The Syrian Conflict Thread

[Xarog]

The facts are all verifiable, you tell me which one isn't? So whilst you can disagree with my interpretation of the facts, you cant claim my hypothesis isn't based on facts.

Yes that is true of my hypothesis but not true of the facts i have used for my hypothesis.

The "facts" are what another party in the war has reported about itself. That's not really objective, factually speaking.

 

[Unhappy438]

The "facts" are what another party in the war has reported about itself. That's not really objective, factually speaking.

If they were still bombing recently in Aleppo and just had no entry for that day i would agree. Except they haven't reported bombings there for months.

 

[Xarog]

If they were still bombing recently in Aleppo and just had no entry for that day i would agree. Except they haven't reported bombings there for months.

Does the United States typically publish the missions that their special forces go on? If not, why do you presume that the records you have are a full accounting of what the U.S. is doing in Syria?

You have your opinion, and imo it isn't unreasonable, but Dave's criticism of your argument is nonetheless valid.

 

[crackersa]

Does the United States typically publish the missions that their special forces go on? If not, why do you presume that the records you have are a full accounting of what the U.S. is doing in Syria?

You have your opinion, and imo it isn't unreasonable, but Dave's criticism of your argument is nonetheless valid.

Nope, JSOC keeps that classified

 

[Unhappy438]

Does the United States typically publish the missions that their special forces go on? If not, why do you presume that the records you have are a full accounting of what the U.S. is doing in Syria?

Maybe they arent reliable but its a fact that they haven't reported a single strike in Aleppo for months after reporting them daily before. I feel thats significant.

As an aside, special forces play no role in this incident.

You have your opinion, and imo it isn't unreasonable, but Dave's criticism of your argument is nonetheless valid.

Perfectly fine for Dave to disagree with my opinion, its quite unfair to say i haven't used a single fact to form my opinion though.

 

[Xarog]

Perfectly fine for Dave to disagree with my opinion, its quite unfair to say i haven't used a single fact to form my opinion though.

But you're basically arguing the equivalent of there's no Russian forces inside Ukraine because the Russians said there aren't any inside Ukraine. The only fact in that example is what the Russians have said, and that's simply prima facie unreliable in a war theatre.

As an aside, special forces play no role in this incident.

That you know of.

 

[Dave]

Perfectly fine for Dave to disagree with my opinion, its quite unfair to say i haven't used a single fact to form my opinion though.

Nobody saw a bear in the woods, therefore it's an indisputable fact that there are no bears in the woods...

 

[Unhappy438]

But you're basically arguing the equivalent of there's no Russian forces inside Ukraine because the Russians said there aren't any inside Ukraine. The only fact in that example is what the Russians have said, and that's simply prima facie unreliable in a war theatre.

Completely different scenario and situation, not even remotely the same thing no.

That you know of.

Are special forces not ground forces? Also doesn't tie up why the US would conduct a special forces operation against the rebels they support and then not even actually have a special forces operation. Just an aerial bombardment.

 

[Unhappy438]

Nobody saw a bear in the woods, therefore it's an indisputable fact that there are no bears in the woods...

You still seem to be confusing the facts and my hypothesis. I never once said my hypothesis was an indisputable fact

 

[Xarog]

Completely different scenario and situation, not even remotely the same thing no.

It's exactly the same thing. You're taking the published statements of a nation-state in a conflict with a motive to provide disinformation at face value.

Are special forces not ground forces? Also doesn't tie up why the US would conduct a special forces operation against the rebels they support and then not even actually have a special forces operation. Just an aerial bombardment.

Could have been a case of mistaken identity as happened in Afghanistan. Could be that the SF mission was simply in the vicinity and people didn't connect the dots. There's dozens of reasonable hypothetical explanations.

 

[Unhappy438]

It's exactly the same thing. You're taking the published statements of a nation-state in a conflict with a motive to provide disinformation at face value.

I think i have stated why i feel its different, i don't really feel like repeating things.

 

[Unhappy438]

[video=youtube;aM3ElTvF52I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM3ElTvF52I[/video]

 

[Xarog]

I think i have stated why i feel its different, i don't really feel like repeating things.

Where did you state why you feel it's different? I don't see that anywhere in your posts.

 

[Unhappy438]

Where did you state why you feel it's different? I don't see that anywhere in your posts.

2nd post on this page. Also as ive already said, the scenario is completely different.

 

[Xarog]

2nd post on this page. Also as ive already said, the scenario is completely different.

If they were still bombing recently in Aleppo and just had no entry for that day i would agree. Except they haven't reported bombings there for months.

You mean this?

 

[Unhappy438]

You mean this?

Yup

 

[Xarog]

Yup

Lol.

You know the best way to lie is to tell a half-truth, right?

But sure, if you want to take American claims of their actions at face value, then I guess that's your choice. Just don't expect anyone else to be convinced by your arguments, just as I'd expect you to regard as dubious any statements made by someone who takes Russian claims at face value.

*Shrug*

 

[Unhappy438]

Lol.

You know the best way to lie is to tell a half-truth, right?

But sure, if you want to take American claims of their actions at face value, then I guess that's your choice. Just don't expect anyone else to be convinced by your arguments, just as I'd expect you to regard as dubious any statements made by someone who takes Russian claims at face value.

*Shrug*

I don't solely take their claims at face value and its disingenuous to suggest their claims are the only part of my argument. You're forgetting about the part where the people who were bombed are enemies of Assad and Russia and allies of the US. You are also forgetting about the part where Assad has repeatedly hit hospitals and market places, its a common tactic of his. Times when nobody else can be blamed, like when helicopters were used or times before the US was aerially involved.

I remember a few months back when a hospital was hit, in this thread Turkey was blamed as apparently that was some kind of false flag for the Turks ground invasion. Well that truly came to fruition. As i said before its always conveniently someone else bombing all these hospitals, instead of you know the actual people at war with the rebels.

 

[Xarog]

I don't solely take their claims at face value and its disingenuous to suggest their claims are the only part of my argument.

You have already admitted that had the American statements been different that you would treat the possibility of their complicity differently. No other fact that you have brought up can be considered relevant from this perspective.

You're forgetting about the part where the people who were bombed are enemies of Assad and Russia and allies of the US. You are also forgetting about the part where Assad has repeatedly hit hospitals and market places, its a common tactic of his. Times when nobody else can be blamed, like when helicopters were used or times before the US was aerially involved.

I remember a few months back when a hospital was hit, in this thread Turkey was blamed as apparently that was some kind of false flag for the Turks ground invasion. Well that truly came to fruition. As i said before its always conveniently someone else bombing all these hospitals, instead of you know the actual people at war with the rebels.

MSF already stated that the location of this hospital wasn't reported, so I would say this line of argument is specious as we can't even be sure that the people who attacked it knew what they were attacking.

 

[Unhappy438]

You have already admitted that had the American statements been different that you would treat the possibility of their complicity differently. No other fact that you have brought up can be considered relevant from this perspective.

Exactly, if i took American statements at face value i wouldn't consider the possibility of them being false.

MSF already stated that the location of this hospital wasn't reported, so I would say this line of argument is specious as we can't even be sure that the people who attacked it knew what they were attacking.

I dont find this to be an acceptable excuse, you should know what you're bombing otherwise its just indiscriminate bombing.

And when Syrian government officials react like this to the bombing of an MSF hospital

The so-called hospital was installed without any prior consultation with the Syrian government by the so-called French network called MSF which is a branch of the French intelligence operating in Syria.

They assume the full consequences of the act because they did not consult with the Syrian government.

They did not operate with the Syrian government permission.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/sit...016/02/syria-conflict-russia-msf-france.html#

It becomes abundantly clear that providing their location will only make things worse for them.