Syrian Civil War: News

Ok, if you think so, I will stop posting in this thread until Assad either falls or wins. If he wins - I may get banned.

Regards.

flamming_python wrote:More like an incredible fuck up

Irregular light infantry equipped with at the maximum - RPGs, mortars and technicals managed to encircle, besiege and successfully interdict most resupply attempts to a military base garrisoned by a battalion with access to helicopters, BMPs and tanks.

it is obvious, they were trapped in the encirclement. Tanks BMPs and stuff can't win themselves. They are people who matters. And here they were exhausted after months of siege

As Sa'iqa wrote:Ok, if you think so, I will stop posting in this thread until Assad either falls or wins. If he wins - I may get banned.

Regards.

there's no reason to kick a fuss. I don't care your satisfaction. I do care rotters should be eliminated and will be. In a due time

This war has long since stopped being a war between terrorists and good guys or between liberators and a dictatorship. Now it's just a common sectarian war between Sunnis, Shias and their allies.Just a few years ago Hezbollah tried to portray itself as a pan-Islamic movement, uniting all Muslims against USA and Israel. When the war broke out, they returned to their earlier sectarian rhetorics. Now we have Shia fighters from Lebanon and Iraq fighting in Syria as well as Sunnis from Caucasus and even some from Europe (hundreds of them). Assad's allies also commited massacres against Sunni minorities in Latakia so it's not that they are all saints.

That's my last war. We will talk after this war ends.

As Sa'iqa wrote:This war has long since stopped being a war between terrorists and good guys or between liberators and a dictatorship. Now it's just a common sectarian war between Sunnis, Shias and their allies.Just a few years ago Hezbollah tried to portray itself as a pan-Islamic movement, uniting all Muslims against USA and Israel. When the war broke out, they returned to their earlier sectarian rhetorics. Now we have Shia fighters from Lebanon and Iraq fighting in Syria as well as Sunnis from Caucasus and even some from Europe (hundreds of them). Assad's allies also commited massacres against Sunni minorities in Latakia so it's not that they are all saints.

That's my last war. We will talk after this war ends.

yes, this is your taken from USA propaganda point of view. If I can't prove I am crystal clear I will point out opponent's true or not faults. But the thing is, Syrians are defending their country against oppressors from abroad. The thing is, less and less Syrians fight against their own government. The thing is, extremists and mercenaries sponsored by US dollars have to be involved to rescue the revolution. The thing is, promoted by USA picture of fighting Shias against Sunnis is wrong too. It is the country defending itself against US funded aggression. Hated dictators fall quickly, as Gaddafi did. Maybe Syrians don't fight for democracy but they fight for their country. I'm trying to show it all in my footages. And they won this fight from the very beginning, as their cause is right. What they will do with their president afterwards is their own matter. First mugs from abroad must be swept off.

Regarding Libya - not all Libyans disliked Gaddafi. The country was divided into the western half which supported him and the eastern half which didn't (+ Berbers from Nafusa Mountains). De facto concentration of power in the hands of Al Gadaffa tribe meant that 50% of the population had no control over the politics of the country. And Gaddafi's allies earned most money from oil even though most of it is in Cyrenaica.

I think you suffer (as Viktor, Werewolf and some other people on this board) from the thing I call "Anti American Syndrome" (AAS). It shows up when a person notices that something about US and its media is not right but instead of developing a balanced worldview, begins to believe everything that the other side says - even though they also have an agenda behind.

By simply analyzing previous conflicts one can come to an conclusion that it's highly unlikely that Syrian war is a foreign invasion. Let's take a look:

1. Afghanistan 1979-88 - even though Afghan mujahideen had CIA help, most of them were ethnic Afghans, supported by a minority of foreign fighters from abroad, mostly from Arab countries.
2. Chechnya (1994-96, 1999-2009) - before the war in 1999 began, Chechen "army" numbered about 40,000 men, the vast majority of whom were Chechens. Only about 3,000 fighters were from abroad, all of them united in one "Islamic International Brigade" which invaded Dagestan and was almost completely destroyed by Russian forces.
3. Iraq (since 2003) - most of insurgents fightng against US forces were from Iraq. US forces detained only several hundreds of fighters who weren't from Iraq, out of more than 50,000 detained in general. Even American authorities said that there are surprisingly few foreign fighters.
4. During Yugoslav Wars Milosevic helped Serbian minority in Croatia stage an uprising against Croatian authorities. Was it more like an internal conflict or more like an external invasion?

Considering the nature of previous wars, waged in countries culturally similar to Syria, chances that it is an invasion of foreign mercenaries is probably as low as the chances that you will win a lottery 3x in a row.

We don't know exactly how many Syrian Sunnis support the rebels. I would say that no less than 30% (for example - 26% of young Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified and 25% of British Muslims say that a Muslim has no obligation to report terrorists to police.). Even if they were only 10% of the population, it still corresponds to about 500,000 military able men - enough manpower to wage a long war.

A similar system also exists in Lebanon, with Shias, Christians and secular nationalists on one side and Sunni Islamists on the other. The difference is that they somehow manage to maintain a balance of power by dividing it between these groups.

As Sa'iqa wrote:I think you suffer (as Viktor, Werewolf and some other people on this board) from the thing I call "Anti American Syndrome" (AAS). It shows up when a person notices that something about US and its media is not right but instead of developing a balanced worldview, begins to believe everything that the other side says - even though they also have an agenda behind.

By simply analyzing previous conflicts one can come to an conclusion that it's highly unlikely that Syrian war is a foreign invasion. Let's take a look:

1. Afghanistan 1979-88 - even though Afghan mujahideen had CIA help, most of them were ethnic Afghans, supported by a minority of foreign fighters from abroad, mostly from Arab countries.
2. Chechnya (1994-96, 1999-2009) - before the war in 1999 began, Chechen "army" numbered about 40,000 men, the vast majority of whom were Chechens. Only about 3,000 fighters were from abroad, all of them united in one "Islamic International Brigade" which invaded Dagestan and was almost completely destroyed by Russian forces.
3. Iraq (since 2003) - most of insurgents fightng against US forces were from Iraq. US forces detained only several hundreds of fighters who weren't from Iraq, out of more than 50,000 detained in general. Even American authorities said that there are surprisingly few foreign fighters.
4. During Yugoslav Wars Milosevic helped Serbian minority in Croatia stage an uprising against Croatian authorities. Was it more like an internal conflict or more like an external invasion?

Considering the nature of previous wars, waged in countries culturally similar to Syria, chances that it is an invasion of foreign mercenaries is probably as low as the chances that you will win a lottery 3x in a row.

We don't know exactly how many Syrian Sunnis support the rebels. I would say that no less than 30% (for example - 26% of young Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified and 25% of British Muslims say that a Muslim has no obligation to report terrorists to police.). Even if they were only 10% of the population, it still corresponds to about 500,000 military able men - enough manpower to wage a long war.

A similar system also exists in Lebanon, with Shias, Christians and secular nationalists on one side and Sunni Islamists on the other. The difference is that they somehow manage to maintain a balance of power by dividing it between these groups.

You probabnly think you know better, but you are wrong. Mentioning different conflicts proves nothing. It is still your personal speculation, maybe you would like to show off with your knowledge, but it is useless knowledge. As I said, Yugoslav war, Afghan war, Chechen war... they prove nothing here. Your percentage of terrorists's supporters... taken from your sources, but even if they are true, they prove nothing as well. The thing is, I am not suffering with anything. Syrians know what the same scenario brought to Libya and observe the same in their country, so they defend themselves. Simple. Stay hidden in your wormhole and wait who will win. I am certain Syria wins, against all your speculations - yours and authors of your sources. And don't try to lead the topic towards dead end mentioning something else than facts about Syria. Your beloved activists won't win even if you try to multiply 'prooves' from history. So called Arab Spring is over, and it is now seen in Tunisia and Egypt as well.

As Sa'iqa wrote:I think you suffer (as Viktor, Werewolf and some other people on this board) from the thing I call "Anti American Syndrome" (AAS).

Right up there with Butthurt Syndrome. BS.

pyrrus, if you think ther will be a conventional military victory in syria with somthin as a final battle your are or very naive or just dont have any understanding about war/military strategy in a unconventional warfare enviroment

ther will be no military victory, ther will be no final battle

NationalRus wrote:pyrrus, if you think ther will be a conventional military victory in syria with somthin as a final battle your are or very naive or just dont have any understanding about war/military strategy in a unconventional warfare enviroment

ther will be no military victory, ther will be no final battle

Well, we will see. Of course, it depends what one considers as the victory. Americans won in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what is going now? Who influences more on Iraqi politics, USA or Iran? And Afghanistan, NATO's victory and then announced withdrawal of forces for me don't seem to be glorious. As Soviet wasn't as well. Who won in Libya? So called government or maybe numerous militias each on its territory? Even direct supporters of Syrian rebels have problems. Muslim Brotherhood lost its position in Egypt, Turkey struggles with its own demonstrators. What is the victory nowadays? For rebels in Syria the victory seems to be Assad's fall. Really? FSA won't win if the power will be held by Al-Nusra Front. And FSA itself, without mercenaries, means nothing. I'm not naive, my opponent seems to be so publishing "Allahu Akbar footages"

no the FSA wont win, Al-Nusra wont win, the goverment wont win, it will be somalia, the question is how powerfull the goverment will at the end be in comparision to the terrorist and rebel forces, but they WONT win...

the only possile way that the could win if syria was an island like sri lanka, and the rebels didnt have much foreign support

or they would sarin gas every rebel territory...

so as we see that syria is not a island, and the terrorist have broad international jihadis support and the second option is not possible, ther will be no victory, we can only support SAA with the needed weapons to strengthen ther possition as the major power in the country and wait till a solution is reached

NationalRus wrote:no the FSA wont win, Al-Nusra wont win, the goverment wont win, it will be somalia, the question is how powerfull the goverment will at the end be in comparision to the terrorist and rebel forces, but they WONT win...

the only possile way that the could win if syria was an island like sri lanka, and the rebels didnt have much foreign support

or they would sarin gas every rebel territory...

so as we see that syria is not a island, and the terrorist have broad international jihadis support and the second option is not possible, ther will be no victory, we can only support SAA with the needed weapons to strengthen ther possition as the major power in the country and wait till a solution is reached

I'm afraid your scenario is the most possible and real. The reason why I publish NEWS ANNA footages is to have an opportunity to observe how this fight is going on. The reality is this is a real struggle, for every street, every building.

As Sa'iqa wrote:This war has long since stopped being a war between terrorists and good guys or between liberators and a dictatorship. Now it's just a common sectarian war between Sunnis, Shias and their allies.Just a few years ago Hezbollah tried to portray itself as a pan-Islamic movement, uniting all Muslims against USA and Israel. When the war broke out, they returned to their earlier sectarian rhetorics. Now we have Shia fighters from Lebanon and Iraq fighting in Syria as well as Sunnis from Caucasus and even some from Europe (hundreds of them). Assad's allies also commited massacres against Sunni minorities in Latakia so it's not that they are all saints.

That's my last war. We will talk after this war ends.

Actually for once I agree.

Shocks me how much people on forums everywhere jump to support one side as if its a clear black-and-white war.
I guess that is human psychology, gotta pick a side and support it.

I think it's not crazy to wish neither Islamists nor Assad to make it out of the conflict with any strength.

I hope Assad smashes the rebels and all the other trash occupying Syria, restores the constitution, military power and law to liberated areas and actually makes Syria into a semi-proper country. He has numerous times indicated the desire to reform, held referendums on amendments to the constitution and after helping him win (which Russia should ramp up efforts towards immediately); Russia and China should hold him to his word. A Belarus-style dictatorship is infinitely preferable to another training ground for Islamists along the lines of Afghanistan, Somalia or 90s Chechnya.

It's all well and good with saying 'both sides are bad' - but that hardly does anything to solve the problem does it now. In order to prevent a permanent state of warfare and anarchy; one or the other sides have to win and the FSA and their Al-Nusra auxiliaries (other way 'round?) are an absolutely appalling choice for victor.

The whole reason the revolution happened is because Assad failed to do any of the reforms he promised.
People protested, he started shooting them. Only reason the revolt got any traction is half his army defected to the rebel side.

I hope a car bomb goes off next time he goes outside, it would be a cruel joke if he managed to survive this war.

TR1 wrote:The whole reason the revolution happened is because Assad failed to do any of the reforms he promised.
People protested, he started shooting them. Only reason the revolt got any traction is half his army defected to the rebel side.

I hope a car bomb goes off next time he goes outside, it would be a cruel joke if he managed to survive this war.

you know the rule the worst die last !

i hope Russia manage to keep Syria in it's ally but at the same time manage to push that bastard out of his throne this way it will keep a more powerful relation with Syrians ... main-street .

Despite a lot of mistakes Russia was/still appreciated in the Muslim/Arab countries .... times to score now

TR1 wrote:The whole reason the revolution happened is because Assad failed to do any of the reforms he promised.
People protested, he started shooting them. Only reason the revolt got any traction is half his army defected to the rebel side.

I hope a car bomb goes off next time he goes outside, it would be a cruel joke if he managed to survive this war.

Perhaps, but then that's hardly relevant now.

Assad represents a fractured, yet independent and lawful Syria as opposed to a destabilised Western-puppet government with little control past their capital; or even worse - a Jihadist playground altogether.
It would be a cruel joke rather if he was killed, the Syrian government & military collapsed and all that was left of Syria was a mess of ethnically cleansed independent fiefdoms.

TR1 wrote:The whole reason the revolution happened is because Assad failed to do any of the reforms he promised.
People protested, he started shooting them. Only reason the revolt got any traction is half his army defected to the rebel side.

I hope a car bomb goes off next time he goes outside, it would be a cruel joke if he managed to survive this war.

Well, same thing happened to Russia when "west" supported terrorist in Checheny and wanted to ingnite Russia in the civil war eventually resulting in breakup of the country.

We saw how did western media react to another Putin election recently and the number of NGO operating inside Russia with money being poured from the west and with what

reason. I see same thing happening in Syria where some reason (and there is always some reason no matter what country we are speaking) is made up and the rest is history.

As'Saiqa does bring up a good point mind you

One should not be blinded by anti-Americanism. It's important to have a balanced world view.

Just because America is opposing Assad that doesn't mean that we should automatically take his side.
It's just in this case (as in most cases) - America is genuinely very wrong and doing the wrong thing.
Assad is a dictator that sent in tanks against his own people.
But look at the sort of people the West, Gulf Arabs and Turkey are/were funding to oppose him.

flamming_python wrote:As'Saiqa does bring up a good point mind you

One should not be blinded by anti-Americanism. It's important to have a balanced world view.

Just because America is opposing Assad that doesn't mean that we should automatically take his side.
It's just in this case (as in most cases) - America is genuinely very wrong and doing the wrong thing.
Assad is a dictator that sent in tanks against his own people.
But look at the sort of people the West, Gulf Arabs and Turkey are/were funding to oppose him.

I'm not certain if I am one who you are addressing your words or not, but anyway I'd like to state I am not the fun of Assad, I am the fun of Syrian people who fight against foreign aggressors. The issue who should or not rule the country is the issue of Syrians themselves. The USA is not the main issue for me. I just mentioned the fact of their financial and political involvement which gives the green light for extremists who seem to be the main beneficiary of the weapons supply. And if I had a choice I'd vote for Assad's Syria not for al-Nusra's like. Sorry.

Well from my POV the more European jihhadists go there and die the safer we feel. I'm not in position to judge Assad or FSA. I can sleep well no matter who does atrocities a guy with a suit or a guy with a towel on his head. Sorry to sound like a d1ck, but I'm only interested in warfare that is going in Syria, not politics. I'm very pragmatical about this. I think most Europeans don't give a crap about Syria at all. Thanks God my politicians don't give a flying crap too.

Just because America is opposing Assad that doesn't mean that we should automatically take his side.

That is a really good indicator.

If the US is against Assad, that means Assad is not good for US interests.

That means he is not selling Syria out to big western business... which is generally good for the Syrian people.

If we worried about every country that sent tanks in against its own people... amusing comment when those tanks get taken out by its own people... it is hardly a case of brutal dictator sending in tanks to massacre innocent unarmed freedom loving people. Most of those people were likely paid by the CIA to be there anyway.

Saudi offers Russia deal to scale back Assad support - sources

(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has offered Russia economic incentives including a major arms deal and a pledge not to challenge Russian gas sales if Moscow scales back support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Middle East sources and Western diplomats said on Wednesday.

The proposed deal between two of the leading power brokers in Syria's devastating civil war was set out by Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow last week, they said.

Russia has supported Assad with arms and diplomatic cover throughout the war and any change in Moscow's stance would remove a major obstacle to action on Syria by the United Nations Security Council.

Syrian opposition sources close to Saudi Arabia said Prince Bandar offered to buy up to $15 billion of Russian weapons as well as ensuring that Gulf gas would not threaten Russia's position as a main gas supplier to Europe.

In return, Saudi Arabia wanted Moscow to ease its strong support of Assad and agree not to block any future Security Council Resolution on Syria, they said.

A Gulf source familiar with the matter confirmed that Prince Bandar offered to buy large quantities of arms from Russia, but that no cash amount was specified in the talks.

One Lebanese politician close to Saudi Arabia said the meeting between Bandar and Putin lasted four hours. "The Saudis were elated about the outcome of the meeting," said the source, without elaborating.

Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, could not immediately be reached on Wednesday for comment about the meeting. A Saudi Foreign Ministry official was also not immediately available to respond.

Putin's initial response to Bandar's offer was inconclusive, diplomats say. One Western diplomat in the Middle East said the Russian leader was unlikely to trade Moscow's recent high profile in the region for an arms deal, however substantial.

He said Russian officials also appeared skeptical that Saudi Arabia had a clear plan for stability in Syria if Assad fell.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS

However, in a possible sign of greater flexibility by Moscow, other diplomats said that in the run-up to the meeting Russia put pressure on Assad to allow in a U.N. mission to investigate the suspected use of chemical weapons.

The U.N. team is expected to visit Syria next week.

"This was one of those unannounced meetings that could prove much more important than the public diplomatic efforts being made on Syria," one diplomat said.

A senior Syrian opposition figure said there had been a "build-up of Russian-Saudi contacts prior to the meeting".

"Bandar sought to allay two main Russian fears: that Islamist extremists will replace Assad, and that Syria would become a conduit for Gulf, mainly Qatari, gas at the expense of Russia," he said. "Bandar offered to intensify energy, military and economic cooperation with Moscow."

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim powers have been strong supporters of the mainly Sunni rebels battling Assad, from Syria's minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. The rebels have been joined by foreign Sunni jihadis.

Assad has enjoyed military support from Iran and fighters from Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi'ites.

Russia has maintained military sales to Syria throughout the two year conflict in which 100,000 people have been killed, and helped block three U.N. draft resolutions criticizing Assad's crackdown on the mainly peaceful protests against him in 2011.

The Security Council has been considering a possible resolution on aid for Syria for several months and a shift in position by Moscow could alleviate this.

F#$% Bandar.. Thats it..A real Monkey..

Russia Snubs Saudi Offer

Russia has reportedly rebuffed an offer by Saudi Arabia to abandon its support for the Syrian government
of President Bashar al-Assad in exchange for a package of incentives.


On Thursday, AFP quoted diplomatic sources as saying that Moscow had rejected an offer by Saudi Arabia
to change its stance on Syria in return for a huge arms deal and a promise to increase Moscow’s influence
in the Arab countries.
Bandar offered to buy up to USD 15 billion of Russian weapons besides ensuring that Persian Gulf gas would
not challenge Russia's gas sales to Europe, according to Syrian opposition sources close to Saudi Arabia.

In return, Riyadh wants Moscow to lessen its support for the Syrian government and no longer block any
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Syria.

A former Saudi ambassador to US, Bandar is currently director general of Saudi Intelligence Agency.
He is known to have had close ties with former US President George Bush, and was an advocate
of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Some observers believe that Saudi Arabia’s ally, the US, has indeed tasked Bandar bin Sultan with
causing unrest in many regional countries including Syria.

A GOD level  @#$# this Bandaar... 

On Tuesday, Saudi King Abdullah appointed Bandar bin Sultan’s brother, Prince Salman bin Sultan,
as Deputy Defense Minister. Bandar has already worked closely alongside his brother in favor of
foreign-backed militants in Syria to topple Syria's Assad.

Saudi Arabia along with other US allies in the region has been a key supporter of the militants
fighting the Assad government in Syria.

Riyadh has also called for foreign military intervention to topple President Assad’s government.

Saudi Arabia is itself grappling with anti-monarch protests. Dozens of anti-government protesters
have been killed in the regime crackdown in the restive Eastern Province.

My point of view.. IF not for Russia there would not be any Syria today..  

next episode from the bus station 8.5 - fire clash. This time the takover of the facility. You can observe a firing led by tanks and a howitzer "Akatsya". Finally BMPs transport infantry for fight