Going to get just nastier in future. Either Trump will be true to his words and bomb ISIS like never before which means USA starting to bomb there or he will hand Syria to Russia in which case Russia has free reign to bomb rebels who without support from US will be struggling.
Either way not looking good there in future either. Refugee tide is likely to just keep increasing in size.
On paper, Aleppo is almost double encircled by multiple different factions which is part of why everything is so confusing and why its so hard to get in or out or establish corridors. I dont see it getting any better any time soon.
feeder wrote: Aleppo is an encircled city, yes? Stalingrad 2.0?
Syrian army encircled and besieged the rebels, but they re also surrounded by Al-quaeda related groups, the opposition and ISIS. But ISIS there distracted by Turkey + FSA advance and kurds. And Turkey/FSA fights against kurds too. Therefore, it simply can not explain clearly who and where is it doing there ...
It helps to have a flowchart.
Mind, that's about three years old at this point, so things have shifted somewhat, and there's new players as well.
feeder wrote: Aleppo is an encircled city, yes? Stalingrad 2.0?
Syrian army encircled and besieged the rebels, but they re also surrounded by Al-quaeda related groups, the opposition and ISIS. But ISIS there distracted by Turkey + FSA advance and kurds. And Turkey/FSA fights against kurds too. Therefore, it simply can not explain clearly who and where is it doing there ...
It helps to have a flowchart.
Spoiler:
Mind, that's about three years old at this point, so things have shifted somewhat, and there's new players as well.
There is a better understeandable for 40k players:
Freakazoitt wrote: I want to create this topic for those who are interested in the events of the battle for Aleppo.
I do not think that the events are suitable for the "ISIS" thread, because there are different terrorist groups and opposition.
And so ... the ceasefire failed, civilians were not able to get out of the besieged part of the city, militants did not want to give up - the battle continues
Haven't watched a lot of footage of the conflict in Aleppo. Just bits and pieces.
The situation is pretty much as it was/is in Jobar and Darayya, which I've seen footage of in detail. Lots of tank porn and house to house.
None of it is good for the common folks (many of whom probably don't give a damn about politics) caught up in it. These places are being shot up to hell and back.
Frazzled wrote: UN reports government troops capturing and murdering civilians that are attempting to flee.
Does not surprise me in the least.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that if the USA/UK/Saudis hadn't been funneling arms to these 'moderates*' then the war would have been over 2 or 3 years ago, and the suffering would have been a lot less. I blame Western intervention, i.e our respective nations, plus the Saudi proxy war, for prolonging the agony.
*There are people in the British government who still use the term moderates, and even worse, they say it with a straight face
Frazzled wrote: UN reports government troops capturing and murdering civilians that are attempting to flee.
They were ok, when it's really happening inside the rebel-held Aleppo? It means, UN is useless now for actual helping people from being captured and killed and it's don't bypass the language filter like this Reds8n propaganda instrument. I would not be surprised if the "proof" of the army crimes are just posts in Facebook, which are written by someone in Turkey or in California.
Well we could nuke the bases flying Russian aircraft. That would make UN less useless and keep them safe. How's that for a plan?
Frazz, that's the worst plan since the Trojans said that wooden horse would make a nice souvenir!
Oh come on I've thought of far worse plans. It would free the rebels of Russian intrusion...forever. Plus, as nondirect targets when the big exchange goes off, they'll be sitting pretty for the restart of civilization.
If the Russians were really serious about this, one or two of their mechanized battallions and this "rebellion" is over. Then the business of wiping out ISIS can commence in earnest. Now is a good time if you are a Syrian who does not want to live under Assad to move.
Interestingly on Channel 4 news - one commentator was saying even if the West had supported the various rebel groups from the beginning - the end game would have been similar just Assads side being bombed and slaughtered. However they cut him off pretty quickly when he started talking about this as it didn't fit their story. Its a Civil War - they are often even more brutal than normal war.
Everyone looks bad comng out of this conflict - plenty of western Politicians hand wringing in public but knowing their public would not support them if they went to war over Syria.
The West owes Syria nothing, any support we may have offered was enough, they are neither our friends nor our allies. It is their war, they launched it, and now they are losing it. I find it odd that with Assad being such an evil man that all the minorities fled TO him, not away. My only criticism of Russia here is this.."Finish this mummers farce" get it over with, and maybe Trump will have the guts to lift the sanctions and stop this charade of caring.
thekingofkings wrote:If the Russians were really serious about this, one or two of their mechanized battallions and this "rebellion" is over. Then the business of wiping out ISIS can commence in earnest. Now is a good time if you are a Syrian who does not want to live under Assad to move.
Don't need another Afghanistan
Whole different animal, you arent trying to occupy a hostile country, just kick the crap outta jackasses. 2 battallions tops. go in, wreck face, go home, drink vodka.
Whole different animal, you arent trying to occupy a hostile country, just kick the crap outta jackasses. 2 battallions tops. go in, wreck face, go home, drink vodka.
Whole different animal, you arent trying to occupy a hostile country, just kick the crap outta jackasses. 2 battallions tops. go in, wreck face, go home, drink vodka.
Similar words spoken by Afghanese shurav in 1979
The afghans could hide in pakistan, protected by the pakistani army, the syrian rebels and isis have no where to run/
the afghans were supported by china and the US in considerably more material than anyone in syria
the syrian rebels and isis hold land, and are basically going to have to stand and fight, they have little popular support, the afghans did not try to hold land and did have popular support.
head to head, the afghans were consistently defeated by superior soviet troops, the syrians are even less capable of standing up to the current russian army.
it took 8 years and soviet economy to drive out the red army, the afghans could not have acheived that alone, the syrians on the other hand have to contend with the reality that there is a lot of popular support for Assad. A russian withdrawal would not topple him the way it did Najibullah
Wasn't this whole mess started because the West wanted to intervene in toppling Assad, but the Russians kept vetoing any involvement?
The West originally supported ISIS, but pulled out and backed other groups. The war continued for much longer than it had to due to a lack of outside intervention, and then eventually the Russians decided to extend it further by backing the other side (who then claimed the moral high ground that their side weren't "terrorists" as Assad continued to use chemical weapons on civilians...).
Its odd how the media's spun this. The rebels are now dwarfed by ISIS in their vision and seen as radicals. Meanwhile Assad's seen as the better of two evils - despite the whole thing starting because he's a dictator and was committing human rights abuses... All swept under the carpet because Putin didn't want to lose his friend in the Middle East (given his own abuses I suppose its easy for the state media over there to ignore who they're in bed with).
I'd have thought we'd have seen more backing for the Peshmerga by the West, but that's not how politics work. Ideally they'd have formed their own state now so we could have 1948 all over against the Middle East flipped its gak. Though saying that, the Russian media has weirdly lauded the apparent killing of Mossad (and Western agents) operating in Syria. So much for being "allies". But, well, I guess everyone's a "terrorist" if they oppose the Kremlin.
Wyrmalla wrote: Wasn't this whole mess started because the West wanted to intervene in toppling Assad, but the Russians kept vetoing any involvement?
The West originally supported ISIS, but pulled out and backed other groups. The war continued for much longer than it had to due to a lack of outside intervention, and then eventually the Russians decided to extend it further by backing the other side (who then claimed the moral high ground that their side weren't "terrorists" as Assad continued to use chemical weapons on civilians...).
Its odd how the media's spun this. The rebels are now dwarfed by ISIS in their vision and seen as radicals. Meanwhile Assad's seen as the better of two evils - despite the whole thing starting because he's a dictator and was committing human rights abuses... All swept under the carpet because Putin didn't want to lose his friend in the Middle East (given his own abuses I suppose its easy for the state media over there to ignore who they're in bed with).
I'd have thought we'd have seen more backing for the Peshmerga by the West, but that's not how politics work. Ideally they'd have formed their own state now so we could have 1948 all over against the Middle East flipped its gak. Though saying that, the Russian media has weirdly lauded the apparent killing of Mossad (and Western agents) operating in Syria. So much for being "allies". But, well, I guess everyone's a "terrorist" if they oppose the Kremlin.
No this whole mess was not started by the West unless you consider the British breaking up the Ottoman Empire to be the issue.
People rebelled against a dictatorship. The dictatorship fought back. No different than what has occurred there before, just that the rebels had more support than before.
Murderous dictatorship very bad, except of course if its replaced by a murderous religious regime (aka ISIL, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan in two years).
Hundred thousand people with houses destroyed, hungry, many of them wounded. They need humanitarian aid. Urgently. I don't see any help from West right now.
Because Russian morons keep blowing up aid trucks.
Well, looking over the first few posts in this thread specifically, the veritable web of factions battling it out is far more complicated than I thought it was
I have to agree with Freakazoitt: without Assad, it will be another Libya. It took what, almost 10 years to make Iraqi relatively safe again ? Afganistan isn't really safe yet, Lybia is a mess, and you would like to destabilize Syria even further ? You have to understand: I care more about The West than syrian people. If Assad stays, it is better for us in the long term.
Only the Russian try to help the seculare people. Who want another islamic dictator ? Don't you remember Egypt before El Sissi ? Every time an arabian dictator dies, a muslim dictator rises. Every time it happens, terrorists come here and kill us. It has to stop.
I'm glad someone is helping Assad, at last. However, I'm sad my country isn't helping him. I don't know for your country, but here in France media show Russia as the absolute devil, killing civilian, supporting terrorists and crushing Democracy. There isn't a single piece of informations neutral on the TV.
Well considering Assad used gas, his soldiers are currently executing civilians and the russians have been using dumb bombs hitting hospitals, medical supply conveys I am pretty sure both deserve the title of devil
godardc wrote: I have to agree with Freakazoitt: without Assad, it will be another Libya.
It took what, almost 10 years to make Iraqi relatively safe again ? Afganistan isn't really safe yet, Lybia is a mess, and you would like to destabilize Syria even further ?
You have to understand: I care more about The West than syrian people. If Assad stays, it is better for us in the long term.
Only the Russian try to help the seculare people. Who want another islamic dictator ? Don't you remember Egypt before El Sissi ?
Every time an arabian dictator dies, a muslim dictator rises. Every time it happens, terrorists come here and kill us. It has to stop.
I'm glad someone is helping Assad, at last. However, I'm sad my country isn't helping him. I don't know for your country, but here in France media show Russia as the absolute devil, killing civilian, supporting terrorists and crushing Democracy.
There isn't a single piece of informations neutral on the TV.
So, allow one human rights violating dictator to stay in power to spite another from potentially taking over? Right...
We could have had another Iraq, but no, instead we're getting another ...well, Iraq - just a repeat of the first time around where we left the dictator in charge. That went well didn't it?
Not to sugar coat things, but yes the media is biased. However, there's not that many ways you can spin that either Assad's a war criminal, or that the Russian government - besides enabling these actions (and committing a few themselves) are also all round donkey caves - or will be ignore their anti-gay agenda or their tendency to invade their neighbours without provocation (wait, or was it to get some more Living Space...).
Freakazoitt wrote: Hundred thousand people with houses destroyed, hungry, many of them wounded. They need humanitarian aid. Urgently. I don't see any help from West right now. These people istantly forget thins.
Completely uncalled for; grow up.
Despite your politicised whinging and baseless - not to mention wholly undeserved - accusations, people like them are actually trying to help make the world a better place. All you seem to care about is spreading propaganda for Dear Leader Putin. You mention the suffering, sure, but seemingly only ever as an excuse to bash the West.
Also, Sputnik, which is owned by the Russian government, is not a good alternative to "biased" Western media, which actually routinely investigates and reports on crimes committed by their own countries and has a variety of different viewpoints, depending on which specific publication we're talking about.
godardc wrote: I have to agree with Freakazoitt: without Assad, it will be another Libya.
It took what, almost 10 years to make Iraqi relatively safe again ? Afganistan isn't really safe yet, Lybia is a mess, and you would like to destabilize Syria even further ?
You have to understand: I care more about The West than syrian people. If Assad stays, it is better for us in the long term.
Only the Russian try to help the seculare people. Who want another islamic dictator ? Don't you remember Egypt before El Sissi ?
Every time an arabian dictator dies, a muslim dictator rises. Every time it happens, terrorists come here and kill us. It has to stop.
I'm glad someone is helping Assad, at last. However, I'm sad my country isn't helping him. I don't know for your country, but here in France media show Russia as the absolute devil, killing civilian, supporting terrorists and crushing Democracy.
There isn't a single piece of informations neutral on the TV.
Agreed. Assad is bad. But the resulting chaos of no Assad is worse. Lybia 2 cannot happen.
West worked with Stalin to fight a greater enemy. Is this no different. We don,t have to like him. But some enemies mean you have to work with far less than nice people..
godardc wrote: I have to agree with Freakazoitt: without Assad, it will be another Libya.
It took what, almost 10 years to make Iraqi relatively safe again ? Afganistan isn't really safe yet, Lybia is a mess, and you would like to destabilize Syria even further ?
You have to understand: I care more about The West than syrian people. If Assad stays, it is better for us in the long term.
Only the Russian try to help the seculare people. Who want another islamic dictator ? Don't you remember Egypt before El Sissi ?
Every time an arabian dictator dies, a muslim dictator rises. Every time it happens, terrorists come here and kill us. It has to stop.
I'm glad someone is helping Assad, at last. However, I'm sad my country isn't helping him. I don't know for your country, but here in France media show Russia as the absolute devil, killing civilian, supporting terrorists and crushing Democracy.
There isn't a single piece of informations neutral on the TV.
We could have had another Iraq, but no, instead we're getting another ...well, Iraq - just a repeat of the first time around where we left the dictator in charge. That went well didn't it?
It went a lot better than the second time around and we went `full measure`. That same strategy worked wonders in Lybia too. Maybe the west should stop exporting it's broken political system to parts of the world that aren't interested in it.
I think people get caught up in the military victory on the ground, and forget the bigger strategic picture. Russia's place in this conflict is now tied directly to the hip of Assad, a guy who kicked this civil war off by torturing and murdering protesters. Assad's regime is fundamentally non-viable, even if it wins the war. Russia is now tied directly to Assad, and so it becomes hard to see how long term they are going to keep their ties to the country. Russia's actions here remind me a bit of the US involvement in the Iranian coup - while at the time it secured immediate geo-political interests, in the long run all it did was guarantee a hostile population for generations to come.
thekingofkings wrote: the syrian rebels and isis hold land, and are basically going to have to stand and fight, they have little popular support, the afghans did not try to hold land and did have popular support.
What? While ISIL has little popular support, the various elements of under the umbrella 'FSA' have considerable popular support in their own pockets. Their issue is a lack of co-ordination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Agreed. Assad is bad. But the resulting chaos of no Assad is worse.
We've got a lot of history, particularly in the mid-east, of supporting people who maintain power through the use of force alone. These people don't stop chaos, they just murder people for a period of time in order to delay chaos.
And when the use of violence is as unrestrained as what Assad did, the end is near.
West worked with Stalin to fight a greater enemy. Is this no different. We don,t have to like him. But some enemies mean you have to work with far less than nice people..
Through famine and murder, Stalin is responsible for something in the region of 40 million deaths so I'm not sure that's the best example to use. And more than that, before Barbarossa there was no alliance, and the alliance ended rapidly after the fall of Berlin.
sebster wrote: I think people get caught up in the military victory on the ground, and forget the bigger strategic picture. Russia's place in this conflict is now tied directly to the hip of Assad, a guy who kicked this civil war off by torturing and murdering protesters. Assad's regime is fundamentally non-viable, even if it wins the war. Russia is now tied directly to Assad, and so it becomes hard to see how long term they are going to keep their ties to the country. Russia's actions here remind me a bit of the US involvement in the Iranian coup - while at the time it secured immediate geo-political interests, in the long run all it did was guarantee a hostile population for generations to come.
thekingofkings wrote: the syrian rebels and isis hold land, and are basically going to have to stand and fight, they have little popular support, the afghans did not try to hold land and did have popular support.
What? While ISIL has little popular support, the various elements of under the umbrella 'FSA' have considerable popular support in their own pockets. Their issue is a lack of co-ordination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Agreed. Assad is bad. But the resulting chaos of no Assad is worse.
We've got a lot of history, particularly in the mid-east, of supporting people who maintain power through the use of force alone. These people don't stop chaos, they just murder people for a period of time in order to delay chaos.
And when the use of violence is as unrestrained as what Assad did, the end is near.
West worked with Stalin to fight a greater enemy. Is this no different. We don,t have to like him. But some enemies mean you have to work with far less than nice people..
Through famine and murder, Stalin is responsible for something in the region of 40 million deaths so I'm not sure that's the best example to use. And more than that, before Barbarossa there was no alliance, and the alliance ended rapidly after the fall of Berlin.
Well...the UK, US. Shipped massive amounts onf weapons to the Soviets in WW2. At high cost and through some of harshest sea conditions on earth.
When we did supply Stalin, we supplied Stalin heavily at the breaking point.
We did even if for a short time work with a very dark leader to defeat a greater foe.
I ser no difference in backing Assad vs ISIS, vs terrorism and driving Islamic extremists out of power.
There a evil that needs to be crushed, broken and ground into the dust of history.
The FSA and many others are just as bad as the rest. Assad is best of a bad set.
Least he not been declaring war on all his neighbors.
Freakazoitt wrote: About 2-3 millions. So, in total 4-5 mln victims of Stalin. But of course not 40 million. Not justifying him, just want correct numbers
2-3 million in the Holodomor is the absolute bare minimum. You ARE justifying, or at least downplaying, Stalin by running with the absolute unlikely minimum. 7-8 million for the 32-33 famines alone is a more reasonable number, so we're already higher than your "correct numbers" from that one genocide alone.
EDIT: Just for clarity, I think the 40 million figure is a bit high; quick googling puts most estimates somewhere between 15 to 20 million.
There a evil that needs to be crushed, broken and ground into the dust of history.
The FSA and many others are just as bad as the rest. Assad is best of a bad set.
Least he not been declaring war on all his neighbors.
Unlike a certain bunch f looks in raqqa.
We'll just ignore that yes, the Assad regime has actually engaged in an armed conflict with a few of its neighbors during the course of this civil war. Not just "oh we're arming the rebels". The Israelis and the Turks committed their own manpower to the war (the former pulled out early after wiping all the Syrian forces nearest to their own border off the map and been less direct since then though). Not to mention the Kurdish state (which I suppose some still refuse to recognize) and outside Saudi backing.
And woo, we're back for round 200 of the "Stalin did nothing wrong" debate. Keep the crap to its own thread please.
I wouldn't call Stalin more evil then Hitler, I'd just say Stalin was more successful. Because Hitler would have killed a lot more if given the chance. Stalin was still a mass-murdering feth, but was somewhat less bad than the Nazis (which isn't great praise).
Still too high. Nazis killed 11 million, Japans killed about 6 million. Are you saying Staling was 2 times more evil than Hitler?
Oh hell yea I am. He was a a murder machine on a scale on equalled Chairperson Mao.
If your yardstick for measuring evil is simply a bodycount then Capitalism is the ultimate evil, outslaughtering Communism and Nazism combined with estimates of around 200 million.
7) Go home and drink vodka
Offtopic: I noticed, in american music clips cool guys often sitting at the cool table, and about each of them is a whole bottle of vodka. Is that a some trend now? They really drink whole bottle or vodka used just as interior object?
Siberians went with another drink of choice. Ewww.
Usually only certain places will "cover" something like that, but you learn from experience, or by reading about said sites that they'll peddle anything.
I was about to make a thread but thought this would fit better here. There are pictures and video but I'm not going to link them because it seems that'd be fairly tasteless given the circumstances. Follow the link to see that if you want.
Russian ambassador to Turkey dead after being shot in 'assassination attempt in revenge for Aleppo'
Russia's ambassador to Turkey has been assassinated in front of terrified witnesses allegedly in retaliation for the crisis in Aleppo.
The gunman reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar" and said in Turkish "We die in Aleppo, you die here" during the shooting which left Ambassador Andrei Karlov dead.
The attacker was fatally shot by police after killing Mr Karlov and wounding at least three others in what Russia's Foreign Ministry has called "an act of terrorism".
Mr Karlov was delivering a speech at an art gallery in the capital of Ankara when he was shot in a suspected radical Islamic attack, the Hurriyet newspaper reported.
The assassination and aftermath were captured on camera, with video showing Mr Karlov speaking at a podium before falling to the floor as gunshots were heard.
Photos showed the attacker, wearing a black suit and tie, standing behind Mr Karlov with his hands clasped before pulling out a handgun in his right hand and opening fire.
The gunman extended his right arm and pointed the gun at Mr Karlov, and then gestured with his left index finger pointed into the air after shooting the ambassador multiple times.
Witnesses were heard screaming in terror as they ran out of the art gallery, and the gunman was heard shouting slogans as he pointed his finger in the air and pointed his gun towards the fleeing crowd.
Photos and video published online by Turkish media showed Mr Karlov and a second person on the floor after being shot at the opening of an exhibition called "Russia in the Eyes of Turks",.
Three others were reportedly wounded as the shooting continued and people fled for their lives.
The Kremlin said Russian President Vladimir Putin was holding an emergency meeting in the wake of the assassination.
The shooting occurred just days before Russia was set to host a meeting on the crisis in Syria.
The gunman allegedly used police identification to enter Ankara's Centre for Contemporary Arts, and Mr Karlov reportedly did not have a security team with him.
Shortly after Mr Karlov's death was announced governments around the world condemned the attack.
US State Department spokesman John Kirby said: "We condemn this act of violence, whatever its source.
"Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family."
Russia is Syria's most powerful ally and has played a significant role in the Syrian government's attempts to eradicate rebel groups across the country.
In recent weeks pro-government forces have made rapid advances on rebel-held territory in war-torn Aleppo, leaving many people dead or wounded.
After rebels were driven into an enclave in eastern Aleppo after heavy bombing a ceasefire was brokered by Russian and Turkish officials.
It included a plan to evacuate thousands of rebels and civilians, including women and children, from Aleppo to rebel-held territory in Idlib province in north-western Syria.
As far as I know, the last time Russian ambassador died in the early 19th century. I think a word about Aleppo - is just a cover. Something's wrong here. Or the attack was carefully planned or the guards were bribed.
Freakazoitt wrote: I think, for Russia it is no matter if its Assad or other Alavite. But again, replacing (or removing as West wants) him now will cause collapsing of Syria as there will be no state.
Sure, but that assumes Russia will maintain legitimacy and therefore influence in Syria. If Assad has to go, how much influence do you think the country that committed atrocities to protect a guy who had committed atrocities will have?
He is evil, but why such a huge number? Million were died in gualg, another milllion by other red terror and paranoia things, Are you counting all WW2 victims?
Nope, that's the number without wartime casualties. There was the enforced famine, collectivisation, labour camps, forced relocation, and then finally you get to the mass executions, which was the least horrific in terms of total bodycount.
It's a huge number because that's what happens when you get a ruthless man in absolute control of a country where much of the population lives hand to mouth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freakazoitt wrote: About 2-3 millions. So, in total 4-5 mln victims of Stalin. But of course not 40 million. Not justifying him, just want correct numbers
Your number is wrong by an order of magnitude. Seriously, go read on the subject. 40m is the lowball figure, estimates range from 40m up to 60m.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Well...the UK, US. Shipped massive amounts onf weapons to the Soviets in WW2. At high cost and through some of harshest sea conditions on earth.
When we did supply Stalin, we supplied Stalin heavily at the breaking point.
We did even if for a short time work with a very dark leader to defeat a greater foe.
I ser no difference in backing Assad vs ISIS, vs terrorism and driving Islamic extremists out of power.
Then you don't understand the situation very well. ISIS is a sideshow. They've got a lot of media attention for their atrocities and efforts to build a truly horrific regime, but in terms of numbers and fighting power ISIS was never going to come out on top.
ISIS exist right now because Syria and the various FSA factions are much more concerned with each other, and the Iraqi army is a debacle. This allows ISIS to exist in the power vacuum. When that vacuum is gone and the fighting ends ISIS will be steadily wiped out. As such, the idea that you'd have to back an known evil just because they would fight ISIS is a very odd strategy.
It is not like backing the Soviets at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: EDIT: Just for clarity, I think the 40 million figure is a bit high; quick googling puts most estimates somewhere between 15 to 20 million.
Look at the date of those estimates. There's been a lot of work done recently, as people have been able to access Soviet archives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freakazoitt wrote: Still too high. Nazis killed 11 million, Japans killed about 6 million. Are you saying Staling was 2 times more evil than Hitler?
upd I googled, it says nazis killed about 20 million confirmed number. But anyway
That's a bizarre argument. You're basically saying that bodycounts define how evil a regime is, and because the Hitler was more evil than the Stalin, therefore Stalin can't have killed more. How evil you think someone was doesn't define what happened - reality defines the conclusion, while you are attempting to use your conclusion to define reality.
Also, bodycount doesn't define 'evil'. A tyrant put in charge of a bigger, poorer country for a longer time will kill more people, than a more murderous tyrant given control of a richer country for a shorter time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freakazoitt wrote: As far as I know, the last time Russian ambassador died in the early 19th century. I think a word about Aleppo - is just a cover. Something's wrong here. Or the attack was carefully planned or the guards were bribed.
You're making up some crazy stuff there, with absolutely no evidence. Please don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
Artillery strikes on civilian locations are ordinary, but assassinating diplomats means it is time to freak out.
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
Artillery strikes on civilian locations are ordinary, but assassinating diplomats means it is time to freak out.
Jesus fething christ.
Yes, because you keep killing diplomats without severe consequence, then why bother with diplomacy at all. As for the snipe about artillery striking civilians, then the rebels shouldnt use them as shields. they are fighting in a manner that makes it certain there will be civilian casualties. smallest violin for the rebel cause.
Ensure when you post you do so politely, think if you're actually responding to someone trying to talk to you, or if you're in fact quoting them then going off on random tangents that they clearly didn't say. That's not polite
thekingofkings wrote: Yes, because you keep killing diplomats without severe consequence, then why bother with diplomacy at all. As for the snipe about artillery striking civilians, then the rebels shouldnt use them as shields. they are fighting in a manner that makes it certain there will be civilian casualties. smallest violin for the rebel cause.
I like how one murder of a diplomat becomes 'keep killing diplomats'. Because feth it let's just make stuff up.
Second up, there is a difference between defending a city where people live, and deliberately using civilians as human shields. And even if they are being used as human shields, there is still an obligation to minimise civilian casualties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freakazoitt wrote: OK, how about 200 million? Or 300 million, if we count undocumented? And 100 million soldiers killed by NKVD machine guns (officially confirmed by "Enemy at the Gates").
No, I think I'll stick with the numbers put forward by experts who've studied this very thing. If you want to go with your method of making up numbers I guess that's up to you.
He was more evil, because he was "Russian", and all Russians are evil without explanation. Hitler wasn't Russian, so he was better than Stalin. And nazis now started the war, they just heroically defended themselves from bolshevik hordes and Allies. Also, they had fancy uniforms. Their tanks were best of the best. And Soviets used human waves to conquer Eurpoe, because they wanted to rape Berlin women.
thekingofkings wrote: Yes, because you keep killing diplomats without severe consequence, then why bother with diplomacy at all. As for the snipe about artillery striking civilians, then the rebels shouldnt use them as shields. they are fighting in a manner that makes it certain there will be civilian casualties. smallest violin for the rebel cause.
I like how one murder of a diplomat becomes 'keep killing diplomats'. Because feth it let's just make stuff up.
Second up, there is a difference between defending a city where people live, and deliberately using civilians as human shields. And even if they are being used as human shields, there is still an obligation to minimise civilian casualties.
Its a matter of principle, they kill one and get away with it, then they kill more, nothing was made up except in your statement. The rebels are not defending the city, it was clear they lacked the strength to break the siege, any further resistance was on them. These rebels are not "good guys" they are scum, sure they are fighting a tyrant, but only so they can impose their own tyranny. And minimize does not mean "none".
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
He's a fething King, it's right there in the name.
Second up, there is a difference between defending a city where people live, and deliberately using civilians as human shields. And even if they are being used as human shields, there is still an obligation to minimise civilian casualties.
The rebels weren't defending a city, they were occupying it. The legitimate government was liberating a city, and all the people in it, from crazy islamists and terrorists. These poor people were held hostage in it.
"Liberating", by dropping chemical weapons and barrel bombs on civilian targets indiscriminately. We only have rebels in the first place because the regime was using draconian tactics to put down the moderate opposition...
Purely because one faction within the rebels are extremists people see that as a justification for accepting a tyrant to remain in power. We've gone to war with countries for less, and well, NATO would be involved in this already had it not been for the Russians repeatedly vetoing any involvement on the rebel side > then joining the other side and committing troops without any approval.
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
He's a fething King, it's right there in the name.
to quote a great man "because he is the only one who hasnt got **** all over him"...........now come along patsy!
On a more serious note, I have no sympathy for these rebels and their enablers. They threw their lot in with a devil worse than Assad. When they failed to lift the seige they should have surrendered. There is no hope in their rebellion, the best they can do is negotiate the best terms they can get.
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
Answer the question or take your bs elsewhere. If the problem is that ISIS et al. are indiscriminately and brutally murdering people, how is the solution to indiscriminately and brutally murder people? You don't even know who to target in the first place, but you don't care, because it's not happening to you, is it?
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
Answer the question or take your bs elsewhere. If the problem is that ISIS et al. are indiscriminately and brutally murdering people, how is the solution to indiscriminately and brutally murder people? You don't even know who to target in the first place, but you don't care, because it's not happening to you, is it?
Despicable.
Like I said, if you cant figure it out, your not worth bothering with.
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
Answer the question or take your bs elsewhere. If the problem is that ISIS et al. are indiscriminately and brutally murdering people, how is the solution to indiscriminately and brutally murder people? You don't even know who to target in the first place, but you don't care, because it's not happening to you, is it?
Despicable.
Like I said, if you cant figure it out, your not worth bothering with.
If you're not going to debate constructively, why are you here to start with?
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
Answer the question or take your bs elsewhere. If the problem is that ISIS et al. are indiscriminately and brutally murdering people, how is the solution to indiscriminately and brutally murder people? You don't even know who to target in the first place, but you don't care, because it's not happening to you, is it?
Despicable.
Like I said, if you cant figure it out, your not worth bothering with.
If you're not going to debate constructively, why are you here to start with?
You didnt want to debate, you wanted to make a snipe.
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
Answer the question or take your bs elsewhere. If the problem is that ISIS et al. are indiscriminately and brutally murdering people, how is the solution to indiscriminately and brutally murder people? You don't even know who to target in the first place, but you don't care, because it's not happening to you, is it?
Despicable.
Like I said, if you cant figure it out, your not worth bothering with.
If you're not going to debate constructively, why are you here to start with?
You didnt want to debate, you wanted to make a snipe.
Fine then, let's restart. How is it reasonable to call for genocide, in any circumstance whatsoever?
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
Answer the question or take your bs elsewhere. If the problem is that ISIS et al. are indiscriminately and brutally murdering people, how is the solution to indiscriminately and brutally murder people? You don't even know who to target in the first place, but you don't care, because it's not happening to you, is it?
Despicable.
Like I said, if you cant figure it out, your not worth bothering with.
If you're not going to debate constructively, why are you here to start with?
You didnt want to debate, you wanted to make a snipe.
Fine then, let's restart. How is it reasonable to call for genocide, in any circumstance whatsoever?
Its not "genocide" that word is being cheapened to almost irrelevancy,. Exterminating rebels, that is about the only way to end a rebellion, as the defeat of the LTTE showed. There have been negotiated settlements, but usually that requires reason and pragmatism from the rebel side (example being MNLF and MILF in the P.I.) which is very rare in ideologues.In the case of Syria, the rebels are Sunni extremists who if they succeed will bring in far more horror and slaughter than Assad could. This is a lesser of two evils, and the lesser evil must win, even at the cost of annhilating the rebels to the last man.
Except Sri Lanka did not conduct a process of exterminating the rebels, it engaged them in a military conflict. There is a difference between the two. If they set out to exterminate the rebels they would have executed all of the rebel forces they captured. Would you be okay with that?
thekingofkings wrote: It is time for Russia to avenge itself on these clowns, attacking diplomats is a bridge too far, the rebels, ALL of them, need to be exterminated.
When you call for the extermination of people then you lose any right to call anything "a bridge too far".
That's your opinion. I do not share it, at all.
No, we noticed.
Remind me how you're better than the people you supposedly want to exterminate, again?
IF you cant figure that out, then its no surprise why you just dont get it. You are equating these rebels and terrorists as if they are merely misunderstood citizens. Yes, you wipe out people like that, or are you the type that sympathizes with ISIS?
Answer the question or take your bs elsewhere. If the problem is that ISIS et al. are indiscriminately and brutally murdering people, how is the solution to indiscriminately and brutally murder people? You don't even know who to target in the first place, but you don't care, because it's not happening to you, is it?
Despicable.
Like I said, if you cant figure it out, your not worth bothering with.
If you're not going to debate constructively, why are you here to start with?
You didnt want to debate, you wanted to make a snipe.
Fine then, let's restart. How is it reasonable to call for genocide, in any circumstance whatsoever?
If there were 5 000 people, threatening and killing and raping tens of thousands of others people, wouldn't the killing of the bad 5 000 people be a good thing ? It is the same here. They don't deserve to live or to be well treated like little kings just because they are humans. They are killers and rapist, they use poor innocent people to protect themselves etc... This war isn't beautiful, no war is or ever was, but sometimes there are bad guys, and it's just to kill them.
You and me deserve to live because we are good guys. Fortunately, there are a lot of good guys. But simply being a human doesn't not give you the right to behave as they do and live.
I can't speak for this poster specifically, but I imagine many people like the illusion of comfort that hard, simple reactions to huge, terrifying problems bring.
They aren't speaking to solve the issue, but to allay their fear.
And if we wind up in a situation where they win, and form a stable government; we're dealing with their resentment for years (well, till a bigger fish turns up).
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Sri Lanka did not conduct a process of exterminating the rebels, it engaged them in a military conflict. There is a difference between the two. If they set out to exterminate the rebels they would have executed all of the rebel forces they captured. Would you be okay with that?
When a rebel surrenders, he is no longer a rebel. You hold him until the rebellion is crushed. He has given up certain freedoms and should be monitored. In the case of the tigers, they did kill all who resisted. The ones who surrendered were captured. They are now citizens of a country without civil war. Granted the Tamils haven't had their grievances resolved, but now they are at least talking.
The Syrians are able to tell each other apart, in the case of ISIS and the rebels, they are Sunni and armed. Anyone who doesn't want to be shot should lay down their arms.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Sri Lanka did not conduct a process of exterminating the rebels, it engaged them in a military conflict. There is a difference between the two. If they set out to exterminate the rebels they would have executed all of the rebel forces they captured. Would you be okay with that?
When a rebel surrenders, he is no longer a rebel. You hold him until the rebellion is crushed. He has given up certain freedoms and should be monitored. In the case of the tigers, they did kill all who resisted. The ones who surrendered were captured. They are now citizens of a country without civil war. Granted the Tamils haven't had their grievances resolved, but now they are at least talking.
The Syrians are able to tell each other apart, in the case of ISIS and the rebels, they are Sunni and armed. Anyone who doesn't want to be shot should lay down their arms.
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka’s leader is seeking the support of President-elect Donald Trump to free Sri Lankan troops from war crime allegations from the country’s decades-long civil war.
President Maithripala Sirisena said he has already sent a message to Trump, seeking his support.
The statement signals a retraction by Sirisena’s government of its promise to the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate allegations of war crimes against government troops and the now-defeated Tamil Tiger rebels in the civil war, which ended in 2009.
The U.N. high commissioner for human rights had called last year for the appointment of a hybrid court comprising local and international judges. But Sri Lanka, in a resolution co-sponsored with the U.S. at the council, had agreed to investigate allegations through its own judicial system with international technical support.
Sirisena told a party meeting over the weekend that he would discuss the Human Rights Council’s resolution with Trump and send “special representatives to request (Trump) to free our country from this situation and help us to build a society where we could live freely.”
Sirisena said he would also make a similar appeal to incoming U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
His statement comes in the wake of rising pressure by hard-line groups from the ethnic majority Sinhalese that accuse Sirisena’s government of betraying the military at the behest of Western nations.
Sirisena’s predecessor, Mahinda Rajapaksa, who led the military campaign to crush the rebels and rejected calls for investigations during his tenure, has been trying to woo the public back to him on the issue.
A U.N. report says there are strong indications that both government soldiers and Tamil rebels committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 25-year separatist war.
The U.N. initially estimated that at least 80,000 people were killed throughout the conflict, but a U.N. experts panel reported later that some 40,000 Tamils may have been killed in just the last few months of the fighting.
Sri Lankan soldiers are accused of deliberately targeting civilians and hospitals, blocking food and medicine for civilians trapped in the war zone. The rebels were accused of recruiting child soldiers, endangering civilians by holding them as human shields and killing those trying to flee their control.
From the time the war ended, the U.S. has been at the forefront in demanding investigations of allegations, and ties between the two countries were strained over Rajapaksa’s reluctance to probe the rights abuses. Relations with the U.S. have improved since Sirisena took office last year.
That inflated death rate sure means it was all on the up and up. Nothing to see here, move along citizen, no investigation needed
For the first time they celebrated Christmas in 5 years in liberated cities from jihadist scum. Syrian army is laying them out properly the past few days.
Stevefamine wrote: For the first time they celebrated Christmas in 5 years in liberated cities from jihadist scum. Syrian army is laying them out properly the past few days.
Good news all around
What? Since when have the Syrian rebels been persecuting Christians?
Stevefamine wrote: For the first time they celebrated Christmas in 5 years in liberated cities from jihadist scum. Syrian army is laying them out properly the past few days.
Good news all around
What? Since when have the Syrian rebels been persecuting Christians?
ISIS certainly would have been. As for the others? I don't know.