News0 min ago
Aleppo Battle: Un Says 82 Civilians Shot On The Spot
http://
"Syrian pro-government forces have been entering homes in eastern Aleppo and killing those inside, including women and children, the UN says"
"Syrian pro-government forces have been entering homes in eastern Aleppo and killing those inside, including women and children, the UN says"
Answers
This is almost not news, mikey, sadly. It is right that you raise it of course. Was it not interesting to see that IS had recaptured Palmyra, in the midst of all this. Russians and Syrians alike fled when faced with actual fighters rather than defenceless women and children. One wonders how, if left to their own devices, the Syrian army would cope with trying to...
13:43 Tue 13th Dec 2016
Well, if there is reliable evidence then after the dust has settled the alleged perpetrators can b tried for war crimes..
Of course one of the problems in this type of war can be that they wear civilian dress and no uniform so some, if not all, could possibly be 'the enemy'.
We shall have to wait and see.
Of course one of the problems in this type of war can be that they wear civilian dress and no uniform so some, if not all, could possibly be 'the enemy'.
We shall have to wait and see.
There is ample evidence that atrocities are being committed in Aleppo.
Of course, its not as if atrocities haven't been committed in Syrian for the last few months and even years, is it ?
Woe-betide anybody that says that they "admire" Putin in the future, including bloody Trump.
Putin and Bashar al-Assad have been guilty of war crimes, in exactly the same way as happened in the former Yugoslavia, and its a bloody disgrace !
Of course, its not as if atrocities haven't been committed in Syrian for the last few months and even years, is it ?
Woe-betide anybody that says that they "admire" Putin in the future, including bloody Trump.
Putin and Bashar al-Assad have been guilty of war crimes, in exactly the same way as happened in the former Yugoslavia, and its a bloody disgrace !
one of the first casualties of war is the truth. the UN have "reports" of "children" being killed, but there's no evidence of this as yet. don't forget the cynical will tell you that the European governmental definition of a "child" now extends to the age of 35.
we must wait until the inquests start.
we must wait until the inquests start.
This is almost not news, mikey, sadly.
It is right that you raise it of course.
Was it not interesting to see that IS had recaptured Palmyra, in the midst of all this. Russians and Syrians alike fled when faced with actual fighters rather than defenceless women and children.
One wonders how, if left to their own devices, the Syrian army would cope with trying to fight IS, given that years of brutal genocide had failed to shift the rebels elsewhere, until their companions in death from Russia helped them. Hand to hand fighting will almost certainly be needed, and they don't seem all that good at it.
It will be interesting also to see what happens now, as 40% of the country is ruled by Assad and there is little prospect of that increasing hugely. Will Assad stick or twist?
It is right that you raise it of course.
Was it not interesting to see that IS had recaptured Palmyra, in the midst of all this. Russians and Syrians alike fled when faced with actual fighters rather than defenceless women and children.
One wonders how, if left to their own devices, the Syrian army would cope with trying to fight IS, given that years of brutal genocide had failed to shift the rebels elsewhere, until their companions in death from Russia helped them. Hand to hand fighting will almost certainly be needed, and they don't seem all that good at it.
It will be interesting also to see what happens now, as 40% of the country is ruled by Assad and there is little prospect of that increasing hugely. Will Assad stick or twist?
YMB....we crossed in the post.
When the UN says things like this, I am much more inclined to believe them, than some blood-stained Syrian military official, or some lick-spittle Russian spokesman :::::
""The UN's human rights office said it had reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians were shot on sight""
But even if anyone still doubts what has been happening, Syrian planes have been dropping barrel bombs of Aleppo for years, and according to the BBC, they are still doing it today. Those planes deliberately targeted Hospitals and schools.
When the UN says things like this, I am much more inclined to believe them, than some blood-stained Syrian military official, or some lick-spittle Russian spokesman :::::
""The UN's human rights office said it had reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians were shot on sight""
But even if anyone still doubts what has been happening, Syrian planes have been dropping barrel bombs of Aleppo for years, and according to the BBC, they are still doing it today. Those planes deliberately targeted Hospitals and schools.
Mush....I would like to say that I admire you "benefit-of-the-doubt" here.
I really would to say that, but I am far too much of realist.
The Butchers of Syria have been getting away with atrocities for many years......this horror is only the latest.
There is no doubt whatsoever of the guilt that they should be feeling.
I really would to say that, but I am far too much of realist.
The Butchers of Syria have been getting away with atrocities for many years......this horror is only the latest.
There is no doubt whatsoever of the guilt that they should be feeling.
//said George Osborne: "We are deceiving ourselves in this Parliament if we believe we have no responsibility for what has happened in Syria. The situation did not come about from a vacuum but came about because of a vacuum. We are beginning to learn the price of not intervening,"
given the benefit of hindsight from previous interventions, I'm not sure what he believes we should have done - or indeed which side we were supposed to support.
given the benefit of hindsight from previous interventions, I'm not sure what he believes we should have done - or indeed which side we were supposed to support.
Andy, a 'child' can easily be the enemy. I'll give you 2 examples, one as already written above is that child clearly means men of fighting age, fighting age is often lower anyway in the middle east. Second ISIS themselves have proudly shown very young children killing people.
If you are going house to house and you know children could well have guns do you leave them behind you (to shoot you from behind) or do you kill them. Not sure I would like to make the choice but then I was not bough up in the Middle East with very different values to the West.
If you are going house to house and you know children could well have guns do you leave them behind you (to shoot you from behind) or do you kill them. Not sure I would like to make the choice but then I was not bough up in the Middle East with very different values to the West.
No mushroom, the Middle East is a major problem as the West has found out in previous ventures.
The West should stay out of it, we should not be dictating to them how to live their lives and neither should we be interfering by supporting one side or another, unless one side has been directly harming us in the West of course.
The West should stay out of it, we should not be dictating to them how to live their lives and neither should we be interfering by supporting one side or another, unless one side has been directly harming us in the West of course.
Thanks mikey
A lot of very angry and powerful speeches, but I think all we will get is "shame on us" and nothing more
We still wait for this govt to take action against Putin for endangering the lives of Londoners in 2006 after their proxy "nuclear" vendetta against one of its own dissidents.
"given the benefit of hindsight from previous interventions, I'm not sure what he believes we should have done - or indeed which side we were supposed to support. "
I have heard a lot of nonsense spouted by various commentators about this: there was a chap from Warwick Uni of France 24 earlier bemoaning the weak and indecisive policy of the West, but we should not beat ourselves up too much about this. There are two governments in the dock here:
Syria's and Russia's - Russia from the very start wilfully prevented any non-violent UN-sanctioned against their ally,. I understand that they feared that they would lose their friend in the ME, but actually they could have used their influence on Assad to rein him in in a way which would have prevented the war developing as it did, and, actually, have left the Syrian leader in a more powerful position than he is now, thousands of deaths, millions of displacements, and a refugee crisis later.
The failing of Obama to react to the "crossing of the "Red line" was also a bad moment, but was in any case focussed on the diversionary tactic of chemical weapons, when the barrel bombs had largely been ignored.
A lot of very angry and powerful speeches, but I think all we will get is "shame on us" and nothing more
We still wait for this govt to take action against Putin for endangering the lives of Londoners in 2006 after their proxy "nuclear" vendetta against one of its own dissidents.
"given the benefit of hindsight from previous interventions, I'm not sure what he believes we should have done - or indeed which side we were supposed to support. "
I have heard a lot of nonsense spouted by various commentators about this: there was a chap from Warwick Uni of France 24 earlier bemoaning the weak and indecisive policy of the West, but we should not beat ourselves up too much about this. There are two governments in the dock here:
Syria's and Russia's - Russia from the very start wilfully prevented any non-violent UN-sanctioned against their ally,. I understand that they feared that they would lose their friend in the ME, but actually they could have used their influence on Assad to rein him in in a way which would have prevented the war developing as it did, and, actually, have left the Syrian leader in a more powerful position than he is now, thousands of deaths, millions of displacements, and a refugee crisis later.
The failing of Obama to react to the "crossing of the "Red line" was also a bad moment, but was in any case focussed on the diversionary tactic of chemical weapons, when the barrel bombs had largely been ignored.
YMB - //Andy, a 'child' can easily be the enemy. I'll give you 2 examples, one as already written above is that child clearly means men of fighting age, fighting age is often lower anyway in the middle east. Second ISIS themselves have proudly shown very young children killing people.
If you are going house to house and you know children could well have guns do you leave them behind you (to shoot you from behind) or do you kill them. Not sure I would like to make the choice but then I was not bough up in the Middle East with very different values to the West. //
A thoughtful explanation - thank you.
If you are going house to house and you know children could well have guns do you leave them behind you (to shoot you from behind) or do you kill them. Not sure I would like to make the choice but then I was not bough up in the Middle East with very different values to the West. //
A thoughtful explanation - thank you.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.