Russia and Iran start ‘ethnic cleansing’ Syrians

Discussion in 'World Events' started by w1z4rd, Dec 3, 2015.

  1. w1z4rd Cry the beloved country Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    http://freerussian.press/russian-airstrikes-in-syria-seem-to-be-hurting-civilians-more-than-isis/

    With the Russians having such poor quality and old dumb weapons.... lots of Syrians are getting hurt. Incredible collateral damage levels.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    You seem to have confused something. It is joepistole who names websites from around the world, if they do not support the NATO propaganda, a Russian government owned website.

    I have simply seen that it is, from its content, a typical anti-Russian propaganda website. And, moreover, it is a bad one. Making at Dec. 3th. http://freerussian.press/russia-assists-isis-in-capturing-major-syrian-city/
    a news out of Okt. 9th http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKCN0S30J220151010 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-is...ance-in-aleppo-outskirts-monitor-2015-10?IR=T is simply low quality. If this low quality site is paid by some government or by somebody else like Soros or so I do not know, and do not care. What I care about is what they write. I have my own criteria for quality. And according to these criteria your beloved source is simply a shrill anti-Russian propaganda site.

    If I want to see the NATO position, I can read more reliable NATO sources.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    This is nonsense. The Russians have a nice system, which is part of the plane, and controls at which moment the bomb is thrown. Even if the bomb itself is a dumb one, this gives an accuracy of 2-4 m from a high of 6000 m. So they can, on the one hand, use cheap old bombs, and have, on the other hand, good enough accuracy so that they hit what they want to hit without much collateral damage. This system has been described in a lot of Russian sources, inclusive description of the history of its development, like http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/202 http://bastion-karpenko.ru/svp-24-gefest/ (in russian). So, if a guy of a position like "airwars project director" does not know about this system, one can ignore this "airwars" as unprofessional, not knowing about modern airwars well-known already by laymen. The variant that he knows is even worse - then he is a liar.

    There is doubt. The question about the real numbers of civilians killed is, of course, one where one can forget media in wartime in general. What one can hope to find out is what are the typical tactics. Actually, the tactic seems to be to fight mainly in the land instead of cities. Around the cities, they can use aircraft nicely without much collateral damage. And the attack of the towns is done only when it is almost encircled.

    An example is the last part of Homs which has yet been controlled by rebels. There was almost no fighting in this part, but nearby in the land, with the result that this part became completely encircled. Now there has been found an agreement, the fighters are allowed to leave Homs to Idlib, and Homs is now completely controlled by Assad.

    Also distorting. The very dynamics has changed. Before the Russians came, Assad was the loosing side. Now he is the winning side. Can somebody name a place which has been under Assad's control when the Russians started and has been lost today? I don't know such a place. Yes, there are sometimes rebel counteroffensives, where they take back places they have lost before. But this is usually not for long time. In the other direction, there are usually two-three villages or hills or so captured by Assad each day. So, today Shuweylekh, Bayt Faris, Al Mansura, Akko, Seytan, five villages on five different parts of the front, seems a quite typical day.


    That's a lie, the Russian government has claimed from the start that all terrorist organizations will be targeted.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. w1z4rd Cry the beloved country Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Assad kills 7 times more Syrians than ISIS and you are proud of supporting that evil? EEEEW
     
  8. w1z4rd Cry the beloved country Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Cool story bro. A lot of the time, they dont even know where they are....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Link


    Mod Note: This is an altered copy of the original post, presented while we sort out an issue with the hyperlink, which is stripped from this version.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2015
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,854
    Mod Hat ― About that link ....

    w1z4rd can I get your two cents on the link you posted insofar as it's setting off people's malware klaxons?

    Thank you.
     
  10. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,388
    How about if I whip black bear and make it dance for circus, will that be enough distraction to convince you that these are evil CIA lies?
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    I answer here a lot of NATO propaganda. Given that this NATO propaganda is actually mainly anti-Putin and anti-Assad, the consequence is that what I write looks pro-Putin and pro-Assad. It does in no way follow that I'm really pro-Putin and pro-Assad. Above are least evil in comparison with the NATO leaders and the Islamist fanatics who compete with Assad, that's all my sympathy.

    What I support is truth, what I fight is lie. This is an extremely difficult fight, especially in war times. I have no reliable data about who killed more civilians. There is only the plausible argument that Assad has an airforce, the terrorists don't, and that the airforce of Assad does not have smart weapons, thus, will tend to lead to large collateral damage. If this really leads to large collateral damage or if this is mainly anti-Assad NATO propaganda is something I have no possibility to find out. What is obvious is that if the terrorists would have the ability to kill more civilians with an own airforce, they would do this.

    So, first, that Assad kills 7 times more Syrians than ISIS is not a fact, but a claim from media highly suspect of propaganda, and I support Assad only as least evil, which is nothing reasonable people are proud of.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Hmm...what have you answered exactly? What you have done is simply deny evidence and reason. You haven't even been able to prove what you claim to be NATO propaganda is in any way related to NATO much less propaganda. You are again being dishonest. What you have done and done consistently is to defend Russia's actions and denied clear and convincing evidence from credible sources. You have defended Assad by dismissing evidence of his many wrong doings as NATO propaganda. You have been requested on many occasions to support your assertions and to date you have not been able to support even one of your many assertions with evidence and reason. What you are comrade is a propagandist for the Russian state.

    No you don't. What you do, what you have repeatedly done, is to lie, to repeat verbatim Russian propaganda and to deny all evidence by labeling it NATO propaganda - never mind the fact the facts have absolutely nothing to do with NATO and you have never been able or even attempted to prove a link to NATO. The fact is Assad has used weapons of mass destruction against his own citizens. He has barrel bombs against his own citizens. The crudeness of his weapons, isn't an excuse. It doesn't justify his gassing and killing of Syrian children. No one forced Assad to use sarin and other gasses on Syrian children. That was a conscious decision made by Assad. Syria is in a state of chaos today because of Assad. Assad has no one to blame but himself.

    Well, then you should be able to prove that. So let's see your evidence. Here is the deal, in the West we need evidence. Unlike Russian state controlled media, simply saying something doesn't make it so. So let's see your evidence to back up your claim. I suspect as with every other challenge to you for evidence, you will once again fail to support your assertions with credible evidence.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940917001359 claims that IS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has moved to Libya.

    The 4+1 Anti-IS coalition (Russia, Iran, Iraq, Hisbollah) has hunted him in Syria and Libya, and almost killed him. To get treatment, the CIA has tried hard to transfer him to Turkey, the source claims, citing ""The CIA has done the coordination with the Turkish intelligence service (MIT) for transferring al-Baghdadi to Turkey," the Arabic-language al-Manar TV quoted unnamed sources as saying."

    Whatever, it seems he has survived, but Syria or Iraq have become too dangerous for him, and ruling the IS from Turkey would be, of course, possible, but politically uncomfortable if this becomes too obvious to hide it. So, he has now travelled to Libya. In this US protectorat he is quite safe, the IS has got the control over Syrte, a nice place to rule the IS.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Well, not surprisingly you being more than a little disingenuous again. As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, just posting copied video clips isn't proof they were aired by or misrepresented by PBS or anyone else. Are you really that dense that you cannot understand something so very basic or is this just more of your disingenuity?

    And your assertion, that PBS isn't the issue here. It wasn't the question asked of you. You are obfuscating comrade.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You were asked to produce evidence to support your claim that Assad hasn't killed 7 times more of his people. And what you have done is to evade answering the question and that's normal for you. You make all these proclamations for which you have absolutely no evidence and which are in truth complete fictions. This isn't Mother Russia, just issuing a proclamation isn't in and of itself evidence. Just because Putin told you so, doesn't mean it's the truth. I know that's difficult for you, perhaps you should sit down and thing about that one for a few days or weeks.

    A reasonable person does accept credible evidence from credible sources. You have very clearly demonstrated repeatedly, you are not reasonable because you do not accept credible evidence from credible sources. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you have repeatedly summarily dismissed credible evidence by arbitrarily labeling sources as NATO sources when you have no evidence of same. You have consistently been dishonest. That's not ad hominem, that is the truth comrade.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Again, do you have any proof to back up that assertion? Farsnews.com has been described as the semi-official state news agency of the Iranian dictatorship. Credible evidence from credible sources - remember? Here is another of your problems, Russian state owned and controlled or other news agencies controlled by dictators aren't credible. Further, it doesn't even make sense. The US and allied nations aren't dropping bombs on al-Baghadadi, and killing al-Baghdadi's leaders because they want to save his life. And the Libya isn't a US protectorate, and that is a verifiable fact.

    Unfortunately for you comrade, truth and reason do matter and not everyone is brain dead and as docile as Putin needs them to be.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,918
    That is, simply, complete bullshit. We've known since World War II that no matter how accurate your bombsight, and no matter how good your timing, you cannot get those sorts of accuracies with unguided bombs - no matter how magical your thinking.
     
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    You are funny. Of course, this is impossible with WW II technology. The system takes control over the plane, and controls the moment of release of the bomb. It takes into account the weather conditions, it has, as well, accurate information about the position of the plane as well as the target. How the maximal accuracy for such a system can be found out from WW II data remains your secret. But, if you are such a specialist, can you tell me what are the correct data about the accuracy of the СВП-24 system?

    The PBS clip itself, where they have been used, was also there.
    No, the issue is your denial. To answer a request for "proofs" to somebody who is in a so obvious and complete denial even if presented with evidence obvious to everybody else is simply a meaningless loss of time.
    This is, moreover, a completely lie about what I have claimed. My claim was "that Assad kills 7 times more Syrians than ISIS is not a fact, but a claim from media highly suspect of propaganda". This is not a claim about the relation of the number of victims, but simply a statement that I don't accept these claims as reliable given the evidence.

    It is only for you that every NATO propaganda claim automatically becomes a fact.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,918
    Yes. You can get all that absolutely perfect. But no system can model the aerodynamics of a bomb through shear, nor can any weather forecasting system obtain 100% accurate information on the wind environment throughout the trajectory of the bomb's fall. Let's take a simple example:

    Let's say you get your release point accurate to within 1 millimeter. You know the weight of the bomb to within a gram and the speed of the aircraft to within a tenth of a meter per second. (All nearly impossible, but let's go with that.) Your weather forecast is accurate, and winds are known to within 1 knot accuracy all the way down. (Again extremely unlikely.) Let's look at the error budget:

    From 6000 meters your fall time is going to be about 20 seconds depending on bomb weight and aerodynamics. 1 knot wind error is .5 meters per second. Thus after 20 seconds you have missed your target by 10 meters. Simple math. And that is using completely unrealistic levels of obtainable accuracy, and does not account for the fact that no bomb is perfect aerodynamically.

    Sounds like you lap up whatever propaganda you are fed.
     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    LOL, this is about a bomb falling down, not a feather. So, first of all, one does not need to model the aerodynamical flight of the bomb, all one needs are quite rough approximations, and you need some nontrivial wind to have an influence on such a heavy thing like a bomb of that order.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,918
    Yes, quite rough approximations work, and give you quite rough accuracies. And wind DOES matter a great deal. Ask any bombardier or pilot. Or heck, ask any skydiver.

    Believe the propaganda you have been force-fed or think for yourself and do the math. Your choice.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Except of course he isn't. He's got you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    You haven't proven anything PBS posted was misrepresented. Sure, PBS shows video clips. But that doesn't mean PBS in anyway misrepresented any of those video clips as you have asserted, as the Russian state control press you so adore has asserted.

    No, the issue is your denial. To answer a request for "proofs" to somebody who is in a so obvious and complete denial even if presented with evidence obvious to everybody else is simply a meaningless loss of time.

    Well, if it is a lie, then you should be able to prove it to be a lie, and you can't because it isn't a lie. You have been asked many times now to prove that assertion and you haven't. You have obfuscated. You have been asked to prove many of your assertions and you have yet to prove even one. You have been repeatedly asked to prove your many claims of NATO propaganda, and you haven't even attempted to do so. You summarily dismiss facts you find unpleasant by labeling them as NATO propaganda. You can't prove those facts are wrong and you cannot prove they are even remotely linked to NATO. As has been explained to you numerous times the Western world isn't like Mother Russia. Unlike Mother Russia the West isn't in the propaganda business.

    Well here is the thing, and it's not new. It has been discussed with you many times now. You cannot prove these facts you dislike and you cannot prove they are in any way linked to NATO. Labeling facts reported in a free press and in many countries and by many observers and experts as NATO propaganda when you have no evidence of same is dishonest to say the least. But then you have absolutely no qualms or reluctance to accept as gospel truth whatever is published by the Russian state owned and controlled. press.
     
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    As if I would doubt that the wind matters, I have mentioned first that it is taken into account. And I know enough about simulation to know that you cannot judge about the accuracies you can obtain and what approximation is sufficient to reach them without doing some real computations. So, the approximation of the wind may be quite rough, but for this job this may be sufficient, because the effect, even if it exists, is not that big. So, say, if you ignore the wind, and this leads, for the sake of the argument, to an error of 20 m, and you know the speed of the wind with an error of +-20%, then it is quite plausible that a first approximation of the wind can reduce this error to 4 m.
     

Share This Page