Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

Good news from Aleppo - the Hikmah school is under Syrian army control too. The Hikma school was the first important point taken by the terrorists during their first offensive, which has lead to a short time breakthrough toward the East Aleppo enclave. It was often mentioned that the control of this school was what prevented the Syrian army to win back the 1070 buildings completely. With its loss, the last hope to break through again is over.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Flagrantly" according to Ukrainian/NATO propaganda. By the way, given Yanukovich's official request - as the legitimate president of the Ukraine - to help with military against the fascist insurgency, Putin had the right to send troops. So even if Putin had done what he had not, it would have been legal.

That for the US empire "legality" is only worth to be mentioned in scare quotes, because they openly do not care about it, is an unfortunate fact, and the world probably has to live with this some time.

Ok, feel free to trust the source talking about "The Kurdish Mountain".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or your link. Or the Wikipedia entry on the area. Or any number of other standard references on geography and demographics that deal with the region.

As opposed to someone who tries to support his claim that Putin has bombed no Kurds in Syria by claiming that any people who speak Arabic are not Kurds.

When in a hole, quit digging.

Note that the very comment you were responding to was an observation that the nature of such actions by the likes of Putin are not excused via a spurious legality. Assad is the actual strongman of Syria, and not even that changes the nature of Putin's actions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And at that time in Aleppo the Syrian army is liberating the Al Assad suburb in the West of Aleppo. This is the only part of Aleppo which remained taken by the terrorists in their latest offensive which has not yet taken back:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Some claims are that it is already completely liberated, some claim that there is yet a lot of fighting neare the border, some also about fighting inside, we will see. To completely revert all the advances of the terrorists in that offensive, a few uninteresting parts outside the town itself remain.

Nonsense. Of course, bombs will have also, as collateral damage, some Kurds as victims. So once there live some Kurds in Jabal Akrad too, and there was a lot of fighting there, there will have been also Kurdish victims. As among civilians as collateral damage, as among some local self-defense forces, who have failed to make peace with the Syrian army, as among the hardcore terrorists.

But none of the terrorists groups fighting in this region had anything to do with the important Kurdish armed forces like the YPG. Jabal Akrad is not even part of the Kurdish dream of Rojava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava So, bombing there the Russians were bombing the terrorist groups fighting there, some SSA, some Al Qaida, none associated with YPG, nor of the Hasaka, nor of the Afrin part. And therefore nothing worth to be mentioned in the discussion of Kurdish politics. Except you want to try to sell some SSA or Al Qaida factions as Kurdish groups, maybe because one or another leader of them is Kurdish - I don't know.

You seem to support the terrorist groups fighting in Jabal Akrad, given that you object in such emotional phrases like "bombing Kurds" against fighting them, not? This is the only reason I can see for introducing this.

I have recognized that for you, as a defender of the American empire, legality is "spurious", and does not matter at all. Natural, given that the US never cares about such legality but simply bombs if it likes. At least not that typical double standard of the Western media who blame Russia for a lot of invented violations of international law but do not care at all about the US doing much more horrible things without caring about law at all.

For me, legality matters. Of course, I'm in no way absolutist in this question, and acknowledge that there are situations where violations of international law are justified. For example: In the game of escalation, "tit for tat" is the most adequate and rational strategy. But if one has an opponent which, like the US, escalates using illegal means of various degree, the natural tit for tat answer would be illegal too. What to do? Here I acknowledge that in such a situation a tit for tat, even if illegal, is appropriate and justified. I accept this necessity, as a fact of life. But this should be an exception, justified by such special circumstances. The normal, preferred way should be legal. So, I do not accept your position that legality does not matter. Legality matters, and a lot.

There is, of course, the question if some legal action is somehow otherwise, morally bad. I cannot see anything in this direction, except, of course, for joepistole propaganda lies. The terrorists are armed by the West in such a strong way that airforce is necessary to fight them. The Russian airforce is professional, has the ability to do this job, and does it. This clearly helps destroying various terrorist forces, and has already given peace to some regions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The map posted above was overoptimistic, at that day the Syrian army had made a lot of progress in the Al Assad suburb, but was unable to liberate it, and later there was even a counterattack which had reverted some of the gains. Nonetheless, yesterday the Syrian army and its allies have been more successful, and was, in the evening, not only able to liberate Al Assad suburb and Minyan, but also some more places in the surroundings, so that now the map looks like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There's nothing "emotional" about pointing out that Putin has played divide and conquer games with the Kurds in Syria, including bombing some Kurds (makes the threat of bombing others real) and protecting others.

It matters whenever government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and not otherwise. It's an ethical principle - because those who can alter the law at their pleasure cannot thereby obtain justification via "legality".

The US has no problem arranging things so as to have the appearance of legality - which is necessary domestically. As with Putin, getting permission from the local strongman to bomb the strongman's enemies or obstacles, it's not much of a cover.

 

Ok, it may be non-emotional, but it remains simply wrong. In Jabal Akrad, there have been intense fights against some terrorist strongholds, in particular Salma and Kinsabba, which have been considered impossible to take by the Syrian army for years, because they were quite easy to defend. None of the forces defending them identified themselves as Kurdish, the forces fighting there had been heavily supported by Erdogan, with aims to get them under Turkish control. To claim that bombing terrorist positions in these mountains has something to do with Kurdish politics is simply nonsense.

LOL, and if this is the case or not is decided in Washington, following the opinion expressed in Washington Post and NYT. And, no, international law is not at all about consent of the governed, which exists anyway only in propagandist fantasies. States always use the threat of force to extract taxes, always.

By lying and by supporting terrorists and not writing about this. Appearance of legality at best. But usually they do not even reach such an appearance. At least in the Syrian war the support for openly terrorist groups was too obvious. Like https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872
US regarding beheading of child few weeks ago "One incident here and there does not make you a terrorist group".

Putin does not need any cover here, because bombing terrorists is a good, moral thing. But he needs legality from point of view of international law.

About which you obviously don't care at all, as if it would not exist, beyond some moral sermons in NYT or so. Which is, of course, one of the main aims of American propaganda - to reach that nobody objects against American violations of international law.

 

Ok, it may be non-emotional, but it remains simply wrong. In Jabal Akrad, there have been intense fights against some terrorist strongholds, in particular Salma and Kinsabba, which have been considered impossible to take by the Syrian army for years, because they were quite easy to defend. None of the forces defending them identified themselves as Kurdish, the forces fighting there had been heavily supported by Erdogan, with aims to get them under Turkish control. To claim that bombing terrorist positions in these mountains has something to do with Kurdish politics is simply nonsense.

LOL, and if this is the case or not is decided in Washington, following the opinion expressed in Washington Post and NYT. And, no, international law is not at all about consent of the governed, which exists anyway only in propagandist fantasies. States always use the threat of force to extract taxes, always.

By lying and by supporting terrorists and not writing about this. Appearance of legality at best. But usually they do not even reach such an appearance. At least in the Syrian war the support for openly terrorist groups was too obvious. Like https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872
US regarding beheading of child few weeks ago "One incident here and there does not make you a terrorist group".

Putin does not need any cover here, because bombing terrorists is a good, moral thing. But he needs legality from point of view of international law.

About which you obviously don't care at all, as if it would not exist, beyond some moral sermons in NYT or so. Which is, of course, one of the main aims of American propaganda - to reach that nobody objects against American violations of international law. You are a nice example how this works.

 

It's Russian politics, not Kurdish, that were involved.

That's why you call them terrorists, of course. The people you bomb - including the Kurds Putin bombed. The US does the same thing. There was a while in Iraq when the US had half the country labeled "terrorists".

No he doesn't. Look at his annexation of Crimea.

The governed, in international law, are the nations. And without their consent one has imperialism - not international law.

I realize this business of consent of the governed is alien and strange to you, and your incomprehension is entirely understandable, but I grew up with it - and in my circles, getting a handle on that basic principle of governance is part of becoming an adult.

 

So if no Kurdish politics involved, why you have introduced your "Putin bombs poor Kurds" nonsense?

They have been named terrorists long before the Russians started to bomb them. And I have named them terrorists also long before this.

I look at Crimea and cannot see any annexation. What I see, from a legal point of view, is
1.) A violent overthrow of the democratically legitimized president of the Ukraine by a Bandera-fascist movement.
2.) Request for Russian military support from the president as well as the legal government of Crimea. Some Russian forces, indeed, support the legal Crimean government supporting the legal order.
3.) An independence declaration of Crimea.
4.) A referendum in the now independent state of Crimea, which decides to ask Russia to join it.
5.) The decision of the Russian parliament to accept this request.

Nonsense. There are no "governed" because there is no world government to govern. International law is essentially anarchistic contract law. The subjects of this law (not the "governed") are states. Nobody in international law cares about "nations" - this is something nationalists care about. (There have been some attempts to introduce nationalist ideas into international law, so there is no such purity, but essentially it remains true nonetheless.)

Nonsense. It is not at all alien to me, and that's why I reject states, which always have the "consent of the governed" only in propaganda speeches but imprison people for not paying taxes, not caring about any consent of paying taxes at all.

But simply the "consent of the governed" is alien to international law.

Yes, I know, I also grew up with such propaganda nonsense. In a slightly different, communist version, but anyway of the same type. You mingle "becoming adult" with "becoming obedient sheeple". Such sheeple are useful to pay taxes even without their consent, but it is, of course, much better if the sheeple even consent to pay taxes.

 

This is where the "adult" part comes in.

It is possible for adults to agree to be taxpayers as a condition of being members of a community - meaning they agree to an obligation, a contract, a promise, that can be enforced upon them by the other members of the community they have obligated themselves to. They do this partly in order to obtain access to the services that only obligatory taxation can provide - roads, sewer systems, public health care, the common defense against military assault, the common defense against crime, etc. Adults recognize this as inherent in community life, and community of some kind as inherent in human life - one chimpanzee is no chimpanzees. Denial of this is juvenile, a common aspect of the adolescent rebellion against one's family and tribe that is an ordinary part of human cognitive development. But one is supposed to outgrow it.

 

Nice try. Adults would recognize that, given the relation between what is spend for these needs of infrastructure, and what the states are really doing, this is cheap propaganda, on the level of social spendings by the mafia. Btw, during my adolescence I have not rebelled at all. And even as an adult I have paid taxes. I'm libertarian because the libertarians have better arguments. And evaluating complex arguments is something adults can do much better. So, as usual, your guesses are completely off.

 

That isn't true, in general. Why would an adult believe obvious falsehood, with the budgets and benefits right in front of them?

You don't, though.

I'm a libertarian because libertarians have better arguments, as well. So?

 

Not many news from Syria. Fighting at many places around East Aleppo, as well as in the suburbs West of Aleppo, with some small progress. Here is some nice map about how the Western media handle what is localized where in Aleppo:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The most important news is that according to https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...tern-ghouta-surrender-following-army-advance/ the terrorists in Khan al-Shih in Western Ghouta have accepted to leave the town and to be transferred with the "green busses" to Idlib.

 

Some progress in Northeast Aleppo:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There has been some progress already during the last days, with the hill Tal Zouber (hill Southeast of the liberated region), the industrial region Southwest of the hill, and the cemetery (the big rectangular area South of that hill) being liberated. But the region liberated today differs from most of those liberated earlier, which have been mostly industrial regions, hills or suburbs. The Hanano Housing is already a region where, at least in the past, people have lived.

There are also news about progress in Jabal Baro, which is West of the cemetery.

If all this is true, it follows that fears that inside the town progress will be very slow - which was, indeed, typical for the other parts inside Aleppo - may appear unjustified. Most of the frontline was stable for many years, so that the terrorists have had time to build stable defenses. But once the first defense line has been broken, the situation may be different. The Eastern parts are a good region to try, given that the stable frontline was outside the town, so that the defenses inside the town may be much weaker.

 

The progress in Hanano continues:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here how it looks in the big picture:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, this is already a solid piece of the North-East of Aleppo which is liberated, and not some suburbs, which are not really part of the town, but of Aleppo itself.

South of this, on the West of the airport, the Syrian army has taken an important hill, the last obstacle on the way to Aleppo itself.

 

I appears that the Syrian army has made major advances in the northern part of rebel-held east Aleppo on Nov 27, taking both the Hanano and Jebel Badro neighborhoods. Reportedly there is fighting in the Sakhur neighborhood. They are within about half a mile of cutting east Aleppo in two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...yrian-government-forces-capture-key-district/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It looks like the rebels have evacuated their fighters from the area north of Sakhur before they were cut off and encircled in Haydariya, and rebel resistance seems to have largely collapsed in the entire northern area. The east Aleppo rebel enclave is now southeast Aleppo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_offensive_(November_2016)

http://www.edmaps.com/Syria_Battle_for_Aleppo_November_28.png

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There are claims that today the Southern district Sheikh Saeed has been liberated, together with the remains of Ramouseh under terrorist control and parts of Al Ameria. Here some maps:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

With Ramouseh and Sheikh Saeed captured, the way out through the South becomes much longer. Given that the defense in Sheikh Saeed was quite strong (there have been fighting all the time during the last month without any progress) the collapse of the terrorist defenses seems complete. Possibly one reason was that many fighters had to be taken from the South to defend the North against the complete collapse, without success, so that the South was severely weakened too.

 

There has been other progress in Syria too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For the two West Ghouta enclaves marked 1 and 2 the transport of the fighters and their families toward Idlib is on the way or even already finished. For the enclave Al Tal marked 3 an agreement has been reached, so there will be a similar transport toward Idlib too during the next days. And in East Ghouta, the town Al-Mayda'ani (marked 4) has been liberated.

 

The progress in Sheikh Saed as presented on the maps above has been too large, the Syrian army had never controlled more than 80% of the district. Then, the terrorists have launched a counterattack. The Syrian army has claimed that it had not have enough time to prepare defenses, and withdrawn from large parts.

Some important progress nonetheless remains in the South. Here is an actual map:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!