The Syrian Conflict Thread

[Unhappy1]

Not referring to you in particular, although you did seem to dismiss the Ron Paul institute quite quickly. I've seen much worse and I don't see how those individuals could possibly have any grip on the truth.

It wasn't quickly, i've read numerous articles from there. Made up my mind over a period of time.

 

[Unhappy1]

You said it yourself, they can't treat the wounded if there are no hospitals. If the arms supply lines to the resistance in Aleppo is cut off, then they can only last a limited amount of time anyway. At some point they will surrender because they don't want to die. Achieving that surrender is a psychological battle as much as anything else.

I understand all that but i cant make excuses for bombing hospitals, its wrong no matter the scenario.

 

[Xarog]

I understand that but i feel the scrutiny doesn't always go both ways with you.

And when I point out the one American politician whose values he lives by in terms of what he says as a politician and how he votes and so forth, you respond with a hit piece about the amount of money which he spends on airfare.

And why did I even bother in the first place? Because last time when I said that I'd treat America's politics and foreign policy vastly differently if they were more honest about their intentions instead of denigrating the good names of justice and freedom and self-determination with their lies, you didn't take that seriously either. Well, Ron Paul is the one candidate who'd actually do that for American politics. He's of course a million times too naive to ever get voted in as president, and I suspect that we'd see eye to eye on very little in terms of economics or social policies, but nevertheless I respect him for that much at least. So I spoke up for him cuz I think he's a stand up guy, in the hopes that you would realise that I am well capable of appreciating nuance.

So, all things considered, I think there's nothing I'll ever be able to say or do that will convince you otherwise. Not that it really bothers me at this point.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

It wasn't quickly, i've read numerous articles from there. Made up my mind over a period of time.

Sure your opinion of them was formed over a period of time, but the dismissal in this case was quite quick. Once you've formed an opinion you never change it? I'll take an easy example to pick on: Alex Jones, now I firmly believe anyone with half a brain will conclude he's a conspiracy theorist of note, and the way he gets worked up and starts shouting incoherently has made me ignore a large portion of his work and not go back for months on end.

Despite that, even he has uncovered some very interesting news at times, proven facts, not just theories. So although my opinion is formed and I'll never be able to tolerate him on a regular basis, I still would check out what he has to say from time to time.

Salon.com is another example for me, might just be my bad luck, but dear god I've seen pure unadulterated propaganda spewed there, still find the odd article interesting despite that.

 

[Xarog]

I understand all that but i cant make excuses for bombing hospitals, its wrong no matter the scenario.

No one is making excuses for bombing hospitals. I'm stating the Syrians had motive.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Here's another atrocity kind of allegation thrown in the opposite direction, tit for tat?

Source: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160219/1035003035/kurds-burned-alive-turkish-army.html#ixzz40ajIQiss

Some 150 Kurds have been burned alive in different buildings by Turkish military forces, as government’s offensive on mainly Kurdish southeastern provinces brings new victims, a member of the Turkish parliament from the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, Feleknas Uca, told Sputnik.

 

[Unhappy1]

Sure your opinion of them was formed over a period of time, but the dismissal in this case was quite quick.

Once you've formed an opinion you never change it?

Of course not, i can still state my general opinion on the guy. Nothing wrong with that.

I'll take an easy example to pick on: Alex Jones, now I firmly believe anyone with half a brain will conclude he's a conspiracy theorist of note, and the way he gets worked up and starts shouting incoherently has made me ignore a large portion of his work and not go back for months on end.

Despite that, even he has uncovered some very interesting news at times, proven facts, not just theories. So although my opinion is formed and I'll never be able to tolerate him on a regular basis, I still would check out what he has to say from time to time.

I agree with you on Alex Jones although i've never read anything of his that i have found interesting.

Salon.com is another example for me, might just be my bad luck, but dear god I've seen pure unadulterated propaganda spewed there, still find the odd article interesting despite that.

Salon is generally terrible, filled with a bunch of very dishonest journalists.

 

[Unhappy1]

No one is making excuses for bombing hospitals. I'm stating the Syrians had motive.

Ted Bundy had motives, so what?

So, all things considered, I think there's nothing I'll ever be able to say or do that will convince you otherwise. Not that it really bothers me at this point.

At least we agree on something, i feel the same way about you.

 

[Xarog]

Ted Bundy had motives, so what?

So that helped to prove his guilt, didn't it?

 

[Unhappy1]

So that helped to prove his guilt, didn't it?

Yeah, is that why you are pointing out motives? To prove Syria's guilt? Well as you know i've already done that but apologies, i thought you had other reasons for doing so.

 

[snoopdoggydog]

U.S. has asked Russia not to attack US special forces in Syria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has told Russia broad areas in which U.S. special forces are operating in Syria and asked them not to strike there, U.S. military officials said on Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-asked-russians-not-attack-special-forces-syria-174338151.html

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The United States has told Russia broad areas in which U.S. special forces are operating in Syria and asked them not to strike there, U.S. military officials said on Thursday

I expect a polite and professional GFY from Russia on that one, seriously, broad areas? Get specific or GFY.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Source: Russia to initiate UN Security Council meeting over Turkey’s plans to send troops to northern Syria

A UN Security Council meeting is to be called at Russia's request on Friday to discuss Ankara's plans for a ground operation in Syria, the Russian Foreign Ministry has said.
Turkey's actions in the region are threatening Syrian sovereignty, Moscow said, adding it would table a resolution demanding its prevention.

A general view shows the Kurdish city of Afrin, in Aleppo's countryside March 18, 2015. © Mahmoud HebboDozens of Turkish military vehicles cross Syria border, dig trenches – report
Moscow is concerned about the escalation of tensions on the Syrian-Turkish border, and "Turkey's announced plans to put boots on the ground in northern Syria," Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said on Friday, adding that the situation in the region is worrying because Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) fighters are entering Syria and creating terrorist bases there.

"It undercuts efforts to launch a political settlement in the Syrian Arab Republic," Zakharova said, announcing that Russia plans to call a Security Council meeting to discuss the situation.

A draft resolution will include demands to "end any actions that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, that are at odds with UN Security Council resolution 2254, as well as [interfere] with the launch of the Syrian peace process."

Seems well played, basically forcing Turkey's allies with veto power to block a very sensible resolution, check mate, either support the UN to reign in your psycho ally, or side with your psycho ally and give Russia even more control of the narrative ...

 

[snoopdoggydog]

NATO Warns Turkey It Won’t Support Ankara in Conflict With Russia

As tensions escalate between Turkey and Russia, NATO has warned Ankara that it will not take part in a war provoked by the Turkish government.

But European leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in participating in a war of Turkey’s making.

Of Article 5, Asselborn stressed that "the guarantee is only valid when a member state is clearly attacked."

http://sputniknews.com/world/20160220/1035066264/NATO-turkey-russia-syria.html

 

[snoopdoggydog]

US, France say Russia’s draft resolution on Syrian sovereignty has ‘no future’

A Russian draft resolution condemning any plans for foreign military intervention and warning against violations of Syrian sovereignty has been rejected by the US and French ambassadors, as having ‘no future’ ahead of a UN Security Council meeting.

https://www.rt.com/news/333042-syria-sovereignty-un-resolution/

I'm sure Russia expected this

 

[Dave]

NATO Warns Turkey It Won’t Support Ankara in Conflict With Russia

http://sputniknews.com/world/20160220/1035066264/NATO-turkey-russia-syria.html

While I agree with the sentiment some of the Sputnik story is slightly twisted and not exactly what the Spiegel article says, so unfortunately your Sputnik story is once again slightly biased propaganda, which wasn't really needed.

Here is the actual article Sputnik are reporting:

The relevant paragraphs (particularly the last one):

The decisive article, however, is Article 5, which guarantees that an "armed attack against one or more of (the alliance members) in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." But Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Asselborn notes that "the guarantee is only valid when a member state is clearly attacked."

Ankara was already rebuked following the shooting down of the Russian warplane, with NATO diplomats speaking of a Turkish overreaction. "We have to avoid that situations, incidents, accidents spiral out of control," warned NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

Berlin agrees. "We are not going to pay the price for a war started by the Turks," says a German diplomat. Because decisions taken by the North Atlantic Council, NATO's primary decision-making body, must always be unanimous, it is enough for a single country to exercise its veto rights, the official says. But, the official adds, it won't get that far: there is widespread agreement with the US and most other allies that Turkey would get the cold shoulder in such a case.

Nevertheless, NATO alliance members are monitoring the Turkish-Russian confrontation with concern. There is, after all, always the risk that Russia at some point might attack Turkish positions on Turkish soil. "Were the Russians to carry out a retaliatory strike against Turkey, we would have a problem," says a NATO official. In such a case, Turkey could very well invoke Article 5. Were the North Atlantic Council to fail to achieve unanimity, Putin would once again have split the West, the official says.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...ible-turkey-russia-hostilities-a-1078349.html

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

I'm sure Russia expected this

I reckon they even hoped for it, now to make the draft something everyone can agree with, sort out every single objection and force the US to veto it ...

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

"Were the Russians to carry out a retaliatory strike against Turkey, we would have a problem," says a NATO official

and that is precisely why Turkey feels empowered to take big risks; NATO is not keeping its dog in check at all, per definition a "retaliatory strike" implies Turkey would have struck first, making them the aggressor, they should be fair game after that, if NATO takes that kind of position Turkey might listen to reason ... might

 

[Grant]

Russia fails in UN bid to rein in Turkey over Syria

Western powers Friday rejected a Russian bid at the United Nations to halt Turkey's military actions in Syria, as France warned of a dangerous escalation in the nearly five-year conflict.

The emergency Security Council meeting came as US Secretary of State John Kerry cautioned there was "a lot more work to do" for a ceasefire to take hold in Syria, following talks in Geneva between American and Russian officials.

Meanwhile President Barack Obama, in a phone call with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urged the Ankara government and Kurdish YPG forces to "show reciprocal restraint" in northern Syria.
The elusive truce was meant to begin Friday, but failed to materialize as fighting raged in Syria with Kurdish-led forces backed by US-led air power seizing a key town from the Islamic State group.

Russia, which has been carrying out air strikes in support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's forces, has urged the UN to press Turkey to halt its shelling of Kurdish forces in the country's north.
Moscow presented a draft resolution that "strongly demands" an immediate end to cross-border shellings and plans -- supported by Turkey -- for foreign ground intervention in Syria.

But the text failed to garner support from key council members with at least six countries including veto-wielding France and the United States rejecting it outright during a closed-door meeting, diplomats said.

US Ambassador Samantha Power accused Moscow of trying to "distract the world" from its air campaign in support of the Syrian regime and urged it to abide by UN resolutions supporting a peace process.

"Russia must understand that its unconditional support to Bashar al-Assad is a dead-end and a dead-end that could be extremely dangerous," French Ambassador Francois Delattre said.
"We are facing a dangerous military escalation that could easily get out of control and lead us to uncharted territory," he said.

Turkey is pressing for a joint ground operation in Syria with its international allies, insisting it is the only way to stop the war.

http://news.yahoo.com/france-rejects-russian-un-text-syria-slams-dangerous-203529168.html

 

[Dave]

and that is precisely why Turkey feels empowered to take big risks; NATO is not keeping its dog in check at all, per definition a "retaliatory strike" implies Turkey would have struck first, making them the aggressor, they should be fair game after that, if NATO takes that kind of position Turkey might listen to reason ... might

Agreed, and Erdogan is acting like he is because he isn't getting slapped down enough, he is probably the biggest threat to the war actually increasing in intensity of all the involved parties.