Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

2. The SDF (and maybe US too) are colluding to some degree with ISIS (not that that would surprise anyone, given the history of both and the fact that US equipment has been spotted at ISIS positions). Either they are ISIS or they are traitors. In both cases valid targets.

Well, one, the US equipment is most likely from the massive stockpile of said that ISIS grabbed from Iraq. Some of the US stuff that I've seen touted in pro-Russian sites (of the BOW DOWN TO VLADAMIR PUTIN, YOUR NEW GOD!' variety) has been over 80 years old. Same with the British stuff. I mean, seriously, the 25 pounder hasn't been a big product of England for quite some time now. Most of the new ones are made by Pakistan.

Second, I've long since grown tired of the Propaganda bit that (side) is helping ISIS fight against (side). I have no problem believing that Russia hit an allied position, since they're such bad shots they managed to bomb one all the way over in Jordan, just as I have no problem believing that US air controllers on the deconfliction line are unaware of the difference between Deir al-Zour airport and the actual city when calling to inform Russia about US airstrikes.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

2. The SDF (and maybe US too) are colluding to some degree with ISIS (not that that would surprise anyone, given the history of both and the fact that US equipment has been spotted at ISIS positions). Either they are ISIS or they are traitors. In both cases valid targets.

Well, one, the US equipment is most likely from the massive stockpile of said that ISIS grabbed from Iraq. Some of the US stuff that I've seen touted in pro-Russian sites (of the BOW DOWN TO VLADAMIR PUTIN, YOUR NEW GOD!' variety) has been over 80 years old. Same with the British stuff. I mean, seriously, the 25 pounder hasn't been a big product of England for quite some time now. Most of the new ones are made by Pakistan.

Second, I've long since grown tired of the Propaganda bit that (side) is helping ISIS fight against (side). I have no problem believing that Russia hit an allied position, since they're such bad shots they managed to bomb one all the way over in Jordan, just as I have no problem believing that US air controllers on the deconfliction line are unaware of the difference between Deir al-Zour airport and the actual city when calling to inform Russia about US airstrikes.

When Iraqi army ran they gained substantial access to western arms, machines and kit.

They likely lost most of machines and heavy weapons. There tank forces long gone and heavy arty much reduced.
But they by no means short of weaponry.

Seriously guys, there is no point in engaging him on this stuff. He's drank so much of Putin's Kool-Aid his skin as turned red.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

2. The SDF (and maybe US too) are colluding to some degree with ISIS (not that that would surprise anyone, given the history of both and the fact that US equipment has been spotted at ISIS positions). Either they are ISIS or they are traitors. In both cases valid targets.

Well, one, the US equipment is most likely from the massive stockpile of said that ISIS grabbed from Iraq. Some of the US stuff that I've seen touted in pro-Russian sites (of the BOW DOWN TO VLADAMIR PUTIN, YOUR NEW GOD!' variety) has been over 80 years old. Same with the British stuff. I mean, seriously, the 25 pounder hasn't been a big product of England for quite some time now. Most of the new ones are made by Pakistan.

Second, I've long since grown tired of the Propaganda bit that (side) is helping ISIS fight against (side). I have no problem believing that Russia hit an allied position, since they're such bad shots they managed to bomb one all the way over in Jordan, just as I have no problem believing that US air controllers on the deconfliction line are unaware of the difference between Deir al-Zour airport and the actual city when calling to inform Russia about US airstrikes.

Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.
Also, the US equipment at ISIS positions isn't just a rumour from wacky nationalist sites. The ministry of defense has shared lots of aerial photographs that prove it. Of course that doesn't prove that the US is giving equipment to ISIS, as you say it could have been captured from Iraqi forces.

 djones520 wrote:
Seriously guys, there is no point in engaging him on this stuff. He's drank so much of Putin's Kool-Aid his skin as turned red.

That response is equivalent to a child putting his fingers in his ears and going na na na na I dont wanna hear you! Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.

I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.

I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'

Or maybe you both get some Jack Daniel's, some vodka and make a soviet American pact.

This topic has been rekitively interlectual and polite. Please Dont get a intresting topic closed

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.

I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'

Remember the Ukraine threads? Good reading if you want some perspective on user's posts here...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.

I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'

What? I don't like Stalin at all... Sure the guy did a lot of good for the USSR, but he was also a terrible tyrant whose despotic regime murdered millions and ruined any chance the USSR might have had at fulfilling its dream of socialism.
Just the fact that I disagree with you on some things and that I support the actions of Vladimir Putin and his government (like the majority of the Russian people do, mind you) doesn't make me a stalinist anymore than disagreeing with me makes you a fascist. This kind of namecalling is ridiculous. And the fact that some people here on Dakka, from the supposedly free West, can't handle different opinions without resorting to it is really sad. If your contribution amounts to nothing more than "Iron Captain is a putinist fanboy so don't take him seriously", then you are not contributing anything useful to this thread.
Now, as the wise jhe90 suggests, let's end this immature mudslinging and get back to polite argument-based discussion of the topic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
.And the fact that some people here on Dakka, from the supposedly free West, can't handle different opinions without resorting to it is really sad. If your contribution amounts to nothing more than "Iron Captain is a putinist fanboy so don't take him seriously", then you are not contributing anything useful to this thread.

Cap, to put it mildly, when we discuss Russia you do come across as a 'Putinist Fanboy' on occasion, to the degree that we had a VERY long discussion about the Ukraine where we both wrote walls of text at each other. Not nearly as bad as Yaraton, but still, you do defend it in the face of reason and fact on occasion.

In Syria, let;'s not split hairs, Russia's only reason for being there is Tartus, that part of Syria they have seized and claimed to now be part of Russia. No, seriously. I believe in Putin's urge to uphold human rights and bring peace to the region as much as I believe in Santa. But his urge to conquer if he can? That's as real as it gets.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
.And the fact that some people here on Dakka, from the supposedly free West, can't handle different opinions without resorting to it is really sad. If your contribution amounts to nothing more than "Iron Captain is a putinist fanboy so don't take him seriously", then you are not contributing anything useful to this thread.

Cap, to put it mildly, when we discuss Russia you do come across as a 'Putinist Fanboy' on occasion, to the degree that we had a VERY long discussion about the Ukraine where we both wrote walls of text at each other. Not nearly as bad as Yaraton, but still, you do defend it in the face of reason and fact on occasion.

In Syria, let;'s not split hairs, Russia's only reason for being there is Tartus, that part of Syria they have seized and claimed to now be part of Russia. No, seriously. I believe in Putin's urge to uphold human rights and bring peace to the region as much as I believe in Santa. But his urge to conquer if he can? That's as real as it gets.

Yes, I do support the Russian government in many things, because I believe that the decisions they make are the best for Russia. If that makes me a putinist fanboy, so be it. Disagreeing with someone's political views should never preclude arguments-based discussion.

And yes. Russia cares for human rights and peace even less than the US does. You are right in that. In fact, I know the Russian government thinks 'universal human rights' is nothing but neo-colonial Western bullgak. Still, a tool that serves a purpose will be used.
But if you believe Russia is in Syria for conquest, that is wrong. The only areas Russia wants to conquer are the areas it lost in 1991. Trying to conquer Syria would be utter madness. The campaign in Syria is only to preserve and increase its influence in the region, which is the same reason the US is there as well.

And I remember the Ukraine thread... With glee

 BaronIveagh wrote:
In Syria, let;'s not split hairs, Russia's only reason for being there is Tartus, that part of Syria they have seized and claimed to now be part of Russia. No, seriously. I believe in Putin's urge to uphold human rights and bring peace to the region as much as I believe in Santa. But his urge to conquer if he can? That's as real as it gets.

I don't get it. Conquer what? Tartus?

Iron_Captain wrote:The only areas Russia wants to conquer are the areas it lost in 1991. Trying to conquer Syria would be utter madness. The campaign in Syria is only to preserve and increase its influence in the region, which is the same reason the US is there as well.

And I remember the Ukraine thread... With glee

Conquering all of Syria would indeed be madness. Forcing the Syrian government to cede sovereignty of the port at Tartus, however, was a masterful act of Blackmail. It secured a port on the Med for the Russian Navy, particularly after loss of access to quite a few other ports.

Freakazoitt wrote:[
I don't get it. Conquer what? Tartus?

In this case I probably should have used 'Expand Russian Territory' rather than Conquer, though he's done that more specifically elsewhere. Under the latest treaty (early this year) Syria basically gives Russia the port at Tartus. This is a good move, if you're trying to expand your potential naval operations, or want a super power propping up your dictatorship in order to keep their only remaining foreign naval base, since even Vietnam has shown the Russian fleet the door, particularly following Crimea.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:The only areas Russia wants to conquer are the areas it lost in 1991. Trying to conquer Syria would be utter madness. The campaign in Syria is only to preserve and increase its influence in the region, which is the same reason the US is there as well.

And I remember the Ukraine thread... With glee

Conquering all of Syria would indeed be madness. Forcing the Syrian government to cede sovereignty of the port at Tartus, however, was a masterful act of Blackmail. It secured a port on the Med for the Russian Navy, particularly after loss of access to quite a few other ports.

Freakazoitt wrote:[
I don't get it. Conquer what? Tartus?

In this case I probably should have used 'Expand Russian Territory' rather than Conquer, though he's done that more specifically elsewhere. Under the latest treaty (early this year) Syria basically gives Russia the port at Tartus. This is a good move, if you're trying to expand your potential naval operations, or want a super power propping up your dictatorship in order to keep their only remaining foreign naval base, since even Vietnam has shown the Russian fleet the door, particularly following Crimea.

But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port (where big warships can't even dock) with some old equipment and neglected office buildings, and most of it is covered in rusty, half-sunk Syrian ships. There are rarely more than 50 Russians there. It isn't a naval base at all, just a simple point to resupply food and water during exercises in the Mediterranean. Handy, but absolutely not something vital. Like with the base in Vietnam, Russia has held on to it more out of Soviet nostalgia than out of actual need (so we can say we still have foreign naval bases and feel all big and mighty like in the good old days). And as to Vietnam, the Russian fleet doesn't really have the capacity anymore to project power so far from home. The Russian fleet is there for defending its coastline. It doesn't need ports all over the world, just in the seas close to Russia. The whole of Syria is actually of little strategic interest to Russia. We are there because we can, not because it is actually strategically important.
Maybe once we are done turning Tartus in an actual port it will be of some strategic interest. But even then, what would we want with it beyond saying "Hey look guys, we got a naval base in the Mediterranean! Please be afraid of us!"?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

In this case I probably should have used 'Expand Russian Territory' rather than Conquer, though he's done that more specifically elsewhere. Under the latest treaty (early this year) Syria basically gives Russia the port at Tartus. This is a good move, if you're trying to expand your potential naval operations, or want a super power propping up your dictatorship in order to keep their only remaining foreign naval base, since even Vietnam has shown the Russian fleet the door, particularly following Crimea.

There is a naval base since 1970s. Just not used properly. No need to "conquer" it. But in a hypotetical situation, where some democratic throatcutters wins, they will remove that base. So, it can be one of the reasons, but not a major one.

There are rarely more than 50 Russians there.

I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.

Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port

Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.

http://www.dw.com/en/new-russia-syria-accord-allows-up-to-11-warships-in-tartus-port-simultaneously/a-37212976

You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....

OK, Russia there to save Assad (which is equal to saving Syria), hold the base and eliminate terrorism. And USA is there to eliminate Assad, seize the only Russian base left and support rebels (who is in most cases similar to the terrorists). And also to support Kurds whos fighting against Turkey (NATO member, lol).

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port

Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.

http://www.dw.com/en/new-russia-syria-accord-allows-up-to-11-warships-in-tartus-port-simultaneously/a-37212976

You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....

I know. But it is a lot of talk. Let's see how much of that actually becomes reality. And even if it does, we will be able to park our only rusty aircraft carrier in the Middle East. And there will even be space for its tug boats. Yay. Russia isn't going to get anything really strategically important out of that. It is not like it is that far away from existing naval bases.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port

Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.

http://www.dw.com/en/new-russia-syria-accord-allows-up-to-11-warships-in-tartus-port-simultaneously/a-37212976

You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....

I know. But it is a lot of talk. Let's see how much of that actually becomes reality. And even if it does, we will be able to park our only rusty aircraft carrier in the Middle East. And there will even be space for its tug boats. Yay. Russia isn't going to get anything really strategically important out of that. It is not like it is that far away from existing naval bases.

It is, however, on the other side of the Bosporus. A permanent detachment of Russian naval vessels at Tarsus would let Russia react to events in and around the Mediterranean with naval units without having to ask the Turks for permission.

Another significant accomplishment in the taint punching of ISIS.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-defeated-in-its-syrian-capital-raqqa/ar-AAtD0ba

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Another significant accomplishment in the taint punching of ISIS.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-defeated-in-its-syrian-capital-raqqa/ar-AAtD0ba

That's a big change, the fall of the enemy capital. They also lost several other key locations recently that has turned the tide somewhat.

Finishing them off, well that's a new phase in the war. Mopping up them is going to be challenge.

Normally I'd love a good US War Crimes story, but this smells of serious bs:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41714754

Seems Russia is now blaming the US for bombing ISIS Capitol into rubble, and have forgotten that they were bombing the gak out of it before the US ever got there.

In Putin Russia, KETTLE call POT black!

I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD

 LordofHats wrote:
"the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD

...and that was the joke. The "in ... Russia" joke was just a Potemkin village!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.

Of course, what you've just written is the exact, stated purpose of disinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns don't aim to trick people with their claims, their aim is to confuse and disrupt the public debate so that accurate, real claims are buried amidst a sea of bs. They do this spamming enormous numbers of rumours coming from all directions, and attacking any reputable media sources as partisan and under suspicion. They hope that people will be confused about what to believe and give up and retreat from the discussion, or just go with their pre-conceived notions. This is a very handy strategy to use when you have no facts on your side, and any kind of decent, worthwhile debate will expose you quite quickly.

So of course it's what Putin is doing, and of course it's what Iron Captain is repeating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Remember the Ukraine threads? Good reading if you want some perspective on user's posts here...

I just recently had a 'debate' with Iron Captain, where he started by claiming Crimea was one of the richest areas in the Ukraine, and by the end was trying to argue that if you exclude the actual rich areas of the Ukraine, then Crimea almost reaches the average among the rest, and that also if you only look at the rich bits of Crimea and ignore the poor bits then Crimea is rich. He did that without ever admitting his original claim was completely wrong.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
"the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD

...and that was the joke. The "in ... Russia" joke was just a Potemkin village!

Okay fair enough XD

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.

Of course, what you've just written is the exact, stated purpose of disinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns don't aim to trick people with their claims, their aim is to confuse and disrupt the public debate so that accurate, real claims are buried amidst a sea of bs. They do this spamming enormous numbers of rumours coming from all directions, and attacking any reputable media sources as partisan and under suspicion. They hope that people will be confused about what to believe and give up and retreat from the discussion, or just go with their pre-conceived notions. This is a very handy strategy to use when you have no facts on your side, and any kind of decent, worthwhile debate will expose you quite quickly.

So of course it's what Putin is doing, and of course it's what Iron Captain is repeating.

It's funny how people are able to be critical and reasonable about their opponents sources, but for some mysterious reason dont use that standard on their own sources/beliefs

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.

Of course, what you've just written is the exact, stated purpose of disinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns don't aim to trick people with their claims, their aim is to confuse and disrupt the public debate so that accurate, real claims are buried amidst a sea of bs. They do this spamming enormous numbers of rumours coming from all directions, and attacking any reputable media sources as partisan and under suspicion. They hope that people will be confused about what to believe and give up and retreat from the discussion, or just go with their pre-conceived notions. This is a very handy strategy to use when you have no facts on your side, and any kind of decent, worthwhile debate will expose you quite quickly.

So of course it's what Putin is doing, and of course it's what Iron Captain is repeating.

I find your belief in "accurate, real claims" adorable. Do you really think that one of both sides has an interest in the truth? They only like truth when it suits them. Russia, the US, any big power, they are all the same. The US engages in disinformation campaigns as much as Russia does, and it mastered the use of them long before Russia ever got the hang of it.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Remember the Ukraine threads? Good reading if you want some perspective on user's posts here...

I just recently had a 'debate' with Iron Captain, where he started by claiming Crimea was one of the richest areas in the Ukraine, and by the end was trying to argue that if you exclude the actual rich areas of the Ukraine, then Crimea almost reaches the average among the rest, and that also if you only look at the rich bits of Crimea and ignore the poor bits then Crimea is rich. He did that without ever admitting his original claim was completely wrong.

You starting this up again? In yet another completely unrelated thread? Seriously? And you completely ignore the fact that your initial claim was total nonsense. Without getting bogged down in all the details again, let me shut this down right here:

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, also a factor is the Ukraine isn't an economic powerhouse in general, and the Crimea was one of the real economic backwaters of the country.

The original claim you made is simply not true. When you look at the average GDP of Ukrainian regions, then Crimea is a decidedly average region and not an economic backwater. When you also take into account differences within the region itself, like the fact (which you, mr. pot, conveniently keep ignoring by excluding Sevastopol and then accusing me, the kettle, of cherrypicking) that it has a rich coastal area with an important tourism industry and important navy and commercial port facilities and all the related industries. Economic backwaters do not have important national industries like that. Economic backwaters do not have an average GDP. Economic backwaters do not have a GDP far in excess of the poorest regions of the country. Regions like Kherson, Chernovtsy, Ternopol. Those were and are the economic backwaters of Ukraine. If you claim that Crimea was an economic backwater, then that shows you do not know anything about Ukraine, so just stop lying. I could make a comment about how this behaviour is linked to your national identity and the government of your country, such as you are so fond of doing with me, but I will refrain from such infantile nonsense.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD

Actually, it kinda does reverse the meaning...

The vast majority of people who use this idiom use it to refer to two sides that are as bad as each other; this is not the idiom's intended meaning.

The kettle is spotless and gleaming, and on its surface the cooking pot sees its own grimy reflection. The kettle's the good guy, the pot is merely projecting.

Ergo, the "in Soviet Russia" gag was unintentionally a meaningful reversal!

The internet IS a disinformation campaign. It is the apothosis of all Relativism and Whataboutism. It is pure entropy!

It is best avoided.