The Syrian Conflict Thread

Unhappy438 said:
MSF blames Syrian government or Russia for air strike on hospital
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to have a little suspicion that there could be some dirty Turkish subterfuge here, why would Russia deliberately target multiple hospitals? It does nothing to further their cause or beat back the anti-Govt forces. Turkey could quite easily launch missiles from within Turkey and strike this area.

It then gives Turkey the opportunity to declare they have reason to act against Russian and Syrian "war crimes and aggression" and demand NATO back up.
 
Dave123 said:
why would Russia deliberately target multiple hospitals?
Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that destroying hospitals reduces the enemies ability to care for the wounded thus limiting the amount of enemies one would have to fight? Syria has been destroying hospitals since the beginning of the war, or was that Turkey as well?

I guess Turkey found a way to shoot barrel bombs from their side of the border http://www.msf.org/article/syria-barrage-barrel-bombs-destroys-msf-health-facility
 
Unhappy438 said:
You mean besides the fact that destroying hospitals reduces the enemies ability to care for the wounded thus limiting the amount of enemies one would have to fight? Syria has been destroying hospitals since the beginning of the war, or was that Turkey as well?

I guess Turkey found a way to shoot barrel bombs from their side of the border http://www.msf.org/article/syria-barrage-barrel-bombs-destroys-msf-health-facility
Click to expand...

Your link is June 2015, I'm talking about this recent bombing that's just happened which happened north of Aleppo, it's entirely possible that Turkey is looking for excuses to make a buffer zone in northern Syria, they can't just invade as they wouldn't be guaranteed NATO support.
 
Dave123 said:
Your link is June 2015, I'm talking about this recent bombing that's just happened which happened north of Aleppo, it's entirely possible that Turkey is looking for excuses to make a buffer zone in northern Syria, they can't just invade as they wouldn't be guaranteed NATO support.
Click to expand...

I know what date my link is from, you asked for reasons, i provided you with a past example. Clearly there is a precedent for this and Syria/Russia have their reasons. Plenty of hospitals have been bombed in the past and Turkey doesn't need to make more bombings to look for a reason.

I highly doubt Turkey would invade Syria without the US and a new hospital or two being bombed wont change the United States mind, when tens or perhaps a hundred of these have been bombed in the past. Basically to sum it up, your theory makes no sense.
 
TriGuN said:
No, it's clearly a political advert dressed up as an anti smoking advert.
Click to expand...

True, its both.

Dave123 said:
Only if you have a closed mind and won't consider remotely possible scenarios.

I don't trust Turkey, and I feel that they have plenty of ulterior motive to meddle more in Syria.
Click to expand...

You've done nothing but provide an emotion based argument but im the one with a closed mind :rolleyes:

Im more than willing to accept your theory if you can provide me with evidence and good reason.
 
Unhappy438 said:
I guess Turkey found a way to shoot barrel bombs from their side of the border
Click to expand...

Digressing a bit, but the whole "barrel bomb" thing has been exposed as propaganda by a number of sources, here's Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/august/04/assads-barrel-bombsand-ours/

The media and US government adoption of the term "barrel bomb" was in reality convenient war propaganda. Do the civilian victims of any military attack -- be they victims of Assad's bombs or US drones -- really care whether they are incinerated by a bomb with a Raytheon logo instead of a more crudely manufactured device? Are they any less or more dead?

Besides, history teaches us that not that long ago the US was quite fond of dropping what it calls "barrel bombs" from helicopters onto Vietnamese civilians. And, more recently, the US has sent Saudi Arabia thousands of cluster bombs -- also an indiscriminate, civilian-killing device -- where they have been used lately against Yemeni civilians.
Click to expand...
 
Unhappy438 said:
Ron Paul is nothing but anti US propaganda and putting on a whataboutism argument doesn't expose anything.
Click to expand...

Ok if for some reason you have an irrational bias against the man, I can't help you, go google for more sources then, they are out there.

The fact remains the only reason the term "barrel bomb" is even in your lexicon is because the US media made it so and pretended it is something special. The US themselves have used these "barrel bombs" and the much more modern version, the cluster bomb, they have supplied by the thousand to the Saudi's who are actually using them on civilians. You know the same Saudi's who behead more people per annum than ISIS ...

Yes none of that makes Assad a saint, but for the US to point out he's using "barrel bombs" is very rich, it is blatant hypocrisy.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Ok if for some reason you have an irrational bias against the man, I can't help you, go google for more sources then, they are out there.
Click to expand...

Its not an irrational bias, i've supplied you with the rationality.

NarrowBandFtw said:
The fact remains the only reason the term "barrel bomb" is even in your lexicon is because the US media made it so and pretended it is something special.
Click to expand...

No i havent made anything special about this, thats all you. I used the barrel bomb example because we can be sure Turkey is launching those long distances.

NarrowBandFtw said:
The US themselves have used these "barrel bombs" and the much more modern version, the cluster bomb, they have supplied by the thousand to the Saudi's who are actually using them on civilians. You know the same Saudi's who behead more people per annum than ISIS ...
Click to expand...

And here lies my rationality behind Ron Paul, he admonishes the US for using these dirty weapons (rightfully so) but defends the Syrians.

NarrowBandFtw said:
Yes none of that makes Assad a saint, but for the US to point out he's using "barrel bombs" is very rich, it is blatant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Im not the US and i've never used barrel bombs, so me pointing out the use of them isn't hypocrisy. How about we condemn the use of dirty weapons no matter the side using them.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Ron Paul is nothing but anti US propaganda and putting on a whataboutism argument doesn't expose anything.
Click to expand...
Lol?

Ron Paul is anything but anti-US. He's the only congressman I'd ever consider calling a true patriot, tbh.

Is Jimmy Carter also anti-US according to you?
 
Mr Obama how is this different from Iraq & Afghanistan please oh Great One, "Obi Kanobi" share your wisdom with us

The US President has claimed that Russian involvement in Syria is a sign of weakness and has pressed for regime change in Damascus, brushing aside ongoing peace talks and ignoring steady gains by the Syrian army and Kurdish forces against terrorists.

“If somebody’s strong, then you don’t have to send in your army to prop up your ally,” President Barack Obama said on Tuesday, taking a break from the ASEAN summit in California to speak to the press about the US Supreme Court and the Syrian crisis.

“They have legitimacy in their country, and they are able to manage it themselves, and then you have good relations with them,” Obama added. “You send in your army when the horse you’re backing isn’t effective.”

Obama was doubling down on a claim made in December last year that Russia was getting bogged down in an “inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict” in Syria. He dismissed the recent victories of the Syrian Arab Army and the Kurdish fighters north of Aleppo as “initial advances,” and said that three quarters of Syria was still controlled by forces other than the government in Damascus.

“What would be smarter would be for Russia to work with the United States and other parties in the international community to try to broker some sort of political transition,” Obama said.

https://www.rt.com/usa/332706-obama-syria-kurds-turkey/


“The fact that Putin finally had to send his own troops, and his own aircraft … and invest [in] this massive military operation … was not a testament to a great strength; it was a testament to the weakness of Assad’s position,” Obama reiterated, refusing to recognize the anti-terrorist nature of Russian military operation in Syria.

The US president mentioned Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) only once during his “Putin propping up Assad” answer, when he quite ironically said that Russia’s actions “has not distracted us from continuing to focus on ISIL.”
Click to expand...

Obama tried to "Ninja Overthrow (crackersa lol)" Syria like he did Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan & Ukraine. Obama also seems to have forgotten sending more troops to Iraq & Afghanistan yet somehow he feels what Russia is doing is different. Can the Obama supporters here please explain this conundrum
 
Last edited:
Xarog said:
Lol?

Ron Paul is anything but anti-US. He's the only congressman I'd ever consider calling a true patriot, tbh.

Is Jimmy Carter also anti-US according to you?
Click to expand...

Ok anti Washington, does that make you happy?

Xarog said:
The Americans have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

So do the Syrians, of course. Everyone has a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X