Russians & Assad Regime deliberately bombed schools and hospitals in Syria

It makes a difference, however, whether killed children are collateral damage or whether they are targeted targets with the intention of killing them, right?
There are international rules such as the Geneva Convention that should be followed. Sure ... I also know that often enough it's not worth the paper it is printed on ... but it doesn't make such crimes legal. Whether Assad or the Saudis are deliberately bombing schools and hospitals, or anyone else in any war, it's a crime!

 

As casualties of war, but not so in Syria.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/03/syria-idlib-child-deaths-airstrikes-assad-putin-russia

 

Get Serious -Bush and the Bush Admin - is on the record for numerous telling numerous lies and promoting numerous false narratives in the Rush to war in Iraq.

 

The Syrian Network for Human rights is a front group - for the Supporters of Al Qaeda
No doubt there were children killed in the war .. Israel has killed 10 x the number of Palestinian Children w/r to the # of dead Israeli Children

There were 500,000 killed in this war - and no doubt some were children - because a coalition of nations led by the USA armed, supplied and supported a Radical Islamist Insurgency .. inside a sovereign nation. - completely illegal under international law..

You don't know enough about the war in Syria to be commenting as you are - and you don't take correction well - alas few of us do - but, do try to understand the basics

 

I have a question.

What's the military objective obtained from wasting munitions on intentionally targeting schools.

Assuming of course, that the schools and hospitals weren't used as weapons depots, which happens all the time in the ME.

 

How many children did Obama’s “moderate”
Jihadist kill, rape, and sell into slavery?

 

But you cannot comment on one without evaluating the other!
It's about Syria and Syria is the area of interest of Russia ... for over 50 years! The Russians here are doing nothing other than the United States did and are still doing their areas of interest ... including crimes!

I know that it is difficult for Americans to get and accept ... but the United States committed so many similar proven crimes in the world after World War II that the United States lost all rights to play the moral accuser here!
The problem in the US and with the Americans is that they either don't want to see and accept it ... or come up with idiotic phrases as a justification like "it was the cold war" or "it was in the fight against evil communism" or lastly "it in the fight against terrorists"! Sorry, but so what ???

Just to give you one of countless examples ...
You accuse the Assad regime of dropping so-called "barrel bombs" into inhabited areas ... that is, oil barrels with detonators filled to the brim with petrol or even napalm. That's right and it is a crime ... just ... the USA has proven to have done exactly the same thing in Vietnam (there are numerous film recordings of it !!!)!
Only nobody talks about it in the USA... some idiots even deny it or come up with these ridiculous justifications for it.
So does the United States have the right to accuse the Assad regime of being indignant if it can be shown to have done exactly the same thing in Vietnam, eh?

Strange ... then for example it also applies to the Viet Cong back then ... why did you ... ehm ... motherf **** in reverse ... fought these freedom fighters and instead supported the bastards from the regime that by countless evidence oppressed their people?

 

Sorry to correct you here ... but I see it as important to stay on facts

#1
What you mean is above all "Al Nusra" or what they call themselves currently (they change from time to time the name). They are allies of Al Qaeda, but not Al Qaeda itself.
Al Qaeda itself is also represented, but comparatively unimportant in Syria. The problem is that the protest against Assad, which ultimately triggered everything to this day, is in itself justified. Assad is a bastard and if the population rises it is OK ... only it is Russia's area of interest, not that of the USA and therefore Russia's task to regulate it.
Suppose the same thing happens one day in Saudi Arabia against the regime there ... Saudi Arabia is a US area of interest. I hardly believe that even an American shrugs when Russia interferes like the United States did in Syria ...

#2
The biggest terrorist in Syria is the IS. What many people don't know is that IS is at war with pretty much every other Islamic terrorist organization. Specifically: IS is at war with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas and others.
But it is also a fact that the IS had conquered a large part of Syria for a long time and that the Assad regime negotiated with the IS and also had agreements, e.g. as far as oil is concerned or also at a hydropower plant whose electricity went to Assad's remaining area. It is also a fact that neither Assad nor Russia really fought IS because they fought almost exclusively with the so-called FSA and thus also against Al Nusra etc. IS did not play a role ...

However, the same applies to Turkey. Because at least 95% of all air strikes were directed against the Kurds, not against the IS, which was right on their long border with Syria.
And if you look at this long border, it becomes even clearer. The area of the Turkish-Syrian border that bordered on YPG was almost as secure as the Berlin Wall. The areas that bordered on the IS-controlled part were less secure than the border between North and South Carolina in the USA!

#3
The entire term terrorist is now completely irrelevant, since he has been "raped" by too many. If insurgents are the enemy, they are quickly and easily declared to be terrorists to discredit them, their cause and their struggle. For those who support them, they are "heroes" and "fighters for freedom".
And the funny thing is, sometimes it's like this, then on other issue it's like that. Take the YPG Kurds in Syria, who until Trump let them down, were official allies of the United States and YPG did also not fight with Assad as Assad and Russians did not fight them, but YPG fought only the IS ... so they were definitely not considered as terrorists. Only ... if you ask Erdogan in Turkey, they are all evil terrorists .. more evil as IS. Well ... what's correct and true now?

 

True.

There are two separate debates to have.

1. If we should have been involved at all?
2. How should we have behaved once we were involved.

Seems to me we screwed up on both counts and that along with the mistakes and viciousness of the enemy lead to a truly horrible event.

 

Well you know how fools love to rush in and don't even mark the trail to find their way out.

 

The above is semantic navel gazing. It matters not whether we call them "Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Al Nusra, Islamic Front, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, the wing nuts in Pakistan and India, and numerous other groups around the world.

ALL - share the same Saudi Inspired Salafi extremist Islamist ideology. The anti Assad Rebels were united in their desire to turn Syria into strict sharia nightmare - which is why the "moderate" Muslims in Syria - including large number of Sunni's - fight for Assad.

Assad is far less a "bastard" than any Muslim leader in the Region.

The protests were not the main cause of what happened in Syria - A large coalition of nations - led by the US - armed, supplied, and supported the Islamist Jihadist proxy army. This action led to the death of over 500,000, the refugee crisis, and the formation of a new Islamic State.

The biggest Terrorist in Syria was Obama. That there is infighting among radical Islamist groups matters not. Assad had to negotiate with ISIS for oil and power.

The FSA was a construct - The FSA was comprised of both Al Nusra and ISIS - would you like to see a video an FSA Colonel giving a congratulatory speech to IS - after they took over an air base ?

The cities taken back by Russia/Syria/Iran - were held by either ISIS - Al Qaeda - or similar of the same ilk. Your perspective is plain wrong.

The Kurds were not part of the anti Assad coalition and so is irrelevant in some ways to the nature of the Anti Assad coalition.

Agree 100% that the term "Terrorist" is now irrelevant - often used merely to demonize one side of a conflict.

 

Please do not forget that Assad, like his father before him, is a total dictator who exercises absolute control by any means in his country. Overall, he is no different from many other dictators in the world.
The problem is that each of these dictators and their regimes has always had one of the great powers as a friend, protector, and supporter since the end of WW-2. Sometimes it is the USSR / Russia, sometimes it is China, sometimes it is the United States ... without whose help these regimes would not survive for long.
No matter who and where, the great powers always have their own strategic interests in supporting bastards who oppress their own people.

The hypocritical on all sides is that the dictator, who is supported by them, is portrayed and rated as less bad and evil, or that they turn a blind eye to the shameful things ... but then with the dictators of the others really on the drum strikes and plays the accusing morality apostle!

The fact is that there were more than justified protests against him and his oppression in the course of the Arab Spring, and that Assad, like every dictator, reacted with the willful force of dictatorial violence. Only as so often do protests appear on the fringes and take over part or all of the protests ... which ended here in Syria in the civil war. In Syria, there were radical Islamists on the Sunite side ... in Yemen, they were on the Shiite side and so the whole thing is divided accordingly and ends in the conflict Saudi Arabia = Sunites against Iran = Shia!
Assad is supported in the country by the Shia, ie Iran and thus by Hezbollah from Lebanon, which Assad and his father have always supported as a friend of Iran and opponents of Israel.

And as is always the case, the enemies of the dictator are supported by the side who is not a friend and supporter of the dictator, as part of the usual "The enemy of my enemy is my ally".
Yes, the United States has given massive support to the "wrong" and has generally failed. In Syria, however, Erdogan and Turkey play a far greater role than the United States does ... and that is always overlooked. If the United States delivered 5 Kalashnikov rifles to the insurgents, including terrorists, the Turks would have delivered at least 20!
And as far as the role of Saudia is concerned, it is actually an open secret that the Saudis are the financiers! But that is also often overlooked ... because the Saudis are friends and allies in the region of whom? Exactly that!
And that Hezbollah is not an Enegl army ... and if you want to apply the term terrorist to Al Nusara, you also have to apply it to Hezbollah as well! Only that we are back on the subject that the term terrorist has become insignificant in the meantime.

 

I wouldn't trust what comes from the usual suspects when it comes to reports about Syria. A lot of hands went into wrecking Syria. I don't consider the Russians or Assad as being angels by any means, but I am comfortable saying that they were fighting on the side of good versus evil during the Syrian civil war. Whether the Russians remain on the side of 'good' against 'evil', however, is not entirely clear to me.

 

1) why are you talking about WW2 ? Why are you telling us that he was a dictator - just like in most other Nations in the ME. Does this justify arming an Islamist Jihadist proxy army led by Al Qaeda and assorted offspring ?

2) The war in Syria was not a Civil War - nor was it a Sunni/Shia war

3) the fact of the matter is that the people of Syria voted overwhelmingly for Assad in the last election.
The fact of the matter is that Syria is a shining start of freedom in comparison to your beloved El Saud and other ME nations.
The fact of the matter is that the freedom loving people of Syria - were unhappy with Assad - and they protested - peacefully. The violence did not heat up in a major way until radical Salafi Islamists took over the protest movement and started shooting security forces at the protests.

Regardless -the moderate people of Syria fought on the side of Assad -because the Islamist proxy army was far worse.

4) Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, USA, France, Britain - (Serbia, Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria is where much of the supply came from) were all supporting the Islamist Jihadists. El Saud, Qatar, Turkey and the USA some of the major financiers.

This was a massive effort to arm, support, and supply this radical Islamist Proxy Army - one that took place over years.

 

I did not talk about WW-2 ... I wrote SINCE WW-2 ... a difference, isn't it?
And no, it does not justify it ... I never said this!

But instead Russo-/ Pro Assad propaganda fairy tales want to let people believe, not the complete FSA and and isurgents are terrprists! Also fact!

Of course it is! it started as rebellion against Assad and changed to become a proxy war in different issues ... and one of this is Shia vs. Sunni or in other words. Saudi Arabia vs. Iran!

First of all ... my beloved El Saud???? Hello??? I criticized this bastards the same way as I do with Assad and as i do with the regime in Iran!

Sorry, the rest is nonsense! This election you mean was only a joke and worthless bullcrap. Anyone who tells that this election was, free democratic and so on can't be serious! THERE IS AND WAS AN ONGOING CIVIL WAR IN THE COUNTRY AND ASSAD DECIDED WHO CAN BE ELECTED AND WHO NOT!

It is very funny that you lead the ... sorry ... same crap of Assad who supports moderate people and he protects minorities like Christians etc. as Iran haters in the USA do with Shah in their hatred of the Mullahs!
Incidentally, this also applies to Saddam ... who also protects Christians ... so was Saddam in reality a good guy? Was the persian Shah a good guy ... and in reverse those who opposed him the bad guys too?

Dictators like Assad, the Shah, Saddam, the royal clan in Saudi Arabia all have the same recipe: they support minorities, give them privileges and thus make them supporters of the regime against the opposition, which mostly comes from the majority of the population. And you fall for this trick and list it as a per Assad argument. Wake up ...

Yep ... the list is long, because you list all the enemies of Assad he has and had since decades.
Those from the Balkans are almost unimportant because they only delivered the weapons from Warsaw Pact times available in their arsenals.
Qatar for example is well-known to have delivered weapons to IS and IS allies in Lybia ... and the biggest enemies of Assad are Israel and Turkey. Why Israel I must not tell for sure, but Tukey and Syria are since 50 years and more in "cold war" due to sevral issues .... of one is for example the silly daylight dream of Erdogan to re establish some sort of Ottoman Empire of once in region.

But don't put Assad into any inncent victim role ... his shirt is not white, but bloody red.

But in conclusion issue of Syria is an issue of Russia to sort out, because they are the "Big Daddy" here and so their task and no one else!

 

There is no real good or evil on any side in Syria... it is on all sides both.

 

Depends on how you define those terms, I suppose. Some of what you said in your post #65 about the conflict resonates with me. It sounds somewhat correct. Some of it, however, does not. The best synopsis of what the Syrian civil war was about (until recently), remains this one by Jeffery Sachs. The rest is just smokes and mirrors -- or more later issues that have arisen since the civil war began.

In any case, that Syrian civil war that Jeffery Sachs and I would have described has largely come to an end. The winner was Russia. While they helped defeat the anti-Assad forces, they managed to also undermine Iran's position in Syria in a substantial way. Syria today is pretty much a Russian client state -- something the Russo-Israeli oligarchs, Trump, the Israeli government, Turkey, and many others have decided is preferable to Iran.

On the other hand, if these forces had not all joined hands to undermine Iran in Syria, the regime in Syria (while still part of the axis of resistance to US/Israeli hegemony in the region, which itself is a good thing for everyone who realizes that hegemony and monopoly aren't good things) would have also worked to find a compromise with the genuine forces representing the people in Syria. Unlike Russia, which can prop up a dictatorship by overt military support, Iran ultimately needs grass routes support for any influence it hopes to exercise anywhere in the region.

What you have in Syria today are a group of military officers, trained by and beholden to the Russians, hold the firepower on the ground. The Russians hold sway over Syrian skies. Assad cooped up in his presidential palace, effectively in control only of Syria's 4th armored division commanded by his brother and some of his own palace guards. His country and its fate is otherwise in the hands of foreign powers, with Russia the deal maker deciding which parts of Syria can be compromised, which parts of its economy need to be exploited to 'repay' Russia for its involvement in Syria, which parts can be negotiated with other parties who need to be kept happy.

Historically, if there have been one group of countries which have basically fared worse than American vassal states, these have been Russian ones. Although, ultimately, what defines good to me is when people are free. Not free merely in the sense of copying and mimicking a foreign culture and its political dictates, which is the freedom that western political propaganda (seeking to push its own as 'sources of emulation' for the masses to follow) advocates. But free to reject it if they wish -- and build on their own cultural and political heritage instead. No pretense of any such freedom under the Russian yoke and only the pretense when under the American one.

 

You are simply wrong on many fronts.

1) The soldiers that did the fighting under the banner of FSA - were overwhelmingly Islamist Extremists.
2) You are correct that this was in part an El Saud/Iran proxy war - El Saud being on the side of the Islamist Hardliners - thus - by supporting "sticking up for" the rebels - you are sticking up for El Saud.

3) There is no comparison between El Saud and Syria of any significance - and I have posted the difference to you in previous threads have I not .. if not .. let me know and I will clarify the issue

4) International monitors were present during the election and deemed it legitimate - it is you who is spouting state sponsored propaganda put out by the anti Assad coalition.

When the Syrian Army took back the cities of Syria - they were treated as liberators - and for good reason. You seem to want to focus only on Assad - (a propaganda meme common among the MSM) - My concern is for the freedom loving people of Syria - who fought for Assad because the didn't want the Islamic nutjobs to take over.

5) Balkans are not unimportant .. and are wrong - The weapons left over from the war in Yugoslavia were transferred to Syria

6) You have failed to address the question of who the moderates were in this fight.

Obama's "Moderate Rebel Lie" was just that - a complete lie - a fabrication - that is demonstrably false six ways to Sunday.

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

Is Biden Lying ?

 

Well if the news is coming from the Idlib Turkish terrorist stronghold, and the casualties are reported by the British supported creation of the MI6; the White Helmets, then it has to be true.

BOO HOO!​

​

You fooled us once and fooled us twice,
and now you want to fool us thrice -
and that's not nice. - Jeannette​

 

Regarding whether the war in Syria was a "civil war" or not is largely irrelevant. Historically civil wars draw in surrounding nations and even some distant nations as well.

 

The allies deliberately bombed thousands of children during WWII.

 

But there is no meaningful distinction between Al Qaeda and its various splinter groups, branches, etc. Making those distinctions just muddies the waters and allows these groups to re-brand themselves at will. I refuse to play that game. As far as I'm concerned, they're AL QAEDA. That is who the Syrian government has been at war with for years now.

 

So? fully justified. The allies did not start the war. You start it you are responsible for all that transpires.

 

I'm sure the Syrian government feels the same way about the children they've harmed.

Yes, they did. France and Britain declared war on Germany.

Then Britain and France are responsible since they started the world war.

 

Only after Germany invaded Poland.