This comparison shows how Russia’s latest nuclear weapons dwarf America’s (and everyone else’s)

The standards that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to the United States.

I'm also curious as to exactly which cities in Syria the U.S. actually bombed with a real bombing campaign?
Answer of course: none

 

For example, the US Air Force bombed Raqqa.

 

co

Accoroding to its wikipedia entry, Russia, the Syrian government and several other nations also bombed that city as well.

 

1. Wikipedia is bad manners. Links to Wikipedia are not accepted.
2. I already wrote to you - Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the legally elected government. All Russian military operations are approved by the legally elected government.
US military operations are illegal a priori. The United States is in Syria as an occupier.
Do you understand the difference?

 

Yes

 

Why not?

 

Because Wikipedia is not official documents. Wikipedia often contains outright nonsense and politically biased articles. For example, about the number of prisoners in the Gulag, about the fact that the Russians raped German women (it’s also good that not men) .... and a lot of all sorts of politically engaged nonsense. However, Wikipedia does not provide links to original historical documents. For example, according to the number of those killed in the camps of the Gulag system, Wikipedia refers to the fantastic and fictional stories of Solzhenitsyn. This is tantamount to referring to the novel "The Three Musketeers" when speaking of French history.
In general, Wikipedia is not an authority. At least on political and economic issues.

 

False!!!!


Most Wikipedia articles link to sources that can be verified and read.

 

@Destroyer of illusions is just mad that wikipedia doesn't parrot the sanitized view of Soviet/Russian history that he strives to believe in.

 

Complete and utter fail. Most of the destruction was caused by ISIS. Both ISIS proudly admitted to that, and Syria as well. So your even bringing the damage being done by 4 months of the US instead of the original capture and then 4 year occupation by ISIS is stupidity in the extreme.

Both Syria and the Russians bombed in constantly for most of the 4 years it was occupied by ISIS. It was a rubble pile by 2013 when ISIS took over, and the Syrians and Russians certainly did not ignore it from April 2013 until August 2017 when the US started bombing.

 

It is a fail for many because it normally discusses facts, and some just can't stand to see their propaganda ruined by facts.

 

Oh, and here is a higher resolution view of the same image. Let's look at it and do some BDA, will we?

For those in Yorba Linda, that means "Bomb Damage Assessment".



Wow, that is a lot better! Actually lets one see the details that are lost on that small thumbnail picture. And while looking around, what is it exactly that we see?

Well, lots of damage, but very few buildings actually "destroyed". And many that are damaged are literally next to ones that seem untouched. Damn, those were really good bombs if they could do that, and not affect the building next to it. But wait, let's look at the damage a bit more, shall we?

You know, this is rather strange. I have never heard of a "bomb" that can somehow only destroy the top and bottom floors of buildings, and leave the rest intact. Especially one that can cause that kind of damage, but leave no impact-entry damage on the roof. Most strange, almost as if this damage has not a damned thing to do with bombings at all. But instead was done by hand held rockets and heavy weapons.

You know, as if firing at people in the top floors, where they had set up observation and machine gun posts. Firing from ground level, until such positions are destroyed and no longer usable. And also looking critically, the sides of the buildings facing major streets have the most damage, yet those facing in other directions have much less damage. Once again, as if the fire against those buildings came from the street themselves.

You know, like where Technicals can be found in urban settings.

 

Of course .... the Russians, the ISIS, the Syrians are to blame .... anyone, but not the United States .... Who, by the way, committed aggression and occupied Syria.

 

Because Russia has such a benevolent and humanitarian foreign policy track record.



Are you for real, Ivan?

 

Over 15,000 Soviet troops were killed in Afghanistan from 1979 until 1989. In the war, the Soviet Army also lost hundreds of aircraft, and billions worth of other military machines. Around two million Afghan men, women and children died in the war.

Soviet–Afghan War - Simple English Wikipedia, the free ...
https://simple.wikipedia.org › wiki › Soviet–Afghan_War

 

ISIS

They started attacks in Syria as early as 2004, and went on a widespread offensive in 2011. In 2012 claiming ownership of the entire region.

The US did not get involved until 2014.

 

You can compare how many wars and armed conflicts the United States started and count how many wars and armed conflicts Russia (USSR) started.
As soon as you see the real numbers, maybe you will learn to think.

 

This means that the US attacked Syria in 2014. And do not tell the nonsense that the United States is at war with terrorists and other nonsense.
Russia, which is in Syria at the invitation of the legally elected government, is at war with terrorists.
USA is the aggressor.

 

And Russia, who has been vetoing all efforts to help bring peace to the region. Russia, who has vetoes all efforts in the UN to put into place no fly zones, buffers to separate the waring sides, and bring the fighting to an end.

This is the problem. I really have not taken a side here, I look at it all equally. But you slant and distort things only to serve your beliefs, and are attempting to give very bad propaganda. And when called on it, you simply spin and spew out yet more propaganda.

 

And I want to hit on this really fast, as that claim is meaningless.

In 2000, Assad was elected to power. He ran unopposed, and got 99.74% of the votes. Over 8.6 million voted for him, only just over 22,000 voted against him. Hell, even George Washington did not get that high of a vote when he took office (90.5%).

That is like calling Kim III of North Korea "legally elected".