Real World Event Discussions

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Monday, September 8, 2025 15:48
VIEWED: 105502
PAGE 18 of 87

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 20, 2016 9:40 PM

If you've been wondering about Aleppo, here is an interesting article about life in the city as it is now, by Peter Osborne

Journey to Aleppo: How the war ripped Syria's biggest city apart

http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/journey-aleppo-how-war-ripped-syri
as-biggest-city-apart-1376989223#sthash.a8griASo.dpuf

It describes the hardships and the fracturing, even of families, between al Nusra and the Syrian government, and also the views of Syrians in Jordanian refugee camps. People speak of crimes by everyone: al Nusra, the FSA, Assad, and Iranians.

Syrian Army sitrep as of Sept 19

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

KPO

Saturday, February 20, 2016 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

I find this telling, how there's a break in the quoting where rt adds in some editorial content:

"The majority of Syrian people" of all backgrounds and faith "regard Russian military campaign as salvation, a way out of the state we've been enduring for five years," the Catholic bishop said, adding that "Syrians are very positive about it."

Wonder what else they added?

Ha, good spot G. Exactly what you would expect from a propaganda outlet for the Russian state - an 'interview' where they add in extra words where the Bishop doesn't quite hit the Kremlin's editorial line, and hope you don't notice.

And exactly the reason why no one should read RT, Sputnik or any other of Signy's cherished propaganda outlets masquerading as 'news' sources.

Signy you've embarrassed yourself enough, kindly stop repeatedly spamming the thread with this article.

KPO

Saturday, February 20, 2016 10:53 PM

Quote:
If you've been wondering about Aleppo, here is an interesting article about life in the city as it is now, by Peter Osborne

Ah, the article by erratic anti-Western journalist Peter Oborne. I was wondering when you were going to post this.

To his credit he does make this confession, deep into the article:

Quote:
"I should state that I stayed exclusively in government-held areas. I made no attempt to cross the lines into rebel zones (I would have been kidnapped [Also the Syrian government doesn't let journalists into the areas it besieges - KPO]). Government minders accompanied me throughout the trip and were present at almost every conversation. But I am as certain as I can be that people told me the truth as they saw it."

You'll forgive me if I take your interview quotes with a pinch of salt, Peter, since you were escorted everywhere and your conversations were watched over by Government minders of the most brutal, murderous regime of the century?

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:19 AM

Well, you're embarrassing yourself, KPO, because if you read my post to G about that Syrian Catholic Bishop, you'll see why the article should be accurate given the context of the interview, and also a YouTube link which a Catholic-based website reports on another Syrian Catholic Bishop saying exactly the same thing.

Also, did you not wonder why the Orthodox Pope and the Catholic Pope met in Cuba, and not the USA? It must be because they share the same anti-Communist bent that you do! (not)

Whole posts of yours, and G's, consist of 'Nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you'. Closed-minded much?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 21, 2016 7:24 PM

Syrian army, allies advance against Islamic State in eastern Aleppo - reports

Quote:
Syria's army and allies, backed by Russian air strikes, recaptured 18 villages from Islamic State fighters in eastern Aleppo province on Saturday, a monitoring group said. The advance extended their control of parts of a road running towards the jihadist group's stronghold of Raqqa, and built on gains made in assaults that intensified sharply earlier this month.

Damascus's offensive, drawing heavily on Russian air cover and ground support from Lebanese Hezbollah and Iranian fighters, has brought the Syrian army to within 25 km (15 miles) of Turkey's border. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Syria's army and allied fighters recaptured 18 villages east of Aleppo, bringing under their control some 40 km (25 miles) of a highway that leads from the city to Raqqa.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUKKCN0V
T0UN

Well, aside from the military gains reported here, there are three other pieces of information that one can glean from this article

1) Aleppo was controlled at least in part by ISIL. The idea that it was just "Syrian rebels" who took control of Aleppo was like the belief in the existence of the "FSA"- a fantasy.

2) Given that Aleppo was controlled at least in part by ISIL, I think we can ditch the propaganda point that Russia was just focusing on 'the rebels'. I could go into the tactical and strategic reasons why the Four plus one did what they did ... but I'll let KPO, G, and THUGR figure that one out for themselves.

3) The article is missing the usual embedded anti-Russian propaganda. That should tell people something. Again, intelligent people can figure that one out for themselves.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:39 PM

Quote:
And now, for a bit of speculation:
According to RT... - SIGNY

That should be on their masthead! You're a crack-up Sniggles.- GSTRING

The facts are from RT< the speculation is mine.
Yanno, you quoted an entire article from somewhere that you thought was "more objective", and yet it referenced the same facts that I quoted from elsewhere.

You have no response the the fact that nearly everything this "objective" article wrote, I posted here, long before? Does that make me "objective" too? And is that something you're too afraid to admit? "cause you've been avoiding those rather long posts ever since.

Quote:
Syrian army, allies advance against Islamic State in eastern Aleppo - reports

Syria's army and allies, backed by Russian air strikes, recaptured 18 villages from Islamic State fighters in eastern Aleppo province on Saturday, a monitoring group said. The advance extended their control of parts of a road running towards the jihadist group's stronghold of Raqqa, and built on gains made in assaults that intensified sharply earlier this month.

Damascus's offensive, drawing heavily on Russian air cover and ground support from Lebanese Hezbollah and Iranian fighters, has brought the Syrian army to within 25 km (15 miles) of Turkey's border. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Syria's army and allied fighters recaptured 18 villages east of Aleppo, bringing under their control some 40 km (25 miles) of a highway that leads from the city to Raqqa.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUKKCN0V
T0UN

Well, aside from the military gains reported here, there are three other pieces of information that one can glean from this article

1) Aleppo was controlled at least in part by ISIL. The idea that it was just "Syrian rebels" who took control of Aleppo was like the belief in the existence of the "FSA"- a fantasy.

2) Given that Aleppo was controlled at least in part by ISIL, I think we can ditch the propaganda point that Russia was just focusing on 'the rebels'. I could go into the tactical and strategic reasons why the Four plus one did what they did ... but I'll let KPO, G, and THUGR figure that one out for themselves.

3) The article is missing the usual embedded anti-Russian propaganda. That should tell people something. Again, intelligent people can figure that one out for themselves.

-SIGNY

You left out:

"Russia intervened in Syria's nearly five-year-old civil war in September with an air campaign to bolster Assad

I think Russia, I, and your objective article has already said that. For myself, I believe I've said that many times. This is not news.

Quote:
Quote:
Its air strikes have hit Islamic State targets but mostly other insurgents, including Western- and Turkish-backed fighters.

Western and Turkish =backed fighters INCLUDE Islamist extremists and terrorists. My response to that point is- so what? Just because they're western-backed and Turksih-backed doesn't mean that they're "moderate". In fact, didn't your "objective" article concede that the idea of "moderate rebels" is a fantasy?

Quote:
Quote:
U.S.-led air strikes are also hitting Islamic State in areas it controls in Raqqa, Deir al-Zor and Hasaka provinces in the north and east of the country."

I don't think you know the difference between "assumptions" and "lies."

"Given that Aleppo was controlled at least in part by ISIL" - what's that word you love? Evidence?- GSTRING

Oh, but who needs "evidence" GSTRING? Certainly NOT YOU! This is form REUTERS, after all, a solid western source, the kind you swallow hook, line, and sinker!

Quote:
3rd time - What again is Russia's gain from all this? Loosing billions worth of business with Turkey? Propping up a hated "dictator?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Monday, February 22, 2016 12:46 AM

Quote:
Yanno, you quoted an entire article from somewhere that you thought was "more objective", and yet it referenced the same facts that I quoted from elsewhere.- SIGNY

Some facts are so obvious even you can't miss them.

And some facts are so obvious that you even can't deny them. Which you've done, over and over. When I have more time, I'll detail every fact that you denied (because it came from a source that you didn't "like", especially me) that you later thought was "objective".

Quote:
I've have exhaustively posted about agreeing with you on some things

Oh, bull. Everyone knows that you disagree with me on nearly everything I post. That whole "I've have [sic] exhaustively posted about agreeing with you on some things characterization doesn't even pass the laugh test for anyone who's been reading our exchanges. And the point is the information in THIS thread, not some mythical other topics. You accept information when it comes from some sources, and reject the exact same information when it comes through me.

Yanno, if I were you, I'd reconsider how I assess information.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Monday, February 22, 2016 8:41 PM

Quote:
I can't freakin' wait! It's going to be great to see how you twist my words to make your point! Half the time you confuse what poster said what! Please tell me we expect your favorite habit of presuming the negative from a statement! So even if someone didn't say something you will say they were obviously thinking it?! Ha! It always makes you look like a desperate fool but it's worth the laugh.

When I parse through your posts to show you how you changed your mind 180 degrees depending on WHO said it, it will be obvious to everyone who reads it - except for you. I don't expect objectivity from you, because you're defending yourself.

Quote:
I do consider how you assess information :) - you push it through a pro-Russian filter. That has been obvious since the 'Russia Invades Ukraine' thread over a year ago. You are still in denial. Thing is as long as Crimea is under Russian rule it is a cold hard fact. One that I expect you deny in your next post.
So yes - I am picky about sources, and you as a source is untrustworthy as hell. Even your choice of sources shows you to be a untrustworthy echo bot.

And this is yet another example of exactly the problem that you have with information. I guess you STILL don't get it!

Quote:
I am more likely to trust sources that are not blatant propaganda for governments - you should try it (IF you can find one from Russia). I can't believe someone has to tell you that!

Then don't read the BBC, don't read any of the major media, don't listen to NPR.

Quote:
I think a lifetime of trusting government shills acting as "reporters" has broken your objectivity when it comes to professional journalism. I'm not even sure you understand what that means or just how hard those pros work at finding the story amongst all the junk. And the more you make these sweeping, blanket statements about the "Western Press" being in the pocket of Big Gov, and how you try and smear their efforts, just underscores how much you realize the West has a much freer flow of information. Truth be told, I think you are jealous - of course you will not admit it!
That is not to say there isn't plenty of bad reporting in the West, or poorly concealed political agendas like in Russia. Fox comes to mind.

Ok, for anyone who is NOT G, please re-read the above statement.

G "trusts" some sources. But when I talk about sources, I NEVER talk about trust. That's because I don't "trust" ANY sources. What I try to do is analyze them.

G: I read websites and listen to radio from sources that your would consider to be our side and ALSO sources that you would consider to be their side. When I read BBC, or the NYT, or RT, or Sputnik News, or Xihnua, or the International Business Times, or Syria Today, or Kyiv Post, or any of the other couple-dozen websites that I go to for viewpoints, or listen to NPR or the BBC World Service, or watch YouTube, not only do they have different views of the same thing, they usually focus on entirely different things.

Reality is complex, and people see what they want or fear, or what the government or the media's corporate sponsors want or fear. Everyone has a POV. Nobody has the whole picture. NOT EVEN THOSE SOURCES THAT YOU "TRUST"

So taking into account that every media's POV is shaped differently, you need to try to understand what THEY want, what THEY fear, and try to figure out from THEIR POV whether the reported news makes sense. Cui bono? (to whose benefit?) is a very good question to ask, but first you need to understand the other's view of "benefit".

So, for example, the Libyan destruction was presented (to the west) as saving those poor people of Libya who were being massacred by that ogre Qaddafi and who only wanted to breathe free under democracy under some "right to protect" clause, when IN REALITY a large

SIGNYM

Monday, February 22, 2016 9:08 PM

Just to give you an idea of how different the reportage is, here istoday's top headline from websites around the world

http://www.bbc.com/news
India caste unrest: 'Ten million without water' in Delhi

http://www.bloomberg.com/
The U.S. States Where Recession Is Already a Reality

cnn.com
Why Bush Stumbled

http://www.ibtimes.com/
China’s ‘Zombie Firms’ Threaten Global Growth

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
Battle over who won the Hispanic vote in Nevada vote

http://www.reuters.com/
US-Russia draft calls for Syria ceasefire to start Feb. 27

https://www.rt.com/
‘He is paying for freedom of speech’: Palestinian journo on hunger strike near death (EXCLUSIVE)

http://sputniknews.com/
Liberation Continues: Syrian Army Regains Control Over Aleppo Supply Route

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/
Xi underscores CPC's leadership in news reporting

zerohedge.com
Safes Sell Out In Japan, 1,000 Franc Note Demand Soars As NIRP Triggers Cash Hoarding

Like I said: different worlds.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:38 AM

'G'
... you never make a mistake and you're never wrong (what a 5 year old) ... You as a source will never be trusted without extensive verification - your bias and conceit are way too well known.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.