Bashar al-Assad's explosive barrels dropped on the city of Daraya - video - Polidicks

So, question: Is the Syrian government using these because they've run out of proper bombs dropped by jets? Or are they saving those weapons for better rebel targets, and using the cheap stuff for general terror-bombing? Dropping ANYTHING on residential neighborhoods to terrorize people is fucking disgusting, but I just wonder if this indicates that they've run out of regular bombs and can't get more.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43783200]So, question: Is the Syrian government using these because they've run out of proper bombs dropped by jets? Or are they saving those weapons for better rebel targets, and using the cheap stuff for general terror-bombing? Dropping ANYTHING on residential neighborhoods to terrorize people is fucking disgusting, but I just wonder if this indicates that they've run out of regular bombs and can't get more.[/QUOTE] they're terror weapons. People will associate the sound of helicopters flying over with the potential to have a bomb dropped on their head, so then when helicopters fly over, people will shit themselves regardless if the helo drops bombs or not.

[QUOTE=Revanold;43782234]Why the fuck is this even allowed to happen[/QUOTE] Because we're a sad, cruel and incredibly violent species. We use our intelligence to harbor war and death rather than peace and solitude. It's just how it is. Sure you rate me dumb, but you know that it's true.

did his generals train in counter insergency playing HL2? explosive barrels are a ridiculous way to level an area, either he is running out of munitions or he just doesn't care anymore and let's his generals do whatever the fuck they feel like, meanwhile he refuses to release 95% of the chemical weapons stockpile thinking he can use it as a bargaining chip. with the Olympics about to start, Russia doesn't even want to deal with the issue either.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;43782771]The point is the devices aren't very aerodynamic or stable. They can't be used to hit targets with precision. They can't be used to hit targets in number because they are too heavy to transport. They are purely weapons of terror. They are designed to terrorise rebel held cities and neighbourhoods, not kill enemy combatants specifically.[/QUOTE] Yes and no. I can see both sides of the coin. They've used these barrel bombs to pretty good effect at taking out actual rebels as well.

[QUOTE=Sableye;43784462]did his generals train in counter insergency playing HL2? explosive barrels are a ridiculous way to level an area, either he is running out of munitions or he just doesn't care anymore and let's his generals do whatever the fuck they feel like, meanwhile he refuses to release 95% of the chemical weapons stockpile thinking he can use it as a bargaining chip. with the Olympics about to start, Russia doesn't even want to deal with the issue either.[/QUOTE] I'm no doctor, but I am positive he isn't trying to level the area. If he really wanted to do that he wouldn't have a problem. As Trunk Monkay said "they're terror weapons".

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43782974]You completely missed his point. Gudman isn't looking at this from a moral standpoint, only a logical one. Dropping barrels like that is [I]extremely[/I] inefficient. It's like trying to amputate an arm with a butter knife. Using an MI-8 as a bomb platform, when the rebels are very well known to use guided and non guided AA weaponry, is absolute insanity. MI-8's are nice, big, and very warm targets; easy to hit with any variety of DshKa calibers and shoulder carried heat seeking missiles. The Syrian government also has a legit airforce, decked out with everything from MiG-21's to MiG-29's. Why use an MI-8 when you got actual jet fighters that can cause more casualties for the enemy and less likely to be shot down?[/QUOTE] Rebel AA capabilities are rather minimal on the large. They also purposely hover the Mi-17s high up to keep out of range of AA if there even is any. Generally the choppers are pretty safe most of the time. MiG bombs are expensive and come from Russia, barrel bombs are cheap and made there. They also have more helicopters available than they do jets. Even a smaller portion of those jets are actual ground attack variants so they are trying to using dogfighter planes to try and bomb stuff. The barrel bombs have also evolved. They started off as small barrels sometimes just lit by hand like a firework then tossed out the hatch. Now they are larger barrels, impact fuse, and have stabilizing fins welded on so they don't tumble around so much and miss. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43783200]So, question: Is the Syrian government using these because they've run out of proper bombs dropped by jets? Or are they saving those weapons for better rebel targets, and using the cheap stuff for general terror-bombing? Dropping ANYTHING on residential neighborhoods to terrorize people is fucking disgusting, but I just wonder if this indicates that they've run out of regular bombs and can't get more.[/QUOTE] Bit of both. [editline]4th February 2014[/editline] Also Darayya (place most shown in video) is a suburb of Damascus and has been under siege and surrounded for a loooong time. You can bet the majority of civilians are long gone. [editline]4th February 2014[/editline] pretty splosion [thumb]http://puu.sh/6JOX2.jpg[/thumb]

What's the difference between a brutal dictator killing people to assert control, and his opposition killing people to make it look like the brutal dictator committed atrocities in the public eye? I have a feeling that's what were seeing in some of these stories. It simply doesn't make sense, even a psychopathic dictator is smart enough to know when he's just wasting resources. If the rebels or whoever did this, it would accomplish their goals much better than Assad's with this type of attack. The only thing these attacks accomplish is to sully his reputation on the international stage even more than it already is. if that is the case, hopefully they would inform everyone around there and the only people who die are the ones who won't leave when they are told to.

Quick, confiscate all of Assad's copies of DooM before he gets any more ideas

why was the guy in the video saying god is great every time a bomb dropped

[QUOTE=Sluggbuck 99;43785570]why was the guy in the video saying god is great every time a bomb dropped[/QUOTE]Because the phrase is also used in the same way "oh my god" is used in English i.e. as an expression of surprise or terror.

[QUOTE=Sluggbuck 99;43785570]why was the guy in the video saying god is great every time a bomb dropped[/QUOTE] Because most religious people turn to religion in hard times, such as that.

[QUOTE=Sluggbuck 99;43785570]why was the guy in the video saying god is great every time a bomb dropped[/QUOTE] [quote] you're constantly invoking a powerful reminder of your own mortality and the greatness of god it has nothing to do with radicalism, it is a crucial precept of islam, that serves to remind one of gods greater significance in life than anything besides. ALLAH HU AKBAR is literally translated as GOD IS GREATER not god is great, the crucial word is greater it means whatever happens on this world by anyone's or anything's hand, there is always the greater influence of god this is important so listen as in, sure, it was a great shot, but allah hu akbar (god is greater) [/quote]

i did not know that very interesting

[QUOTE=Valiantttt;43782371] 2. The rebels are just as bad, if even worse considering they will kill eachother before and after Assad is gone.[/QUOTE] The rebels haven't blockaded cities to starve them out, called down artillery barrages on suburbs, or used snipers against peaceful protests like Assad's army has. The rebel factions can be brutal, but as said before they're a minority and still don't reach the sheer evil of Assad's forces.

[QUOTE=Stopper;43782622]So are you excluding the fact that all the rooms were gutted and everything inside destroyed? If you're a civilian living there your life is practically nullified.[/QUOTE] From a military standpoint, that is very little actually. Building get leveled in order to provide tactical advantage for a large coordinated force to have clear sight and some extra maneuverability (yes, leveled down building is not exactly traversable surface, but hey, it's better than one that stands tall) and to strip enemy combatants of cover and ambush capability. But if we're talking terror missions, then it might make some sense, but... not really. There's not much to be gained from terrorising the population (let alone rebels) any further. It's just insanity. [editline]4th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Saber15;43786857]The rebels haven't blockaded cities to starve them out, called down artillery barrages on suburbs, or used snipers against peaceful protests like Assad's army has. The rebel factions can be brutal, but as said before they're a minority and still don't reach the sheer evil of Assad's forces.[/QUOTE] They lack resources for it. I have no doubts they would do exactly the same if they could. Not much ground to argue though, as they still can't.

I have to say, that is fucking terrifying.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;43782440]"just as bad" Yes, the extremist groups are terrible, but they're much smaller than the FSA is, and they are fighting to get rid of said groups, also they didn't start this by shooting innocent protesters and then fucking cluster bombing towns.[/QUOTE] Lol the ISIS has more ground and strength than the FSA and other groups. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg[/t] Yellow kurds, greens opposition. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Syrian_civil_war.png[/t] [editline]4th February 2014[/editline] Now see. The major faction here is really the Islamic Front. The FSA ain't shit at the moment. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Front_(Syria)[/url] [editline]4th February 2014[/editline] [url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-rt-syria-crisisrebels-factbox-20140203,0,7503522,full.story[/url]

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43785615]Because the phrase is also used in the same way "oh my god" is used in English i.e. as an expression of surprise or terror.[/QUOTE] I don't say "oh my god" 50 times like a broken record.

heck if I was muslim I would say it too because everyone around me says it, stop being a close minded dumb ass

I'm an atheist and I say "Oh my god" too, and mention jesus in my swear words. Doesn't make me a religious fanatic.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;43788492]I'm an atheist and I say "Oh my god" too, and mention jesus in my swear words. Doesn't make me a religious fanatic.[/QUOTE] Do you say it every two seconds though?

[QUOTE=Leestons;43788568]Do you say it every two seconds though?[/QUOTE] No, but I would be scared shitless if there were bombs exploding all around me. You could also look at it as prayer - praying that he wouldn't get blown to bits any second.

[QUOTE=Leestons;43788568]Do you say it every two seconds though?[/QUOTE] Do you get shot at daily?

[QUOTE=Leestons;43788568]Do you say it every two seconds though?[/QUOTE] It's a different culture you intolerant prick. Why does everyone have to make an issue of this? Like, [I]every single time[/I] an Arabic video is posted some dumbass asks "why are they saying Allahu Akhbar all the time?!". That's what they do, just suck it up and shut up. Seriously, watch a 9/11 video and count the times you hear "Oh my god" "Oh jesus" "Holy shit"

[QUOTE=Leestons;43788568]Do you say it every two seconds though?[/QUOTE] Do you typically have fucking [b]BOMBS[/B] being dropped on your head in your neighborhood? The answer is fuck no, shut up. [editline]5th February 2014[/editline] If you were in their position, you would probably have your face glued to the ground pissing yourself while so scared you can't even call out to a god you do or don't believe in. Seriously, shut up about this crap.

[QUOTE=Stopper;43789596] Seriously, watch a 9/11 video and count the times you hear "Oh my god" "Oh jesus" "Holy shit"[/QUOTE] It's on a higher level than that cause assumingly Americans say it as a figure of speech they don't actually care or use its old religious context. Allah hu ackbar retains the religious meaning while [I]also[/I] being an expression. At least that's my take on it.

I see these videos, and the destruction the Syrian government is causing in addition to the rebel's damage, and I wonder if the government could possibly believe that after all this, they can simply bring things back to the way things were, or just make the citizens deal with it. I'm sure there might be some examples in history where this HAS occurred, I'm not very knowledgeable in this field, but depending on how this is finished what sort of power would the government actually have? They'd just have control over a few scattered citizens and ruins.

[QUOTE=Time Itself;43792009]I see these videos, and the destruction the Syrian government is causing in addition to the rebel's damage, and I wonder if the government could possibly believe that after all this, they can simply bring things back to the way things were, or just make the citizens deal with it. I'm sure there might be some examples in history where this HAS occurred, I'm not very knowledgeable in this field, but depending on how this is finished what sort of power would the government actually have? They'd just have control over a few scattered citizens and ruins.[/QUOTE] Level of ruin depends on the city and area. Even district by district. For example some parts of Aleppo are unscathed, and "normal" life goes on. The insurgency is and would last a long time though and it's simply a battle of attrition. Who can grind the other guy down enough till they are just entirely ineffective. I don't know who will achieve that first, the state or rebels. They've both done a pretty good job at killing each other.

[QUOTE=Time Itself;43792009]I see these videos, and the destruction the Syrian government is causing in addition to the rebel's damage, and I wonder if the government could possibly believe that after all this, they can simply bring things back to the way things were, or just make the citizens deal with it. I'm sure there might be some examples in history where this HAS occurred, I'm not very knowledgeable in this field, but depending on how this is finished what sort of power would the government actually have? They'd just have control over a few scattered citizens and ruins.[/QUOTE] Soviet Union during and after WWII wasn't the nicest police state towards it's own citizens and future citizens and it was able to maintain a reasonable amount of control over them.