Syria

[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.

[UGagain]

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.

I love the way you always describe Arabs as 'tribal'. Like you're not tribal and they are lesser beings.

Those demonstrations, against neoliberal economic policies that the west demands by the way, were like Occupy Wall St, and tolerated by the government, until the western backed snipers infiltrated from Jordan started shooting protestors and police in Daraa. Then they ambushed a SAA convoy killing dozens of soldiers.

These were not Syrians and peaceful protestors aren't armed.

So yes, demonstrations don't just turn into civil wars.

It takes a lot of arms and mercenaries to be shipped in by the powers that wish to wage war.

That would be the powers that you shill for.

[Lizard]

I was in Syria in 2009, and some people I spoke with were clearly discontented with the regime, especially in Damascus (although of course they couldn't be too blatant about it). No one spoke of armed insurrection but who would when talking to a foreign stranger. A couple I stayed with in Damascus, after a few drinks, hinted at a brother involved in the opposition.

The general point is right, though. There would be very few countries in which the population is inherently heavily enough armed to start the sort of thing we see in Syria. Someone has shipped arms in.

[Sandydragon]

I was in Syria in 2009, and some people I spoke with were clearly discontented with the regime, especially in Damascus (although of course they couldn't be too blatant about it). No one spoke of armed insurrection but who would when talking to a foreign stranger. A couple I stayed with in Damascus, after a few drinks, hinted at a brother involved in the opposition.

The general point is right, though. There would be very few countries in which the population is inherently heavily enough armed to start the sort of thing we see in Syria. Someone has shipped arms in.

I suspect more than a few came over from Iraq initially. The border there is practically open access. I agree arms have been (are) shipped in by third parties, but getting hold of AK weapons in that region is child's play.

[Zhivago]

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.

source?

[morepork]

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.

source?

[Zhivago]

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.

Unmarked hospitals are not very protected.

Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

Article 18

" Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile ac tion.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives. "