Report: Russia forces rarely targeted ISIL in Syria

[webfact]

Report: Russia forces rarely targeted ISIL in Syria

US-based Atlantic Council releases report that says Russia's claim to have mainly targeted ISIL in Syria was false

DOHA: -- Russia's claim to have mainly targeted the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during a six-month military intervention in the Syrian civil war was false, a private think tank on international affairs said in a report.

The US-based Atlantic Council's 32-page report released on Tuesday, Distract, Deceive, Destroy: Putin at War in Syria, compiled using open sources, further alleged that Russian forces sometimes struck civilian targets and used cluster munitions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said in September as the Russian military was preparing the operation that his goals were to fight ISIL and remove terrorist impediments to peace talks.

Full story: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/report-russia-forces-rarely-targeted-isil-syria-160405201942969.html

-- AL JAZEERA 2016-04-06

[Kerryd]

One must always consider the source(s) when reading (or hearing) a story.

For example, if you're sitting on a (bar)stool in the public library on Soi 6 and the 18 y.o. pimply-faced first-timer at the bar is going on about how he looked Osama in the eye and spit in his face right before shoving a grenade up his butt, you can probably assume he's full of bull.

Now take this article. Written by a "private" think tank in the USA. Of course it just so happens that the USA supports the "rebels" trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria and is upset at Russia's support of that government (and it's offensive actions against those so called "rebels"). Got to make sure public opinion stays on your side though, otherwise people may start questioning the legitimacy of your own actions.

Now look at who published the article. Al Jazeera. The media mouth of the Qatari government (who are also the prime supporters of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organization amongst others.) Qatar just happens to be Sunni (as is Syria's other main opponent - Turkey) while Assad (and most of Syria) are Shia. Just a coincidence I'm sure. (Actually it is no coincidence at all.)

So you have 2 biased sources putting out an article trying to make Russia look like the bad guys while completely ignoring their own actions. I'm not saying Russia is the "good guy" in this matter, they are no angels by any measure but by their standards and their "take" on the matter, they are on the "right" side of the conflict.

Think about it. If a group of rebels started an armed insurrection in your country with the aim of overthrowing your government, and almost immediately half the world jumped on their side (for dubious reasons involving oil and/or religion) you'd probably be a little upset. If one major power went against the opinions of your opponents and openly supported you, you'd probably be happy, but your opponents would be pissed. They'd probably take every opportunity to make you and your ally look bad in order to try and make themselves look like the good guys.

Meanwhile, your ally is doing what he thinks is needed, battling the terrorists that are trying to overthrow your government. Sure, he has his own motivations and interests to protect as well in addition to reminding the world that one particular country doesn't rule the rest of it.

There is an old saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (the earliest recorded usage of that terms was traced to India in 1945 however it appears it was a "cliche" saying even then, indicating it originated much earlier than that).

It just depends on which side of the fence you are on. This was proven (somewhat) not long ago when various refugees were questioned about whether they supported different "terrorist" organizations. No surprise, if the "terrorist organization" happened to be on the same "side" and was from the same religion, they weren't considered terrorists. But of course, if they were from a different religion and/or opposing side then they were terrorists.

That is what is happening in Syria right now. Syria and Russia see the "rebels" as the terrorists while the "West" see them as "freedom fighters".

Think back to the 60's when the FLQ were doing their thing in Quebec (The Front de libération du Québec were a militant separatist group in Canada that wanted Quebec to separate from Canada.) They were branded as terrorists (the 160 different acts of terrorism and the murder of innocent people probably had something to do with that). If they started doing the same thing in the same place today, would they still be terrorists or would they suddenly be "rebel freedom fighters" ? (It would probably depend a whole lot on who they promised sweetheart trade and resource deals to in exchange for political and military support).

The FARC in Columbia are branded as terrorists. Got to wonder how quickly that would change if Columbia wasn't so strongly allied with the US. Wouldn't take much and suddenly one morning you'd wake up to stories about how the "freedom loving, democratic rebels" of Columbia are being oppressed and need support against the tyrannical Colombian regime.

The ANC in South Africa were considered a terrorist organization at one time, until the rest of the world suddenly decided that apartheid was wrong. The PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) is considered a terrorist organization by some but freedom fighters and revolutionaries by others.

The distinction between "rebel" and terrorist is key because it allows one to completely ignore wrongdoings by those you support while vilifying everything the other side does. For example, during the Libyan conflict the (Western) media was quick to highlight any alleged atrocities committed by Qaddafi's troops yet from the lack of coverage you'd think the other side (the western supported rebels) were complete angels ! I followed that conflict closely because I was absolutely amazed that groups of poorly educated, poorly trained, poorly led rebels could defeat the government forces and not commit any noteworthy crimes themselves ! No rapes (reported), no murder of innocents (reported), no pillaging/plundering/robbery/torture or anything (reported) ! I saw ONE picture of a "rebel" about to shoot a "suspected Qaddafi spy" who was unarmed and kneeling with his hands in the air. A couple days later I tried to find the story again so I could bookmark it. No luck. (If atrocities committed by the "rebels" had been reported honestly then public opinion would have turned against them and the Western powers would have had a hard time justifying their support.)

Kind of like the way the West has downplayed (pretty much ignored) the alleged chemical attacks in Syria a couple years ago when it was realized that it may very well have been the rebels that were responsible. Obama had drawn his "line in the sand" that would trigger direct military intervention on behalf of the rebels. That "line" was the use of chemical weapons. No surprise that not long after there was an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians but before the US could put the war machine into action Russia allegedly provided evidence that the attack was in fact initiated by the rebels and suddenly Obama backed off and it seemed (to me) that the West's support of the rebels took a major step back.

(I had my uninformed suspicions that the attack was done by the rebels as well. They were desperate for the West to intervene as they'd done in Libya. They had the most to gain from from such an intervention. The attack was in a Damascus suburb which was in Assad's backyard and an area considered to be supportive of him. Assad knew such an attack might draw the West in and in any event wouldn't likely gas his own supporters in his stronghold.)

I don't know what evidence Russia provided to the West but it must have been pretty convincing as the "line in the sand" seems to have disappeared (as lines drawn in sand usually do).

(Meanwhile this started out just as a cautionary warning about considering the source of the "news" before deciding on the trustworthiness of what is "reported". Sigh - apparently I have too much time on my hands !)

[soalbundy]

when is your paper back edition coming out

[Credo]

I think the bottom line here is that ISIS is not a very nice or humanitarian group of people and have and are resulting in a lot of death, destruction and instability. The region has enough of that without ISIS.

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Yet ISIL is full retreat, wonder why ? Maybe its the handful US special forces or maybe its thousands of sorties flown by the Russians, maybe its the Russians blowing up thousands of oil trucks while the US throw leaflets down to warn the oil truck drivers they will be targeted. I know which one sounds closer to the truth for me.

[Rancid]

There are always those that suck up what ever propaganda piece gets "released" and then there are the minority that have retained the capacity for objective thought. Atlantic Council? Sort of as believable as a N Korean "think tank" citing what a humanitarian their leader is.

[craigt3365]

Yet ISIL is full retreat, wonder why ? Maybe its the handful US special forces or maybe its thousands of sorties flown by the Russians, maybe its the Russians blowing up thousands of oil trucks while the US throw leaflets down to warn the oil truck drivers they will be targeted. I know which one sounds closer to the truth for me.

The US was bombing oil trucks before Russia started their campaign. Which we know was mainly oriented towards ANY group opposed to Assad. Not just ISIS.

[dabhand]

Yet ISIL is full retreat, wonder why ? Maybe its the handful US special forces or maybe its thousands of sorties flown by the Russians, maybe its the Russians blowing up thousands of oil trucks while the US throw leaflets down to warn the oil truck drivers they will be targeted. I know which one sounds closer to the truth for me.

The US was bombing oil trucks before Russia started their campaign. Which we know was mainly oriented towards ANY group opposed to Assad. Not just ISIS.

But I thought you had claimed, in an earlier thread (post#19), that the US were being altruistic by not bombing oil trucks?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/874998-turkey-wont-apologize-to-russia-over-warplane-downing/

[craigt3365]

Yet ISIL is full retreat, wonder why ? Maybe its the handful US special forces or maybe its thousands of sorties flown by the Russians, maybe its the Russians blowing up thousands of oil trucks while the US throw leaflets down to warn the oil truck drivers they will be targeted. I know which one sounds closer to the truth for me.

The US was bombing oil trucks before Russia started their campaign. Which we know was mainly oriented towards ANY group opposed to Assad. Not just ISIS.

But I thought you had claimed, in an earlier thread (post#19), that the US were being altruistic by not bombing oil trucks?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/874998-turkey-wont-apologize-to-russia-over-warplane-downing/

I never said that. Get your facts straight.

[craigt3365]

So it was a phantom air force that bombed the IS in Palmyra and led to the Syrian recapture of the partially destroyed town. And it was the phantom IS who blew up the Russian passenger jet.

Right from the beginning of the Russian involvement in Syria there has been nothing but a constant stream of lies, mainly from various US sources, about Russia not targetting IS. The western media, with a few honourable exceptions, have just reprinted these lies without any proper verification.

Russia even admits IS was not their #1 target. LOL

[dabhand]

Yet ISIL is full retreat, wonder why ? Maybe its the handful US special forces or maybe its thousands of sorties flown by the Russians, maybe its the Russians blowing up thousands of oil trucks while the US throw leaflets down to warn the oil truck drivers they will be targeted. I know which one sounds closer to the truth for me.

The US was bombing oil trucks before Russia started their campaign. Which we know was mainly oriented towards ANY group opposed to Assad. Not just ISIS.

But I thought you had claimed, in an earlier thread (post#19), that the US were being altruistic by not bombing oil trucks?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/874998-turkey-wont-apologize-to-russia-over-warplane-downing/

I never said that. Get your facts straight.

But, in the earlier thread, you did say:

'So you don't remember the disaster in Kuwait? We sure don't want a repeat of that. Right???'

and

'Heavens forbid the US should do anything altruistic.'

Clearly I misunderstood your earlier comments......

[Trouble]

To me this Syria conflict is another failure of the Obama administration. After the mistake the USA made in getting involved in Iraq (Bush administration), then the Arab Spring starting in Egypt and watching the muslim brotherhood take over only to see the military back in control (Obama administration) and then the mess in Libya (Obama administration) one would think the US would have learned NOT to get involved or support one side or the other. But in Syria the US made the same stupid move siding with a bunch of rebels against their government. Now the world is mired in a mess with the rise of ISIL, groups of rebels too numerous to count, who do not get along, in conflict against the Syrian government. The result of all the meddling in the middle east by the US and Europe is millions of people displaced and invading Europe. Rather than draw lines in the sand, which Obama never stuck with, he should have stayed out of the conflict and not taken sides. At least when Bush got in the mess in Iraq, he used the manpower of the military to do the job and there was some attempt at building a nation in Iraq and Bush left office with Iraq in some semblance of being stable with the help of US troops. Obama pulled them out, did not exert use power and let the thing get worse. My advise is not to get involved in the first place so I neither supported Bush in the Iraq situation and certainly the Obama administration learned nothing from the Bush folly in Iraq. Hillary touts her foreign policy experience and knowledge of the world situation but I can't see how she wants to tout her record as Sec of State when the Middle East is in such a mess and the Obama administration only made things worse. Obama's problem was that he didn't know what to do. He did not want to get too involved and was not willing to walk away. Supplying arms to rebels only made the problem worse. No strategy, no idea to what end this support was taking place. If Assad were to fall, what's the plan? There isn't any.

[craigt3365]

To me this Syria conflict is another failure of the Obama administration. After the mistake the USA made in getting involved in Iraq (Bush administration), then the Arab Spring starting in Egypt and watching the muslim brotherhood take over only to see the military back in control (Obama administration) and then the mess in Libya (Obama administration) one would think the US would have learned NOT to get involved or support one side or the other. But in Syria the US made the same stupid move siding with a bunch of rebels against their government. Now the world is mired in a mess with the rise of ISIL, groups of rebels too numerous to count, who do not get along, in conflict against the Syrian government. The result of all the meddling in the middle east by the US and Europe is millions of people displaced and invading Europe. Rather than draw lines in the sand, which Obama never stuck with, he should have stayed out of the conflict and not taken sides. At least when Bush got in the mess in Iraq, he used the manpower of the military to do the job and there was some attempt at building a nation in Iraq and Bush left office with Iraq in some semblance of being stable with the help of US troops. Obama pulled them out, did not exert use power and let the thing get worse. My advise is not to get involved in the first place so I neither supported Bush in the Iraq situation and certainly the Obama administration learned nothing from the Bush folly in Iraq. Hillary touts her foreign policy experience and knowledge of the world situation but I can't see how she wants to tout her record as Sec of State when the Middle East is in such a mess and the Obama administration only made things worse. Obama's problem was that he didn't know what to do. He did not want to get too involved and was not willing to walk away. Supplying arms to rebels only made the problem worse. No strategy, no idea to what end this support was taking place. If Assad were to fall, what's the plan? There isn't any.

It is a big mess. But don't forget all the players involved in Syria. Hard to put a game plan together when all the players won't work together. Kinda like building a house where every worker has no idea what's going to be built.

Lebanon, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Russia, Turkey, USA, are all in there and all are supplying arms. Best thing is for all these players to leave Syria and stop supplying arms to the various factions they support. Which was suggested years ago via the UN security council, but was vetoed by Russia.

[bassman]

Tried to read the publication by Kerryd, but when I got to the BS statement that Syria is a majority Shia nation I had to stop as the rest was not worth reading. Syria is a Sunni Muslim majority and that was the major rift that started the protests leading to the revolution. Of course with Assad and Putin's ongoing ethnic cleansing the Shiites may well be the majority in the near future.

[Kerryd]

Tried to read the publication by Kerryd, but when I got to the BS statement that Syria is a majority Shia nation I had to stop as the rest was not worth reading. Syria is a Sunni Muslim majority and that was the major rift that started the protests leading to the revolution. Of course with Assad and Putin's ongoing ethnic cleansing the Shiites may well be the majority in the near future.

I apologize. You are correct, Syria apparently has around a 69% Sunni population. I kept thinking that Assad's Alawites were the majority for some reason. That, along with Assad's support of (Shia) Hezbollah and (Shia) Iran's support of Assad made me sloppy as I didn't fact-check that properly.

[simple1]

Tried to read the publication by Kerryd, but when I got to the BS statement that Syria is a majority Shia nation I had to stop as the rest was not worth reading. Syria is a Sunni Muslim majority and that was the major rift that started the protests leading to the revolution. Of course with Assad and Putin's ongoing ethnic cleansing the Shiites may well be the majority in the near future.

I apologize. You are correct, Syria apparently has around a 69% Sunni population. I kept thinking that Assad's Alawites were the majority for some reason. That, along with Assad's support of (Shia) Hezbollah and (Shia) Iran's support of Assad made me sloppy as I didn't fact-check that properly.

I had read some of your commentary regards Afghanistan that resonates with me. However are you going to reverse your opinion Assad the Dictator represents the 'legitimate' government of Syria.

The Atlantic Council is a highly respected Think Tank, you may like to do some research as to other papers they have released, much of which, at least to me reflect professionalism.

[derator01]

Please stick to the topic and abide by forum rules.

[Galactus]

One must always consider the source(s) when reading (or hearing) a story.

For example, if you're sitting on a (bar)stool in the public library on Soi 6 and the 18 y.o. pimply-faced first-timer at the bar is going on about how he looked Osama in the eye and spit in his face right before shoving a grenade up his butt, you can probably assume he's full of bull.

Now take this article. Written by a "private" think tank in the USA. Of course it just so happens that the USA supports the "rebels" trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria and is upset at Russia's support of that government (and it's offensive actions against those so called "rebels"). Got to make sure public opinion stays on your side though, otherwise people may start questioning the legitimacy of your own actions.

Now look at who published the article. Al Jazeera. The media mouth of the Qatari government (who are also the prime supporters of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organization amongst others.) Qatar just happens to be Sunni (as is Syria's other main opponent - Turkey) while Assad (and most of Syria) are Shia. Just a coincidence I'm sure. (Actually it is no coincidence at all.)

So you have 2 biased sources putting out an article trying to make Russia look like the bad guys while completely ignoring their own actions. I'm not saying Russia is the "good guy" in this matter, they are no angels by any measure but by their standards and their "take" on the matter, they are on the "right" side of the conflict.

Think about it. If a group of rebels started an armed insurrection in your country with the aim of overthrowing your government, and almost immediately half the world jumped on their side (for dubious reasons involving oil and/or religion) you'd probably be a little upset. If one major power went against the opinions of your opponents and openly supported you, you'd probably be happy, but your opponents would be pissed. They'd probably take every opportunity to make you and your ally look bad in order to try and make themselves look like the good guys.

Meanwhile, your ally is doing what he thinks is needed, battling the terrorists that are trying to overthrow your government. Sure, he has his own motivations and interests to protect as well in addition to reminding the world that one particular country doesn't rule the rest of it.

There is an old saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (the earliest recorded usage of that terms was traced to India in 1945 however it appears it was a "cliche" saying even then, indicating it originated much earlier than that).

It just depends on which side of the fence you are on. This was proven (somewhat) not long ago when various refugees were questioned about whether they supported different "terrorist" organizations. No surprise, if the "terrorist organization" happened to be on the same "side" and was from the same religion, they weren't considered terrorists. But of course, if they were from a different religion and/or opposing side then they were terrorists.

That is what is happening in Syria right now. Syria and Russia see the "rebels" as the terrorists while the "West" see them as "freedom fighters".

Think back to the 60's when the FLQ were doing their thing in Quebec (The Front de libération du Québec were a militant separatist group in Canada that wanted Quebec to separate from Canada.) They were branded as terrorists (the 160 different acts of terrorism and the murder of innocent people probably had something to do with that). If they started doing the same thing in the same place today, would they still be terrorists or would they suddenly be "rebel freedom fighters" ? (It would probably depend a whole lot on who they promised sweetheart trade and resource deals to in exchange for political and military support).

The FARC in Columbia are branded as terrorists. Got to wonder how quickly that would change if Columbia wasn't so strongly allied with the US. Wouldn't take much and suddenly one morning you'd wake up to stories about how the "freedom loving, democratic rebels" of Columbia are being oppressed and need support against the tyrannical Colombian regime.

The ANC in South Africa were considered a terrorist organization at one time, until the rest of the world suddenly decided that apartheid was wrong. The PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) is considered a terrorist organization by some but freedom fighters and revolutionaries by others.

The distinction between "rebel" and terrorist is key because it allows one to completely ignore wrongdoings by those you support while vilifying everything the other side does. For example, during the Libyan conflict the (Western) media was quick to highlight any alleged atrocities committed by Qaddafi's troops yet from the lack of coverage you'd think the other side (the western supported rebels) were complete angels ! I followed that conflict closely because I was absolutely amazed that groups of poorly educated, poorly trained, poorly led rebels could defeat the government forces and not commit any noteworthy crimes themselves ! No rapes (reported), no murder of innocents (reported), no pillaging/plundering/robbery/torture or anything (reported) ! I saw ONE picture of a "rebel" about to shoot a "suspected Qaddafi spy" who was unarmed and kneeling with his hands in the air. A couple days later I tried to find the story again so I could bookmark it. No luck. (If atrocities committed by the "rebels" had been reported honestly then public opinion would have turned against them and the Western powers would have had a hard time justifying their support.)

Kind of like the way the West has downplayed (pretty much ignored) the alleged chemical attacks in Syria a couple years ago when it was realized that it may very well have been the rebels that were responsible. Obama had drawn his "line in the sand" that would trigger direct military intervention on behalf of the rebels. That "line" was the use of chemical weapons. No surprise that not long after there was an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians but before the US could put the war machine into action Russia allegedly provided evidence that the attack was in fact initiated by the rebels and suddenly Obama backed off and it seemed (to me) that the West's support of the rebels took a major step back.

(I had my uninformed suspicions that the attack was done by the rebels as well. They were desperate for the West to intervene as they'd done in Libya. They had the most to gain from from such an intervention. The attack was in a Damascus suburb which was in Assad's backyard and an area considered to be supportive of him. Assad knew such an attack might draw the West in and in any event wouldn't likely gas his own supporters in his stronghold.)

I don't know what evidence Russia provided to the West but it must have been pretty convincing as the "line in the sand" seems to have disappeared (as lines drawn in sand usually do).

(Meanwhile this started out just as a cautionary warning about considering the source of the "news" before deciding on the trustworthiness of what is "reported". Sigh - apparently I have too much time on my hands !)

so we cannot count US think tank and Al Jazeera as a reliable source but your post?

there are many news stating the fact that Russia bombed forces opposing bloody Assad regime and some bombs to ISIS.

ISIS supplies petrol and money to Assad and some Russian businessmen so they dont want to finish ISIS. If they finish ISIS, the turn will come to Assad as people of Syria will finish him off. And next, turn will come to Russia as people of Syria will ask Russia to leave the bases and land given to it by bloody Assad and get the f...k out of Syria where they have zero cultural and historical ties. A chain reaction Russia never wants.

Moreover, Syria has a large Sunni majority (92%) but run by 'Alawi (it is a kind of shia islam)'(11%) Bloody Assad family for nearly a century by oppression and no human rights.

So, due to this oppression, people of Syria started to protest things but hit hard by Assad regime so they had no change but to form rebel opposition forces to throw a bloody tyrant. A tyrant throwing chemical weapons to his citizens, killing them.

and What Russia did is, they fooled the international community like they are fighting with ISIS but 90 percent of their bombings were just for opposition forces fighting with tyrant Assad. And they helped Assad to kill the Syrian citizens, nothing else.

and Russia did it just for keeping its bases and small land in Syria so they can access to warm waters. So just bc of Putin Russia's imperial tendencies to expand their territory everywhere. Like Ukraine like Crimea. Tens of thousands died to to Putin Russia's imperial dreams.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Galactus