Moscow is preparing to evacuate 30,000 Russians from Syria.

Originally posted by intrptr
I thought all that "humanitarian non-lethal aid" NATO is funneling in through Turkey was supposed to consist of medical supplies and stuff?

You mean how like Russia has supplied their version of "Humanitarian aid"

By the way once the rebels "occupy" a town like Homs or Allepo, most of the civilians flee cross borders to refugee camps in Turkey, Beirut and Jordan.

Exactly...

Instead of running to Assad's Army for protection.

Aren't they trying to protect the Syrian people from Assad?

Who?

Those Turkish, Lebanese and Jordanian refugee camps?

Originally posted by intrptr



Nice try making it appear that Assad is bombing his own people. He is leveling his infrastructure in an effort to rid his towns of the insurgents. Looks like he is "evil" though, I'll grant you that. That is the nature of Guerrilla ops, to make the lawful government appear to be the "bad guys".

So hes NOT bombing Syrians? Hes not KILLING Innocent civilians with his WAR against insurgents?

K.

I honestly thought he was doing this, for the better of Mankind.......

reply to post by neo96

I wanna know after what 2 years of "civil war" why Russia still has "civilians" in theatre?

And we don't, you think? The lines of demarkation fuzzy to you?

Are those "civilians" Saddams WMDS being carried out of the country because they don't want NATO or the world to find out?

Saddam's WMDS again? Again?!? The only mass destruction there in the form of weapons is all the "Humanitarian aid" pumped into that beleaguered country by NATO forces in Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. You know, the ongoing "intervention" from the outside by the same WMD west that toppled Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to name a few.

Assad should take his family and go to Russia and live under the glorious dictator Putin.

Is that a solution? That would fix Syria? The way removing Qaddafi from Libya "fixed" that country? Whos next on that WMD list? Let me guess.

Tired and worn are the calls of "WMD" and evil dictators that should "just leave".

Originally posted by MrSpad


30,000 Russian assualt troops with no support, logistical trail, command and control or heavy weapons would be a disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention a huge PR victory for the Rebels who would claim Syria was being invaded by an outside Christian power and result in massive defections of what is left of the loyal Syrian Army.

What makes you think they would have no logistic support? The way I see it its a short hop over the Black Sea to Russian sea & air ports.

And though Russia may be predominantly Christian-Orthodox it has a reasonable number of satellite states with Islamic populations (ideal for settling refugees).

I wouldnt be surprised if the Russians are evacuating Syrian civilians to avoid as much collateral damage as possible when they send their troops in (on request of the Syrian Govt of course).

Bishop to Queen Bishop 4 - Check!

reply to post by intrptr

And we don't, you think? The lines of demarkation fuzzy to you?

Awesome for not wanting to know why civilians have been in a war zone for years does the logic in that escape you?

Saddam's WMDS again? Again?!? The only mass destruction there in the form of weapons is all the "Humanitarian aid" pumped into that beleaguered country by NATO forces in Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. You know, the ongoing "intervention" from the outside by the same WMD west that toppled Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to name a few.

'
'
Just pay no attention to Russian Hinds,RPGS,AKs, other machine guns and other weapons being funneled in to SYRIA, by Russia,and Iran.

That some real humanitarian aid and then go spread some more humanitarian aid by attacking Turkey.

Is that a solution? That would fix Syria? The way removing Qaddafi from Libya "fixed" that country? Whos next on that WMD list? Let me guess.

Yeah a good one means people would stop dying, but if some like propping up a bloody dictator who kills his own please by all means.

ired and worn are the calls of "WMD" and evil dictators that should "just leave".

Well there are others like myself tired of "some" defending those dictators and they are evil, they are bloody and they are brutal case in point Syria.

This news clip is being pushed hard by most western news outlets now.


So NATO is definitely ready to step in now, it's just a matter of convincing the west to agree, and these Scuds seem to be a great selling point.

Besides it's got way out of control now in Syria, everyone fighting everyone, it's why in the main cities, it's turn into a stalemate, and the normal Syrian people are the ones suffering, the county being flatten.

Although i believe Assad should go, as no one should be in power for 40+ years. The problem i have, is i cant stand the religious snackbar screamers, what's the end game in letting the radical Islamist get into power ?

Why is the west letting the middle east become radicalized ?

It can only end badly.

Anyway, it seems a really good time for Assad to slip away quietly, as the big bad wolf NATO making a move.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I am sure the shoulder launched missiles the FSA has "acquired" will make quick work of any Russian Hinds. Like in here...

www.military.com...

You were expecting the Syrians to buy American Helicopters instead? Isn't that the problem we have with Assad? That he doesn't dance to the tune of the West? Of course Assad has every right to use any means at his disposal to defeat America, Nato and their Arab cronies, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Oh and heres some WMD from Turkey for the FSA to play with. Tekkim is a Turkish brand of Intervention and Humanitarian Aid is it?


Assad's goose is likely cooked. The West is seeing to that. Just standing for his sovereign right to rule his country and not be deposed by outside forces that wage aggressive war in the name of aiding the Syrian people.

reply to post by sonnny1

So hes NOT bombing Syrians? Hes not KILLING Innocent civilians with his WAR against insurgents?

Of course the Syrian Army is. If they are to old or sick or poor to get the hell out of the field of fire... bummer huh? I'll ask the FSA to move to the country out in the open if you like, away from population centers?

Then there would be no friendly fire casualties? Like that never occurs in time of war, "open" or "undeclared".

You can drop the "He's" killing his people routine too. It is useful to make "him" appear as evil as possible I know, but give it a rest. The nation of Syria is trying to fight off an "intervention" ( from outside). An "insurgency" against the Syrian people and their country hosted by the USA, Nato and their Arab allies in order to topple the lawful government, not just "Assad".

reply to post by neo96

Just pay no attention to Russian Hinds,RPGS,AKs, other machine guns and other weapons being funneled in to SYRIA, by Russia,and Iran.

Syria doesn't have the right to defend itself from attack from outside? All those Russian weapons didn't give anybody heartburn before the country was targeted did they? Only now?

That some real humanitarian aid and then go spread some more humanitarian aid by attacking Turkey.

Syria attack NATO-- err, I mean Turkey? With the West spoiling for a fight? Suuuure. Syria hasn't and wont. But go ahead and claim a few "errant" mortar rounds were fired by the Syrians to start a war with Turkey. The undeclared war is coming from the Turkish side.

Haven't you heard?

but if some like propping up a bloody dictator who kills his own please by all means.
---
Well there are others like myself tired of "some" defending those dictators and they are evil, they are bloody and they are brutal case in point Syria.

I defend Syria's (or any nation's) national sovereignty, nothing more. The right to self determination by the Syrian people and their government. Calling their rightful leader "bloody or brutal" doesn't give another nation the right to cross borders and wage a war with intent to topple the government and throw the country into disarray.

What should be considered is the notion that invading and conquering other nations is somehow justified when there has been no lawful demonstration that this is necessary, except unproven claims of murder and "WMD". As if that cry is enough to warrant this same scenario again and again. The country or countries intentions to do this on a continuing basis are the ones found wanting in the morals and international law department.

We could discuss the constitution and its provisions for sovereignty and liberty and rights and all that. But I am sensing a double standard here. One that says all those rules apply to US but not others.

Now dismiss this and go ahead and accuse me of "supporting Assad". Make me the enemy too, because I don't agree with you. Focus the attention on Assad as if he is the focus of the wrong you purport to see in that whole country. And that "eliminating" him will somehow "fix" everything there.

This is deceptive in its intent to "demonize" one man as the source of all "whats wrong with Syria", or any other nation.

reply to post by intrptr

Syria doesn't have the right to defend itself from attack from outside? All those Russian weapons didn't give anybody heartburn before the country was targeted did they? Only now?

What? Pretty easy to say that is what the rebels are doing.

Syria attack NATO-- err, I mean Turkey? With the West spoiling for a fight? Suuuure. Syria hasn't and wont. But go ahead and claim a few "errant" mortar rounds were fired by the Syrians to start a war with Turkey. The undeclared war is coming from the Turkish side.

Yeah a "few errant mortars" stop wasting my time with nonsense.

I defend Syria's (or any nation's) national sovereignty, nothing more. The right to self determination by the Syrian people and their government. Calling their rightful leader "bloody or brutal" doesn't give another nation the right to cross borders and wage a war with intent to topple the government and throw the country into disarray.

Mean defending Assads "right" to murder his own people.

What should be considered is the notion that invading and conquering other nations is somehow justified when there has been no lawful demonstration that this is necessary, except unproven claims of murder and "WMD". As if that cry is enough to warrant this same scenario again and again. The country or countries intentions to do this on a continuing basis are the ones found wanting in the morals and international law department.

No Claims there look it up but that is too much work just easier to deny it.

We could discuss the constitution and its provisions for sovereignty and liberty and rights and all that. But I am sensing a double standard here. One that says all those rules apply to US but not others.

No we can't since the constitution has jack to do with Assad and Syria.

Now dismiss this and go ahead and accuse me of "supporting Assad". Make me the enemy too, because I don't agree with you. Focus the attention on Assad as if he is the focus of the wrong you purport to see in that whole country. And that "eliminating" him will somehow "fix" everything there.

Why are you trying to make yourself the topic eh? Syria is.

This is deceptive in its intent to "demonize" one man as the source of all "whats wrong with Syria", or any other nation.

From where I sit it is deceptive in its intent to "demonize" the west and nato as the source of all "that is wrong with Syria".

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by MrSpad

 

He should prove just how much smarter he is than old Qaddafi and take his family and His Billions I mean, Syria's Billions and retire safely in Russia while he still can and not end up in some half ass TV show trial or worse...

There the West can't touch him or his family and he could talk all the smack he wants about the evil West

edit on 21-12-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

I am sure everybody but the rebels and Assad would agree to this. The rebels want revenge and Assad thinks he is winning.

reply to post by neo96

From where I sit it is deceptive in its intent to "demonize" the west and nato as the source of all "that is wrong with Syria".

No its not. If they were crossing our borders... but it is We after all who are invading countries over there. We are crossing their borders and violating their airspace.

That makes our side look the perpetrator in all the conflict over there.

reply to post by Nonchalant

What makes you think they would have no logistic support? The way I see it its a short hop over the Black Sea to Russian sea & air ports.

And the closer the West moves its forces to Iran the closer and closer they get to Russia and the longer the supply lines back to friendly territory. We are a half a world away from there. I think the Russians are showing remarkable restraint. Or maybe just biding their time... waiting...

We got to be some fools to think we can influence their arena from two continents and an ocean away. They must be blowing bubbles in their wodka wondering just how far we'll push it.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by neo96

 

From where I sit it is deceptive in its intent to "demonize" the west and nato as the source of all "that is wrong with Syria".

No its not. If they were crossing our borders... but it is We after all who are invading countries over there. We are crossing their borders and violating their airspace.

That makes our side look the perpetrator in all the conflict over there.

What's this "we" crap?

I rest my case demonize the west and ignore what they do.

reply to post by neo96

What's this "we" crap?

Figuratively speaking,"we" don't crap...

we just disagree.

I think most people had no idea of the large number of Russians in Syria. I know it never occured to me before. But it makes sense that if they could, they would escape the frigid cold Russia is known for. and that the expats would likely be people of means as well. Winter homes as it were. And yea, as one poster said, it don't reflect well as to Putin's removal of all these people, thus leaving Syria exposed for something possibly Really Big..... chemical or nuclear?

So true. 30,000 troops is a lot but they wouldn't have time bring in any heavy weapons, and it would be absolute chaos.

it seems the Russians have been deleveraging their ties with Syria for better than 4 months now... see this snip from a article:

...Following the drills, the warships could have continued their tour of duty in the Mediterranean. But the plans were changed. Large NATO naval task forces are concentrated off Syrian coasts while the Russian grouping looks like a dwarf. “We will be unable to keep our facility in Tartus by military means,” a Defense Ministry source told the paper. “We cannot, by military means, oppose countries that support the Syrian opposition,” he said.

He also denied reports that the staff of the Russian base had been evacuated due to the aggravation of the situation in western Syria. But he would not comment on reports that the naval facility in Syria would not provide supplies to Russian warships.

source: MOSCOW, August 24 (RIA Novosti)

Nezavisimaya Gazeta

Russia Will Not Use Military Force to Protect its Facility in Syria
en.ria.ru...

i would suggest that the 30,000 personnel in Syria are Russians that work in the Naval port of Tartus, the NATO navel presence is much more than the Russians cab handle, so they are exiting the future battle zone ~ For Now~



the Russians will likely be invited back in the naval port after the rebel terrorists/AQ/Salafists take over ...because they (rebels, FSA) hate the USA...no matter what or CIC says about his special relationship with the militant-zealots we call the FSA (free syrian armee indeed)
they will open arms to the Russians for the aid and arms the Russians will supply
and partnering with Russia to help thwart a resulting coup by the Muslim Brotherhood (USA covertly backed forces) that seek to oust the FSA junta which were no more than mercenaries the USA hired (these mercenaries hate and abhore the USA ~the Great Satan~) and then allow to be deposed by a more friendly MB


the Øbama is now actively Arming & Financing AQ and Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula and other former 'enemies' in an attempt to control the warring MidEast instead of 'Policing' the warring factions...

This sneaky tactic is bound to backfire and be Very bad for the western forces

First Russians evacuated from Syria land in Moscow

The evacuation of 77 Russians was the first organized by Russia since the start of the Syrian conflict nearly two years ago, and it may be the beginning of what could become a difficult and dangerous operation to rescue tens of thousands of Russians living in Syria if Bashar Assad's regime falls. The Russians, mainly women married to Syrians and their children, were taken by bus to Lebanon and then flown to Moscow. The first of two planes landed shortly after 5 a.m. (0100 GMT) Wednesday. The Emergencies Ministry, which sent the planes, said the passengers were being given medical examinations before leaving the airport. It was unclear if any of them had been injured in the fighting.

Russia began pulling their citizens out of Syria. Something is about to change over there.

reply to post by Spike Spiegle

As the usual typical propaganda the same propaganda from last year


For two days we had no news on our terrorist allies and today we have rumors that Russia is planning to evacuate 30,000 Russians from Syria. Again.

I have to make sure to this if this is really 2013 or 2012.