Which bit is ambiguous?Forget it, I should not have gotten into the discussion, simply a lot of your posts seem ambiguous to me, but probably I am biased for being practising catholic. Not a big fan of Saudi Arabia
This from just four days ago - Gulf Arabs 'stepping up' arms supplies to Syrian rebels http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34479929
The pertinent bit: "The well-placed official...said those groups being supplied did not include either Islamic State (IS) or al-Nusra Front, both of which are proscribed terrorist organisations. Instead, he said the weapons would go to three rebel alliances - Jaish al-Fatah (Army of Conquest), the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Southern Front."
And this is exactly how they are hood-winking the world. They claim they are not supporting Jabhat al-Nusra, however they are supporting Jaysh al-Fatah - which is a jihadist coalition that happens to be led by Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham!
I'm trying to find a non BBC source for this. All of the Eastern outlets quote and copy/paste the BBC article. Can you find anything?
This isn't exclusive. He has said time and time again that he won't go back until the Assad regime is gone. He left due to Assad snr.EXCLUSIVE: Man who runs Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) admits he last visited Syria 15 years ago.
https://www.rt.com/news/317813-sohr-visit-syria-long/
This isn't exclusive. He has said time and time again that he won't go back until the Assad regime is gone. He left due to Assad snr.
That's beside the point. This guy is someone western media has been constantly using as the main source of information on things happening on the ground in Syria and he hasn't even been there since the year 2000.
Your thoughts on Russian troops in Syria ?
syrian_scholes said:It's a fecking joke, they kept vetoing any intervention and now they send their troops, complete nonsense.
....I can't understand some of you here, the regime killed many of my friends and my friends family members, there's almost no sunni person in Syria who didn't have someone close to them killed by the regime, and yet some of you think syrian people should be okay with the regime staying, yes ISIS are really bad but the regime is worse, I know I said it a million times but it still hurt to this day that when we had a completely peacefull protest in our college that Alawitie students were hitting people(including myself) with electric sticks, one of whom was taking the same class as me and you just think we, and I mean sunni Syrians btw, should overlook everything and accept the regime staying.
Did you read the article you posted? He's admitted he hasn't been there, but he has a plethora of sources based in Syria.That's beside the point. This guy is someone western mass media has been constantly using as the main source of information on things happening on the ground in Syria and he hasn't even been there since the year 2000.
Did you read the article you posted? He's admitted he hasn't been there, but he has a plethora of sources based in Syria.
Doesn't explain why he's lying about Russian airstrikes killing 30 civilians. At 03:32.
Syria: Apparent Russian Airstrikes Kill Civilians
Residents Say No Military Target Near Where 17 Died
Languages
Available In
(New York) – Apparent Russian airstrikes on Talbiseh in northern Homs that killed at least 17 civilians should be investigated for possible violations of the laws of war. Two local media activists and two first responders said that the September 30, 2015 strikes hit a residential part of town at a distance from any apparent military targets and that no combatants were killed in the strike.
Russia announced the beginning of its airstrikes in Syria on September 30.
In addition to the strike on Talbiseh, local groups operating in northern Homs said that jets that they believed were Russian conducted strikes on the neighboring towns of Za`faraneh and Rastan, killing another reported 17 civilians. Northern Homs is controlled by various armed groups opposed to the government, including some groups affiliated with al-Nusra Front. Human Rights Watch is still gathering information about these two additional strikes. According to a report by Russia 24, a state-owned news channel, Talbiseh was one of several towns in Homs struck by Russian forces on September 30.
Now Syrian civilians may have to worry about Russian attacks even when they are in neighborhoods without apparent military targets. Russia’s priority should be to protect civilians in Syria and take all possible precautions to avoid harming them.
Nadim Houry
Deputy Middle East Director
“Now Syrian civilians may have to worry about Russian attacks even when they are in neighborhoods without apparent military targets,” said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East director. “Russia’s priority should be to protect civilians in Syria and take all possible precautions to avoid harming them.”
Local residents told Human Rights Watch that airstrikes hit the town of Talbiseh at about 10:30 a.m. on the day the Russians announced their offensive. A local teacher said a school and a post office were struck, killing civilians and causing severe damage. The post office building was not being used as a post office, but for baking and distributing bread in an area where the conflict has caused a food shortage, the local residents said.
Four local activists and first responders said that there were no military targets – such as fighters, bases, or weapons stocks – near the targeted area and that the closest front line was at least two kilometers away.
The three-story post office building was completely destroyed, residents said. Mostafa Wakeel, the head of the committee organizing the bread production, died in the strike.
Two first responders said that 17 civilians were killed, including at least 3 children and 4 women, and 72 wounded. They provided Human Rights Watch with a list of the dead. Human Rights Watch also reviewed videos taken by local activists showing four bodies in the aftermath of the attack.
“There were a lot of corpses,” said the head of Homs Civil Defense, Abdel Men`em Sateef:
The post office was completely destroyed. There were many victims, people dead. We tried to first help the victims who were still alive, the ones we could save. I saw a leg, just a leg. A man of 50 was wandering around asking about his son. One of our colleagues from the civil defense died while rescuing the victims. I personally carried nine bodies.
The Syria Civil Defense in Homs identified the rescuer who died as Abdul Lateef Duhaik, 18.
Russian officials did not issue any specific comments regarding the strike on Talbiseh. During a media briefing about the results of the first day of air operations, the official representative of the Russian Defense Ministry said, “In the vicinity of Talbiseh, the headquarters of terrorist groups of the same organization [ISIS] and the ammunition depot were destroyed by SU-24 hits.”
Two local activists told Human Rights Watch that they were certain that the strikes that killed civilians in Talbiseh were carried out by Russian planes. They said that the planes launched their weapons from higher altitudes than Syrian planes usually do and that they had been told by spotters who monitor communications that they heard Russian being used in communications with the cockpit of the jets flying over the area.
Under the laws of war all parties to armed conflicts are required to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians and direct attacks only at combatants. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. All parties must take all feasible precautions to avoid, and minimize, loss of civilian life and injury to civilians.
The strikes on Talbiseh are not the only reported Russian strikes that have killed civilians in Northern Homs on September 30. Local media activists and first responders also said that airstrikes hit the neighboring town of Za`faraneh at about 8:30 a.m. The local Syria Civil Defense reported that the Za`faraneh airstrikes killed 8 civilians and injured 36.
Airstrikes locally believed to be Russian also hit the town of Rastan in northern Homs, killing nine civilians according to the local Syria Civil Defense. Human Rights Watch is still conducting inquiries about these two attacks.
The Russian authorities should investigate credible allegations of violations of the laws of war and publish their findings, Human Rights Watch said. Russia should also take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians in future attacks.
“Reports of civilian casualties in its first strikes raise concerns that Russia is not taking sufficient precautions to avoid civilian casualties in Syria,” Houry said. “After enduring so much, the last thing Syrians need would be more indiscriminate attacks from the air.”
Doesn't explain why he's lying about Russian airstrikes killing 30 civilians. At 03:32.
This is Russian government funded propaganda. It has no credibility at all.
Doesn't explain why he's lying about Russian airstrikes killing 30 civilians. At 03:32.
These aren't facts. "Airstrikes locally believed to be Russian"."Human Rights Watch is still conducting inquiries about these two attacks."
You mean, like CNN?
I just watched this from 3.32. He's not lying. The Arabic version says Assad regime instead of Russian war planes (the English version says the same). It makes no mention of the 30 civilians figure, so I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.
There's a v strong probability they are Russian. Tbh, it'll be shown to be Russian in a couple of days anyway.
CNN isn't a government run and funded propaganda channel. Its a private corporation, one among many. RT is funded by the Russian government to advance Putin's policies and influence global audiences. Sadly Russia hasn't evolved much since the Soviet Union days in this regard.
Just because they're not government funded doesn't mean they're not being used as a propaganda tool.
The Russian government doesn't do well with truth or criticism, which is why it severely limits its own domestic press unless of course they are pro-Putin, in which case they can do as they please. This attack on the Observatory guy is just an information operation for them to control the narrative, instead of have it be defined by civil society and the media. Happens to work inside Russia where no one can fight back, but will fail spectacularly outside where the media and civil society can transparently report what they see.
There's a problem with a freedom of speech in the Russian mass media, but it's not as bad as you're trying to present. Basically, the system is: the smaller your audience is, the more freedom you've got. The biggest TV channels are to a large degree controlled by the government but there are plenty of smaller ones that are not a re quite critical of Putin and his politics.
You would have to live in a fanatical, jingoistic dictatorship to perceive CNN as propaganda. RT on the other hand is specifically funded and operated as a tool to influence international audiences towards Russian policy. They are light years apart.
So when they say "unnamed sources from the US government told us that four Russian missiles ended up in Iran" and before you know it, it's on every major news network out there, it's not being used as a propaganda tool?
So basically all the media, including much of social media is controlled by Putin. That can't be a very good thing in terms of freedom of information, debate, or the free exchange of ideas.
Sources can be unnamed when the information is being provided to a journalist. Its a standard protocol in journalism and is commonly used when a journalist wants to keep a source for future use without getting him/her in trouble because they weren't authorized to speak to the media.
Well, then the journalist should have enough integrity to admit afterwards that the information provided was wrong. We're talking about war here, which is a very serious issue, so whether you made it all up or your sources used you for propaganda purposes, it's still the same result.
So the Russians are hitting targets in villages and towns.... Only a matter of time before there is collateral damage right?
I'm sure that in a western context at least, if the information was proven not accurate, the news outlet would print a retraction.
How common is it? I think it only happens when they're threatened with a lawsuit and they know they have to do it.
Its probably already happened as it would be unrealistic to presume an air war would not also kill a percentage of women, children, and non-combatants. There's not much media or civil society in these areas to report it, so we may not know for a while since neither the Russians nor Assad are in any way incentivized to publicize information that doesn't make them look good.
What would be a realistic ratio of non-combatants to combatants under these circumstances? Any idea how well the Russians are doing compared with you lot?
I'm trying to find a non BBC source for this. All of the Eastern outlets quote and copy/paste the BBC article. Can you find anything?
It depends what their ROE are. If they are authorized to shoot into areas where civilians are then the numbers will obviously go up, and in most instances not be reported due to lack of journalists or civil society organizations on the ground. From what I understand they are taking targeting instructions from the Assad regime, who are then sending their ground elements to mop up after the air strikes. The fact that the regime has indiscriminately used barrel bombs to deal with rebels in the past, doesn't give me much confidence that they would instruct the Russians to mind their civilian casualties.
I doubt there are any credible reports regarding civilian casualties from your adventures in Syria, Assad coordinates or not. Do you reckon US bombings went better?
I do actually. First the US is much more experienced at doing this, as they have been at it for decades since the original Gulf War; have better technology and better trained and more experienced pilots, and yet they still make mistakes (see Kunduz). The US generally have a very tight ROE in terms of avoiding populated areas and going after softer targets like convoys, and using intelligence to hit safe houses and other more isolated locations. I'm sure the Russians are quite capable in terms of their pilots and planes, but you have to remember they are still novices in terms of experience and intelligence capabilities, and as an authoritarian state, have a lesser moral impetus to avoid civilian casualties.
Any numbers from credible sources on the ground?
I don't think there are hard numbers in either case, given the environment on the ground. I was referring to methods, experience, and ROE for both sides.
Like in Fallujah?I do actually. First the US is much more experienced at doing this, as they have been at it for decades since the original Gulf War; have better technology and better trained and more experienced pilots, and yet they still make mistakes (see Kunduz). The US generally have a very tight ROE in terms of avoiding populated areas and going after softer targets like convoys, and using intelligence to hit safe houses and other more isolated locations. I'm sure the Russians are quite capable in terms of their pilots and planes, but you have to remember they are still novices in terms of experience and intelligence capabilities, and as an authoritarian state, have a lesser moral impetus to avoid civilian casualties.
