Anti-Russian rhetoric
- Sandydragon
- Posts: 10299
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
A coup from within Syria. You mean the uprising as it actually started then? And Assad isn't as bad as we make him out to be. Of course he isn't, Im sure the poor wee dab really isn't aware of all those awful war crimes his troops have committed, you know the ones that the UN has highlighted. Bless.
- Zhivago
- Posts: 1946
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
- Location: Amsterdam
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Moscow didn't remove Daoud.Sandydragon wrote:Moscow removed Doaud because he wasn't toeing the line with them like he used to. If you are putting his repressive regime (which was no worse than the one that followed it) as a reason for his removal, then surely the West had every right to remove Assad who was using chemical weapons against his own people? Does that logic get through to you or shall I get some crayons out/rowan wrote:Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...Zhivago wrote:
Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?
That 'legitimate government'?
Все буде Україна!
Смерть ворогам!!
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
The UN has accused America, Britain and Israel of far greater war crimes than it has accused Syria of. There was no uprising from within Syria. Even Obama admitted the US was arming rebels & (indirectly) terrorists, and that many of these were coming in from other nations. That can not remotely be regarded as an internal coup. But don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions. & if Assad has always been such a big war criminal how is it that he was sipping tea with your own queen in Buckingham Palace not so long ago? His crimes, at worst, are no more than a fraction of Washington's and London's.Sandydragon wrote:A coup from within Syria. You mean the uprising as it actually started then? And Assad isn't as bad as we make him out to be. Of course he isn't, Im sure the poor wee dab really isn't aware of all those awful war crimes his troops have committed, you know the ones that the UN has highlighted. Bless.
Prior to the American-orchestrated proxy war in Syria, during which the government was not only forced but obliged to defend its country, the crimes the Assads are regarded by the West to have committed mostly involve the Muslim Brotherhood, which many Western governments regard as terrorists. No problem for your queen at the time, of course, but when Assad started to get off-side with Washington and its allies on certain issues, suddenly these were dredged up and re-packaged to transform him into their latest Hitler-of-the-month. & why hasn't the US invaded Saudi Arabia yet
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
- canta_brian
- Posts: 1285
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:52 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
More vile rhetoric here. http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-magnitsky ... 82907.html
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
That wouldn't even make the press in Turkey, where informing on government corruption is regarded as treason:
Turkey Sentences 2 Journalists Who Reported on Arms Shipments to Syrian Rebels
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/worl ... .html?_r=0
& let's not forget . . .
David Christopher Kelly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kel ... ns_expert)
& we all knows what happens to America's informers:
& if you really want to get into conspiracy theories:
Bill and Hillary's 'friends' fall off buildings, crash planes, die in freak accidents
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-deat ... 7B65ETT.99
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-deat ... ing-cases/
But when it's the Russians it seems all the more believable and sinister because everyone knows they are evil and inhuman, right . . .
Turkey Sentences 2 Journalists Who Reported on Arms Shipments to Syrian Rebels
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/worl ... .html?_r=0
& let's not forget . . .
David Christopher Kelly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kel ... ns_expert)
& we all knows what happens to America's informers:
& if you really want to get into conspiracy theories:
Bill and Hillary's 'friends' fall off buildings, crash planes, die in freak accidents
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-deat ... 7B65ETT.99
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-deat ... ing-cases/
But when it's the Russians it seems all the more believable and sinister because everyone knows they are evil and inhuman, right . . .
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Russia courts faced possibly with some political pressure have jailed an opposition party politician for peacefully protesting systemic corruption across government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39404985
Given there are quite strict rules on protesting in Russia, even peacefully, there's probably little doubt he broke some law, though in theory Russia also has some free speech statutes, just not so much in practice. Worth noting the crowd was very young, and so a great many of the people picked up by police are actually school kids
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39404985
Given there are quite strict rules on protesting in Russia, even peacefully, there's probably little doubt he broke some law, though in theory Russia also has some free speech statutes, just not so much in practice. Worth noting the crowd was very young, and so a great many of the people picked up by police are actually school kids
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
At least they don't get shot like Palestinians and Kurds, among others.
Meanwhile, kudos to the Guardian for at least showing some degree of impartiality with this report:
America and the UK condemned Russian airstrikes that killed or injured hundreds of civilians during last autumn’s siege of Aleppo, accusing Vladimir Putin of war crimes. The question now is whether the US, backed by British air power, is committing similar atrocities against civilians in Mosul.
Addressing the UN security council in September, Matthew Rycroft, Britain’s ambassador, said Russia had “unleashed a new hell” on Aleppo. “Russia is partnering with the Syrian regime to carry out war crimes,” he said. The US accused Putin of “barbarism”.
Theresa May climbed aboard this righteous bandwagon in December, joining Barack Obama and European leaders in lambasting Russia for causing a humanitarian disaster that “is taking place before our very eyes”.
Fast-forward to Mosul in northern Iraq last week, where misdirected US airstrikes caused a massive explosion that reportedly killed at least 150 civilians sheltering in a basement. The Americans say they were targeting Islamic State fighters. The Russians said much the same about Aleppo – that they were attacking jihadi terrorists. Many people, not least the relatives of the Mosul dead, will struggle to see the difference.
American spokesmen do not deny the US launched airstrikes in the Jadida neighbourhood of Mosul. As to who was responsible for the civilian casualties, “at the moment the answer is we don’t know”, Colonel John Thomas said.
But Iraqi commanders said the deaths followed an Iraqi army request for US air support to clear Isis snipers atop three buildings. They said they did not realise civilians were sheltering beneath, and it may have been a deliberate Isis trap.
Trap or not, the high death toll places the Mosul carnage, if confirmed, among the worst such incidents since the US invasion in 2003. It also serves to highlight a new pattern of behaviour by US forces since Donald Trump took office in January. Since then, the monthly total of recorded civilian deaths from coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria has more than doubled, according to independent monitors.
US spokesmen deny rules of engagement have changed. But the Mosul strike, and two similar, recent attacks in Syria, suggest Trump has fulfilled his campaign promise to let field commanders off the leash. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 49 people were killed on 16 March by a US strike on a complex that included the Omar ibn al-Khattab mosque.
Last Tuesday at least 30 Syrian civilians died in another American airstrike, on Mansoura, in Raqqa province. The American planes hit a school. The raid was one of 19 coalition missions that day, ordered in preparation for the expected assault on the Isis headquarters in Raqqa city itself.
The pace and scale of fighting in Iraq and Syria is picking up as the US-led coalition scents final victory over Isis. Trump recently approved an expanded deployment of US ground forces in Syria. But human rights groups say increased combat intensity does not excuse or justify fatal carelessness with civilian lives. Such “own goals” hand propaganda victories to Isis and may also motivate its followers to commit terrorist acts.
Trump has frequently vowed to exterminate Isis by all means. It is one of his few clearly stated foreign policy aims. The White House accused Obama of micromanaging operations. Trump, in contrast, appears to have delegated most control to Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, the former general appointed Pentagon chief.
The first results of Trump’s laissez-faire approach were seen in January when he authorised a special forces raid in Yemen over dinner. The attack on al-Qaida went disastrously wrong, causing dozens of civilian deaths and one US military fatality.
Now Iraq and Syria are bearing the brunt of Trump’s brash bellicosity. Putin will certainly be watching. It may not be long before the US president faces war crimes allegations, too. And what will May say then?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... amic-state
Meanwhile, kudos to the Guardian for at least showing some degree of impartiality with this report:
America and the UK condemned Russian airstrikes that killed or injured hundreds of civilians during last autumn’s siege of Aleppo, accusing Vladimir Putin of war crimes. The question now is whether the US, backed by British air power, is committing similar atrocities against civilians in Mosul.
Addressing the UN security council in September, Matthew Rycroft, Britain’s ambassador, said Russia had “unleashed a new hell” on Aleppo. “Russia is partnering with the Syrian regime to carry out war crimes,” he said. The US accused Putin of “barbarism”.
Theresa May climbed aboard this righteous bandwagon in December, joining Barack Obama and European leaders in lambasting Russia for causing a humanitarian disaster that “is taking place before our very eyes”.
Fast-forward to Mosul in northern Iraq last week, where misdirected US airstrikes caused a massive explosion that reportedly killed at least 150 civilians sheltering in a basement. The Americans say they were targeting Islamic State fighters. The Russians said much the same about Aleppo – that they were attacking jihadi terrorists. Many people, not least the relatives of the Mosul dead, will struggle to see the difference.
American spokesmen do not deny the US launched airstrikes in the Jadida neighbourhood of Mosul. As to who was responsible for the civilian casualties, “at the moment the answer is we don’t know”, Colonel John Thomas said.
But Iraqi commanders said the deaths followed an Iraqi army request for US air support to clear Isis snipers atop three buildings. They said they did not realise civilians were sheltering beneath, and it may have been a deliberate Isis trap.
Trap or not, the high death toll places the Mosul carnage, if confirmed, among the worst such incidents since the US invasion in 2003. It also serves to highlight a new pattern of behaviour by US forces since Donald Trump took office in January. Since then, the monthly total of recorded civilian deaths from coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria has more than doubled, according to independent monitors.
US spokesmen deny rules of engagement have changed. But the Mosul strike, and two similar, recent attacks in Syria, suggest Trump has fulfilled his campaign promise to let field commanders off the leash. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 49 people were killed on 16 March by a US strike on a complex that included the Omar ibn al-Khattab mosque.
Last Tuesday at least 30 Syrian civilians died in another American airstrike, on Mansoura, in Raqqa province. The American planes hit a school. The raid was one of 19 coalition missions that day, ordered in preparation for the expected assault on the Isis headquarters in Raqqa city itself.
The pace and scale of fighting in Iraq and Syria is picking up as the US-led coalition scents final victory over Isis. Trump recently approved an expanded deployment of US ground forces in Syria. But human rights groups say increased combat intensity does not excuse or justify fatal carelessness with civilian lives. Such “own goals” hand propaganda victories to Isis and may also motivate its followers to commit terrorist acts.
Trump has frequently vowed to exterminate Isis by all means. It is one of his few clearly stated foreign policy aims. The White House accused Obama of micromanaging operations. Trump, in contrast, appears to have delegated most control to Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, the former general appointed Pentagon chief.
The first results of Trump’s laissez-faire approach were seen in January when he authorised a special forces raid in Yemen over dinner. The attack on al-Qaida went disastrously wrong, causing dozens of civilian deaths and one US military fatality.
Now Iraq and Syria are bearing the brunt of Trump’s brash bellicosity. Putin will certainly be watching. It may not be long before the US president faces war crimes allegations, too. And what will May say then?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... amic-state
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
- Zhivago
- Posts: 1946
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:36 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Bush-Obama-Trump, Donald-Hillary, makes no difference. This is the nature of imperialism. The presidents do not make these decisions. But as I said during the elections, at least if Trump wins, they're not going to gloss over it any more. Had Hillary won, they'd just be talking about her sense of fashion right now . . .Zhivago wrote:It's Trump's fault.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
- Stones of granite
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
It's a curious thing that you believe that Israel is the benchmark to which Russia's Civil Rights record should be measured.
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
& what happened in Mosul is barely the tip of the iceberg . . .
When U.S. rivals committed atrocities in Aleppo, Western talking heads were appalled. But when the U.S. supports them in Mosul? Silence.
Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city and the last major Islamic State stronghold in the country, is nearly under Iraqi government control.
The Islamic State, or ISIS, has occupied the city since June 2014. Now, with the help of U.S. airpower, the entire eastern portion of the city has been retaken, and roughly 33 percent of Mosul is in Iraqi government hands. ISIS is “completely surrounded,” according to Western-coalition officials.
But what’s happening in Mosul could be called “massacre” just as easily as it could be called “liberation.” And the choice of words and focus is instructive.
https://wearechange.org/aleppo-crime-hu ... snt-mosul/
When U.S. rivals committed atrocities in Aleppo, Western talking heads were appalled. But when the U.S. supports them in Mosul? Silence.
Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city and the last major Islamic State stronghold in the country, is nearly under Iraqi government control.
The Islamic State, or ISIS, has occupied the city since June 2014. Now, with the help of U.S. airpower, the entire eastern portion of the city has been retaken, and roughly 33 percent of Mosul is in Iraqi government hands. ISIS is “completely surrounded,” according to Western-coalition officials.
But what’s happening in Mosul could be called “massacre” just as easily as it could be called “liberation.” And the choice of words and focus is instructive.
https://wearechange.org/aleppo-crime-hu ... snt-mosul/
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
When the protests kicked off none of the major news networks in Russia covered the story, when asked about it a Kremlin spokesperson said "We don't create the editorial policies of TV channels. TV channels show what they think is important ... there are just so many ways to get information, so it's not right to say that the information is restricted in any way,"
And the spokesperson then went on to condemn the illegal protests, which is no doubt the sort of thing one would routinely do for protests not important enough to make the news even if 700 or perhaps as many as 1000 people are detained by police. I did also like that the Kremlin said what made the protests illegal was they'd taken place with official approval and that they had made sites available for people to protests, whether true or not those organising the protests said yes they were offered sites to protest but those sites were outside more populous areas (including none in Moscow) which would've made it tricky for people to get to, and for anyone to know there was a protest.
And the spokesperson then went on to condemn the illegal protests, which is no doubt the sort of thing one would routinely do for protests not important enough to make the news even if 700 or perhaps as many as 1000 people are detained by police. I did also like that the Kremlin said what made the protests illegal was they'd taken place with official approval and that they had made sites available for people to protests, whether true or not those organising the protests said yes they were offered sites to protest but those sites were outside more populous areas (including none in Moscow) which would've made it tricky for people to get to, and for anyone to know there was a protest.
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Also amusing for protests about government officials taking massive bribes is the further Kremlin dissection of the protests noting people only turned up to protest as they were paid to do so.
Still at least the kids were only criticised, things could be worse, last week a former member of the Russian parliament who'd become critical of Putin was shot dead in the Ukraine (he'd fled to the Ukraine last year). To the untrained eye it might look a lot like he was simply assassinated, Ukraine is calling it terrorism, Russia says it's nothing to do with them
Still at least the kids were only criticised, things could be worse, last week a former member of the Russian parliament who'd become critical of Putin was shot dead in the Ukraine (he'd fled to the Ukraine last year). To the untrained eye it might look a lot like he was simply assassinated, Ukraine is calling it terrorism, Russia says it's nothing to do with them
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
"The Ukraine" is a corrupt oligarchy installed by a CIA-backed coup, with support from right-wing Neo Nazi organizations, that swiftly evolved into a civil war killing tens of thousands.
& regardless what Putin may or may not have done lately, Russia certainly hasn't killed an estimated 10 million people with wars and covert operations throughout the Middle East over the past few decades
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
- Sandydragon
- Posts: 10299
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
The thoughts of Andrew Gilligan, remember him, on the suicide of David Kelly.
[quote][/But the government knew – and this is what makes its behaviour towards the BBC and David Kelly so incredible. He came forward to his bosses as my source under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, but was effectively given up to the world after Campbell, in his words, decided to “open a flank on the BBC” to distract attention from his difficulties over the dossier.
Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the FAC, was inquiring into the dossier. After it failed to denounce me to Campbell’s satisfaction, he confided to his diary that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. That afternoon, on Downing Street’s orders, Ministry of Defence press officers announced that a source had come forward, handed out clues allowing anyone with Google to guess who he was, then kindly confirmed it to any reporter who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly’s.
Once outed, Dr Kelly was openly belittled by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The FAC, by the way, didn’t want to question him – its inquiry had finished and its report had already been published – but Downing Street forced it to hold a special hearing anyway. The day before, for several hours, he was intensively coached in the need to “f---” me. Under great pressure, he blurted an untruth in the glare of the TV lights; an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.
Dr Kelly defined himself by his work and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing it must have been terrifying, even if it was almost certainly unfounded. Understanding that is one reason why I am certain that he did indeed kill himself, for all some people’s obsession to the contrary.
They’ll hate this comparison, but there’s an odd symmetry between the Kelly conspiracy theorists and Mr Blair. In both cases, their convictions seem to require them to fit the facts into unusual shapes. For Dr Kelly to have been murdered, as the pathologist’s report makes clear, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest. Then they would have had to get him to sit on the ground without any restraint, making no attempt to defend himself, while they had sawn away at his wrist with a knife. That knife, by the way, came from the desk drawer in Dr Kelly’s study, so they’d also have had to burgle his house to get it.
The even more telling question, though, is what motive anyone could have had for murder. Even if you believe the British government goes round bumping off its employees in cold blood, killing David Kelly would simply not have been in its interest. It was guaranteed to create a scandal and a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known. There’s no need to claim that David Kelly was murdered; his suicide is scandal enough.
quote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rs-on.html
[quote][/But the government knew – and this is what makes its behaviour towards the BBC and David Kelly so incredible. He came forward to his bosses as my source under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, but was effectively given up to the world after Campbell, in his words, decided to “open a flank on the BBC” to distract attention from his difficulties over the dossier.
Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the FAC, was inquiring into the dossier. After it failed to denounce me to Campbell’s satisfaction, he confided to his diary that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. That afternoon, on Downing Street’s orders, Ministry of Defence press officers announced that a source had come forward, handed out clues allowing anyone with Google to guess who he was, then kindly confirmed it to any reporter who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly’s.
Once outed, Dr Kelly was openly belittled by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The FAC, by the way, didn’t want to question him – its inquiry had finished and its report had already been published – but Downing Street forced it to hold a special hearing anyway. The day before, for several hours, he was intensively coached in the need to “f---” me. Under great pressure, he blurted an untruth in the glare of the TV lights; an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.
Dr Kelly defined himself by his work and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing it must have been terrifying, even if it was almost certainly unfounded. Understanding that is one reason why I am certain that he did indeed kill himself, for all some people’s obsession to the contrary.
They’ll hate this comparison, but there’s an odd symmetry between the Kelly conspiracy theorists and Mr Blair. In both cases, their convictions seem to require them to fit the facts into unusual shapes. For Dr Kelly to have been murdered, as the pathologist’s report makes clear, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest. Then they would have had to get him to sit on the ground without any restraint, making no attempt to defend himself, while they had sawn away at his wrist with a knife. That knife, by the way, came from the desk drawer in Dr Kelly’s study, so they’d also have had to burgle his house to get it.
The even more telling question, though, is what motive anyone could have had for murder. Even if you believe the British government goes round bumping off its employees in cold blood, killing David Kelly would simply not have been in its interest. It was guaranteed to create a scandal and a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known. There’s no need to claim that David Kelly was murdered; his suicide is scandal enough.
quote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rs-on.html
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Not that an official's failure to understand the official secrets act is of any relevance to shooting dead people who disagree with you and arresting school kids who don't believe in theft.
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No hysterical screams of GENOCIDE !! & TRUMP IS HITLER !! here?? . . .
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Was that anything to do with Russia?
Mind, who'd mod this board
Mind, who'd mod this board
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No hysterical screams of GENOCIDE !! & TRUMP IS HITLER !! here??
That flew right by you then . . .
That flew right by you then . . .
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No idea what point you're making.
The comment made was that some Russian citizens have been detained/arrested and had their peaceful protests broken up by riot officers, and this has been done despite the fact under Russian law they have a right to free speech. What the citizens were protesting were the absurd levels of corruption by a senior Russian politician, though he's by no means an isolated figure.
There's a further comment that the same group of senior party figures who clamped down on domestic news coverage of the protests, and had children arrested for saying stealing is bad are the same group who most likely last week were behind the assassination of a former Russian politician who'd become a vocal critic of Putin's and was simply gunned down in Ukraine. And thus whilst there is in theory a right to free speech in Russia it's laughable to think anyone would agree there's free speech in practice, and that's the point under discussion
Whilst there are other bad things in the world, and there are other bad actions by government's other than Russia's none of the comments pertain to Mosul, Hitler or Trump, which is why they were put on a thread about Russia. Though I'd concede it's not quite the right thread it is the one that's often used for Russian stories, it's just this one isn't an anti-Russian story, indeed the bravery of those protesting speaks volumes for the character for many Russians who'd have known they might face harsh sanctions, it's conceivably anti-Russian government but that's a very, very different thing to being anti-Russian
The comment made was that some Russian citizens have been detained/arrested and had their peaceful protests broken up by riot officers, and this has been done despite the fact under Russian law they have a right to free speech. What the citizens were protesting were the absurd levels of corruption by a senior Russian politician, though he's by no means an isolated figure.
There's a further comment that the same group of senior party figures who clamped down on domestic news coverage of the protests, and had children arrested for saying stealing is bad are the same group who most likely last week were behind the assassination of a former Russian politician who'd become a vocal critic of Putin's and was simply gunned down in Ukraine. And thus whilst there is in theory a right to free speech in Russia it's laughable to think anyone would agree there's free speech in practice, and that's the point under discussion
Whilst there are other bad things in the world, and there are other bad actions by government's other than Russia's none of the comments pertain to Mosul, Hitler or Trump, which is why they were put on a thread about Russia. Though I'd concede it's not quite the right thread it is the one that's often used for Russian stories, it's just this one isn't an anti-Russian story, indeed the bravery of those protesting speaks volumes for the character for many Russians who'd have known they might face harsh sanctions, it's conceivably anti-Russian government but that's a very, very different thing to being anti-Russian
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
That's the point you keep making, yes. I'd say there are far worse matters going on that you seem entirely disinterested in...
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/[/quote]
As many as 3,864 civilians have been killed in western Mosul since mid-February when the Iraqi army began a wide-ranging campaign to wrest the area from the Daesh extremist group, according to an Iraqi army source.
“Those who have fled the combat areas are reporting high civilian casualties,” Army Brigadier-General Thaer Al-Mousawi told Turkish Anadolu Agency.
Al-Mousawi also said that nearby refugee camps and field hospitals had received more than 22,000 injured Mosul residents since the start of the army campaign almost six weeks ago.
Read: Civilians bear brunt of US, Iraq assault on Mosul
In terms of material damage, the army officer said that more than 10,000 residential homes in western Mosul had been destroyed over the same period.
He went on to assert that Iraqi forces had so far driven Daesh militants from slightly more than half of western Mosul.
On Wednesday, an Iraqi army officer in western Mosul – who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media – told Anadolu that as many as 43 civilians were believed to have been killed in an attack launched “in error” by a US-led coalition airstrike.
On the same day, Iraqi officials announced that the bodies of some 80 dead civilians had been pulled from the rubble of destroyed buildings in both sides of the city.
On Thursday, another airstrike, likely again launched by the US-led coalition or its Iraqi allies, bombed two residential compounds, killing 237 civilians in a single air raid.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170 ... offensive/[/quote]
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
- Posts: 15261
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
Are you per chance using a cut and paste approach to moving a discussion on a thread about Russia away from Putin's corruption and the corruption of his cohorts?
- morepork
- Posts: 7860
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
This is the cut and paste journalism kindy Fred.
- rowan
- Posts: 7756
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Anti-Russian rhetoric
No, just wondering why you're so obsessed with this when it's going on everywhere, while at the same time the US and its allies, including Britain, are bombing countries to rubble and slaughtering hundreds of civilians - without a peep out of you ...Digby wrote:Are you per chance using a cut and paste approach to moving a discussion on a thread about Russia away from Putin's corruption and the corruption of his cohorts?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?