The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

For exmaple it was said the Russians wouold be unable to send bigger expedionary forces outside the reahc of a comprehensive rail network. But most logistics needed to form up the Russian presenc ein Syria, was via aiurlift and sea transport - and at a surprisingly fast pace.

That believe surprises me considering that we had to rent THEIR Antonovs to airlift our stuff to Afghanistan....

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

That believe surprises me considering that we had to rent THEIR Antonovs to airlift our stuff to Afghanistan....

You can be small in airlifting, and still in peaceful days can rent a small share of that for a two-day operation. That we rent their Antonovs, means little, I think. For Russia'S capabilities at least. It says a ,lot about Germany's deficits, however. We should not want to play on playgrounds we cannot reach and manouver in by our own means. That is stupid doing.

Relocating brigade and divisions sized forces and supplying them across Russia - that is where the challenge lies. They probably still dpeend on their rail network heavily. But that they would be able to relocated such an effective expeditionary force via airlift and sea transport with so short time of early warning and with such a speed, caught many analysts in Brussels HQ on the wrong foot, I read.

[ikalugin]

The problem with Kuznetsov is that the carrier presense in Syria is not cost effective - it is much better to base aircraft on conventional airfields.

So when Kuznetsov does sortie to Med it would be a big training exercise.

[U505995]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Anyone watching the BBC News the other night see the presentation on the matter of RuAF bombing civilian targets in Aleppo then returning within thirty minutes and bombing those carrying out rescue work?

Russia becoming involved in the area for the sake of gaining a naval base and Putin looking for revenge against sanctions imposed by the west has simply undermined what was a just effort to rid the Syrian people of a tyrant.

I'd have thought a united east/west front ridding the area of Daesh and then a united committment by said parties to seek a political end to the conflict would have been more sensible, surely?

What is happening currently will never bring about a peaceful solution to all the parties involved.

Oh boy, *grabs popcorn*

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Anyone watching the BBC News the other night see the presentation on the matter of RuAF bombing civilian targets in Aleppo then returning within thirty minutes and bombing those carrying out rescue work?

Yeah, that's called a "double tap" - at least in the US drone operations in the middle east and being practiced like that since the very beginning.

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yeah, that's called a "double tap" - at least in the US drone operations in the middle east and being practiced like that since the very beginning.

I've read that the Germans originally perfected the tactic during the Blitz. That must be the beginning you're talking about.

Originally Posted by August

I've read that the Germans originally perfected the tactic during the Blitz. That must be the beginning you're talking about.

While you of course only post this because you can not accept any sort of criticism towards your holy, untouchable country - especially not from some foreigner - the point is not who practiced it first, but rather a hint towards something I mentioned earlier.
The west concentrates on "Russia = bad", while it, for over a decade now, ignores the crimes *someone* commits in the middle east.
I am not sure how what the Luftwaffe over 70 years ago did still matters in that context?
Oh right it doesn't - it is just about blame-shifting as usual.

What I said isn't wrong - is it?
Bombing those who come to help is a disgusting tactic and surely kills more non-combatants than legit military targets, that is the point and if your only excuse is "but the Nazis!" then I can't help you anyways.

Long story short: Can't blame Russia when 'we' do the same thing.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

While you of course only post this because you can not accept any sort of criticism towards your holy, untouchable country - especially not from some foreigner - the point is not who practiced it first, but rather a hint towards something I mentioned earlier.
The west concentrates on "Russia = bad", while it, for over a decade now, ignores the crimes *someone* commits in the middle east.
I am not sure how what the Luftwaffe over 70 years ago did still matters in that context?
Oh right it doesn't - it is just about blame-shifting as usual.

What I said isn't wrong - is it?
Bombing those who come to help is a disgusting tactic and surely kills more non-combatants than legit military targets, that is the point and if your only excuse is "but the Nazis!" then I can't help you anyways.

Long story short: Can't blame Russia when 'we' do the same thing.

It's war. Be enraged or perplexed or whatever about the fact that there is war, if you think you must - but not about the ways and the tools of war once there is a war. War is war. And it absolutely is nothing different.

War is not the continuing of peace with other means. Judging it by moral standards of peace time, makes no sense. It does not ennoble war, magically, war remaisn to be dirty, and mean, always. There are no "just" wars or "holy" wars - only wars that are needed and wars that are wanted. The first must be fought, the latter must be avoided at all cost. The Russians have a mission, a cause, an objective, so they think. And obviously they do not accept getting distracted from their objective, may there be civilians in the way, may there be diplomats protesting. They do not care. Their objective still is not achieved, and so they keep on bombing until they have achieved it, or got defeated.

Thats why I think they have a better chance to win this their latest military adventure, while the West has turned all its major military wins of the past 40 years into strategic defeats, needlessly: Vietnam, Gulf 2, Afghanistan, Gulf 3 - militarily undefeated, but turned into strategic defeats nevertheless. We excel in loosing wars - despite claimed military superiority.

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's war. Be enraged or perplexed or whatever about the fact that there is war, if you think you must - but not about the ways and the tools of war once there is a war. War is war. And it absolutely is nothing different.

War is not the continuing of peace with other means. Judging it by moral standards of peace time, makes no sense. It does not ennoble war, magically, war remaisn to be dirty, and mean, always. There are no "just" wars or "holy" wars - only wars that are needed and wars that are wanted. The first must be fought, the latter must be avoided at all cost. The Russians have a mission, a cause, an objective, so they think. And obviously they do not accept getting distracted from their objective, may there be civilians in the way, may there be diplomats protesting. They do not care. Their objective still is not achieved, and so they keep on bombing until they have achieved it, or got defeated.

Thats why I think they have a better chance to win this their latest military adventure, while the West has turned all its major military wins of the past 40 years into strategic defeats, needlessly: Vietnam, Gulf 2, Afghanistan, Gulf 3 - militarily undefeated, but turned into strategic defeats nevertheless. We excel in loosing wars - despite claimed military superiority.

Yeah...right...

I was talking exclusively about the deliberate killing of civilians, but go ahead, don't let my "peace time morales(?)" disturb your convenient point of view.

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

While you of course only post this because you can not accept any sort of criticism towards your holy, untouchable country - especially not from some foreigner - the point is not who practiced it first, but rather a hint towards something I mentioned earlier.

No, you just don't like taking a little of the medicine you love to dish out. Maybe you should just stick to complaining about those brown skinned refugees you and your pals hate so much.

[Rockstar]

What does it mean to win? Most here swallowed the pill when told western powers intervened to bring "freedom and democracy" to the middle east. If we base our idea of a win on that. IF that was the real objective then yes, we can say with all certainty the west lost. But I dont think its about winning the hearts and minds or setting anyone free from tyranny.

Western powers win when we prevent any nation over there from becoming the victor. We win when we bring stalemate and keep the region destabilized. We win when we have them focused and fighting each other instead of the West. IMO the West understands the middle east very well and plays them like a fiddle.

I think whats going on over there now doesn't have squat to do with bringing freedom and democracey to Syria or with moderate and radical Islam and terrorists, these are just isolated storms in a tea cup. IMO the war being fought is between Russia and NATO battling over spheres of influence. Russia is interested in keeping Assad in power so they get a piece of the action and a say in regional policy. The west is interested in restricting Russia's influence in the region, by attempting to oust Assad under the guise of freedom and democracy.

Originally Posted by August

No, you just don't like taking a little of the medicine you love to dish out. Maybe you should just stick to complaining about those brown skinned refugees you and your pals hate so much.

August, I tried to make this clear to you at least 3 times by now, but I will gladly try to make you understand once more.
Unlike you, I am no nationalist. Get that into your head.

So when you try to "get me" by mentioning Nazi Germany which I had nothing to do with it leaves me cold.
There is no connection at all and I am not stupid enough to feel personally attacked when someone legitimately criticizes the political actions of the country I live in - heck I criticize Germany's politics heavily myself, so what's your point actually?
"You attacked my country, now I attack yours! Because that matters and is totally an argument!"

And I really wonder, why don't you agree with me when I say that deliberately murdering civilians (or more precisely: Unidentified persons) is wrong?
Aren't you one of these 'good Christians'?
Shouldn't you be highly appalled by these kind of actions?
Oh and why exactly did you mention the refugees predominant skin color?
Is that a factor to you, I wonder?

Also, I would prefer if you not make wrong claims about me since I don't think defamation goes well with Subsims rules. Please, quote me in the future, will you?

To clear that up, since you struggle so often to understand so little, I don't hate refugees, which you must have read more than once by now, but as usual: You only hear what you want to hear, and ignore the rest.
I even said I'd let a Syrian family live in my house if circumstances would allow it (my house is half empty at the moment and before I sell it, this won't change), but yeah, go ahead, imply how I hate these brown skinned refugees...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon U-48

Oh boy, *grabs popcorn*

Got any of that popcorn to spare?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yeah...right...

I was talking exclusively about the deliberate killing of civilians, but go ahead, don't let my "peace time morales(?)" disturb your convenient point of view.

I am against deliberate killing of civilians, too, beleive it or not, may it be war or not. However, my argument is that war has its own logic dictated by military demands and objectives. Being cruel for the sake of just wanting to be cruel, imo is not needed, detemrination is sufficient: but that means to not let your objective out of your sights and stop firing because civilians are around - all you acheive by that is the enemy noticing your hesitation and startzing to abuse civilians as human shields behind which to hide. He fires at you, but you not at him. Guess who wins.

Assads regime seems to terrorise the population by besieging one city since months and causing a huge starvation desaster there, I do not know what kind of military advantage he sees in that - but I also do not know what kind of enemies of his are inside the city. The bombing campaign by Russia in Alleppo also looks quite ruthless, but as I said earlier: from Putin'S POV the objective is to assist Assad - but also to create more pressure by causing more refugees moving to Turkey, and Europe. Like them or not - but these are his objectives. If you are a realist, you must recognise that.

I do not justify this or that, nor do I take sides. If you want to criticise me of anything, than for my effort to maintain a sober, unsentimental look - from all side's perspectives. That I think I could "decypher" and understand Russia's objectives and calculations, does not automatically mean I sympathise with them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

What does it mean to win? Most here swallowed the pill when told western powers intervened to bring "freedom and democracy" to the middle east. If we base our idea of a win on that. IF that was the real objective then yes, we can say with all certainty the west lost. But I dont think its about winning the hearts and minds or setting anyone free from tyranny.

Western powers win when we prevent any nation over there from becoming the victor. We win when we bring stalemate and keep the region destabilized. We win when we have them focused and fighting each other instead of the West. IMO the West understands the middle east very well and plays them like a fiddle.

I think whats going on over there now doesn't have squat to do with bringing freedom and democracey to Syria. Nothing to do with moderate or radical Islam and terrorists, those are just isolated storms in a tea cup. IMO the war being fought is between Russia and NATO battling over spheres of influence. Russia is interested in keeping Assad in power somthey get a piece of the action and a say in regional policy. The west is interested in restricting Russia's influence in the region, which means ousting Assad under the guise of freedom and democracy.

While I too do not buy that freedom&democracy strawman claim, I think you underestimate the importance of the Shia-Sunni conflict for this war. At minimum it ius a relgious proxy war already.

And then ther eis Turkey, which is noit automatically to be counted as a Western ally, it is not, but by now stands for its own ambitions for regional dominance (last but not least over both Iran and Saudi Arabia). The Russians have picked their sides, against Tuzrkey, for Assad, witzh the Shia Persians (Iran). The West flits about (="irrlichtert herum") in search of a clue.