The Levant crisis.(Israel,SYRIA,Lebanon,etc)

[Singha]

>>800 Saudi soldiers

this is a hopeful sign though, given their performance in yemen. but could be a vehicle to launder IS cadre into pro-turkey militia.

[Philip]

Amazing how the Yanquis can't bomb straight after starting so many wars!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 64271.html

Twenty-six civilians in Syria have been killed in airstrikes believed to be conducted by the US-led coalition against the so-called Islamic State.

The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights has accused the coalition of killing seven children and four women, with 17 people unaccounted for.

Rami Abdel Rahman, founder of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told the Guardian that Isis is only in control of the outskirts of Al-Khan, “which is why all of the deaths were civilians.”

A US Central Command spokesman said that the military would investigate the allegations.

“We take all such allegations seriously and conduct credibility assessments of all information we receive regarding civilian casualties. If the information is deemed credible we will investigate and publicly release the results of the investigation,” the spokesman told the Guardian on Monday.

The coalition began carrying out airstrikes in September 2014 in the ongoing fight against Isis militants

[Y. Kanan]

Somewhat relevant:

Why US-trained militaries always fail
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... fight.html

[Singha]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/464747301200 ... show-clips

IS using large flight simulators to train in libya

[member_29004]

Having USSR as neighbors is a greater threat! It was imperative for India that USSR didnt have a presence in South Asia. We should have dealt with Pakistan, but thats another matter

I disagree. USSR would have withdrawn from Asthan sooner than later. And if Pakistan didn't exist, then India's influence would have extended upto Asthan. USSR was already stretched thin and was on the verge of implosion. Occupying Asthan stretched them too thin.

Nope, I disagree point going down this line. We didnt want USSR in our neighbourhood, or USA. It will only come at our cost, our influence. Its another matter that we didnt finish of Pakistan, that is our fault! You want to succeed, do it yourself, you want to be in the big boys table, do stuff big boys do.

[Lalmohan]

i think that our freedom to deal with pakistan once and for all was simply not there. none of the three superpowers (even the one we had a treaty with) wanted that to happen

[johneeG]

Nope, I disagree point going down this line. We didnt want USSR in our neighbourhood, or USA. It will only come at our cost, our influence. Its another matter that we didnt finish of Pakistan, that is our fault! You want to succeed, do it yourself, you want to be in the big boys table, do stuff big boys do.

- USSR or US being in the vicinity was not in India's control. It is better to use their presence rather than talk about ideal conditions.
USSR was anyway in Asthan for 10 years. We could as well have used that presence to finish off Pakistan.
- Many of the big boys have risen to the high table by allying with countries on the basis of common interests. US, UK & USSR together fought the Germans in WW2.

i think that our freedom to deal with pakistan once and for all was simply not there. none of the three superpowers (even the one we had a treaty with) wanted that to happen

I agree. Why would any of them want Pakistan to be finished and free up Bhaarath? I think USSR may have been open to finishing off Pakistan in the period of 1980-1990 when they were on the receiving end of the proxy-war from Pakistan. And USSR did help in 1971. Amirkhan will never agree to it because they literally keep Pakistan alive. But, in 1971, they showed that they are not willing to fight for Pakistan.

[Lalmohan]

they were happy for china to do the fighting - there was no specific causus belli against india

[johneeG]

Interestingly, China never stood up for Pakistan during the wars as far as I know. In 1971, China actually refused to open a second front. And Pakistan didn't support China in 1962. Amirkhan came to Pakistan's help time and again in 1965 and 1971.

[rsingh]

JohneeG: In 1980 India was a few senate votes away from having the US send B-52s etc. Let's not waste time on unrealities. Same with Kashmir 1948. India did not have the capability to wage a war that needed ammunition and spare parts and most of all... OIL. Still does not.

Blease to elaborate. salam

[shiv]

i think that our freedom to deal with pakistan once and for all was simply not there. none of the three superpowers (even the one we had a treaty with) wanted that to happen

IIRC the first direct nuclear threat conveyed to India by Pakistan was during Op Brasstacks. I believe the first nuclear test for Pakistan was in Lop Nor in 1986. The US knew all this and was pretty happy with the info. That apart the operation was followed by US Intel and information supplied to Pakistan. The only other serious military action we took vis a vis Pakistan in the 1980s was occupying Siachen.

The CIA was sitting in Pakistan in the 1980s printing textbooks for the Taliban like "If Abdul used 2 bullets to kill one Russian, how many Russians can he kill with 30 bullets"

The chances of India "attacking Pakistan" in the 80s and getting the Soviets to do that from the other side was clearly not thought to be viable in the 1980s. We sit here 30 years later and think about how my aunt might have been my uncle if only.. This appears to be another wet dream like "Taking out Paki nukes with Israeli assistance"

What I find notable about these stories is how we never think we could have done anything on our own. It is always with Russian help or Israeli help - as if their interests coincide exactly. They don't. They never did. We will always have to do our stuff on our own.

[habal]

pathetic & disgusting behaviour of US & NATO in bombing SAA base in deir-ez-zor exposed.

DAYR EL-ZOR: You have all heard the news about the American air strike on the 137th Artillery Brigade stationed at a Desert Forces Base between ‘Ayyaash and Al-Baaghiliyya. You may have also heard about the American attempt to blame the malicious attack on the Russian Air Force which even the Syrian Army has described as a pure lie. The fact of the matter is that ISIS was planning an attack on the base after its dismal concatenation of failures at the Dayr El-Zor AB. ISIS needed some new triumph in order to raise the sagging morale of its rank-and-file…..and the U.S. agreed. The coordination was completed with the help of the Turkish military which continued to maintain contact with the terrorist rat organization. And such a plan like this had to have the approval of the biggest rat of them all in the White House. But the plan failed miserably.

As the ISIS main force was seen taking position across the Euphrates at a ford where the river’s level was low enough to permit four-wheel vehicles to cross, albeit with some difficulty, SAA spotters noticed the presence of many rubber dinghies and other small vessels useable for crossing a body of water. The SAA opened fire as soon as the trucks started to collect. SAA-MI heard chatter on terrorist telephone demanding some intervention to prevent a slaughter of their ranks, and, abra-cadabra, the U.S. sent in bombers to target the artillery laying waste to the ISIS rodents. Photos of the damage can be seen in the article I posted below from Fortruss.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/12/us ... n-saa.html

In any case, this was typical of the inept Turk planning which envisioned an ISIS presence on the north edge of the provincial capital. The number of dead ISIS vermin exceeds 30 with many wounded seen being spirited out of the area in pickups. The SAA did not stop firing ordnance until the rats were out of range.

The treacherous American attack killed 4 Syrian soldiers and wounded over 13.

ISIS air force is suitable moniker for USAF thus.


Read more at http://syrianperspective.com/2015/12/sy ... umvoTDu.99

[Lalmohan]

In 1971, China actually refused to open a second front.

not quite, our cunning baniya kashmiri woman formerly married to a parsee and her parsee jarnail came up with the december window when the passes of the high himalaya would be snow bound and the red army would be thwarted by the ice gods and held in check

damn cunning these yindoos... er parsees... er sardars... er... yahudis... er

[johneeG]

i think that our freedom to deal with pakistan once and for all was simply not there. none of the three superpowers (even the one we had a treaty with) wanted that to happen

IIRC the first direct nuclear threat conveyed to India by Pakistan was during Op Brasstacks. I believe the first nuclear test for Pakistan was in Lop Nor in 1986. The US knew all this and was pretty happy with the info. That apart the operation was followed by US Intel and information supplied to Pakistan. The only other serious military action we took vis a vis Pakistan in the 1980s was occupying Siachen.

The CIA was sitting in Pakistan in the 1980s printing textbooks for the Taliban like "If Abdul used 2 bullets to kill one Russian, how many Russians can he kill with 30 bullets"

The chances of India "attacking Pakistan" in the 80s and getting the Soviets to do that from the other side was clearly not thought to be viable in the 1980s. We sit here 30 years later and think about how my aunt might have been my uncle if only.. This appears to be another wet dream like "Taking out Paki nukes with Israeli assistance"

What I find notable about these stories is how we never think we could have done anything on our own. It is always with Russian help or Israeli help - as if their interests coincide exactly. They don't. They never did. We will always have to do our stuff on our own.

- Basically, you are saying, "If our leaders didn't do it, then that must be the right thing not to do." Leaders were or are not infallible.
- Nuclear threat: in 1980s there was no credible nuclear threat unlike Kargil when there was a clear nuclear threat. If Nuclear threat was such a big issue in 1980s, then why did India occupy Siachin? Wouldn't occupying Siachin lead to a nuclear war, hain? Why didn't Pakistan start a full-fledged war when India occupied Siachin? Why did Pakistan start cricket diplomacy? Well, Pakistanis know that their goose will be cooked if there is war on the east also when they are already engaged in the west.
- We have to work with countries when our interests coincide. Pakistan was conducting proxy-war against USSR in Asthan and India in Punjab. It makes sense to co-operate against common enemy.

Alright, forget USSR and everyone else, why didn't India finish off Pakistani state till 2015? Either do it alone or co-operate with somebody and do it. As long as its done, it doesn't matter how its done. Meanwhile, Pakistan has been waging a proxy-war against India from 1980s using insurgency, fake-currency, drugs and jihadhi terrorism. They are waging a proxy-war because they lost an overt war. They are doing a common-sense thing. It was a well-thought out plan of thousand cuts which continues to this day. India has not punished Pakistan for this proxy-war, so there is no reason for Pakistan to stop proxy-war. The threat of open war was made in Operation Brasstacks and Operation Parakram. But, it was never carried out by India. It almost seems as if Indian leaders are afraid to contemplate of a world without Pakistani state.

In 1971, China actually refused to open a second front.

not quite, our cunning baniya kashmiri woman formerly married to a parsee and her parsee jarnail came up with the december window when the passes of the high himalaya would be snow bound and the red army would be thwarted by the ice gods and held in check

damn cunning these yindoos... er parsees... er sardars... er... yahudis... er

Saar,
China could have used Myanmar route. They could have given air-support. They could have provided naval support. Mind you, this offer was made from US to China. At that time, China could have helped Pakistan or atleast pretended to help Pakistan to get into the good books of US. But, China didn't do any such thing. If there is will, there is way. Its just that China was not interested in protecting Pakistan. Simple.

US formally recognized China in 1979. Yet, in 1971, US was willing to work with China to protect East-Pakistan. That is pragmatism, real-politik and support to an ally. I can now see why US is the super-power. On the other hand, we have India and USSR who were already military allies but they didn't work together in 1980s even while both of them were facing proxy-war from the same Pakistan. No wonder USSR disintegrated.

In 1971, USSR and India work together and result is victory. In 1980s, Pakistan and US work together and result is victory.

[Lalmohan]

well, the US and China did arrange for a lot of weapons shipments to Pak... and i think the route through burma, etc. would have been too major an escalation, where as just putting pressure on our forward posts on the ground in the mountains would have been enough. i don't think they had sufficient strategic air capability to seriously threaten us then

[member_29004]

Nope, I disagree point going down this line. We didnt want USSR in our neighbourhood, or USA. It will only come at our cost, our influence. Its another matter that we didnt finish of Pakistan, that is our fault! You want to succeed, do it yourself, you want to be in the big boys table, do stuff big boys do.

- USSR or US being in the vicinity was not in India's control. It is better to use their presence rather than talk about ideal conditions.
USSR was anyway in Asthan for 10 years. We could as well have used that presence to finish off Pakistan.
- Many of the big boys have risen to the high table by allying with countries on the basis of common interests. US, UK & USSR together fought the Germans in WW2.

.

Look at the relative decline of UK and France, when it let USA into its sphere's of influence. Also, look at the bases UK had to give up for getting help from USA in WW2 in America's.

We shouldnt let anybody enter South Asia, and We should finish of Pakistan without their help.

[johneeG]

Look at the relative decline of UK and France, when it let USA into its sphere's of influence. Also, look at the bases UK had to give up for getting help from USA in WW2 in America's.

We shouldnt let anybody enter South Asia, and We should finish of Pakistan without their help.

That would be true if India were the only regional power in South Asia. As long as, Pakistan exists and is able to challenge India, this argument won't apply. And Pakistan will be propped by some country as a counter-balance to India.

Anyway, India has not been able to stop US or USSR from coming into South Asia, certainly not in 1980s. We can't even finish off Pakistan and talk about not letting in US or USSR into 'our' sphere of influence! It is not ours unless its in our possession. I think we should crawl first before walking. Cold war started after world war 2, not before. US didn't stop co-operating with USSR thinking about possibility of cold war.

If we can do the job alone, why didn't we do it till now? Anyway, it doesn't hurt to have a little help in any work. The whole point is that USSR and India needed each other's help in 1980-1990 because evidently they couldn't achieve their respective objectives alone.

[member_29004]

Interestingly, China never stood up for Pakistan during the wars as far as I know. In 1971, China actually refused to open a second front. And Pakistan didn't support China in 1962. Amirkhan came to Pakistan's help time and again in 1965 and 1971.

China couldnt open a second front! Not that it didnt want

[member_29004]

Look at the relative decline of UK and France, when it let USA into its sphere's of influence. Also, look at the bases UK had to give up for getting help from USA in WW2 in America's.

We shouldnt let anybody enter South Asia, and We should finish of Pakistan without their help.

That would be true if India were the only regional power in South Asia. As long as, Pakistan exists and is able to challenge India, this argument won't apply. And Pakistan will be propped by some country as a counter-balance to India.

Anyway, India has not been able to stop US or USSR from coming into South Asia, certainly not in 1980s. We can't even finish off Pakistan and talk about not letting in US or USSR into 'our' sphere of influence! It is not ours unless its in our possession. I think we should crawl first before walking. Cold war started after world war 2, not before. US didn't stop co-operating with USSR thinking about possibility of cold war.

If we can do the job alone, why didn't we do it till now? Anyway, it doesn't hurt to have a little help in any work. The whole point is that USSR and India needed each other's help in 1980-1990 because evidently they couldn't achieve their respective objectives alone.

Because unlike BRF, Indian polity and Babudom were cowards and statusquo power!

[johneeG]

Interestingly, China never stood up for Pakistan during the wars as far as I know. In 1971, China actually refused to open a second front. And Pakistan didn't support China in 1962. Amirkhan came to Pakistan's help time and again in 1965 and 1971.

China couldnt open a second front! Not that it didnt want

USSR may have influenced China not to do any such thing in 1971. But, even during Kargil, China didn't help Pakistan in any major way.

[Dipanker]

Interestingly, China never stood up for Pakistan during the wars as far as I know. In 1971, China actually refused to open a second front. And Pakistan didn't support China in 1962. Amirkhan came to Pakistan's help time and again in 1965 and 1971.

China couldnt open a second front! Not that it didnt want

In 1971 US did ask China to open a second front against India, but China did not comply.

On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. ‘Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that’s what they must do now.’ China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.

Pakistani army had somehow maintained their position and resisted Indian advancement. They believed China is preparing to open the Northern front which will slow down or completely stop the Indian advancement. In fact, the myth of Chinese activity was also communicated to Pakistan’s army to boost their moral, to keep their will to fight and hope alive. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: “NEFA front has been activated by Chinese, although the Indians, for obvious reasons, have not announced it.” But Beijing never did.
http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10 ... ussia.html

[Satya_anveshi]

Iraq Reiterates Right to Sovereignty After Turkish Troops Enter Country - Dec 08, 2015
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151 ... roops.html

"The government is committed to maintaining good neighborly relations, but at the same time reiterates its right to take measures to protect national sovereignty," the government said in the statement.

elsewhere in Iraq:

Iraqi Forces Take Back Large Part of Ramadi from Daesh After Fierce Battle - Dec 08, 2015
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151 ... daesh.html

"Today, our forces completely cleared the Al-Tameem area after a fierce battle against Daesh gunmen," Sabah al-Noman, spokesman for Iraq's counter-terrorism service, told AFP.

[vishvak]

<snip>
In 1971 US did ask China to open a second front against India, but China did not comply.

On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. ‘Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that’s what they must do now.’ China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.

Pakistani army had somehow maintained their position and resisted Indian advancement. They believed China is preparing to open the Northern front which will slow down or completely stop the Indian advancement. In fact, the myth of Chinese activity was also communicated to Pakistan’s army to boost their moral, to keep their will to fight and hope alive. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: “NEFA front has been activated by Chinese, although the Indians, for obvious reasons, have not announced it.” But Beijing never did.
http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10 ... ussia.html

That is just another indicators to overall western plan to attack India, and Geo strategic thought process.

Not to mention diplomatic offensive at UN while genocide was ongoing, not to mention UK almost pushing its own Aircraft carrier group in the bay of Bengal.

There was an interview of Field Marshal Manekshaw about probability of direct American attack. The FM replied that it was not possible since the US population won't allow it. That would be more rhetorical for good relations with USA more than totally accurate.

This is also why we need less of western TFTA weapons and more independence, as well as demonstrates power of submarine strength in number and effect with appropriate plans.

[member_29004]

In 1971 US did ask China to open a second front against India, but China did not comply.

On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. ‘Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that’s what they must do now.’ China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.

Pakistani army had somehow maintained their position and resisted Indian advancement. They believed China is preparing to open the Northern front which will slow down or completely stop the Indian advancement. In fact, the myth of Chinese activity was also communicated to Pakistan’s army to boost their moral, to keep their will to fight and hope alive. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: “NEFA front has been activated by Chinese, although the Indians, for obvious reasons, have not announced it.” But Beijing never did.
http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10 ... ussia.html

USSR

[member_29004]

China couldnt open a second front! Not that it didnt want

USSR may have influenced China not to do any such thing in 1971. But, even during Kargil, China didn't help Pakistan in any major way.[/quote]

1999, was different. China had other priorities and Nuclear options of India, Unlike Pakistan, China is a rational player

[Dipanker]

That is just another indicators to overall western plan to attack India, and Geo strategic thought process.

Not to mention diplomatic offensive at UN while genocide was ongoing, not to mention UK almost pushing its own Aircraft carrier group in the bay of Bengal.

There was an interview of Field Marshal Manekshaw about probability of direct American attack. The FM replied that it was not possible since the US population won't allow it. That would be more rhetorical for good relations with USA more than totally accurate.

This is also why we need less of western TFTA weapons and more independence, as well as demonstrates power of submarine strength in number and effect with appropriate plans.

Sorry, OT:

Apparently 7th fleet had instruction to attack in case India went ahead with its original plan of destroying the Pakistani army on the western front and retaking POK.

[nachiket]

Sorry, OT:

Apparently 7th fleet had instruction to attack in case India went ahead with its original plan of destroying the Pakistani army on the western front and retaking POK.

There was no such plan. Only the Americans believed there was.

[Satya_anveshi]

Downed Su-24’s black box to reveal truth about Turkey’s treacherous strike – Putin - Dec 08, 2015
https://www.rt.com/news/325158-su24-bla ... th-turkey/

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu provided Russian President Vladimir Putin with the recovered flight recorder on Tuesday during their meeting in Moscow. Shoigu said that Russia has been actively conducting operations on Syrian territory, where the Russian Su-24 pilot was “gunned down” by Turkmen militants after he had ejected from the plane.

“As a result of this work, these territories were liberated by the special operations forces and the Syrian army’s special force tasked with the crew search. Surveying the area, the Syrian military found the plane’s crash site,” he said.

“As I understand, the flight data recorder will give us the opportunity to understand the Su-24's trajectory from the moment of its take-off to the moment of the crash,” Putin said. “This means we will be able to understand where it was [at the moment of the downing] and where the treacherous strike from the Turkish Air Force was dealt… in any case, we should invite everyone who wants to participate in this work.”


“But whatever we might learn will not change our attitude towards the deed by the Turkish authorities. We have considered Turkey not only a friendly country, but also as an ally in fight against terror, and no one expected such a despicable, treacherous stab in the back,” Putin added.

[Satya_anveshi]

Russia strikes ISIS targets in Syria from sub in Mediterranean for first time - Dec 08, 2015
https://www.rt.com/news/325143-russia-s ... submarine/

The 3M-54 Kalibr missiles were launched from the Kilo-class diesel-electric submarine “Rostov-on-Don”, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday.

Russia’s warships based in the Caspian and Mediterranean seas launched similar missiles targeting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) positions in late November. This is the first time that Russia has targeted IS in Syria from a submarine.

“[The missiles] targeted two major terrorist positions in the territory of Raqqa,” he said.

“We can say with absolute confidence that significant damage has been inflicted upon ammunition warehouses and a mine production plant, as well as the oil infrastructure.”

“In the past three days, the operation involved Tu-22 planes as well as warplanes from the Khmeimim airbase. In total we carried out 300 sorties and hit 600 various targets,” he said adding that all sorties were performed with the backing of Su-30 fighter jets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8B64gmKWn8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V76OqCGbQKk

[UlanBatori]

Hope The Faithful bliss to end 1971-1990 chai-biscoot b4 air-shtrikes appear.

[habal]

War Is On The Horizon: Is It Too Late To Stop It?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-is-on- ... -2/5494431
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, December 08, 2015

Paul Craig Roberts Institute of Political Economy

One lesson from military history is that once mobilization for war begins, it takes on a momentum of its own and is uncontrollable.

This might be what is occuring unrecognized before our eyes.

In his September 28 speech at the 70th Anniversity of the United Nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later at the invitation of the Syrian government Russia began war against ISIS.

Russia was quickly successful in destroying ISIS arms depots and helping the Syrian army to roll back ISIS gains. Russia also destroyed thousands of oil tankers, the contents of which were financing ISIS by transporting stolen Syrian oil to Turkey where it is sold to the family of the current gangster who rules Turkey.

Washington was caught off guard by Russia’s decisiveness. Fearful that the quick success of such decisive action by Russia would discourage Washington’s NATO vassals from continuing to support Washington’s war against Assad and Washington’s use of its puppet government in Kiev to pressure Russia, Washington arranged for Turkey to shoot down a Russian fighter-bomber despite the agreement between Russia and NATO that there would be no air-to-air encounters in Russia’s area of air operation in Syria.

Although denying all responsibility, Washington used Russia’s low key response to the attack, for which Turkey did not apologize, to reassure Europe that Russia is a paper tiger. The Western presstitutes trumpeted: “Russia A Paper Tiger.” [1]

The Russian government’s low key response to the provocation was used by Washington to reassure Europe that there is no risk in continuing to pressure Russia in the Middle East, Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, and elsewhere. Washington’s attack on Assad’s military is being used to reinforce the belief that is being inculcated in European governments that Russia’s responsible behavior to avoid war is a sign of fear and weakness.

It is unclear to what extent the Russian and Chinese governments understand that their independent policies, reaffirmed by the Russian and Chinese presidents On September 28, are regarded by Washington as “existential threats” to US hegemony.

The basis of US foreign policy is the commitment to prevent the rise of powers capable of constraining Washington’s unilateral action. The ability of Russia and China to do this makes them both a target.

Washington is not opposed to terrorism. Washington has been purposely creating terrorism for many years. Terrorism is a weapon that Washington intends to use to destabilize Russia and China by exporting it to the Muslim populations in Russia and China.

Washington is using Syria, as it used Ukraine, to demonstrate Russia’s impotence to Europe— and to China, as an impotent Russia is less attractive to China as an ally.

For Russia, responsible response to provocation has become a liability, because it encourages more provocation.

In other words, Washington and the gullibility of its European vassals have put humanity in a very dangerous situation, as the only choices left to Russia and China are to accept American vassalage or to prepare for war.

Putin must be respected for putting more value on human life than do Washington and its European vassals and avoiding military responses to provocations. However, Russia must do something to make the NATO countries aware that there are serious costs of their accommodation of Washington’s aggression against Russia. For example, the Russian government could decide that it makes no sense to sell energy to European countries that are in a de facto state of war against Russia. With winter upon us, the Russian government could announce that Russia does not sell energy to NATO member countries. Russia would lose the money, but that is cheaper than losing one’s sovereignty or a war.

To end the conflict in Ukraine, or to escalate it to a level beyond Europe’s willingness to participate, Russia could accept the requests of the breakaway provinces to be reunited with Russia. For Kiev to continue the conflict, Ukraine would have to attack Russia herself.

The Russian government has relied on responsible, non-provocative responses. Russia has taken the diplomatic approach, relying on European governments coming to their senses, realizing that their national interests diverge from Washington’s, and ceasing to enable Washington’s hegemonic policy. Russia’s policy has failed. To repeat, Russia’s low key, responsible responses have been used by Washington to paint Russia as a paper tiger that no one needs to fear.

We are left with the paradox that Russia’s determination to avoid war is leading directly to war.

Whether or not the Russian media, Russian people, and the entirety of the Russian government understand this, it must be obvious to the Russian military. All that Russian military leaders need to do is to look at the composition of the forces sent by NATO to “combat ISIS.” As George Abert notes, the American, French, and British aircraft that have been deployed are jet fighters whose purpose is air-to-air combat, not ground attack. The jet fighters are not deployed to attack ISIS on the ground, but to threaten the Russian fighter-bombers that are attacking ISIS ground targets.

There is no doubt that Washington is driving the world toward Armageddon, and Europe is the enabler. Washington’s bought-and-paid-for-puppets in Germany, France, and UK are either stupid, unconcerned, or powerless to escape from Washington’s grip. Unless Russia can wake up Europe, war is inevitable.

Have the totally evil, moronic neocon warmongers who control the US government taught Putin that war is inevitable

washinton DC has to be nuked along with London & Paris to end this cycle of destruction. The NATO coalition is leaving the allied forces 4+1 with very little other choice.

[Satya_anveshi]

Stumbled upon this video (Saddam Hussian's testimony in court and this video has his hanging in the end):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCJ8JqtGahQ

[Singha]

morning treat for Philip saar : 4 kalibrs from the kilo sub, another test point done. seems to have struck some juicy targets

[shiv]

How Obama allowed ISIS to grow into the monster it has become

As the Barack Obama presidency winds down, his errors of judgment in the Middle East will intrigue historians for years.

President Obama has tried unsuccessfully for four years to unseat Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. By weakening but not defeating him, Obama created a power vacuum in northern Syria. In stepped the Islamic State (ISIS). Before 2011, ISIS was not a force to reckon with - a mere subaltern of al Qaeda.

America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon meanwhile funded, armed and trained anti-Assad "moderate" terrorist groups like the al-Nusra Front. It was a classical outsourced operation to depose the Syrian leadership. But who would replace Assad? The United States thought it could prop up a Sunni puppet - as it did in post-Saddam Iraq - and all would be well.

It of course wasn't. Most of the "moderate" terrorist groups fighting Assad (an Alawite, a sect related to Shias in Sunni-majority Syria) were just that - terrorists. Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons, the US claimed, gave it the moral authority to depose him.

Rewind to 2003. President George W Bush used a dodgy intelligence report on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq to invade the country. Saddam Hussein was chased, caught and executed. Chaos followed. Saddam, for all his brutal faults, had held Iraq together for over 30 years. A Sunni, he achieved a secular balance in a country where around 60 per cent of the population is Shia.

His Ba'ath party was, for all practical purposes, a US stooge. After the 1979 Iranian revolution deposed another US puppet, the Shah of Iran, the US nudged Iraq into a devastating eight-year war with Iran. The war, which dragged on from 1980 to 1988, cost millions of Iraqi and Iranian lives.

Saddam fell out of favour with his American benefactors in 1990 when he attacked another US protectorate, Kuwait. A short, sharp Gulf war, Desert Storm, followed. Saddam, defeated, withdrew from Kuwait. A vengeful US imposed debilitating economic and military sanctions on Iraq including no-fly zones over key parts of the country. Thousands of Iraqi children literally starved to death over the next decade as a result of the sanctions.

But a bigger tragedy lay ahead: the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

In the 1980s, Iraq and Syria, along with Lebanon, were secular oases in the Middle East. Women moved freely, worked in offices and dressed fashionably in skirts. The hijab was rarely seen.

After the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the post-2011 bombing of Syria, the hijab and a warren of terror groups have become part of the Iraqi and Syrian landscape. Shia-Sunni wounds have reopened. The US and Britain destroyed Iraq's army on the fraudulent charge of Saddam possessing WMD. The US continues to attack Assad, giving ISIS the space to grow.

The rise of ISIS after 2011 was made possible by the destruction of the Iraqi army and the sectarian fissures the ensuing civil war created between Iraq's minority Sunnis and majority Shias. Meanwhile, the Syrian war, funded by American weapons and money funnelled to anti-Assad terrorist groups, has led to ISIS occupying large swathes of territory in northern Syria where a weakened Damascus holds no sway. Former commander of US Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, General Michael Flynn, recently went on record to admit that the Iraq invasion led directly to the creation of ISIS.

The Syrian-Iraqi theatre of war has changed the rules of the game. Russian jets are attacking both CIA-funded, anti-Assad terrorist groups and ISIS. The French are focusing on ISIS. So are the British. The US is bombing ISIS positions but, as American pilots have said publicly, they "release their ordnance (bombs) in only one out of every four sorties" for fear of killing civilians. The order to exercise "restraint" has come directly from president Obama.

ISIS fighters have embedded themselves into the Sunni population in the territories they hold. They are receiving tacit help from Turkey whom Russian president Vladimir Putin has accused of being "accomplices of ISIS terrorists".

Much of ISIS' oil is smuggled through the Turkish border. If Turkey were to cut this supply off, ISIS would soon be on its knees. Ankara, however, wants Assad out of Syria. It regards him as a bigger threat than ISIS. With Russia now deeply immersed in the war, that position is no longer tenable.

The mess in Syria and Iraq has found resonance in the US presidential election. The first primaries are due in New Hampshire, Iowa and a slew of other states in February 2016. The surge of anti-Islamic feeling has given Donald Trump a lead among Republicans in most polls though Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, both young senators, are fast catching up.

If there is a Paris-style terror attack on American soil, Islamophobia will peak. The shooting of 14 people in San Bernardino by a Pakistani-origin couple with ISIS links has already polarised the election. Trump's anti-Muslim statements will now find wider appeal. Hillary Clinton, still smarting from accusations that as secretary of state she must be held to account for the security lapses that led to the assassination of the US ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, could be hurt by rising public fears over another terror strike on an American city.

Obama has erred grievously over his obsession to depose Assad, allowing ISIS to grow into the monster it is. George W Bush made a similar mistake by dismantling the Iraqi army (which is now incapable of defeating ISIS) and driving a deep sectarian wedge within Iraqi society that could eventually lead to the country's trifurcation into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish provinces.

Meanwhile, the real culprit in the Middle East, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, looks on silently. It has waged without success a 9-month-long war on the Shia-affiliated Houthi rebels in Yemen. It funded ISIS at inception. It runs a nasty police state that beheads and lashes men and women.

As long as the US continues to treat Saudi Arabia as a key ally, ISIS will remain a menace. Saudi Arabia is the principal source of malignancy in the Middle East, ISIS the principal symptom.

[Singha]

backfires level bombing near euphrates, perhaps raqqa and deir azzor
if these puppies could operate from T-4 would permit a much heavier bombload and loiter time.

[habal]

Achtung: ATTENTION

there is a new definition of ISIS.

ISIS = Israeli Secret Intelligence Service

they are ready to spill the blood of their 'best of the best' to save these gentle souls.

Israelis caught rescuing ISIS terrorists in Syria

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... emies.html

http://www.dailystormer.com/jews-caught ... -in-syria/

sab ke sab saale ek number ke fraud hain ..

[Satya_anveshi]

What lies beneath Turkey’s ’Mosul move’? - Dec 09, 2015
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/ya ... 06362.html

Turkey's deployment of troops to the area near Mosul caused a stir in the region, complicating much further the multi-dimensional chess game that has been ongoing for some time.
Official reactions -- particularly the one from Baghdad -- offer a lot for deeper consideration as to what is really taking place as compared to what appears to happening.

In what appears to be a prelude to the funeral of the Sykes-Picot Agreement dating back a century ago, the sudden and dramatic moves are linked to each other. It's a stage for interested parties and local players to position and reposition themselves as events unfold.

The bits and pieces of information coming from Ankara point to a position on Iraqi soil that may be long-lasting, aimed at having a stake in the chess game that so far has caused a series of instances of backlash for the AKP government. It is, arguably, in search mode for new partnerships to stay somewhat in control.

Taking back Mosul in full is on the top of the agenda. For this there is an apparent convergence of interests between Turkey, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and the Western allies. But beyond such a move, if they are successful in eliminating the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) presence from the vicinity of the key Iraqi city, there are huge question marks looming.

The sudden deployment of Turkish troops has the “training local militia” argument behind it. And there seems to be little doubt, if any, that Baghdad, Arbil and Washington have known about the training dimension. So, it is far more important to look at the illusory current state of things rather than what is being “cooked” for the coming months.

According to new data, about 2,050 people have been trained so far at the Bashika military camp since its foundation seven months ago. Around half of them, with the addition of others trained at the Diana camp, took part in liberating Sinjar. At Bashika there are around 600 Turkish military staff and, according to sources in Ankara, it may be increased to up to 1,200 soldiers.

The key figure in the big picture is Khaled Hodja, leader of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), in close cooperation with KRG leader Masoud Barzani. It was he who declared that there would be a joint combat force built in the canton of Rojava.

A colonel, speaking anonymously to Tunca Öğreten with the Diken news site in İstanbul, confirmed the plans, adding that it was a formation initiated by the US and Turkey and that it would consist of around 5,000 men.

“As a matter of fact, this force could have been instrumental in taking back Jerablus, but it didn't happen... These forces are supported by the US and Turkey, both against the [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad regime and to cut out the Kurds in northern Syria.”

Idris Nassan, the deputy foreign minister of Kobani, claims that this new force would consist mainly of members of the groups Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra, and Turkmens. Nassan connects the latest moves to an imminent meeting in Riyadh, where Saudis are organizing new alliance-building for the Syrian opposition forces.

“Behind the term 'moderate forces' are Saudi Arabia and Turkey,' Nassan told the Diken website. “Their objective is to reduce the power of the secular Kurds from northern Syria.'

What the echoes of the Riyadh meeting will be, particularly around the inclusion of Ahrar el-Sham in the talks is a key point.

As Colum Lynch and John Hudson write in Foreign Policy:

“The US has previously expressed concerns about Ahrar al-Sham's links to al-Nusra Front. But it has never designated the group as a terrorist organization, leaving the door open for possible cooperation in the future. Recently, Washington has been more willing to explore the possibility of a role for Ahrar al-Sham — as long as it backs international efforts to reach a political settlement with the Syrian government, according to diplomats tracking the process. A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to outline the American position on Ahrar al-Sham but said the United States was “mindful that we have more work to do in resolving this issue.”

Another key issue is whether or not the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) will be invited to Riyadh. Ankara appears to have put forward the condition the PYD leader Saleh Muslim or any other PYD member not be included at the meeting, and as Foreign Policy reported, based on US military sources, ''the Americans have had some tough discussions with the Turks on this. It hasn't been pleasant.”

So, here we are.

And it is apparent that the picture will become more complicated before we see any clarity.

[Satya_anveshi]

A group of NATO warships which arrived in İstanbul and anchored off the Sarayburnu coast on Sunday departed from the Bosporus on Monday and headed to the Mediterranean Sea.

According to the Cihan news agency, three NATO warships accompanied by tugboats left İstanbul on Monday morning. The warships, including Portugal's F-334 NRP Francisco de Almeida, Spain's F-105 ESPS Blaz de Lezo and Canada's FFG-338 HMCS Winnipeg, headed in a southern direction, Cihan said.
Previously, some NATO allies decided to send ships to the NATO fleet in the eastern Mediterranean to strengthen Ankara's defenses on its border with Syria, following Turkey's shooting down of a Russian jet.

The crossing of NATO warships though the Turkish strait coincided with the passage of Russian warship which sailed down the Bosporus on Sunday with a soldier holding a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile on the deck throughout the journey, a move that Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu called a “provocation.”

Tension has escalated between Turkey and Russia after Turkish F-16s downed a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian border. Turkey said the plane was downed because it violated Turkish airspace, while Russia has denied there was a violation and vowed serious consequences as a result.

link

[Satya_anveshi]

Dec 08, 2015

Russia has deployed attack and transport helicopters to reinforce its military base in Armenia, RIA news agency quoted Russian Defence Ministry as saying on Tuesday.

A total of seven helicopters MI-24 and Mi-8 have been deployed at the base near the capital city of Yerevan, and one more batch would be delivered to the base before the year end, the ministry was quoted as saying.

The air base was set up in 1995 and since 1998 Russia has been stationing there fighter jets MIG-29.
Russia also has a military base in Gyumri, the second largest city in Armenia in the northwestern part of the country close to the Armenian-Turkish border.

link

[Satya_anveshi]

PakiTurkish version on Mosul move

Dec 08, 2015

Ankara has moved to secure a higher level of coordination with Baghdad after the latter condemned the recent deployment of Turkish troops at the Bashiqa camp in Iraq’s Mosul province, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Tanju Bilgiç said on Dec. 8.

“We’ll solve this problem and increase coordination to the highest possible level,” Bilgiç said at a press conference, adding that Turkey has halted the transfer of additional forces to the Bashiqa camp but there has been no withdrawal.

Turkish forces have so far trained 2,441 personnel as part of a program being provided to the Mosul National Guards at the Bashiqa camp in coordination with the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and the Iraqi authorities, he also said.

Turkey recently sent additional forces to the camp due to increasing clashes with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Mosul, Bilgiç stated, adding that Turkey has also trained 2,308 Peshmerga forces so far in a separate training program in Diyala.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu had a phone conversation with his Iraqi counterpart late on Dec. 7 to stress that Ankara “respects its neighbor’s territorial integrity,” Bilgiç also said. { what he really means having the cake/(not getting attacked) and eat it too/(keeping the Iraqi territory illegally); They will be bombed when they least expect }

Turkey says its deployment of soldiers to northern Iraq is part of a mission to train and equip Iraqi Kurdish forces, but the central Iraqi government has slammed the recent deployment of additional forces to the camp, vowing to take its case to the United Nations if they are not pulled out.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has said he wants to visit Baghdad as soon as possible to try to calm the row.

“Up to now, 2,000 people have been trained in the Bashiqa camp. This training program was started upon the demand of the Mosul governor. The mentioned increase of troops is a routine development in the face of rising security risks. Those who interpret this differently are making a deliberate provocation,” Davutoğlu said on Dec. 8.

Turkish troops are in Iraq to protect against a possible attack from ISIL, he also stated.

link