Friday, October 9, 2015

Syria: An Intense 24 Hours According to All Reports- Obama Says..

Russian Sorties- 67 in 24 hours
 Attack aircraft from the Russian air group deployed in Syria carried out record 67 combat missions in the past 24 hours hitting a total of 60 Islamic State targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

"In the past 24 hours, the Russian combat aircraft carried out 67 missions. The Sukhoi Su-34 and Su-24SM planes destroyed 60 terrorist targets," Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Lt. Gen. Igor Makushev told reporters in Moscow.

Russia’s Sukhoi Su-25, Su-24M and Su-34 attack aircraft, with the support of Su-30 jets, commenced precision airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria on September 30, following a request from Syrian President Bashar Assad.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, since the beginning of the air campaign Russian air forces have carried out about 140 strikes against terrorist positions, including command centers, training camps and ammunition depots. Russian warships in the Caspian Sea fired 26 cruise missiles on ISIL targets on Wednesday.
 Russia says kills 300 militants in Syria in most intense raids yet
Russia's air force hit 60 Islamic State targets in Syria over the past 24 hours and killed around 300 militants, the Defence Ministry said on Friday, in Moscow's most intense raids yet since it first launched strikes on Syria 10 days ago.

The increased pace of attacks was aimed at preventing militants from re-grouping and dispersing in populated areas, the ministry said. In the previous updates, the Moscow had been reporting hitting about 10 targets daily.

The ministry said in a statement that air force jets used KAB-500 precision guided bombs to destroy a headquarters of the Liwa al-Haqq militant group in Syria's Raqqa province.

The ministry, citing intercepted radio communications, said the raid killed two senior Islamic State field commanders and some 200 militants there.

Liwa al-Haqq is not connected to Islamic State, so it was not clear what the two field commanders were doing at the group's base.
Liwa al Haqq is not connected to ISIS ?????
So it was not clear what the two field commanders were doing at the group's base???
Oh really? 

 The ministry also said it destroyed an Islamic State base and munitions storage set up in a former prison near Aleppo, killing another 100 militants.
 Isn't it amazing that Russia has struck ISIS &  struck them hard, while the NATO allies bombed & bombed. Then bombed some more!  And still, ISIS managed to expand territory and increase ranks. So curious... 

Obama says... 

 When I came into office...Syria was Russia's only ally in the region," Obama said in the interview, the complete version of which will air this Sunday.
"And today, rather than being able to count on their support and maintain the base they had in Syria, which they've had for a long time. Mr. Putin now is devoting - his own troops, his own military, just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally," he said.
When the journalist conducting the interview said that Russia is "challenging your leadership, Mr. President," and is "bombing the people - that we are supporting," Obama questioned whether that was any indication of leadership at all.
"If you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership," he said.
 With a straight face undoubtedly.

From earlier cause I'm playing catch up myself!

Iran: No to missiles impacting- Syrian Rebel Training Program Overhauled- Not ended


  1. Hi Penny,
    The news is all over the map today. There appears to be mass confusion in the US power structure. The latest from Sputnik (9:49 pm Sputnik time, 9 October) has recommendation for withdrawal from Syria. Earlier stories (among a relatively large number of similar stories) give different views.

    Obama Advisors Recommend US Military Withdrawal From Syria

    US to Look for New Rebel Groups in Syria to Cooperate in Fight Against ISIL

    And there are several stories from European leaders (not least Jean-Claude Juncker) and American politicians basically along the line of, "Let it go, Barry". So I have to wonder about the interview Obama gave, to air this Sunday, from which you are quoting.
    On another topic, but one which you seem to be interested in, I have been following the Saker blog for a while since I began to re-engage in "web browsing" recently. I have come to the conclusion that, no matter who "The Saker" might be, the site is a front for CIA interests (CIA defined loosely as the public face of the western power). The latest story on the site is "WWIII -- Syria, Russia & Iran -- The New Equation". The commenters have a convoluted set of views typical of the site. I left a comment at a time when there were no comments posted. My comment was, "More CIA crap". It hasn't appeared yet and I don't know whether it will. It bothers me a little that the CIA monkeys would be so upset. I don't know if you have read it, but I wonder if it is worth your time to have a look at it in view of your interest in propaganda techniques. It is very slick, professionally done, and the conclusion as I read it is, "Well, it looks like the terror charade is wearing thin, maybe it's time to get down to the real game, which is the final showdown -- played out over decades, of course, we hope." (I am giving this summary at least two hours after one look at the video, so it is a fading-memory view.)

    1. Hi DG, I'll throw my tuppence-worth in here. There are a lot of vocal admirers of Saker and a few sceptics of which I am one. I've had reasonable and obvious comments censored there and so have others. Certainly, things don't add up with the site and i stopped reading there quite a while ago.

      As for the US's reaction to Russia's bombing, it has been clear that they have simply not known what to do. Here in Oz, there is hardly any coverage of Russia's involvement in Syria at all which speaks volumes to me. They don't want the public to know about it.

      I can't see the U.S. pulling out of Syria but what else can they do?

    2. Thank you, James. That site was one that I came upon after following many links on various blogs that list where they read, etc. I was interested because it seemed to have a Russia-centric view, and in my book no westerner is to be trusted. As far as Syria news is concerned, my only interest is in how goes the battle against the psychos and of course their backers, whoever and wherever they turn out to be. So Saker really gives itself away these days. I think your scepticism is proven correct.
      I hope and pray that peace will come to that godforsaken region in my lifetime. The US is in such a bad position now that its institutional psychology is threatened. Just what does the emperor do when he is shown to have no clothes? He could jump in the water and muddy it as much as possible I suppose. From Obama's tone (judging by his words) he is making it difficult for himself to be seen taking a pragmatic view, let alone a principled one (very difficult given that the lack of US principles is now clear). But a pragmatic view is still possible, if someone like Kerry comes out and says the US is willing to work with Russia even if they are (insert gratuitous insult here). From today's news it looks like Saudi is the problem, but I think that regime will break like a rotten fencepost with a slight push.

    3. Hey D George and james- wrt Saker

      I preferred the old Saker- I haven't had any comments censored there myself, but still preferred the old Saker.
      The new Saker is not moderated by Saker, as was the old one.
      And there are taboo topics which Saker, old Saker never had..
      Perhaps it was done to reign in commenters who can't behave, I don't know?
      All that said, there is still some interesting reading and to Saker's credit he didn't jump on the neo con disinfo/sensation bandwagon others did wrt Russia's involvement with Syria as if it was something new or unusual

    4. Hi Pen, I don't want to get into judging Saker except to say two things - there were many inconsistencies with his approach (which may have more than one explanation) and his moderation policy in action is not what many people think. I know because I was in discussion with him about it.

      So, as advice to others, all I would say is read there by all means, but pay attention at all times.

    5. Hey james

      good advice- very good advice.

      I learned the hard way about more then a couple of places - by actually paying attention and checking what was being referred to etc.,

      My own moderation skills have lacked at times also :(

      Thankfully, everyone that posts here talks topics and stays to them pretty well. That does make moderation much easier.

      I delete trolling right off the bat- without giving it a second thought

    6. Not sure how anyone gets saker to be CIA , who's to day George isn't CIA?

    7. Hi Brian, here is the video I am talking about:

      Maybe if you are interested you could look at it and say what you think. Maybe I am wrong (I was wrong once before) but since the Russian intervention in Syria that site doesn't act right somehow. I am not CIA, but I could be lying too (I have lied before).

    8. Hi Penny,
      Just for the record I will give my take on the Saker site video (apparently from somebody called Storm Clouds Gathering):
      First, some misinformation via John McCain, that "Putin" sprang a surprise on everyone including Obama and Kerry -- Putin just can't be trusted -- by saying nothing until an hour before it happened. This is patently false, the US was well aware of the construction, and the Russians requested the US to remain away from its aircraft when they began flying, several times before the one-hour deadline approached, but the Americans ignored them. Check it out. This is followed not by a fact check of McCain, but by a hearing testimony about the number of "moderates" in Syria. So McCain's word goes unchallenged, and Putin gets the usual thumb in his eye, courtesy of McCain telling us Putin put his thumb in "our" eye. Then we get a rundown of the extremists, topped off by an interview with a very authoritative-looking "conventional" military man. "This is an extremist?" our audience thinks. "He looks normal! You mean these normal people are called extremists?" He sounds perfectly reasonable. He is talking about a new Syrian state, where even the brothers are welcome.
      This is followed by a fast reprise of the various bad things the west has done, which everyone can agree is really bad. The reprise is complex and accompanied by fast talk and flashing screen shots, and could be construed as confusing. That is a subjective judgement.
      But then we have McCain again, and he makes a very clear and simple point: the FSA can shoot down the Russian planes.
      Recapping, we funded the Taliban -- which we are bombing to this day, in a hospital in Afghanistan (those damn Taliban, using hospitals for cover!). And we're going to do it again? This isn't a plan, this is desperation. Washington has been outmaneuvred. Putin could take advantage.
      But hold on! The game isn't over.
      "The US and its allies aren't just going to walk away from this. You can rest assured that Washington is scrambling to cook something up". . . . Screen Shot: Washington can't back down . . . This gambit is all or nothing . . . "If the last few years are any indicator, this could get very interesting."
      So what is the message? I think the message is: Washington is not backing down. That rogue thumb-sticker Putin is on the move. But the Free Syrian Army (yes, they deal with the bad guys, but so does everybody) can shoot down Russian planes. World War Three, anyone?
      The point of this video is not really to condemn the US for anything except being outmaneuvred by Putin. There is no mention of the root of this war, which is an invasion by US vassals, with US support, of a sovereign country with a popular secular president; nor of its possible settlement and the rebuilding of the country which must take place. The message is, "Get your popcorn and get ready for an interesting show coming up."
      For me, that sucks.
      Then look at the comments. You would think the video had some important information and analysis. It had nothing but flashy screen shots and pro-US emoticons. Who are these people?

  2. I forgot to add James that it is very interesting about Oz being kept in the dark about Syria. I would not have thought it.

    1. I live in Australia and there have been reports on russia in Syria in the MSM . Saw one yesterday on a TV at work , Australian media will follow US line but to say there are no reports here at all Is wrong

    2. brian:

      james did not say there were "no reports"
      james said and I quote ' there is hardly any coverage of Russia's involvement in Syria at all which speaks volumes to me"

      Odd in that I noticed that exact same phenomena after the cruise missiles were launched from the Caspian, I had expected a virtual avalanche of spin and there wasn't.
      It wasn't even top story on the US nightly news!- I'm pretty much a stones throw from the US border.

      It wasn't top story here in Canada

      Yes, it was reported on but not till all kinds of other stuff had been reported- unlike at the time of the alleged sarin gas attack- that was non stop with breaking news, didn't Obama even talk to the nation?
      but cruise missiles- next to silence
      but then it's a challenge to that perception involved in projecting power so...

    3. What does 'hardly any ' mean ! ? Since all media is MSM you don't expect RT style coverage . But coverage if russia in Syria there had been

  3. "Isn't it amazing that Russia has struck ISIS & struck them hard, while the NATO allies bombed & bombed. Then bombed some more! And still, ISIS managed to expand territory and increase ranks. So curious"

    I'm going to help you. In Amerika it's about profit and there is no profit if you do the job well the first time:) Thanks for the update Penny, Ziad just updated, interesting.

    1. Hi jo
      I'll check out Ziad's place for what ever he may have up


    Fun little story Turkey

  5. Here is a cryptic headline from Interfax Oct. 9 (I do not subscribe so I do not get the stories, but I read the headlines)

    18:45 Military communications orbital grouping fully restored - Russian deputy defense minister

    I searched for a story that might flesh this out a little, but nothing showed up on google or bing. However, I recall that the US sent up a military rocket with cubesats on board recently, and they have that secret x-plane up there. Also, there was that threat by Carter that Russia would have casualties, etc., and much confusing information coming from different places today. All you could say about that headline without any more information is that the Russian military communications orbital grouping had to be restored, so it must have had some trouble. There is a high-tech war going on, so I wonder what unknowns are involved.

    1. Hey D George
      I asked hubby if he had seen anything along that line, but, no he hadn't
      jut news of them putting a new satellite up- for Egypt

    2. free

    3. Thanks jo6pac, I'm beginning to think that announcement may mean the orbital grouping is complete, I seem to remember it being updated or something. So maybe no war games to see here.

  6. Those who say there is no coverage if russia involvement in Syria : only have to google Sydney morning herald russia Syria . To have that idea obliterated

  7. @ D George

    I have come to the conclusion that, no matter who "The Saker" might be, the site is a front for CIA.


    We have only to wait for the moments of 'action' for the contradictions to become fully apparent.

    It requires close scrutiny for a long period of time but eventually you will see everyone is working for someone.

    Now also consider there are black hats and white hats in every organization including the CIA. These factions work independently of each other and often have completely contradictory objectives.

    The trick, I think, is to learn to think for yourself. It is hard, I know, to imagine that NO one is completely truthful but this is always your best first assumption.

    Formerly Where-Wolf

  8. Hi Formerly Where- Wolf

    "The trick, I think, is to learn to think for yourself."

    Yup, that's it, in a nutshell. Check references and actually give whatever is being said a moment or two of thought- don't be a cheerleader.

    "I know, to imagine that NO one is completely truthful but this is always your best first assumption"

    Well, that's a bit harsh?
    I am as truthful here as I can possibly be, but, due to limitations in information availability I can be mistaken.
    But, is mistaken the same as an intent to mislead? No.
    It can be construed as intent, but, that would really be illogical thinking.
    Because one cannot know what was intended.

    I would rephrase that and say the first assumption would be that someone can be mistaken and possibly be misleading, but, the remedy is to stay informed and think for yourself