Syrian Air Defenses down Turkish F-4

[Officer of Engineers]

When Massoud was taken out, the Taliban was already on the retreat. The NA had beaten them back and had regain the offensive, especially with Russian equipment. Two NA rockets even hit Khandahar. The Taliban was overstretched while the NA had interior LOCs backed by Russian advice.

No, I am not wrong.

[cyppok]

When Massoud was taken out, the Taliban was already on the retreat. The NA had beaten them back and had regain the offensive, especially with Russian equipment. Two NA rockets even hit Khandahar. The Taliban was overstretched while the NA had interior LOCs backed by Russian advice.

No, I am not wrong.

Once intervention occured, weapons and air cover given with future incoming forces on the way yes they were in retreat.

Mazar i Sharif fell before 2001 and they were pressuring Massoud thus he continuously appealed to the world for help. Once that help came after Dostum fell there was some pressure relief but it did not really tilt scales until after Sep 11 and Massoud being taken out. Thus pre Sep 11 the Talibs were winning the war like I was saying yes it was fluid but not so much and they almost completely dominated the country. Massoud was getting help but not enough and not as much as he hoped.

Quiet a few documentaries about it btw. I am slightly thinking pre 2001 because that is when Taliban emisaries came to US to negotiate...

Anyways our argument is quiet moot over timing of a few months here and there. Once full backing was given the Talibs were routed but there was help on the ground and air...

[Parihaka]

Once intervention occured, weapons and air cover given with future incoming forces on the way yes they were in retreat.

Mazar i Sharif fell before 2001 and they were pressuring Massoud thus he continuously appealed to the world for help. Once that help came after Dostum fell there was some pressure relief but it did not really tilt scales until after Sep 11 and Massoud being taken out. Thus pre Sep 11 the Talibs were winning the war like I was saying yes it was fluid but not so much and they almost completely dominated the country. Massoud was getting help but not enough and not as much as he hoped.

Quiet a few documentaries about it btw. I am slightly thinking pre 2001 because that is when Taliban emisaries came to US to negotiate...

Anyways our argument is quiet moot over timing of a few months here and there. Once full backing was given the Talibs were routed but there was help on the ground and air...

Massoud successfully held vast amounts of Afghanistan against both the taliban and an estimated 28,000 Pakistan regular and irregular troops with nothing more than a bit of equipment aid from India and possibly Tajikstan. He was kicking their arses, hence the AQ/ISI assassination.

[JAD_333]

How is this Massoud line of discussion related to Syria's shoot down of a Turkish fighter jet? I must have missed something.

[Stitch]

How is this Massoud line of discussion related to Syria's shoot down of a Turkish fighter jet? I must have missed something.

Wow, another thread derailed, what a surprise; I'm blaming Yellowbelly (even though he hasn't posted on this thread yet!).

[YellowFever]

Wow, another thread derailed, what a surprise; I'm blaming Yellowbelly (even though he hasn't posted on this thread yet!).

Derailing is gunnut's forte, but then again, Asian rednecks that live in So Cal all look alike. It's just that those from the valley tend to be better looking than those in the Orange Country area.

JAD, I ask for a little leniency about the subject matter since the situations are similar in a way (not the shootdown but rather the internal conflict). Both subjects are fascinating....

[troung]

Shah Massoud was assassinated remember and the Taliban threw an offensive routing the Northern Alliance to a single area. You are wrong...

The NA had by that time a solid core who weren't going anywhere. Huge swaths of territory in the north the Taliban "controlled" were at best in dispute and the Taliban was reliant on the PA/PAF/ISI. Taliban/Pakistani actions had left a force in the field which knew they couldn't compromise. As the fighting in Badakhshan showed the territory controlled on the map didn't reflect the situation on the ground.

Once that help came after Dostum fell there was some pressure relief but it did not really tilt scales until after Sep 11 and Massoud being taken out.

The Uzbeks had already reentered the fray pre-9/11. Malik and Dostum both had a several thousand fighters operating against the Taliban. Ismail Khan had escaped from jail and was back in the field. These men along with Jamiat and Wahdat and timely Mi-35 strikes beat the Taliban in their Badakhshan offensive and dragged them into fights across/behind the front - taking back territory.

Thus pre Sep 11 the Talibs were winning the war like I was saying yes it was fluid but not so much and they almost completely dominated the country. Massoud was getting help but not enough and not as much as he hoped.

Uzbek and Iranian planes by the summer of 2001 had launched air strikes - a Mirage F-1 and Su-24 being shot down. The NA had been reinforced with tanks, IFVs, artillery and small arms - pre 9/11.

[JAD_333]

Derailing is gunnut's forte, but then again, Asian rednecks that live in So Cal all look alike. It's just that those from the valley tend to be better looking than those in the Orange Country area.

JAD, I ask for a little leniency about the subject matter since the situations are similar in a way (not the shootdown but rather the internal conflict). Both subjects are fascinating....

I'm seeing little similarity except people are shooting at each other. Educate me.

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm seeing little similarity except people are shooting at each other. Educate me.

Cypook was postulating the need for outside intervention. One of his example, Afghanistan, has a faulty premise. I don't know if this invalidates his posture or not but at the very least, he cannot use Afghanistan as an example to his argument.

[Mihais]

Sir,the talibs may not have been winning as clearly as before,but they still held the upper hand.Yes,the NA was in a strong position by 9/11,but by no means in a position to roll them back.
WRT Syria,the rebels aren't winning,unless youtube propaganda videos can be considered as such.Assad is quite clearly not doing what his dad did and not by far what Saddam did to the Shiites after GW1.Maybe because he can't do that,but very likely because he still wants to govern the country after it is over.There's no prospect of a stronghold,so nothing any foreign army can use as a base,a la North A-stan,Benghazi&Misrata,Kurdistan etc...Thus,the only remaining way for the rebels and whoever backs them is a prolonged insurgency with turkish support and safe heaven.As seen in Iraq,insurgencies can be defeated and personally I doubt there is as much support inside Syria for a long conflict.There are the Christians and the Allawites who can never allow for a rebel victory(unless they have a sudden death wish) while the bulk of the Sunnis will eventually pick those that provide security and that is Assad.An insurgency can win by prolonging the fight,but there is also a decisive moment,when the advantage of time switches to the other side,as seen in N. Ireland.Keeping in mind that Assad is not worse than the Gulf regimes or the Yemenis(and from many pov's he actually fares better),the chances of him holding on are reasonbly good.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir,the talibs may not have been winning as clearly as before,but they still held the upper hand.Yes,the NA was in a strong position by 9/11,but by no means in a position to roll them back.

That was not the point. The point was that the NA was nowhere near being quashed and the Taliban was nowhere near near conquering the entire country. The strategic momentum had clearly shifted. The Taliban went from an offensive posture to a defensive one.

[Big K]

Trkiye'ye byk gzda - Hrriyet PLANET,

now thats very ironic :D

According The Hurriyet :"Palestinian leader Ahmed Cibril told that if a Turkish-European Alliance or NATO will attack Syria we (Palestine - Hezbollah - Iran) will fight alongside with Syria."

[Tronic]

Trkiye'ye byk gzda - Hrriyet PLANET,

now thats very ironic :D

According The Hurriyet :"Palestinian leader Ahmed Cibril told that if a Turkish-European Alliance or NATO will attack Syria we (Palestine - Hezbollah - Iran) will fight alongside with Syria."

They don't have a choice to say anything else.

[Doktor]

Big K,

Is the headline sarcastic? If I understand well it says "Big threat to Turkey".

And the warning not to play with fire, is so cliche, I don't think anyone takes it seriously ;)

[Big K]

Big K,

Is the headline sarcastic? If I understand well it says "Big threat to Turkey".

And the warning not to play with fire, is so cliche, I don't think anyone takes it seriously ;)

sorry for late reply,

no it is not sarcastic but it once again reflects the regional reality.

other than that i dont this that this is to be taken as serious :)