69 replies to this topic

[the rebel]

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

[Manoka]

The U.S. is sending boots on the ground in Syria! Mostly special forces in advisory roles but, this is the first step towards a ground invasion on many occasions. Vietnam, Iran etc.

 

I don't know the opinions of the articles, just posting the information confirming U.S. ground forces in Syria.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.c...amic-state.html

 

http://www.theguardi...cial-operations

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...rations-forces/

[Manoka]

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

Well except for motivation, targets, and pretty much everything else.

[Chax]

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

[Manoka]

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

[Chax]

 

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

 

I was talking more about the post-war Kadyrovtsy than Russian army actions during the war. The Kadyrovtsy were used essentially as mercenaries in Ukraine and are likely to be used in the same way in Syria. Just like how the US used contractors when it couldn't get its hands dirty, I think Russia will do the same with these "unofficial" soldiers. 

[Manoka]

 

 

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

 

I was talking more about the post-war Kadyrovtsy than Russian army actions during the war. The Kadyrovtsy were used essentially as mercenaries in Ukraine and are likely to be used in the same way in Syria. Just like how the US used contractors when it couldn't get its hands dirty, I think Russia will do the same with these "unofficial" soldiers. 

Well, that makes a bit more sense. xP

 

The only thing I remember though is blackwater or some group of contractors tear gassing a bunch of people, which is more or less forbid by the geneva conventions, which mercenaries are exempt from (but not warcrimes, themselves. Just very specific weapons of war.) That being said it's never officially been said that tear gas is illegal by any degree (just chemical weapons), but the U.S. has an official policy of never using it due to the discrepancy.  

 

Are you referencing the thousands of contractors that were over there still when the U.S. withdrew most of it's troops from Afghanistan?

[Chax]

 

 

 

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

 

I was talking more about the post-war Kadyrovtsy than Russian army actions during the war. The Kadyrovtsy were used essentially as mercenaries in Ukraine and are likely to be used in the same way in Syria. Just like how the US used contractors when it couldn't get its hands dirty, I think Russia will do the same with these "unofficial" soldiers. 

Well, that makes a bit more sense. xP

 

The only thing I remember though is blackwater or some group of contractors tear gassing a bunch of people, which is more or less forbid by the geneva conventions, which mercenaries are exempt from (but not warcrimes, themselves. Just very specific weapons of war.) That being said it's never officially been said that tear gas is illegal by any degree (just chemical weapons), but the U.S. has an official policy of never using it due to the discrepancy.  

 

Are you referencing the thousands of contractors that were over there still when the U.S. withdrew most of it's troops from Afghanistan?

 

The contractors are guilty of more than just using tear gas. As you said, they aren't beholden to Geneva, and a lot of their alleged offenses were never actually investigated by the military. To put it bluntly, there's a reason ex-Ba'athists had such a solid bounty on the head of mercenaries. 

[Manoka]

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

 

I was talking more about the post-war Kadyrovtsy than Russian army actions during the war. The Kadyrovtsy were used essentially as mercenaries in Ukraine and are likely to be used in the same way in Syria. Just like how the US used contractors when it couldn't get its hands dirty, I think Russia will do the same with these "unofficial" soldiers. 

Well, that makes a bit more sense. xP

 

The only thing I remember though is blackwater or some group of contractors tear gassing a bunch of people, which is more or less forbid by the geneva conventions, which mercenaries are exempt from (but not warcrimes, themselves. Just very specific weapons of war.) That being said it's never officially been said that tear gas is illegal by any degree (just chemical weapons), but the U.S. has an official policy of never using it due to the discrepancy.  

 

Are you referencing the thousands of contractors that were over there still when the U.S. withdrew most of it's troops from Afghanistan?

 

The contractors are guilty of more than just using tear gas. As you said, they aren't beholden to Geneva, and a lot of their alleged offenses were never actually investigated by the military. To put it bluntly, there's a reason ex-Ba'athists had such a solid bounty on the head of mercenaries. 

Well, which instances are in question?

 

To my knowledge there's been a lot said about them, but not a lot of evidence shown about it. I've heard of a few instances where they shot people by mistake, even an instance where contractors shot each other by accident, but not really any, they went around slaughtering random innocent civilians for fun, kidnapping people to sell for ransom and such, as is common with the Russian contractors. 

[Chax]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

 

I was talking more about the post-war Kadyrovtsy than Russian army actions during the war. The Kadyrovtsy were used essentially as mercenaries in Ukraine and are likely to be used in the same way in Syria. Just like how the US used contractors when it couldn't get its hands dirty, I think Russia will do the same with these "unofficial" soldiers. 

Well, that makes a bit more sense. xP

 

The only thing I remember though is blackwater or some group of contractors tear gassing a bunch of people, which is more or less forbid by the geneva conventions, which mercenaries are exempt from (but not warcrimes, themselves. Just very specific weapons of war.) That being said it's never officially been said that tear gas is illegal by any degree (just chemical weapons), but the U.S. has an official policy of never using it due to the discrepancy.  

 

Are you referencing the thousands of contractors that were over there still when the U.S. withdrew most of it's troops from Afghanistan?

 

The contractors are guilty of more than just using tear gas. As you said, they aren't beholden to Geneva, and a lot of their alleged offenses were never actually investigated by the military. To put it bluntly, there's a reason ex-Ba'athists had such a solid bounty on the head of mercenaries. 

Well, which instances are in question?

 

To my knowledge there's been a lot said about them, but not a lot of evidence shown about it. I've heard of a few instances where they shot people by mistake, even an instance where contractors shot each other by accident, but not really any, they went around slaughtering random innocent civilians for fun, kidnapping people to sell for ransom and such, as is common with the Russian contractors. 

https://en.wikipedia...Square_massacre

 

 

 

Also, related to the Middle East, somebody just kidnapped two Serbian embassy staff members in Libya. Serbia has yet to really become involved in the global war against ISIS, but this might change that. 

 

http://www.telegraph...d-in-Libya.html

[Manoka]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

 

I was talking more about the post-war Kadyrovtsy than Russian army actions during the war. The Kadyrovtsy were used essentially as mercenaries in Ukraine and are likely to be used in the same way in Syria. Just like how the US used contractors when it couldn't get its hands dirty, I think Russia will do the same with these "unofficial" soldiers. 

Well, that makes a bit more sense. xP

 

The only thing I remember though is blackwater or some group of contractors tear gassing a bunch of people, which is more or less forbid by the geneva conventions, which mercenaries are exempt from (but not warcrimes, themselves. Just very specific weapons of war.) That being said it's never officially been said that tear gas is illegal by any degree (just chemical weapons), but the U.S. has an official policy of never using it due to the discrepancy.  

 

Are you referencing the thousands of contractors that were over there still when the U.S. withdrew most of it's troops from Afghanistan?

 

The contractors are guilty of more than just using tear gas. As you said, they aren't beholden to Geneva, and a lot of their alleged offenses were never actually investigated by the military. To put it bluntly, there's a reason ex-Ba'athists had such a solid bounty on the head of mercenaries. 

Well, which instances are in question?

 

To my knowledge there's been a lot said about them, but not a lot of evidence shown about it. I've heard of a few instances where they shot people by mistake, even an instance where contractors shot each other by accident, but not really any, they went around slaughtering random innocent civilians for fun, kidnapping people to sell for ransom and such, as is common with the Russian contractors. 

https://en.wikipedia...Square_massacre

 

 

 

Also, related to the Middle East, somebody just kidnapped two Serbian embassy staff members in Libya. Serbia has yet to really become involved in the global war against ISIS, but this might change that. 

 

http://www.telegraph...d-in-Libya.html

Well, that seems like an accident, and even if all of them are legitimately intentional, it's but a small fraction of their forces. 

 

That's not really the same as Chechnyian contractors, who regularly killed innocent people, just like russia. There was a total of 16,000 militants killed, compared to about 25,000 or so dead civilians, mostly by the hands of Russia. That's at least a somewhat different scenario. I don't really see an incentive to randomly attack Iraq guards, if anything this incident just made relations with the U.S. worse, where as Russia didn't care and just bombed the crap out of them anyways. 

 

Also, it looks a little bit premature to call this an attack by ISIS. There's so many paramilitary groups in the middle east it would be hard to imagine it's ISIS. Their involvement has been minimal. Then again, this is the king of thing that's right up their ally...

[Chax]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, the Kadyrovtsy (staunch supporters of Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov) are basically Putin's hit squad. Of course no soldiers will be sent to Syria, only vacationing troops right? :v

No different than military contractors that were in Iraq killing :v

 

I don't think the Kadyrovtsy are making nearly as much money as Blackwater did. That's about the biggest difference though. 

A big difference in the Chechen war is that Russia killed more civilians than enemies, and mined the entire area. The U.S., even blackwater, never did that. In fact, less than 5% of the contractors overseas were even in potentially militant positions, and that was in the position of a bodyguard. The vast majority were logistics troops.

 

I was talking more about the post-war Kadyrovtsy than Russian army actions during the war. The Kadyrovtsy were used essentially as mercenaries in Ukraine and are likely to be used in the same way in Syria. Just like how the US used contractors when it couldn't get its hands dirty, I think Russia will do the same with these "unofficial" soldiers. 

Well, that makes a bit more sense. xP

 

The only thing I remember though is blackwater or some group of contractors tear gassing a bunch of people, which is more or less forbid by the geneva conventions, which mercenaries are exempt from (but not warcrimes, themselves. Just very specific weapons of war.) That being said it's never officially been said that tear gas is illegal by any degree (just chemical weapons), but the U.S. has an official policy of never using it due to the discrepancy.  

 

Are you referencing the thousands of contractors that were over there still when the U.S. withdrew most of it's troops from Afghanistan?

 

The contractors are guilty of more than just using tear gas. As you said, they aren't beholden to Geneva, and a lot of their alleged offenses were never actually investigated by the military. To put it bluntly, there's a reason ex-Ba'athists had such a solid bounty on the head of mercenaries. 

Well, which instances are in question?

 

To my knowledge there's been a lot said about them, but not a lot of evidence shown about it. I've heard of a few instances where they shot people by mistake, even an instance where contractors shot each other by accident, but not really any, they went around slaughtering random innocent civilians for fun, kidnapping people to sell for ransom and such, as is common with the Russian contractors. 

https://en.wikipedia...Square_massacre

 

 

 

Also, related to the Middle East, somebody just kidnapped two Serbian embassy staff members in Libya. Serbia has yet to really become involved in the global war against ISIS, but this might change that. 

 

http://www.telegraph...d-in-Libya.html

Well, that seems like an accident, and even if all of them are legitimately intentional, it's but a small fraction of their forces. 

 

That's not really the same as Chechnyian contractors, who regularly killed innocent people, just like russia. There was a total of 16,000 militants killed, compared to about 25,000 or so dead civilians, mostly by the hands of Russia. That's at least a somewhat different scenario. I don't really see an incentive to randomly attack Iraq guards, if anything this incident just made relations with the U.S. worse, where as Russia didn't care and just bombed the crap out of them anyways. 

 

Also, it looks a little bit premature to call this an attack by ISIS. There's so many paramilitary groups in the middle east it would be hard to imagine it's ISIS. Their involvement has been minimal. Then again, this is the king of thing that's right up their ally...

 

Yeah, American contractors probably care more about public relations than their Russian counterparts, but neither group is typically upstanding and adherent to laws. 

 

For reference, I made a map of countries engaged in the war against ISIS worldwide (in their various iterations, be it Boko Haram or the Moro Conflict, etc). 

 

[Manoka]

Yeah, American contractors probably care more about public relations than their Russian counterparts, but neither group is typically upstanding and adherent to laws. 

 

For reference, I made a map of countries engaged in the war against ISIS worldwide (in their various iterations, be it Boko Haram or the Moro Conflict, etc). 

 

That only makes me think ISIS is going to be annihilated faster xD

 

But their numbers are relatively small. They have 10's of thousands of members, about 2 billion in finances, which is a static figure that they robbed from a single bank, and mostly infantry weapons, that is, Ak-47's, PKM's, dragnuv's etc. Their heaviest equipment is likely mortars, RPG-7's, and armored cars. 

 

They generally lack helicopters, aircraft, or the maintenance crews to service them, as well as tanks and other heavy vehicles. Comparatively, Assad alone has an army of hundreds of thousands, has killed hundreds of thousands, and not only has aircraft, helicopters, tanks, but the latest equipment form Russia, including missiles which could likely take down even American aircraft, such as S-300 missiles, which have a pretty high kill ratio vs. F-16's. Hezbollah has 65,000 members and over 50,000 missiles in their arsenal (having used a lot more) most of which are russian, and constant financing and training by Iran. Russia supplies arms to Iran, so that gives Hezbollah in many ways direct access to Russian equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if S-300 missiles end up in the hands of Hezbollah when fighting Israel any time soon. 

 

I think people, honestly, are overreacting to ISIS. Yes they're bad, but they're the fragmented remains of Al-Qaeda and the Saddam regime. Everyone including their own mums (I.E. Al Qaeda) hates them, so their future doesn't look very bright. Still, they're not a good group of guys. They should certainly go down. ISIS for instance claimed to be a part of Al Nusra, but this was later proven to be false, with Al Nusra rejecting this, so they also seem even crazier than usual. Their bonkers, and people are overreacting to their presence and basically attributing any islamic paramilitary groups in the region, such as Turkey against the Kurds, as basically being ISIS. Even when these groups have denounced any connection, people still continue to assert they're the same group. Thus their military sizes are more or less often over estimated. There's bigger potatoes out there. 

[Chax]

ISIS is rather heavily armed. They have some tanks (including at least two Abrams tanks at one point), as well as a plethora of bulldozers they'll armor with concrete and steel and use as big-ass battering rams. This is their newest tactic in northwest Iraq, according to my source on the ground. 

 

e: brief overview of equipment they have or have held at some point

 

http://www.militaryf...ons-of-isis.asp

Edited by Cappin' Pissflapps, 09 November 2015 - 12:50 AM.

[Manoka]

ISIS is rather heavily armed. They have some tanks (including at least two Abrams tanks at one point), as well as a plethora of bulldozers they'll armor with concrete and steel and use as big-ass battering rams. This is their newest tactic in northwest Iraq, according to my source on the ground. 

 

e: brief overview of equipment they have or have held at some point

 

http://www.militaryf...ons-of-isis.asp

What few pieces of equipment they do have, are in relatively small numbers, and they don't have trained members to operate them. 

 

Driving a tank is a lot more complicated than driving a car, and that also assumes they have ammunition for the tank. After 60-90 rounds, the tank is done. Without logistics it's more or less worthless. Save for use as a battering ram. In relation say, Syria not only has thousands of tanks ,but the means to refuel them, replenish their supplies, and trained tank drivers, with support two countries behind them, one of them near super power status. ISIS has two tanks, which in any case they have no means of supporting or likely effectively employing. I mean I know they have some vehicles, but when you compare that to the Taliban or even Al Qaeda, it's still a pretty small issue. 

 

The Taliban had Pakistan perform air-strikes in the beginning of the war. I can't think of a single air strike by ISIS, even though they have captured aircraft. Basically, what little they do have is unusable. 

 

 

Not to say they are defenseless or anything, but they're not particularly well armed compared to something like say, a gang, or cartel. In fact, I'd wager the cartels have more resources than they do. 

[the rebel]

Driving a tank is a lot more complicated than driving a car

Yeah because using two sticks is harder than the 3 pedals and a steering wheel in a car....

[the rebel]

Also, related to the Middle East, somebody just kidnapped two Serbian embassy staff members in Libya. Serbia has yet to really become involved in the global war against ISIS, but this might change that.

Serbia is one place with a lot of "professional" mercenaries who are also war hardened, so wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were already there or going there soon.

[Chax]

A lot of Daesh members are former military, though. There are a lot of ex-Ba'athists in their ranks, former members of Saddam's army, and as mentioned above driving a tank isn't exactly the most complicated thing in the world. It takes practice, but it's by no means impossible. 

 

The Abrams tanks they'd captured were never much of a threat for exactly the reasons you stated; primarily, the Abrams guzzles gas at an astonishing rate, and spare parts are at a premium. ISIS, at one point or another, had well over 100 tanks of various types, including T-62s, T-54/55s, and several T-72s. Ammunition is steadily resupplied as daesh continued to capture Syrian army stores, and weapons smugglers continue to sneak ammunition into the region. 

 

Syria's tanks are dying at an astonishing rate. Anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) teams are proving astoundingly accurate and effective, and when you combine this with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA)'s seemingly childish grasp on tank tactics (as shown in this video at around the 2-minute mark), it is no wonder they are suffering such great losses. Also, as an aside, I checked my notes on the Abrams capture, the numbers were around 10-20 captured, not 2. Still, our points regarding the Abrams still stand; very hard to maintain and equip for a rebel army. The same is not true of the Soviet tanks mentioned above. 

 

ISIS currently has (iirc) 1 MiG-21 somewhere, and if it's even physically capable of flight it would last all of 10 minutes before it was shot down by Syria, Israel, Turkey, Russia, the US, or any other coalition partner. Their best bet would be to fill it with explosives and use it as a suicide-plane, but that's getting into Tom Clancy-chat and yeah. 

 

ISIS is armed with MANPADS, ATGMs, chemical weapons, mortars, and heavy artillery. This is compounded by their numerous technicals, their sizable number of APCs and IFVs, and their tank fleet. 

 

We've already underestimated Daesh before, and I think it's against our best interests to do so again. 

[Chax]

To clarify, I agree with you 100% that ISIS isn't sustainable in its current form. 

[Manoka]

Well, my entire point is that ISIS isn't very well armed. They may have a few big guns here or there, but for the most part they can't even use them. That being said, Syria's tanks aren't all the best, especially T-55's. But ISIS doesn't have the numbers of tanks to compete with them or Iraq. Their biggest capability is their ability to hide, which they hide among the civilian populace, which makes them difficult to target. Russia just bombs everything, along with Syria. But even so, you could have bombed all of Afghanistan for instance and never got Osama Bin Laden, who was hiding out in Pakistan. Their ability to blend in is their greatest capability. 

 

Thus the biggest obstacle is intelligence, finding out the locations of ISIS hide outs. That's paramount in any counter insurgency. The problem with Russia, Syria, Iraq etc. is that none of them are really capable of rooting people out. Russia has a huge intelligence agency, but can't properly utilize them, or at least doesn't. Thus really and truly the U.S. would be the best to solve this problem. The only problem with that is, it's a political nightmare to do it. Brute force alone can't defeat organizations like ISIS, which is what makes them so dangerous. Even so, brute force is what wipes out the most people. Terrorists try to control people via spreading fear, where as Syria just blows people up and doesn't think twice. ISIS with aspirations to lead a government thus is dangerous ,but not as damaging as Syria or, even as Russia is turning out to be, like in every other conflict. I even think in the Georgian conflict they killed more innocent civilians than the people they were fighting... like, a lot more. Something like 500 died, and they killed like 5,000 or something.