Syria conflict: US says Russian air strikes 'indiscriminate'

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

My post was a correction to those members who dismissed Russian use of dumb munitions. Maybe you should bitch at them for refusing to acknowledge their use instead of at me for correcting them.

Maybe even comment on their invocation of an incident in Afghanistan, which has nothing to do with Syria?

I would say Afghanistan is relevant as it show the USA really have no leg to stand on when bitching to russia over collateral damage.

a reply to: RogueWave

Russia is in fact killing civilians during their bombing campaign. the difference is they are blaming ISIS for it.



Pictured: Russia's 'proof' that ISIS are using civilians as human shields in Syria during airstrikes

Russia has claimed ISIS are using civilians as a 'human shield' by hiding weapons near populated areas and mosques where its jets 'would never perform strikes'.

Its Ministry of Defence released drone footage of what it claims are ISIS's trucks moving munitions to a mosque in Syria, but there is no way to verify their contents or who they belong to.

It said the terrorists are 'taking efforts to transport weapons to inhabited areas' because they understand the strength of its surveillance technology and fear 'immediate liquidation'.

However, reports have suggested that Russia, which has been accused of bombing Western-backed rebels and civilian areas, could use this so-called evidence to justify attacks on populated zones.

click link for remainder of article..

originally posted by: crazyewok


I would say Afghanistan is relevant as it show the USA really have no leg to stand on when bitching to russia over collateral damage.

Sure the USA has a leg to stand on about it. All we need to do is look at the history of Russian warfare to see which nation is concerned about civilian casualties and attacks in populated areas. If you guys want to open that door we can however you wont win the argument by doing so.

Shall we start with Chechnya?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: crazyewok


I would say Afghanistan is relevant as it show the USA really have no leg to stand on when bitching to russia over collateral damage.

Sure the USA has a leg to stand on about it. All we need to do is look at the history of Russian warfare to see which nation is concerned about civilian casualties and attacks in populated areas. If you guys want to open that door we can however you wont win the argument by doing so.

Shall we start with Chechnya?

Not saying the Russian have a good tract record either. They dont.

But seeing as the US deliberately bombs hospitals I really dont see how they have any moral high ground either.

Unlike you I dont think think in black and white and good guys and bad guys.

I just see two countrys both ready to kill and screw over others for there own intrests and hiding under a veil of hypocrisy.

a reply to: crazyewok

Well for starters I don't think just in black and white. If it turns out the Hospital was being used by militants then the Hospital can be targeted, just as schools and religious centers can if they are being used in direct contradiction to its stated purpose. Secondly it looks like the air strike was called in by Afghan forces. Third the US has owned the incident and is investigating it. Something Russia has failed to do.

The issue I have is when your argument tries to claim the moral high ground by intentionally ignoring the very same instances on the other side of the fence. You do think in terms of good guys and bad guys and its evident in your posts and the position in those posts. As an example you claim the US deliberately bombed a Hospital. Was it evident it was a Hospital at the time of the bombing? Was it the a target or was another building the target? The US hit a building that was a Hospital after the fact.

You fixate on that while ignoring the fact Syria has leveled mosques and Hospitals. Their are claims Russia has hit a mosque yet its labeled propaganda before any investigation takes place. To date no investigation has taken place to determine if Russia hit the mosque - why? Hypocritical?

US involvement in Syria has been limited to ISIS however if you have evidence the US has attacked Syrian government forces feel free to post them. If Russia is the peacemaker why did they wait until now to get involved - 4 years later? That's right, they are trying to keep Assad in power to guarantee their interests.

The hypocrisy is present however you seem to ignore it when it comes to Russia and Syria, as do other people. Russia claiming they have not killed any civilians is laughable because its impossible. Even more so when they try to use the "ISIS is in civilian areas" excuse.

Its a military conflict and civilians are going to be killed and to try and spin it by saying they have killed no civilians makes one wonder what Putin is smoking that he would think the rest of the world would believe him.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia is in fact killing civilians during their bombing campaign. the difference is they are blaming ISIS for it.

Wow, you are flat out lying.

Where does it say they killed civilians?

However, reports have suggested that Russia, which has been accused of bombing Western-backed rebels and civilian areas, could use this so-called evidence to justify attacks on populated zones.

There is nothing but speculation there in that Daily Fail article and not one mention of civilian deaths.

This is the best you can do to back up your claim. That says it all.

a reply to: RogueWave

Read the article then get back to us.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Third the US has owned the incident and is investigating it. Something Russia has failed to do.

What supposed incident involving the Russians are you talking about. The incident that didn't happen and you can't find a single piece of evidence for? The incident you are lying about?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I dont know what your ranting on about.

Its pretty obvious Russia hitting anything that moves and likely kiiling civilians . Im not claiming they have a moral high ground either.
Sad? Yes.
Anything anyone can do about it? No
Is putin a bastard? Yes
Is the USA any better? No

Though if Russia actions do eventually restore some sort of order in syria , even if under assad so much the better. I dont trust Putins overall motives but in Syria he intentions seem to overlap in to doing something beneficial. Even if they go wrong? Well there is not much the west can do now is there? Obama dithered and Russia moved in. Its over for us in that region.

As for the hospital ? It was made extremely clear to US authorities that it was a hospital and during the prolonged bombing the staff even made it clear to those coordinateing the bombing what was going on. The USA #ed up, it #ed up big time.

a reply to: RogueWave



Human rights Watch - Syria: Apparent Russian Airstrikes Kill Civilians

** - not to be confused with Human Rights Observatory - **

(New York) – Apparent Russian airstrikes on Talbiseh in northern Homs that killed at least 17 civilians should be investigated for possible violations of the laws of war. Two local media activists and two first responders said that the September 30, 2015 strikes hit a residential part of town at a distance from any apparent military targets and that no combatants were killed in the strike.

Russia announced the beginning of its airstrikes in Syria on September 30.

In addition to the strike on Talbiseh, local groups operating in northern Homs said that jets that they believed were Russian conducted strikes on the neighboring towns of Za`faraneh and Rastan, killing another reported 17 civilians. Northern Homs is controlled by various armed groups opposed to the government, including some groups affiliated with al-Nusra Front. Human Rights Watch is still gathering information about these two additional strikes. According to a report by Russia 24, a state-owned news channel, Talbiseh was one of several towns in Homs struck by Russian forces on September 30.

* - Russia Condemned For Bombing Civilians In Syria
* - Russian air strikes in Syria cause 'civilian deaths'
* - Putin: Claims Russian jets killed civilians in Syria emerged before airstrikes started

Syrian military provides intelligence on prospective targets for Russian forces in Syria, which is double-checked before clearance is given to deliver a strike, the Russian Defense Ministry reported.

a reply to: crazyewok

It was relayed the building was a Hospital only after the strikes began. Had it been US forces calling in the attack verification would have been easier (and most likely the building would not have been attacked). Since they were Afghan forces there will be a delay. The US admitted it hit the hospital.. To bad Russia refuses to acknowledge their mistake. I am curious of Russia will prevent the Syrian military from bombing civilians with their barrel bombs.

As for what I am ranting on about - A response to your claims.

I would be ok if Russia were attacking ISIS however the evidence thus far doesn't show that to be the case.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Ok lets leave the who right and wrong debate as we know were I stand, i dont trust anyone, well except maybe iceland.


The evidence to me points that Russia are coordinateing with assads ground forces. Thats makes sense.
The fact is the ground forces have not reached ISIS terratory yet. If a d when they do I will guess ISIS will be eliminated then. Fact is without boots on the ground in ISIS territory theres not alot of point bombing in the long term.

Thats what I see from the plan anyway, i could be wrong of course and whether of not Russia will screw it up like they have a history of doing is another thing.

But end of the day Obama dithered and lost. The west should have gone in when the ISIS appeared and the civil war spilled over borders. We should have forced a cease fire and helped assad restore order, eradicated ISIS then made assad step down. But the west instead decided to play "game of terrorists" and do token bombings. We lost that chance and now syria is russias problem.

a reply to: crazyewok
Had the west gone in when ISIS popped up we would be having conversations on this site about how the west violated Syrian sovereignty and that our actions aren't helpful.

People complain when we get involved and people complain when we don't get involved.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok
Had the west gone in when ISIS popped up we would be having conversations on this site about how the west violated Syrian sovereignty and that our actions aren't helpful.

People complain when we get involved and people complain when we don't get involved.

Yes but at that point the civil war was no longer a internal dispute. It was a direct threat on us.

Thats what frustrating with US forign policy. If it only acted when there was a threat to the USA and stopped interfering when a disputes confined to a nations borders people would criticise the US a lot less IE

WW2= ok
Korea =ok
Bay of pigs =bad
Vietnam =bad
South America arming of rebel =bad
Arming taliban=bad
Iraq 1=ok
Afghanistan = ok
Iraq2=bad
Libya=bad
Arming of syrian rebels=bad

Its not about interfering or not but learning WHEN to interfere. Forming a consistent and balanced foreign policy.

And even the you will get criticism cause free speech and not everyone will agree. Its the price the US has to pay for being the world power, the British empire had to suffer that same fact, people will bitch and moan whatever you do.

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: paraphi

The point of discussion was that Russians supposedly killed civilians with their unguided munitions, when they didn't.

We don't know that do we? Russia has a very good control of the media, so unlike in the West we can expect atrocities to be unreported. The fact is that precision weapons in use by the US and the West means that mistakes are rare.

The tragic bombing of the hospital recently in Afghanistan (which you keep raising) was only a mistake in that the US hit a building they were confused about. They were aiming for the building though. With unguided munitions, it's anyone's guess what you'll hit.

Interesting...

I find it interesting that over the last week or so people have been claiming there are no civilians left in Syrian cities and that its only ISIS or rebels.

Convenient for Russia.

a reply to: paraphi

Russia has a very good control of the media

How exactly Russia can control myriads of twitter posters on the ground ?
What do YOU care how the info is exposed on official Russian TV channels ?

I guess you can't understand Russian. But trust me even the most important, most watched TV propaganda programs on Russian TV are not that one sided as You may suspect youtu.be...

originally posted by: kitzik
How exactly Russia can control myriads of twitter posters on the ground ?

Apart from Syrian, Iranian and Russian media, I doubt there are any impartial reporters on the ground. Therefore, any reporting of Russian "mistakes" and atrocities can be (ahem) covered up.

The MSM seems to criticize Russia for having a strategy in this war, unlike the US who just will-nilly bombs for affect not intelligent planning.

Sure the Russians want to take out the FSA and the American backed-ALQaeda jihadis first; the ones who, if they weren’t attacking Syria, the Syrian Army could have concentrated on ISIS.


Look the US concentrated on the Nazis first in WWII then they went full force on the Japanese


IT’S CALLED STRATEGIC MILITARY OBJECTIVES

Something the US knows nothing about lately

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Textno - I mean those Nazi's shipped by Russia into Ukraine to destabilize a supposedly friendly state they had previously guaranteed never to invade.

I obviously don't share the same news sources as you and as far as I'm aware Russia still hasn't invaded the Ukraine

For one second, lets pretend they're not in Eastern Ukraine (even though we know they are - equipment only used by Russia is being seen there) and just concentrate on Crimea.....

Still not seeing an invasion?