Support NeoGAF

[TarNaru33]

You ever get tired of defending Western imperialism with garbage logic?

"Let's kill 100 civilians for two snipers. It's just pragmatic collateral damage you stupid bleeding hearts!"

Ever actually read what my post says and thought about responding with logic?

The post you quoted is all factually correct. As I said before, a person can and should criticize U.S for these acts that cause the deaths of innocent people, but once you start comparing the now U.S to Russia, Syria, or ISIS then you lose all respect and basis for your argument to me.

You're minimising the effects that foreign policy has had on the region as a whole. I also object to you saying that it will continue to be that way "until those places become developed countries... when they start thinking of themselves as a country and benefit one another rather than just one group of people in the country."

It's a rather narrow-minded way of looking at it, especially when we're considering a number of nations here. If we consider Syria or even Libya just a decade ago, whilst these countries had deep issues, especially the case of Libya, the problems here weren't the same problems places that places like Afghanistan had. Iraq too had its own set of problems, a common theme no doubt but countries with larger tribal areas are a little hard to bring into a 'developed' world.

It's rather dismissive to point out that secularism is the answer for governments when we know how the US tried to shape Iran with Pahlavi. Or even before with other governments in the region. Afghanistan has been completely decimated and it's a country that has had real trouble developing since the decade-long war against the Mujahideen. Here we had the Soviet invasion of the country. Then, just 12 years later was the US invasion of Afghanistan. There are entire generations who have only known war and loss. These are countries that actually haven't had the opportunity to develop.

The fact is, all of these countries play a strategic role and have access to a lot of natural resources. Oil specifically, and you're not in the wrong for identifying that. But because of this very fact, and outside pressures and influence such as the West have truly put the region into turmoil. Afghanistan and Iraq in particular. Syria and Libya are different animals, but all of them are suffering in part due to Western Intervention. At least, the kind that tries to solve the issues with a hammer. Smashing things up and hoping you've got something working at the end isn't a good strategy. Consider Libya and the transitional phase thrown out during the protests. Consider the rejection of the Russian-led peace deal in 2012 for Syria. It's failure after failure, and what we end up with is a monster like ISIS festering and seizing the opportunity to extend its hand.

These places will not stop being terrorist havens until they stop seeing each other as different groups in the pool to the extent that they do. I am also aware that foreign influence (particularly from the west) is a very large factor in the turmoil of the Middle-East, same goes for Africa, that is partly why we should go full on into moving to different resources. Unfortunately Africa will become the next spot due to minerals.

I am with you in that military intervention isn't always the key. The only nations I believe need military intervention in the Middle-East is Syria and Afghanistan, the rest could be helped along in other ways. As the world becomes more intertwined it is possible that nations would act like U.S states in helping the weaker nations out via economic and social programs and militarily only when necessary.

That post definitely minimizes the greater issue and I do apologize for that, though when I mentioned terrorism, I wasn't talking about just "Islamic terrorism". It won't end because it is seen as the most "efficient" way of getting their way when the other side have too much power. The only other way is the slow way of getting into politics and pushing it through, a path terrorist finds too slow and unrewarding because it typically means compromise. Until the solutions are put through, which I do not see happening for a long time, because U.S and other countries want to keep or even increase their status as world powers to the detriment of smaller nations.

 

[Skyzard]

You are being to conspiratorial, the only reason ISIS wants a "piece of Syria" (and that isn't all they want btw), is because of how successful they were in Iraq and Syria is unstable and torn by civil war. That is the only reason ISIS managed to and decided to go so far.

Civil war is a reason for them having some success in Syria, that's it.

It doesn't change anything else about the suspicious Isis actions and publicity I mentioned, and how it lines up very conveniently with US foreign policy goals of bases in Iraq and trying to topple Assad before any of this began.

And do you have a source on Russia being "factually worse" than the US?

Because: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html

And then besides Syria: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, their support for the Yemen invasion. I find that very hard to believe.

You're downplaying this immensely.

 

[fade_]

Actually this isn't the reason it won't end. It won't end because terrorism is the best way to get at powerful governments with very powerful military, not because we blow up some civilians (as harsh as it might sound).

Until those places become developed countries and separate their religion with how government should run to at least like U.S, terrorism will always be there. That or the shift from oil as a major global resource and when I say global I mean global. U.S alone transitioning from oil won't stop the Middle-East being such a strategic area in the world.

What if I told you that powerful governments blowing up civlians is hindering those places from becoming developed countries.

 

[Raiden]

Oh, so thats why Isis is able to recruit. They recruit the orphans and the widows.


I thought it was just bad muslims and bad islam.


Jezus, when will they learn.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Civil war is a reason for them having some success in Syria, that's it.

It doesn't change anything else.

Do you have a source on Russia being "factually worse" than the US?

Because: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html

And then besides Syria: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, their support for the Yemen invasion.

You're downplaying this immensely.

Obviously American imperialism is horrific and unforgivable. And in a way every civilian death in Syria is America's fault since they were the ones who destabilised the entire region for fucked up domestic politics reasons.

This isn't about forgiving or excusing what the Americans have done. The world knows what the Americans have done and judges them accordingly. This is about young underinformed leftists on the Internet who think that American crimes somehow justify supporting America's enemies, cheering on brutal murderous dictators because opposition to the US, for them, trumps everything else. That's a sophomoric, ahistorical, shortsighted, vicious, unimaginative, gullible worldview.

 

[Skyzard]

Obviously American imperialism is horrific and unforgivable. And in a way every civilian death in Syria is America's fault since they were the ones who destabilised the entire region for fucked up domestic politics reasons.

This isn't about forgiving or excusing what the Americans have done. The world knows what the Americans have done and judges them accordingly. This is about young underinformed leftists on the Internet who think that American crimes somehow justify supporting America's enemies, cheering on brutal murderous dictators because opposition to the US, for them, trumps everything else. That's a sophomoric, ahistorical, shortsighted, vicious, unimaginative, gullible worldview.

US has made the entire middle-east a complete shit show of death, destruction and misery - for decades. They're an enemy to Arabs and the enemy of my enemy is becoming my friend.

And no, I don't think the world knows just how much America has done. I don't think anyone does, other than perhaps intelligence communities.

 

[reckless]

Civil war is a reason for them having some success in Syria, that's it.

It doesn't change anything else about the suspicious Isis actions and publicity I mentioned, and how it lines up very conveniently with US foreign policy goals of bases in Iraq and trying to topple Assad before any of this began.

And do you have a source on Russia being "factually worse" than the US?

Because: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html

And then besides Syria: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, their support for the Yemen invasion. I find that very hard to believe.

You're downplaying this immensely.

Obviously the death totals are under reported for groups like ISIS.

 

[mlclmtckr]

US has made the entire middle-east a complete shit show of death, destruction and misery - for decades. They're an enemy to Arabs and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Go ahead and find one example in world history when an oppressed / colonized culture chose one imperialist power over another and it actually worked out.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Ever actually read what my post says and thought about responding with logic?

The post you quoted is all factually correct. As I said before, a person can and should criticize U.S for these acts that cause the deaths of innocent people, but once you start comparing the now U.S to Russia, Syria, or ISIS then you lose all respect and basis for your argument to me.

As you hand wave and say

"Let's not pay attention to death counts. What else could we do but murder thousands of civilians? Those ISIS guys are bad customers!"

And you talk about losing respect for me? What a joke.

 

[dragonelite]

Jeez what would a person do if a foreign country killed a loved one. Then we are asking why do they hate us.

 

[Skyzard]

Obviously the death totals are under reported for groups like ISIS.

SNHR and SOHR are both anti-Assad and suspicious, run by small groups with UK funding.

Here's a video of a Canadian journalist talking about the bullshit being reported at a United Nations press conference december last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M

She lived in Gaza for 3 years and visited Syria numerous times to interview and find out things herself and get testimonies from the ground.

"Rebels" (terrorists) making chemical weapons, firing on civilian populations, preventing them from leaving, starving them. Funded by the US.
Western media not reporting truthfully and get most of their information from the above groups.

The US lies a shit tonne and can't be trusted when it comes to the Middle-East.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

How are these not war crimes?

They hate our freedom guys.

 

[reckless]

SNHR and SOHR are both anti-Assad and suspicious, run by small groups with UK funding.

Here's a video of a Canadian journalist talking about the bullshit being reported at a United Nations press conference december last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M

She lived in Gaza for 3 years and visited Syria numerous times to interview and find out things herself and get testimonies from the ground.

"Rebels" (terrorists) making chemical weapons, firing on civilian populations, preventing them from leaving, starving them. Funded by the US.
Western media not reporting truthfully and get most of their information from the above groups.

The US lies a shit tonne and can't be trusted when it comes to the Middle-East.

SNHR is the same group that is used in the source you just posted. So either the independent link you posted is BS or accept the SNHR graph which shows that Russia and Assad have killed a lot more civilians.

 

[Skyzard]

SNHR is the same group that is used in the source you just posted. So either the independent link you posted is BS or accept the SNHR graph which shows that Russia and Assad have killed a lot more civilians.

Where exactly? She does talks about how the SOHR is unreliable, as well the NYT and Guardian reports on Syria.

Specifically saying human rights groups reporting lies.

 

[TarNaru33]

What if I told you that powerful governments blowing up civlians is hindering those places from becoming developed countries.

No doubt, foreign influence is definitely hindering it. You can advocate going full on in to speed up the process or you can just be a pacifist and watch as the place burns to the ground for a longer period of time. Who knows, maybe these places would of corrected themselves quicker. I judge each case individually though.

Syria I believed we should of full on intervened early on. Afghanistan too, but not Iraq (especially at the same time as Afghanistan) or Libya.

Civil war is a reason for them having some success in Syria, that's it.

It doesn't change anything else about the suspicious Isis actions and publicity I mentioned, and how it lines up very conveniently with US foreign policy goals of bases in Iraq and trying to topple Assad before any of this began.

And do you have a source on Russia being "factually worse" than the US?

Because: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html

And then besides Syria: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, their support for the Yemen invasion. I find that very hard to believe.

You're downplaying this immensely.

U.S should of never left Iraq in the first place, as that is the reason ISIS managed to even rise up anyways. You can say U.S is responsible for Iraq's instability and I would agree with it, since U.S took the opportunity to leave it when Iraq told us to.

Also your article lists one month of casualties, I was talking about the war as a whole. It is factually correct that Syria and Russia are the worst in terms of killing innocent people. They literally bomb hospitals ON PURPOSE to do things like keep chemical weapons use under wraps while U.S bombing these structures is usually due to incompetence in the chain of command.

As you hand wave and say

"Let's not pay attention to death counts. What else could we do but murder thousands of civilians? Those ISIS guys are bad customers!"

And you talk about losing respect for me? What a joke.

I repeat since you seem to not read what I am saying; I am full on okay with criticizing U.S actions and foreign policy, but once you start comparing U.S to terrorist or Russia who purposely targets civilians, then you are probably a lost cause.

I am unaware of responding to you awhile ago, so no, I wasn't specifically talking about you when I said the respect part unless of course you are one of those people.

Also I will correct those who do not read an article as they respond to just the title until information comes out saying otherwise.

 

[Skyzard]

Also your article lists one month of casualties, I was talking about the war as a whole. It is factually correct that Syria and Russia are the worst in terms of killing innocent people. They literally bomb hospitals ON PURPOSE to do things like keep chemical weapons use under wraps while U.S bombing these structures is usually due to incompetence in the chain of command.

If you watched the video you can see how the hospital bombings are not credible either, or accurately reported.

And saying Russia bombs hospitals on purpose reeks of regurgitated propaganda.

 

[Dopus]

These places will not stop being terrorist havens until they stop seeing each other as different groups in the pool to the extent that they do. I am also aware that foreign influence (particularly from the west) is a very large factor in the turmoil of the Middle-East, same goes for Africa, that is partly why we should go full on into moving to different resources. Unfortunately Africa will become the next spot due to minerals.

I am with you in that military intervention isn't always the key. The only nations I believe need military intervention in the Middle-East is Syria and Afghanistan, the rest could be helped along in other ways. As the world becomes more intertwined it is possible that nations would act like U.S states in helping the weaker nations out via economic and social programs and militarily only when necessary.

That post definitely minimizes the greater issue and I do apologize for that, though when I mentioned terrorism, I wasn't talking about just "Islamic terrorism". It won't end because it is seen as the most "efficient" way of getting their way when the other side have too much power. The only other way is the slow way of getting into politics and pushing it through, a path terrorist finds too slow and unrewarding because it typically means compromise. Until the solutions are put through, which I do not see happening for a long time, because U.S and other countries want to keep or even increase their status as world powers to the detriment of smaller nations.

Again, you're missing the entire point. There isn't a real opportunity for progress when you have so much outside influence and intervention. It really doesn't have much to do with the domestic dynamics when we've seen what Afghanistan was. When we've seen what Iran could have been. What we're really talking about here are hypotheticals, and that actually isn't helpful. You're making a claim that until people "stop seeing each other as different groups in the pool to the extent that they do" it's not going to get better when the reality is that this isn't based on anything at all. It's not an argument worth exploring because even if it were true it's not the primary issue. You could probably make a good argument that it's a symptom of it.

This isn't to say that intervention is bad per se. This is to say that the current and past policy of bombs first isn't actually a solution. Especially when subverting governments, influencing and installing pro-western dictators never had anything to do with developing these nations development and making them more democratic.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

And this created more than the two snipers killed.



I don't know shit about weapons, but it seems using snipers to take them out or some other type of weapon would have been better? I'm also interested what the damage would have been estimated at without the explosives.

So the US should have deployed soldiers over there? "Boots on the ground," per se?

 

[Dopus]

Go ahead and find one example in world history when an oppressed / colonized culture chose one imperialist power over another and it actually worked out.

Why is this even a question you're asking? Surely a strange caveat.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

I repeat since you seem to not read what I am saying; I am full on okay with criticizing U.S actions and foreign policy, but once you start comparing U.S to terrorist or Russia who purposely targets civilians, then you are probably a lost cause.

US foreign policy is evil, it destroys democracies and supports dictators and then throws away said dictators creating chaos, introduces chemical weapons that know will be used against civilians, supports goverments commiting genocide it even funds said genocide, etc.

Yes, the US is as bad or worse than Russia, doesnt matter what the movies/series/media you watch tell you.

 

[reckless]

Where exactly? She does talks about how the SOHR is unreliable.

This link that you posted like 2 posts ago to show how the U.S is worse then Russia. See how it uses SNHR as a source, and then in the next post you call out SNHR as a BS source.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html

Eva Bartlett who writes for RT is also a totally legit source, definitely no bias there!
Just to take out some of her claims.
http://www.snopes.com/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/

 

[Kin5290]

It's the only force in the region that won't lead to mass genocide fueled by religion if they win.

It's like sticking your hand in a bag of infected needles and getting hepatitis instead of HIV.

Yes, because brutally repressive autocrats who are known to use chemical weapons and conduct terror bombings of civilian populations wouldn't undertake reprisal killings should they put down a rebellion.

 

[Skyzard]

This link that you posted like 2 posts ago to show how the U.S is worse then Russia. See how it uses SNHR as a source, and then in the next post you call out SNHR as a BS source.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html

Eva Bartlett who writes for RT is also a totally legit source, definitely no bias there!
Just to take out some of her claims.
http://www.snopes.com/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/

Snopes doesn't debunk what she says, just repeats it and says shocking! It's focusing on a single issue in the video about a child named Aya. She says a lot more than that.

SNHR as a source on Assad is suspect, even the article says all data should be treated with caution. Their methodology for acquiring statistics is just from "trustworthy activists". I wonder which faction is in control in the areas they are in.

On Syria, I absolutely trust Russia more than the US, who are sponsoring terrorism and wanted and supported a civil war to get rid of Assad.

 

[Dopus]

Yes, because brutally repressive autocrats who are known to use chemical weapons and conduct terror bombings of civilian populations wouldn't undertake reprisal killings should they put down a rebellion.

Which is why something like this was so important to explore - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

And this in Libya - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/10115#efmBESCAL

 

[reckless]

Snopes doesn't debunk what she says, just repeats it and says shocking!

SNHR as a source on Assad is suspect, even the article says all data should be treated with caution.

No snopes clearly shows that Al Quds hospital was bombed, which she specifically spends time talking about being a western fabrication. It also goes through the claim of recycled victims, one that is specifically called out often.

Well isn't that convenient, they're perfectly fine if they support you but when they don't they're unreliable.

Let's see Assad has killed at least 13,000 people in 1 'prison' since the start.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-least-13000-hanged-in-syrian-prison-since-2011-report-says/

Or is Amnesty International a bad source now to since it shows Assad being a monster.

 

[gtvdave]

A lovely way of empowering ISIS recruitment. Well done Trump-ape!

 

[Skyzard]

No snopes clearly shows that Al Quds hospital was bombed, which she specifically spends time talking about being a western fabrication. It also goes through the claim of recycled victims, one that is specifically called out often.

Well isn't that convenient, they're perfectly fine if they support you but when they don't they're unreliable.

Let's see Assad has killed at least 13,000 people in 1 'prison' since the start.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-least-13000-hanged-in-syrian-prison-since-2011-report-says/

Or is Amnesty International a bad source now to since it shows Assad being a monster.

The hospital bombing does seem like it happened. Unfortunately, not all that rare for all sides for some reason.

Does Assad oversee the activities of every prison? This is 1 prison. Unlike US torture of detainees across multiple facilities.

 

[Dopus]

The hospital bombing does seem like it happened. Unfortunately, not all that rare for all sides for some reason.

Does Assad oversee the activities of every prison? This is 1 prison. Unlike US torture of detainees across multiple facilities.

There can be no doubt that Assad knows what is happening and allows or directly orders it. Make no mistake, he is a terrible human being worthy of no sympathy. With that said, he is a necessity in the future of Syria for the time being due to the fact that he has two nations strongly backing him. Russia and Iran.

If talks can be held between all parties to form a cease-fire and then the potential to explore a transition, this needs to happen. Much like the Russia-led proposal in 2012. Ousting Assad isn't a solution unless proposed by Russia in particular.

 

[reckless]

The hospital bombing does seem like it happened. Unfortunately, not all that rare for all sides for some reason.

Does Assad oversee the activities of every prison? This is 1 prison.

No it doesn't "seem like it happened" it happened. Just like dozens of other hospital bombings intentionally carried out by Assad and Russia. And no, it is extremely rare for the the U.S coalition, that's why it made huge news a couple months ago.

That's the defense for Assad effectively running an extermination camp? He doesn't personally oversee it?I guess Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin are fine now according to you since they don't personally oversee all of the atrocities they committed. And yeah exactly 1 'prison' has killed 13,000 people... that helps show the scale of how many people Assad has killed.

 

[Skyzard]

She specifically mentions the guardian reported that it had been destroyed, which they did:

A Syrian hospital backed by Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been destroyed in an airstrike in Aleppo, killing patients and doctors including one of the last paediatricians remaining in the rebel-held part of the city.
European MPs urge governments to make airdrops to Syrian civilians


MSF said the al-Quds hospital was targeted in an airstrike on Wednesday that killed 14 patients and staff members including at least two doctors, with the toll expected to rise.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ls-at-least-three-in-aleppo-says-relief-group

Then, she says they reported it was treating gas victims, which they did:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ls-at-least-three-in-aleppo-says-relief-group

And so were reporting inconsistently, which is what she said there.


And US attacking hospitals is extremely rare?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3e931b5a26d_story.html?utm_term=.e59edea4dbe9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mosul-airstrike-civilians-casualties-hospital

Not to mention the countless number of times US airstrikes have skilled scores of civilians, we're in a thread about a number of attacks right now.

There can be no doubt that Assad knows what is happening and allows or directly orders it. Make no mistake, he is a terrible human being worthy of no sympathy. With that said, he is a necessity in the future of Syria for the time being due to the fact that he has two nations strongly backing him. Russia and Iran.

If talks can be held between all parties to form a cease-fire and then the potential to explore a transition, this needs to happen. Much like the Russia-led proposal in 2012. Ousting Assad isn't a solution unless proposed by Russia in particular.

It makes no sense for Assad to risk any of that, including chemical weapons when he has an army and bombs - and he knew the consequences of doing so would be severe - which is why he agreed to the chemical weapons disarmament deal.

 

[Joe]

U.S. convinces coalition partners to report airstrike-related civilian casualties numbers in Syria and Iraq - but with the agreement that no country will be identified.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/26...al-its-civilian-casualties-in-iraq-and-syria/

Since 2014, coalition partners have launched 4,000 airstrikes in Syria and Iraq but have never claimed or reported a civilian casualty.

U.S. was "frustrated" by this and convinced them to release numbers with the condition that they would not be attributable to any country - including the U.S.

That means the United States will in the future no longer confirm its own responsibility for specific civilian casualty incidents either — a move toward greater secrecy that could deprive victims' families of any avenue to seek justice or compensation for these deaths.

The coalition has so far admitted to killing 352 civilians since 2014, including the 80 or more non-combatants slain by U.S. allies. However, this may just by the tip of the iceberg: That figure is still roughly 10 times lower than Airwars's own minimum estimate of 3,500 civilian fatalities in the air campaign. That tally is the result of monitoring carried out by our team of researchers, and does not include incidents that are contested or are currently backed by weak evidence.

 

[reckless]

She specifically mentions the guardian reported that it had been destroyed, which they did:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ls-at-least-three-in-aleppo-says-relief-group

Then, she says they reported it was treating gas victims, which they did:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ls-at-least-three-in-aleppo-says-relief-group

And so were reporting inconsistently



It makes no sense for Assad to risk any of that, including chemical weapons when he has an army and bombs - and he knew the consequences of doing so would be severe - which is why he agreed to the chemical weapons disarmament deal.

Yeah because it is impossible for buildings to be repaired...
Oh wait MSF said they were going to

It will be at least two weeks before the hospital will be able to reopen – efforts are focused on repairing and rehabilitating what can be salvaged.

http://www.msf.org/en/article/syria-al-quds-hospital-death-toll-rises-55

 

[Skyzard]

Yeah because it is impossible for buildings to be repaired...
Oh wait MSF said they were going to

http://www.msf.org/en/article/syria-al-quds-hospital-death-toll-rises-55

With a hospital destroyed, it takes 2 weeks to rebuild it and get it operational?

 

[_Nemo]

Another wrinkle in the story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5d894c-4226-11e7-b29f-f40ffced2ddb_story.html

Makes you wonder how much of all the news gets sugarcoated for the West to make the US look good.

 

[danthefan]

This is fucking horrific. The double standards really are nauseating.

 

[Dopus]

It makes no sense for Assad to risk any of that, including chemical weapons when he has an army and bombs - and he knew the consequences of doing so would be severe - which is why he agreed to the chemical weapons disarmament deal.

I'm directly referring to the number of executions and civilian deaths as a result of the Syrian government. Not the chemical weapon attacks.

 

[reckless]

With a hospital destroyed, it takes 2 weeks to rebuild it and get it operational?

Wow now MSF is lying too!

Do you think these are hospitals like in the U.S or Europe or something? Like these are giant modern hospitals...

 

[Skyzard]

Wow now MSF is lying too!

Do you think these are hospitals like in the U.S or Europe or something? Like these are giant modern hospitals...

Do you know what destroyed means?

There's pictures of the hospital that show it's a sizeable building.

She was accurate.


This should also be added to the OP:

Another wrinkle in the story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5d894c-4226-11e7-b29f-f40ffced2ddb_story.html

The two deny, however, that the Islamic State moved any explosives into the building. Both recalled militants arriving the night before the airstrike, telling those still in their homes to leave before fighting began the next day. The snipers, they said, arrived at the house for the first time the morning of March 17, armed with rifles and little else.

”It was an airstrike," Manhal's father said of the incident. ”There were no explosives."

Brig. Gen Mohammed Al-Jawari, the civil defense chief for Mosul, also refuted the U.S. report.

”We were the first people who went to the site and evacuated all the bodies and we didn't find any explosives there, only a few grenades and IEDs that weren't exploded ... what caused that destruction was an airstrike, nothing else," he said.

In the report, the Pentagon said U.S. and Iraqi forces believed that the structure was empty of civilians, having watched the Islamic State evict families from homes in the days before the strike.

U.S. Central Command, however, was made aware that there were families trapped in the area March 14, three days before the airstrike, according to direct messages sent to its official Arabic twitter account. The sender did not wish to be identified for security reasons. In a message, he requested the urgent evacuation of families trapped inside houses near the Fathi al-Ali mosque, saying they were at risk of being killed. The house hit in the U.S.-led strike was about 1,500 feet away from the mosque.

”Information received," Central Command replied. ”Thank you for your message."

A U.S. military pilot, who spoke on the condition anonymity because of his active duty status, said the report's damage estimates for the initial airstrike were low and unrealistic. The pilot, who flew hundreds of combat sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan, said that using a GBU-type bomb on a residential structure ensures that there is an ”extremely high probability" that the ”entire building will be destroyed and every living entity inside would be killed."

It leveled the building and killed people in surrounding houses.

The US sure did try to dress this up, though the story stank even before these reports.

 

[reckless]

Do you know what destroyed means?

There's pictures of the hospital that show it's a sizeable building.

She was accurate.

I'd say having to stop using the hospital for a couple of weeks to repair/rebuild it counts as destroyed.

And now you're getting into semantics over the word destroyed over Russia bombing a fucking hospital.

 

[Skyzard]

I'd say having to stop using the hospital for a couple of weeks to repair/rebuild it counts as destroyed.

And now you're getting into semantics over the word destroyed over Russia bombing a fucking hospital.

Russia isn't the only one that has bombed hospitals. This one wasn't destroyed as was reported, which is what she said.

You're trying to discredit her, and I'm checking the few claims brought up, out of a long list of shit fuckery she talks about.

I'm not here saying Assad is a saint, everyone involved is scum.

I'm saying the US is funding and equipping terrorists, calling them rebels - when they were killing Syrian police and soldiers while Assad was making concessions during the protests. Turning it to civil war because the US wanted to topple Assad, unleashing a fucking civil war on the country to achieve their goals, like they always do.

 

[reckless]

Russia isn't the only one that has bombed hospitals. This one wasn't destroyed as was reported, which is what she said.

You're trying to discredit her, and I'm checking the few claims brought up, out of a long list of shit fuckery she talks about.

No she said it wasn't attacked at all.

Other points about Aleppo are, hospitals in Aleppo have been attacked. I'm sure you've heard in the media that hospitals have been attacked. Well this media is referring to the pockets of Aleppo that were occupied by terrorists and they have manufactured stories, and I can give you a precise account. In April of this year [2016] there was a hospital called the Al Quds Hospital which in a concerted effort, all media said was attacked and targeted and badly damaged by either the Syrians or the Russians. In fact the Russians had satellite imagery showing that this hospital was in the same shape it was in, in October 2015. No difference. Therefore it was not attacked. Months later, the Guardian, which is a prominent British newspaper actually said that the Al Quds hospital that it had alleged months prior to the attack and destroyed, was treating victims of so-called chemical weapons attacks. So even the media that is lying is inconsistent in their lies.

And if I can't use something until I repair/rebuild it, its destroyed. Like the hospital.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Russia isn't the only one that has bombed hospitals.

No one fucking said that though.

Other bad actors existing doesn't nullify Russia's crimes.

I mean, seriously listen to yourself. Nazi Germany isn't the only state to have committed genocide, by your logic does that mean that the Nazis weren't that bad?

 

[SomTervo]

Here's to another 20 years of terrorist attacks, folks!

Edit: goddamn, explosives throughout the building? And IS had almost herded people in there?

Fuck, what a bitter story

They're winning the "war on terror"

 

[Dopus]

Here's to another 20 years of terrorist attacks, folks!

Edit: goddamn, explosives throughout the building? And IS had almost herded people in there?

Fuck, what a bitter story

They're winning the "war on terror"

The rigged building claim is under doubt. As mentioned by emag.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5d894c-4226-11e7-b29f-f40ffced2ddb_story.html

The two deny, however, that the Islamic State moved any explosives into the building. Both recalled militants arriving the night before the airstrike, telling those still in their homes to leave before fighting began the next day. The snipers, they said, arrived at the house for the first time the morning of March 17, armed with rifles and little else.

“It was an airstrike,” Manhal’s father said of the incident. “There were no explosives.”

Brig. Gen Mohammed Al-Jawari, the civil defense chief for Mosul, also refuted the U.S. report.

“We were the first people who went to the site and evacuated all the bodies and we didn’t find any explosives there, only a few grenades and IEDs that weren’t exploded … what caused that destruction was an airstrike, nothing else,” he said.
In the report, the Pentagon said U.S. and Iraqi forces believed that the structure was empty of civilians, having watched the Islamic State evict families from homes in the days before the strike.

U.S. Central Command, however, was made aware that there were families trapped in the area March 14, three days before the airstrike, according to direct messages sent to its official Arabic twitter account. The sender did not wish to be identified for security reasons. In a message, he requested the urgent evacuation of families trapped inside houses near the Fathi al-Ali mosque, saying they were at risk of being killed. The house hit in the U.S.-led strike was about 1,500 feet away from the mosque.

“Information received,” Central Command replied. “Thank you for your message.”

A U.S. military pilot, who spoke on the condition anonymity because of his active duty status, said the report’s damage estimates for the initial airstrike were low and unrealistic. The pilot, who flew hundreds of combat sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan, said that using a GBU-type bomb on a residential structure ensures that there is an “extremely high probability” that the “entire building will be destroyed and every living entity inside would be killed.”

 

[Skyzard]

No one fucking said that though.

Other bad actors existing doesn't nullify Russia's crimes.

I mean, seriously listen to yourself. Nazi Germany isn't the only state to have committed genocide, by your logic does that mean that the Nazis weren't that bad?

Yeah, the Nazis were fine, that's my logic.

I'm not here saying Assad is a saint, everyone involved is scum.

I'm saying the US is funding and equipping terrorists, calling them rebels - when they were killing Syrian police and soldiers while Assad was making concessions during the protests. Turning it to civil war because the US wanted to topple Assad, unleashing a fucking civil war on the country to achieve their goals, like they always do.

People in this thread are defending the US as if they are the saviors of Syria and pointing fingers at Russia.

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'

They needed a puppet there, at any cost.

No she said it wasn't attacked at all.

That's true that she also said that, just rewatched it myself. Russia has put out faked satellite imagery. She seemed really assertive on that though, probably is compromised but she made many other points.

Here's to another 20 years of terrorist attacks, folks!

Edit: goddamn, explosives throughout the building? And IS had almost herded people in there?

Fuck, what a bitter story

They're winning the way on terror

Numerous reports have questioned the truth of this.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Yes, because brutally repressive autocrats who are known to use chemical weapons and conduct terror bombings of civilian populations wouldn't undertake reprisal killings should they put down a rebellion.

This doesn't go against anything I've said.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Yeah, the Nazis were fine, that's my logic.

So then what's the difference? How is 'others have done it' an excuse for atrocities committed by Russia?

Being a critic of the USA doesn't mean becoming an apologist for their enemies.

 

[SomTervo]

The rigged building claim is under doubt. As mentioned by emag.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5d894c-4226-11e7-b29f-f40ffced2ddb_story.html

Yeah, the Nazis were fine, that's my logic.



People in this thread are defending the US as if they are the saviors of Syria and pointing fingers at Russia.



West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'

They needed a puppet there, at any cost.



That's true that she also said that, just rewatched it myself. Russia has put out faked satellite imagery.



Numerous reports have questioned the truth of this.

V interesting. Would be good to have this in OP.

 

[Skyzard]

So then what's the difference? How is 'others have done it' an excuse for atrocities committed by Russia?

Being a critic of the USA doesn't mean becoming an apologist for their enemies.

America is no better than Russia, I'd argue even worse with what they've been doing all over the middle-east, ruining millions of lives.

Maybe you missed my edit where US (and the UK) rejected a deal to have Assad step down back in 2012, proposed by the Russians.

They wanted a civil war. They always want war.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

It makes no sense for Assad to risk any of that, including chemical weapons when he has an army and bombs - and he knew the consequences of doing so would be severe - which is why he agreed to the chemical weapons disarmament deal.

Exactly what "severe consequences" has he faced?