The vast majority of Russia's air strikes have been against anti-Assad rebels, not ISIS.
Unlike the coalition, Russia has never categorised terrorists according to arm bands. They went in fully stating that they intended to attack all terrorists in the country, but were open to cooperation with 'patriotic' rebels fighting ISIS, which they have been - they have had contact with those elements of the FSA still fighting ISIS, and have worked with them accordingly. To say they went in only after ISIS is a distortion, and begs the question, is Al Nusra not a legitimate target? Do you want the perpetrators of 9-11 to control swathes of Syria?
Even as one of a panoply of targets, I'd wager the Russians have struck ISIS more frequently than the US has been doing. The US was mounting an average of 7 airstrikes a day. Compared with 800 a day against Saddam. ISIS only started to lose terroritory and fall back after Russia began its attacks. Before them they were rampant.
Of those 7 US strikes per day, almost half return with their bombs still on the racks, because of incredibly strict rules of engagement. So effectively it's 3-4 strikes per day.
US Strikes are running at about 6% civilian casualties from the total casualty count. Russian strikes around 30%. Assad's strikes, who Russia are coordinating with so sometimes making it hard to distinguish between them and Russia, are pretty much all civilian.
I think you should provide some evidence for this assertion.
@thehistoryguy: @almurray@chrisdeerin Alan Johnson is Cincinnatus, ploughing his rustic furrow, when a sweat-flecked messenger appears from distant Rome
Surely Jeremy Corbyn is the closest analogue to Cincinnatus. He has at least got his allotment to retire to when he has served his country. He also has the low expenses thing going on. And Alan Johnson of course didn't actually come forward when his party needed him.
Comments