann7 wrote:

BKP wrote:^ The problem is not religion per se, it's human beings. In the end, it's pretty inconsequential if Jesus was/wasn't a better example of a "man of peace" than Muhammad was. If it can be argued that Jesus' message was one of peace and empathy, then look at how his teaching could, none-the-less, be used by those who subsequently administered the faith that bore his name to spread misery, war, persecution and ignorance. We know the history.

For reasons due to its path of historic, cultural and economic development, the West no longer wages war for religion. But, once you strip away the nonsense and propaganda, it's obvious that the reason why it does so now is money and the future potential to control resources from which more money can be made. What is worse or better in this? In the end, there are consequences for the human condition.

that is partially correct.. but you can't deny the major influence that Religions can have
in the human behavior. Is more easier dialogue about territorial issues ,than any dialogue
about Religion or ideologies or talk to anyone who believe that what he does is in the name
of a God. That said.. you will never see wars in the west in the name of religion . Only for
territorial issues but that was 50 years ago or more when the geographical lines were not officially set in stone under international laws. That said ..there is a higher level of tolerance
with different opinions in the west than in the middle east. that can be noticed and religion is a major reason for the differences .

alright no more off topic.  

Not so sure about that even today but definitely in the past millions were killed in the West among each other and against others. And what was Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia and Kosovo if not based on religion?

^ What verses from the Bible did Serbs quote to justify killing Croats and Bosniaks? Or the other way around?

"US Journalists in Awe of Living Conditions at Russia’s Airbase in Syria"

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151025/1029088435/journalists-surprised-living-conditions-hemeimeem.html#ixzz3pay4JuNS

[quote="Vann7"][quote="Werewolf"][quote="ultron"]
Let's take a look what Islam means. Islam means submission. Submission to Allah. There is no other religion that talks about submission. This is why Islam is different from all other religions.[/quote]

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Yes, because Christianity is so non submissive?

The only non submissive but disgusting supremacy religion there is is Judaism.

But Islamophobia controlled by west and jews is very strong in you idiots.[/quote]

All organized religions are a form of control of society.. all of them .
the Difference here we speaking is about dangerous religion and dangerous control.
When you train any child with a religion that controls every little thing of his life and he
is not even allowed to think or feel outside what is acceptable for that religion.. then you
have repression ,an spiritual dictatorship. that blocks that person expression and this
create frustration and this frustration creates violence..and this is Islam. Islam lacks
of the basics to teach people how to be tolerant with others. Simply critizism against the religion is not allowed..

This repression does not exist in Christianity normal religions like Catholic ,evangelical or Orthodox ,neither in Budism..that is a religion without God. Is not a sin to think or to ask question. Is not a sin to question their church. the 10 commandments by the way is Jews
old testament.. is not Christ teaching. Jesus law is just one.. the Gold Rule and nothing else.
Do unto others in the same way you will like to be done unto you. but also Love God and yourself no matter what.

This is really a big difference because Christianity teach people to love life about anything else
while in ISlam is even encourage for people to give away their lives in the name of Islam. :no:

Christianity never encourage people to give away their lives for ideas or any religion. Christianity never teach to give your life in defense of christianity.. what christianity teach
is simple moral values of tolerance for others [u] no matter what. [/u]. hence the forgive
seventy times seven speech of jesus.   :lol:

.. while Islam instead teach to love the religion above anything else. So in Islam the religion is even more important than saving lives. This is why you can see a christian countries to welcome freedom of religion.. but you go to any Muslin nation and that is not the case. in the most "moderate" Muslin countries like IRAN many consider them to be.. Islam is the only religion..and only foreigners or minorities of ethnic groups allowed to practice a different religion ..but for example in IRAN is illegal for iranians to convert to christianity.  And Christianity is not allowed to be teach in Iranian language either. If i remember well people can go to jail for trying to convert Iranians into christianity.

So there is religious dictatorship in all muslins nations. Syria is probably one of the rare cases.
that is a true Secular nation.. And  This is why you have endless wars and violence in middle
east. there is major resistance in Muslin Nations to change to more free and more open society.

Welcome to "moderates Islam"   ,here is the tolerance of IRAN for Christianity.
and i use IRAN as an example..because IRAN is "Russian ally" . and seen as true muslins.

[quote]
Can a Catholic practice in Iran?

Neela Kale Answers:

Officially, yes – Christianity is one of three religious minorities recognized by the Iranian government (the other two are Judaism and Zoroastrianism.) The Islamic Republic of Iran is officially a theocracy, in which political and religious authority are intertwined. Shia Islam is the state religion, but these three groups – which together make up barely 2% of the population – are protected and  [b] enjoy certain rights [/b]...

[b]
However, day-to day life can be extremely difficult for Christians. Conversion from Islam to another religion is forbidden in Iran and punishable by death; [/b]

[/quote]

http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/can-a-catholic-practice-in-iran

Oh but why you were never told about this?  ;)  
This are things you are not supposed to know.
And you will never see discussion like this anywhere in the world in any media..not even
Russian media or Putin will speak about this topic..because speaking about the
[b]INTOLERANCE [/b] of Islam against any other religion is opening the gates of hell ,
and the THE MOTHER OF ALL Pandora Box.. :lol1:

Imagine the world reaction ,specially Europe if people knew how intolerant are muslin nations to Christianity, including the "moderates ones" how repressive they are.. and they are so hypocrites ,that goes to Europe and there demand the freedom for their religion to be allowed there to be fully expressed ,yet in their middle east countries they will welcome total repression
against any other religion that is not Islam.

In Saudi Arabia you risk public execution just for being christian. and if your gay ,you will be
shot on sight in the airport.. :lol1:  In IRAN being gays is a crime..even in your privacy and  this is more example of INTOLERANCE.  Islam is not a religion that teach tolerance for opposite opinions sensitive things. And this is the reason of the endless wars in most of middle east.
That are religious sectarian wars..but organized and controlled by the west this violence.

The only exception perhaps is Palestine.. they fight for territorial issues. Mostly.

Still there is something that unites all muslins either moderates or terrorist or the very good muslins. and that is their desire to convert the entire world into Islam. and they go and create
Big families in order to become majority ,and they use all kind of tactics and move to Europe
and Russia because of that. They want a world ruled by Islam. Many of this migration of muslins
to Europe is a religious migration..with the job to convert Europe into Islam. So good luck Europeans with that. You have to be thankful to Americans Imperialism for the pro muslin migration policies of the EU. This is all aimed to create a culture in Europe ,not very
compatible with an Orthodox Russia.  :)

[/quote]
Are you so sure christianity dont make oppresion cause i know for sure they do. Also do you like west like society. Well they have become savage regimes. And what islam does. Just protect from that kind of society.

PapaDragon wrote:
"US Journalists in Awe of Living Conditions at Russia’s Airbase in Syria"

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151025/1029088435/journalists-surprised-living-conditions-hemeimeem.html#ixzz3pay4JuNS

Journalists/all westerners, especially those who have not visited Russia lately would probably be surprised of the living standards in Russia in general. After all, according to the western MSM, Russia's living standards are abysmal (communism and kolkhozes) and the evil Putin (he eats babies, btw) has collapsed the Russian economy (100% oil). Not that the Russian REGIME (Putin, Putin Putin, Putin, Putin, Putin, Putin, Putin, Putin's missile!!!! Putin's bombers!!!! Putin's troops!!! Putin's Crimea!!! Putin's Russians!!! Putin's...) cares about the people's well being anyway, Putin just wants to recreate the (evil!) Soviet Union.

[quote="BKP"]^ The problem is not religion per se, it's human beings. In the end, it's pretty inconsequential if Jesus was/wasn't a better example of a "man of peace" than Muhammad. If it can be argued that Jesus' message was one of peace and empathy, then look at how his teaching could, none-the-less, be used by those who subsequently administered the faith that bore his name to spread misery, war, persecution and ignorance. We know the history.

For reasons due to its path of historic, cultural and economic development, the West no longer wages war for religion. But, once you strip away the nonsense and propaganda, it's obvious that the reason why it does so now is money and the future potential to control resources from which more money can be made. What is worse or better in this? In the end, there are consequences for the human condition.[/quote]


YOU SAY RELIGIOUS PRIESTS ARENT LIKE MONEY? YOURE SO WRONG!

[quote="Vann7"][quote="BKP"]^ The problem is not religion per se, it's human beings. In the end, it's pretty inconsequential if Jesus was/wasn't a better example of a "man of peace" than Muhammad was. If it can be argued that Jesus' message was one of peace and empathy, then look at how his teaching could, none-the-less, be used by those who subsequently administered the faith that bore his name to spread misery, war, persecution and ignorance. We know the history.

For reasons due to its path of historic, cultural and economic development, the West no longer wages war for religion. But, once you strip away the nonsense and propaganda, it's obvious that the reason why it does so now is money and the future potential to control resources from which more money can be made. What is worse or better in this? In the end, there are consequences for the human condition.[/quote]

that is partially correct.. but you can't deny the major influence that Religions can have
in the human behavior. Is more easier dialogue about territorial issues ,than any dialogue
about Religion or ideologies or talk to anyone who believe that what he does is in the name
of a God. That said.. you will never see wars in the west in the name of religion . Only for
territorial issues but that was 50 years ago or more when the geographical lines were not officially set in stone under international laws. That said ..there is a higher level of tolerance
with different opinions in the west than in the middle east. that can be noticed and religion is a major reason for the differences .

alright no more off topic.  :otopic: [/quote]


Religion will be back in power in west. Btw if you think usa realllllly care so much about international law you are wrong. Influence and interests are still main things in politics. C'mon lets not use that "america is the place of total peace and inocence"

[quote="Walther von Oldenburg"]^ What verses from the Bible did Serbs quote to justify killing Croats and Bosniaks? Or the other way around?[/quote]


You would be surprise to see how much pressure serbia has in the past from other countryes. For example ww1 was start because pressure of the german and prusia empires on serbia

victor1985 wrote:

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:^ What verses from the Bible did Serbs quote to justify killing Croats and Bosniaks? Or the other way around?

You would be surprise to see how much pressure serbia has in the past from other countryes. For example ww1 was start because pressure of the german and prusia empires on serbia

FFS this is getting as bad as the old Ukraine thread at MP.net and I don't think any of us here want that to happen, wading through the off topic dross to get at the on topic stuff.

Please lay off this religion sh*t.

The US and Saudi Arabia to bolster support to FSA. MANPADS might be in the cards.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-saudi-idUSKCN0SJ06720151025

So..why this religion stuff popped up ?

Why not just leave it to Imam or somewhere else ?

Why don't Russia give some surplus AK-74s to SAA? I cringe every time I see SAA armed with AK-47s.

ultron wrote:Why don't Russia give some surplus AK-74s to SAA? I cringe every time I see SAA armed with AK-47s.

Ws thinking the same thing, costs probably? Don't know much it would cost though.

par far wrote:

ultron wrote:Why don't Russia give some surplus AK-74s to SAA? I cringe every time I see SAA armed with AK-47s.

Ws thinking the same thing, costs probably? Don't know much it would cost though.

Not only that. AK-74s would differentiate SAA from insurgents. We don't know where insurgents are getting their arms and ammo. If SAA uses AK-74s, then we'll know for sure where insurgents get their AK-47s from.

they should better organise a very mobile elite brigade and we do the equipping and training, even the so called elite "republican guard" runs around by now with mostly no armour, old aks etc. etc.

and yeah to see them shot Ak's is painfully how bad the training and discipline got with such a big caliber, 3 out of 4 dont mount the fucking gun and dont lean in to it... so much lybian inshalla shooting stand, gun doesnt mounted and to the best over your fucking head while shooting

NationalRus wrote:they should better organise a very mobile elite brigade and we do the equipping and training, even the so called elite "republican guard" runs around by now with mostly no armour, old aks etc. etc.

and yeah to see them shot Ak's is painfully how bad the training and discipline got with such a big caliber, 3 out of 4 dont mount the fucking gun and dont lean in to it... so much lybian inshalla shooting stand, gun doesnt mounted and to the best over your fucking head while shooting

SAA is arguably the worst army in the world. Enough said.

ultron wrote:Why don't Russia give some surplus AK-74s to SAA? I cringe every time I see SAA armed with AK-47s.

Actually you see them with Russian AKM/AKMS, Chinese Type 56 and Yugoslavian M70 variants. AK-47 is somewhat of an artificial name for first serial AK variant to enter production in USSR and very limited numbers of that weapon survive to this day, AK47 as itself does not really exist beyond prototypes, for Russians/USSR its simply "Aвтомат Калашникова (АК)".

Also i served with Yugoslavian M92 variant and there is no reason for it to be replaced, its well suited for their needs as long as it does not have damage from extensive use.

And they have been spotted using AK103, AK74 and AK74M already 2-3 years ago.

ultron wrote:

NationalRus wrote:they should better organise a very mobile elite brigade and we do the equipping and training, even the so called elite "republican guard" runs around by now with mostly no armour, old aks etc. etc.

and yeah to see them shot Ak's is painfully how bad the training and discipline got with such a big caliber, 3 out of 4 dont mount the fucking gun and dont lean in to it... so much lybian inshalla shooting stand, gun doesnt mounted and to the best over your fucking head while shooting

SAA is arguably the worst army in the world. Enough said.

even by far NOT, by far!!! and it hold out brave all those years agains a invading jihadi army... AND still it lacks after 4 years of war on everything, the traing is extremly speed up to get recrutes to the front ASAP, ther is basicaly no personal equipment left, most videos now soldiers and militias dont even have realy uniforms anymore, the equipment is getting used up and old

but no by fucking god SAA did good 4 year longs

NationalRus wrote:

ultron wrote:SAA is arguably the worst army in the world. Enough said.

even by far NOT, by far!!! and it hold out brave all those years agains a invading jihadi army... AND still it lacks after 4 years of war on everything, the traing is extremly speed up to get recrutes to the front ASAP, ther is basicaly no personal equipment left, most videos now soldiers and militias dont even have realy uniforms anymore, the equipment is getting used up and old

but no by fucking god SAA did good 4 year longs

No no no. You are wrong. Jihadis have nothing besides their ideology. They have no artillery. They have no aircraft. Their only arms and ammo are bought from corrupt SAA officers and soldiers. They are no bodies. Try their stuff in Israel or Iran and see what happens. They are losing big time in Iraq.  They only win in Syria because of the crappy SAA which is arguably the worst army in the world. See how SAA lost Markabah and Lahaya? Jihadis send a few guys rushing and SAA runs away like they don't give a damn.

Militarov wrote:

ultron wrote:Why don't Russia give some surplus AK-74s to SAA? I cringe every time I see SAA armed with AK-47s.

Actually you see them with Russian AKM/AKMS, Chinese Type 56 and Yugoslavian M70 variants. AK-47 is somewhat of an artificial name for first serial AK variant to enter production in USSR and very limited numbers of that weapon survive to this day, AK47 as itself does not really exist beyond prototypes, for Russians/USSR its simply "Aвтомат Калашникова (АК)".

Also i served with Yugoslavian M92 variant and there is no reason for it to be replaced, its well suited for their needs as long as it does not have damage from extensive use.

And they have been spotted using AK103, AK74 and AK74M already 2-3 years ago.

Every SAA soldier if not the ones on the frontlines should be armed with an AK-74.

ultron wrote:

NationalRus wrote:

ultron wrote:SAA is arguably the worst army in the world. Enough said.

even by far NOT, by far!!! and it hold out brave all those years agains a invading jihadi army... AND still it lacks after 4 years of war on everything, the traing is extremly speed up to get recrutes to the front ASAP, ther is basicaly no personal equipment left, most videos now soldiers and militias dont even have realy uniforms anymore, the equipment is getting used up and old

but no by fucking god SAA did good 4 year longs

No no no. You are wrong. Jihadis have nothing besides their ideology. They have no artillery. They have no aircraft. Their only arms and ammo are bought from corrupt SAA officers and soldiers. They are no bodies. Try their stuff in Israel or Iran and see what happens. They are losing big time in Iraq.  They only win in Syria because of the crappy SAA which is arguably the worst army in the world. See how SAA lost Markabah and Lahaya? Jihadis send a few guys rushing and SAA runs away like they don't give a damn.

firstly SAA drained itself the first 1.5 years in urban combat going trough several sunni desertion waves, no you are false SAA overall did great with some faults here and ther

par far wrote:

ultron wrote:Why don't Russia give some surplus AK-74s to SAA? I cringe every time I see SAA armed with AK-47s.

Ws thinking the same thing, costs probably? Don't know much it would cost though.

They probably have immense amounts of M43/M67 7,62x39mm ammunition stored, that would be first issue. When its about rifle cost that depends, what AK74, used, new...AK74M...refubrished used... used AK74 is probably 150-200USD.