ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Danny1982 said:
Eva Bartlett is an independent Canadian journalist. It's not a surprise that RT publishes some articles for her considering her views. She's not even affiliated with RT. Larry King also appeared on RT, you disregard everything he says immediately too? Besides, all media are biased, debate the news, not the source. Don't you claim they're merely spreading "fake news"? Give your view about the subject, and we'll let the time decide who was telling the truth and who was telling "fake news".
Click to expand...

Ehm... Not affiliated with RT? https://www.rt.com/op-edge/authors/eva-bartlett/

All media are biased, some more so than others. RT is financed by the Russian government, was started by two men close to Putin, clearly has a pro-Russian agenda and considering Russia is actively responsible for death and misery in Aleppo, any journalist on RT payroll is not reliable at all. I trust established Western newspapers more than I do RT or RT:s Eva Bartlett, for good reason. Freedom of speech in Russia ranks very, very low - lower than all countries in the EU. Established Western media clearly is more reliable and more diverse in its reporting than RT.

No side in this conflict is without civilian blood on its hands. In Aleppo, Russia, Iran and al-Assad are guilty of a massacre of civilians - regardless of what other militant groups have done to "justify" this.
 
Last edited:
DenisIrwin said:
Click to expand...


As a sidenote I find it strange that AQ, ISIS or one of the others never has attempted anything in Israel, you'd think that would be quite the prize for them.

Then again security is on a whole different level there as compared to Europe, and even USA.
 
SwansonsTache said:
As a sidenote I find it strange that AQ, ISIS or one of the others never has attempted anything in Israel, you'd think that would be quite the prize for them.

Then again security is on a whole different level there as compared to Europe, and even USA.
Click to expand...

Would all the bombings and suicide attacks of the second intifada not count?
 
2cents said:
Would all the bombings and suicide attacks of the second intifada not count?
Click to expand...

Was that AQ affiliated groups? I thought it was independent Palestinian groups.

For all I know they might have sworn allegiance to AQ, but somehow I doubt it since that would hurt their PR game in the West.
 
SwansonsTache said:
Was that AQ affiliated groups? I thought it was independent Palestinian groups.

For all I know they might have sworn allegiance to AQ, but somehow I doubt it since that would hurt their PR game in the West.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry I get you, you meant the transnational type jihadis. Yeah I guess the answer is that Islamism among the Palestinians is dominated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, there's very little space for Salafi types to operate, although they have a small presence in Gaza. But the group that became the IS wilayat in Sinai has attacked Israel across that border previously, and the IDF exchanged a few rounds with an IS affiliate on the Holman a week or two ago. But yeah, good luck to any lone wolf foreign jihadi getting through security at Ben Gurion these days.
 
antihenry said:
Russian Sappers Discover US-Made Weapons in Aleppo in Militant Arms Cache.

https://southfront.org/russian-sapp...s-in-terrorists-headquarters-in-aleppo-video/
Click to expand...

Once again, do some research one your sources (such as southfront.org). If difficult, please follow this method:

1) Does the site in question publish news critical of both sides in the war? No, I cannot find any articles critical of Russia or al-Assad. WARNING - site likely to contain desinformation.
2) Has the site in question received criticism from other media regarding its objectivity? Yes, from a Finnish journalist working for YLE, the Finnish BBC equivalent, from a Finland with exceptional levels of freedom of speech and which is not part in the Syria war. WARNING - there could at least be reason to do further research on southfront.org.
3) Is the site affiliated with credible or dodgy partners? Dodgy. One of the partners is Canadian "Centre for Global Research", run by Michel Chossudovsky, famous conspiracy theorist and pro-Putinist who likes to appear on Iranian state TV. Another partner is "Veterans Today", anti-semitic pro-Putin site which is also famous for spreading conspiracy theories and only publishing pro-Putin news. WARNING - The site is affiliated with other propaganda tools. Why would any serious site do that?

Conclusion: Do not be stupid. What you posted may be true, but double check it with a credible source first which is neither pro-Putin nor stupidly pro-American. There are tons of such sources. Check them against each other and do not spread fake news. You are spreading the propaganda of mass murdering dictators.
 
Nedved said:
Once again, do some research one your sources (such as southfront.org). If difficult, please follow this method:

1) Does the site in question publish news critical of both sides in the war? No, I cannot find any articles critical of Russia or al-Assad. WARNING - site likely to contain desinformation.
2) Has the site in question received criticism from other media regarding its objectivity? Yes, from a Finnish journalist working for YLE, the Finnish BBC equivalent, in a with exceptional levels of freedom of speech in a country which is not part in the Syria war. WARNING - there could at least be reason to do further research on southfront.org.
3) Is the site affiliated with credible or dodgy partners? Dodgy. One of the partners is Canadian "Centre for Global Research", run by Michel Chossudovsky, famous conspiracy theorist and pro-Putinist who likes to appear on Iranian state TV. Another partner is "Veterans Today", anti-semitic pro-Putin site which is also famous for spreading conspiracy theories and only publishing pro-Putin news. WARNING - The site is affiliated with other propaganda tools. Why would any serious site do that?

Conclusion: Do not be stupid. What you posted may be true, but double check it with a credible source first which is neither pro-Putin nor stupidly pro-American. There are tons of such sources. Check them against each other and do not spread fake news. You are spreading the propaganda of mass murdering dictators.
Click to expand...

Here's a conclusion for you: stop telling people what they should or shouldn't post. Some of the biggest MSM sources from the US and Europe have been spreading lies about the real situation in Syria for years. They have been blatantly anti-Assad and pro-moderates, and by "moderates" I mean Al-Nusra and other Al Quaeda branches. Why whould one trust them? Because they have more money and coverage and have more ways to influence the western society? There's no such thing as journalism anymore, there used to be a few decades ago, but it doesn't exist anymore.

Everybody's biased. I will read and watch whatever sources I deem good enough and I will decide what I believe. Sometimes it's NY Times, sometimes it's Al Jazeera and at times it's Russia Today. Doesn't mean I'll believe whatever they report 100% but if you pick your information from one group of media sources and dismiss everything else then you'll never know the full story.

As far as spreading the propaganda of mass murdering dictators I'd like to remind you of the American MSM and their role in what became the Iraq invasion and all the horrible consequences of that disaster. Just one example.
 
antihenry said:
This is more entertaining than any reality show out there.

Erdogan says he has evidence US-led coalition has given support to Isis.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...us-coalition-support-terrorists-a7497841.html
Click to expand...

There is literally nothing entertaining or funny about any of this.

The fact that people, especially with no real ball in this game, cheerlead from the sides, while posting article after article from their own biased sources and refusing to accept the scum on their 'own side' , is genuinely despicable.
 
antihenry said:
Here's a conclusion for you: stop telling people what they should or shouldn't post. Some of the biggest MSM sources from the US and Europe have been spreading lies about the real situation in Syria for years. They have been blatantly anti-Assad and pro-moderates, and by "moderates" I mean Al-Nusra and other Al Quaeda branches. Why whould one trust them? Because they have more money and coverage and have more ways to influence the western society? There's no such thing as journalism anymore, there used to be a few decades ago, but it doesn't exist anymore.

Everybody's biased. I will read and watch whatever sources I deem good enough and I will decide what I believe. Sometimes it's NY Times, sometimes it's Al Jazeera and at times it's Russia Today. Doesn't mean I'll believe whatever they report 100% but if you pick your information from one group of media sources and dismiss everything else then you'll never know the full story.

As far as spreading the propaganda of mass murdering dictators I'd like to remind you of the American MSM and their role in what became the Iraq invasion and all the horrible consequences of that disaster. Just one example.
Click to expand...

You've just completely ignored his post and gone off on a convenient straw man. He didn't say to stop reading that source. He didn't say that you should blindly accept the western msm. He didn't say only read and believe one source.

Did that poster write and then spread propaganda about the Iraq war? I don't know and I'm guessing neither do you.

Is it that difficult for people to acknowledge they've made a mistake, say so and move on? Ir does everything have to be point scoring and refusing to answer the points made by the other person?
 
antihenry said:
Here's a conclusion for you: stop telling people what they should or shouldn't post. Some of the biggest MSM sources from the US and Europe have been spreading lies about the real situation in Syria for years. They have been blatantly anti-Assad and pro-moderates, and by "moderates" I mean Al-Nusra and other Al Quaeda branches. Why whould one trust them? Because they have more money and coverage and have more ways to influence the western society? There's no such thing as journalism anymore, there used to be a few decades ago, but it doesn't exist anymore.

Everybody's biased. I will read and watch whatever sources I deem good enough and I will decide what I believe. Sometimes it's NY Times, sometimes it's Al Jazeera and at times it's Russia Today. Doesn't mean I'll believe whatever they report 100% but if you pick your information from one group of media sources and dismiss everything else then you'll never know the full story.

As far as spreading the propaganda of mass murdering dictators I'd like to remind you of the American MSM and their role in what became the Iraq invasion and all the horrible consequences of that disaster. Just one example.
Click to expand...

You are justifying the spread of pro-Putin propaganda by saying that American massmedia is biased. Yes, all are biased, but some more than others. Judging by your logic, neither pro-Putin sites nor American massmedia should be cited, yet you choose to publish what is quite likely Russian desinformation (see my method). Do you seriously believe that poor little Putin does not have money or resources to spread his message across, and why are you helping him do so?

None of the Western newspapers (I am not American) I read are pro Al-Nusra or Al-Qaida, quite the opposite. All are critical of Putin, al-Assad, Islamist extremism and US actions and non-actions in Syria. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If journalism is dead, a claim which I do not agree with nor understand, desinformation of the sort you posted has helped kill it.

Post links to whatever sites you like, read them, enjoy them, but prepare yourself for us to disregard those sources when clearly dubious.
 
africanspur said:
You've just completely ignored his post and gone off on a convenient straw man. He didn't say to stop reading that source. He didn't say that you should blindly accept the western msm. He didn't say only read and believe one source.

Did that poster write and then spread propaganda about the Iraq war? I don't know and I'm guessing neither do you.

Is it that difficult for people to acknowledge they've made a mistake, say so and move on? Ir does everything have to be point scoring and refusing to answer the points made by the other person?
Click to expand...

What are you on about? What mistake? I posted an article about Russian sappers finding a cache of US-made weapons in Aleppo. There are other sources for that but they're in Russian so I posted the one in English. Do you have any proof that it's not true?

africanspur said:
There is literally nothing entertaining or funny about any of this.

The fact that people, especially with no real ball in this game, cheerlead from the sides, while posting article after article from their own biased sources and refusing to accept the scum on their 'own side' , is genuinely despicable.
Click to expand...

I found it entertaining because it was Erdogan who was accused on many occasions in the past (by Russians, among others) of having ties to ISIS.

And my country (Russia) has a ball in this game, as you put it, and our military have suffered losses there, too. There are also thousands of Russian citizens fighting in various Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliated groups and there's a serious risk of them coming back home and spreading terror here. In fact, the Northern Caucasus part of Russia where most of these fighters are originally from is a place where terrirorist activities are especially common.

As far as biased sources go, vast majority of the articles I post on this thread come from the sources that are considered quite credible in the West, such as Deutsche Welle, Independent, BBC, NY Times, etc. so you're wrong again.
 
Last edited:
antihenry said:
What are you on about? What mistake? I posted an article about Russian sappers finding a cache of US-made weapons in Aleppo. There are other sources for that but they're in Russian so I posted the one in English. Do you have any proof that it's not true?



I found it entertaining because it was Erdogan who was accused on many occasions in the past (by Russians, among others) of having ties to ISIS.

And my country (Russia) has a ball in this game, as you put it, and our militaryhave suffered losses there, too. There are also thousands of Russian citizens fighting in various Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliated groups and there's a serious risk of them coming back home and spreading terror here. In fact, the Northern Caucasus part of Russia where most of these fighters are originally from is a place where terrirorist activities are especially common.

As far as biased sources go, vast majority of the articles I post on this thread come from the sources that are considered quite credible in the West, such as Deutsche Welle, Independent, BBC, NY Times, etc. so you're wrong again.
Click to expand...

Any proof that it's not true? I never made a comment about that specific article or that specific point. I was talking in general terms, about how people approach this conflict or indeed any conflict/ discussion on this board.

Also, just for future reference, asking someone whether they have evidence that something is not true is preposterous. I could for example claim that Switzerland has a unit in Syria. Or that Ghana started this war. I would imagine that you would find it difficult to 'prove that it's not true' despite it clearly being so.

That is irrelevant. How can you find any aspect of a war which has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions amusing or entertaining? Have you ever lived through war antihenry? Actually lived through it? Because if you haven't, I assure you there is nothing entertaining about it, especially when kind civil war.

No, Russia do not have a ball in this game, not in the same way a Christian family from aleppo or a sunni family from homs might. You inserted yourself into the conflict, just as many others have done, on both sides. You can similarly remove yourself from the conflict. The Syrians can not. How can you think that's the same?

Again, you've taken it as a personal insult which is quite entertaining because I was making a general point about somebody finding anything in a brutal civil war 'entertaining'. I couldn't care less what sources you or those more sympathetic to the rebels have posted and whether they're credible in Western media , Russian media, Chinese media, Arab media ot whatever.

The point is that you all post sources that simply back up your own point of view. I don't think for the most part it's really because you (general you) care about Syria or Syrians but because it means 'you're right'. So that can involve you posting a nyt article or someone on the other side posting an rt article (for example). But I've seen very few people posy articles saying 'yes I believe the rebels are terrorist scum but my god assad attacks civilians in an indiscriminate way doesn't he?'. Or 'yes I want assad toppled but the rebels seem to be mostly comprised of jihadi groups with no respect for minorities'
 
Nedved said:
You are justifying the spread of pro-Putin propaganda by saying that American massmedia is biased. Yes, all are biased, but some more than others. Judging by your logic, neither pro-Putin sites nor American massmedia should be cited, yet you choose to publish what is quite likely Russian desinformation (see my method). Do you seriously believe that poor little Putin does not have money or resources to spread his message across, and why are you helping him do so?

None of the Western newspapers (I am not American) I read are pro Al-Nusra or Al-Qaida, quite the opposite. All are critical of Putin, al-Assad, Islamist extremism and US actions and non-actions in Syria. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If journalism is dead, a claim which I do not agree with nor understand, desinformation of the sort you posted has helped kill it.

Post links to whatever sites you like, read them, enjoy them, but prepare yourself for us to disregard those sources when clearly dubious.
Click to expand...

These are my posts over the last few weeks on this thread with references to various western MSM. Are they all manipulated by Putin? By the way, as far as I can remember I only posted a link to Russia Today once, it was to do with SOHR and that Syrian guy who lives in Coventry and is the source of most news about Syrian conflict for the western media.
I don't post here links in Russian that I browse on a regular basis for obvious reasons and don't use RT in my posts, not because they're always wrong but rather because I know I'll be accused of bias.

Independent
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-201#post-20234505
Deutsche Welle
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-201#post-20235642
BBC
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-198#post-20198684
NY Times
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-188#post-20054100
 
antihenry said:
These are my posts over the last few weeks on this thread with references to various western MSM. Are they all manipulated by Putin? By the way, as far as I can remember I only posted a link to Russia Today once, it was to do with SOHR and that Syrian guy who lives in Coventry and is the source of most news about Syrian conflict for the western media.
I don't post here links in Russian that I browse on a regular basis for obvious reasons and don't use RT in my posts, not because they're always wrong but rather because I know I'll be accused of bias.

Independent
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-201#post-20234505
Deutsche Welle
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-201#post-20235642
BBC
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-198#post-20198684
NY Times
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-188#post-20054100
Click to expand...

Very good, you read media from all over the world. It doesn't change the fact that southfront.org is very, very unreliable due to its choice of publications and its dodgy connections. The sources you mention in your post have been highly critical of the US invading Iraq 2003 and of US actions in Syria. Southfront.org or Russia Today is pretty much never critical of Russia in issues that matter.

Look. I was born in the Soviet. I have Middle Eastern origin. I am familiar, and sympathize with, both your home country and the war regions. I am neither pro-USA nor pro-Russia. Both countries have been guilty, directly or indirectly, of the death and misery of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in Iraq and Syria. Russia is working closely together with two of the most oppressive regimes in the world - al-Assad's and the Ayatollahs'. This trio is currently guilty of mass murder in Aleppo according to all of the world's sources that I can read with the exception of Russian media, Iranian media or Syrian state media. The media of those countries is neither free nor disconnected from the state. The US is also guilty through its ties to the dictatorship of dictatorships Saudi Arabia and militant opposition who are also committing crimes of war.

My only point was that southfront.org appears to be a desinformation site. It serves no purpose using them as a source. Its credibility is about as high as a random Red Cafe poster's opinions on Liverpool or vice versa.
 
africanspur said:
Any proof that it's not true? I never made a comment about that specific article or that specific point. I was talking in general terms, about how people approach this conflict or indeed any conflict/ discussion on this board.

Also, just for future reference, asking someone whether they have evidence that something is not true is preposterous. I could for example claim that Switzerland has a unit in Syria. Or that Ghana started this war. I would imagine that you would find it difficult to 'prove that it's not true' despite it clearly being so.

That is irrelevant. How can you find any aspect of a war which has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions amusing or entertaining? Have you ever lived through war antihenry? Actually lived through it? Because if you haven't, I assure you there is nothing entertaining about it, especially when kind civil war.

No, Russia do not have a ball in this game, not in the same way a Christian family from aleppo or a sunni family from homs might. You inserted yourself into the conflict, just as many others have done, on both sides. You can similarly remove yourself from the conflict. The Syrians can not. How can you think that's the same?

Again, you've taken it as a personal insult which is quite entertaining because I was making a general point about somebody finding anything in a brutal civil war 'entertaining'. I couldn't care less what sources you or those more sympathetic to the rebels have posted and whether they're credible in Western media , Russian media, Chinese media, Arab media ot whatever.

The point is that you all post sources that simply back up your own point of view. I don't think for the most part it's really because you (general you) care about Syria or Syrians but because it means 'you're right'. So that can involve you posting a nyt article or someone on the other side posting an rt article (for example). But I've seen very few people posy articles saying 'yes I believe the rebels are terrorist scum but my god assad attacks civilians in an indiscriminate way doesn't he?'. Or 'yes I want assad toppled but the rebels seem to be mostly comprised of jihadi groups with no respect for minorities'
Click to expand...

I've lived through war and I know there's nothing entertaining about it so I don't need your lecturing on the subject.

Yes, genius, I do post articles that back my point of view. Doesn't everybody? I care enough about Syrians that I support what Russian military is doing there and the humanitarian aid that pours from Russia which gets almost no coverage in the western MSM unlike the non-stop crocodile tears about the plight of the citizens of Aleppo. It's my country's doing so it comes out of my pocket and my countrymen do their part in protecting thousands of Syrians from terrorists.
 
antihenry said:
I've lived through war and I know there's nothing entertaining about it so I don't need your lecturing on the subject.

Yes, genius, I do post articles that back my point of view. Doesn't everybody? I care enough about Syrians that I support what Russian military is doing there and the humanitarian aid that pours from Russia which gets almost no coverage in the western MSM unlike the non-stop crocodile tears about the plight of the citizens of Aleppo. It's my country's doing so it comes out of my pocket and my countrymen do their part in protecting thousands of Syrians from terrorists.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say the people of Aleppo haven't suffered? Have you seen the destruction taken place there? People killed from the Russian bombs? Infrastructure destroyed? Hospitals destroyed? schools destroyed? Peoples homes destroyed? People forced to leave their homes while Russian aligned militias loot their possessions once they are gone?

So Russia bomb the country back into the stone ages then give aid, don't deserve any credit for that. You are very critical of US destruction in Iraq, why can't you call out the same for your own country, can't you see it gives you no credibility? it just makes you a hypocrite.
 
All arguments over bias aside, it's hardly a shocking or unbelievable story that US weapons should be found in East Aleppo is it? Not only is it a matter of record that the US has armed groups in that particular region which have subsequently been defeated by or allied themselves to Jabhat al-Nusra, the now infamous Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement is (or was?) an officially vetted recipient of US and Saudi arms and training, and played a major role alongside Nusra during the last stages of the siege.
 
2mufc0 said:
Are you trying to say the people of Aleppo haven't suffered? Have you seen the destruction taken place there? People killed from the Russian bombs? Infrastructure destroyed? Hospitals destroyed? schools destroyed? Peoples homes destroyed? People forced to leave their homes while Russian aligned militias loot their possessions once they are gone?

So Russia bomb the country back into the stone ages then give aid, don't deserve any credit for that. You are very critical of US destruction in Iraq, why can't you call out the same for your own country, can't you see it gives you no credibility? it just makes you a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

There would be no need for bombing if the so-called rebels left the city and there were given many chances to do so. The civlian deaths could have been prevented if they allowed the residents to leave but they kept them as a human shield and on a number of occasions shot at those who tried to flee. There are literally thousands of fighters that were allowed to leave Aleppo and other places for Idlib along with their families and thousands of others that laid down arms after the peace talks brokered by the Russians over the last few months. Where there was a chance at peaceful resolution, it was taken.

All wars are death and destruction, this one is no different. I'm sure Russians' bombing caused casualties among the local population and it's terrible. Just as I'm sure that some of those schools and hospitals may have been used by the rebels as strongholds. How about the fact that a large part of eastern Aleppo residents fled to the government held western part when the "revolution" happened? Why would they do that, leave their homes and run into the arms of a horrible dictator, away from those bringing them freedom? What about the atrocities committed by the moderates? How many times the moderate rebels shelled the western part of the city, killing civilians? Here's one example, that was during a 16 days' period of truce when Russians haven't used combat aircraft in Aleppo on Putin's orders. According to Shoigu (Russian Minister of Defence) “over 2,000 so-called moderate opposition members carried out attacks on residential areas, schools and hospitals with the support of 22 tanks, 15 IFVs, multiple launch rocket systems and eight vehicles with suicide bombers.” What a nce bunch of freedom fighters.
 
When it comes down to who to believe, I tend to believe what Syrians on both sides say more than outsiders with a vested interest in one side or the other.

I do believe the wikileaks stuff about the US machinations behind the scenes in the lead up to the revolt. That colours my views on reports of Robert Ford's movements and meetings with key people behind the revolt, and reports of him being pelted with rotten vegetables by loyal Syrians leading to his being recalled to Washington over fears for his safety.
 
Last edited:
antihenry said:
There would be no need for bombing if the so-called rebels left the city and there were given many chances to do so. The civlian deaths could have been prevented if they allowed the residents to leave but they kept them as a human shield and on a number of occasions shot at those who tried to flee. There are literally thousands of fighters that were allowed to leave Aleppo and other places for Idlib along with their families and thousands of others that laid down arms after the peace talks brokered by the Russians over the last few months. Where there was a chance at peaceful resolution, it was taken.

All wars are death and destruction, this one is no different. I'm sure Russians' bombing caused casualties among the local population and it's terrible. Just as I'm sure that some of those schools and hospitals may have been used by the rebels as strongholds. How about the fact that a large part of eastern Aleppo residents fled to the government held western part when the "revolution" happened? Why would they do that, leave their homes and run into the arms of a horrible dictator, away from those bringing them freedom? What about the atrocities committed by the moderates? How many times the moderate rebels shelled the western part of the city, killing civilians? Here's one example, that was during a 16 days' period of truce when Russians haven't used combat aircraft in Aleppo on Putin's orders. According to Shoigu (Russian Minister of Defence) “over 2,000 so-called moderate opposition members carried out attacks on residential areas, schools and hospitals with the support of 22 tanks, 15 IFVs, multiple launch rocket systems and eight vehicles with suicide bombers.” What a nce bunch of freedom fighters.
Click to expand...
It's the rebels' fault that the Russians and Assad deliberately targeted hospitals and schools?

Just stop. Seriously.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
It's the rebels' fault that the Russians and Assad deliberately targeted hospitals and schools?

Just stop. Seriously.
Click to expand...

True... though after raining white phosphorus in falluja or targeting errors such as sending a cruise missile into the Chinese embasy it difficult for "the west" to look like anything other than hypocrites when we talk about the atrocities... you can argue degrees but in truth if we had boots on the ground I suspect we would have caused a lot of "collateral damage" as well
 
Organic Potatoes said:
It's the rebels' fault that the Russians and Assad deliberately targeted hospitals and schools?

Just stop. Seriously.
Click to expand...
Do you believe they were functioning hospitals and schools when they were attacked? I find it hard to believe that Syrian Army personnel, many of whom would have had kin in East Aleppo, would have deliberately done so if Syrian civilian patients and school-children were endangered. It's much easier for me to believe that they were being used deliberately by armed terrorists fighting against the Syrian and Russian forces. Why would I believe that? Because I've seen footage and photos showing them fortified with tyres and sandbags, stocked with a massive stockpile of weapons, and containing the corpses of tortured, mutilated and executed civilians. You choose what you want to believe and I'll do the same.
 
This hospital discussion reminds me of the one that took place when Israel hit a hospital in either Gaza or the West Bank this past summer. The IDF claimed rockets were being launched from the hospital grounds. The other side claimed this was not true.
 
sun_tzu said:
True... though after raining white phosphorus in falluja or targeting errors such as sending a cruise missile into the Chinese embasy it difficult for "the west" to look like anything other than hypocrites when we talk about the atrocities... you can argue degrees but in truth if we had boots on the ground I suspect we would have caused a lot of "collateral damage" as well
Click to expand...

I've been highly critical of all sides sides in this conflict. Criticising one faction does not amount to defending another. This points scoring like this war is some sort of political competition is bullshit.

And it was the depleted uranium rounds which are causing birth defects that is the real legacy of Fallujah, not that anyone ever talks about it...
DenisIrwin said:
Do you believe they were functioning hospitals and schools when they were attacked? I find it hard to believe that Syrian Army personnel, many of whom would have had kin in East Aleppo, would have deliberately done so if Syrian civilian patients and school-children were endangered. It's much easier for me to believe that they were being used deliberately by armed terrorists fighting against the Syrian and Russian forces. Why would I believe that? Because I've seen footage and photos showing them fortified with tyres and sandbags, stocked with a massive stockpile of weapons, and containing the corpses of tortured, mutilated and executed civilians. You choose what you want to believe and I'll do the same.
Click to expand...
That sounds rational, were it not for the fact that they've already been doing it for years.

It's not about belief; it's about facts, and acknowledging what's actually happened.
 
It's interesting that during the course of the Syrian war the Axis of Resistance (the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance) and their supporters have wholly adopted the rhetoric and discourse of the War on Terror which, during the 2000s, was primarily used to target them.
 
sun_tzu said:
True... though after raining white phosphorus in falluja or targeting errors such as sending a cruise missile into the Chinese embasy it difficult for "the west" to look like anything other than hypocrites when we talk about the atrocities... you can argue degrees but in truth if we had boots on the ground I suspect we would have caused a lot of "collateral damage" as well
Click to expand...

So basically we go with that nobody can be critical of atrocities then. Something wrong is wrong regardless of whether others have done similar things. And to say nobody from the west can be critical of such things is just silly. Because then it means nobody from China or Russia or Japan or pretty much anyplace else in the world has a right to stand up against wrongs. Heck considering the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein then nobody in Iraq has a right to complain about any atrocities then right?
 
JustAFan said:
So basically we go with that nobody can be critical of atrocities then. Something wrong is wrong regardless of whether others have done similar things. And to say nobody from the west can be critical of such things is just silly. Because then it means nobody from China or Russia or Japan or pretty much anyplace else in the world has a right to stand up against wrongs. Heck considering the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein then nobody in Iraq has a right to complain about any atrocities then right?
Click to expand...
No it just means that until we acknowledge our own we look like hypocrites
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I've been highly critical of all sides sides in this conflict. Criticising one faction does not amount to defending another. This points scoring like this war is some sort of political competition is bullshit.

And it was the depleted uranium rounds which are causing birth defects that is the real legacy of Fallujah, not that anyone ever talks about it...

That sounds rational, were it not for the fact that they've already been doing it for years.

It's not about belief; it's about facts, and acknowledging what's actually happened.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, this fighting will all be over one day. We'll then see claim and counter-claim backed up by evidence and testimony. It's doubtful even then whether the "facts" will fully emerge.
 
sun_tzu said:
No it just means that until we acknowledge our own we look like hypocrites
Click to expand...

So then we have to ask each person who posts in the CE whether they acknowledge the wrongs committed by their government past and present before allowing them to complain about those of any other government. So essentially unless everyone say in the US admits to everything wrong the US has ever done then nobody in the US can ever point out that some other country is doing wrong? And if they do the country doing wrong can just shrug it off and say "Yeah well you did this, so you have no right to call what I do wrong" So anyone complaining about things the US does is also probably a hypocrite and should just STFU.
 
DenisIrwin said:
Hopefully, this fighting will all be over one day. We'll then see claim and counter-claim backed up by evidence and testimony. It's doubtful even then whether the "facts" will fully emerge.
Click to expand...
The 'fact' is that all sides have the blood of countless civilians on their hands. If you're not willing to acknowledge that, then there is no point in this debate.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
The 'fact' is that all sides have the blood of countless civilians on their hands. If you're not willing to acknowledge that, then there is no point in this debate.
Click to expand...
That's never been questioned, has it? It's a bad situation, for sure. There have been deliberate murders and there have been 'friendly fire' accidents. None of us know the truth. I'm sure even you must agree that the line spun by our western governments and mass media has been exposed for the load of bullshit it is though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.