Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Who would be faking the reports to make the Syrian government look bad? So far there isn't a big push from foreign countries to intervene, unlike the case in Libya, and there even supported by a few.

Albatross wrote:I never knew the Assads played 40K....

Humour aside, the Rebels don't represent the entirety of the Syrian people and I'm sceptical of anything they do based solely on the fact of the way similar situations have turned out.

The Russians pointed out that many of those 100 casualties, which included Children, had close range firearm wounds. That isn't really something that occurs while shelling now is it?

No other countries have picked up on these comments as they are too quick to condemn and want to be seen as the most outraged.

I'm not a fan of the Assad regime, but it's another one of those 'Better the devil you know...' scenarios.

Medium of Death wrote:

Albatross wrote:I never knew the Assads played 40K....

Humour aside, the Rebels don't represent the entirety of the Syrian people and I'm sceptical of anything they do based solely on the fact of the way similar situations have turned out.

The Russians pointed out that many of those 100 casualties, which included Children, had close range firearm wounds. That isn't really something that occurs while shelling now is it?

No other countries have picked up on these comments as they are too quick to condemn and want to be seen as the most outraged.

I'm not a fan of the Assad regime, but it's another one of those 'Better the devil you know...' scenarios.

But if anyone is going to be misrepresented in the media, wouldn't it be the rebels? Of course the government is going to say that the rebels are murdering civilians, even when the evidence around it is pretty damn shaky, because it weakens their cause. What would the rebels gain from shooting the survivors of the artillery shells?

And really when a government starts using artillery on its own civilian populace that's a pretty big sign that they should be on the way out.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-27/news/sns-rt-us-syria-un-banbre84q0eg-20120527_1_artillery-observers-tank-shells

The article you pointed out suggested strong evidence of rebels shooting the civilians.

Hazardous Harry wrote: What would the rebels gain from shooting the survivors of the artillery shells?

What did the rebels in Uganda gain with their mass mutilations, rape and murder of the civilian population?

We don't know or understand the cultures in that part of the world, neither do any of our governments. The west should really have learned to stay out of the Arab states business by now!

PhantomViper wrote:The west should really have learned to stay out of the Arab states business by now!

I think there's a difference between manipulating the overthrow of a lawful government to gain better access to oil reserves, and applying economic sanctions on a country that's killing it's own people.

And the argument given in this thread 'it's possible that not all the people were killed by their government'... I mean what the feth?

Vendetta 476 wrote:Have any of you guys considered that the reports might be faked?

...

...

Yes, I've considered that and I don't believe it.

The Assad family has a long history of oppressive dictatorship. I'm afraid that in my eyes, the UN observers' reporting is more reliable than the mouthpiece of the regime.

Vendetta 476 wrote:The article you pointed out suggested strong evidence of rebels shooting the civilians.

It pointed out evidence that civilians had been shot, as well as shelled by fething artillery. Gee whiz, must be the rebels wot dun it, innit?

sebster wrote:

And the argument given in this thread 'it's possible that not all the people were killed by their government'... I mean what the feth?

How is that not plausible? Leave the rebels in charge of their old home towns and religious/cultural rivalries might begin to boil over. Perhaps those people still supported Assad?
The fact that you can't, even potentially, imagine that the rebels could have done this is somewhat staggering. You can't define what the rebels are fighting for, there are far too many splintered factions and agendas to simply dismiss this as 'The State did it'. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that way, but to simply pin everything on Assad's regime from the get go is lazy.

This just in; 90% of the victims were shot at point blank range.

Purely hypothetical, and not referring to Syria but I can't imagine it would be that difficult to destabilise a regime by attacking government troops then attacking civilians during the response to make the response look indiscriminate and far more brutal than it actually was.

Vendetta 476 wrote:Have any of you guys considered that the reports might be faked?

No, at least not yet. Interesting theory, and there's at least some evidence to support it.

I suspect that the explanation here will be similar to Rathergate: the documents may be fake, but the story is real.

More evidence that CNN isn't a real news source.

Good news!

Syria will not be a problem for long, we have Master Chief taking care of it!

Oh the joys of news channels!

Medium of Death wrote:How is that not plausible? Leave the rebels in charge of their old home towns and religious/cultural rivalries might begin to boil over. Perhaps those people still supported Assad?
The fact that you can't, even potentially, imagine that the rebels could have done this is somewhat staggering. You can't define what the rebels are fighting for, there are far too many splintered factions and agendas to simply dismiss this as 'The State did it'. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that way, but to simply pin everything on Assad's regime from the get go is lazy.

This just in; 90% of the victims were shot at point blank range.

You missed the point. That some, most or all the rebels might also be murderers in no way excuses what the Syrian government has done. They've used artillery to inflict general punishment on the civilian population.

sebster wrote:
You missed the point. That some, most or all the rebels might also be murderers in no way excuses what the Syrian government has done. They've used artillery to inflict general punishment on the civilian population.

While the rebels used bullets to reach the same result, which you have to admit is a much more personalized way to kill someone and shows that you are willing to do just that extra bit of effort to cause pain and suffering!

Ones are just as bad as the others, the international community has to back of and let them get on with their business.

PhantomViper wrote:

sebster wrote:
You missed the point. That some, most or all the rebels might also be murderers in no way excuses what the Syrian government has done. They've used artillery to inflict general punishment on the civilian population.

While the rebels used bullets to reach the same result, which you have to admit is a much more personalized way to kill someone and shows that you are willing to do just that extra bit of effort to cause pain and suffering!

So does that mean every situation where a protestor has been shot or beaten to death by authorities is much worse than using artillery on them? Just listen to yourself.

PhantomViper wrote:

sebster wrote:
You missed the point. That some, most or all the rebels might also be murderers in no way excuses what the Syrian government has done. They've used artillery to inflict general punishment on the civilian population.

While the rebels used bullets to reach the same result, which you have to admit is a much more personalized way to kill someone and shows that you are willing to do just that extra bit of effort to cause pain and suffering!

Ones are just as bad as the others, the international community has to back of and let them get on with their business.

"While the rebels used bullets to reach the same result, which you have to admit is a much more personalized way to kill someone and shows that you are willing to do just that extra bit of effort to cause pain and suffering!"

Artillery or bullets, it's still killing. And getting crushed under ruined masonry or torn to ribbons by splinter is probably worse than getting shot.

"Ones are just as bad as the others, the international community has to back of and let them get on with their business.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
So does that mean every situation where a protestor has been shot or beaten to death by authorities is much worse than using artillery on them? Just listen to yourself.

No, it means that this is a civil war and we ("we" as in western cultures), don't understand enough about the motives behind either side to support or condemn them.

It means that Libya and Iraq and Egypt should have taught us by now that the Arab concept of "Freedom" and "Democracy" probably doesn't have many points in common with what those concepts mean in the western world and that the "new" regimes that replace the old dictatorships will be just has bad to their own populations (or even worse), and with that extra twist of religious zealotry that makes them such good partners to western countries and global stability...

PhantomViper wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
So does that mean every situation where a protestor has been shot or beaten to death by authorities is much worse than using artillery on them? Just listen to yourself.

No, it means that this is a civil war and we ("we" as in western cultures), don't understand enough about the motives behind either side to support or condemn them.

It means that Libya and Iraq and Egypt should have taught us by now that the Arab concept of "Freedom" and "Democracy" probably doesn't have many points in common with what those concepts mean in the western world and that the "new" regimes that replace the old dictatorships will be just has bad to their own populations (or even worse), and with that extra twist of religious zealotry that makes them such good partners to western countries and global stability...

And your comparison of Iraq to Libya and Egypt demonstrates how little you understand the issue.

I don't even see how you can argue this point in fact. If a government is extensively using lethal force against unarmed civilians, which is undisputed here regardless of whether the rebels also played a part, then that government should be condemned.

PhantomViper wrote:While the rebels used bullets to reach the same result, which you have to admit is a much more personalized way to kill someone and shows that you are willing to do just that extra bit of effort to cause pain and suffering!

Ones are just as bad as the others, the international community has to back of and let them get on with their business.

You still don't get it. Passing sanction on Syria does not mean declaring to the world that the rebels are awesome. It means telling Syria that what they are doing is unacceptable, and they cannot be part of the international community as long as they continue to do it.

I cannot fething believe that I have to explain this to someone. Inflicting mass punishment on the general population is not something governments should do, whether or not some people in their country happen to also be committing evil.

sebster wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:While the rebels used bullets to reach the same result, which you have to admit is a much more personalized way to kill someone and shows that you are willing to do just that extra bit of effort to cause pain and suffering!

Ones are just as bad as the others, the international community has to back of and let them get on with their business.

You still don't get it. Passing sanction on Syria does not mean declaring to the world that the rebels are awesome. It means telling Syria that what they are doing is unacceptable, and they cannot be part of the international community as long as they continue to do it.

I cannot fething believe that I have to explain this to someone. Inflicting mass punishment on the general population is not something governments should do, whether or not some people in their country happen to also be committing evil.

Except that they are not inflicting mass punishment on the general population, they are bombing civilians that support the rebels, since rebels have a tendency to hide amongst civilian populations, that's kind of inevitable.

It is also kind of a running theme in civil wars. It happened in Yugoslavia, it happened in Spain, it even happened in the good old US of A. But no! All the usual leftist PC mouthpieces have to act all outraged and scream to the world that this is proof that we need to invade Syria or bomb them back to the stone age or something!

In the 90's, Yugoslavia was a happy and pleasant country and the common man really didn't give 2 hoots whether a Serb, Croat or Bosniak was in charge, as they all lived cheek by jowl anyway, and were all quite happy.

But of course this wasn't good enough for some, so the country tore itself apart, as disparate political bodies decided they wanted to become self governing.

Europe watched as it slid into armed conflict, but didn't do too much as they thought it would be sorted politically, democratically or diplomatically. This was, after all, Europe.

But they did do one crucial, crucial thing. They forbade the selling of arms to all parties. A sensible course surely! Except the Bosnian Serbs were being supplied by Serbia, who made their own weapons.

The Bosniaks could barely scrape a few hundred rifles together. The Serbs had tanks.

A few years later, and we have to witness concentration camps, ethnic cleansing and massacres the like of which hadn't been seen since World War 2. Bosniaks burned alive, mass graves, massacred with chainsaws, shot down by snipers as they went to get water, shelled into oblivion, and gunned down (even as UN peace keepers watched).

So to say we should back off and let them "sort it out themselves" is ridiculous, naive and slowed. This is not an attempt to enrage you, but really, you are a slow, if you cannot see why this cannot be allowed to happen any more.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
And your comparison of Iraq to Libya and Egypt demonstrates how little you understand the issue.

I didn't make any comparison.

I simply used them as the latest examples available of western interference (only moral in Egypt's case), in middle eastern countries that turned out less than spectacularly for both our side and the future happiness of the indigenous populations.

Because here's the crucial thing, the Serbs didn't give a toss whether they were killing soldiers or civilians, if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, they'd kill you

Bongo_clive wrote:In the 90's, Yugoslavia was a happy and pleasant country and the common man really didn't give 2 hoots whether a Serb, Croat or Bosniak was in charge, as they all lived cheek by jowl anyway, and were all quite happy.

But of course this wasn't good enough for some, so the country tore itself apart, as disparate political bodies decided they wanted to become self governing.

Europe watched as it slid into armed conflict, but didn't do too much as they thought it would be sorted politically, democratically or diplomatically. This was, after all, Europe.

But they did do one crucial, crucial thing. They forbade the selling of arms to all parties. A sensible course surely! Except the Bosnian Serbs were being supplied by Serbia, who made their own weapons.

The Bosniaks could barely scrape a few hundred rifles together. The Serbs had tanks.

A few years later, and we have to witness concentration camps, ethnic cleansing and massacres the like of which hadn't been seen since World War 2. Bosniaks burned alive, mass graves, massacred with chainsaws, shot down by snipers as they went to get water, shelled into oblivion, and gunned down (even as UN peace keepers watched).

So to say we should back off and let them "sort it out themselves" is ridiculous, naive and slowed. This is not an attempt to enrage you, but really, you are a slow, if you cannot see why this cannot be allowed to happen any more.

So you are advocating that the UN send more armed troops into another middle eastern country? Is that it?

PhantomViper wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:In the 90's, Yugoslavia was a happy and pleasant country and the common man really didn't give 2 hoots whether a Serb, Croat or Bosniak was in charge, as they all lived cheek by jowl anyway, and were all quite happy.

But of course this wasn't good enough for some, so the country tore itself apart, as disparate political bodies decided they wanted to become self governing.

Europe watched as it slid into armed conflict, but didn't do too much as they thought it would be sorted politically, democratically or diplomatically. This was, after all, Europe.

But they did do one crucial, crucial thing. They forbade the selling of arms to all parties. A sensible course surely! Except the Bosnian Serbs were being supplied by Serbia, who made their own weapons.

The Bosniaks could barely scrape a few hundred rifles together. The Serbs had tanks.

A few years later, and we have to witness concentration camps, ethnic cleansing and massacres the like of which hadn't been seen since World War 2. Bosniaks burned alive, mass graves, massacred with chainsaws, shot down by snipers as they went to get water, shelled into oblivion, and gunned down (even as UN peace keepers watched).

So to say we should back off and let them "sort it out themselves" is ridiculous, naive and slowed. This is not an attempt to enrage you, but really, you are a slow, if you cannot see why this cannot be allowed to happen any more.

So you are advocating that the UN send more armed troops into another middle eastern country? Is that it?

Absolutely, with clear rules of engagement that were severely lacking in Bosnia. ie If you shoot in our vicinity, you will be shot. Quite clear.

I live in the Arab states, and I can tell you they love democracy just as much as everyone else. They love arguing, shouting and making a racket, but above all they like NOT BEING SHOT FOR DOING IT!!! Governments should never be allowed to kill their own population, and freedom of speech is something every human being has a right to.

Any government not allowing that needs to be removed

Bongo_clive wrote:
Absolutely, with clear rules of engagement that were severely lacking in Bosnia. ie If you shoot in our vicinity, you will be shot. Quite clear.

I live in the Arab states, and I can tell you they love democracy just as much as everyone else. They love arguing, shouting and making a racket, but above all they like NOT BEING SHOT FOR DOING IT!!! Governments should never be allowed to kill their own population, and freedom of speech is something every human being has a right to.

Any government not allowing that needs to be removed

Cool, lets send more of our troops into another quagmire! That worked out so well in Afghanistan and Iraq!

And they love democracy and freedom of speech so much that as soon as they depose their dictators, out comes the Sharia law and religious nutjobs! Huzza for stonings and celebratory burkas for everyone!

Sweet baby jesus, you're so plainly wrong it's obscene, but I can no longer be bothered.

I can only assume you're young or simple, and I can't think of way to fill in your obvious ignorance. (Do you even know which countries enforce the Hijab and Naqib?)

So you can sit and pontificate in your mothers house, but people are dying right now. They are being killed indiscriminately without a shed of proof that they are even opposed to the regime. And you would have us sit back and do nothing.

I am ashamed of you and for you

Bongo_clive wrote:Sweet baby jesus, you're so plainly wrong it's obscene, but I can no longer be bothered.

I can only assume you're young or simple, and I can't think of way to fill in your obvious ignorance. (Do you even know which countries enforce the Hijab and Naqib?)

So you can sit and pontificate in your mothers house, but people are dying right now. They are being killed indiscriminately without a shed of proof that they are even opposed to the regime. And you would have us sit back and do nothing.

I am ashamed of you and for you

I've hadn't read such fake outrage in a long time... And as usual, when you PC types start loosing an argument you go straight to the personal attacks... cute.

You have reports in this very thread that most of the civilians that died and originated all the latest wave of western "outrage" against Assad's regime were actually killed point blank by the rebels... you know, the "good guys", the guys you seem to support?

You have reports from Egypt that the party that is ahead in the polling intentions intends to enforce Sharia Law. You have the same reports from Libya.

You have actual pictures of the Al Qaeda flag flying in official buildings in Libya, those defenders of Democracy and human rights everywhere.

Western nations and the UN should stay the hell out of another quagmire that would only serve to rally even more Islamic extremists against us, cost a ton of money and lives for no gain. If the countries in the area love democracy and freedom so much, let the Arab League send troops into Syria.

Tone it down a bit please chaps.

Thanks.

PhantomViper wrote:
Except that they are not inflicting mass punishment on the general population, they are bombing civilians that support the rebels, since rebels have a tendency to hide amongst civilian populations, that's kind of inevitable.

Except that they are inflicting punishment on the general population, I've bolded the crucial point here. They may "support" the rebels, but they're not physically doing anything, they're innocent bystanders. And you say it's ok to drop an artillery strike on them?