The reaal news of what is happening regarding the possibile ramping up for WW3

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you think Russia and Iran give weapons for free ?? The government still have access to funds and Mineral wealth

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Iran have supplied military personell , weapons and billions in cash to Assads regime

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nothing is free (Jeremy take note ). They are giving them weapons and oil for a future ‘share’ of the Syrian economy and oil wealth through the many contracts stuck that effectively tie the Syrian regime to Russia forever more.

The Syrians have been in hock to the Russians since the USSR days and even now are due them many billions. Billions they don’t have as oil production has plummeted to almost zero from over 300,000 bpd.

However the longer the war drags on the more it’s costing Russia up front and the more Putin must be wondering just how he gets the end game to play out.

The reasons Russia and Iran have or will continue to back Syria are far more strategic than just money.

Syria gave the USSR and now Russia access to warm-water ports allowing them deploy in the Mediterranean and beyond. Russia also tends to demonstrate, to an extent, a commitment and loyalty to its partners that the US and UK probably don't. That's not a criticism or a compliment - US/UK foreign policy has been ruthlessly pragmatic for decades if not centuries. The Russians don't lack pragmatism but there is somewhat of a degree of loyalty in their psyche that perhaps informs their approach (I accept there's a generalisation there but I think it's rooted in truth).

And for better or worse, they chose to engage with Syria and that's their 'in' to the Middle East, which they undoubtedly feel they need as balance against US influence in Israel, Saudi and the Gulf states. There's another facet which has to be considered - rightly or wrongly, there is a narrative for a lot of Russians (which Putin undoubtedly knows to exploit) which is a fear of encirclement. The gradual drift of Eastern European nations into NATO, US military intervention in near Asia and its building relationships with former-USSR Central Asian states only feeds into that.

As for Iran, the prospect of the Syrian government falling and the country becoming another Sunni regime must be terrifying. I don't think enough credence is given to the sectarian differences that exist between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, but in Tehran the prospect of losing Syria would feel like an existential threat. Critically, maintaining an Iran-friendly Shia regime in Damascus gives Iran a geographical route to the Lebanese coast and provides a vital defensive balance, from their point of view, against Israel - the land corridor allows Iran to equip and resource Hezbollah and the Syrian militias far more easily and undoubtedly acts as a check and balance. Having said that I understand a recent Israeli air strike in Syria killed a number of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps soldiers who were acting as 'advisors'.

I read (or maybe heard on the radio) an interesting analysis recently, which likened the situation to the febrile state Europe was in, just prior to the outbreak of the First World War. Extreme tensions between different groups (we've not even started on the US-backed Kurdish militias which are anathema to Turkey), acting as proxies for middling powers and superpowers in a very fluid and dynamic environment. There's a fire already and it could easily become a conflagration.

[lord bunberry]

Frankie Boyle summed it up well for me. The British government will continue to care about the welfare of the Syrian people right until they turn up on a beach.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

These are debatable points but they have nothing to do with the fact that the quoted tweet was demonstrably wrong in every single regard.

In addition, the Russians are saying that no-one was killed in the attacks. Where are you getting your 100s of families affected by deaths of loved ones line from?

The post was every bit as factual as yours...it of course was showing how ridiculous the strategy is..rather than giving the PR BBC version that you have shared...

Many countries now use Syria for their own agendas.In the last 7 years alone the following countries have bombed it: Syria has bombed itself (Assad regime) the United States, uK, France, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and the UAE.

The only people who are hurt and disadvantaged by this are the civilians......we are not helping this country by further bombs...Assad is well on his way to winning their civil war...we are further smashing it. Since the failed CIA attempt to support the unseating of Assad, we in the west have had no strategy to intervene....these latest bombs are seen as heroic acts, when in fact they are just further bombing Syria with no impact on the humanitarian crisis..which should be our main focus.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The reasons Russia and Iran have or will continue to back Syria are far more strategic than just money.

Syria gave the USSR and now Russia access to warm-water ports allowing them deploy in the Mediterranean and beyond. Russia also tends to demonstrate, to an extent, a commitment and loyalty to its partners that the US and UK probably don't. That's not a criticism or a compliment - US/UK foreign policy has been ruthlessly pragmatic for decades if not centuries. The Russians don't lack pragmatism but there is somewhat of a degree of loyalty in their psyche that perhaps informs their approach (I accept there's a generalisation there but I think it's rooted in truth).

And for better or worse, they chose to engage with Syria and that's their 'in' to the Middle East, which they undoubtedly feel they need as balance against US influence in Israel, Saudi and the Gulf states. There's another facet which has to be considered - rightly or wrongly, there is a narrative for a lot of Russians (which Putin undoubtedly knows to exploit) which is a fear of encirclement. The gradual drift of Eastern European nations into NATO, US military intervention in near Asia and its building relationships with former-USSR Central Asian states only feeds into that.

As for Iran, the prospect of the Syrian government falling and the country becoming another Sunni regime must be terrifying. I don't think enough credence is given to the sectarian differences that exist between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, but in Tehran the prospect of losing Syria would feel like an existential threat. Critically, maintaining an Iran-friendly Shia regime in Damascus gives Iran a geographical route to the Lebanese coast and provides a vital defensive balance, from their point of view, against Israel - the land corridor allows Iran to equip and resource Hezbollah and the Syrian militias far more easily and undoubtedly acts as a check and balance. Having said that I understand a recent Israeli air strike in Syria killed a number of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps soldiers who were acting as 'advisors'.

I read (or maybe heard on the radio) an interesting analysis recently, which likened the situation to the febrile state Europe was in, just prior to the outbreak of the First World War. Extreme tensions between different groups (we've not even started on the US-backed Kurdish militias which are anathema to Turkey), acting as proxies for middling powers and superpowers in a very fluid and dynamic environment. There's a fire already and it could easily become a conflagration.

Good analysis - the WW1 similarity kept jumping into my mind too.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The reasons Russia and Iran have or will continue to back Syria are far more strategic than just money.

Syria gave the USSR and now Russia access to warm-water ports allowing them deploy in the Mediterranean and beyond. Russia also tends to demonstrate, to an extent, a commitment and loyalty to its partners that the US and UK probably don't. That's not a criticism or a compliment - US/UK foreign policy has been ruthlessly pragmatic for decades if not centuries. The Russians don't lack pragmatism but there is somewhat of a degree of loyalty in their psyche that perhaps informs their approach (I accept there's a generalisation there but I think it's rooted in truth).

And for better or worse, they chose to engage with Syria and that's their 'in' to the Middle East, which they undoubtedly feel they need as balance against US influence in Israel, Saudi and the Gulf states. There's another facet which has to be considered - rightly or wrongly, there is a narrative for a lot of Russians (which Putin undoubtedly knows to exploit) which is a fear of encirclement. The gradual drift of Eastern European nations into NATO, US military intervention in near Asia and its building relationships with former-USSR Central Asian states only feeds into that.

As for Iran, the prospect of the Syrian government falling and the country becoming another Sunni regime must be terrifying. I don't think enough credence is given to the sectarian differences that exist between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, but in Tehran the prospect of losing Syria would feel like an existential threat. Critically, maintaining an Iran-friendly Shia regime in Damascus gives Iran a geographical route to the Lebanese coast and provides a vital defensive balance, from their point of view, against Israel - the land corridor allows Iran to equip and resource Hezbollah and the Syrian militias far more easily and undoubtedly acts as a check and balance. Having said that I understand a recent Israeli air strike in Syria killed a number of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps soldiers who were acting as 'advisors'.

I read (or maybe heard on the radio) an interesting analysis recently, which likened the situation to the febrile state Europe was in, just prior to the outbreak of the First World War. Extreme tensions between different groups (we've not even started on the US-backed Kurdish militias which are anathema to Turkey), acting as proxies for middling powers and superpowers in a very fluid and dynamic environment. There's a fire already and it could easily become a conflagration.

Interesting insights which have added context and content to this thread...much appreciated

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Indeed. Meanwhile 70 people died last night at our hands.

70 families, who have lost fathers, sons, brothers.

If it’s just a PR stunt, why bother? It had little if any military effect. Utterly pointless, just makes us (the West) feel a wee bit better.

Meanwhile the Saudis (our allies and business partners) are bombing Yeminis and blockading their ports, effectively starving the population. 5 children a day either starving to death or being killed with British and American sold weapons.

But that’s OK?

Hypocrites!

J

Are you referring to this weekend's US/France/UK-backed military action? If so, the only reference I can see anywhere to human injuries is Russia's claim that three people were hurt. No mention of any deaths, which you'd think Russia and Syria would be bigging up if there had been such a toll.

[heretoday]

I suppose we have to do whatever the yanks do, since they'll be our only friends after Brexit.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I suppose we have to do whatever the yanks do, since they'll be our only friends after Brexit.

Of course! Just as well May factored Brexit into the Middle East geopolitical scene or she would have mis understood the whole dynamic...

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you referring to this weekend's US/France/UK-backed military action? If so, the only reference I can see anywhere to human injuries is Russia's claim that three people were hurt. No mention of any deaths, which you'd think Russia and Syria would be bigging up if there had been such a toll.

Yea my bad. It genuinely was mis reading early on yesterday.

Honestly wasn’t inventing “Fake News”.

J

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Of course! Just as well May factored Brexit into the Middle East geopolitical scene or she would have mis understood the whole dynamic...

Good little bit of distraction play away from the endless miss management of the Brexit “Negotiations”.

Are there local elections in May or something?

J

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Good little bit of distraction play away from the endless miss management of the Brexit “Negotiations”.

Are there local elections in May or something?

J

Yeah the false flag nerve agent plan and the staged chemical attacks in Syria follow up ruse are working an absolute treat

Tory HQ must be lovin’ their work as they cunningly distract the seething populous from the horror of Brexit just in time for the local elections.

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah the false flag nerve agent plan and the staged chemical attacks in Syria follow up ruse are working an absolute treat

Tory HQ must be lovin’ their work as they cunningly distract the seething populous from the horror of Brexit just in time for the local elections.

Na, more her (Mays) reaction to it all this time. Especially as the British response in previous chemical incidents has been to do nothing.

For some reason, this one warranted a cruise missile reaction.

I was just suggesting that it was convienient that there are local elections next month.

Being strong against tyrants polls well. Especially with total media backing.

J

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Na, more her (Mays) reaction to it all this time. Especially as the British response in previous chemical incidents has been to do nothing.

For some reason, this one warranted a cruise missile reaction.

I was just suggesting that it was convienient that there are local elections next month.

Being strong against tyrants polls well. Estpecially with total media backing.

J

Oh, come on. Opinions are one thing but don’t start making up ‘facts’. It took me a grand total of 20 seconds to find this...

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...for-parliament

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh, come on. Opinions are one thing but don’t start making up ‘facts’. It took me a grand total of 20 seconds to find this...

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...for-parliament

Do you know what, I did think about bracketing (the Guardian and Independent) in my response, but I assumed the intent of my reply would have made sense.

Yes there are a few lone dissenters, but the massive majority of the media was all out for this attack.

No?

J

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you know what, I did think about bracketing (the Guardian and Independent) in my response, but I assumed the intent of my reply would have made sense.

Yes there are a few lone dissenters, but the massive majority of the media was all out for this attack.

No?

J

And the FT, so presumably that’s a slim majority of the broadsheets that aren’t ‘all out’. The TV companies will be generally neutral and just reporting what’s happening.

I can’t be arsed checking the tabloids but presumably The Mirror and The Morning Star won’t be ‘all out’ but the rest may be.

It might be an overall majority but it’s hardly ‘total’ and it doesn’t seem like a ‘massive majority’.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And the FT, so presumably that’s a slim majority of the broadsheets that aren’t ‘all out’. The TV companies will be generally neutral and just reporting what’s happening.

I can’t be arsed checking the tabloids but presumably The Mirror and The Morning Star won’t be ‘all out’ but the rest may be.

It might be an overall majority but it’s hardly ‘total’ and it doesn’t seem like a ‘massive majority’.

Come on...the BBC have been pandering to the government agenda around this topic for months...sky are as right of centre as any European media outlet ...and most of the written media is currently supporting a right of centre orientation...there are some on the other side ...but definitely minority..

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Come on...the BBC have been pandering to the government agenda around this topic for months...sky are as right of centre as any European media outlet ...and most of the written media is currently supporting a right of centre orientation...there are some on the other side ...but definitely minority..

You do realise that we were specifically talking about Syria? The debate wasn’t about the political leanings of the media.

If you feel that BBC and Sky News are breaking impartiality rules, you should complain to Ofcom. Do something about what you perceive as bias.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain-to-ofcom

[Colr]

Russia says they shot down 70% of the missiles!!

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You do realise that we were specifically talking about Syria? The debate wasn’t about the political leanings of the media.

If you feel that BBC and Sky News are breaking impartiality rules, you should complain to Ofcom. Do something about what you perceive as bias.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain-to-ofcom

er yes...I've been active in this thread...


and on your second point - er no...I've got a life...and if you genuinely feel BBC and other media outlets are not controlled editorially ..may I suggest you extend your media sources...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Russia says they shot down 70% of the missiles!!

And the US, Britain and France said none were shot down i think.

Somebody is telling porkies...

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And the FT, so presumably that’s a slim majority of the broadsheets that aren’t ‘all out’. The TV companies will be generally neutral and just reporting what’s happening.

I can’t be arsed checking the tabloids but presumably The Mirror and The Morning Star won’t be ‘all out’ but the rest may be.

It might be an overall majority but it’s hardly ‘total’ and it doesn’t seem like a ‘massive majority’.

I stand by “massive majority”. They have been well up for missile strikes.

I got burnt back in 2001 when we went to war in Iraq. I believed whole heartedly what I was told. As a 20 year old I was well up for it.

One of the most destabilising and terrible decisions of this century. You can’t blame me for a wee bit of scepticism?

Anyway, not sure where you are going with this one?

J

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I stand by “massive majority”. They have been well up for missile strikes.

I got burnt back in 2001 when we went to war in Iraq. I believed whole heartedly what I was told. As a 20 year old I was well up for it.

One of the most destabilising and terrible decisions of this century. You can’t blame me for a wee bit of scepticism?

Anyway, not sure where you are going with this one?

J

I’m not going anywhere. I was just pointing out that your comment about ‘total media backing’ (and subsequent refinements) didn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m not going anywhere. I was just pointing out that your comment about ‘total media backing’ (and subsequent refinements) didn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

Ok, how about “damn near total media backing in terms of general mass consumption and circulation”.

But you knew what I meant I’m sure.

Like I said, I/we have been mislead in the past. Scepticism and fact checking should be part of everyone’s thought process.

J

[WeeRussell]

Have to say I found this thread more entertaining when we were being lectured about Satan-worshippers rather than defending the Tories and the BBC

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have to say I found this thread more entertaining when we were being lectured about Satan-worshippers rather than defending the Tories and the BBC

Maybe one leads to the other...😀

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And the US, Britain and France said none were shot down i think.

Somebody is telling porkies...

Who do you believe Putin or de Pfeffel? Answer has to be neither!!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Who do you believe Putin or de Pfeffel? Answer has to be neither!!

Who is de pfeffel?

But if you are asking if i believe an open, transparent, democratic govt of a country with an activist press and a meaningful political opposition, over an authoritarian dictator who has grown up in, and recreated a system that exists on state lies and manipulation, has little meaningful free press, and who persecutes / assasinates journalists, dissidents and opposition parties, then it seems quite an easy question to answer, no?

[McSwanky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Who is de pfeffel?

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is his full name IIRC...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is his full name IIRC...

Ha ha, i didnt know that!

[WeeRussell]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe one leads to the other...😀

Haha natural order indeed :)