In the first version of this thread I was posting how US and UK were financing FSA and engineering regime change in Syria. How there were no `moderate rebels`.
And how Syrian Observatory for human rights was a one man show working from coventry.
And here after some years we are.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 18 Dec 2016 16:12
by IndraD
Bag daddy still in Iraq - Iraqi intelligence
We believe he is now in Biaj, west of Mosul, hiding in an underground bunker. He changes his location all the time, and he also changes his appearance," said Barwari, adding that as Baghdadi was detained by Iraqi authorities ten years ago Iraqi forces "have enough information to track him
According to official statements by the US department of defence, Baghdadi was detained at the notorious Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca in 2004 for a number of months before he was released having been deemed a "low-level [risk] prisoner".
A number of other high-ranking IS officials were interred at Camp Bucca which has been called the "birthplace" of IS.
More than 100,000 men are estimated to have passed through the camp between 2003 and 2009
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 18 Dec 2016 17:16
by Farooq
Bhurishravas wrote:In the first version of this thread I was posting how US and UK were financing FSA and engineering regime change in Syria. How there were no `moderate rebels`.
And how Syrian Observatory for human rights was a one man show working from coventry.
And here after some years we are.
I am not sure what you are getting at mate but if quoting only a particular type of tweets is an issue than well, there are other sources to either back that up or dispel the myth. Right? You may post your versions. No one is stopping that.
Syria was / is >75% Sunni. The Sunni population has a division - Urban and Rural. That much is certain. Most SAA recruitment was from Sunni population, even that much is certain.
If however, one is not inclined to view SAA as the pro regime tweeples say SAA or Tiger forces are, then there is this link which is at complete odds. But this could well be an American propaganda. Who would you believe and why should I believe this narrative and not the alternative? http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/the-de ... you-think/
SAS troops will be out on streets in UK for Christmas & new year eve after warning that 100s of IS fighters have returned back.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 18 Dec 2016 21:23
by IndraD
Both Singapore & Malayasia are tightening borders at the prospect of IS entering and disappearing into their countries. Both had meetings recently after heat is turned on IS in Mosul & Aleppo.
Bhurishravas - I have an idea, why don't you and TSJones start an "American success thread" where you and other like-minded gora lovers can celebrate and salivate over every Russian, Syrian and Iranian killed by the heroic freedom loving rebels of Syria and Iraq. Don't forget to celebrate Indian deaths in Azad Kashmir while you're at it. You might as well be consistent.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 01:41
by Bheeshma
No need to celebrate anybody's death.But I don't see the need to identify with hezbollah, IRGC or other assorted sectarian militias either. They are not our allies and frankly we have no common interests with them. They are religious fanatics of a different sect of religion of piece and if they all keep fighting each other good for the rest of the sane world. Russia should have simply armed and provided support to SAA instead of putting their soldiers life at risk.Indian interests both economic and military are more with GCC than any levantine "arabs".
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 02:41
by Bhurishravas
Y. Kanan wrote:Bhurishravas - I have an idea, why don't you and TSJones start an "American success thread" where you and other like-minded gora lovers can celebrate and salivate over every Russian, Syrian and Iranian killed by the heroic freedom loving rebels of Syria and Iraq. Don't forget to celebrate Indian deaths in Azad Kashmir while you're at it. You might as well be consistent.
I have a better idea. Why not start a `stupid posts thread`.
You will score faster than Kohli.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 04:24
by dnivas
Can we just ban this dunce and get it over with. All he does is crib . He does not want to believe tweiiter accounts that Habal and Singha have been quoting for more than a few years now. What those accounts have been "claiming" is now fact
His beloved NYT, Wapo, BBC have been discredited since 2001. They are being discredited on a daily basis and yet he persist with his snide remarks
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 07:53
by UlanBatori
Allo dnivasji:
Pls kindly do not deny us our meager daily entertainment, hain?
That "stupid posts thread" is a fabulous idea. I need to increase my post count too.
The now vanished white helmets and bana alabed must have been their creations. For a city at war they sure had slick social media trolls. Advise on how to use limited resources to make hell cannons and propane gas ammo etc could be part of skills portfolio.
I guess they got trapped when tigers suddenly took mallah farms
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 08:11
by Bheeshma
Why ban people for posting something others don't agree with Then all the chinese 50 cent-er'swill have to be banned too.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 08:19
by habal
Just because a Saudi national has been caught, doesn't mean he is not passing on information to nato. Saudis can easily speak in arabic and converse in english with nato handlers. They can also work on behalf of sas or do air intelligence spotter type work while seemingly integrated into rebel ranks. The forces bombing aleppo & DeZ have always been nato. Sometimes they say belgium bombed, then australia, sometimes they say dutch warplanes bombed. So basically illegal bombing runs were carried out by nato.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 08:24
by habal
Bheeshma wrote:No need to celebrate anybody's death.But I don't see the need to identify with hezbollah, IRGC or other assorted sectarian militias either. They are not our allies and frankly we have no common interests with them. They are religious fanatics of a different sect of religion of piece and if they all keep fighting each other good for the rest of the sane world. Russia should have simply armed and provided support to SAA instead of putting their soldiers life at risk.Indian interests both economic and military are more with GCC than any levantine "arabs".
In wars, there is no just or unjust, only those who win. And allies of convenience are imperative for winning wars. It is very indic nowadays to view world in black & white, basically we have no option but to work with what we got at hand and move ahead from there. When syrian arab regime made friends with disparate groups of allies, they started winning. When they were alone and by themselves, they were losing.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 08:27
by habal
In a future war with pakistan, we may ally with TTP, BLA, SLA, it doesn't mean they are all good people. It just means they are on our side in that cause. Krishna had no qualms of seeking mayasura's help when it came to building hideout for pandavas.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 08:50
by Y. Kanan
But is it not logical to conclude, that for the foreseeable future, the Russian-led "Shia bloc" is our ally of convenience? Is it not also true that the "Shia bloc" for lack of a better term is more secular or modern in their worldview? Note the support the Russians/Syrian gov.t have been getting from the Egyptian govt and generally enjoying from moderates in the Arab world, while the US/GCC bloc is all Wahabbi/Salafi types -the same ideology at war with us for the last 40+ years.So why should any patriotic Indian root for that side? I have no problems with muslims killing muslims but why pick the "badder" muslims over the "less bad" ones? Some on this forum seem all too eager to swallow the US narrative which even their own citizens don't believe anymore. Fascinating.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 08:59
by habal
apparently CNN 'doesn't know' who burned them buses.
what CNN knows is that buses were burnt in territory with 'strong al-qaeda presence'. Maybe the buddhists or myanmarese then who did it.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 09:03
by krisna
truth about western media and their govts. no ifs buts or whatever. as clear as daylight unless one is blind.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 09:15
by Singha
Unknown "residents" burned the buses shouting death to the shia pigs. Fsa has "condemned" aur kari ninda ki hai this incident
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 09:22
by UlanBatori
Singha wrote:Unknown "residents" burned the buses shouting death to the shia pigs. Fsa has "condemned" aur kari ninda ki hai this incident
Spontaneous Combustion a la Godhra.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:01
by Bheeshma
habal wrote:In a future war with pakistan, we may ally with TTP, BLA, SLA, it doesn't mean they are all good people. It just means they are on our side in that cause. Krishna had no qualms of seeking mayasura's help when it came to building hideout for pandavas.
Except hezbollah and IRGC are not allies of convenience for syria. They literally depend on them. IA will certainly not ally with TTP or any other garbage. BLA and SLA are freedom fighters and not religious islamic terrorists so lets not put them with TTP.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:35
by Austin
habal wrote:apparently CNN 'doesn't know' who burned them buses.
what CNN knows is that buses were burnt in territory with 'strong al-qaeda presence'. Maybe the buddhists or myanmarese then who did it.
Yes I saw the CNN Narrative of the incident very funny indeed
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:42
by habal
Bheeshma wrote:
habal wrote:In a future war with pakistan, we may ally with TTP, BLA, SLA, it doesn't mean they are all good people. It just means they are on our side in that cause. Krishna had no qualms of seeking mayasura's help when it came to building hideout for pandavas.
Except hezbollah and IRGC are not allies of convenience for syria. They literally depend on them. IA will certainly not ally with TTP or any other garbage. BLA and SLA are freedom fighters and not religious islamic terrorists so lets not put them with TTP.
As I said, in a war you are not at liberty to choose your allies. You have to make do with what you get.
TTP comes in enemy of the enemy 'maybe' my best friend category. TTP plays foosball with paki head, and repays them in same coin what we should have been doing in first place, but we do not do because we hire smart young kids from middle class families with dharmic values who lead boys into battle and do what is courageous and what is right.
SAA does similar things in Syria. It hired smart young kids from liberal families who didn't have any malice for Sunnis or any particular sect in special. They were 'core soldiers' and did the proper soldier thing and went to battle in neat formations and followed orders of their commanders. To their misfortune their enemies who had the resources to study battle formations and weak links in conventional battle plans in dedicated 'war colleges' and 'state universities' and 'think tanks' had studied in depth these formations and basically wrote books on modern war formations which was the basis for modern armies and exploited the weak links to the fullest. When hezbollah came into picture they did not follow any conventional battle plans and did what they understood from experience, that was the first blow for the state sponsors of terror. From there, it was downhill.
So if you think conventional armies can successfully deter unconventional wars. Kindly think again and keep revising methodologies because enemy is not static.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:42
by abhik
Our interests lie neither with the Shia nor the Sunni block, it lies in keeping both fighting against each other. Best case scenario for us will be the battlefield shifting from the Shia areas (Iraq and Syria) to the GCC and Turkey.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:47
by Bheeshma
GCC area has 1 million plus Indians. So no it is not good for us. Now if it shifts to Saudi Jordan and turkey its a different matter.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:51
by habal
we are not running towards any alliance with shia block sire. We are studying these phenomenon on brf think tank.
In war there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
case in point, saudi relations with USA and saudi relations with pakistan.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:54
by habal
Yusha Yuseef@MIG29_
Clashes between Nusra Front and Ahrar Al-Sham terrorist groups in the vicinity of Foua & Kefraya lead to burning five of the buses
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 10:59
by habal
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 11:00
by Rammpal
habal wrote:
So if you think conventional armies can successfully deter unconventional wars. Kindly think again and keep revising methodologies because enemy is not static.
Post Mahabharata, does such a concept even, exist, i.e.: conventional vs unconventional war ?
Align war strategies in keeping with evolving technologies, a definite yes!
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 11:03
by habal
What is not mentioned is they are also trained in communications and eavesdropping and secure data transfers and come back to syria with expensive secure communication equipment provided by nato.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 11:13
by habal
peacefool protestors in Idlib claiming bus caught fire by itself.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 11:16
by habal
if true above actions wrt to erdogan ji makes sense.
Uncomfirmed report that Turkey ordered the burning of the buses