Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[miljan]

American general Joseph Dunford has said that musterd gas has been used against US troops by IS.
A grenade was fired at an American base by IS troops, and traces of musterd gas have been found. No one was injured though, IS can't aim.


Obama.. How about that red line now? Chem warfare against your own troops?

American general Joseph Dunford has said that musterd gas has been used against US troops by IS.
A grenade was fired at an American base by IS troops, and traces of musterd gas have been found. No one was injured though, IS can't aim.


Obama.. How about that red line now? Chem warfare against your own troops?

Assad's forces and Kurdish forces have been getting gassed by ISIS and no one gave a shit then
The red line was crossed so long ago it is nothing more than a crimson peak on a hill so far away

And ISIS doesn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention anyway. Though neither does Assad.

Literally no one gives a shit about geneva convention in war. 

[misko27]

]
Literally no one gives a shit about geneva convention in war.

This is untrue. Even the Nazis worked hard to give the appearance of following the Geneva convention (at least to the west; no quarter was given to the Soviets), even regarding the concentration camps. The Japanese also claimed to honor the treaties.

If it was so irrelevant, why would the most evil regime in history go out of its way to appear to follow it? Don't just say things without backing them up.

[miljan]

]
Literally no one gives a shit about geneva convention in war.

This is untrue. Even the Nazis worked hard to give the appearance of following the Geneva convention (at least to the west; no quarter was given to the Soviets), even regarding the concentration camps. The Japanese also claimed to honor the treaties.

If it was so irrelevant, why would the most evil regime in history go out of its way to appear to follow it? Don't just say things without backing them up.

For propaganda purposes. The fact that they didnt follow it, and that no country follows it from USA to russia and constantly have broke it several times in last 20 years (and not even gonna talk about all the shit storm that happened during world war 2 and cold war from vietnam to afghanistan) says a lot about it. And you said it great, they try to appear to follow it and thats it.

[Zangi]

Pretend everything you are doing is legitimate and 'convince' the people who can do anything about it... to not do anything. 
IE: Drone Strikes/Guantanamo

[Flying Dice]

]
Literally no one gives a shit about geneva convention in war.

This is untrue. Even the Nazis worked hard to give the appearance of following the Geneva convention (at least to the west; no quarter was given to the Soviets), even regarding the concentration camps. The Japanese also claimed to honor the treaties.

If it was so irrelevant, why would the most evil regime in history go out of its way to appear to follow it? Don't just say things without backing them up.

For propaganda purposes. The fact that they didnt follow it, and that no country follows it from USA to russia and constantly have broke it several times in last 20 years (and not even gonna talk about all the shit storm that happened during world war 2 and cold war from vietnam to afghanistan) says a lot about it. And you said it great, they try to appear to follow it and thats it.

"No one gives a shit about the Geneva Convention in war..."
"Even some of the most evil regimes in recorded history gave enough of a shit about the Geneva Convention in war to devote considerable effort to hiding the fact that they were violating its terms."

One of these things is not like the other.

[miljan]

]
Literally no one gives a shit about geneva convention in war.

This is untrue. Even the Nazis worked hard to give the appearance of following the Geneva convention (at least to the west; no quarter was given to the Soviets), even regarding the concentration camps. The Japanese also claimed to honor the treaties.

If it was so irrelevant, why would the most evil regime in history go out of its way to appear to follow it? Don't just say things without backing them up.

For propaganda purposes. The fact that they didnt follow it, and that no country follows it from USA to russia and constantly have broke it several times in last 20 years (and not even gonna talk about all the shit storm that happened during world war 2 and cold war from vietnam to afghanistan) says a lot about it. And you said it great, they try to appear to follow it and thats it.

"No one gives a shit about the Geneva Convention in war..."
"Even some of the most evil regimes in recorded history gave enough of a shit about the Geneva Convention in war to devote considerable effort to hiding the fact that they were violating its terms."

One of these things is not like the other.

It actually is. If you do not care, that means you break it all the time. Do you hide it or not doesnt matter, what matters is that countries are constantly breaking it, and as such my comment, that countries in war do not care about it, as if they did, they would not break it all the time.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Poorly worded.

Literally no one gives a shit about geneva convention in war. 

Means that a government will do anything to win in war. Also means national leaders and soldiers are callous. A very hyperbolic wording; also very bitter or exasperated? (Correct me if wrong.)

"No one gives a shit about the Geneva Convention in war..."
"Even some of the most evil regimes in recorded history gave enough of a shit about the Geneva Convention in war to devote considerable effort to hiding the fact that they were violating its terms."

One of these things is not like the other.

Civilians care, and the civil disorder and prestige loss that will result from openly perpetuating atrocities hurts the imperial effort, so the callous government must conceal its actions.

[Guardian G.I.]

The recent UNSC meeting has shown that any resemblance of cooperation in Syria between Russia and America is gone and won't return any time soon.
Both sides were openly hostile towards each other: the US ambassador accused Russia of "barbarism" in Aleppo and committing warcrimes against civilians along with Assad. Russia's ambassador, on the other hand, accused the US of arming Islamists, claimed US involvement has made achieving peace in Syria "almost impossible" and said they would not accept any one-sided concessions in favour of the US or the rebels any more.

[Baffler]

Neither one of their accusations are wrong, which really doesn't help the situation.

[smjjames]

The recent UNSC meeting has shown that any resemblance of cooperation in Syria between Russia and America is gone and won't return any time soon.
Both sides were openly hostile towards each other: the US ambassador accused Russia of "barbarism" in Aleppo and committing warcrimes against civilians along with Assad. Russia's ambassador, on the other hand, accused the US of arming Islamists, claimed US involvement have made achieving peace in Syria "almost impossible" and said they would not accept any one-sided concessions in favour of the US or the rebels any more.

I seriously doubt a Trump presidency, and the ambassador+diplomat+seceretary of state change that comes with it, is going to be able to fix or solve that anytime soon. Despite his intention to have friendlier relations with Russia.

Neither candidate have talked about the Syrian Civil War and the assad regieme all that much though, other than what to do with the terrorists and the refugees. Hopefully some of it comes up in tomorrow nights debate, or one of the next two at least.

Neither one of their accusations are wrong, which really doesn't help the situation.

Plus Russian involvement doesn't help the situation either.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

For me Russian\Assad's goal in Allepo is very simple and obvious. Destroy the city and kill as many of its inhabitants as possible. It is a plain genocide, not a war. They have zero interest in capturing the city because it will never be loyal to Assad and will stay a huge problem nearly forever.

[smjjames]

For me Russian\Assad's goal in Allepo is very simple and obvious. Destroy the city and kill as many of its inhabitants as possible. It is a plain genocide, not a war. They have zero interest in capturing the city because it will never be loyal to Assad and will stay a huge problem nearly forever.

Yeah, I heard that his father razed Hama to the ground the last time they had an uprising. Whether or not Bashar will actually 'raze aleppo to the ground' remains to be seen however. Although Aleppo is a much bigger city I believe.

[Loud Whispers]

For me Russian\Assad's goal in Allepo is very simple and obvious. Destroy the city and kill as many of its inhabitants as possible. It is a plain genocide, not a war. They have zero interest in capturing the city because it will never be loyal to Assad and will stay a huge problem nearly forever.

Unlikely, Aleppo is the largest city in Syria, was Syria's economic capital and is key to any recovery post-war. During the first stages of the war the government regrouped most of its forces at Damascus, Aleppo being one notable exception - the Syrian regime considered the possibility of withdrawing from Aleppo but support was overwhelmingly with them against Al Qaeda and ISIS

More than a month into the battle for Aleppo, the rebels who seized control of much of the city sense that its residents do not yet fully support them. Opposition fighters – around 3,000 of them – are almost the only people moving around the eastern half that the Free Syrian Army now controls. The small numbers of non-fighters who remain seem to pay them little heed. Few seem openly welcoming.

"Yes it's true," said Sheikh Tawfik Abu Sleiman, a rebel commander sitting on the ground floor of his fourth new headquarters – the other three were bombed. "Around 70% of Aleppo city is with the regime. It has always been that way. The countryside is with us and the city is with them. We are saying that we will only be here as long as it takes to get the job done, to get rid of the Assads. After that, we will leave and they can build the city that they want."

It is quite the contrary, far be it from wanting to destroy an unruly Aleppo:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The government has expended many of its soldiers in order to hold onto one of its largest support bases. Aleppo is probably also the reason why Assad believes the West has been arming Al Qaeda and ISIS in his country, because the rebels in Aleppo were dominated by foreign fighters, foreign fighters looking to wage jihad to set up a new caliphate

For the ethnic and religious minorities living in Syria's big cities, they don't really have a choice except to lend the government their support, or else face cleansing from the jihadis

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

So, the west is making a controlled opposition/Second coming of religious patriarchy?

[smjjames]

So, the west is making a controlled opposition/Second coming of religious patriarchy?

Huh? That makes as much sense as Assad thinking that the West is arming ISIS and Al Quaeda (who hate the west).