Sirija

[Muwan]

Pa cekaj zar nije oko njih ISIS?

 

A, kao slucajno...

Pa da, to je neka gromopucatelna vojna baza koja je već par godina u okruženju a najbliža prijateljska teritorija je udaljena stotinama kilometara. Ali brane se lavovski, isis nije uspeo da ih probije iz milion pokušaja. Sad, u ratu ima grešaka i grešaka™, ne znam šta su tačno avioni pogodili ali ako su gadjali samu bazu a ne položaje SAA u gradu onda teško da su mogli pogrešiti. Dodatno pitanje je i čiji avioni su to uradili, još nema zvanične potvrde a pominju se Saudijci koji su u američkoj koaliciji jedini veći loose cannon od Turaka.

 

Fora je u tome što je Deir Ez Zor toliko duboko u istočnom/sunitskom delu Sirije da ako/kada se budu crtale neke mape™ nema šanse da ostane u Asadovom delu. SAA ga brani da glavoseče ne bi dobile zverski jaku vojnu bazu na raspolaganje i da bi im otežali komunikaciju izmedju Rake i iračke provincije Anbar. Praktično biju američku bitku protiv zajedničkog neprijatelja. Još jedan doprinos uvrnutosti tamošnje situacije.

[Jozef K.]

Ima li bilo kakve potvrde, jer koliko kapiram izvor su Asad i Rusi. A i oni kažu koalicija pod američkim vođstvom.

 

Poslao tapatalk

[MancMellow]

Pa da, to je neka gromopucatelna vojna baza koja je već par godina u okruženju a najbliža prijateljska teritorija je udaljena stotinama kilometara. Ali brane se lavovski, isis nije uspeo da ih probije iz milion pokušaja. Sad, u ratu ima grešaka i grešaka™, ne znam šta su tačno avioni pogodili ali ako su gadjali samu bazu a ne položaje SAA u gradu onda teško da su mogli pogrešiti. Dodatno pitanje je i čiji avioni su to uradili, još nema zvanične potvrde a pominju se Saudijci koji su u američkoj koaliciji jedini veći loose cannon od Turaka.

 

Fora je u tome što je Deir Ez Zor toliko duboko u istočnom/sunitskom delu Sirije da ako/kada se budu crtale neke mape™ nema šanse da ostane u Asadovom delu. SAA ga brani da glavoseče ne bi dobile zverski jaku vojnu bazu na raspolaganje i da bi im otežali komunikaciju izmedju Rake i iračke provincije Anbar. Praktično biju američku bitku protiv zajedničkog neprijatelja. Još jedan doprinos uvrnutosti tamošnje situacije.

 

Da...ovo je jedan od onih ratova koji ce jednom koristiti profesorima kad ne vole studenta da mu kazu: dobro, kolega recite mi sta znate o gradjanskom ratu u Siriji :D

[namenski]

Cek bre, pa ne mogu svi avionacici da se smeste u hangare ispod. Ovo je mozda sa nekim polusastavom aviopuka, right?

Off:  :D  sad se setih, za razliku od nosaca, ono postrojavanje celokupne posade uz ogradu palube, takozvani rubni pozdrav, koje se danas upraznjava  u svecanim prilikama, ceremonijal, taj rad, izmisljeno je upravo u svrhu da se pokaze da je brod bezopasan, da dole^tm nema nikoga ko bi mogao da napravi neko sranje 

[Gandalf]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/03/yazidis-get-revenge-on-isis-in-sinjar.html

 

“He raised his hands and said, ‘I’m just a shepherd, I have no gun,’” but the attackers responded, “Many Yazidis were killed by ISIS so we will kill all of you,” Sadiq recalled. The shooting began and the other men hid between the sheep as Zuhair was gunned down.

...

The outbreak of vendettas in post-liberation Sinjar shows the difficulty of controlling the area while locals seek retribution for ISIS crimes, and the erosion of trust between former neighbors—a consequence of the war with ISIS across Iraq and Syria.

 

He said that local Arabs would not be allowed back to Sinjar. Yazidis accuse local Arabs of siding with the militants. “How can we let them back?” asked the colonel. “They lived with us for 100 years but they stabbed us in the back. They took our women and raped them. Arabs who lived here either helped ISIS militarily, financially or supported them ideologically.”

[Eraserhead]

Let’s deal with the Devil: we should work with Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad in Syria

 

In the last couple of days, young people have been coming up to me in the street and asking in an accusing way: “Oi, Boris, why did you vote for war?” And I try as ever to explain that I was not voting for war. There currently is a war that is taking place in Syria.

That bestial conflict has already claimed a quarter of a million lives. I was voting to stop the war. I was voting for peace. “Yeah,” they say, “but what about the bombing? What about all the innocent people who will die? It will be their blood on your hands.”

To which I respond that innocent lives are being lost now: tens of thousands of people butchered just because they are women, or disabled, or gay, or because they belong to the wrong strand of Islam. I don’t want to have them on my conscience, and I don’t want these sickos from Daesh/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) to continue to exult in their so‑called caliphate, and to be allowed indefinitely to promote their terrorist campaigns.

 

When the House of Commons finally gave the go-ahead for air strikes last week, no one cheered; no one even hear-heared. No one is approaching this with the slightest sense of jingo or enthusiasm. We want to get on with whatever is the best and fastest way to bring peace to Syria. And since we all know that cannot be achieved by bombing alone, we need to think much more creatively about the coalition we could build.

That brings us to Vladimir Putin. I was in Paris at the end of last week, and the Russian leader’s face glowered sulkily from every billboard. “Poutin”, said the headline, “Notre nouvel ami”. Many French people think the time has come to do a deal with their new friends the Russians – and I think that they are broadly right.

 

Look, I am no particular fan of Vlad. Quite the opposite. Russian-backed forces are illegally occupying parts of Ukraine. Putin’s proxy army was almost certainly guilty of killing the passengers on the Malaysia Airlines jet that came down in eastern Ukraine. He has questions to answer about the death of Alexander Litvinenko, pitilessly poisoned in a London restaurant. As for his reign in Moscow, he is allegedly the linchpin of a vast post-Soviet gangster kleptocracy, and is personally said to be the richest man on the planet. Journalists who oppose him get shot. His rivals find themselves locked up. Despite looking a bit like Dobby the House Elf, he is a ruthless and manipulative tyrant.

Does that mean it is morally impossible to work with him? I am not so sure. We need to focus on what we are trying to achieve. Our aims – at least, our stated aims – are to degrade and ultimately to destroy Isil as a force in Syria and Iraq. That is what it is all about.

Our mission is to remove an evil death cult, to deprive their organisation of the charisma and renown that goes with controlling a territory of some 10 million people. We need to end their hideous administration of Raqqa, with its torchings and beheadings. We need them out of Palmyra, because if Syria is to have a future then we must protect its past.

We cannot do that without terrestrial forces. We need someone to provide the boots on the ground; and given that we are not going to be providing British ground forces – and the French and the Americans are just as reluctant – we cannot afford to be picky about our allies.

We have the estimated 70,000 of the Free Syrian Army (and many other groups and grouplets); but those numbers may be exaggerated, and they may include some jihadists who are not ideologically very different from al-Qaeda.

Who else is there? The answer is obvious. There is Assad, and his army; and the recent signs are that they are making some progress. Thanks at least partly to Russian air strikes, it looks as if the regime is taking back large parts of Homs. Al-Qaeda-affiliated militants are withdrawing from some districts of the city. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.

With Russian air support, the Assad regime is only a few miles from Palmyra – the fabled pink-stoned city of monuments, where Isil decapitated the 82-year-old curator, Khaled Al‑Assad, before beginning an orgy of cultural destruction.

 

Am I backing the Assad regime, and the Russians, in their joint enterprise to recapture that amazing site? You bet I am. That does not mean I trust Putin, and it does not mean that I want to keep Assad in power indefinitely. But we cannot suck and blow at once.

At the moment, we are in danger of treating our engagement as if it were some complicated three-sided chess game, in which we are trying to neutralise the Islamists while simultaneously preventing Putin from getting too big for his boots. If we try to be too clever, we will end up achieving nothing.

 

This is the time to set aside our Cold War mindset. It is just not true that whatever is good for Putin must automatically be bad for the West. We both have a clear and concrete objective – to remove the threat from Isil. Everything else is secondary.

Think of all those planes above Syria – some for the Assad regime, some against the regime, some against Isil, some against the non-Isil rebels. It is absurd. The best hope of getting rid of Isil is an agreement between all the powers – America, Russia, France, Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the rest – to take them out, together with a timetable for Assad to step down and a plan for a new Syrian government.

Everyone in Paris last week seemed familiar with one quotation from Sir Winston Churchill. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Churchill decided to qualify his lifelong hatred of communism. “If Hitler invaded Hell,” said Churchill in 1941, “I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” And as he foresaw, it was the Russians who did the most to help us win the war.

[MancMellow]

Boris +1

[Radoye]

Cek bre, pa ne mogu svi avionacici da se smeste u hangare ispod. Ovo je mozda sa nekim polusastavom aviopuka, right?

 

Ovo je slika od pre 20 godina doduse, i nosac sa slike je u medjuvremenu rashodovan, ali ono sto vidis je uplovljavanje u maticnu luku nakon prvog rata u Iraku - dakle, 100% popunjen borbeni sastav.

[dillinger]

 

Think of all those planes above Syria – some for the Assad regime, some against the regime, some against Isil, some against the non-Isil rebels. It is absurd. The best hope of getting rid of Isil is an agreement between all the powers – America, Russia, France, Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the rest – to take them out, together with a timetable for Assad to step down and a plan for a new Syrian government.

Everyone in Paris last week seemed familiar with one quotation from Sir Winston Churchill. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Churchill decided to qualify his lifelong hatred of communism. “If Hitler invaded Hell,” said Churchill in 1941, “I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” And as he foresaw, it was the Russians who did the most to help us win the war.

 

 

Oh...Mogu misliti kako mastermajndovima u Vašingtonu, Moskvi, Londonu....gaće se tresu od jebenog IS-a i to ih tera da se ujedine, a ne jeftina PR kampanja i hvatanje što boljih pozicija za vreme posle IS-a.

Edited December 7, 2015 by dillinger

[Прслин]

Носач авиона Richard Nixon у класи Nimitz под узлетно-слетном палубом складишти не само авионе, већ и четири против-оклопна хеликоптера Navajo или два Apache.

[iDemo]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/03/yazidis-get-revenge-on-isis-in-sinjar.html

Takvi su vidjeni da se kompletna sela pre ili kasnije isele u neke Amerike, Kanade, Australije i slicno...

Oh, wait...

[vathra]

Носач авиона Richard Nixon у класи Nimitz под узлетно-слетном палубом складишти не само авионе, већ и четири против-оклопна хеликоптера Navajo или два Apache.

 

Да ли су обичне или модернизоване верзије које могу да дејствују и по Харанзима и Викинзима?

 

[Прслин]

;) Теби пишем плус, остали форумски војни стручњаци тек морају да ме убеде да не раде ово што ја радим већ неко време.

[Budja]

 

Let’s deal with the Devil: we should work with Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad in Syria

 

In the last couple of days, young people have been coming up to me in the street and asking in an accusing way: “Oi, Boris, why did you vote for war?” And I try as ever to explain that I was not voting for war. There currently is a war that is taking place in Syria.

That bestial conflict has already claimed a quarter of a million lives. I was voting to stop the war. I was voting for peace. “Yeah,” they say, “but what about the bombing? What about all the innocent people who will die? It will be their blood on your hands.”

To which I respond that innocent lives are being lost now: tens of thousands of people butchered just because they are women, or disabled, or gay, or because they belong to the wrong strand of Islam. I don’t want to have them on my conscience, and I don’t want these sickos from Daesh/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) to continue to exult in their so‑called caliphate, and to be allowed indefinitely to promote their terrorist campaigns.

 

When the House of Commons finally gave the go-ahead for air strikes last week, no one cheered; no one even hear-heared. No one is approaching this with the slightest sense of jingo or enthusiasm. We want to get on with whatever is the best and fastest way to bring peace to Syria. And since we all know that cannot be achieved by bombing alone, we need to think much more creatively about the coalition we could build.

That brings us to Vladimir Putin. I was in Paris at the end of last week, and the Russian leader’s face glowered sulkily from every billboard. “Poutin”, said the headline, “Notre nouvel ami”. Many French people think the time has come to do a deal with their new friends the Russians – and I think that they are broadly right.

 

Look, I am no particular fan of Vlad. Quite the opposite. Russian-backed forces are illegally occupying parts of Ukraine. Putin’s proxy army was almost certainly guilty of killing the passengers on the Malaysia Airlines jet that came down in eastern Ukraine. He has questions to answer about the death of Alexander Litvinenko, pitilessly poisoned in a London restaurant. As for his reign in Moscow, he is allegedly the linchpin of a vast post-Soviet gangster kleptocracy, and is personally said to be the richest man on the planet. Journalists who oppose him get shot. His rivals find themselves locked up. Despite looking a bit like Dobby the House Elf, he is a ruthless and manipulative tyrant.

Does that mean it is morally impossible to work with him? I am not so sure. We need to focus on what we are trying to achieve. Our aims – at least, our stated aims – are to degrade and ultimately to destroy Isil as a force in Syria and Iraq. That is what it is all about.

Our mission is to remove an evil death cult, to deprive their organisation of the charisma and renown that goes with controlling a territory of some 10 million people. We need to end their hideous administration of Raqqa, with its torchings and beheadings. We need them out of Palmyra, because if Syria is to have a future then we must protect its past.

We cannot do that without terrestrial forces. We need someone to provide the boots on the ground; and given that we are not going to be providing British ground forces – and the French and the Americans are just as reluctant – we cannot afford to be picky about our allies.

We have the estimated 70,000 of the Free Syrian Army (and many other groups and grouplets); but those numbers may be exaggerated, and they may include some jihadists who are not ideologically very different from al-Qaeda.

Who else is there? The answer is obvious. There is Assad, and his army; and the recent signs are that they are making some progress. Thanks at least partly to Russian air strikes, it looks as if the regime is taking back large parts of Homs. Al-Qaeda-affiliated militants are withdrawing from some districts of the city. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.

With Russian air support, the Assad regime is only a few miles from Palmyra – the fabled pink-stoned city of monuments, where Isil decapitated the 82-year-old curator, Khaled Al‑Assad, before beginning an orgy of cultural destruction.

 

Am I backing the Assad regime, and the Russians, in their joint enterprise to recapture that amazing site? You bet I am. That does not mean I trust Putin, and it does not mean that I want to keep Assad in power indefinitely. But we cannot suck and blow at once.

At the moment, we are in danger of treating our engagement as if it were some complicated three-sided chess game, in which we are trying to neutralise the Islamists while simultaneously preventing Putin from getting too big for his boots. If we try to be too clever, we will end up achieving nothing.

 

This is the time to set aside our Cold War mindset. It is just not true that whatever is good for Putin must automatically be bad for the West. We both have a clear and concrete objective – to remove the threat from Isil. Everything else is secondary.

Think of all those planes above Syria – some for the Assad regime, some against the regime, some against Isil, some against the non-Isil rebels. It is absurd. The best hope of getting rid of Isil is an agreement between all the powers – America, Russia, France, Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the rest – to take them out, together with a timetable for Assad to step down and a plan for a new Syrian government.

Everyone in Paris last week seemed familiar with one quotation from Sir Winston Churchill. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Churchill decided to qualify his lifelong hatred of communism. “If Hitler invaded Hell,” said Churchill in 1941, “I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” And as he foresaw, it was the Russians who did the most to help us win the war.

 

 

Clanak tacan ali zakasneo jedno tri godine.

Niti bismo imali tolike zrtve, niti bi bilo ISIS-a, a mozda bi se desila lagana tranzicija. 

Tretiranje Asada u ranoj fazi konflikta kao ISIS sada je doprinelo verskoj polarizaciji, zlocinima Asada, zlocinima ISISa, i zlocinima ostalih.

 

Trust strateskih mozgova. Well done.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Budja

[iDemo]

Trust strateskih mozgova. Well done.

A je@iga, neko je procenio™ da ce moci da mu vide ledja za neko krace vreme...