RugbyRebels

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

Anything you need to burn or burn through really so anything with a lot of armour/protection or anything you want to deny.

We would carry phosphorus grenades in case we had to leave a vehicle/kit, for instance.

The bombs seem to have been dropped in a rebel salient. Hmm...

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

People.

Think Gulf War 89/90 and the Iraqi Republican Guard dug in the desert. No non combatants to get in the way, so it was carpet bombing and incendiary attacks.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

People.

Think Gulf War 89/90 and the Iraqi Republican Guard dug in the desert. No non combatants to get in the way, so it was carpet bombing and incendiary attacks.

And then there was also Fallujah too... white phosphorus...

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

People.

Think Gulf War 89/90 and the Iraqi Republican Guard dug in the desert. No non combatants to get in the way, so it was carpet bombing and incendiary attacks.

And then there was also Fallujah too... white phosphorus...

You are on slightly less stable legal ground there. WP is a lawful signalling, marker or camouflage device, not a chemical weapon, like chlorine or sarin. WP can burn and direction is that using it in civilian areas need to try and avoid it landing too close to civilians.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: People.

Think Gulf War 89/90 and the Iraqi Republican Guard dug in the desert. No non combatants to get in the way, so it was carpet bombing and incendiary attacks.

And then there was also Fallujah too... white phosphorus...

You are on slightly less stable legal ground there. WP is a lawful signalling, marker or camouflage device, not a chemical weapon, like chlorine or sarin. WP can burn and direction is that using it in civilian areas need to try and avoid it landing too close to civilians.

"On November 15, 2005, U.S. Department of Defense spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah. "

Anyway, back to the russian incendiaries - point is they have legitimate purposes, as you've stated about WP. So the key point is were civilians targeted, and I don't see proof of that.

Zhivago wrote:Anyway, back to the russian incendiaries - point is they have legitimate purposes, as you've stated about WP. So the key point is were civilians targeted, and I don't see proof of that.

Legitimate only when used against combatant targets and the risks to civilians are minimised. I think you need to read up on the principle of discrimination in the laws of armed conflict. Also proportionality. If you believe that the attacks to date have all been staged then it's pointless arguing with you as you have already discounted any evidence that challenges your opinion.

Thankfully the UN is investigating the use of chlorine gas (against which there is an absolute ban) so we may find out some additional information on the alleged war crimes.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Anyway, back to the russian incendiaries - point is they have legitimate purposes, as you've stated about WP. So the key point is were civilians targeted, and I don't see proof of that.

Legitimate only when used against combatant targets and the risks to civilians are minimised. I think you need to read up on the principle of discrimination in the laws of armed conflict. Also proportionality. If you believe that the attacks to date have all been staged then it's pointless arguing with you as you have already discounted any evidence that challenges your opinion.

Thankfully the UN is investigating the use of chlorine gas (against which there is an absolute ban) so we may find out some additional information on the alleged war crimes.

Show me where I said that? Nice strawman though...

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Anyway, back to the russian incendiaries - point is they have legitimate purposes, as you've stated about WP. So the key point is were civilians targeted, and I don't see proof of that.

Legitimate only when used against combatant targets and the risks to civilians are minimised. I think you need to read up on the principle of discrimination in the laws of armed conflict. Also proportionality. If you believe that the attacks to date have all been staged then it's pointless arguing with you as you have already discounted any evidence that challenges your opinion.

Thankfully the UN is investigating the use of chlorine gas (against which there is an absolute ban) so we may find out some additional information on the alleged war crimes.

Show me where I said that? Nice strawman though...

I think it's from when you asked if the remains of the munitions can be/could have been moved. Not really a strawman.

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Legitimate only when used against combatant targets and the risks to civilians are minimised. I think you need to read up on the principle of discrimination in the laws of armed conflict. Also proportionality. If you believe that the attacks to date have all been staged then it's pointless arguing with you as you have already discounted any evidence that challenges your opinion.

Thankfully the UN is investigating the use of chlorine gas (against which there is an absolute ban) so we may find out some additional information on the alleged war crimes.

Show me where I said that? Nice strawman though...

I think it's from when you asked if the remains of the munitions can be/could have been moved. Not really a strawman.

Does that mean I think that they've allbeen staged? Go back to school and work harder with comprehension. It clearly just indicates that I was contemplating the possibility that this particular one that we are discussing could have been staged.

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Show me where I said that? Nice strawman though...

I think it's from when you asked if the remains of the munitions can be/could have been moved. Not really a strawman.

Does that mean I think that they've allbeen staged? Go back to school and work harder with comprehension. It clearly just indicates that I was contemplating the possibility that this particular one that we are discussing could have been staged.

It clearly indicates that you think they've been tampered with, staged would be just another way of saying the same thing. Is english your first language?

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: I think it's from when you asked if the remains of the munitions can be/could have been moved. Not really a strawman.

Does that mean I think that they've allbeen staged? Go back to school and work harder with comprehension. It clearly just indicates that I was contemplating the possibility that this particular one that we are discussing could have been staged.

It clearly indicates that you think they've been tampered with, staged would be just another way of saying the same thing. Is english your first language?

You don't know what you're talking about. And when it comes to languages, you are insulting the wrong person given that I speak 4 languages.

I'm not actually insulting anyone. I just wondered if english was your first language that's all, as it seems like this is a fairly simple misunderstanding and not a case of sandy building a strawman argument. That's really it.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Anyway, back to the russian incendiaries - point is they have legitimate purposes, as you've stated about WP. So the key point is were civilians targeted, and I don't see proof of that.

Legitimate only when used against combatant targets and the risks to civilians are minimised. I think you need to read up on the principle of discrimination in the laws of armed conflict. Also proportionality. If you believe that the attacks to date have all been staged then it's pointless arguing with you as you have already discounted any evidence that challenges your opinion.

Thankfully the UN is investigating the use of chlorine gas (against which there is an absolute ban) so we may find out some additional information on the alleged war crimes.

Show me where I said that? Nice strawman though...

Not at all. You have repeatedly raised the query that you regard much of the reporting to be propaganda. Therefore, as you asked yourself, if the used munitions could be moved, then the news article was staged to make the Russians/Syrians look bad.

Do you really need me to link all the times you have shouted about propaganda?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Legitimate only when used against combatant targets and the risks to civilians are minimised. I think you need to read up on the principle of discrimination in the laws of armed conflict. Also proportionality. If you believe that the attacks to date have all been staged then it's pointless arguing with you as you have already discounted any evidence that challenges your opinion.

Thankfully the UN is investigating the use of chlorine gas (against which there is an absolute ban) so we may find out some additional information on the alleged war crimes.

Show me where I said that? Nice strawman though...

Not at all. You have repeatedly raised the query that you regard much of the reporting to be propaganda. Therefore, as you asked yourself, if the used munitions could be moved, then the news article was staged to make the Russians/Syrians look bad.

Do you really need me to link all the times you have shouted about propaganda?

Everything that seeks to influence men's attitudes is propaganda. I'm just calling it what it is. And yes, the news item used blatantly biased sources of information, so indeed I questioned it. The fact that you put up so much of a fight in its defence tells me that your righteous beliefs are so ingrained that you are impossible to have a sensible discussion with. The West is not great, Russia is not evil. Everything is shades of grey. Why you persist with this black and white view of the world I cannot fathom.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Show me where I said that? Nice strawman though...

Not at all. You have repeatedly raised the query that you regard much of the reporting to be propaganda. Therefore, as you asked yourself, if the used munitions could be moved, then the news article was staged to make the Russians/Syrians look bad.

Do you really need me to link all the times you have shouted about propaganda?

Everything that seeks to influence men's attitudes is propaganda. I'm just calling it what it is. And yes, the news item used blatantly biased sources of information, so indeed I questioned it. The fact that you put up so much of a fight in its defence tells me that your righteous beliefs are so ingrained that you are impossible to have a sensible discussion with. The West is not great, Russia is not evil. Everything is shades of grey. Why you persist with this black and white view of the world I cannot fathom.

Yet when the US or Israel kills civilians, they are automatically condemned, regardless.

Here Russian and Syria are committing regular war crimes, which I suggest have been proven by the sheer weight of evidence from varying sources. Yet every attempt to provide new information is met with this same charge of 'its propaganda'. Its been staged and so on. By all means question what is presented, but when you get multiple source authentication of events, backed up by in-depth reports from a variety of independent agencies, at some point a refusal to accept the situation is just sheer blind bias.

Come on, you claim to be intelligent yet all you are resorting to here is false accusations of straw men and a refusal to consider any evidence that doesn't come from an 'alternative' source.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Not at all. You have repeatedly raised the query that you regard much of the reporting to be propaganda. Therefore, as you asked yourself, if the used munitions could be moved, then the news article was staged to make the Russians/Syrians look bad.

Do you really need me to link all the times you have shouted about propaganda?

Everything that seeks to influence men's attitudes is propaganda. I'm just calling it what it is. And yes, the news item used blatantly biased sources of information, so indeed I questioned it. The fact that you put up so much of a fight in its defence tells me that your righteous beliefs are so ingrained that you are impossible to have a sensible discussion with. The West is not great, Russia is not evil. Everything is shades of grey. Why you persist with this black and white view of the world I cannot fathom.

Yet when the US or Israel kills civilians, they are automatically condemned, regardless.

Here Russian and Syria are committing regular war crimes, which I suggest have been proven by the sheer weight of evidence from varying sources. Yet every attempt to provide new information is met with this same charge of 'its propaganda'. Its been staged and so on. By all means question what is presented, but when you get multiple source authentication of events, backed up by in-depth reports from a variety of independent agencies, at some point a refusal to accept the situation is just sheer blind bias.

Come on, you claim to be intelligent yet all you are resorting to here is false accusations of straw men and a refusal to consider any evidence that doesn't come from an 'alternative' source.

Again with the strawman...

Let me clarify my view regarding this incident highlighted by bellingcat. Feel free to destroy any of my points if you can.

1) Bellingcat has been shown to be a biased source - it first came into being around the time of MH17 and has an anti-Russian bias. It is also basically just one guy who does the investigation, but is treated like a proper organisation worth trusting. The reality is that it's no different to any of these 'alternative' sources you always berate.

2) White Helmets are a front organisation set up by an (ex) British Army Officer, funded by UK and US foreign offices. It probably does use volunteers who put themselves in danger, so that it can keep its credibility which it needs as a front. It has been shown to produce blatant disinformation, which has been proved as such. Therefore I do not automatically accept its reports, as it is a biased source. I wait for corroboration.

3) The Russian planes were loaded with incendiary cluster bombs, but there is scant indication that these were targeting civilians. Indeed they were dropped in a rebel salient, which must be swarming with combatants right now. Incendiary bombs are not expressly forbidden by international law, as they have apparently legitimate military purposes which are admitted by your good self, and the US military who also use them.

4) Civilian areas as quoted by the MSM should not be assumed to contain concentrations of civilians given that Aleppo has been massively evacuated and its current civilian population is <2% of its pre-war population.

All of this contributes to my doubts regarding bellingcat's claims. I will of course condemn any civilian casualties, as indeed I condemn war in general as a horrific thing. I am actually for the most part anti-war except in the most extreme of circumstances. So it should really go without saying that I condemn all civilian deaths, when confirmed by credible investigatory bodies, rather than by propaganda outlets.

Bellingcat is no more biased than the likes of Counterpoint. It does provide a lot of evidence to support its claims, hence perhaps why it is taken seriously. If you or someone with your views is going to provide links to Counterpunch, or infowars for example, then I see no reason not to provide information from that source. Incidentally, I have also provide information from other organizations which substantiates the Bellingcat stance.

White Helmets have been roundly criticized by the alternative media. To be fair, they can also be criticized for their sources, but that is another point. If the information I provided were solely from that source then I would take your point. What about Human Rights Watch, or organizations like MSF which had personnel in Syria. Are you really suggesting that all of the reports coming out of Syria alleging war crimes by Russia and Syria are falsified?

Incendiary weapons can be used against combatants. However, under the laws of armed conflict, militaries must discriminate about what unguided weapons they use when there is a likelihood of civilian casualties. Multiple sources have provided evidence that Syrian and Russian aerial bombardment is not using precision weapons, or concentrating on areas where combatants have been identified. The number of hospitals hit might attest to that.

There are estimated to be 300000 non-combatants in the eastern part of Aleppo.

Sandydragon wrote:Bellingcat is no more biased than the likes of Counterpoint. It does provide a lot of evidence to support its claims, hence perhaps why it is taken seriously. If you or someone with your views is going to provide links to Counterpunch, or infowars for example, then I see no reason not to provide information from that source. Incidentally, I have also provide information from other organizations which substantiates the Bellingcat stance.

White Helmets have been roundly criticized by the alternative media. To be fair, they can also be criticized for their sources, but that is another point. If the information I provided were solely from that source then I would take your point. What about Human Rights Watch, or organizations like MSF which had personnel in Syria. Are you really suggesting that all of the reports coming out of Syria alleging war crimes by Russia and Syria are falsified?

Incendiary weapons can be used against combatants. However, under the laws of armed conflict, militaries must discriminate about what unguided weapons they use when there is a likelihood of civilian casualties. Multiple sources have provided evidence that Syrian and Russian aerial bombardment is not using precision weapons, or concentrating on areas where combatants have been identified. The number of hospitals hit might attest to that.

There are estimated to be 300,000 non-combatants in the eastern part of Aleppo.

This cannot be true. There was a population of only 40,000 in 2015 in all of Aleppo according to wikipedia. Perhaps this should be established more, I'm trying to find a reliable source.

Excellent article.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... o-children

Seymour Hersh's latest article, including his view once again on the 2013 NATO sarin gas attack: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3722 ... -civil-war

Keep in mind that Hershey has prior form on not fully checking his facts.

'Cruder variation of sarin'. Not according to the UN report which found high concentrations of Sarin. When Hersh wrote about unmanned sources telling him that the Turks had provided the gas, the credibility began to wane somewhat. Are we expected to believe him uncritically when he suggests that it was a huge false flag attack, conducted right in the face of the Syrian military?

Meanwhile, Can Dundar, who helped break the story on the Turkish weapons supply line to the Syrian rebels, has resigned from his post as editor of the Cumhuriyet (Republic) newspaper and will not be returning to Turkey until the State of Emergency is lifted. I'd be surprised if he returns at all, given he has been sentenced to five years in prison for leaking state secrets. He was also shot at outside the courthouse as he attempted to attend his trial.