The most IRRESPONSIBLE reporting I have ever seen

a reply to: Indigo5

And what are they gonna do with it if has no oil nor major pipelines ?
Sounds like gratuitous Russian bashing unless you can clarify what the US was expecting to get INSTEAD of Russia by sponsoring anti-governmental mercenaries in the area.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Indigo5

And what are they gonna do with it if has no oil nor major pipelines ?

What makes you think Syria has no oil???? Precisely the opposite.

one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean.

..

the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate.

www.ibtimes.com...

Of course Putin wants to own Syria...

a reply to: markosity1973

Bombing hopsitals is dirty warfare at its worst. I don't like it but the tactical reason behind it is to stop the rebels from getting medical treatment.

And yes it is inhumane because it also stops the civilians from getting treatment too.

Kind of laughable you condone warcrimes so long as its against Russian enemies. Wow. Talk about a 1 dimensional line in the sand. Even the most blind US supporters-nationalists will still agree that when the US breaks international treaties they are in the wrong.

a reply to: boncho

Where in that comment do I say I agree with it?

Because I don't.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Indigo5

And what are they gonna do with it if has no oil nor major pipelines ?
Sounds like gratuitous Russian bashing unless you can clarify what the US was expecting to get INSTEAD of Russia by sponsoring anti-governmental mercenaries in the area.

Besides Syria being the main foothold Russia has in the Middle East, without which they lost their political prowess in that region [something they don't want to happen] there is a few other reasons too for their positioning here:

1. Russia has a naval installation in Syria, which is strategically important and Russia’s last foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union.

2. Russia still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, as well as a touch of national insecurity, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its last military alliances.

3. Russia also hates the idea of "international intervention" against countries like Syria because it sees this as Cold War-style Western imperialism and ultimately a threat to Russia. [Keep in mind it wasn't long ago Poland was upsetting the Motherland-Russia if docile will get pushed back until it's hibernating inside its own borders]

4. Syria buys a lot of Russian military exports, and Russia needs the money.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Russia doesn't give a lick about Terrorism. If their main goal was to stop ISIS, they would have been doing that, long before ISIS became a problem in Syria. Their actions are tied directly to helping out their political ally in Syria, and their bombing campaigns, while they have targeted ISIS, they have also targeted rebel groups, which people should be reminded were around longer than ISIS was.

Russia is no hero in Syria. Its just another superpower flexing its might for its own political interests. Not much different than any other. If you want to take sides, by all means, for some it may make sense for you to support Russia/Assad, over their enemies. However, do not act like Russia is on the moral ground, because thats just a straight up fallacy.

a reply to: intrptr

US invaded Vietnam, Russia helped push them out.

In Syria US is trying to take over, this time by insurgency… and Russia is helping push them out.

In both cases the US is to blame.

I mean if you ignore the cold war and everything leading up to that, sure. And if you ignore everything Assad did before the civil war broke out, sure. If the US wasn't mucking around in that region another power would be. When two powers are on opposite sides, war happens.

a reply to: boncho

If the US wasn't mucking around in that region another power would be. When two powers are on opposite sides, war happens.

"Mucking around" in other countries internal affairs is against International law. Should we also justify burglary because, if one person wasn't doing it, someone else would?

a reply to: boncho

Apparently he also forgot about the fact it was North Vietnam that invaded S. Vietnam with the assistance of the Soviet Union and China. Funny how they forget those important facts that dont support their agenda.

originally posted by: intrptr
"Mucking around" in other countries internal affairs is against International law. Should we also justify burglary because, if one person wasn't doing it, someone else would?

Then Syria should go away considering it occupied Libya for decades and supports terrorist groups inside Lebanon and Israel, namely Hamas and Hezbollah.

Now, go ahead and try to spin what you just said so it supports your claim while justifying the 2 terrorist groups Syria supports in Israel and Lebanon.

Couple this with your Vietnam comment and the conclusion I come to is you need to spend a little more time researching and understanding History before making a claim that doesnt come close to supporting the agenda you are pushing.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: boncho

If the US wasn't mucking around in that region another power would be. When two powers are on opposite sides, war happens.

"Mucking around" in other countries internal affairs is against International law. Should we also justify burglary because, if one person wasn't doing it, someone else would?

Except Russia was mucking around as much as the US was. But you are blaming them for it? Im not against saying all counties should handle their own affairs, but how do you blame one nation when there are two on either side?

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: boncho

If the US wasn't mucking around in that region another power would be. When two powers are on opposite sides, war happens.

"Mucking around" in other countries internal affairs is against International law. Should we also justify burglary because, if one person wasn't doing it, someone else would?

Except Russia was mucking around as much as the US was. But you are blaming them for it? Im not against saying all counties should handle their own affairs, but how do you blame one nation when there are two on either side?

Because any conflict actually begins with one side invading and occupying, while the other comes to help, upon request.

The deceivers try to cover that up, by claiming it was they who were invited to invade and occupy foreign lands, militarily.

They have to lie, they weren't actually invited to do this.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The guardian does not offer any real proof that it was in fact Russia that bombed these hospitals.
The "eye witnesses" just say we believe it was Russians that did it, because it was different than before? Or, am i missing a real evidence?

This accusation reminds of their famous one, where the guardian reporters saw Russian troops crossing the Ukrainian border but unfortunately they forgot to take their photo cameras with them.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: boncho

Apparently he also forgot about the fact it was North Vietnam that invaded S. Vietnam with the assistance of the Soviet Union and China. Funny how they forget those important facts that dont support their agenda.

People like you also forget south vietnam was as bad as the north when it came to human right abuses.

USA should not have spent a drop of blood defending them.

But your going to blindly support any war and foreign policy decisions.

One thing the UK did do right for once......keeping out of that mess!

a reply to: Nikola014

Yeah, the multiple reports from a dozen sources, the fact that all the hospitals hit have been in areas that Russia has been hitting hard, a video claiming to show unexploded cluster munitions from a Russian bomb....

The US did it!

Or is it the Guardian is lying. I can never keep up with the double standard.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If even Americans can't keep up with the double standard, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Jokes aside, I was just asking for some concrete evidence, which you cannot provide( i mean, not you, but the guardian...shh english is hard ). And we lack some more information. Are these hospitals isolated( like the one the US hit by accident ), or are they surrounded by buildings that can be used by terrorists, like we have seen Hammas do.

If the Russians did, in fact, hit those hospitals, I wonder how come we don't read about it more in the western MSM. Makes no sense, wouldn't you agree?

The point is, we don't have a lot of information to work with. We just have claims. It's hard to take anything from them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Nikola014

Yeah, the multiple reports from a dozen sources, the fact that all the hospitals hit have been in areas that Russia has been hitting hard, a video claiming to show unexploded cluster munitions from a Russian bomb....

The US did it!

Or is it the Guardian is lying. I can never keep up with the double standard.

The guardian doesn't lie.... It's just selective with the truth.

End of the day I wouldn't use it as a reliable source without other sources to fill in the blanks.

a reply to: crazyewok

And it was ONE source reporting the same thing. I used it because it was the first link and I was in a hurry. There are multiple credible sources reporting the same thing all over the net.

a reply to: Nikola014

The hospitals were identified to the UN with their locations. A week later they were hammered by Russian air strikes. According to the people involved in the hospitals they were deliberately placed as far from any fighting as possible to keep from being attacked.

a reply to: crazyewok

So invading S. Vietnam based on human rights abuses is ok all the while the North Vietnamese government took their population out for ice cream? Good news for the western coalition in Syria. Turns out they dont need approval after all using your logic.

The fact is you tried to use a falsehood about vietnam in an effort to push your agenda. It failed so you then try to switch to human rights abuses.

Maybe you should stick to the topic.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No I think both North Vietnam and South Vietnam were about as bad as each other and the USA and Australia should of just left the both of them to fight it out on there own.......

No falsehood there. History shows Vietnam was one of the USA government biggest foreign policy blunders.

Same as the suez canal was the UK and French.

Same as Afghanistan was Russias.


I dont have a "agenda" I just call bull# were I see it be it USA, Russian, Chinese, British or freaking Klingon.