RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:The most cowardly form of 'warfare' ever devised...

A damning dossier assembled from exhaustive research into the strikes’ targets sets out in heartbreaking detail the deaths of teachers, students and Pakistani policemen. It also describes how bereaved relatives are forced to gather their loved ones’ dismembered body parts in the aftermath of strikes.
The dossier has been assembled by human rights lawyer Shahzad Akbar, who works for Pakistan’s Foundation for Fundamental Rights and the British human rights charity Reprieve.
Filed in two separate court cases, it is set to trigger a formal murder investigation by police into the roles of two US officials said to have ordered the strikes. They are Jonathan Banks, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Islamabad station, and John A. Rizzo, the CIA’s former chief lawyer. Mr Akbar and his staff have already gathered further testimony which has yet to be filed.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4XBuMhmdf

As opposed to some Cnut who brainwashes a kid into blowing himself up in a crowded market place. Scraping the remains of people off the floor is never pleasant I assure you but I'm failing to find the bravery shown by the puppet master in my scenario.

At least the US try to identify legitimate targets, your average terrorist does not.

I also surprised that you have the front to have a pop at the us drone program after your support for the indiscriminate bombing of Aleppo. Deaths from drones are a tiny proportion of what Russia managed to achieve. Perhaps a comparison worth bearing in mind?

Your final paragraph exposes your racist hypocrisy and apologist views for Western war crimes. You come from the most evil, warmongering society in history and have been brainwashed to the point you blame its crimes on others. In other words, you yourself are a product of that evil and very much part of it.

NATO, Saudi and their allies waged a proxy war against the Syrian government, sending in terrorists to do much of their dirty work for them; a tactic which has been used successfully many times before, notably in Afghanistan. You deny this because of your racist and hypocritical outlook.

Yes, drones are easily the most cowardly form of warfare ever devised, and the idea America only bombs legitimate targets is complete drivel. If you start a war in another country you can call anybody you like the enemy, which is precisely what America does. In this manner it has slaughtered an estimated 20 million people and counting since WWII.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
As opposed to some Cnut who brainwashes a kid into blowing himself up in a crowded market place. Scraping the remains of people off the floor is never pleasant I assure you but I'm failing to find the bravery shown by the puppet master in my scenario.

At least the US try to identify legitimate targets, your average terrorist does not.

I also surprised that you have the front to have a pop at the us drone program after your support for the indiscriminate bombing of Aleppo. Deaths from drones are a tiny proportion of what Russia managed to achieve. Perhaps a comparison worth bearing in mind?

Your final paragraph exposes your racist hypocrisy and apologist views for Western war crimes. You come from the most evil, warmongering society in history and have been brainwashed to the point you blame its crimes on others. In other words, you yourself are a product of that evil and very much part of it.

NATO, Saudi and their allies waged a proxy war against the Syrian government, sending in terrorists to do much of their dirty work for them; a tactic which has been used successfully many times before, notably in Afghanistan. You deny this because of your racist and hypocritical outlook.

Yes, drones are easily the most cowardly form of warfare ever devised, and the idea America only bombs legitimate targets is complete drivel. If you start a war in another country you can call anybody you like the enemy, which is precisely what America does. In this manner it has slaughtered an estimated 20 million people and counting since WWII.

Be very careful about labelling other posters on here as racist. As for the rest of your rant, I really cannot be bothered to highlight evidence in rejection of your statement, but you are blatantly wrong and somewhat delusional.

Sandydragon wrote:I seem to recall that you considered the Russian and Syrian air strikes legal because Assad was perfectly permitted to use whatever means necessary to control rebels within his country. I suggest you need to swot up on international law for starters when applied to the use of military force.

As for exposure to the ME, Ive spent years in various countries over there and also have a wide range of contacts, so frankly I am quite capable of seeing the world from more than just an anglophile perspective. And I'll say to you again that the big difference between US use of drones and the Russian bombing of Aleppo was the attempt to restrict the number of civilian casualties, as required by the Laws of Armed Conflict. Having spent time in CAOCs I am well qualified to attest to the lengths taken to reduce non-combatant casualties. Its not a question of perspective, its a question of adherence to international law on warfare and your curious ability to only find fault with western actions.

Sandydragon wrote: your curious ability to only find fault with western actions.

Digby wrote:Why are drones inherently more evil than a phalanx, a trebuchet, an atomic bomb, fire, chlorine gas?

And yes the US does try to target their version of legitimate targets, though their failures are well documented and rightly so, but it's far more precise than the Russian use of barrel bombs or giving missiles to drunks to shoot down Dutch airliners, and both are more discriminate than the likes of ISIS.

Digby wrote:They just been talking about the attack in Canada on the BBC news, and the 12pm slot is one of the biggest news slots of the day. I can't say that's the case for all BBC radio stations, it's really only 4 and 5 I listen to (some Radio 6 I suppose), and I don't know about the TV either, but I'll be astonished if it's not front page on their web news.

And there are all sorts of stories in the US which don't get much coverage here which are big stories in the US, though it's fair to say the USA sits higher in our cultural awareness than does Canada, but that's just the norm, one might as well command the waves to rollback as to complain about it

rowan wrote:Drone warfare is the epitome of cowardice.

Meanwhile, the US has just slaughtered a bunch of civilians in Yemen. Naturally reports in the Western media focused on the claim that most of the victims were 'terrorists' - a byword for enemy combatants, these days.

Also, not much discussion on the terrorist attack on a mosque in Canada last night. No 'Je suis Kanada' or anything??

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Digby wrote:Why are drones inherently more evil than a phalanx, a trebuchet, an atomic bomb, fire, chlorine gas?

And yes the US does try to target their version of legitimate targets, though their failures are well documented and rightly so, but it's far more precise than the Russian use of barrel bombs or giving missiles to drunks to shoot down Dutch airliners, and both are more discriminate than the likes of ISIS.

In war, they're no different. In fact, they've performed poorly in the battle space, particularly when deployed to support troops on the ground. Deployment in Counter Terrorist ops has been a disaster. The sensory technology isn't as good as the American military would have us belief. There's a bit of a myth to it all - like "stealth". Like any capitalist venture, creating military toys for the Generals to play with is about maximising profits. Iranian Engineers took control of and landed one seppo bird:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%8 ... 0_incident

As for precision. The ability of a drone to identify and neutralise a hostile target is dependent on interpretation of images - often blurry ones- by "screeners", tactical co-ordinator and video analysts. So, for example, this can happen:

http://readersupportednews.org/news-sec ... le-justice

What we should be worried about is the state apparatus deploying drones for civilian surveillance purposes.

You boys over in the UK, have some of the most sophisticated surveillance systems on the planet (a legacy of surveillance tech developed and used in Operation Banner ).

That should worry you.

Of course, as long as you're not doing anything illegal, you'll be ok, right?

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I seem to recall that you considered the Russian and Syrian air strikes legal because Assad was perfectly permitted to use whatever means necessary to control rebels within his country. I suggest you need to swot up on international law for starters when applied to the use of military force.

As for exposure to the ME, Ive spent years in various countries over there and also have a wide range of contacts, so frankly I am quite capable of seeing the world from more than just an anglophile perspective. And I'll say to you again that the big difference between US use of drones and the Russian bombing of Aleppo was the attempt to restrict the number of civilian casualties, as required by the Laws of Armed Conflict. Having spent time in CAOCs I am well qualified to attest to the lengths taken to reduce non-combatant casualties. Its not a question of perspective, its a question of adherence to international law on warfare and your curious ability to only find fault with western actions.

You are not so well-informed as you believe. The Russian and Syrian air strikes were indeed legal because the government was fighting a rebellion fuelled by external forces and containing elements of terrorism, and had requested Russian support. It has not requested American, British, French or Turkish support, and therefore those countries were acting in violation of international law. I suggest you swot up a little on that yourself, in particular with regards to the rights of sovereign nations.

.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I seem to recall that you considered the Russian and Syrian air strikes legal because Assad was perfectly permitted to use whatever means necessary to control rebels within his country. I suggest you need to swot up on international law for starters when applied to the use of military force.

As for exposure to the ME, Ive spent years in various countries over there and also have a wide range of contacts, so frankly I am quite capable of seeing the world from more than just an anglophile perspective. And I'll say to you again that the big difference between US use of drones and the Russian bombing of Aleppo was the attempt to restrict the number of civilian casualties, as required by the Laws of Armed Conflict. Having spent time in CAOCs I am well qualified to attest to the lengths taken to reduce non-combatant casualties. Its not a question of perspective, its a question of adherence to international law on warfare and your curious ability to only find fault with western actions.

You are not so well-informed as you believe. The Russian and Syrian air strikes were indeed legal because the government was fighting a rebellion fuelled by external forces and containing elements of terrorism, and had requested Russian support. It has not requested American, British, French or Turkish support, and therefore those countries were acting in violation of international law. I suggest you swot up a little on that yourself, in particular with regards to the rights of sovereign nations.

.

WRONG. And again, you are WRONG. The Russians and Syrians are still obliged to honour the laws of armed conflict which require proportionality and discrimination. Indiscriminate use of weapons against civilians is a war crime. stop drinking the kool aid and do some research of your own. The legal presence of Russian forces in Syria in no way removes from them the obligation to abide by international laws for the use of military force.

rowan wrote:[quote


You keep telling me how careful the Americans were in comparison to the Russians, but not only were the Americans operating illegally (without invitation) in Syria, they indeed massacred countless innocent people, and their claim that the bombing of Syrian government soldiers during a crucial ceasefire was an accident is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking individual. It went on for hours, killed eighty innocent men, and allowed the terrorists to recapture vital terrain, thereby prolonging the conflict - which was clearly the objective.

Statistics have come to light that Barack Obama dropped bombs at a rate of three per hour last year alone, or 26,000 in total. According to you each of these was aimed at a terrorist, I suppose. But somehow 7 countries got bombed to rubble, countless civilians died, and a refugee tidal wave into Europe ensued. But none of this was America's fault, of course.

Of course, according to Western propaganda it was Russia's fault for assisting the government forces of Syria to rid the country of the terrorists America and its allies had trained and armed and sent in there, and which terrorists ended up holed up in hospitals and schools with civilian hostages for human shields so that it became impossible to fight them without collateral damage - much to the West's indescribable glee.

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
You are not so well-informed as you believe. The Russian and Syrian air strikes were indeed legal because the government was fighting a rebellion fuelled by external forces and containing elements of terrorism, and had requested Russian support. It has not requested American, British, French or Turkish support, and therefore those countries were acting in violation of international law. I suggest you swot up a little on that yourself, in particular with regards to the rights of sovereign nations.

.

WRONG. And again, you are WRONG. The Russians and Syrians are still obliged to honour the laws of armed conflict which require proportionality and discrimination. Indiscriminate use of weapons against civilians is a war crime. stop drinking the kool aid and do some research of your own. The legal presence of Russian forces in Syria in no way removes from them the obligation to abide by international laws for the use of military force.

You are making the assumption that Western accusations (ie from the mainstream media of some of the very nations involved in instigating this latest Middle Eastern conflict aimed at regime change) were right in their accusations. But you don't seem to place much credence in the counter-claims of Russia, Iran and Syria itself that the US and its allies committed the same atrocities (I've already mentioned one, which is disputed only in terms of its motive) - in addition to planning and instigating the entire conflict in the first place.

9 December 2016 – Expressing “outrage” at the escalation of violence in Syria, particularly war-battered Aleppo, the General Assembly – the universal body comprising all 193 United Nations Members States – today adopted a resolution demanding an immediate and complete end to all attacks on civilians as well as an end to all sieges in war-ravaged country.

In a resolution adopted by a vote of 122 in favour, 13 against and 36 abstentions, the Assembly also expressed grave concern at the continued deterioration of the devastating humanitarian situation in the country and demanded “rapid, safe, sustained, unhindered and unconditional humanitarian access throughout the country for UN […] and all humanitarian actors.”

Action in the Assembly comes just days after the UN Security Council failed to adopt a similar resolution demanding a ceasefire in Aleppo, as two of its permanent members, China and Russia, casts their vetoes.

Earlier today, the UN human rights wing warned that there may currently be around 100,000 civilians in areas under the control of armed opposition groups in eastern Aleppo, with another 30,000 believed to have fled heavy bombardment to areas under Government control.

The Assembly’s measure stressed the need that all parties to the conflict fully and immediately implement all provisions of various Security Council resolutions concerning the situation in the country, and underscored that all parties must “take all appropriate steps to protect civilians and persons hors de combat, including members of ethnic, religious and confessional communities.”

To that end, it noted “the primary responsibility to protect [Syria’s] population lies with the Syrian authorities.”







A wide view of the General Assembly. UN Photo/Rick Bajornas (file)


In the resolution, led by Canada, the General Assembly expressed outrage at extensive and persistent violations of international humanitarian and international human rights laws, especially through shelling and aerial bombardment, use of chemical and other prohibited weapons, and use of siege and starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, that have caused profound suffering and loss of life and created conditions “conducive to the rise and spread of terrorism.”

It also expressed deep concerns at presence of terrorist organizations in the country and condemned attacks and violations of human rights and humanitarian law perpetrated by them.

“Terrorism in all its forms constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed,” it reaffirmed.

Further, highlighting that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in the country is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, the General Assembly reaffirmed its support for a credible, inclusive and non-sectarian Syrian-led political process, involving women and civil society.

The Assembly also emphasized the need to “ensure accountability for crimes involving violations of international law […] some of which may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, committed in Syria since March 2011, through appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the domestic or international level.”

It further urged the Security Council to “exercise its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security by taking additional measures to address the crisis in the Syria, in particular the devastating humanitarian crisis, and stresses in this regard Article 11 of the UN Charter.”

Since the crisis erupted in 2011, the humanitarian situation in the country has taken a downward spiral with more than 13.5 million Syrians now in need to humanitarian assistance and nearly 6.3 million people internally displaced.

More than four million Syrians have been driven out of the country as refugees, including hundreds of thousands in Europe.

The conflict has also killed hundreds of thousands of people, including many children. Almost a million people (974,080) remain trapped in besieged areas and nearly 3.9 million people in hard-to-reach areas.

Four Syrian organizations say Russia bears "a high likelihood" of responsibility for 304 attacks in Aleppo that violate international humanitarian law and may constitute war crimes.

In a letter to the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, obtained late Thursday by The Associated Press, the groups said the attacks resulted in 1,207 civilian deaths, including 380 children.

"Evidence clearly indicates that Russia has committed or been complicit in war crimes in Syria," it said.

The letter is signed by the Syrian Civil Defence search-and-rescue group, also known as the White Helmets, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, Independent Doctors Association and Violations Documentation Center.

The organizations told the commission they would be "honoured" to provide "evidence, testimonials, and any other relevant information to assist your investigations and help the identification of suspected perpetrators."

The letter was addressed to Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, who chairs the independent commission that said in a report in February that war crimes are "rampant" in Syria and that the conflict has become "a multisided proxy war steered from abroad by an intricate network of alliances."

The four organizations said "it is vital that the commission investigate thoroughly all credible allegations of Russian violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law."
■ANALYSIS l West will have to deal with victorious Assad
■THE CURRENT l Assad's endgame after Aleppo

Ask for probe of Iran's role

The 304 incidents they cited include 28 attacks against civilians including children, 101 in which children were killed, 42 using banned cluster munitions, 20 using incendiary weapons in populated areas, 51 on hospitals and medical centres, 18 on schools and 21 on mosques.

The Syrian groups urged the Geneva-based commission "to explore fully all credible accounts of Iran's complicity in war crimes in Aleppo."

They noted that Iranian-backed militias "have played a central role enforcing Syria's sieges and overseeing local forced surrender negotiations." Iranian security and intelligence services have reportedly advised and assisted the Syrian military, they said.

"It is estimated that Iran oversees some 70,000 paramilitary troops in Syria, many of whom have been involved in atrocities against civilians," the four organizations said.

"Yet nowhere has Iranian intervention been more egregious than in eastern Aleppo, where Iran deliberately obstructed a Dec. 13, 2016, cease-fire, which would have permitted thousands of innocent civilians to be safely evacuated from the besieged city," they said.

Eastern Aleppo, which had been in rebel hands since 2012, fell to the Syrian government after a relentless bombing campaign and thousands of civilians evacuated the city Thursday in a watershed moment in the five-year-old civil war hailed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
■'We are being killed now': Aleppo residents on social media

Airstrikes seen as a turning point

An annex to the letter documents what the four groups said were 304 of "the most egregious" Russian violations that mainly took place between July and December in Aleppo.

Since Russian airstrikes began in October 2015, the groups said attacks on medical facilities across Syria increased from one attack every four days to one every two days. "Over the past two weeks attacks on medical facilities have increased to a rate of one every nine hours," they said.

The four organizations said they made a determination that there was a "high likelihood" of Russian responsibility for the 304 incidents based on witness testimony and corroborating evidence including video footage and identification of aircraft.

But they stressed that these incidents "represent just a fraction of the many indiscriminate acts of violence perpetrated against Syrian civilians by either the Syrian regime or Russia, where Russia could not be identified as the perpetrator with a high degree of certainty."

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

WRONG. And again, you are WRONG. The Russians and Syrians are still obliged to honour the laws of armed conflict which require proportionality and discrimination. Indiscriminate use of weapons against civilians is a war crime. stop drinking the kool aid and do some research of your own. The legal presence of Russian forces in Syria in no way removes from them the obligation to abide by international laws for the use of military force.

You are making the assumption that Western accusations (ie from the mainstream media of some of the very nations involved in instigating this latest Middle Eastern conflict aimed at regime change) were right in their accusations. But you don't seem to place much credence in the counter-claims of Russia, Iran and Syria itself that the US and its allies committed the same atrocities (I've already mentioned one, which is disputed only in terms of its motive) - in addition to planning and instigating the entire conflict in the first place.

Claiming that the US was responsible for the Syrian uprising in the first place ignores a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Western interest occurred after the uprising commenced.

AS for asumptions, the lack of targeting is a symptom of the Russian military, as seen in Syria, Chechnya and Georgia. On the other hand, Ive seen the attempts to prevent unnecessary loss of life by the US and Western allies.

That atrocity was a mistake which was stopped as soon as it became known that a mistake had occurred. How many mistakes did Russian and Syria make whem bombing hospitals and other civilian targets in Aleppo?

Sandydragon wrote:
They have performed poorly - really? Is that based on operational experience from Iraq and Afghanistan by any chance? The cameras are normally very good (expecting perfection from anything is asking a but much and no weapons system operates as the manufacturer claims it will) and the ground attack systems are as precise as anything launched from a manned aircraft - which means that the vagaries of warfare can and do apply, often with unfortunate consequences. The identification of targets by personnel is often easier than when a pilot is trying to make his or her own judgement whilst flying the aircraft.

The Iranian capture of a drone is actually disputed (a possibility that a fake drone had been paraded in front of the cameras) and whilst the spoofing of GPS is possible, it is highly difficult to achieve in practice. It is possible that the drone malfunctioned and landed where it shouldn't. However, the same can happen with manned aircraft which are forced to land due to technical failures.

From my own experience in IRaq and Afghanistan (plus Northern IReland) ISTAR is well received and is often pretty damn good quality. Air support is often not immediately available but a mix of drones and manned aircraft has helped reduce response times in Afghanistan. Where there have been issues of blue on blue, I can find you plenty of examples of where the same has happened with manned aircraft. SO suggesting that their use is just to satisfy some corporate agenda is a bit wide of the mark.

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
You are making the assumption that Western accusations (ie from the mainstream media of some of the very nations involved in instigating this latest Middle Eastern conflict aimed at regime change) were right in their accusations. But you don't seem to place much credence in the counter-claims of Russia, Iran and Syria itself that the US and its allies committed the same atrocities (I've already mentioned one, which is disputed only in terms of its motive) - in addition to planning and instigating the entire conflict in the first place.

Claiming that the US was responsible for the Syrian uprising in the first place ignores a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Western interest occurred after the uprising commenced.

AS for asumptions, the lack of targeting is a symptom of the Russian military, as seen in Syria, Chechnya and Georgia. On the other hand, Ive seen the attempts to prevent unnecessary loss of life by the US and Western allies.

That atrocity was a mistake which was stopped as soon as it became known that a mistake had occurred. How many mistakes did Russian and Syria make whem bombing hospitals and other civilian targets in Aleppo?

Russia hasn't killed 20 million people since WWII, has never dropped an atomic bomb on another nation, and didn't drop 3 bombs an hour last year, or 26K per annum, nor violate a crucial ceasefire by bombing the military of a nation it was operating illegally in. & that atrocity went on for hours, allowing the terrorists to recapture vital territory and prolong the conflict - which Russia was then perversely blamed for.

Western interest actually had nothing to do with the Arab Spring protests. There is no connection, other than that it was used as a pretext for intervention. The students and feminists did not suddenly morph into machine gun-toting Jihadi terrorists, and neither were the machine-gun toting terrorists much interested in what the students and feminists were protesting for - which was definitely not regime change.

The US, Saudi and their allies have many reasons for wanting regime change - the rejection of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline project, for instance, Israel's territorial disputes (UN has ruled against Israel), Turkish concerns over Kurdish combatants operating from behind the Syrian border, and Saudi's wish to break the Shi'ite crescent connecting Iran to Lebanon and the Mediterranean (ironically established by America's prior regime change operation in Iraq).

There have been plenty of articles written and published along these lines, if you look beyond BBC and the Guardian for a change, and here it is, again, the truth you're attempting to dismiss, straight from the horse's mouth:




Of course, the UN General Assembly are allow brainwashed by western media as well. I'm sure you are awaiting the results of the UN investigation into war crimes with bated breath.


The same UN that gave Palestinian territory to Zionists from Europe, you mean? It's a puppet of Washington much of the time. Not all of the time, but much of it. But, yes, I'll certainly be interested in their findings.

I haveent even begun to discuss the use of force by Hezbollah and Iran, for which the Assad government again holds much of the responsibility having requested their assistance.


so let me guess, in your world Hezbollah and Iran evil, yes? One formed to fight Israeli aggression (after an horrific massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon), the other the victim of an American orchestrated coup that extend the Shah's brutal dictatorship for 26 years while America continued to control the oil industry...