Syrian Civil War: World Leaders Try Again

Russia is doing its best to help, but the war can be won on the ground only.

Russia is going to be committing ground troops advisers with the way the war in Syria has been going. The US has done close to 3000 airstrikes with not much to show for them.
 
Not to worry, Russia is doing its best to keep up. Latest news is that Damascus suburbs have sustained heavy bombing.
 
Not to worry, Russia is doing its best to keep up. Latest news is that Damascus suburbs have sustained heavy bombing.

I dont worry so much becouse I dont think Russian tactic is simmilar to that of the US.
 
I don't know about Russian tactics, but their strategy is to crush Assad's opponents. Irrespective if that succeeds, it will not make for a peaceful Syria. (As for the US, they don't appear to have a Syria strategy, mainly because of the diversity of Assad's opponents.)
 
Report from recently liberated Ghmam village in Latakia province.


Link to video.

SAA offensives South and South-East of Aleppo has been moderately successful so far - several small towns were captured in last few days. In other areas Islamists try to counterattack, occasionally seizing some territory, but usually are getting repelled a few days later.

Generally, progress is quite slow - Syrian army is apparently worn down and often has to rely on local militia support, as well as Hezbollah or Quds forces.

Russian air forces, according to official data, made 137 sorties and destroyed 448 targets in last three days.
 
Syrian government declared that the advance on Kuweires has succeeded and ISIS blockade of airbase has been broken. If confirmed, it will be significant success of SAA, considering that M15 road Aleppo-Raqqa will be cut off and ISIS logistics in North will be further hampered. And of course it will open a ground supply route to the airbase.

 
Last months we see more terror committed by Western coalition, than Syrian or Iranian army. Like that hospital bombing in Afghanistan.

You're using a bombing of a hospital in Afganistan as 'proof' for 'more terror committed by Western coalition' in Syria? I think your allegation is missing some sources.

There are plenty of sources for the use of terror by both IS and the Assad regime. And the Assad regime was employing terror before the civil war erupted.

Try staying on topic.
 
There are plenty of sources for the use of terror by both IS and the Assad regime. And the Assad regime was employing terror before the civil war erupted.

IS was a thing ever since the fall of Saddam. Back then nobody appeared to be interested in IS.
 
You're using a bombing of a hospital in Afganistan as 'proof' for 'more terror committed by Western coalition' in Syria? I think your allegation is missing some sources.
There is entire thread about the hospital bombing on this forum, if you need sources.
 
As far as I know Afghanistan is not located anywhere in Syria or Iraq. So it hardly qualifies as a source for supposed terror from a Western coalition combating IS. Try focusing on the actual topic of this thread.

IS was a thing ever since the fall of Saddam. Back then nobody appeared to be interested in IS.

If nobody appeared interested then it wasn't a thing. So which is it?
 
If nobody appeared interested then it wasn't a thing. So which is it?

Al-Anbar (the region which IS has held since 2004-ish) had a reputation of being a hellhole. However, everyone treated IS as just another Islamic group. At the time, IS was still part of Al-Qaeda though.
 
As far as I know Afghanistan is not located anywhere in Syria or Iraq. So it hardly qualifies as a source for supposed terror from a Western coalition combating IS.
It qualifies as a description of methods which Western coalition countries tend to employ in a war. And also as an answer to your sourceless assertion that Assad forces in their current advance resort to terror.
 
Hey Agent, it seems you dont like the ruskies bombings in Syria. I dont get it. The more bombs ISIS gets the better.

And BTW syrian government asked Russia for help, USA on the other hand self-invited to the party.
 
And BTW syrian government asked Russia for help, USA on the other hand self-invited to the party.

Rojava's asked USA for help again and again and again.

USA seems to want to play more with "moderate" rebels of uncertain identity and allegiance. Weird.
 
Rojava's asked USA for help again and again and again.

USA seems to want to play more with "moderate" rebels of uncertain identity and allegiance. Weird.
Strictly speaking, Rojava is not a legitimate state actor and from the international law point of view, USA intervention is illegal even if they were invited by Rojava. On the other hand I sympathize to the Kurds and recognize that the US help against ISIS is a right thing.
 
Hey Agent, it seems you dont like the ruskies bombings in Syria. I dont get it. The more bombs ISIS gets the better.

Try actually reading news. Russia bombing IS is just part of their activities: they are bombing any Assad opposition.

And BTW syrian government asked Russia for help, USA on the other hand self-invited to the party.

Now that we're getting nitpicky: Assad made a statement of 'no objection' to Western (not specifically US) IS bombardments, such as by France. (You know that country whose capital has just suffered several terrorist attacks.)

It qualifies as a description of methods which Western coalition countries tend to employ in a war.

Actually, it does no such thing. Although it's a good example of the type of generalization you confuse with an argument.

And also as an answer to your sourceless assertion that Assad forces in their current advance resort to terror.

That would be your sourceless assertion. I stated that the Assad regime has been employing terror long before the civil war started. (Plenty of sources for that: google is your friend.) There is, in addition, no reason to assume that the Assad regime has all of a sudden stopped using terror methods since the latest offensives. On the contrary.
 
Actually, it does such thing by definition.

I'm sorry, it's not you who decides what is the definition of 'increased use of terror'. What you did was make an unsubstantiated claim to that effect, possibly in the usual manner to deflect from the fact that Russia's ally Assad has been employing terror since long before the civil war, and has never stopped doing so.

No, you replied to my statement about the current SAA advance, saying that Syrian army terrorizes civilian population. Without giving any sources.

Another unsubstantiated claim. Reports about the use of terror by the Syrian army specifically can also be found by anyone who is not too lazy to browse the web for it. That, apparently, does not include you. Being ill-informed generally makes for poor arguments.
 
Top Bottom