Russian coverage of Syria strikes
Thread Starter
Russian coverage of Syria strikes
Much as I think they are reckless idiots - the Russian TV coverage of the Syria strikes we have seen down here has been pretty incredible.
Drone footage of Kalibr cruise missiles in mid flight.
And some pretty impressive Go-pro pictures of ordnance leaving racks.
They could teach NATO a thing or two about using the media...
Drone footage of Kalibr cruise missiles in mid flight.
And some pretty impressive Go-pro pictures of ordnance leaving racks.
They could teach NATO a thing or two about using the media...
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reckless idiots, maybe but it wasn't Russia which encouraged and supported the uprising come civil war. And is Syria, or some of it, back under Assad's rule really the worst outcome? Many other factions there hate us far more than he does.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't seen the inflight footage from drones, do you have a link?
It has been a pretty impressive messaging campaign though, doubtless helped by close control of the press!
It has been a pretty impressive messaging campaign though, doubtless helped by close control of the press!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Russian claims do not stand up to scrutiny: https://bellingcat.checkdesk.org/en/story/736
But Russian claims do not stand up to scrutiny
'SOME' of his people were in a better place, quite how many is open to debate. Enough were in a bad place to start a revolt. Not all of them are fighting on grounds of religion.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Beardy, and what is the chance of those that didn't like Assad, but are not revolting on religious grounds coming to an equitable understanding with those that are.
I think the Great One has yet to accept that Assad is a least bad answer as this would meaning having to agree with Putin.
I think the Great One has yet to accept that Assad is a least bad answer as this would meaning having to agree with Putin.
PN:
The lessons of removing dictators or in the case of Tito dying have not been learnt.
Removing a murderous B*stard of a dictator has many unforeseen consequences. Saddam Hussein being a case in point, he did not tolerate intra-tribal or religious trouble because he slaughtered the perpetrators, same as Tito, Ghaddafi or Assad. Whilst they were in command their countries had relative peace and harmony, now come along and try to start a western idea of 'democracy' and the place falls apart.
Sometimes you just have to leave these places alone and not get involved.
The lessons of removing dictators or in the case of Tito dying have not been learnt.
Removing a murderous B*stard of a dictator has many unforeseen consequences. Saddam Hussein being a case in point, he did not tolerate intra-tribal or religious trouble because he slaughtered the perpetrators, same as Tito, Ghaddafi or Assad. Whilst they were in command their countries had relative peace and harmony, now come along and try to start a western idea of 'democracy' and the place falls apart.
Sometimes you just have to leave these places alone and not get involved.
PN,
I have no idea how to resolve the problems that this country has.
Assad and his father were and are not good people, supporting them and their regime is morally indefensible, but may be politically expedient. But then again what has politics to do with the common man?
I have no idea how to resolve the problems that this country has.
Assad and his father were and are not good people, supporting them and their regime is morally indefensible, but may be politically expedient. But then again what has politics to do with the common man?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Morally indefensible?
Of two, or more, alternatives the least bad may be morally unpalatable but defensible none the less. The alternative is unconditional surrender, martial law, and imposition of control by military powers before eventually handing over to civilian authorities.
It worked in the 40s and 50s, it did not work in Iraq as the Allies did not have the wherewithal or appetite and allowed themselves to be distracted by Afghanistan.
The nearest to that solution now would appear to be Russia except they don't seem to have any desire for boots on ground either.
Of two, or more, alternatives the least bad may be morally unpalatable but defensible none the less. The alternative is unconditional surrender, martial law, and imposition of control by military powers before eventually handing over to civilian authorities.
It worked in the 40s and 50s, it did not work in Iraq as the Allies did not have the wherewithal or appetite and allowed themselves to be distracted by Afghanistan.
The nearest to that solution now would appear to be Russia except they don't seem to have any desire for boots on ground either.
PN:
Indeed, one cannot forget dear old Uncle Joe plus Mao and Kim family in NK.
Indeed, one cannot forget dear old Uncle Joe plus Mao and Kim family in NK.
Russian weather girl informs all about good weather = good air strikes
It gets better, do not know if anyone has seen this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OqL3TGRo6A
and this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmM7...8&spfreload=10
Cheers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OqL3TGRo6A
and this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmM7...8&spfreload=10
Cheers
Actually the vast majority were in a better place. All had access to education, health care, women were allowed to pursue a career, there was freedom of worship (no having limbs or heads lopped off for not converting) etc. Then along came the "Arab Spring" and the illusion of democracy (what a great success that's been) and hey presto people want an uprising which ends up in all out civil war. Now no-one is in a better place.
PN
Least bad is not equivalent to good and as you point out, not moral (morality is concerned with absolutes rather than flavours.) You are correct that it is defensible but, I would say on pragmatic grounds, not moral.
RP,
I take your assertions to be part of a debate. I disagree with your rosy picture of the rule of the Assad family.
Of two, or more, alternatives the least bad may be morally unpalatable but defensible none the less. The alternative is unconditional surrender, martial law, and imposition of control by military powers before eventually handing over to civilian authorities.
RP,
I take your assertions to be part of a debate. I disagree with your rosy picture of the rule of the Assad family.
beardy,
House of Saud is 100 times more oppressive than Assad family has ever been, if we are to spread democracy and human rights I think we should start from there
instead UN appoints them as head of UN human rights council, how
this world has become lately
House of Saud is 100 times more oppressive than Assad family has ever been, if we are to spread democracy and human rights I think we should start from there
instead UN appoints them as head of UN human rights council, how
this world has become lately
AreOut,
You have an excellent point, but how can you quantify how much worse, do we count bodies, hypocrisy or what? Finding a metric is no easy task. It just goes to show that philosophical concepts, morality and absolutism go out the window in international politics. Although I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia is the best place to start, but at least it would be a start.
But, to get back to the topic; at least, in the West, we have a press who have the freedom to print what they want. It's just such a shame that most abuse that freedom and perpetuate 'special interests.'
You have an excellent point, but how can you quantify how much worse, do we count bodies, hypocrisy or what? Finding a metric is no easy task. It just goes to show that philosophical concepts, morality and absolutism go out the window in international politics. Although I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia is the best place to start, but at least it would be a start.
But, to get back to the topic; at least, in the West, we have a press who have the freedom to print what they want. It's just such a shame that most abuse that freedom and perpetuate 'special interests.'