I would rather deal with a rational Iran then an irrational Saudi or ISIS.RoyG wrote:He's not out of his mind. It's very rational. Would you rather have a developed and strategically minded enemy or a brute who can't think beyond the book?
“KRG forces appear to be spearheading a concerted campaign to forcibly displace Arab communities by destroying entire villages in areas they have recaptured from IS in northern Iraq. The forced displacement of civilians and the deliberate destruction of homes and property without military justification, may amount to war crimes,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s senior crisis response adviser, who carried out the field research in northern Iraq.
One of the villages mentioned in the report is Jalawla in the east of Diyala province, which has been largely destroyed, according to Amnesty. The accusations were denied by Jabbar Yawar, a spokesman for the Kurdish Peshmerga, who told the Washington Post that hundreds of families have been allowed to go back in the past two weeks.
“These are false accusations,” he said, blaming the fighting and booby traps set by IS militants for the extensive damage. “It’s normal for there to be destruction, and it was caused by Daesh,” he said, using an Arabic pejorative acronym for the terrorist group.
Britain-based activist group says the Islamic State has set free
British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon says he is “disturbed” by civilian casualties from Russian airstrikes in Syria, claiming they are helping the Bashar Assad regime by killing moderate fighters.
Fallon made his comments on Wednesday ahead of a meeting of national defense ministers in Paris to assess the coalition campaign in Syria and Iraq.
"I am increasingly disturbed by Russian bombing," Fallon told Reuters.
"The casualty total keeps climbing. We have estimates of several hundred civilians killed through the use of unguided munitions on civilian areas and opposition groups fighting [Syrian President Bashar] Assad.”
He said that the Russian bombing was helping to strengthen Assad’s grip on power.
"That I deplore. Propping up the Assad regime is simply prolonging the agony. On the contrary, Russia should be using its influence to make it clear that Assad has no future in Syria," Fallon said.
The UK government has talked down civilian casualties caused by its own bombing in the two Middle Eastern countries.
Security scholar Professor Paul Rogers from Bradford University recently contested claims put ahead of the December 2015 parliamentary vote on extending airstrikes into Syria that British bombs are particularly precise.
Speaking on the impact of British strikes, Rogers suggested government statements on civilian casualties contradicted claims about insurgent deaths.
Fallon told the Commons in 2015 that around 330 jihadists had been killed by UK strikes, but no non-combatants.
“At first sight, it is a clear answer,” Rogers wrote on the Open Democracy website. “But a moment’s thought points to the contradiction.
“The UK government can only give an approximate figure for the number of people killed, yet is convinced that none of those killed were civilians.”
He pointed to the work of the Airwars NGO which corroborates the tally of civilians killed by airstrikes using independent media reports.
“This attitude, of denial of what is euphemistically termed ‘collateral damage’ has now become much more entrenched as independent evidence has emerged of numerous civilian casualties,” Rogers added.
Peshmerga have clarified on this. They were clearing houses from ISIS liberated zones. Too many houses were IED rigged and it was taking too much time plus they faced difficulty in diffusing all IEDs in each house. Hence, IEDs were exploded. This caused some demolition. Some other demolition was because the people in those houses had collaborated with the ISIS.Austin wrote:Kurds use bulldozers to ‘de-Arabize’ lands captured from ISIS – Amnesty
“KRG forces appear to be spearheading a concerted campaign to forcibly displace Arab communities by destroying entire villages in areas they have recaptured from IS in northern Iraq. The forced displacement of civilians and the deliberate destruction of homes and property without military justification, may amount to war crimes,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s senior crisis response adviser, who carried out the field research in northern Iraq.
One of the villages mentioned in the report is Jalawla in the east of Diyala province, which has been largely destroyed, according to Amnesty. The accusations were denied by Jabbar Yawar, a spokesman for the Kurdish Peshmerga, who told the Washington Post that hundreds of families have been allowed to go back in the past two weeks.
“These are false accusations,” he said, blaming the fighting and booby traps set by IS militants for the extensive damage. “It’s normal for there to be destruction, and it was caused by Daesh,” he said, using an Arabic pejorative acronym for the terrorist group.
Dr Partizan
@DrPartizan_
Peshmerga try to defuse IEDs where possible, if not it is demolished. Also TARGETED attack on ISIS supporters.
Haidar Sumeri @IraqiSecurity now15 minutes ago
Reports that #US troops have taken control of Rmeilan airfield in Hasakah, northeastern #Syria. To support SDF.
Haidar Sumeri @IraqiSecurity now6 minutes ago
Haidar Sumeri Retweeted Haidar Sumeri
#US setting up a base in northeastern #Syria and rumours that #Turkey might invade. The war just gets messier...
How can you tell? Uniform looks identical, down to the shoes, with the Iranian/SAAgen issam zahreddine inspecting daesh corpse
even indian SF units have taken to growing beards, cloth banadanas and M4 special editions. "je suis americaine" 
So the Turkish Newspaper Hurriyet was accurately reporting that it was ISIS using Katyusha rockets on the school attacking civilians. That is interesting.Another method used by the militants is provocative shelling. Again Igor Konashenkov: “Not being able to stop the government forces’ advance, terrorists are more and more often shelling populated areas using mortars and artillery, in order to place the blame on Syrian government forces.” It’s enough to recall the recent shelling of a school in Turkey’s border area…
The protracted Syrian conflict is destined to be a source of renewed friction between Turkey and Russia after a recent report suggests that Russia has deployed nearly 100 troops and military advisers in the northern Syrian town of Qamishli, located near the Turkish border -- a development that is bound to cause tension ahead of the Syria peace talks in Geneva.
Based on information from local sources, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) claimed that Russia sent a team of military technicians and experts along with troops to examine the airfield and other facilities in the town for the possible further deployment of Russian forces.The move to deploy military personnel in Qamishli, which is currently under the control of the Syrian regime and the Democratic Union Party (PYD), is likely to cause tension with Turkey, which has grown wary of outside powers' increasing cooperation with the PYD and its armed wing of Syrian Kurdish militia the People's Protection Units (YPG).The deployment comes during a continuing row between Turkey and Russia after the Turkish air force shot down a Russian jet it claimed violated its airspace late last November.The plane's downing sparked a crisis, prompting Russia to deploy its cutting-edge air defense systems, S-400s, to an air base near Latakia, very close to the Turkish border. Russia warned that it would respond to any threat to its aircraft, and Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the country's commanders to act swiftly if Turkish jets violate Syrian airspace.
Apart from reinforcing Bashar al-Assad's regime with air strikes, Russia's relationship with the YPG has also come under close scrutiny from Turkish authorities.Days before peace talks in Geneva, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu accused Russia as well as others of trying to undermine negotiations for a solution to the Syrian conflict by including groups such as the YPG.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Davutoğlu said "terrorist groups" must not be represented at talks in Geneva, referring to the YPG, which Ankara views as a Syrian offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Turkey, the US and the EU have designated the PKK a terrorist organization. While Ankara sees no difference between the YPG and the PKK, Turkey's NATO allies distinguish between them, treating the former as a reliable ally in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria.On Wednesday Turkish media reported that a top Russian official was set to visit Turkey to attend a meeting of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) in İstanbul on Friday, a sign that points to de-escalation and even a gradual thaw in relations.But later Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vassily Nebenzia's visit was canceled, reportedly for reasons of health. The visit would have been the first high-level visit since relations deteriorated after Turkey shot down a Russian jet last November. Nebenzia was expected to meet with Turkish officials during his visit.“Russia has significantly decreased Turkey's maneuvering capability in Syria. This will continue,” he said, referring to Turkey's downing of jet and Russia's subsequent deployment of S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.By closely engaging with Kurdish militia in the north near the Turkish border, Hüseyin Bağcı, a professor of international relations at Middle East Technical University (ODTÜ) and an expert on regional affairs, thinks that Russia's latest move in Syria means that it is “here to stay.”He drew parallels between Russia's latest activities and the Soviet conduct back in the 1970s when Soviets used its military aid as a pretext to establish a foothold in a client state.“Turkey is throwing the dice, Russia is playing chess,” he said, referring to their respective roles in Syria. “A person who throws a dice cannot be certain of its outcome. However, a chess player thinks four, maybe five moves ahead and plays accordingly.”
Noting that Turkey's spat with Russia and its position in Syria mean further ostracization in the region for the country, Bağcı said: “The West has lifted sanctions against Iran and relations are thawing. Russia is trying to gain an upper hand in the outcome of the Syrian conflict. Turkey will be singled out by these countries, it will become more ostracized.”
The former Turkish foreign minister said Russia and the US have mostly agreed on which factions in Syria are to be labeled as terrorist organizations and which are to be classified as moderate rebels.
“Turkey's own classification greatly differs from the list Russia and the US are compiling,” he said, adding, “For example, Jabhat al-Nusra, a group that in the past Turkey is reported to have had dealings with, will most probably be classified as a terrorist group within Syria.”
He continued, “Also, Russia and the US have told Turkey several times that they will work with the YPG, because they [US] want people on the ground fighting ISIL. Turkey has expressed its objections on this matter, but nothing has changed.”Yakış noted that he warned the government several times since the second half of 2011 about the need to change its Syria policy, but to no avail.
Referring to the meeting in Paris of the defense ministers of countries in the coalition against ISIL, Yakış said that Turkey had not been invited, which shows how the West and Europe view Turkey.
No I would not correct my perception for it is still correct. NATO and Ukraine was not about to take over Crimea. That is just your fear talking and no historical, geographical, or a rudimentary understanding of events basis to it whatsoever. NATO and Ukraine had no means of doing so. Ukraine did not have the capability nor it need to take over Crimea by force. All it needed to do was cut off the supply lines to Crimea, a fact that Putin only belatedly realized. To make Crimea work, Putin would have to establish another connection to Crimea this time from Novorossiysk region but then Russia already has a port in Novorossiysk and any money spent on establishing a landlink to Crimea would be better spent on Novorossiysk. Putin could have negotiated for a longer lease such as 99 year lease with Ukraine and still retain Ukraine as a friendly neighbor while using its strategic gas link and Ukraine's outstanding debts to Russia as the proverbial stick and could have gotten what he wanted. And then he could have planted an insurgency or anti Ukraine movement within Crimea and have that movement agitated for separation from Ukraine and Ukraine would be hard pressed.habal wrote:ukraine was about to blockade sevastopol by a mix of US, NATO & Ukbapzi forces taking over. It would have rendered Crimea unusable and Syrian war unwinnable. So kindly correct your perception about Crimea and Sevastopol because that perception has been shaped by western media whose malafide intent was to confuse, misdirect western perception over the Syrian war of whom ukraine was a key supporting pillar.Hitesh wrote:Russia needs the Black sea port because it saves them enormous time and energy in getting around the northern arctic landmass to south of Europe and Africa. Taking control of Crimea was essential to Russia's security and the western world should have known the strategic importance of Sevastopol to Russia. But Putin also made a strategic mistake in taking Crimea too early. He made a long lasting enemy out of Ukraine right on his borders. Even though the western world mishandled the Ukraine conflict badly, Putin mismanaged it far worse. His losses outweighs any gains he made during that conflict and it will last for a long long time.
I don't know. best to read RU Today and get their explanation, eh?UlanBatori wrote:Something to please TSJ
I hope they use the A-10s against the ISIS/ retreat/resupply routes through Turkey.
I am not talking about Putin's miscalculation of Ukraine's desire for economic ties to Europe. I am talking about the miscalculation he made in which that he could have Crimea for little cost by using force. He paid a very huge cost. He turned Ukraine into a hostile neighbor and any brotherly feeling between them is now gone, only to be replaced by long lasting animosity and hostility by Ukrainians towards Russians. Now he has to watch his southern flank right on its border instead of using Ukraine as an useful strategic buffer. Russia's hold on Crimea is still gingerly tenable because there is no direct landlink between Russia and Crimea and all infrastructure support still runs through Ukraine and has to rely on expensive methods of resupply and support by sea. To build a direct landlink means that the costs of doing so would equal the cost of building up Novorussiyk's naval base which would be far better than what was at Sevastopol. He could have gotten Crimea for little gain had he been more patience and more cunning. Blunt force was not necessary on Russia's part. By not taking over Crimea and allowing the anti western Ukraine movement to fully develop and nurturing it to a full blown insurgency in Kharkiv and Dnepropetrovsk, Putin could have actually separated Ukraine in half without using any Russian forces and once that movement does that, he could have gotten Crimea for a dime and Putin and Russia would be able to maintain plausible deniability.TSJones wrote:evidently the hero of eastern Ukraine re-acquisition has sadly passed away........Hitesh wrote:Russia needs the Black sea port because it saves them enormous time and energy in getting around the northern arctic landmass to south of Europe and Africa. Taking control of Crimea was essential to Russia's security and the western world should have known the strategic importance of Sevastopol to Russia. But Putin also made a strategic mistake in taking Crimea too early. He made a long lasting enemy out of Ukraine right on his borders. Even though the western world mishandled the Ukraine conflict badly, Putin mismanaged it far worse. His losses outweighs any gains he made during that conflict and it will last for a long long time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world ... .html?_r=0
it does not make any difference that Putin may have miscalculated the Ukraine desire for economic ties to Europe instead of the kleptocracy of Russia. The invasion of the Ukraine was a very popular thing to the Russian public and its supporters around the world including this forum. It showed to the west and the US in particular that Russia is strong and not weak. It is important to be strong, da?
another Russian general recently passed away also. Putin may be clearing up some problems. So, no damage to Putin who is a strong masculine guy, not weak like Supreme Pigeon who fires generals who then become commentators for Fox News and have the nerve to be disgustingly healthy and long lived.
