BBC's opinon of who Russia is targeting

I just stumbled upon this gem. So, the BBC starts out agreeing with what RT and various other media sources are claiming

"Russia's operational tempo is about 20 sorties per day, which is not that intense, but moderate, given the logistics they have in place," he told me. "The targets are known weapon storage areas, ammunition dumps, production facilities, and any command-and-control infrastructure that Syrian intelligence is aware of."

Russia is also softening up opposition forces by eliminating conventional weapons such as tanks, armoured personnel carriers and rocket artillery that they have captured from the Syrian army.

The targets are largely the coalition of groups under al-Nusra Front, to the north by Idlib and Aleppo, along with various rebel groups supported by members of the US coalition near Homs and Hama, to the east of Syrian government positions.

Yep, Russia is looking to weaken the enemy so that the Syrian Army can advance, all truth there. But then it loses the plot and puts this spin on it

Michael Kofman is sceptical. "It seems that what strikes have been carried out against IS targets are simply for appearance and to buy credibility for the overall air campaign. The focus of the Russian attacks is on forces immediately in proximity to the Syrian army, which do not belong to IS."
He also thinks that the initial, or softening-up, phase of the air campaign may be shifting to one where Russian air power is used to assist Syrian government forces on the ground.
"All the indications are that a combined Syrian, Iranian and perhaps Hezbollah force will be attacking to retake territory."

Umm have you even looked at the map you supplied with the article BBC? How do you walk the Army of the govt over to ISIS to fight it on the ground when you have another enemy in the way? Don't even mention paratroopers because that is suicide dropping an army in between 2 enemies. All the explodey bomb things are right where the Syrian Army is concentrated and that green bit is rebel held territory, which is right in the way of getting to the orange which is ISIS. Strategically this has to be eliminated before ISIS can be taken on.



How stupid are these reporters? I mean really? There is no way to win this war from the air. I think the evidence of that is clear - ISIS has only expanded since the US bombinng campaign began. So, you gets yourself an army, you start from your territory and you advance it with air support through enemy territory until you have defeated them. I mean D'uhh BBC!

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: markosity1973

Its not about how stupid the reporters are, but how stupid the viewers are. Russia is destroying ISIS at its local root. I'm not a fan of Russia, but I'll say they're doing what America is too two-faced to do.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It's okay to say that. America is the nation that even outsiders like me grew up to believe and trust in. the USSR was always scary and evil.

Russia has a long way to go to gain our trust, but it has certainly started off on the right foot in Syria. The point of this OP is to highlight the media scam in the west to poison our opinion against Russia. IMO that is completely non constructive and gets in the way of popular support for a global solution to the problem in the middle east.

Last time I checked, the US coalition did not 'own' the Syrian war.

At this point it doesn't even matter anymore, talk is cheap. Russia doubled down and put their money where their mouth is, literally.

Now facts will play themselves out on the ground. Only real gauge is not how ISIS is doing but how the Syrian Army is. With Russian troops on the ground it becomes infinitely more difficult for NATO/US to contrive a situation there. If anything you'll see a "reemergence" of ISIS in Iraq where the U.S. Still holds sway if only limited in scale and scope via the Green Zone.

I genuinely expect false flags and/or WWIII. Time will tell but let's pray cooler heads prevail.

a reply to: markosity1973

Exactly, it makes perfect sense to clear any enemy alone it's part to advance the Syrian Army to gain back lost territories.

This kind of media postings just goes to show how the Western media have a tendency to spin it to make it look like the Russian are just "flexing their military might" and nothing else.

However, I do agree with BELIEVERPriest, it's not so much the media but the officials that are spewing crap to tarnish the Russian support for the Syrian Government. The media just puts those "official" views out their to reinforce the status quo outlook of the Syrian crisis, which is, Russia is doing the wrong thing.

And the sad part is, many will buy into the propaganda hook line and sinker. Truly saddening it is the state of affairs.

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: markosity1973

However, I do agree with BELIEVERPriest, it's not so much the media but the officials that are spewing crap to tarnish the Russian support for the Syrian Government. The media just puts those "official" views out their to reinforce the status quo outlook of the Syrian crisis, which is, Russia is doing the wrong thing.

And the sad part is, many will buy into the propaganda hook line and sinker. Truly saddening it is the state of affairs.

I blame the reporters because I do not want to lay blame and insult upon those who read and believe these MSM articlles at face value. A good reporter reports facts from a neutral viewpoint and tells the whole story, not just part of it. This article clearly does not do either.

I just wish for people to wake up and start to question all of this like I did, because truth is quite different from what the likes of the BBC would have us believe.

originally posted by: markosity1973

I blame the reporters because I do not want to lay blame and insult upon those who read and believe these MSM articlles at face value. A good reporter reports facts from a neutral viewpoint and tells the whole story, not just part of it. This article clearly does

I just wish for people to wake up and start to question all of this like I did, because truth is quite different from what the likes of the BBC would have us believe.

True that, you know, one might loose their job for not sticking to the status quo.

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012

True that, you know, one might loose their job for not sticking to the status quo.

Bring it on lolz.

Viva la revolution of the truth!

a reply to: markosity1973

BBC said the attacks are mostly against rebel groups not ISIS. The map supports that. Where is the confusion?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They are calling out Russia for not going after Isis - the map is true of course.

The confusion is the manipulation of facts; They are rallying opinion against Russia, blaming them for not targeting ISIS enough, when as I explain, to get the Syrian Army to ISIS they first need to get through rebel held territory. Also, rebel held territory is very close to Latakia and it looked at one point that they might reach it, so going around them, only creates the danger they can sneak in from behind the ISIS frontline.

What the Russians are doing makes perfect tactical sense (if you actually have the goal of winning the war that is)

a reply to: markosity1973

Except the problem is Russia says they are going after ISIS. They will hit the rebels and claim they hit ISIS. That's why they are being called out on it. If they were honest about it then it would not need to be pointed out.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

a reply to: markosity1973

Regardless of what Assad is accused of or is guilty of, he is the Leader of the legitimate government there. Anyone not sanctioned by that government is violating International law by being there in a military capacity. people can think what they want about the situation there but if this happened in any other country including the US then the government would fight back with all it had as well. Russia has a lawful reason for being there as an ally that was authorized to be there and they are kicking the crap out of the enemy there. It's more than the US and any other Nation has been doing for almost 5 years. No Nation has any business demanding Assad be removed from leadership let alone invading a sovereign Nation's airspace and borders. The US and all of the coalition participants are in direct violation of international law. Russia is doing what allies do. They are rendering military support. They are being effective. It looks bad for the Western Nations who are spinning this as Russia being the big bad bear.

a reply to: Flint2011
Agreed.

If your house is on fire, does it matter if it's the fire dept, your own garden hose or a bunch of bystanders with buckets that quell the flames?

I'm all for the USA still being involved, and so is Putin - he tried to make a deal with Obama, but Obama refused because of Assad. So Putin is forging ahead without the USA.

a reply to: markosity1973

Not reading RT, whom I have seen report strikes against "ISIS" deep in rebel territory.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fair enough, but;

As Lavrov said, if it walks like a terrorist, thinks like a terrorist and acts like a terrorist, then it's a terrorist, no?

Whoever they are targeting they are opposed to the Syrian Army and it's new friends. And yep, they are going to get blown away. I personally don't care what the media calls them - there are so many names for the different factions it is confusing as all hell anyway.

originally posted by: Flint2011
a reply to: markosity1973

Regardless of what Assad is accused of or is guilty of, he is the Leader of the legitimate government there. Anyone not sanctioned by that government is violating International law by being there in a military capacity.

Like Russia is doing in Ukraine?

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fair enough, but;

As Lavrov said, if it walks like a terrorist, thinks like a terrorist and acts like a terrorist, then it's a terrorist, no?

Whoever they are targeting they are opposed to the Syrian Army and it's new friends. And yep, they are going to get blown away. I personally don't care what the media calls them - there are so many names for the different factions it is confusing as all hell anyway.

My problem is two fold. Not all terrorists are ISIS, they claim their strike hits ISIS for public image, when it doesn't. The other problem is that under your definition of terrorist the American Patriots who beat the British are terrorists, they aren't.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Like Russia is doing in Ukraine?

Ahem *cough*

You need to see this below

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Like Russia is doing in Ukraine?

Ahem *cough*

You need to see this below

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No I don't. Russia did in the Ukraine exactly what they claim is wrong. The fact they can't afford a 2 front war so pulled out of one front is meaningless. They still did it.