Russia Guilty Of Syria War Crimes, Says Amnesty

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
2. Amnesty International received £842,000 in 2011 from the UK Department for International Development as part of a four-year award commencing in 2008 and totaling £3,149,000. Link

Here's Amnesty's finances over time

NGO Monitor, the website you link to support your statement is run by a man who does not like human rights organisations, perhaps because they criticise Israel. NGO Monitor's narrative is focussed on Israeli-based NGOs. Their assertion is in itself un-sourced.

Anyway, even if Amnesty received some UK money - for an initiative we don't know, or can find in Amnesty's accounts - you think that's enough to write them off, while believing Russian media that is 100% owned, run and controlled by the Russian Government.

Straws and clutching come to mind.

sky news... amnesty... lol.

didnt america bomb a hospital in much the same scenario not long ago? or has that been swept under the rug?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

This is obvious crap,"Rupert Murdoch has no conflict of interest related to these matters"

That may as well be the title and we would still know it was crap.

No offence to you poster, but if people really think Russia is going to risk purposely targeting civilians during such a dangerous time, a time when the vast majority of the modern world has openly been targeting Russia with provocative strategic positioning of troops and missile systems, accusatory propaganda, not to mention the damaging Sanction's - Then I think you are massively misconstruing the data.

Russia is well aware that they are the underdog in this potential conflict, and let's not pretend that the ultimate goal on the NATO side here is not war with Russia, anyone denying this fact would do well to take a critical look at both sides statements, and actual actions since the fall of the USSR.

I hold no candle for Russian politics or ol Vlad the Rad Cad, but I do hold a candle for telling the truth as I understand it, And I understand that NATO has been used as tool for certain groups to reshape the map, and the power structure as they see fit.

I am almost certain that Putin is a willing pawn in this great game that is being played out using us and our lives as puppets in a great dramatic play, put on for our (the people's) benefit for the rulers fear our reaction if we wisen up to their sociopathic schemes.

Putin is good friends with Kissinger after all.........

But the Russian people, like us , are deceived actors in this colossal mess we find ourselves in, we all lost something or someone from the last 2 great wars, this one will be worse than anyone could even imagine -

Do we really want to vindicate Kissinger when he stated "Military men are just dumb brutish animals to be manipulated for foreign policy"?

Or do we want a better world, a world we can leave our children without fear - the fear that you should all be feeling as you, and I , ignorantly march toward the end of hope.

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
didnt america bomb a hospital in much the same scenario not long ago? or has that been swept under the rug?

Nope; the same people who reported the American attack on their hospital have reported Syrian attacks on their hospitals. Only now the people who kept on about the American attack are claiming they are lying now:'

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
didnt america bomb a hospital in much the same scenario not long ago? or has that been swept under the rug?

Nope; the same people who reported the American attack on their hospital have reported Syrian attacks on their hospitals. Only now the people who kept on about the American attack are claiming they are lying now:'

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Um, no. This was in Afghanistan.

so I went up to the horse, and asked him to speak to me from his mouth ... Here is what I heard

Amesty
The report focuses on six attacks in Homs, Idleb and Aleppo between September and November 2015 which killed at least 200 civilians and around a dozen fighters. The briefing includes evidence suggesting that Russian authorities may have lied to cover up civilian damage to a mosque from one air strike and a field hospital in another. It also documents evidence suggesting Russia’s use of internationally banned cluster munitions and of unguided bombs in populated residential areas.

“Some Russian air strikes appear to have directly attacked civilians or civilian objects by striking residential areas with no evident military target and even medical facilities, resulting in deaths and injuries to civilians. Such attacks may amount to war crimes,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.

“It is crucial that suspected violations are independently and impartially investigated.”

Six attacks that occurred last year are at the heart of this report. A field hospital however, could easily be a tent only a hundred yards or less away from a ground battle against government forces staffed entirely by other terrorists treating terrorists. I say if they like to crucify helpless people, then their little #ty medical tent is fair game, as I doubt the Red Crescent are present.
This recent report is not referencing the recent unsubstantiated claims of four hospitals targeted in one day by the Russians, which have been alleged to actually have been a possible false flag strike by coalition forces.

I wont be naive to think the Russians have not taken out some civilians in their strikes, it is war after all. Deliberate attacks though?? That is a tough pill to swallow, and I usually don't accept those accusations when leveled against American forces either. Mistakes, collateral damage, and even friendly fire do occur on ALL sides in war. I do believe however, that no civilians would have died by Russian strikes had Western and Arab/Turkish powers not funded and sourced terrorists to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria starting in 2011 when the peaceful protesters and police alike came under sniper fire from rooftops just like in Ukraine years later. Of course when the authorities responded to these violent murderous agent provocateurs, suddenly western media is all "omg the peaceful protestors are under attack" when the attackers start getting a taste of their own medicine. Too bad many people did not find that out until the following year when everyone was cheering down with Assad.

Oh well I guess, such is history.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Would you bee talking about the teens that security forces arrested than tortured? You have no idea how Syria started or why do you? See in 1963 a law was put in place martial law to be exact it allowed security forces to do what ever they wanted. They became above the law and would arrest Syrians torture them all without any trial or even charges.This started when some teens put out some material involving the tortures taking place. Those teens were of course arrested and tortured . This put people on the streets in protest Assad's response send in the same group the people were protesting. Of course they did what they do best killed several arrested others and of course more torturing.

This of course led to further protests which for a while looked like It might work since assaad decided to remove the 63 law giving security forces cart Blanche on murder and torture. But then it continued anyway turned out nothing chanhed and this time people armed themselves for further encounters and a civil war was born. Don't try to make assaad out to be a nice guy he's not he supports terrorism and removed all rights like freedom of speech had press arrested and you guessed it tortured. His actions allowed terrorist groups to move into Syria under the guise of protecting the people. Let's face it if the government is killing people any armed group that says we will stop it is welcome. Problem was now that they have power they are doing the same things welcome to Syria.

Now as far as Russia they are simply using the same policy they did in Chechen war. Drive the civilian population away through force next step come in and carpet bomb the place killing anything left than move in your forces. Its standard procedure for Russia handling uprisings and very effective. People don't fight when they are dead or already left the area. You'll see a lot of the same tactics bombing markets and hospitals in hopes of driving people away. Let's be honest its effective and will keep assaad I'm power and keep their base in Syria. They can deflect anything from the UN so from a tactical point of view its a win win for Russia .

originally posted by: humanityrising

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
didnt america bomb a hospital in much the same scenario not long ago? or has that been swept under the rug?

Nope; the same people who reported the American attack on their hospital have reported Syrian attacks on their hospitals. Only now the people who kept on about the American attack are claiming they are lying now:'

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Um, no. This was in Afghanistan.

Yes; MSF reported that the US attacked one of their hospitals in Afghanistan and all the Russian Sputniks couldn't post a single message without mentioning it. Now that MSF is reporting that Syrian and Russian troops are bombing their hospitals in Syria, the same members are trying to destroy MSF's credibility, or arguing that it's okay to bomb hospitals.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

war = people die, even civilians. Thats war
Russia have done more than than any other country in the last few years. in fighting USA fabricated ISIS.

Seems like they trying to turn Russia as an enemy. USA dont like to be told what to do, and Russia dont listen to them

I feel bad for anyone dieing and getting mixed up in any conflict, but war is war unfortunately.

a reply to: dragonridr

I was talking about this actually:

“The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011”- Human Rights Watch, March 2012, Washington

“I have seen from the beginning armed protesters in those demonstrations … they were the first to fire on the police. Very often the violence of the security forces comes in response to the brutal violence of the armed insurgents” – the late Father Frans Van der Lugt, January 2012, Homs Syria

“The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie. The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, have been going on virtually since the beginning”. – Professor Jeremy Salt, October 2011, Ankara Turkey

Assad is no Saint, but really, he is probably slightly better than any of the ruling Monarchies of the entire Arab Peninsula which is currently feeding and supplying the terrorism against the Syrian people, and about right on par with the Turkish Prime Minister. All of them are staunch NATO allies. Got any criticism and calls to destroy their country in that regard, or is that reserved strictly for the leaders who refuse to bow to the Internationalists??

LOL Russia can nuke the whole place. Who's going to say anything about it?

i don't get how its the worst war crimes they've seen in decades when America just recently bombed a hospital and then shot everyone who was trying to flee...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Oh, so you don't believe that Amnesty is going after headlines when it say Russia is guilty of some the most "egregious" (that means shocking) war crimes it has seen in decades?

So you don't think deliberately attacking rescue teams is egregious? I don't remember you holding that opinion when Turkey was attacking Russian rescue teams.

Sorry man...while deliberately attacking rescue teams may qualify for your "egregious" label; the reality is that neither you nor Amnesty International has evidence that any of it was deliberate.

originally posted by: tanka418
Sorry man...while deliberately attacking rescue teams may qualify for your "egregious" label; the reality is that neither you nor Amnesty International has evidence that any of it was deliberate.

"Prove it" is the retort of the guilty, but this is not a court of law. Here at least, we remain free to talk about such things, unless our minds are already too afraid to acknowledge them.

By now, the ugly truth should be obvious. Such attacks on first responders and even hospitals have by now happened more than enough and from all sides to suggest that they are indeed policy rather than the always claimed disinformation or, should that disinformation fail, mistakes.

The reason is obvious. Modern medical care is quite good and can return combatants to battle with significantly quick turnaround and in significantly high numbers. With modern first responders and medical care, an airstrike that might otherwise kill 20 enemy may instead kill 5 with 10 returning to combat within a few months. Where the goal is to end insurgency, the cold hard math here is obvious.

The reason for the disinformation everywhere on this topic whenever it happens is obvious: it's illegal.

If it were simply up to the American people, such tactics would probably be legal by now anyway. However, the real stumbling block to providing legal cover for troops is not the minority within the US who would like such things to remain illegal; it's the international order and how it would respond to such an escalation. Remember, as Putin frankly stated in his historic September 2015 speech, all terrorism is government sponsored. Thus, granting such legal cover would amount to an escalation in proxy warfare between the greater nations.

originally posted by: 11andrew34

originally posted by: tanka418
Sorry man...while deliberately attacking rescue teams may qualify for your "egregious" label; the reality is that neither you nor Amnesty International has evidence that any of it was deliberate.

"Prove it" is the retort of the guilty, but this is not a court of law. Here at least, we remain free to talk about such things, unless our minds are already too afraid to acknowledge them.

By now, the ugly truth should be obvious. Such attacks on first responders and even hospitals have by now happened more than enough and from all sides to suggest that they are indeed policy rather than the always claimed disinformation or, should that disinformation fail, mistakes.

Wow, dude! Firstly, your "retort" is far more vehement than mine, makes me wonder what you are trying to cover up.

And, asking for supporting data is the proper and reasonable thing to do...rather than simply go on with some fantasy...

I did not say anything about the attacks only to question whether they were deliberate! And, of course, you can't demonstrate that either way because you have no data...just knee jerk reaction to something you can not understand.

If memory serves these MSF people don't like to tell anyone where they are working, making it a practical impossibility to avoid them.

So it might appear that any "war crimes" here are the product of random chance...

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
Assad is no Saint, but really, he is probably slightly better than any of the ruling Monarchies of the entire Arab Peninsula which is currently feeding and supplying the terrorism against the Syrian people,

He is literally the only secular ruler left in the entire Middle East region, unless you count Turkey as being in the middle east and as being secular, both of which are debatable.

Saying that Assad is to blame is suggesting that he had no right to fight back and attempt to prevent insurgency from toppling the legitimate, internationally recognized government of Syria in the first place. It's saying that the carnage in Syria is Assad's fault for simply not rolling over and giving the country to the Qatari monarchy, the Saudis, Israel, and the CIA.

Dumbest of all is the notion that what is happening now in Syria was somehow better than letting Assad's regime continue. anyone who still thinks this should have to look through all the before and after pictures to see what was done to Syria and its people in the name of protecting it, as if the example of Iraq was not enough. The obvious conclusion one must then make is that protecting Syria had nothing to do with toppling the Assad regime.

The Saudis could even have their pipeline route to Europe without bloodshed: through Egypt. Yet they won't do this because actually, while the main Saudi enemy is Iran, the main Saudi rival for leadership of the Sunni world is Egypt. They would simply have had to spend more on building the pipeline itself (underwater in the Mediterranean) gotten a little less political power from it, and share a little more of the profit.

originally posted by: tanka418
Wow, dude! Firstly, your "retort" is far more vehement than mine, makes me wonder what you are trying to cover up.

And, asking for supporting data is the proper and reasonable thing to do...rather than simply go on with some fantasy...

I did not say anything about the attacks only to question whether they were deliberate! And, of course, you can't demonstrate that either way because you have no data...just knee jerk reaction to something you can not understand.

If memory serves these MSF people don't like to tell anyone where they are working, making it a practical impossibility to avoid them.

So it might appear that any "war crimes" here are the product of random chance...

If you think my retort was vehement, I would suggest that you are projecting your own feelings onto my text, and that it is your own cognitive dissonance making you uncomfortable from lying to yourself. I guess you're making it clear that you are claiming 'mistake' rather than the attacks being disinformation entirely. I'm saying that where there is smoke there is fire, whether it's the Russians or the US doing such things these days.

You ask for data, but surely you must be aware that no one can have any data on these attacks, or any data that they could talk about here. It would all be classified, wouldn't it? At best, we could do a study of the number of such reported incidents in the press, and look at the rates where it was claimed that they were real intended attacks, disinformation, or mistakes. Perhaps somebody should apply for a grant.

It's a little different, but I would suggest that we could also include drone strikes against weddings. They are almost always said to be accidents, yet they obviously are a convenient time to wipe out someone and their entire family, as one might want to do if one were worried about tribal warfare and family grudges, of the sort still very much a part of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Even then, such a study of trends in reporting on such incidents could only statistically suggest the likelyhood that such attacks are indeed policy or not. Such a study could only suggest that someone is pissing on your leg and that it is not in fact raining.

You ask for data as if anyone could have any. As no one here can have any real data due to its classified nature, to the extent that we discuss it at all, we must have the courage to make sensible judgements in the absence of it. It would be cowardly and insane to hide behind the lack of available data when it comes to simply acknowledging the obvious trend. And careful what you wish for, perhaps wikileaks will share some data.

As for the specific matter at hand, what is obvious is that Russia's support of Assad is what is best for the civilian population of Syria in the long run, assuming they want to live, not move to Europe, etc.

Also, isn't this whole article and issue pointlessly late to the debate anyway? It seems the US etc and Russia have already come to some sort of agreement. It's western finger wagging at Russia after the fact.

originally posted by: 11andrew34
Dumbest of all is the notion that what is happening now in Syria was somehow better than letting Assad's regime continue. anyone who still thinks this should have to look through all the before and after pictures to see what was done to Syria and its people in the name of protecting it, as if the example of Iraq was not enough. The obvious conclusion one must then make is that protecting Syria had nothing to do with toppling the Assad regime.

What has happened to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...that is the real crime here. All were well functioning, viable countries until the West got ahold of them...Now, they're burned out war ravaged husks...although with luck and hard work, maybe they can be rehabilitated in 100 years or so.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

You have Turkey making incursions into Syria on the pretense of fighting ISIS but really targeting the Kurds.

Well to Turkey they are one in the same...terrorist who target Turkey.

Why does Turkey not have the right to deal with those that have created terror on their land?

Are you going to say the PKK haven't returned to terrorizing Turkey from Syria, and that they shouldn't be held responsible for their acts against Turkey?