Sirija

[Muwan]

Nije u pitanju zlo nego prosto pitanje: da li postoji kvalitativna razlika izmedju sukobljenih strana ako samo jedna sistematski i godinama koristi tesku artiljeriju i avijaciju protiv civila?

Za mene postoji i zato mi je Asad problematicniji od svih drugih osim IS.

Resenje je vec davno trebala da bude no fly zona bez neke dalje intervencije i uplitanja u sam sukob.

 

No fly zona je veoma problematična sa stanovišta učinkovitosti. Ona može da eliminiše vazdušne udare po civilima ali ostaje artiljerija koja sve to može da nadoknadi, i onda se opet vraćamo na pitanje dubljeg uvlačenja u sukob odnosno udara po ciljevima na zemlji. Sve to pod uslovom da se iko uopšte odvaži na no fly zonu budući da sirijska PVO nije šaka jada kao što je bila srpska ili libijska, pa da nečija avijacija može da se zeza gore kao da je na manevrima i povremeno skida sa neba neki zlosrećni MiG. Sirijska PVO je verovatno i glavni razlog što no fly zona nije uspostavljena silom.

 

Druga stvar je to da se ovaj rat, kao i svaki moderan građanski rat, vodi prevashodno u urbanim sredinama. Onaj ko se u urbanoj sredini brani, koristi civilne ciljeve da se rasporedi i utvrdi nakon čega napadač nema drugog izbora nego da te ciljeve gađa (ovde ne mislim na bolnice DWB ili na fabrike vode već na civilne ciljeve generalno). Alepo brani koliko, 20-30 hiljada pripadnika JaN i FSA? Svi su se zabarikadirali i ukopali po gradu, i kako drugačije SAA pred napad može da uradi artiljerijsku pripremu nego da raspali po kvartu u kojem se ovi nalaze? Lepo bi bilo da se rat vodi na praznim poljanama daleko od gradova ali gradovi na žalost daju vojskama koje ih koriste brojne prednosti kojih se nijedna vojska ne bi odrekla.

 

Na kraju teba napomenuti još dve stvari: prvo, obe strane u sukobu se ne libe da silom drže "svoje" civile u okruženju tj. da im ne dopuštaju da napuste enklave koje su u neprijateljskom okruženju. Drugo, rebeli su takođe imali svoje momente uništavanja bolnica u koje su se sklanjali Asadovi vojnici i civili, samo što tada nije bilo nikog da ga ti masakri podsete na Gerniku.

[vathra]

hjхј

 

No fly zona je veoma problematična sa stanovišta učinkovitosti. Ona može da eliminiše vazdušne udare po civilima ali ostaje artiljerija koja sve to može da nadoknadi,..

 

А кад склониш и артиљерију, остане још доста тога...

Од 1:50 се види дејство

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvqL0GNl6po

 

А ни оне склепанције од плинских боца нису пуно боље.

Пошто су непрецизне, мора да се њих више испали да би се неутралисао циљ.

[Anduril]

No fly zona je veoma problematična sa stanovišta učinkovitosti. Ona može da eliminiše vazdušne udare po civilima ali ostaje artiljerija koja sve to može da nadoknadi, i onda se opet vraćamo na pitanje dubljeg uvlačenja u sukob odnosno udara po ciljevima na zemlji. Sve to pod uslovom da se iko uopšte odvaži na no fly zonu budući da sirijska PVO nije šaka jada kao što je bila srpska ili libijska, pa da nečija avijacija može da se zeza gore kao da je na manevrima i povremeno skida sa neba neki zlosrećni MiG. Sirijska PVO je verovatno i glavni razlog što no fly zona nije uspostavljena silom.

 

Druga stvar je to da se ovaj rat, kao i svaki moderan građanski rat, vodi prevashodno u urbanim sredinama. Onaj ko se u urbanoj sredini brani, koristi civilne ciljeve da se rasporedi i utvrdi nakon čega napadač nema drugog izbora nego da te ciljeve gađa (ovde ne mislim na bolnice DWB ili na fabrike vode već na civilne ciljeve generalno). Alepo brani koliko, 20-30 hiljada pripadnika JaN i FSA? Svi su se zabarikadirali i ukopali po gradu, i kako drugačije SAA pred napad može da uradi artiljerijsku pripremu nego da raspali po kvartu u kojem se ovi nalaze? Lepo bi bilo da se rat vodi na praznim poljanama daleko od gradova ali gradovi na žalost daju vojskama koje ih koriste brojne prednosti kojih se nijedna vojska ne bi odrekla.

 

Na kraju teba napomenuti još dve stvari: prvo, obe strane u sukobu se ne libe da silom drže "svoje" civile u okruženju tj. da im ne dopuštaju da napuste enklave koje su u neprijateljskom okruženju. Drugo, rebeli su takođe imali svoje momente uništavanja bolnica u koje su se sklanjali Asadovi vojnici i civili, samo što tada nije bilo nikog da ga ti masakri podsete na Gerniku.

 

Necu da ulazim u tehnikalije i sta bi bilo kad bi bilo.

Moje pitanje je bilo da li postoji kvalitativna razlika izmedju strana povodom koriscenja teskog naoruzanja i avijacije po civilima.

Vojno-tehnicki je naravno uvek lako naci opravdanje no o tome se nije govorilo nego da li postoji nesto sto kvalitativno razlikuje strane u sukobu.

[frn1782]

ID i umereni teroristi ne mogu da koriste avijaciju i teshku artiljeriju jer ih ocigledno nemaju.

Tojote i SAM su jedino sto u novogodisnjim paketicima crveni krst deli po Siriji.

A i tehnichki je teshko preko noci obuciti naoruzane civilie tek tako da koriste sofisticiraniju opremu.

 

Tako da, i nije neki argument ko je vise los decko to je stvar moguceg a ne zeljenog.

[Gandalf]

rebeli su takođe imali svoje momente uništavanja bolnica u koje su se sklanjali Asadovi vojnici i civili, samo što tada nije bilo nikog da ga ti masakri podsete na Gerniku.

novi standard u svi cine zlocine performansu. unistena bolnica u kojoj su lekari, sestre i pacijenti vs. unistena bolnica u kojoj je vojska, bez lekara i pacijenata. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Gandalf

[Bane5]

danas je najverovatnije u granatiranju pogodjena 'dabbit' bolnica koja se nalazi u prakticno sredisnjem delu onog dela alepa koji je pod kontrolom asadovog rezima.

[Muwan]

Necu da ulazim u tehnikalije i sta bi bilo kad bi bilo.

Moje pitanje je bilo da li postoji kvalitativna razlika izmedju strana povodom koriscenja teskog naoruzanja i avijacije po civilima.

Vojno-tehnicki je naravno uvek lako naci opravdanje no o tome se nije govorilo nego da li postoji nesto sto kvalitativno razlikuje strane u sukobu.

 

U građanskim ratovima se često dešava da jedna strana ima značajnu prednost u teškom hardveru. Ako je nekom iz bilo kog razloga stalo da izjednači dve strane, neko moje mišljenje je da je to bolje raditi tako što ćeš onog slabijeg da ojačaš nego što ćeš onog jačeg da oslabiš. Konkretno u slučaju Sirije, isporučiš (hipotetički) rebelima kamaru samaljota i vetroleta iz sovjetske ere, dodaš na to artiljerijska oruđa velikog kalibra, pa kom opanci tom i džeri. Kao Rusi što do zuba naoružavaju Jermene i Azere na ravne časti, pa se oni onda krljaju na prilično ravnopravnoj bazi i niko ne mora da lupa glavu pitanjima tipa: Kako sad da oslabim ovog da bi onaj drugi nešto postigao na terenu, da li da mu uvodim sankcije, da li da ga ograničeno bombardujem, kako sve to da izvedem...

[namenski]

... da li postoji nesto sto kvalitativno razlikuje strane u sukobu.

Jedini kvalitet^tm u kontroli kvaliteta strana u sukobu su tvoje ideoloske predrasude kojima podobnim^tm stranama dodeljujes odgovarajuce zastave, jednima one skroz crne, a drugima skroz bele.

[Bane5]

Jedini kvalitet^tm u kontroli kvaliteta strana u sukobu su tvoje ideoloske predrasude kojima podobnim^tm stranama dodeljujes odgovarajuce zastave, jednima one skroz crne, a drugima skroz bele.

 

uh ako ti to kazes onda svaka cast.

[namenski]

uh ako ti to kazes onda svaka cast.

NGO Humanisto, mani me se, nije mi do tebe i tebi slicnih danas 

[Bane5]

NGO Humanisto, mani me se, nije mi do tebe i tebi slicnih danas 

 

ne etiketiraj ono sto nisi dokazao, a bio si pozvan.

dok svoje jadne kvalifikacije ne dokazes smatraj da si i lazov osim sto si pokazao da nemas ni trunke morala da pises o siriji.

[Prospero]

How Britain funds the 'propaganda war' against Isis in Syria

 

Government contractors effectively run a press office for opposition fighters but communications conceal UK’s role

Ian Cobain, Alice Ross, Rob Evansand Mona Mahmood

Tuesday 3 May 201614.00 BST

 

 

 

 

The British government is waging information warfare in Syria by funding media operations for some rebel fighting groups, in the foreign front of what David Cameron has called “the propaganda war” against Islamic State.

 

The campaign aims to boost the reputation of what the government calls the “moderate armed opposition”, a complex and shifting alliance of armed factions.

 

Deciding which factions to support is risky for the government because many groups have become increasingly extremist as the five-year civil war grinds on.

 

Contractors hired by the Foreign Office but overseen by the Ministry of Defence(MoD) produce videos, photos, military reports, radio broadcasts, print products and social media posts branded with the logos of fighting groups, and effectively run a press office for opposition fighters.

 

Materials are circulated in the Arabic broadcast media and posted online with no indication of British government involvement.

 

As the Guardian has reported, the Home Office’s Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism is running a parallel effort within the UK, aiming to bring about “behavioural and attitudinal change” among British Muslims by producing anti-Isis messaging “at an industrial pace and scale”.

 

In both the foreign and domestic campaigns, the government’s role is often concealed. Messages are put out under the banner of apparently independent groups – community organisations in the UK, and armed groups in Syria.

 

The UK regards information as a vital element of modern conflict. The MoD has drawn up a doctrine describing information as “so prevalent, potent and unavoidable that it forms as much a part of the strategic environment as the terrain or weather”, and saying how it should be managed through “strategic communications”.

 

The UK’s propaganda effort for the Syrian armed opposition began after the government failed to persuade parliament to support military action against the Assad regime. In autumn 2013, the UK embarked on behind-the-scenes work to influence the course of the war by shaping perceptions of opposition fighters.

 

Contract documents seen by the Guardian show the government appears to view the project as a way to maintain a foothold in the country until there can be greater British military involvement, offering “the capability to expand back into the strategic space as and when the opportunity arises”.

 

Through its Conflict and Stability Fund the government is spending £2.4m on private contractors working from Istanbul to deliver “strategic communications and media operations support to the Syrian moderate armed opposition” (MAO).

 

The contract is part of a broader propaganda effort focused on Syria, with other elements intended to promote “the moderate values of the revolution” and help mould a Syrian sense of national identity that will reject both the Assad regime and Isis.

 

The documents call for contractors to “select and train a spokesman able to represent all the MAO groups as a single unified voice”, as well as providing media coaching to “influential MAO officials” and running a round-the-clock “MAO central media office” with “media production capacity”. One British source with knowledge of the contracts in action said the government was essentially running a “Free Syrian army press office”.

 

The contract to support the moderate armed opposition was briefly held by Regester Larkin, an international communications consultancy, where it was headed up by a former lieutenant colonel in the British army who had also worked as a strategic communications specialist at the MoD. He set up a company called Innovative Communications & Strategies, or InCoStrat, which took over the contract from November 2014, a Regester Larkin spokeswoman told the Guardian.

 

An InCoStrat spokesman confirmed: “InCoStrat is providing media and communication support to the moderate Syrian opposition to assist Syrians to better convey the reality of war and those involved in it.”

 

Both emphasised the close supervision of the work by the British government. An insider also described “tremendous oversight”, with handlers from the FCO and MoD meeting contractors up to three times a week. “They had the last say in everything,” the source said.

 

Much of the material produced under these contracts is day-to-day wartime propaganda, aimed at Syrian civilian and military audiences. It includes bulletins of successful military engagements, or videos of opposition fighters handing out food.

 

Some media, however, serve an additional military purpose, two sources familiar with the projects said. For example, a video of a shoulder-to-air missile shooting down a regime helicopter signals to those inside Syria that the group is well-armed and effective. But it also sends a message to those arming the group. “That’s good PR to go back to the Pentagon,” the insider said.

 

An MoD spokeswoman emphasised that the groups the UK supports are moderate. But identifying which groups really are is fraught with risk, as they can commit unpalatable acts or ally with groups considered unacceptably extremist.

 

The contracting document seen by the Guardian lists several “mid-level units” as examples of groups considered to be part of the “moderate armed opposition”. These include Harakat al-Hazm, which received military assistance from the US, and Jaysh al-Islam, a group reportedly set up with Saudi backing.

 

But six months before the document was written in November 2014, Human Rights Watch identified Jaysh al-Islam as the likely kidnappers of four human rights activists in December 2013. The four are widely assumed to have been murdered. The group has also been criticised for using imprisoned civilians as human shields, and for releasing a glossy video last June showing the grisly murder of 18 captive Isis fighters, a war crime under the Geneva convention.

 

The government initially denied that the group was referenced in its contracting documents. It later acknowledged that it was mentioned but said it was referenced in the document as part of a description of how other groups had described the moderate armed opposition.

 

An MoD spokeswoman said: “Jaysh al-Islam has never been given any assistance by the MoD, FCO or any contractors working on HMG’s [Her Majesty’s government] behalf … All recipients of our assistance are rigorously assessed to ensure they are not involved in any extremist activity or human rights abuses.”

 

A source said contractors had provided media support for Harakat al-Hazm, but the group collapsed in March 2015 and its weaponry, including anti-tank missiles provided by the US, fell into the hands of the al-Nusra Front, a group that has pledged allegiance to al-Qaida.

 

An MoD spokeswoman said: “The UK has been a longstanding supporter of the moderate opposition in Syria, who are standing up to both the tyranny of the Assad regime and the poisonous and murderous ideology of Daesh [isis].”

 

Reporting team: Ian Cobain, Alice Ross, Rob Evans, Mona Mahmood, Nick Fielding and Safak Timur

[frn1782]

Za ljubitelje klasike ruski orkestar u oslobodjenoj Palmiri upravo motokultivishe lokalne Arape.

I umereni teroristi su pozvani samo moraju da plate kartu.

Lepse je sa kulturom.

[Prospero]

[namenski]

Anduril, 3, 2, 1...