Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

long time lurking

Syria/russia/usa

Recommended Posts

Leverage.

They are seeing their original aim - a pipeline for oil and gas from Saudi and Qatar to the Med - now have a chance of coming to fruition. They just want to hammer home the point.

Or maybe they so fear Trump that the best chance Hillary has is if Obama starts a war now. Then Hillary can go and sort it all out before the election and everything will be wonderful.

I don't know is the answer - everything is so fecked up there. Probably saved the price of gold on Monday morning though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS must have been in the area given that IS staged an advance immediately after the US air strike on Syrian forces. Maybe the target was IS and it's a US c0ck up, which wouldn't be the first time.

The US Central Command later has issued a statement, saying that it had no intention of targeting Syrian government forces near Deir ez-Zor.

“Syria is a complex situation with various military forces and militias in close proximity, but [the] coalition would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit,” the statement read.

So, unintentional c0ck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British air force admits involvement in airstrikes which hit Syrian govt troops

The RAF participated in the "friendly fire" bombing of Syrian troops, using Reaper drone & Tornado's.

The strike in the area of Deir el-Zor was originally attributed to Australian, US and Danish forces operating as part of the US-led coalition but the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) tweeted on Monday that it had been involved.

https://www.rt.com/uk/359856-uk-hit-syria-troops/

An MoD spokesman said: We can confirm that the UK participated in the recent coalition air strike in Syria, south of Dayr az Zawr on Saturday, and we are fully cooperating with the coalition investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official MOD Statement:

We can confirm that the UK participated in the recent coalition air strike in Syria, south of Dayr az Zawr [Deir el-Zor] on Saturday, and we are fully cooperating with the coalition investigation, an MoD spokesman said.

The UK would not intentionally target Syrian military units. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official MOD Statement:

We can confirm that the UK participated in the recent coalition air strike in Syria, south of Dayr az Zawr [Deir el-Zor] on Saturday, and we are fully cooperating with the coalition investigation, an MoD spokesman said.

The UK would not intentionally target Syrian military units. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

IS must be armed with Uniformed soldiers, tanks and other hardware that was hit. I wonder who supplied it. I wonder who broke the ceasefire that our Government was so quick to condemn everyone else for not following. Big mistake ( another one) by "our" side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a false flag. Have to wait until the Russians have investigated to see what their conclusion is. I wouldn't trust a word the Americans/NATO say on anything, to be frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a false flag. Have to wait until the Russians have investigated to see what their conclusion is. I wouldn't trust a word the Americans/NATO say on anything, to be frank.

A convoy parked in rebel territory...not a convoy exactly, a convoy is a line of transport on the move. This was a load of lorrys delivering aid and supply to the enemy.

Apparently breaking the cease fire is only something the Syrians can do. For the Coalition, overflight without authority and attacking the Government forces is not breaking a cease fire, let alone an act of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Coalition, overflight without authority and attacking the Government forces is not breaking a cease fire, let alone an act of war.

They wanted to break all trust in the ceasefire, imo, that was the purpose of that "honest mistake". And on we go....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ceasefire had expired when the convoy was hit so there was no ceasefire in operation.

And I would agree that if the convoy was supplying the rebel scum with aid then it was a valid military target. Anything that permits the rebels to hold out is a military target in my book.

But then if I was in charge, I would have given the people in Aleppo a week to lay down their arms and clear the city - and then reduced it to rubble with one massive bomb at the precise deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then if I was in charge, I would have given the people in Aleppo a week to lay down their arms and clear the city - and then reduced it to rubble with one massive bomb at the precise deadline.

It is only a part of Aleppo that is rebel held though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is looking more and more like nonsense fabricated by the American/Nato nazi lunatics to attack Russia/Syria. It looks like it was a rocket attack carried out by Al Nusra, with the Americans stupidly trying to pin the blame on Russia/Assad. They are really pathetic:

Russian, Syrian Jets Did Not Conduct Airstrikes on UN Convoy in Aleppo - MoD

Russian and Syrian aircraft did not carry out any airstrikes against a UN humanitarian aid convoy near the city of Aleppo, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said Tuesday.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160920/1045504075/russia-syria-convoy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ceasefire had expired when the convoy was hit so there was no ceasefire in operation.

And I would agree that if the convoy was supplying the rebel scum with aid then it was a valid military target. Anything that permits the rebels to hold out is a military target in my book.

But then if I was in charge, I would have given the people in Aleppo a week to lay down their arms and clear the city - and then reduced it to rubble with one massive bomb at the precise deadline.

Yeah, we all guessed you would do that, because you are full of hatred.

LOVE_LOGO.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ceasefire had expired when the convoy was hit so there was no ceasefire in operation.

And I would agree that if the convoy was supplying the rebel scum with aid then it was a valid military target. Anything that permits the rebels to hold out is a military target in my book.

But then if I was in charge, I would have given the people in Aleppo a week to lay down their arms and clear the city - and then reduced it to rubble with one massive bomb at the precise deadline.

Do a fallujah you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some confusion from eye witnesses, talking of "air strikes" then "land missiles". Russia says the trucks were torched.

By the time the cause is actually discovered it will no longer be news.

The (local) BBC news ran with the US line. It was airstrikes and the US didn't do it so it was Russia.

That's effectively fact now, whether it actually was airstrikes and whether it was Russian planes is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time the cause is actually discovered it will no longer be news.

The (local) BBC news ran with the US line. It was airstrikes and the US didn't do it so it was Russia.

That's effectively fact now, whether it actually was airstrikes and whether it was Russian planes is irrelevant.

If it really were Russian or Syrian planes I would expect some kind of red line to have been crossed. The fact that the UN says they don't know what the cause was casts it in some doubt. The BBC is still going with the Syrian planes story though.

Would the Syrians have done it? Surely they'd need the Russian ok and I can't see them being too happy. It is like the Chlorine bombs, every time things are going badly for the rebels there is a chemical attack, if things were going badly the Syrian army wouldn't be messing around with ineffective chlorine bombs surely? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Surely an overstretched army would concentrate on military targets?

Latest news from the MSM

(if you read the article it doesn't correspond to the headline: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/20/un-aid-convoy-attack-syria-us-russia)

Russian planes dropped bombs that destroyed UN aid convoy

US defence officials now believe that Russian planes dropped the bombs that destroyed a UN aid convoy that killed at least 20 people, the Guardian has learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we all guessed you would do that, because you are full of hatred.

Not really, just interested in efficiency and ending the war. The quickest way to end this is to eliminate the rebels/terrorists with the least amount of effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, just interested in efficiency and ending the war. The quickest way to end this is to eliminate the rebels/terrorists with the least amount of effort.

You have previously expressed contempt for refugees, particularly those males of fighting age. You said they should stay and fight, whatever side they were on.

Now you reveal that those on the losing side should be obliterated, without regard for civilans, who you clearly would have killed if they stayed or would have no pity on if they fled as refugees.

Basically, you want anyone, who is not as far up Putin's a**e as you, wiped of the map. And you call the Americans and UN Nazis!!

I imagine you sitting somewhere in Little Moscow in Wales at your keyboard, the arteries in your forehead visibly pulsing, every time someone dares to disrespect your Maginificent Glorious Putin.

Which is probably an inaccurate image, as I don't really know where you troll from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   101 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.