Increasing US boots on the ground in Syria

[Krasny-Volny]

Which is why I refrained from stating tanks and artillery were sent to Syria.

I wrote, armour and artillery.

Armor usually refers to tanks, not wheeled vehicles.

That's odd. I would've assumed since the Stryker is an armoured combat vehicle it can be correctly described as armour, regardless of whether it's wheeled or tracked.

[Novus America]

Armor usually refers to tanks, not wheeled vehicles.

That's odd. I would've assumed since the Stryker is an armoured combat vehicle it can be correctly described as armour, regardless of whether it's wheeled or tracked.

In US Army parlance at least, and Armored Division or Battalion has tanks and heavy tracked vehicles. Stryker units are considered infantry, not armor. While the Stryker like pretty much every military vehicle has some armor, it is an infantry support vehicle.

Not designed for armored combat.

[Al Hashka]

Are we still supporting supposed "Arab Spring pro democracy" rebels who are really jihadists? That has not worked out well for us in Syria!

Just let Russia do the job, they seem so much better at it than we are.

The REAL reason we are there is for regime change, to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy; shame on us.

First of all Israel does not car about Assad. Second we are no longer supporting regime change.
Third we are backing the SDF. Fourth Russia is clearly not doing a good enough job as ISIS still is causing trouble, and Russia is not do much against them.

So you might want to look at a little more nuance rather than simply recycling false dichotomies and black v white narratives.

1. Israel does care, that's why they've been bombing Syrian Army positions near the Golan Heights.

2. You are supporting regime change, your government has been arming terrorists since 2011 and is still doing it now.

3. You are supporting the SDF, but you are also supporting Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh Al Islam, Ajnad al-Sham, and the Islamic Front, to name a few, who are part or are allies of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who your government is supposed to be against.

4. Russia has done more against ISIS than your government has, who has helped ISIS spread in the region by bombing Syrian Army positions.

[Cymrea]

First of all Israel does not car about Assad. Second we are no longer supporting regime change.
Third we are backing the SDF. Fourth Russia is clearly not doing a good enough job as ISIS still is causing trouble, and Russia is not do much against them.

So you might want to look at a little more nuance rather than simply recycling false dichotomies and black v white narratives.

1. Israel does care, that's why they've been bombing Syrian Army positions near the Golan Heights.

2. You are supporting regime change, your government has been arming terrorists since 2011 and is still doing it now.

3. You are supporting the SDF, but you are also supporting Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh Al Islam, Ajnad al-Sham, and the Islamic Front, to name a few, who are part or are allies of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who your government is supposed to be against.

4. Russia has done more against ISIS than your government has, who has helped ISIS spread in the region by bombing Syrian Army positions.

The Assad regime has used chemical weapons on Syrians. How is all of this lost in the regime-change argument?

[Ejutla]

No permission from the Syrian Government. This is an illegal invasion.

[Cymrea]

No permission from the Syrian Government. This is an illegal invasion.

Bombing one's own citizens is also illegal.

[Empire of Cats]

First of all Israel does not car about Assad. Second we are no longer supporting regime change.
Third we are backing the SDF. Fourth Russia is clearly not doing a good enough job as ISIS still is causing trouble, and Russia is not do much against them.

So you might want to look at a little more nuance rather than simply recycling false dichotomies and black v white narratives.

1. Israel does care, that's why they've been bombing Syrian Army positions near the Golan Heights.

2. You are supporting regime change, your government has been arming terrorists since 2011 and is still doing it now.

3. You are supporting the SDF, but you are also supporting Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh Al Islam, Ajnad al-Sham, and the Islamic Front, to name a few, who are part or are allies of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who your government is supposed to be against.

4. Russia has done more against ISIS than your government has, who has helped ISIS spread in the region by bombing Syrian Army positions.

We are supporting undefined "moderate rebel" groups. This was supposed to be the FSA, however, that term has become a catch all to describe rebel groups. The true FSA is confined to a few groups scattered across Syria. Second, if our aid ends up in extremist hands, it is not because we back them. The "FSA" groups often are forced by necessity to fight alongside more terroristic groups and the aid we give "friendly" groups may end up in unfriendly hands. Finally, the bombing raid that you are referring to was a mistake. We have never purposely attacked the SAA.

[Ejutla]

First of all Israel does not car about Assad. Second we are no longer supporting regime change.
Third we are backing the SDF. Fourth Russia is clearly not doing a good enough job as ISIS still is causing trouble, and Russia is not do much against them.

So you might want to look at a little more nuance rather than simply recycling false dichotomies and black v white narratives.

1. Israel does care, that's why they've been bombing Syrian Army positions near the Golan Heights.

2. You are supporting regime change, your government has been arming terrorists since 2011 and is still doing it now.

3. You are supporting the SDF, but you are also supporting Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh Al Islam, Ajnad al-Sham, and the Islamic Front, to name a few, who are part or are allies of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who your government is supposed to be against.

4. Russia has done more against ISIS than your government has, who has helped ISIS spread in the region by bombing Syrian Army positions.

If you include the constant oil and weapons deals we do with Saudi Arabia, the US has been funding and arming terrorist groups for decades now.

[The Lone Alliance]

The Assad regime has used chemical weapons on Syrians. How is all of this lost in the regime-change argument?

And Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons on Syrians.

Clearly we must remove the rebels at all costs then correct?

[Ejutla]

1. Israel does care, that's why they've been bombing Syrian Army positions near the Golan Heights.

2. You are supporting regime change, your government has been arming terrorists since 2011 and is still doing it now.

3. You are supporting the SDF, but you are also supporting Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh Al Islam, Ajnad al-Sham, and the Islamic Front, to name a few, who are part or are allies of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who your government is supposed to be against.

4. Russia has done more against ISIS than your government has, who has helped ISIS spread in the region by bombing Syrian Army positions.

We are supporting undefined "moderate rebel" groups. This was supposed to be the FSA, however, that term has become a catch all to describe rebel groups. The true FSA is confined to a few groups scattered across Syria. Second, if our aid ends up in extremist hands, it is not because we back them. The "FSA" groups often are forced by necessity to fight alongside more terroristic groups and the aid we give "friendly" groups may end up in unfriendly hands. Finally, the bombing raid that you are referring to was a mistake. We have never purposely attacked the SAA.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... mist-group

The FSA is linked to al-Nusra. How moderate of them

[Ejutla]

No permission from the Syrian Government. This is an illegal invasion.

Bombing one's own citizens is also illegal.

And what? Therefore invade every nation which violates international law? Also, how could the US government cite breaches of international law as a justification, when the US is one of the biggest violators of international law?

[Cymrea]

The Assad regime has used chemical weapons on Syrians. How is all of this lost in the regime-change argument?

And Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons on Syrians.

Clearly we must remove the rebels at all costs then correct?

Anyone using them should be stopped. Particularly the government, whose duty it is to protect and support its citizens, even those who disagree with policy.

[Novus America]

First of all Israel does not car about Assad. Second we are no longer supporting regime change.
Third we are backing the SDF. Fourth Russia is clearly not doing a good enough job as ISIS still is causing trouble, and Russia is not do much against them.

So you might want to look at a little more nuance rather than simply recycling false dichotomies and black v white narratives.

1. Israel does care, that's why they've been bombing Syrian Army positions near the Golan Heights.

2. You are supporting regime change, your government has been arming terrorists since 2011 and is still doing it now.

3. You are supporting the SDF, but you are also supporting Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh Al Islam, Ajnad al-Sham, and the Islamic Front, to name a few, who are part or are allies of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who your government is supposed to be against.

4. Russia has done more against ISIS than your government has, who has helped ISIS spread in the region by bombing Syrian Army positions.

Wrong. The US government does not support Al Nusra, in fact we bomb them. We did intially support regime change but have dropped that now.

Source on Israel bombing the Syrian army? The US is not bombing the Syrian army either.
We accidentally bombed them once when we were (stupidly) trying to give them close support.

We sometimes even accidentally hit our own troops on ocassions.

If the US and Israel really wanted to bomb the Syrian army, there would be no Syrian army.
It would have been destroyed long ago.

And the US backed forces in Iraq have made far greater advances against ISIS than the Russian backed ones in Syria.

And right now the Syrian Army is bogged down fighting other groups, while the SDF is the ones actually fighting ISIS.

[Empire of Cats]

We are supporting undefined "moderate rebel" groups. This was supposed to be the FSA, however, that term has become a catch all to describe rebel groups. The true FSA is confined to a few groups scattered across Syria. Second, if our aid ends up in extremist hands, it is not because we back them. The "FSA" groups often are forced by necessity to fight alongside more terroristic groups and the aid we give "friendly" groups may end up in unfriendly hands. Finally, the bombing raid that you are referring to was a mistake. We have never purposely attacked the SAA.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... mist-group

The FSA is linked to al-Nusra. How moderate of them

A) The true FSA no longer exists. Except for JAT (Jaish al-Thurwar) or the Southern Front. I mention this.
B) Our aid for the moderate rebels never extended to the extent of true support against Assad. When lack of aid was forthcoming, moderate rebels began looking for aid from other sources...like more extremist groups.

[Cymrea]

Bombing one's own citizens is also illegal.

And what?

And nothing. My statement stands for itself.

Therefore invade every nation which violates international law?

I didn't say that, did I?

Also, how could the US government cite breaches of international law as a justification, when the US is one of the biggest violators of international law?

So you defend Assad's violations of international law by pointing out that others do wrong too? Your logical fallacy is: tu quoque.

[Al Hashka]

1. Israel does care, that's why they've been bombing Syrian Army positions near the Golan Heights.

2. You are supporting regime change, your government has been arming terrorists since 2011 and is still doing it now.

3. You are supporting the SDF, but you are also supporting Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh Al Islam, Ajnad al-Sham, and the Islamic Front, to name a few, who are part or are allies of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who your government is supposed to be against.

4. Russia has done more against ISIS than your government has, who has helped ISIS spread in the region by bombing Syrian Army positions.

Wrong. The US government does not support Al Nusra, in fact we bomb them. We did intially support regime change but have dropped that now.

Source on Israel bombing the Syrian army? The US is not bombing the Syrian army either.
We accidentally bombed them once when we were (stupidly) trying to give them close support.

We sometimes even accidentally hit our own troops on ocassions.

If the US and Israel really wanted to bomb the Syrian army, there would be no Syrian army.
It would have been destroyed long ago.

And the US backed forces in Iraq have made far greater advances against ISIS than the Russian backed ones in Syria.

And right now the Syrian Army is bogged down fighting other groups, while the SDF is the ones actually fighting ISIS.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWNgYNHAmis you also don't mention the other terrorist groups I mentioned.

2. https://www.rt.com/news/373522-syria-ar ... ed-israel/

3. The reason is because there is more ISIS fighters in Syria.

4. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor not come into mind?

[Novus America]

Wrong. The US government does not support Al Nusra, in fact we bomb them. We did intially support regime change but have dropped that now.

Source on Israel bombing the Syrian army? The US is not bombing the Syrian army either.
We accidentally bombed them once when we were (stupidly) trying to give them close support.

We sometimes even accidentally hit our own troops on ocassions.

If the US and Israel really wanted to bomb the Syrian army, there would be no Syrian army.
It would have been destroyed long ago.

And the US backed forces in Iraq have made far greater advances against ISIS than the Russian backed ones in Syria.

And right now the Syrian Army is bogged down fighting other groups, while the SDF is the ones actually fighting ISIS.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWNgYNHAmis you also don't mention the other terrorist groups I mentioned.

2. https://www.rt.com/news/373522-syria-ar ... ed-israel/

3. The reason is because there is more ISIS fighters in Syria.

4. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor not come into mind?

A YouTube conspiracy theory video is not a valid source.
And the US is not supporting the terrorist type groups.

The Syrians claimed Israel bombed the airport without providing any proof it happened.
Also that was in a different area then you claimed
Do you have a real, reputable source saying Israel is currently bombing Syrian troops?

Source that there were always more in Syria? ISIS originated in Iraq you know.

Palmyra was taken, lost, retaken, then lost again and retaken.
It is a back and forth battle, not the source of any current advances. The SAA has made some advances against ISIS yes, but is mostly fighting elsewhere.

ISIS is not their priority.

[Shofercia]

That's not a claim; that's a possibility. And he wasn't disputing that some were Russian Military, he was merely pointing out a possibility that none were Russian Military. You're confusing the word "claim" with the word "possibility", but sure, let's look at this post, Novus:





You're still not seeing it? What would be the backwards, or antonym, for the word "none" hmm, would that be the word "all"? Oh yeah, it would. Way to snooker yourself once again Novus America! Oh, and factually speaking, he was much closer to the truth than you.

Umm it does not work that way. You are putting words in my mouth I never said.

So yeah, I am still not seeing it, as you make a weird leap of logic.

If he says that none were in the Russian military, and I say why should we believe none are Russian, that does not mean all are Russia. If you say none of A are B. And I say why believe none of A are B, this does not mean all of A are B. Everything is not an all or nothing dichotomy.

You cannot infer that. Again I did not ask if he used an antonym for all, I asked where did I use the term all (or a synonym). Attacking a claim that none were A, does not imply all were B, it implies some were B.

Again I know my intent. I never said all. You inferred something that was not what I meant to say.
But whatever, I could have been more clear. Clearly there was a miscommunication, as you inferred something different from what I intended to say.

Again I know what I meant to say.

And besides being off topic, this is very silly, as it is not actually regarding a substantive point. Let alone on topic.

Oh ok, so when you say "you have it all backwards" you actually mean that the other poster could be correct. Gotcha.

Lonograd was baited into going off topic. Surely, someone like you, who complains about going off topic way too much, can sympathize with Lonograd.

He was, but also made a baity comment in response.
But we should get back on topic, it is not about Ukraine.

You mean baiting someone could lead to baity comments? Who knew? Oh yeah, almost everyone on NSG. C'mon Novus, you're better than that.

All ISIS needs to do is kidnap a democratic sympathizer and take him to Syria and you'd see that bill get revoked so fast it wouldn't even be funny.

Or just the part about Special Forces.

[Al-Faisal]

This whole situation is such a mess. It's very upsetting.

[Shofercia]

The fighting in east Damascus is picking up...and the SAA is going on a tear east of Palmrya...

Good.

No permission from the Syrian Government. This is an illegal invasion.

Bombing one's own citizens is also illegal.

Bombing Libyans is so much better! /sarcasm

Which is why I refrained from stating tanks and artillery were sent to Syria.

I wrote, armour and artillery.

Armor usually refers to tanks, not wheeled vehicles.

Stop arguing semantics, again, you're not good at it. He posted a photo, which makes it crystal clear. Oh, and you're wrong. Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Light ... _Battalion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(military_unit)#Marine_Corps

Tank and Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) companies:

USMC tank and LAR companies are organized similarly to US Army tank and mechanized infantry companies, with the three line platoons consisting of four tanks or LAVs each, and the company command element containing two tanks or LAV

Yes, he didn't say "light" but considering that he posted a photo, it was rather obvious what kind of armor he was talking about.

[Cymrea]

Bombing one's own citizens is also illegal.

Bombing Libyans is so much better! /sarcasm

Again, not a defence of Assad murdering his citizens. Tu quoque, as well.

[Novus America]

The fighting in east Damascus is picking up...and the SAA is going on a tear east of Palmrya...

Good.

Bombing one's own citizens is also illegal.

Bombing Libyans is so much better! /sarcasm

Armor usually refers to tanks, not wheeled vehicles.

Stop arguing semantics, again, you're not good at it. He posted a photo, which makes it crystal clear. Oh, and you're wrong. Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Light ... _Battalion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(military_unit)#Marine_Corps

Tank and Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) companies:

USMC tank and LAR companies are organized similarly to US Army tank and mechanized infantry companies, with the three line platoons consisting of four tanks or LAVs each, and the company command element containing two tanks or LAV

Yes, he didn't say "light" but considering that he posted a photo, it was rather obvious what kind of armor he was talking about.

Well that is Marine, not Army parlance. And the term "armored" as an adjective is different than "armor" as a noun. Especially with the "light" qualifier. No qualifier implies heavy.

So a Stryker unit (Army) is still not referred to as armor.
When you say using armor, you mean tanks and heavy stuff. Not any infantry unit that has vehicles.

Point remains he should have said "artillery and infantry" instead of "artillery and armor".

It is infantry, not armor that was deployed.

Armor =/= infantry.

[Shofercia]

Bombing Libyans is so much better! /sarcasm

Again, not a defence of Assad murdering his citizens. Tu quoque, as well.

You're missing the point. Said point was that the US doesn't have the Moral High Ground to blame others for bombing stuff. You can yell Tu quoque, Tu quoque, Tu quoque, all you want, but a hypocrite doesn't have the Moral High Ground. If you disagree, tough.

Well that is Marine, not Army parlance. And the term "armored" as an adjective is different than "armor" as a noun. Especially with the "light" qualifier. No qualifier implies heavy.

So a Stryker unit (Army) is still not referred to as armor.
When you say using armor, you mean tanks and heavy stuff. Not any infantry unit that has vehicles.

Point remains he should have said "artillery and infantry" instead of "artillery and armor".

It is infantry, not armor that was deployed.

Armor =/= infantry.

Yes, that is Marine parlance. Very good. Hmm, why would we be using Marine parlance? Oh yeah, because the Marines deployed, so when discussing Marine deployment, we use Marine parlance. And yes, adjectives and nouns are different, but in the photo that the OP posted, everything was clarified. There's probably a reason that the OP posted said photo. When I say that a LAR unit deployed, I mean that a Light Armor Reconnaissance unit was deployed, referring to armor, not tanks. That's Marine parlance, because the Marines were the ones who deployed. And infantry can use armor.

Similarly, we know that helicopters aren't horses. We acknowledge that. However, during the Vietnam War, there was a helicopter unit referred to as a cavalry unit, which is still in existence. So, even though they're called cavalry, their primary weapon isn't horses. Saying horses =/= infantry, isn't suddenly going to change said unit's designation from cavalry to infantry.

[Novus America]

Again, not a defence of Assad murdering his citizens. Tu quoque, as well.

You're missing the point. Said point was that the US doesn't have the Moral High Ground to blame others for bombing stuff. You can yell Tu quoque, Tu quoque, Tu quoque, all you want, but a hypocrite doesn't have the Moral High Ground. If you disagree, tough.

Well that is Marine, not Army parlance. And the term "armored" as an adjective is different than "armor" as a noun. Especially with the "light" qualifier. No qualifier implies heavy.

So a Stryker unit (Army) is still not referred to as armor.
When you say using armor, you mean tanks and heavy stuff. Not any infantry unit that has vehicles.

Point remains he should have said "artillery and infantry" instead of "artillery and armor".

It is infantry, not armor that was deployed.

Armor =/= infantry.

Yes, that is Marine parlance. Very good. Hmm, why would we be using Marine parlance? Oh yeah, because the Marines deployed, so when discussing Marine deployment, we use Marine parlance. And yes, adjectives and nouns are different, but in the photo that the OP posted, everything was clarified. There's probably a reason that the OP posted said photo. When I say that a LAR unit deployed, I mean that a Light Armor Reconnaissance unit was deployed, referring to armor, not tanks. That's Marine parlance, because the Marines were the ones who deployed. And infantry can use armor.

Similarly, we know that helicopters aren't horses. We acknowledge that. However, during the Vietnam War, there was a helicopter unit referred to as a cavalry unit, which is still in existence. So, even though they're called cavalry, their primary weapon isn't horses. Saying horses =/= infantry, isn't suddenly going to change said unit's designation from cavalry to infantry.

Umm the picture though is of a ARMY vehicle. That would not be designated as armored.
As the Army does not designate Stryker units as armored. So if it is only Marines, the picture is wrong.

Did any of the units deployed here actually use the designation "armored"?

I do not see any evidence of that. But also "armor" is different than "armored". An "Armor" Regiment in the Army is a tank regiment.

Or an armor battalion is a tank batalion. For example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Tank_Battalion
Se how it says it is classified as an "Armor Battalion", not "Armored battalion".

Armor as a noun refers to tanks.

[Krasny-Volny]

You're missing the point. Said point was that the US doesn't have the Moral High Ground to blame others for bombing stuff. You can yell Tu quoque, Tu quoque, Tu quoque, all you want, but a hypocrite doesn't have the Moral High Ground. If you disagree, tough.




Yes, that is Marine parlance. Very good. Hmm, why would we be using Marine parlance? Oh yeah, because the Marines deployed, so when discussing Marine deployment, we use Marine parlance. And yes, adjectives and nouns are different, but in the photo that the OP posted, everything was clarified. There's probably a reason that the OP posted said photo. When I say that a LAR unit deployed, I mean that a Light Armor Reconnaissance unit was deployed, referring to armor, not tanks. That's Marine parlance, because the Marines were the ones who deployed. And infantry can use armor.

Similarly, we know that helicopters aren't horses. We acknowledge that. However, during the Vietnam War, there was a helicopter unit referred to as a cavalry unit, which is still in existence. So, even though they're called cavalry, their primary weapon isn't horses. Saying horses =/= infantry, isn't suddenly going to change said unit's designation from cavalry to infantry.

Umm the picture though is of a ARMY vehicle. That would not be designated as armored.
As the Army does not designate Stryker units as armored. So if it is only Marines, the picture is wrong.

Did any of the units deployed here actually use the designation "armored"?

I do not see any evidence of that. But also "armor" is different than "armored". An "Armor" Regiment in the Army is a tank regiment.

Or an armor battalion is a tank batalion. For example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Tank_Battalion
Se how it says it is classified as an "Armor Battalion", not "Armored battalion".

Armor as a noun refers to tanks.

This confusion appears to stem from the differences between your country's military jargon and mine.

In my country all wheeled armoured cars (with the exception of 4X4 MRAPs and the like) are crewed by armoured corpsmen and considered part of the Armoured Corps. They are most certainly not considered infantry, although most of them do get attached to infantry units.

So I'm accustomed to using "armour" to describe any formation of wheeled LAV type vehicles.

I was unaware that the US Army considers all wheeled armoured vehicles as infantry assets that are manned by infantrymen and directly integrated with infantry units.

I suppose the more technically correct way to word my post in the US context would've been "artillery and mechanized infantry" or "artillery and armoured vehicles".

@Shofercia: The Strykers in my OP belong to the Rangers (which are also mentioned there), not the Marines.