Is Turkey preparing to open a Military front against Al-Assad

[explorer9]

The only time all these countries can be said to have marched simultaneously was in 1948 and even then they didn't coordinate their actions well and had troops that were ill trained for the task - even more so than the Israeli's. In 1973, Jordan sent a token contingent to the Golan as a sign of solidarity but King Hussein informed the Israeli's first so they would understand why he did it and so they wouldn't badly maul the Jordanian contingent. King Hussein is even reported to have warned Golda Meir that a war was imminent. Morocco planned to send a dozen F-5s to Syria but the pilots were arrested for being part of a coup plot. The biggest joke [if that's the right word] is that Syria and Egypt both went to war in 1973 for completely different reasons and didn't even bother to tell each other! And the reason they went to war was not to overrun Israel, they knew it was beyond the ability of their armies, that the Americans would come into the picture and that the Soviets would object.



Every country there is a political reality and the whole world knows that also! Domino effects are indeed taking place but will not result in the Arabs uniting under a Caliph and all agreeing to march on to Israel, this is an outragous suggestion that does not fit in with hard facts and prsent realities.



No offence but you might as well tell me that leftists worldwide are waiting for another Che again and that Italians are waiting for another Duce .... The only people who are waiting for a Caliph [or in your words a Saladin] to lead a future Caliphate stretching from the shores of North Africa to the Gulf of Oman are people like OBL [now deceased off course] and other dreamers, their view is not shared by the majority of Arabs and this was so clearly proven by the Arab Spring, which made AQ and groups like it irrelevant.

If and when the day comes when Arabs take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands demanding that their leaders severe ties with the West, unite all Arab countries into a single political entity with no borders, expel all foreign [read Western] military presence from Arab lands and declare a jihad, then I might start agreeing with you.



And Egypt is not a ''significant'' state? Last I checked, the thousands of people who rallied at Tahir Square did not even mention Israel.... By your logic they would have been demonstrating because Mubarak had closed the Gaza crossing and was being too compliant with U.S wishes not to offend and press Israel, but they didn't did they?



Turkish/Arab relations in the 1980's and 1990's didn't go as far as the Turks would have wished due to the traditional distrust the Arabs have with the Turks, due to the Ottoman history. The Turks also do not have any land that is occupied by Israel. Egypt signed Camp David [didn't bother to inform its so called Arab partners before doing so] and became beholden to U.S. economic support, and Mubarak's main focus after coming into power was regime survival. Jordan's main fear post-1967 was that Israel would drive the Palestinians onto Jordanian territory [the Israeli's did threaten this] - this would have endagered the very existance of the Hashimite kingdom, thus King Hussein had to play both sides and play nice with Israel, whom he also looked to for protection against Assad the elder.



Well he would say that wouldn't he? What he won't say is that Israel courted Hamas as an alternative to Fatah and he won't say that the Palestnians voted for Hamas as they were totally fed up with the corrupt Fatah. We've gone full circle here, Fatah was a ''terrorist'' group, then it became a ''partner'' for peace when it engaged in talks, then it became a an ''obstacle'' to peace after the talks failed and then became a ''partner'' again when it again agreed to talks but was then ditched by the Palestinians - and now the ''West'' and Israel would prefer that the Palestnians vote for Fatah again....



First of all, Israel is a nuclear power, secondly its enjoys the unconditional support of the world's sole superpower, thirdly the Arabs have better things to do and their own pressing problems to address. Like I mentioned before, contrary to what you believe, the average Arab does not go to bed every night dreaming of destroying Israel.



Indeed I do disagree and yes my assessment us totally contrary to yours.

In 48 the entire region in general and the Levant in particular was in disarray , in 67 there were Arab nationalism that was behind the joint effort and as you mentioned in 73 there were different reasons to open the front against Israel. What seems today that Turkey, Egypt and few other countries in the region are in better shape since the inception of Israeli State?

Egypt is one of most significant state in the entire region of MENA. We must also remember how hundreds of demonstrators entered in the Israeli embassy in Cairo and how Egyptian army deployed to save the lives of Israeli diplomats in women’s clothes.

We should not get mystified with what people are chanting today on Tahrir Square. All the surveys done after regime change shows that predominant majority are in favour annulment of Camp David accord. Morsi and MB are waiting for right time to approve/instigate the anti Israeli sentiments. There first job is to bring their own house in order and as I said before it would take a decade or so to finally maneuver against Israel openlyThat’s why I requested you to goggle the Charter of HAMAS, after so many deaths and destruction people prefer HAMAS over FATAH.

As I mentioned above, all these developments what we see are transitional and it may last for a decade or even more and we should keep in mind that no settlement will make Israel dearer to Arabs/Moslems of greater Middle East. Yes, Israel is a nuclear power so as Pakistan the closest and confidant strategic partner of KSA and Turkey. Yes, Israel enjoys unconditional support of sole Super power of today but it is not guaranteed that US will remain (sole) super power in the decade to come. Finally Arabs and Muslims of today have better things to do same as Arabs and Muslim had better things to do during the period of Nuradin till Saladin. The average and elite Arab/Moslem from Morsi to Erdogan may not dream to destroy the Israel but certainly they do dream to recapture the Jerusalem and bring it back to Islamic fold.

What I tried to articulate in our previous discussion that the so called Arab spring is only the beginning of long drawn strife in the region and I have covered the Shiet/Sunnite sectarian angle too. I am of the same view of “ Zebgivni Brzezinski” as he said after the fall of Mobarak that “he does not see the life of Israel more than 10 to 15 years more”.

This is an assessment based on past, present and expected alteration in the geopolitics of the region. I am of the belief that the geographical boundaries of the region will be reshaped especially in the Levant and Iraq and Israel will be submerged in the erstwhile Levant with Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine.

 

[Beatmaster]

@ STURM
First of all, Israel is a nuclear power, secondly its enjoys the unconditional support of the world's sole superpower, thirdly the Arabs have better things to do and their own pressing problems to address. Like I mentioned before, contrary to what you believe, the average Arab does not go to bed every night dreaming of destroying Israel.

Totally true, not every Arab is dreaming of a destroyed Israel, however truth to be said is that Israel does not make itself popular in the region.
And its worth mentioning that even with uncle-sams unconditional support Israel does have something to fear if it pushes to hard in the direction of its neighbors.
Keep in mind Israel might be superior in terms of army, but its small size as a nation and it dependence on US support makes it also very vulnerable to any serious coordinated war.

As you said yourself its not the 1970/80's anymore.
If the Arabs would want to get rid of Israel they could do so at any time by just bombing it to the stone age.
They do not have to win the war as they probably will never be able to, but destroying Israel to a point where it would need years and years to recover is a serious option.
Obviously a united Arab world against Israel is probably a thing that will never happen, but the one and only nation who could achieve that is Israel itself, lets call it just a matter of keep pushing the wrong buttons over and over again.

On the flip side i would like to know what Israel gains if Assad is being removed (Either with help or either because he loses the war against the rebels)
Because even tho Assad is a loyal ally to Iran, it seems to me that Assad was a (Call it for the sake of argument) a sort of controlled puppet in the region who does not present a real danger to the Israelis.
But with Assad being removed that little "safety" would be gone considering that the rebels want a shia state.
because Assad itself would be a danger but due to the "help and support" by Russia it was also contained and advised not to cross the " ultimate" line so one could say that Assad did have little playroom between some massive hypothetical walls.
And with Assad being removed Russia will lose a voice in the region and Syria itself might become Shia and to Israel that would mean they will get a new neighbor who might be even more hostile towards them then Assad ever was.
Not to mention the influx of rebels who roam free in Syria.

So why would Israel want to promote the removal of Assad in the first place?
That said does Israel want a fragmented Syria? Or does it want a unified Syria under democratic rule?
Also Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran/Iraq would have some interests in a new Syria not to mention that Russia might wanna salvage/try something.

 

[Beatmaster]

In 48 the entire region in general and the Levant in particular was in disarray , in 67 there were Arab nationalism that was behind the joint effort and as you mentioned in 73 there were different reasons to open the front against Israel. What seems today that Turkey, Egypt and few other countries in the region are in better shape since the inception of Israeli State?

Egypt is one of most significant state in the entire region of MENA. We must also remember how hundreds of demonstrators entered in the Israeli embassy in Cairo and how Egyptian army deployed to save the lives of Israeli diplomats in women’s clothes.

We should not get mystified with what people are chanting today on Tahrir Square. All the surveys done after regime change shows that predominant majority are in favour annulment of Camp David accord. Morsi and MB are waiting for right time to approve/instigate the anti Israeli sentiments. There first job is to bring their own house in order and as I said before it would take a decade or so to finally maneuver against Israel openlyThat’s why I requested you to goggle the Charter of HAMAS, after so many deaths and destruction people prefer HAMAS over FATAH.

As I mentioned above, all these developments what we see are transitional and it may last for a decade or even more and we should keep in mind that no settlement will make Israel dearer to Arabs/Moslems of greater Middle East. Yes, Israel is a nuclear power so as Pakistan the closest and confidant strategic partner of KSA and Turkey. Yes, Israel enjoys unconditional support of sole Super power of today but it is not guaranteed that US will remain (sole) super power in the decade to come. Finally Arabs and Muslims of today have better things to do same as Arabs and Muslim had better things to do during the period of Nuradin till Saladin. The average and elite Arab/Moslem from Morsi to Erdogan may not dream to destroy the Israel but certainly they do dream to recapture the Jerusalem and bring it back to Islamic fold.

What I tried to articulate in our previous discussion that the so called Arab spring is only the beginning of long drawn strife in the region and I have covered the Shiet/Sunnite sectarian angle too. I am of the same view of “ Zebgivni Brzezinski” as he said after the fall of Mobarak that “he does not see the life of Israel more than 10 to 15 years more”.

This is an assessment based on past, present and expected alteration in the geopolitics of the region. I am of the belief that the geographical boundaries of the region will be reshaped especially in the Levant and Iraq and Israel will be submerged in the erstwhile Levant with Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine.

The US does support Israel unconditionally, and yes the US might not be the "sole" power in the world anymore in the next 2 decades to come.
But still its a very credible deterrent against the Arab would from taking any serious action versus Israel.
But uncle-sam has a part to play here as well, because with a looming crisis in Iran and Syria there is more at stake here for the US and specially for Israel itself.
Hence why the US does not want a military confrontation with Iran.
After Iraq and Afghanistan there are some people out there who hate Americans even more then they would have Israel of rebels for that matter.
That said one of the main reasons for the Arab would to still be friends with the US is for basic support and for the good old dollar.
But if nations like Iran can convince the region that they are not the evil ones (which is probably done by either a war with Israel of US then i can see things going badly for Israel.
And in order to protect Israel from being destroyed i personally believe that the US would do wise not to stir up to much in the middle east, as the region is huge and has a significant population so if that would come to a clash then i am sure that Israel will suffer the wrath of the entire region.
Because my idea about it is that it will not be a clean conflict or a text book clash it would probably be a Iraq/ Afghanistan type of conflict.

I could be wrong tho...

Last thing i like to mention is that: Personally i find this whole Syria thing kinda dangerous as there is so much at stake here, and i am not even talking about the world community but just for the region itself.
The whole region did have several major wars in the past 30 years and each one more catastrophic then the other.
Personally i believe that the region needs a couple of decades to reinvent itself and to come to terms with each other as i can see this region become as volatile as a bad chemical mix.
And even "sole power" US is not looking forward to be smack in the middle of it as it would drive the US economy and credibility to ruins.
Imagine Syria going out of hand, imagine that nations like Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and probably Iran would get involved with one side one US + NATO supporting a few nations while Russia and China are supporting the rest...now thats a nice setup for a massive proxy/world war...not looking forward to it TBH.
And i personally always said it remains to be seen if Israel can be saved in such scenario, as the US will have its hands full, in making any attempt to defuse the situation.

Just saying.

 

[explorer9]

@ Beast Master & STRUM
I would like to address few points in your somehow micro assessment of ground situation. If we go in to history we find that modern day Palestine, Israel, Lebanon has never been the independent nation states and they have always been the part of the Levantine state of As Shyam (Syria) was governed under different Caliphate since inception of Psykes Picot.

Israel would gain nothing from the fall of Al-Assad rather it would lose the liberty of being bordered with a minority sect (Nuseyri) driven state in a predominantly Sunnite country. I think you miss spelt the rebels; they are predominantly Sunnite of Salafist and Ikhwanul ideology.

Israel would prefer a fragmented Syria run by warlords that would keep fighting themselves for supremacy in that case the Nuseyri/Alawite minority sect of Al-Assad that rules Syria today would be the closest ally of Israel.

Turkey would like a Sunnite Ikhwan run Syria that would provide Erdogan a great leverage to deal with Nuri Al-Mailiki of Iraq and of course the Israel.
This is the very reason that impedes (West) US/Israel to uproot the Al-Assad regime as they are not pleased with the foreseeable future of Syrian power makeup. US/Israel does not want any regional hegemony who may challenge the superiority of Israel in coming future.

I would like to address another point of great importance I the region, is the rapture between the Turks and Kurds starting from KRG in Iraq going in to Turkish state and now in Syria. Turko/Kurdish/Turkmen alliance with Sunnite Arabs is taking place in the heart of Middle East. This is the biggest alliance of people and states since the abolition of Ottoman Caliphate.

IMHO this broad base alliance will curtail the influence of Iran and Israel and will negatively affect the monopoly of global super power. Since super power has some limitations too.

Russia would be at receiving end unlike China which is a biggest market of ME hydrocarbons. The future scenario seems to the rise of regional powers such as Turkey, Egypt and the peninsula Arabs.

As I said before since ethnic nationalism has already been died down the future regional blocks would be based religious affiliations, which have already been started. Since this process will take some time to get settled till that time Israel can breathe with little ease.

 

[STURM]

What seems today that Turkey, Egypt and few other countries in the region are in better shape since the inception of Israeli State?

First of all, Turkey would never find itself in a position where it would have to lob shells at Israeli troops. Secondly, going by history the Turks have had a more pleasant time with the Israelis than the Arabs and they do not have any land that is occupied by Israel.

Egypt and the other Arab countries on paper may have an impressive order of battle but whether they have the tactical skills and the logistical infrastructure to take on the IDF is a complety different matter. Anyhow, the main function for most Arabs armies traditionally has been internal security and as a safeguard against other Arab states, not taking on the IDF in a large scale high intensity conflict.

We should not get mystified with what people are chanting today on Tahrir Square.

Should we get mystified with outragous conspiracy theories that have no foundations and contrast with reality?

All the surveys done after regime change shows that predominant majority are in favour annulment of Camp David accord.

And why is that? The questions you should ask is who engineered Camp David, who benefited and how.........

Kissinger's main aim was to draw Egypt away from the Soviet orbit, make Egypt a compliant ''friendly'' state, cause further divisions in the Arab world and strengthen Israel's security - and he suceeded. Begin promised to handover the Sinai and further talks with the Palestnians and Sadat naively beliv him - Begin kept his word about handing back the Sinai but not the part about the Palestinians. In short Camp David was a disaster for the Arab world.... Why do you think when Sadat's assasins machined gunned him they shouted ''death to the pharoah''?? Egypt, the U.S and Israel benefited from Camp David, no one else.

Again you've drawn the wrong conclusions and claim that just because a large segment of the Egyptian population is against Camp David that this signifies that their ultimate aim is to march on hand to hand to the Israeli border....

Finally Arabs and Muslims of today have better things to do same as Arabs and Muslim had better things to do during the period of Nuradin till Saladin.

Like what exeactly? You're comparing aspirations and the geo-political envoriment that existed during the time of the Crusades to 2013? The Arabs back then were not concern with anything else but defending the holy land against the Crusaders.....

@ Beast Master & STRUM
I would like to address few points in your somehow micro assessment of ground situation.

Well thanks a lot there.

If the Arabs would want to get rid of Israel they could do so at any time by just bombing it to the stone age.

Am I reading this correctly? Name me a single Arab army or airforce that is trained, structured and equipped to take on the IDF - before we talk about intent lets talk about actual capability.

 

[Beatmaster]

Am I reading this correctly? Name me a single Arab army or airforce that is trained, structured and equipped to take on the IDF - before we talk about intent lets talk about actual capability.

Well yes you are correctly and reading it right, however i never said that there would be a air force capable of taking on the IDF in the Arab region.
But here is the thing war itself is ugly and missiles and such are widely available.
My point here is that if one would to bomb Israel then this can be done.
Keep in mind Israel is compared to its neighbors just a really tiny nation.
A few well placed missiles can take out major population centers and more importantly it can bring down its infrastructure and industry just like that.
Israel might be armed to the teeth but they are by no means untouchable.
So if a nation would take the initiative and would prepare to try to do something, then i believe that Israel can be hit and can be hit hard, even by a much lesser opponent.

 

[STURM]

Last thing i like to mention is that: Personally i find this whole Syria thing kinda dangerous as there is so much at stake here, and i am not even talking about the world community but just for the region itself. The whole region did have several major wars in the past 30 years and each one more catastrophic then the other.

That goes without being sad. Look how well things are going in Iraq.

'The civil war in Iraq has already begun': Politician claims conflict has started and warns it will be

Well yes you are correctly and reading it right, however i never said that there would be a air force capable of taking on the IDF in the Arab region.

You did say ''bombing it to the stone age'' :]. You'd need a very efficient and well equipped air force for that as IEDs, suicide bombers and rockets won't do the job.

 

[Beatmaster]

That goes without being sad. Look how well things are going in Iraq.

'The civil war in Iraq has already begun': Politician claims conflict has started and warns it will be

Yeah i already did see that link before.
Truth to be said tho, if Iraq is falling into civil war, i am sure that terror groups will see some significant recruitment.
Because in Syria these rebel groups gain popularity by fighting Assad in a pretty coordinated way. I mean they seem to be tough battle hardened warriors.
So i do consider that as a factor to deal with now or later on.

That being said, what do you think that the region is going to do about it? and what is the west going to do about this, as the Arab world seriously do not need another major war, as history proves us that these little regional wars can easy become uncontrollable and i for believe that this would be in nones interest.

 

[Beatmaster]

That goes without being sad. Look how well things are going in Iraq.

'The civil war in Iraq has already begun': Politician claims conflict has started and warns it will be



You did say ''bombing it to the stone age'' :]. You'd need a very efficient air force for that.

Alright my bad... but i think that you know what i mean, as i said in a earlier reply, it does not take all lot to bring down Israel, missiles can be very effective to hit populated centers, and can cripple infrastructure and industry just like that.
The size of Israel is a serious disadvantage, if waves and waves of missiles start to land down.
Now the nations around Israel might not have a army which is good enough to defeat the IDF, but most of them have stockpiles upon stockpiles of Missiles and imo, Israel has one of the best defense networks in the world, but it remains to be seen if its as capable as they would like it to be. see my point?

 

[STURM]

But if it reached the stage where Israel was being bombarded with very large numbers IRBMs and was unable to defend itself, the Arabs would feel the full weight of the IDF and the Americans would enter the picture. Also, do the Arabs actually have that many IRBMs?

 

[Beatmaster]

But if it reached the stage where Israel was being bombarded with very large numbers IRBMs and was unable to defend itself, the Arabs would feel the full weight of the IDF and the Americans would enter the picture. Also, do the Arabs actually have that many IRBMs?

Dunno actually but i believe there is a significant Soviet era missile stockpile amongst Arab nations:

Worldwide Ballistic Missile Inventories | Arms Control Association

And i found something about Egypt having a serious capability in terms of production,
Missile Programs - Egypt

Even so if the Arab nations are lacking missiles, most of them having cash enough to ask Iran or any other nation to build a few...
I know it does not work like that, but my point here is that no war is going to be fought over night so its save to assume that if a nation like Egypt, or Saudi Arabia or Iran, needs missiles then they can get them.

 

[Bonza]

Guys, this is getting so far off topic it's ridiculous, not to mention some of the assertions being made in here regarding the military power required to undertake a major attack on Israel. You've all been here long enough to know the rules, please sort it out between yourselves and get back on topic - if the topic does not necessitate any further posts, that's fine too. So please fix what's necessary, keep the politics out of it, and don't get derailed responding to silly assertions about hypothetical (and totally unrealistic) attacks on Israel.

 

[Bonza]

The topic is not to do with the future of Israel, it was quite simply about potential Turkish involvement in Syria. I have asked you to focus on this but instead you insist on steering the conversation back to Israel while under the pretension of being "on topic".

This is why I stated in my post that if the topic did not necessitate further posts, then those posts would not be necessary.

So for a second time I say, stay on topic, and stay away from politics. I will not be asking again.

 

[STURM]

In a previous post I had mentioned the need to first confirm not only if chemicals had indeed been used but also who had used them. A UN official says that there is strong ''proof '' but nothing that is ''incontrovertible '', that sarin may have been used by rebels. If indeed we eventually find out that rebels used sarin, will there be talk of a 'red line' that has been crossed and how will the U.S, UN, Arab League and the EU react?

BBC News - UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

With regards to the strike on Syria, it's interesting to speculate as to what really was the target and what was the message the Israeli's were really sending to Assad.

Robert Fisk: The truth is that after Israel

'This is not a declaration of war': Israel seeks to reassure Syria over airstrikes - Middle East - World - The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fter-second-strike-in-three-days-8604302.html

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z286xpFMgI4"]Inside Story - Syria - exploding beyond its borders - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[CheeZe]

With regards to the strike on Syria, it's interesting to speculate as to what really was the target and what was the message the Israeli's were really sending to Assad.

"We don't like you. Hugs and Kisses, Netanyahu." Or something along those lines?

But on a serious note, if Israel is involved, then the Arab nations won't want to get involved. I don't see them wanting to say that, "Yeah we're on the same side as the Israelis to stop a fellow Arab country." It just causes too many computation errors for them.

I still haven't read exactly what Israel thought was so important as to bomb Syria. Does anyone know what it was beyond "advanced war materiel?"

 

[Blackshoe]

I still haven't read exactly what Israel thought was so important as to bomb Syria. Does anyone know what it was beyond "advanced war materiel?"

Numerous reports have indicated the targets were Iranian Fateh-110 SRBMs that were heading to Hezbollah, as well as a research facility (and possibly an ammunition dump).

 

[My2Cents]

Today secretary Kerry and FM Lavarov, both expressed the endorsement for negotiated settlement and asked UN-AL chief negotiator Lakhdar Ibrahimi to resume the talks with Al-Assad regime and the opposition figures.

Don’t hold your breath.

1. Lakhdar Ibrahimi announced last week that he was going to resign citing the intransigence of both the Assad government and the rebels, as well as the stalemate on the Security Council as preventing any peaceful resolution of the situation. This is the same reasoning given by his predecessor, Kofi Annan, when he resigned last August.
   
2. There have been nearly identical announcements previously, all have failed to produce meetings. What happens next will be both sides will make demands unacceptable to the other side that have to be met before the meeting if they are to attend. Some of the basic ones include:
   • Assad won’t attend unless it is guaranteed that he stays in power, and the opposition won’t attend unless he steps down before they meet.
   • Assad insists that terrorist groups (his definition, which includes all the armed opposition) cannot be included. The US does not want the al-Qaeda affiliated groups included. The al-Qaeda associated groups promise to scuttle any talks that don’t include them.

 

[STURM]

The ''West'' can't have its cake and eat it. ''Allies'' like Saudi and Qatar are providing aid to what the ''West'' calls ''extremists'' and ''Islamists'' and the ''West'' is having 2nd thoughts of about how involved it wants to get.

If indeed, firm proof comes out that the ''rebels'' have used sarin, it will be interesting to see how the ''West'' responds but what is for certain is that in private, there will hopes that Syria's chemicals continue to remain in the ''right'' hands, which is Assad's....

But on a serious note, if Israel is involved, then the Arab nations won't want to get involved.

Despite their denials, Israel, Arab states and ''terrorist'' groups have held talks before when they needed to and I have no doubts that the Sunni Gulf states and Israel are sharing/exchanging certain information Syria.

Situation is getting more complex in Syria, Arabs would wish that Israel destroy the al-Assad regime

Sunni majority Arab Gulf states, not Arab states in general, want that.

 

[explorer9]

How many non Sunnite majority Arab (Gulf) states do exist? Tiny Bahrain (ruled by Sunnite Monarch), Iraq (huge disgruntled Sunnite population on the verge of separation), Lebanon (Sunnite thought to be numerically superior).

Coming to the point of UN-AL peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, he has positively reacted on US-Russian joint statement on negotiated settlement of Syrian crisis.


Russia-US agreement 'very significant': Brahimi

INTERNATIONAL - Russia-US agreement 'very significant': Brahimi

 

[OPSSG]

Members contributing to this thread are instructed to note the following:

(i) keep away from politics in this discussion and there shall be no further off-topic posts in this thread; any further off-topic posts may be deleted without further warning;

(ii) citing dubious and defective sources like Global Firepower will cease (with the post deleted); and any further attempt to defend such wildly inaccurate defence information may result in sanctions from the Mod Team (see paragraph 3(i) of Feet Wet and Avoiding Turbulence, in Air Power 101 for New Members, for the reason);

(iii) as a general warning to all, any borderline attempts at trolling or intentional posting of misinformation (innocent or otherwise) will no longer be given the benefit of doubt;

(iv) follow all Moderator or Super Moderator instructions given in this thread; tolerance mode for further rubbish like posts that defy logic turned-off (and make sure that future posts also conform to the Forum Rules);

(v) please check your sources and any misinformation posted may be subject to a source challenge or correction by the Mod Team or another Senior Member; see DT Hall of Shame, for examples of forum behaviour that results in bans (which includes bans issued for deliberate posting of misinformation); and

(vi) if the above instructions are not followed; this thread may be locked by the Mod Team.

Cheers