World Politics

Page 774 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

blutto said:
Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
....curious, which two ?....

Cheers

Crimea and Ukraine...but I'm sure you'll say that was Obamas and Clinton's fault
.

....that funny real funny....hahaha....

Cheers

So you are saying Russia didn't 'annex' Crimea and there are not Russian troops and hardware in Ukraine?
Just checking since you seem to be the 'expert' here and on the US, ahem, USA politics section.

....you may want to perhaps acquaint yourself with the history of Crimea, especially the last couple of decades, and cross reference that that against the referendums that were run during that period and cross reference again against the Kosovo precedent...you know, so you can get a clearer idea of what actually went on there instead of just regurgitating some self-serving US propaganda......

...sure there are most likely Russians and Russians weapons in the Donbas ( it was, after all a heavily Russified part of the Soviet union and where they would obviously have and hence use weapons from that era...and btw the Ukrainians are using weapons from that era as well ) just like there are Americans fighting with ISIS/al Qaeda in Syria using American weapons (so using your intimation we can say the US government is actively backing ISIS ?...and as recent events "clearly" show also providing air-support and logistics ?.... )

...btw don't consider myself an "expert" but then the competition here is often pretty, errr, weak....as an example, I have some ability to read critically and can actually understand a lot of what I read....and I don't make really silly mistakes like say, continually confusing the old USSR with Russia ....so to the untrained eye it may well appear to be the case...

Cheers

History notwithstanding, did Ukraine have sovereign borders? Or were they a part of Russia? Before Russian troops and equipment crossed that border, heading into Ukraine, a separate nation? Was Crimea a state of Russia or part of a sovereign nation? Before Russian backed armed groups took control of Crimea? In 2014?

"competition", who 'wins' an argument on a bike forum...good for you.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
....curious, which two ?....

Cheers

Crimea and Ukraine...but I'm sure you'll say that was Obamas and Clinton's fault
.

....that funny real funny....hahaha....

Cheers

So you are saying Russia didn't 'annex' Crimea and there are not Russian troops and hardware in Ukraine?
Just checking since you seem to be the 'expert' here and on the US, ahem, USA politics section.

....you may want to perhaps acquaint yourself with the history of Crimea, especially the last couple of decades, and cross reference that that against the referendums that were run during that period and cross reference again against the Kosovo precedent...you know, so you can get a clearer idea of what actually went on there instead of just regurgitating some self-serving US propaganda......

...sure there are most likely Russians and Russians weapons in the Donbas ( it was, after all a heavily Russified part of the Soviet union and where they would obviously have and hence use weapons from that era...and btw the Ukrainians are using weapons from that era as well ) just like there are Americans fighting with ISIS/al Qaeda in Syria using American weapons (so using your intimation we can say the US government is actively backing ISIS ?...and as recent events "clearly" show also providing air-support and logistics ?.... )

...btw don't consider myself an "expert" but then the competition here is often pretty, errr, weak....as an example, I have some ability to read critically and can actually understand a lot of what I read....and I don't make really silly mistakes like say, continually confusing the old USSR with Russia ....so to the untrained eye it may well appear to be the case...

Cheers

History notwithstanding, did Ukraine have sovereign borders? Or we're they a part of Russia? Before Russian troops and equipment crossed that border, heading into Ukraine, a separate nation? Was Crimea a state of Russia or part of a sovereign nation? Before Russian backed armed groups took control of Crimea? In 2014?

"competition", who 'wins' an argument on a bike forum...good for you.

....history notwithstanding !?....that isn't even funny....and please do look at the Crimean referendums and cross reference against the Kosovo precedent....

....as for sovereign borders....well at one point the Donbas was part of Russia ( if you define Russia as a region with predominately Russian speaking people )...an area that was put together with the then Ukraine as part of a bureaucratic realignment of territories during the period when the USSR was the designated nation state....

....the partition of the USSR was hasty and very sloppy and some mistakes were made....Donbas and Crimea being prominent among those....not unlike the dissolution of Yugoslavia where eventually various national based areas separated....

....now the US/NATO was quite happy to help national grouping find their own space in Yugoslavia because as much as anything it was to their advantage....but the same treatment is now not being accorded Donbas and Crimea ( which is why I have brought up the Kosovo precedent, which if applied to the Ukrainian situation would allow both Crimea and Donbas the option of separating/seceding )....

....and here is another point to consider....sovereignty ?....in that neck of the woods sovereignty is in many cases just a commonly agreed upon lie....as an example the area where my father's family is from has in fairly recent history been part of seven different states/countries/empires/governments....in that regard Poland could demand back the eastern part of The Ukraine....so could the Austro-Hungarian empire....so could what was once Czechoslovakia....and so on and on and on....read its a mess now and it has always been a mess....maybe the US should vacate Texas, Hawaii, and California ?....or just give the whole Merikan package back to the indigenous people because by modern rules youse guys can't keep it , you were after all by modern standards murdering imperialists who stole it using brute force and ignorance ?....

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

[

Cheers[/quote]

Crimea and Ukraine...but I'm sure you'll say that was Obamas and Clinton's fault
.

....that funny real funny....hahaha....

Cheers[/quote]

So you are saying Russia didn't 'annex' Crimea and there are not Russian troops and hardware in Ukraine?
Just checking since you seem to be the 'expert' here and on the US, ahem, USA politics section.

...sure there are most likely Russians and Russians weapons in the Donbas ( it was, after all a heavily Russified part of the Soviet union and where they would obviously have and hence use weapons from that era...and btw the Ukrainians are using weapons from that era as well ) just like there are Americans fighting with ISIS/al Qaeda in Syria using American weapons (so using your intimation we can say the US government is actively backing ISIS ?...and as recent events "clearly" show also providing air-support and logistics ?.... )

...btw don't consider myself an "expert" but then the competition here is often pretty, errr, weak....as an example, I have some ability to read critically and can actually understand a lot of what I read....and I don't make really silly mistakes like say, continually confusing the old USSR with Russia ....so to the untrained eye it may well appear to be the case...

Cheers[/quote]

"competition", who 'wins' an argument on a bike forum...good for you.[/quote]

....history notwithstanding !?....that isn't even funny....and please do look at the Crimean referendums and cross reference against the Kosovo precedent....

....as for sovereign borders....well at one point the Donbas was part of Russia ( if you define Russia as a region with predominately Russian speaking people )...an area that was put together with the then Ukraine as part of a bureaucratic realignment of territories during the period when the USSR was the designated nation state....

....the partition of the USSR was hasty and very sloppy and some mistakes were made....Donbas and Crimea being prominent among those....not unlike the dissolution of Yugoslavia where eventually various national based areas separated....

....now the US/NATO was quite happy to help national grouping find their own space in Yugoslavia because as much as anything it was to their advantage....but the same treatment is now not being accorded Donbas and Crimea ( which is why I have brought up the Kosovo precedent, which if applied to the Ukrainian situation would allow both Crimea and Donbas the option of separating/seceding )....

....and here is another point to consider....sovereignty ?....in that neck of the woods sovereignty is in many cases just a commonly agreed upon lie....as an example the area where my father's family is from has in fairly recent history been part of seven different states/countries/empires/governments....in that regard Poland could demand back the eastern part of The Ukraine....so could the Austro-Hungarian empire....so could what was once Czechoslovakia....and so on and on and on....read its a mess now and it has always been a mess....maybe the US should vacate Texas, Hawaii, and California ?....or just give the whole Merikan package back to the indigenous people because by modern rules youse guys can't keep it , you were after all murdering imperialists who stole it using brute force and ignorance ?....

Cheers[/quote]

Thanks but
The question was, "how many countries has Russia invaded since the fall of the USSR"..not why or a history lesson but....how many. 2.

Cheers...
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Cheers

Crimea and Ukraine...but I'm sure you'll say that was Obamas and Clinton's fault

....that funny real funny....hahaha....

Cheers

So you are saying Russia didn't 'annex' Crimea and there are not Russian troops and hardware in Ukraine?
Just checking since you seem to be the 'expert' here and on the US, ahem, USA politics section.

...sure there are most likely Russians and Russians weapons in the Donbas ( it was, after all a heavily Russified part of the Soviet union and where they would obviously have and hence use weapons from that era...and btw the Ukrainians are using weapons from that era as well ) just like there are Americans fighting with ISIS/al Qaeda in Syria using American weapons (so using your intimation we can say the US government is actively backing ISIS ?...and as recent events "clearly" show also providing air-support and logistics ?.... )

...btw don't consider myself an "expert" but then the competition here is often pretty, errr, weak....as an example, I have some ability to read critically and can actually understand a lot of what I read....and I don't make really silly mistakes like say, continually confusing the old USSR with Russia ....so to the untrained eye it may well appear to be the case...

Cheers

"competition", who 'wins' an argument on a bike forum...good for you.

....history notwithstanding !?....that isn't even funny....and please do look at the Crimean referendums and cross reference against the Kosovo precedent....

....as for sovereign borders....well at one point the Donbas was part of Russia ( if you define Russia as a region with predominately Russian speaking people )...an area that was put together with the then Ukraine as part of a bureaucratic realignment of territories during the period when the USSR was the designated nation state....

....the partition of the USSR was hasty and very sloppy and some mistakes were made....Donbas and Crimea being prominent among those....not unlike the dissolution of Yugoslavia where eventually various national based areas separated....

....now the US/NATO was quite happy to help national grouping find their own space in Yugoslavia because as much as anything it was to their advantage....but the same treatment is now not being accorded Donbas and Crimea ( which is why I have brought up the Kosovo precedent, which if applied to the Ukrainian situation would allow both Crimea and Donbas the option of separating/seceding )....

....and here is another point to consider....sovereignty ?....in that neck of the woods sovereignty is in many cases just a commonly agreed upon lie....as an example the area where my father's family is from has in fairly recent history been part of seven different states/countries/empires/governments....in that regard Poland could demand back the eastern part of The Ukraine....so could the Austro-Hungarian empire....so could what was once Czechoslovakia....and so on and on and on....read its a mess now and it has always been a mess....maybe the US should vacate Texas, Hawaii, and California ?....or just give the whole Merikan package back to the indigenous people because by modern rules youse guys can't keep it , you were after all murdering imperialists who stole it using brute force and ignorance ?....

Cheers

Thanks but
The question was, "how many countries has Russia invaded since the fall of the USSR"..not why or a history lesson but....how many. 2.

Cheers...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....which two?....

....here is the definition of annexation....note the given example, and please help me on this one, who exactly was doing the annexing in that case....

the action of annexing something, especially territory.

synonyms: seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, takeover, appropriation
"the annexation of Texas in 1845"

Cheers
 
Except Texas was independent before they were annexed and Crimea was not. It would be like the US annexing Texas while still a state of Mexico.
Ukraine, also invaded by Russian military on leave(funny!) who brought their equipment(modern) with them, not using discarded armament, still disputes Russian claims to Crimea and still wants Russia to leave Ukraine. At least according to Prorshenkov as of this morning. But you'll say Poroshenkov is a CIA operative so....

Cheers
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Re: Re:

<snip>
Of course Russia is encouraging support for the Donbas, though it is not state sanctioned, exactly. I forget the Russian words for it, but it translates as "Northern Rain" where regular Russians are coming from the north with materiel to help out their brothers. This is natural. No more condemn-able than Kurds coming across the artificial Iraq border to help their Syrian brothers.

And as for Crimea... It's very hard to "invade" an area of land when you have an agreement to have 60,000 soldiers permanently based there. They were already there! Russia was very deft in holding off any violence from the Ukrainian junta and the referendum was held without a single casualty. If only Odessa were so lucky! Or do you not remember the unfortunate citizens being burned alive after being chased into a union building? You must certainly have forgotten the pregnant woman and those that jumped to safety only to be beaten to death by a mob. The Crimeans seem happy enough to have escaped that fate.

Oh, Odessa. Governed by that useful idiot, Sakashvili. You know, the Georgian stooge that was pumped up by western hubris and prodded into killing native Russians. The Russians were not so stupid and did not take the bait. They did, however, enter Georgia and pummel the NATO led Georgian forces for two days until Sakashvilli cried "uncle". That was the end of that stupidity and Russia swiftly went home. By the way, how did a Georgian pet of the US become a Governor of the Ukraine!?!? Things that make you go "hmmm".

John Swanson

edit: quotations gone crazy
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Bustedknuckle said:
Except Texas was independent before they were annexed and Crimea was not. It would be like the US annexing Texas while still a state of Mexico.
Ukraine, also invaded by Russian military on leave(funny!) who brought their equipment(modern) with them, not using discarded armament, still disputes Russian claims to Crimea and still wants Russia to leave Ukraine. At least according to Prorshenkov as of this morning. But you'll say Poroshenkov is a CIA operative so....

Cheers

.....little confused about that independence thingee as shown below....

In June 1836, Santa Anna agreed to Texas independence, but the Mexican government refused to honor Santa Anna's pledge.[44] Texans, now de facto independent, recognized that their security and prosperity could never be achieved while Mexico denied the legitimacy of their revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

movingtarget said:

....read the article and nowhere does it say the UN accused Russia of anything....are you sure you posted the correct article....

....the article contained the following which is interesting for the emphasis ( which speaks volumes about US/Guardian intent)....must be awful for that US/NATO investment to be disrupted so....like how is the next false flag to be videotaped now, most tragic for US efforts to force a no fly zone...

The US ambassador, Samantha Power, highlighted the targeting of three out of four centres in eastern Aleppo used by the volunteer emergency services – the White Helmets – with the consequence that lifesaving equipment had been destroyed and “those buried in rubble in Aleppo are much more likely to die in the rubble

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

python said:
un accuses unitited states of war crimes
http://sana.sy/en/?p=88920

headlines, headlines :surprised:

oh, and btw, 'annexation' is such a pretty word :twisted:

....yep most more much pretty :D ....was quite funny when the annexation of Texas was the example used to illustrate the definition ....Busted must have busted a blood vessel...."but but but that's not the history I believe" he was heard muttering as he stomped, Yosemite Sam like, around the room....thinking the whole time, if only I had a bomber, some bunker busters, and some co-ordinates I could bomb blutto into oblivion and finally stop that absolutely annoying noise, its driving me crazeeeeeee !!!!!!!....( and I mean all that allegoristical stuff in the good sense )....

Cheers
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
here's a really interesting article by an investigative journo not known for taking sides. more over, the portal if it does have a bias, its slightly anti-turkish being equally critical of both the us and russia. peruse them for yourself to arrive at a different opinion...some pretty stunning conclusions based on astute observations and facts..

and btw, the article headline is as it was intended by the author (unlike some above). more, i will do something i rarely do - quote almost a whole article

How the Pentagon sank the US-Russia deal in Syria – and the ceasefire
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/how-pentagon-sank-us-russia-campaign-syria-and-ceasefire-1932525374

Was the first ever US strike against Syrian government forces an intentional hit by the Pentagon to block military cooperation with Russia?

Another US-Russian Syria ceasefire deal has been blown up.

Whether it could have survived even with a US-Russian accord is open to doubt, given the incentives for al-Qaeda and its allies to destroy it. But the politics of the US-Russian relationship played a central role in the denouement of the second ceasefire agreement.

The final blow apparently came from the Russian-Syrian side, but what provoked the decision to end the ceasefire was the first ever US strike against Syrian government forces on 17 September.

That convinced the Russians that the US Pentagon had no intention of implementing the main element of the deal that was most important to the Putin government: a joint US-Russian air campaign against the Islamic State (IS) militant group and al-Qaeda through a “Joint Implementation Centre”. And it is entirely credible that it was meant to do precisely that.
Withdrawal from Castello Road - or not?

The Russians had a powerful incentive to ensure that the ceasefire would hold, especially around Aleppo.

In the new ceasefire agreement, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russsian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had negotiated an unusually detailed set of requirements for both sides to withdraw their forces from the Castello Road, the main artery for entry into Aleppo from the north. It was understood that the “demilitarisation” north of Aleppo was aimed at allowing humanitarian aid to reach the city and was, therefore, the central political focus of the ceasefire.The Russians put great emphasis on ensuring that the Syrian army would comply with the demilitarisation plan. It had established a mobile observation post on the road on 13 September. And both the Russians and Syrian state television reported that the Syrian army had withdrawn its heavy weaponry from the road early on 15 September, including video footage showing a bulldozer clearing barbed wire from the road. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also reported the Syrian army had withdrawn from the road.

But al-Qaeda’s newly renamed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (previously the al-Nusra Front) had a clear incentive to refuse to comply with a move that could open the door to a US-Russian campaign against it. Opposition sources in Aleppo claimed that no such government withdrawal had happened, and said that opposition units would not pull back from positions near the road. On the morning of 16 September, the Syrian army moved back into positions on the road.

Kerry and Lavrov agreed in a phone conversation that same day that the ceasefire was still holding, even though humanitarian aid convoys were still stalled in the buffer zone at the Turkish border because of the lack of permission from the Syrian government, as well as uncertainty about security on the route to Aleppo.

But Kerry also told Lavrov that the US now insisted that it would establish the Joint Implementation Centre only after the humanitarian aid had been delivered.
US policy clash

That crucial shift in US diplomatic position was a direct result of the aggressive opposition of the Pentagon to Obama’s intention to enter into military cooperation with Russia in Syria. The Pentagon was motivated by an overriding interest in heading off such high-profile US-Russian cooperation at a time when it is pushing for much greater US military efforts to counter what it portrays as Russian aggression in a new Cold War.

At an extraordinary video conference with Kerry immediately after the negotiation of the ceasefire agreement was complete, Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter strongly objected to the Joint Centre – especially the provision for sharing intelligence with the Russians for a campaign against IS and al-Qaeda.

Obama had overridden Carter’s objections at the time, but a New York Times story filed the night of 13 September reported that Pentagon officials were still refusing to agree that the US should proceed with the creation of the Joint Implementation Centre if the ceasefire held for seven days.

The Times quoted Lt Gen Jeffrey L Harrigian, commander of the United States Air Forces Central Command (USAFCENT), as telling reporters, “I’m not saying yes or no.”

"It would be premature to say that we’re going to jump right into it," he added.

President Obama’s decision to insist that the US would not participate in the joint centre with Russia until humanitarian convoys had been allowed into Aleppo and elsewhere first was apparently aimed at calming the Pentagon down, but it didn’t eliminate the possibility of a joint US–Russian campaign.
Immediate impact

Late in the evening the next day, US and allied planes carried out multiple strikes on a Syrian government base in the desert near one of its airbases in Deir Ezzor and killed at least 62 Syrian troops and wounded more than 100.

The Pentagon soon acknowledged what it called a mistake in targeting, but the impact on the ceasefire deal was immediate. Syria accused the US of a deliberate attack on its forces, and the Russians similarly expressed doubt about the US explanation.

On Monday 19 September, the Syrian regime declared that the seven-day ceasefire had ended. And that same day, a major UN humanitarian aid convoy was being unloaded in an opposition-held town West of Aleppo when it was attacked, killing more than 20 aid workers. US officials accused Russia of an air strike on the convoy, although the evidence of an air attack appeared slender, according to a Russian defence ministry spokesman.It is not difficult to imagine, however, the fury with which both Russian and Syrian governments could have reacted to the US blows against both the Syrian army and the deal that had been sealed with Washington. They were certainly convinced that the US air attack on Syrian troops was a clear message that the Pentagon and US military leadership would not countenance any cooperation with Russia on Syria - and were warning of a Syrian campaign to come once Hillary Clinton is elected.

Attacking the aid convoy by some means was a brutal way of signalling a response to such messages. Unfortunately, the brunt of the response was borne by aid workers and civilians.
Mistake or strategy?

The evidence that the US deliberately targeted a Syrian military facility is, of course, circumstantial, and it is always possible that the strike was another of the monumental intelligence failures so common in war.

No one has been able to explain how USAFCENT could have decided that a target so close to a Syrian government airbase in that government-controlled city was an IS target

But the timing of the strike - only 48 hours before the decision was to be made on whether to go ahead with the Joint Implementation Centre -and its obvious impact on the ceasefire make a tight fit with the thesis that it was no mistake.

And to make the fit even tighter, Gen Harrigan, the USAFCENT commander who had refused to say that his command would go ahead with such cooperation with Russia, would almost certainly have approved a deliberate targeting of a Syrian facility.

USAFCENT planners are very familiar with the area where it bombed Syrian troops, having carried out an average of 20 such strikes a week around Deir Ezzor, a DOD official told Nancy A Youssef of The Daily Beast.

Pentagon officials acknowledged to Youssef that the USAFCENT had been watching the site for at least a couple of days, but in fact they must have been familiar with the site, which has apparently existed for at least six months or longer.

Yet no one has been able to explain how USAFCENT could have decided that a target so close to a Syrian government airbase in that government-controlled city was an IS target.

Obama was strongly committed to the general strategy of cooperation with Russia as the key to trying to make headway in moving toward a ceasefire. But that strategy was based on a refusal to confront US regional allies with the necessity to change course from reckless support for a jihadist-dominated opposition force.

Now that the strategy of the past year has gone up in flames, the only way Obama can establish meaningful control over Syria policy is to revisit the fundamental choices that propelled the US into the sponsorship of the war in the first place.

- Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
 
Do any of you believe there's actually a 'good' side - Russia or West?
They're both engaging in murky business, so to me it seems pointless to, er, point fingers unless you're pointing them both ways. Discussions like this feel like a complete waste of time.
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
movingtarget said:

....read the article and nowhere does it say the UN accused Russia of anything....are you sure you posted the correct article....

....the article contained the following which is interesting for the emphasis ( which speaks volumes about US/Guardian intent)....must be awful for that US/NATO investment to be disrupted so....like how is the next false flag to be videotaped now, most tragic for US efforts to force a no fly zone...

The US ambassador, Samantha Power, highlighted the targeting of three out of four centres in eastern Aleppo used by the volunteer emergency services – the White Helmets – with the consequence that lifesaving equipment had been destroyed and “those buried in rubble in Aleppo are much more likely to die in the rubble

Cheers

Okay the French, UK and US, UN representatives accused Russia of war crimes. I was quoting a badly worded headline.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

Jagartrott said:
Do any of you believe there's actually a 'good' side - Russia or West?
They're both engaging in murky business, so to me it seems pointless to, er, point fingers unless you're pointing them both ways. Discussions like this feel like a complete waste of time.

....nope !....its all relative is the best way to make a call...

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
python said:
un accuses unitited states of war crimes
http://sana.sy/en/?p=88920

headlines, headlines :surprised:

oh, and btw, 'annexation' is such a pretty word :twisted:

....yep most more much pretty :D ....was quite funny when the annexation of Texas was the example used to illustrate the definition ....Busted must have busted a blood vessel...."but but but that's not the history I believe" he was heard muttering as he stomped, Yosemite Sam like, around the room....thinking the whole time, if only I had a bomber, some bunker busters, and some co-ordinates I could bomb blutto into oblivion and finally stop that absolutely annoying noise, its driving me crazeeeeeee !!!!!!!....( and I mean all that allegoristical stuff in the good sense )....

Cheers

Ya know, hard for you to believe, but I don't lose much sleep over the 'conversations' that occur on this bicycle discussion forum. I don't get angry, upset because I don't really worry about winning or losing a 'debate' here. As they say, in the grand scheme of things, it's a section of a bicycle forum. I think discussing bicycles way more important, way more interesting, even with some from Denmark and Canada, among others...you could even ask me about some tech stuff about bikes or maybe military aviation...be glad to answer.

Cheers

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
python said:
un accuses unitited states of war crimes
http://sana.sy/en/?p=88920

headlines, headlines :surprised:

oh, and btw, 'annexation' is such a pretty word :twisted:

....yep most more much pretty :D ....was quite funny when the annexation of Texas was the example used to illustrate the definition ....Busted must have busted a blood vessel...."but but but that's not the history I believe" he was heard muttering as he stomped, Yosemite Sam like, around the room....thinking the whole time, if only I had a bomber, some bunker busters, and some co-ordinates I could bomb blutto into oblivion and finally stop that absolutely annoying noise, its driving me crazeeeeeee !!!!!!!....( and I mean all that allegoristical stuff in the good sense )....

Cheers

Ya know, hard for you to believe, but I don't lose much sleep over the 'conversations' that occur on this bicycle discussion forum. I don't get angry, upset because I don't really worry about winning or losing a 'debate' here. As they say, in the grand scheme of things, it's a section of a bicycle forum. I think discussing bicycles way more important, way more interesting, even with some from Denmark and Canada, among others...you could even ask me about some tech stuff about bikes or maybe military aviation...be glad to answer.

Cheers

Cheers

...well I've read enough of your bike related posting to say we are pretty definitely on the same page about bikes....and you would smoke me on the military aviation front....as for the other stuff its, uhhhh, debatable.... :D .....

Cheers

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
python said:
un accuses unitited states of war crimes
http://sana.sy/en/?p=88920

headlines, headlines :surprised:

oh, and btw, 'annexation' is such a pretty word :twisted:

....yep most more much pretty :D ....was quite funny when the annexation of Texas was the example used to illustrate the definition ....Busted must have busted a blood vessel...."but but but that's not the history I believe" he was heard muttering as he stomped, Yosemite Sam like, around the room....thinking the whole time, if only I had a bomber, some bunker busters, and some co-ordinates I could bomb blutto into oblivion and finally stop that absolutely annoying noise, its driving me crazeeeeeee !!!!!!!....( and I mean all that allegoristical stuff in the good sense )....

Cheers

Ya know, hard for you to believe, but I don't lose much sleep over the 'conversations' that occur on this bicycle discussion forum. I don't get angry, upset because I don't really worry about winning or losing a 'debate' here. As they say, in the grand scheme of things, it's a section of a bicycle forum. I think discussing bicycles way more important, way more interesting, even with some from Denmark and Canada, among others...you could even ask me about some tech stuff about bikes or maybe military aviation...be glad to answer.

Cheers

Cheers

...well I've read enough of your bike related posting to say we are pretty definitely on the same page about bikes....and you would smoke me on the military aviation front....as for the other stuff its, uhhhh, debatable.... :D .....

Cheers

Cheers

A military anachronim...WHOGAS and DILLIGAS. As for donnie, BOHICA. Or PWE
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
So I'm doing a little bit of "catch up". Who is it exactly that blew up or bombed this convoy? What are the reasons and which players have the most to gain?

Syria - I wonder if the President al-Assad knew from way back that the USA politics would effect him and his country the way it has.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....from an interview with a Al-Nusra commander....

Jürgen Todenhöfer: How is the relation between you and the United States? Does the U.S. support the rebels?

Abu al-Ezz: Yes, the U.S. support the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the "TOW" missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. Also the "BMs" - multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American "TOW" that we have the situation in some regions under control.

To whom did the U.S. hand those missiles before they were brought to you? Were those missiles first given to the Free Syrian Army by the U.S. and from there to you?

No, the missiles were give directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the "road" was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

What did those officers do?

Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras ...

Were there also American experts?

Yes, experts from several countries.

Including Americans?

Yes. The Americans are on our side, but not as it should be. For example we were told: We must capture and conquer "Battalion 47". Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the "al-Muslimiya" infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.

From the governments or from private persons?

From the governments.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/todenh%C3%B6fer-interview-with-al-nusra-commander-the-americans-stand-on-our-side.html

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
.....and this interesting wee development....

The Syrian intelligence possesses an audio recording of conversation between Daesh terrorists and US military prior to the Washington-led coalition's airstrikes on the government troops near Deir ez-Zor on September 17, the speaker of the People's Council of Syria said Monday.

"The Syrian Army intercepted a conversation between the Americans and Daesh before the air raid on Deir ez-Zor", Hadiya Khalaf Abbas said as quoted by the Al Mayadeen broadcaster.

US warplanes hit Syrian government troops near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor on September 17, leaving 62 military personnel killed and a hundred wounded. The Pentagon said initially that the airstrike was a mistake and targeted Daesh militants.

https://m.sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160926/1045706456/us-airstrike-daesh-army.html

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....more on the alliance btwn Merika and ISIL...here a look at some repercussions....

The attack on Deir Ezzor was a flagrant act of betrayal. For the first time in the five year-long war, US warplanes targeted an SAA military outpost killing 62 Syrian regulars. The surprise attacks — which lasted for the better part of an hour and were followed by a coordinated ground assault by members of ISIS– were intended to torpedo the fragile ceasefire agreement and send a message to Moscow that the US was prepared to achieve its strategic objectives in Syria whether it had to launch direct attacks on defenders of the regime or not.

The attacks–for which the Pentagon eventually accepted responsibility–were followed by a callous and thoroughly-unprofessional tirade by the administration’s chief diplomat at the United Nations, Samantha Power. Power dispelled any doubt that either she or anyone else in the Obama administration cared at all about the people who lost their lives in the bombing raid. She also made it clear that she didn’t care if the US had violated the terms of the ceasefire just two days before critical parts of the agreement were scheduled to be implemented.


Obama’s de facto rejection of the ceasefire has created the conditions for a decisive military defeat in Aleppo. The fate of the CIA-trained “moderate” terrorists hunkered down in East Aleppo is not that different from that of General George Armstrong Custer at the Little Bighorn who was surrounded by a superior military force and summarily slaughtered to the man. This is the option Pentagon warlord, Ash Carter chose when he decided to sabotage the joint military implementation agreement and go rogue. Carter opposed the ceasefire deal and in doing so signed the death warrant for hundreds of US-backed extremists who chances for survival are growing slimmer by the day.

....and the rest of the article is pretty damning as it maps out the duplicitous nature of Merikan Syrian strategy...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/27/putin-ups-the-ante-ceasefire-sabotage-triggers-major-offensive-in-aleppo/

Cheers
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
blutto said:
....from an interview with a Al-Nusra commander....

Jürgen Todenhöfer: How is the relation between you and the United States? Does the U.S. support the rebels?

Abu al-Ezz: Yes, the U.S. support the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the "TOW" missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. Also the "BMs" - multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American "TOW" that we have the situation in some regions under control.

To whom did the U.S. hand those missiles before they were brought to you? Were those missiles first given to the Free Syrian Army by the U.S. and from there to you?

No, the missiles were give directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the "road" was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

What did those officers do?

Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras ...

Were there also American experts?

Yes, experts from several countries.

Including Americans?

Yes. The Americans are on our side, but not as it should be. For example we were told: We must capture and conquer "Battalion 47". Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the "al-Muslimiya" infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.

From the governments or from private persons?

From the governments.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/todenh%C3%B6fer-interview-with-al-nusra-commander-the-americans-stand-on-our-side.html

Cheers

Looks like Russia decided to remedy the "experts situation" by deleting the CIC that Abu al-Ezz was talking about. Likely payback for the Deir Ezzor "mistake". I find it a bit terrifying that US and Russian forces are fighting opposite sides of a hot war. Not through proxies like we enjoyed throughout the Cold War, but directly. And now they're starting to shoot at one another.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-coalition-intelligence-operations-room-inside-syria-destroyed-by-russian-missile-attack-thirty-israeli-american-british-turkish-saudi-qatari-intelligence-officials-killed-report/5547099

John Swanson
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
blutto said:
....from an interview with a Al-Nusra commander....

Jürgen Todenhöfer: How is the relation between you and the United States? Does the U.S. support the rebels?

Abu al-Ezz: Yes, the U.S. support the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the "TOW" missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. Also the "BMs" - multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American "TOW" that we have the situation in some regions under control.

To whom did the U.S. hand those missiles before they were brought to you? Were those missiles first given to the Free Syrian Army by the U.S. and from there to you?

No, the missiles were give directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the "road" was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

What did those officers do?

Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras ...

Were there also American experts?

Yes, experts from several countries.

Including Americans?

Yes. The Americans are on our side, but not as it should be. For example we were told: We must capture and conquer "Battalion 47". Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the "al-Muslimiya" infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.

From the governments or from private persons?

From the governments.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/todenh%C3%B6fer-interview-with-al-nusra-commander-the-americans-stand-on-our-side.html

Cheers

Looks like Russia decided to remedy the "experts situation" by deleting the CIC that Abu al-Ezz was talking about. Likely payback for the Deir Ezzor "mistake". I find it a bit terrifying that US and Russian forces are fighting opposite sides of a hot war. Not through proxies like we enjoyed throughout the Cold War, but directly. And now they're starting to shoot at one another.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-coalition-intelligence-operations-room-inside-syria-destroyed-by-russian-missile-attack-thirty-israeli-american-british-turkish-saudi-qatari-intelligence-officials-killed-report/5547099

John Swanson

.....saw this yesterday....wasn't sure what to make of it....the site is fairly reliable, but the author somewhat less so....so I let it go.....yeah, most terrifying, and maybe that is why ultimately I walked away from it.....

....but upon further reflection it gets down to a punch line from a joke I heard a long time ago...."but, who can they tell ? "....soooo, SNAFU....and we have to continue to hold our breath....thru this fcuk up....and then the next one...and the one after that....

Cheers
 
ScienceIsCool said:
blutto said:
....from an interview with a Al-Nusra commander....

Jürgen Todenhöfer: How is the relation between you and the United States? Does the U.S. support the rebels?

Abu al-Ezz: Yes, the U.S. support the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the "TOW" missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. Also the "BMs" - multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American "TOW" that we have the situation in some regions under control.

To whom did the U.S. hand those missiles before they were brought to you? Were those missiles first given to the Free Syrian Army by the U.S. and from there to you?

No, the missiles were give directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the "road" was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

What did those officers do?

Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras ...

Were there also American experts?

Yes, experts from several countries.

Including Americans?

Yes. The Americans are on our side, but not as it should be. For example we were told: We must capture and conquer "Battalion 47". Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the "al-Muslimiya" infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.

From the governments or from private persons?

From the governments.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/todenh%C3%B6fer-interview-with-al-nusra-commander-the-americans-stand-on-our-side.html

Cheers

Looks like Russia decided to remedy the "experts situation" by deleting the CIC that Abu al-Ezz was talking about. Likely payback for the Deir Ezzor "mistake". I find it a bit terrifying that US and Russian forces are fighting opposite sides of a hot war. Not through proxies like we enjoyed throughout the Cold War, but directly. And now they're starting to shoot at one another.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-coalition-intelligence-operations-room-inside-syria-destroyed-by-russian-missile-attack-thirty-israeli-american-british-turkish-saudi-qatari-intelligence-officials-killed-report/5547099

John Swanson

Russia killing US and other, military members...first time, we'll see where this goes. Not really 'at one another', yet. The US striking Syrian forces not like Russia killing NATO military members.

But over a week ago and no real info...hard to believe Russia didn't know who was manning the center. Plus the intel center helping with info on Syria and Russia targeting ISIL...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.