Putin and Russia in Syria

not a surprise to anyone...

Israel PM admits forces operating in war-hit Syria

Jerusalem (AFP) - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted for the first time Tuesday that Israeli forces have been operating in Syria, where the Iran-backed regime is battling rebels including the jihadist Islamic State.

"We occasionally carry out operations in Syria to prevent that country from becoming a front against us," Netanyahu told reporters during a visit to northern Israel.

"We also do everything to prevent weapons, particularly lethal ones, being moved from Syria to Lebanon," he added.

Netanyahu did not provide further details and his comments were the first public recognition that Israel has been active in conflict-riddled Syria.

Several purported strikes have occurred in recent months, targeting alleged Iranian arms transfers from Syria to Lebanon and destined for Israel's arch-foe, the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah.

But these strikes were not officially acknowledged by Israeli authorities.

Israel opposes the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which has been battling an armed rebellion since March 2011, but has sought to avoid being dragged into the war in neighbouring Syria.

Russia, an ally of the Assad regime along with Iran, launched an air campaign against his opponents in late September.

On Sunday, Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said a Russian warplane had recently entered Israeli-controlled airspace from Syria but the intrusion was resolved without incident.

"It was apparently an error by the pilot who was flying near the Golan," Yaalon said.

Israel seized most of the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 and later annexed the territory in a move never recognised by the international community.

Yaalon said Israel and Russia had made arrangements to avoid clashes over Syria, with the agreement said to include a "hotline" and information sharing.

Netanyahu echoed his comments on Tuesday, saying the Israeli and Russian military forces "are in close coordination to avoid such incidents".

Their remarks came in the aftermath of the downing by Turkey over a Russian warplane which Ankara said had entered Turkish airspace -- a claim denied by Moscow.
Click to expand...
 
Of course they're involved, though I imagine it would be to exclusively undermine Hezbollah. Unless they run out of popcorn, I don't see why Israel would otherwise want to get in the way of what should be an entertaining spectacle of neighbouring Muslims killing each other.
 
King Kendrick said:
It's not a mindset, it's just a statement of fact. We were forcibly removed from our homeland with mass killings and deportations, yet I can't want reciprocation of what happened?
And we need that land back in order to do anything semi-productive, as we are currently landlocked and as a result poverty is rampant and economic growth is basically zero. Emigration is rampant and something needs to be done. This might be the only window of opportunity we as a nation have to do something about our plight.
Click to expand...

I don't think violence to combat violence is the best approach, personally. It's an understandable but ultimately unhelpful reaction in the grand scheme of things. I was just interested to hear your side of it. I don't wholly understand nationalism but in this case looking at it as just an extension of our in-built desire to protect our family and wider community, it does make sense. It just seems like a big step from that to wanting to kill so many people.
 
LeChuck said:
Nationalism is one of the stupidest things in the world today. And killing a 'few thousand' Turks who had literally nothing to do with the deaths of those Armenians is even stupider.
Click to expand...

Couple of hundred thousand :lol: He wants partition-scale violence.

I'm not sure if you know the tired cliches of corrupt Indian secularism but I'm in a lab with 2 Turks and an Armenian: my lab is unity in diversity, Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb, etc.
It helps that all 3 hate their own govts.
 
King Kendrick said:
It's not a mindset, it's just a statement of fact. We were forcibly removed from our homeland with mass killings and deportations, yet I can't want reciprocation of what happened?
And we need that land back in order to do anything semi-productive, as we are currently landlocked and as a result poverty is rampant and economic growth is basically zero. Emigration is rampant and something needs to be done. This might be the only window of opportunity we as a nation have to do something about our plight.
Click to expand...

If every nation goes back far enough in their history there will be lands that they lost through war etc. I don't get how people like you dwell on these things. It's part of history and, in the modern world, is something that shouldn't happen anymore. Unfortunately there are places that got left behind in development and are still controlled by religious turmoil and such issues.
 
To be fair to KK, his country hasn't received an apology or even an acknowledgement from the Turkish government who have practically made it a crime to mention 'Armenian genocide'.
 
Brwned said:
I don't think violence to combat violence is the best approach, personally. It's an understandable but ultimately unhelpful reaction in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

It seems that Nature has gotten things wrong for the last 500 million years.

So many species of shark - and it's all a mistake. It's so obliging of all those nice animals like cows, sheep and pigs to willingly sacrifice themselves so that we can enjoy eating their flesh. Gotta love 'em.
 
Will Absolute said:
It seems that Nature has gotten things wrong for the last 500 million years.

So many species of shark - and it's all a mistake. It's so obliging of all those nice animals like cows, sheep and pigs to willingly sacrifice themselves so that we can enjoy eating their flesh. Gotta love 'em.
Click to expand...


I will never understand people using competition, natural selection and evolution as guides for human morality.
Next week I am writing an assignment on altruism in yeast. Now, do I think we should be altruistic? Yes.
Do I think this is because yeast have some genes that make sure they benefit the colony? No.
 
berbatrick said:
I will never understand people using competition, natural selection and evolution as guides for human morality.
Next week I am writing an assignment on altruism in yeast. Now, do I think we should be altruistic? Yes.
Do I think this is because yeast have some genes that make sure they benefit the colony? No.
Click to expand...

That wasn't really the point. I was talking about the role of violence in Nature - of which we are a part - and its efficacy in determining winners and losers.

'Moral' instincts are necessary in a social species since the individual lives in a family and community, and complete lack of concern for the welfare of others would not allow such social organisms to survive. But 'morality' has never played much of a role in relationships between peoples. Tension and conflict are the norm when different groups live contiguously or are forced to share resources.
 
berbatrick said:
I will never understand people using competition, natural selection and evolution as guides for human morality.
Next week I am writing an assignment on altruism in yeast. Now, do I think we should be altruistic? Yes.
Do I think this is because yeast have some genes that make sure they benefit the colony? No.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to instigate an instinct versus nurture debate, where instinct is inherited, my guess is that quite a lot of human behaviour is the former, with the instinct to cooperate within the family or tribe being beneficial to the continued survival of the individual's genes. So yes, your political beliefs will be influenced by your genetic make-up, whether you are aware of it or not. Proving that might be a little above assignment level though.
 
Will Absolute said:
That wasn't really the point. I was talking about the role of violence in Nature - of which we are a part - and its efficacy in determining winners and losers.

'Moral' instincts are necessary in a social species since the individual lives in a family and community, and complete lack of concern for the welfare of others would not allow such social organisms to survive. But 'morality' has never played much of a role in relationships between peoples. Tension and conflict are the norm when different groups live contiguously or are forced to share resources.
Click to expand...


You're describing a dystopia. IMO humans, especially anyone not in deadly poverty, can't be considered part of nature anymore. It is up to us how we behave with each other and with nature. Humans can live in a cooperative society or engage in constant conflict, but natural selection has nothing to do with it.

Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.



712 said:
If you're trying to instigate an instinct versus nurture debate, where instinct is inherited, my guess is that quite a lot of human behaviour is the former, with the instinct to cooperate within the family or tribe being beneficial to the continued survival of the individual's genes. So yes, your political beliefs will be influenced by your genetic make-up, whether you are aware of it or not. Proving that might be a little above assignment level though.
Click to expand...


No, no! Yeast don't have anything but instinct.
A few yeast could make the correct enzyme for breaking some nutrient down and the broken-down product would be easily consumed by neighbouring yeast who didn't waste their effort making that enzyme. So it makes sense to be selfish and wait for someone else to do it. Yet almost all yeast do the breakdown themselves (and share the broken-down pool of nutrients), so it (seems to be) pointless altruism.
I have only read 1 paper so this is all I have so far (with a ton more details) , will polish it up by the end.

The evolution of altruism is an evolutionary puzzle; as a species the maximum benefit is to those who cooperate, as an individual the maximum benefit is to be a cheater in a society of altruists.
 
berbatrick said:
No, no! Yeast don't have anything but instinct.
A few yeast could make the correct enzyme for breaking some nutrient down and the broken-down product would be easily consumed by neighbouring yeast who didn't waste their effort making that enzyme. So it makes sense to be selfish and wait for someone else to do it. Yet almost all yeast do the breakdown themselves (and share the broken-down pool of nutrients), so it (seems to be) pointless altruism.
I have only read 1 paper so this is all I have so far (with a ton more details) , will polish it up by the end.

The evolution of altruism is an evolutionary puzzle; as a species the maximum benefit is to those who cooperate, as an individual the maximum benefit is to be a cheater in a society of altruists.
Click to expand...

Not really a puzzle. The question is what proportion of yeast would constitute 'a few yeast'. Too many cheaters and there wouldn't be enough nutrient for survival from the too-small proportion of 'few yeast', so the cheat gene would not be passed on, and cease to be.

Be that as it may, I took your other post to meant that you didn't think your behaviour was influenced by your genes, and it is :p.
 
pocco said:
If every nation goes back far enough in their history there will be lands that they lost through war etc. I don't get how people like you dwell on these things. It's part of history and, in the modern world, is something that shouldn't happen anymore. Unfortunately there are places that got left behind in development and are still controlled by religious turmoil and such issues.
Click to expand...
Losing land in a war is one thing but when genocide is added they they should give land back plus some like the Germans did
 
Toner: Russia's wrong about Erdogan dealing ISIL oil.



Toner: It’s not ISIL truckers taking oil to Turkey.



This guy takes 'being full of shit' to a whole new level. Then again, it probably comes with the job. At least Psaki was entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Russian airstrikes and Syrian govt killed roughly 40 civilians in a market place on the outskirts of Damascus.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...lians-killed-air-strikes-151213044411982.html

Dozens of Syrian civilians killed in air strikes
Air raids and rocket attacks on a Damascus suburb by Syrian government and Russian forces kill dozens of civilians.


At least 41 civilians, including nine children, were killed in the attacks on Douma alone, another 250 have been injured," he said. "A school named al-Hosn al-Basri was targeted. The principal of the school along with four students were killed in the attack. Injured students have been taken to the nearest medical points.
Click to expand...
 
And just when you thought it couldn't become an even bigger clusterfeck, Russia starts flexing its muscles.

I just don't know what to make of it all...
 
LeChuck said:
Russian airstrikes and Syrian govt killed roughly 40 civilians in a market place on the outskirts of Damascus.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...lians-killed-air-strikes-151213044411982.html

Dozens of Syrian civilians killed in air strikes
Air raids and rocket attacks on a Damascus suburb by Syrian government and Russian forces kill dozens of civilians.
Click to expand...
No shock really any military action will almost always result in civilian deaths both intentionally and unintentionally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.