RugbyRebels

So, now Saudi and Turkey think about sending troops against Assad on side of the 'moderate' rebels. Really???! Is that not too obvious?

Be a whole barrel of laughs when they bump into the Russians on the way.

Great time to apply to the Reserves.

OptimisticJock wrote:Great time to apply to the Reserves.

We'll see how well the new reserve concept works whe there is a serious fight on the horizon. Cameron might regret getting rid of several thousand regulars.

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Great time to apply to the Reserves.

We'll see how well the new reserve concept works whe there is a serious fight on the horizon. Cameron might regret getting rid of several thousand regulars.

We both know the answer to that....

I can't really slag the STABs now though.

They're the backbone of the army

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Great time to apply to the Reserves.

We'll see how well the new reserve concept works whe there is a serious fight on the horizon. Cameron might regret getting rid of several thousand regulars.

We both know the answer to that....

I can't really slag the STABs now though.

They're the backbone of the army

Nothing wrong with reservists, but relying on them in short order is dangerous. The mobilisation times are just too long. Last time I checked, the recruitment rate was tiny, certainly no where near the 30K that Cameron wanted.

Interestingly there was a big thing about regulars leaving the mob being approached to sign on as reserves. I can verify first hand that this isn't happening.

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: We'll see how well the new reserve concept works whe there is a serious fight on the horizon. Cameron might regret getting rid of several thousand regulars.

We both know the answer to that....

I can't really slag the STABs now though.

They're the backbone of the army

Nothing wrong with reservists, but relying on them in short order is dangerous. The mobilisation times are just too long. Last time I checked, the recruitment rate was tiny, certainly no where near the 30K that Cameron wanted.

Interestingly there was a big thing about regulars leaving the mob being approached to sign on as reserves. I can verify first hand that this isn't happening.

Do you mean that they're not being approached or not joining?

If it's the latter I'd disagree I know of at least 6 (including me) that are in or joining (completely unmotivated by the bounty ), I know it's not a great amount but it's a fair whack of guys that are out and that I'm in touch with.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: We both know the answer to that....

I can't really slag the STABs now though.

They're the backbone of the army

Nothing wrong with reservists, but relying on them in short order is dangerous. The mobilisation times are just too long. Last time I checked, the recruitment rate was tiny, certainly no where near the 30K that Cameron wanted.

Interestingly there was a big thing about regulars leaving the mob being approached to sign on as reserves. I can verify first hand that this isn't happening.

Do you mean that they're not being approached or not joining?

If it's the latter I'd disagree I know of at least 6 (including me) that are in or joining (completely unmotivated by the bounty ), I know it's not a great amount but it's a fair whack of guys that are out and that I'm in touch with.

Not being approached in the first place. Aside from a few posters, there's not much effort to sign up retiring regulars. Particularly those with key skills. The whole reserves thing isn't as joined up as it needs to be.

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Nothing wrong with reservists, but relying on them in short order is dangerous. The mobilisation times are just too long. Last time I checked, the recruitment rate was tiny, certainly no where near the 30K that Cameron wanted.

Interestingly there was a big thing about regulars leaving the mob being approached to sign on as reserves. I can verify first hand that this isn't happening.

Do you mean that they're not being approached or not joining?

If it's the latter I'd disagree I know of at least 6 (including me) that are in or joining (completely unmotivated by the bounty ), I know it's not a great amount but it's a fair whack of guys that are out and that I'm in touch with.

Not being approached in the first place. Aside from a few posters, there's not much effort to sign up retiring regulars. Particularly those with key skills. The whole reserves thing isn't as joined up as it needs to be.

I can testify to that. I was told it would be a piece of piss to get in and it would be done for me. Got an email last night that I'd need to it myself as JPA wouldn't accept it. 5 years and JPA hasn't improved.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: Do you mean that they're not being approached or not joining?

If it's the latter I'd disagree I know of at least 6 (including me) that are in or joining (completely unmotivated by the bounty ), I know it's not a great amount but it's a fair whack of guys that are out and that I'm in touch with.

Not being approached in the first place. Aside from a few posters, there's not much effort to sign up retiring regulars. Particularly those with key skills. The whole reserves thing isn't as joined up as it needs to be.

I can testify to that. I was told it would be a piece of piss to get in and it would be done for me. Got an email last night that I'd need to it myself as JPA wouldn't accept it. 5 years and JPA hasn't improved.

That's a surprise because........

Sandydragon wrote:Be a whole barrel of laughs when they bump into the Russians on the way.

I believe Russians have already threatened world war if it happens.

Also, why do we not only not condemn Saudi for what they are doing in Yemen, but even facilitate it. Isn't it pure hypocrisy to speak out about Syrian/Russian actions but not Saudi, when there is very little difference.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Be a whole barrel of laughs when they bump into the Russians on the way.

I believe Russians have already threatened world war if it happens.

Also, why do we not only not condemn Saudi for what they are doing in Yemen, but even facilitate it. Isn't it pure hypocrisy to speak out about Syrian/Russian actions but not Saudi, when there is very little difference.

No arguments there, I'm no fan f the Saudis, even if I do see the importance of keeping good relations with them.

Have you seen that a ceasefire has been agreed? Not sure how effective it will be given that the Russians seem intent on continuing their bombing of anyone other than Isis.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Be a whole barrel of laughs when they bump into the Russians on the way.

I believe Russians have already threatened world war if it happens.

Also, why do we not only not condemn Saudi for what they are doing in Yemen, but even facilitate it. Isn't it pure hypocrisy to speak out about Syrian/Russian actions but not Saudi, when there is very little difference.

No arguments there, I'm no fan f the Saudis, even if I do see the importance of keeping good relations with them.

Have you seen that a ceasefire has been agreed? Not sure how effective it will be given that the Russians seem intent on continuing their bombing of anyone other than Isis.

Did you internalise the propaganda, or willingly propagate such lies?

Nae civilian casualties, intentional or otherwise, with the Russians.

It's OK. George Clooney is on the case.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35560492


Who the phuq does he think he is???

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I believe Russians have already threatened world war if it happens.

Also, why do we not only not condemn Saudi for what they are doing in Yemen, but even facilitate it. Isn't it pure hypocrisy to speak out about Syrian/Russian actions but not Saudi, when there is very little difference.

No arguments there, I'm no fan f the Saudis, even if I do see the importance of keeping good relations with them.

Have you seen that a ceasefire has been agreed? Not sure how effective it will be given that the Russians seem intent on continuing their bombing of anyone other than Isis.

Did you internalise the propaganda, or willingly propagate such lies?

The are hitting, proportionately, Isis far less than other potential targets. A shame if that's inconvenient, but the Russians aren't fighting to defeat Isis.

If you're struggling to visualise this, have a look at the various maps online which show where the Russians have been attacking. The overwhelming majority of strikes have been in direct support of Syrian government troops who aren't fo using their current offensives on Isis, but on the other rebels closer to government held areas.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: No arguments there, I'm no fan f the Saudis, even if I do see the importance of keeping good relations with them.

Have you seen that a ceasefire has been agreed? Not sure how effective it will be given that the Russians seem intent on continuing their bombing of anyone other than Isis.

Did you internalise the propaganda, or willingly propagate such lies?

The are hitting, proportionately, Isis far less than other potential targets. A shame if that's inconvenient, but the Russians aren't fighting to defeat Isis.

If you're struggling to visualise this, have a look at the various maps online which show where the Russians have been attacking. The overwhelming majority of strikes have been in direct support of Syrian government troops who aren't fo using their current offensives on Isis, but on the other rebels closer to government held areas.

It's not true, and I can prove it. I'll take an example from a recent news article (Jan 24th) condemning Russia and Syria for civilian casualties. This article comes from Western mainstream media, so I assume you'll trust it. The article focuses on civilian casualties, but we will not assess that at this moment, we'll simply see where the article says the bombing took place. Then who they are fighting in that place (IS or Rebels or whoever). Sound fair?

Here's the article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31651.html

Ok, so you can see already the location from the headline - Deir ez-Zor

Ok, so far so good. Now let's see whether the area is contested by the Rebels or IS. Wiki will do the job with a handy map of the latest situation in Syria (as of Feb 8th 2016).


I don't know how good your eyesight is, but Deir es-Zor is that small pocket of Syrian government resistance deep in IS territory. Which means that oh yes, Russia does attack IS, unlike your claim. And proven using mainstream media.

Please be more critical. IS would hardly target a Russian plane (the one brought down in Egypt) if they weren't attacking them. IS has consistently shown that its terrorist attacks are targetted against those hurting it most. That alone should make you question the narrative that Russia doesn't bomb IS.

I expect you'll respond that you only said that they bomb ISIS less. Actually you said far less. And before that you said that they bomb anyone but ISIS. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, of course, just trying to pre-empt any goal post moving.

I forgot you have a hard on for Vlad

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Did you internalise the propaganda, or willingly propagate such lies?

The are hitting, proportionately, Isis far less than other potential targets. A shame if that's inconvenient, but the Russians aren't fighting to defeat Isis.

If you're struggling to visualise this, have a look at the various maps online which show where the Russians have been attacking. The overwhelming majority of strikes have been in direct support of Syrian government troops who aren't fo using their current offensives on Isis, but on the other rebels closer to government held areas.

It's not true, and I can prove it. I'll take an example from a recent news article (Jan 24th) condemning Russia and Syria for civilian casualties. This article comes from Western mainstream media, so I assume you'll trust it. The article focuses on civilian casualties, but we will not assess that at this moment, we'll simply see where the article says the bombing took place. Then who they are fighting in that place (IS or Rebels or whoever). Sound fair?

Here's the article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31651.html

Ok, so you can see already the location from the headline - Deir ez-Zor

Ok, so far so good. Now let's see whether the area is contested by the Rebels or IS. Wiki will do the job with a handy map of the latest situation in Syria (as of Feb 8th 2016).


I don't know how good your eyesight is, but Deir es-Zor is that small pocket of Syrian government resistance deep in IS territory. Which means that oh yes, Russia does attack IS, unlike your claim. And proven using mainstream media.

Please be more critical. IS would hardly target a Russian plane (the one brought down in Egypt) if they weren't attacking them. IS has consistently shown that its terrorist attacks are targetted against those hurting it most. That alone should make you question the narrative that Russia doesn't bomb IS.

I expect you'll respond that you only said that they bomb ISIS less. Actually you said far less. And before that you said that they bomb anyone but ISIS. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, of course, just trying to pre-empt any goal post moving.

You do realise that's one attack out of dozens? I wrote that the majority of attacks were against non ISIL targets, not that there were none.

Here you go Kamber, there's plent more of these on a week by week basis.

You'll note that the proportion of Russian targets aren't in ISIL territory. As I wrote below.

. http://www.rightsidenews.com/wp-conte ... JAN-01.png

Bob wrote:I forgot you have a hard on for Vlad

Funny man. I despise the guy.

Sandydragon wrote:Here you go Kamber, there's plent more of these on a week by week basis.

You'll note that the proportion of Russian targets aren't in ISIL territory. As I wrote below.

. http://www.rightsidenews.com/wp-conte ... JAN-01.png

Here's what you actually said.

"Have you seen that a ceasefire has been agreed? Not sure how effective it will be given that the Russians seem intent on continuing their bombing of anyone other than Isis"

You seem to be saying that you doubt that the ceasefire will work because the Russians want to continue bombing anyone except ISIS. Whereas I showed that they are willing to target ISIS.

How do you expect ISIS to be defeated without the help of ground troops?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Here you go Kamber, there's plent more of these on a week by week basis.

You'll note that the proportion of Russian targets aren't in ISIL territory. As I wrote below.

. http://www.rightsidenews.com/wp-conte ... JAN-01.png

Here's what you actually said.

"Have you seen that a ceasefire has been agreed? Not sure how effective it will be given that the Russians seem intent on continuing their bombing of anyone other than Isis"

You seem to be saying that you doubt that the ceasefire will work because the Russians want to continue bombing anyone except ISIS. Whereas I showed that they are willing to target ISIS.

How do you expect ISIS to be defeated without the help of ground troops?

Willing to target Isis, less than 10% of the time. The main weight if effort is agains other rebel groups. By a huge margin. Efforts against ISIL are pathetic in comparison. So yes, a flippant comment that Russians aren't bothering with ISIL isn't that far from the mark. Russia is only interested in keeping Assad in power. They are leaving the main effort against Isis to western forces.

I doubt the ceasefire will hold if the Russians continue bombing.

The are hitting, proportionately, Isis far less than other potential targets. A shame if that's inconvenient, but the Russians aren't fighting to defeat Isis.

just thought I'd remind you of the other post I wrote, which you quoted when referring to another one.