Syria

[Zhivago]

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Yes. Your mistake is to accept unreliable, uncorroborated reports from propaganda outlets.

It's kind of absurd to think that the Syrian defence would be targeting Syrians, don't you think?

Turkey on the other hand...

[Sandydragon]

Nonsense. They're targeting armed (by the west) insurgents.

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Yes. Your mistake is to accept unreliable, uncorroborated reports from propaganda outlets.

It's kind of absurd to think that the Syrian defence would be targeting Syrians, don't you think?

It's Syrians revelling against Assad, so not really.

[Sandydragon]

What on earth are you on about? RAF have not armed up with Brimstone. They are using US missiles. God knows why if Brimstone were so great.

Stop with this ad hominem strawman about me being fine with civilian deaths.

What on earth are you on about? The RuAF has not killed a single civilian. Not. One. Single. Civilian.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/164001/201 ... alties.htm

It's amazing what the RuAF can do with iron bombs and cluster munitions...

Yes it's a lie of course. There are always civilian deaths in war. Anyone who tell you otherwise just wants your agreement to go to war.

In Iraq in 2015, there were 7,000 civilian deaths caused by ISIS, and 845 civilian deaths caused by coalition airforces (13,000 and 2,000 if you include the period from June 2014 onwards).

Guess what, Cameron alsoclaims we didn't cause any civilian deaths in Iraq. That claim is equally credible as the RuAF claim.

Nice try. However, when you use military force, you are obliged to avoid civilian casualties. That's what the laws of war state. Actions must be proportionate and discriminate.

There is significant effort by the like of the RAF and USAF to avoid civilian casualties, even though it's sometimes inevitable.

In Syria, neither the Russians nor the government troops seem that bothered. They are committing war crimes. The silence from the usual suspects is deafening and would be almost amusing if not for the human cost. I suppose if you turn a blind eye to reports you don't like then it's easy to ignore. Not a very honest approach though.

[Sandydragon]

UG, indiscriminate bombing of non combatants is a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Russians have been invited in or not.

Tell that to Israel, LOL.

Assad has killed far more of his own people, yet silence. How strange.

[Sandydragon]

Zhivago, brimstone is used for certain targets, most notably immobile military ones. Other munitions are used for close air support and targets of opportunity.

Uh... I hardly think we're paying good money for radar and laser guided homing missiles if they can't attack fast moving targets.

and indeed a quick search of the net proves that you're talking bollocks.

The Brimstone missile, deployed on the Royal Air Force Tornado jets that went into action over Syria within hours of the House of Commons vote, uses a combined radar and laser guidance system to hit targets including fast-moving vehicles, while deploying a relatively small warhead to limit the blast zone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -syria-war

So what's your next excuse?

You do realise that the RAF need to confirm that a potential target is a legitimate one. Without eyes on the ground, or a free fire policy like the Russians are. Using, they won't just blast any vehicles they see.

[Sandydragon]

MSF now refuse to share their hospital locations with the Russians and Syrians. They certainly believe the attacks on their hospitals were deliberate.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... te-attacks

[Sandydragon]

In this attack, a barrel bomb was allegedly used. The Americans and British don't use those. Now who has?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d ... el-bombing

[Sandydragon]

Use of cluster munitions in civilian areas. You might find that fails to meet the discriminatory requirement for the rules of warfare.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... a-airbase/

[UGagain]

Oh, that's right, they bombed 5 hospitals in a week with non-civilian killing 500Kg bombs. My mistake.

Yes. Your mistake is to accept unreliable, uncorroborated reports from propaganda outlets.

It's kind of absurd to think that the Syrian defence would be targeting Syrians, don't you think?

It's Syrians revelling against Assad, so not really.

Yeah you keep telling yourself that, buddy.

[UGagain]

Use of cluster munitions in civilian areas. You might find that fails to meet the discriminatory requirement for the rules of warfare.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... a-airbase/

Yeah, cause Elliot Higgins can confirm all that from his bed sit in Leicester.

Laughable.

[UGagain]

What on earth are you on about? The RuAF has not killed a single civilian. Not. One. Single. Civilian.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/164001/201 ... alties.htm

It's amazing what the RuAF can do with iron bombs and cluster munitions...

Yes it's a lie of course. There are always civilian deaths in war. Anyone who tell you otherwise just wants your agreement to go to war.

In Iraq in 2015, there were 7,000 civilian deaths caused by ISIS, and 845 civilian deaths caused by coalition airforces (13,000 and 2,000 if you include the period from June 2014 onwards).

Guess what, Cameron alsoclaims we didn't cause any civilian deaths in Iraq. That claim is equally credible as the RuAF claim.

Nice try. However, when you use military force, you are obliged to avoid civilian casualties. That's what the laws of war state. Actions must be proportionate and discriminate.

There is significant effort by the like of the RAF and USAF to avoid civilian casualties, even though it's sometimes inevitable.

In Syria, neither the Russians nor the government troops seem that bothered. They are committing war crimes. The silence from the usual suspects is deafening and would be almost amusing if not for the human cost. I suppose if you turn a blind eye to reports you don't like then it's easy to ignore. Not a very honest approach though.

Considering the conduct of the accusers elsewhere e.g. Afghanistan and Yemen, your allegations hold little weight. Especially without any sort of credible corroboration.

[Sandydragon]

Credible collaboration, MSF vs your sources. Right oh. Typical UG, ignore sources that give information you don't like. So far, you haven't even provided any evidence for who else might have bombed the hospitals. Are the crazed Russian theories too much even for you?

Assad is butchering fellow Syrians. It's s civil war, that's what it means. He and his Russian protectors are ignoring the Geneva Conventions to get their win. It's that simple, and the hypocrisy of those who routinely claim the western powers have committed crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing for doing far less is breathtaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UGagain]

Credible collaboration, MSF vs your sources. Right oh. Typical UG, ignore sources that give information you don't like. So far, you haven't even provided any evidence for who else might have bombed the hospitals. Are the crazed Russian theories too much even for you?

Assad is butchering fellow Syrians. It's s civil war, that's what it means. He and his Russian protectors are ignoring the Geneva Conventions to get their win. It's that simple, and the hypocrisy of those who routinely claim the western powers have committed crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing for doing far less is breathtaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't supplied sources. I've asked for them. Nor have I ignored your 'sources'. They just aren't credible.

MSF hasn't made the claims that you infer as far as I know. Others have made the claims on behalf of MSF which isn't the same thing at all. MSF has been getting quite a bit of treatment from the empire in Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen of late, so maybe they're a bit sanguine.

Unlike you, who will write off those crimes as your white hats clearly did them.

I don't have to supply evidence as I've made no claims as to who bombed what if anything.

It isn't a civil war and you haven't provided any credible evidence that the legitimate Syrian defence forces have been 'butchering' anyone. There is untold evidence that your Al Qaeda buddies have though.

The western powers have decidedly committed genocide, ethnic cleansing and great crimes against peace repeatedly, callously and without remorse for centuries.

That you deny it isn't breathtaking. It's just what intellectually stunted life forms like you do.

[UGagain]

And Syria is for Syrians.

Not for you or your warmongering masters of the universe heroes.

Or your jihadi nut job proxies.

[Zhivago]

Credible collaboration, MSF vs your sources. Right oh. Typical UG, ignore sources that give information you don't like. So far, you haven't even provided any evidence for who else might have bombed the hospitals. Are the crazed Russian theories too much even for you?

Assad is butchering fellow Syrians. It's s civil war, that's what it means. He and his Russian protectors are ignoring the Geneva Conventions to get their win. It's that simple, and the hypocrisy of those who routinely claim the western powers have committed crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing for doing far less is breathtaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No comment then on our complicity with the crimes in Yemen. You care about these horrific actions selectively, when it suits your political agenda. The hypocrisy is staggering.

[Lizard]

And Syria is for Syrians.

Not for you or your warmongering masters of the universe heroes.

Or your jihadi nut job proxies.

Given that the Western Powers created Syria slightly fewer than 100 years ago, and have tinkered with its borders since, thus defining who "Syrians" are (a far from homogenous group) and deciding who Syria was for (eg Syria was, but is no longer, for the residents of Hatay largely at the whim of the French) why shouldn't they be allowed to change their minds now?

[Zhivago]

And Syria is for Syrians.

Not for you or your warmongering masters of the universe heroes.

Or your jihadi nut job proxies.

Given that the Western Powers created Syria slightly fewer than 100 years ago, and have tinkered with its borders since, thus defining who "Syrians" are (a far from homogenous group) and deciding who Syria was for (eg Syria was, but is no longer, for the residents of Hatay largely at the whim of the French) why shouldn't they be allowed to change their minds now?

'They' being the West presumably?

[Zhivago]

MSF now refuse to share their hospital locations with the Russians and Syrians. They certainly believe the attacks on their hospitals were deliberate.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... te-attacks

MSF: “We gave to the Russian ambassadors in Paris [and] in Geneva coordinates for three hospitals located in very intense conflict zones, but not for all of them, and it was a decision taken together with the medical staff of the health facilities that we support,”

They are referring to the past surely? Why are the reports about the future?

[Sandydragon]

And Syria is for Syrians.

Not for you or your warmongering masters of the universe heroes.

Or your jihadi nut job proxies.

Ok, you have nothing worthwhile to offer, I think we're done here.

[Sandydragon]

MSF now refuse to share their hospital locations with the Russians and Syrians. They certainly believe the attacks on their hospitals were deliberate.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... te-attacks

MSF: “We gave to the Russian ambassadors in Paris [and] in Geneva coordinates for three hospitals located in very intense conflict zones, but not for all of them, and it was a decision taken together with the medical staff of the health facilities that we support,”

They are referring to the past surely? Why are the reports about the future?

My understanding is that they are concerned that despite the coordinates being given, the hospitals were still attacked. A one off could be an accident, but there is a suggestion that the attacks were deliberate.

[Sandydragon]

And Syria is for Syrians.

Not for you or your warmongering masters of the universe heroes.

Or your jihadi nut job proxies.

Given that the Western Powers created Syria slightly fewer than 100 years ago, and have tinkered with its borders since, thus defining who "Syrians" are (a far from homogenous group) and deciding who Syria was for (eg Syria was, but is no longer, for the residents of Hatay largely at the whim of the French) why shouldn't they be allowed to change their minds now?

'They' being the West presumably?

There has been plenty of outside interference in Syria, very little of which has been helpful. But, do you think this conflict just blew up because one day, some Syrians saw something on the internet and felt they needed to commence an uprising? There are underlying issues in Syria, in most middle eastern countries to be fair, and if the Russians do succeed in propping up Assad, the underlying issues won't just go away. Lets not forget that this all started as a series of demonstrations which descended into a bloody civil war as a result of the repression. Blaming outsiders seems to cover over the decisions Assad made in this conflict.

[Zhivago]

MSF now refuse to share their hospital locations with the Russians and Syrians. They certainly believe the attacks on their hospitals were deliberate.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... te-attacks

MSF: “We gave to the Russian ambassadors in Paris [and] in Geneva coordinates for three hospitals located in very intense conflict zones, but not for all of them, and it was a decision taken together with the medical staff of the health facilities that we support,”

They are referring to the past surely? Why are the reports about the future?

My understanding is that they are concerned that despite the coordinates being given, the hospitals were still attacked. A one off could be an accident, but there is a suggestion that the attacks were deliberate.

Your understanding seems clearer on who to blame than MSF.

Interesting read:
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-%E2%80 ... s%E2%80%9D

[Zhivago]

Given that the Western Powers created Syria slightly fewer than 100 years ago, and have tinkered with its borders since, thus defining who "Syrians" are (a far from homogenous group) and deciding who Syria was for (eg Syria was, but is no longer, for the residents of Hatay largely at the whim of the French) why shouldn't they be allowed to change their minds now?

'They' being the West presumably?

There has been plenty of outside interference in Syria, very little of which has been helpful. But, do you think this conflict just blew up because one day, some Syrians saw something on the internet and felt they needed to commence an uprising? There are underlying issues in Syria, in most middle eastern countries to be fair, and if the Russians do succeed in propping up Assad, the underlying issues won't just go away. Lets not forget that this all started as a series of demonstrations which descended into a bloody civil war as a result of the repression. Blaming outsiders seems to cover over the decisions Assad made in this conflict.

The conflict arose because hostile states decided that they wouldn't accept Assad's rejection of a lucrative energy pipeline through Syria. Thus they attempted a coup, for much the same reasons the US orchestrated the 1949 coup.

[Sandydragon]

'They' being the West presumably?

There has been plenty of outside interference in Syria, very little of which has been helpful. But, do you think this conflict just blew up because one day, some Syrians saw something on the internet and felt they needed to commence an uprising? There are underlying issues in Syria, in most middle eastern countries to be fair, and if the Russians do succeed in propping up Assad, the underlying issues won't just go away. Lets not forget that this all started as a series of demonstrations which descended into a bloody civil war as a result of the repression. Blaming outsiders seems to cover over the decisions Assad made in this conflict.

The conflict arose because hostile states decided that they wouldn't accept Assad's rejection of a lucrative energy pipeline through Syria. Thus they attempted a coup, for much the same reasons the US orchestrated the 1949 coup.

Right. So there was no genuine discontentment amongst the Syrian people prior to the conflict? No tribal factions and resentment of entitlement? The outsiders just paid Syrians to rise up.

Demonstrations don't just happen, and then turn into bloody civil wars, without a good under lying reason. All was not happy in Syria prior to the war.

[Sandydragon]

MSF: “We gave to the Russian ambassadors in Paris [and] in Geneva coordinates for three hospitals located in very intense conflict zones, but not for all of them, and it was a decision taken together with the medical staff of the health facilities that we support,”

They are referring to the past surely? Why are the reports about the future?

My understanding is that they are concerned that despite the coordinates being given, the hospitals were still attacked. A one off could be an accident, but there is a suggestion that the attacks were deliberate.

Your understanding seems clearer on who to blame than MSF.

Interesting read:
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-%E2%80 ... s%E2%80%9D

Aerial bombardment at two locations in areas, for one definitely, where there is a major Syrian offensive going on. Who else do you think was involved? Why are you so intent on supporting Russian and Syrian war crimes? That's what this is, if it were American troops you would be demanding trials and lengthy prison sentences.

As for the article, he compares one attack in Afghanistan with dozens in Syria. Could one be a mistake, yes. Could 60 odd, no. The man wants a ceasefire and negotiation. But by throwing the blame equally, he implies that all actors are equal. Even by your stats, the Russians are launching far more attacks. And they are doing so in areas of heavy fighting in a manner that would make it difficult not to hit protected buildings. He is also at odds with his staff in Syria who firmly blamed the Russians.