ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I think the main point being missed in this whole matter is that Russia is now establishing what looks to be permanent residence of an air base right on the Western edge of the Mediterranean. Base a few long distance strategic bombers there and rather than that huge flight they usually do over the top, they can now quite easily come across international water, over to London or other major Western European city with ease. Strategically, it's a bold and cunning move.
Nope, not that simple I'm afraid. You also can't make the leap of faith that Assad would have allowed that. Disagree by all means, but you'd be incorrect to do so
PS - Tartus is pretty insignificant, it can't even host a Russian war ship.
Last edited:
Will you please also just emigrate along with the other anti-West/Pro-Russian types?
You're asking the wrong person because I think long term it is the correct thing to do, remove dictators who murder their own people. I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to the dim view that "them there barbarians ought to be ruled with an iron fist, it's all they know". In the long term it's not really a way of seeing a civilisation progress and modernise is it? Civil unrest and revolt has occurred throughout history, more so in the Europe than anywhere. It's necessary to advance.
It isn't paranoia, it's the consideration of strategic military advancements to gain a foothold over your adversaries in order to increase ones influence and global power. It's really not rocket science, nor tin-foil hat territory. Read a history book.
And out of interest, if you were Vladamir, where would you put an airbase to position your bombers to give you greater influence in Europe?
The armchair generals are out in force today.
No because clearly the world isn't bad guys vs good guys, cowboys and Indians. When discussing whole states and the strategic maneuvers they make its almost always in regards to a position that puts them to an advantage over other states. If you want to take the naive stance on enemy being someone we are fighting, as in adversary in war, good guy vs bad guy then obviously Russia is not an enemy in that sense, I'm not going to fear for my safety walking through Moscow. However, they're an adversary who will compete with other states for political, economic and resource dominance over other states. Which brings me conveniently on to your other point about shaky histories... What does that have to do with anything today? Should we regret and apologise for it? No. Should we therefore turn round and say to the rest of the world "oh sorry old chaps, seeing as we were quite the bunch of tyrants centuries ago, have at it and have your fair share of rape and plunder, what what". How bloody British would that be! 
no sorry, the world doesn't work like that.
no sorry, the world doesn't work like that.
... On the cold war being over. It depends who you talk to. Technically, no it didn't end. I never said Russia would want an armed confrontation.
So, long term they're looking to develop this rather small insignificant naval Base as well as the immediate occupation of this airfield I pointed out. It all ties in nicely then.
As do all other media outlets of all other nations. RT for example is pro-Russian, and paint them as the "good guys". What's the point here?
If you feel so strongly about it then I think it only right you start sacrificing everything you have and handing it over to the 'little guy', it's that or emigrate to a poorer country and try do some good there. Because by staying here, you're just adding to your perceived problem that the big bad west is sucking poor countries dry.
The point was they have an extensive and developed military relationship, to the extent that being able to build a military base isn't a big deal. This isn't a magical opportunity they wouldn't have had otherwise, imo.
I didn't say it's a magical opportunity but it is a good excuse to now place a lot of their aircraft right on the Med, under the guise of combating ISIL. It's just the same as the US having strategic bases all round the middle east, encircling Iran, permanent bases in Iraq and pretty much anywhere that is viable to give them strategic advantage and resource security.
If, after however long the situation takes to resolve, Russia have withdrew all their aircraft and are not conducting bomber flights across the med, you can come back to me and tell me I was talking horse ****
The whole reason ISIL don't pose a significant threat to us yet is because the US and coalition mission in Iraq and Syria is to disrupt and degrade them in Iraq and Syria. Left unchecked then I think it's fair to say that they would become a very sizeable threat.
Before we fall into a willy waving contest about who knows most about different planes and then playing top trumps on who will beat who in an air combat show down let's take a step back from the sensationalism that the media wishes to whip up.
There isn't going to be an air to air situation between the coalition and Russian aircraft.
F16s/F15s can shoot down sukois.
Russia are quite clearly testing reaction, just like they do by flying bombers over to Scotland.
There isn't going to be an air to air situation between the coalition and Russian aircraft.
F16s/F15s can shoot down sukois.
Russia are quite clearly testing reaction, just like they do by flying bombers over to Scotland.
You don't realise that Russia have limited airborne C2 in Syria, like the US have. Their air picture is probably very restrictive and I'd hazard to guess that they are in fact employing the Su-30s to clear a path for their Su-25s, since they have the capacity to search (albeit locally) with their enhanced detection RADAR. Wording it as being "chased out of Syrian airspace" isn't really as you think. It's not an engagement, they're simply deconflicting this way seeing as the coalition aircraft aren't going to know exactly when and where Russian aircraft are going to be flying. It's not like they just email them their ATO everyday is it? You never know though, air coordination and deconfliction might actually happen if all nations pull their fingers out and just work together on this!
"Worthy of a drone strike" Love it The term DRONE STRIKE has so much stigma with it doesn't it? What about the cruise missiles, artillery, fast air and general skirmishing going on every day? Nah, not bothered about that.
The term DRONE STRIKE has so much stigma with it doesn't it? What about the cruise missiles, artillery, fast air and general skirmishing going on every day? Nah, not bothered about that.
It depends. Often the B1 will fly missions over areas where numerous targets are near one another, release half a dozen GBUs, but precision guide each and everyone on to each target simultaneously. That isn't classed as carpet bombing, it is still a PGM.
Then you've got all the civilian and coalition aircraft flying around in the way in all countries. Yes there is big sky theory and the chances of hitting something en route is low but if it did happen it could be catastrophic.
The US has refused to get too involved in fighting ISIL in Iraq? Eh??
Ah so why didn't you say that in the first place, because that applies to Syria too. If we're going to state he isn't commiting to fighting ISIL in Iraq then the same applies to Syria and surely you see the problem in that.
So what's your point? You do realise the decision not to apply troops to ground has largely been down to lack of public appetite? The idea was that the Iraqi Army sorted their turf out, along with the US air support. Unfortunately, they've largely been unsuccessful since much of the IA us inexperienced and also lacking appetite to fight.
Yes an antisemitic propaganda video. Very interesting.
Tell us more about you, that would also be interesting.