Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Monday, September 8, 2025 15:48
VIEWED: 105502
PAGE 76 of 87
A look back on Assad and Putin's "liberation" of Aleppo:
-------------------------------------------------------
"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Evidence the Syrian regime sponsors ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's all very sad KPO.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HEY DREAMTROVE
First cites, then go back and read this thread. See if you think 1kiki and SIG are trolling on behalf of Russia. Then, well I'll wait and see what you say. Whether you read the thread or not, whether you comment or not. Both will be very telling. This post by you also gives hints to what you'll do, what you'll say. Others here besides me will pick up clues about you from what you do, what you say.
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
SO not walking into this firestorm, just to feed a piece of information.
This is NOT a conspiracy theory, it's now established fact now, so whoever this helps, you're welcome, whoever loses point on this score, sorry, that's life.
The Turkish militants just confessed to their part in the Benghazi transfer of chemical weapons to Al Nusra for use against Assad in a false flag attack.
Their report completely backs up the story Seymour Hersh broke a couple years ago, the real story of Benghazi, that HRC used JSCO to transfer the weapons and then transfer weapons to Libyan rebels along with a list of targets that included the American consulate.
Hersh basically covers everything in his article, so there's not need for me to do so here, but I know the New Yorker originally rejected the story because they thought it would hurt Hillary, so it ran in Al Jazeera, a few on others.
The conclusion of the piece is that the gas attacks, both the initial 1500 victim attack and the total 15000, were in fact carried out from Al Nusra, with weapons surrendered to the Benghazi US consulate by Muammar Gaddafi. The weapons were transfered to Al Nusra by HRC. Al Nusra carried out the attacks, as a false flag to blame Assad and get open western support. They failed to get open support and have since joined ISIS.
Again, not arguing the point, just posting to end any argument as to the responsibility for the gas attacks, and the source of chemical weapons in Syria.
---------------------
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Two opportunities to respond to this and no response. I have my answer.
HEY DREAMTROVE
First cites, then go back and read this thread. See if you think 1kiki and SIG are trolling on behalf of Russia. Then, well I'll wait and see what you say. Whether you read the thread or not, whether you comment or not. Both will be very telling. This post by you also gives hints to what you'll do, what you'll say. Others here besides me will pick up clues about you from what you do, what you say.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey DT,
Go back and read all 1,000 posts over the weekend. We expect a book report on Monday.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
Hey DT,
Go back and read all 1,000 posts over the weekend. We expect a book report on Monday.
No need Jack. It's easy to understand what is going on in glance. Just look at what KPO posts and how SIG and 1kiki respond. Just a few posts makes the point.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"During the last week of January, Syrian government forces supported by Russian airstrikes began a ground offensive in the northern part of the Aleppo Countryside governorate to break the siege imposed by armed groups on the towns of Nubul and Zahraa."
The quote above is the only reference specifically to Russian airstrikes.
G responce
No it isn't:
"On 1 February, the Syrian government forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces, which include Kurdish, Arab and Assyrian groups, continued their offensive in the same area. Civilians who fled the northern part of the Aleppo Countryside governorate to the Bab al-Salam border crossing into Turkey told Amnesty that Russian and Syrian government airstrikes escalated in the first week of February, forcing thousands of people to flee. With no functioning hospitals left in the area, many of those injured in the airstrikes were forced to drive for hours to obtain medical help."
Sorry, wrong on that one.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But there's nothing in that quote about airstrikes on hospitals or medical facilities that the article claims to be addressing.
G response
Not right either. To be accurate, the article's title claims to be addressing: "Syrian and Russian forces have deliberately targeted hospitals near Aleppo" - doesn't say "airstrikes." Must be your haste to draw your pre-formed conclusions clouding your judgment.
The article does say:
"Russian and Syrian government forces appear to have deliberately and systematically targeted hospitals and other medical facilities over the last three months to pave the way for ground forces to advance on northern Aleppo, an examination of airstrikes by Amnesty International has found."
You can disagree if you like - do you have any evidence they are wrong?
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: Maybe they got wise to the fact that astute people were noticing the lack of evidence for their claims.
G response
Actually, astute people would realize that Amnesty International doesn't write their reports to satisfy Russian trolls.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
In any case, you won't find a single - not one - claim of specifically Russian airstrikes targeting the places they claim were targeted. Which is a glaringly obvious omission for an article you seem to think is about those bad Russians targeting civilians.
G response
So to you it's ok if it's Russian surface-to-surface missiles or tanks shelling hospitals and killing civilians, just not their air force?
"Amnesty International Crisis Response Director Tirana Hassan said:
“Syrian and Russian forces have been deliberately attacking health facilities in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. But what is truly egregious is that wiping out hospitals appears to have become part of their military strategy."
That's ok, just not with planes?
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And, in your haste to draw your pre-formed conclusions..."
G response
My preformed conclusion is that Russia has a well equipped air force in Syria loaded with bombs and they don't really give a shit who they bomb as long as it ends the hostilities and keeps Assad in power. And to that end they will bomb hospitals if they feel it helps, with missiles from whatever delivery system they can. Seem reasonable to you?
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: ... you missed the most important message in the story... "
G response
I happen to think this is a much greater message: “Syrian and Russian forces have been deliberately attacking health facilities in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. But what is truly egregious is that wiping out hospitals appears to have become part of their military strategy."
Y
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So now, everyone is a craven coward because NOBODY in their right mind would welcome government troops??
Huh? I can't even guess how your brain got so narrow. Little Signym One Note. Why do you almost always go 180 degrees to the negative assumption? You need so much hand holding.
So what you said, just the opposite in fact. EVERYONE in their right mind would welcome the stopping of shelling and cheer whoever the hell comes in as the victor - do you get that? Remember how just one post ago I said people welcomed ISIL?Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is your problem, in a nutshell: You just can't believe that anyone might have different motivations than you. You can't believe anyone would willingly join ISIL, [wrong - unbased assumption] and you can't believe anyone would willingly support Assad.[wrong - unbased assumption] You can't believe anyone would willingly fight Kiev, either. [wrong - unbased assumption] Any time anyone expresses an opinion that you don't share, they're either mistaken, or they're forced into it. [wrong - unbased assumption] Because they're all REALLY just GSTRING under the skin, or if they're not- they should be. There's just no other right way to think, except the way GSTRING thinks. [wrong - unbased assumption]
Again, just the opposite of your assumptions. I think that's your thing, the way you preserve your fragile ego is to make these negative assumptions so you can easily knock them down. Kind of lazy and weak and very tedious. You also over simply most things. The life of some average citizen living in the hell that is Syria is full of trade offs. Where am I living? Where do my friends and family live. Who controls these areas? Who will best support me and family/friends in the future? Who do I have more to worry about. Who looks like they will win? Who does my neighbor support? Like the sands of the desert, it's an ever shifting list. Gee, I think someone said that before - were you listening? Are you listening?
Almost forgot to re-ask you: what does Russia gain from this?
I love this! What a steaming pile... where you there to ask these people?Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Here's the way it works, son: SOME of the people who could run- ran. With the approach of Sunni jihadists towards Aleppo, Xtians, Druze, Alawites, etc who could run - ran. SOME of "the people" welcomed jihadism. WHY? Because they were Sunnis theocrats under-the-skin who wanted to impose their theocracy on everyone. SOME of the population fought. Why? Because they were not Sunni theocrats under-the-skin, and they viewed the Sunni theocrats as an existential threat. MANY ducked their heads and tried to hang on, hoping for help from elsewhere. Why? Because they had neither the physical nor emotional capacity to fight OR to run, so they "hid". And SOME, through either fear or reward, changed sides and joined the jihadists ... they collaborated.
You must have the best Google map app to see all of that - wait, I know, it's easy for you. Except, most of that is "no shit" people doing whatever to survive, as already stated. A lot is just your imagined powers of *guessing* from an over-priced yuppie computer chair in Cali.Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
With the current approach of four plus one troops, those who are running are mostly Sunni theocrats and their collaborators (and family) because they fear retribution. Yanno, kind of like what happened after WWII with Nazi collaborators. It's as simple as that, and ... you should have figured that out by now.
"...four plus one troops..." do you have one of their t-shirts? Are you typing while wearing one of their hats?
4+1
=
DEATH
You sound like a sports fan.Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The fact that you have to castigate an entire people as collaborators..NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6, lol
Thg,
I already said. I posted 1 story by Sy Hersh, there are others, anyone can just search seymour hersh, syria, and fine everything.
Second, wikileaks i mentioned, again, search wikileaks syria, and you'll find these accounts in agreement.
third, i mentioned the turkish militants confess, somewhere i already posted the story, but again, easier to find it probably just by searching.
this isn't like climate change, there actually really isn't a debate about differing accounts with solid backing. Even the UN agreed with this account, and said they wouldn't put it in the first report, because they didn't want ot anger the US, so they made a second report and released it anyway.
So everybody knows, HRC put the hit on Benghazi to cover up the hit they put on Syria, We were defeated by Lebanon, of all nations, and Russia came in to clean up the mess. Well, good for Russia. I hear Syria is a very nice place, I'd like to go sometimes. And all those immigrants in Sweden I'm sure would love to get back there, once the US is gone.
It's strange that all the liberals are baking the fundamentalist far right sunni theocrats against the alawite (unitarian) socialist govt of Bashar al Assad. That's not liberal, that's just party line democrat into high absurdity.The Saudis and their US puppets want this, but no one else wants it. God knows the Syrians don't want it.
If the Syrians wanted someone else, it's a democracy, they could just vote for someone else. The fact of the matter remains that Assad, like Putin, has a higher approval rating than any US president this century. And they deserve it, because they're actually defending their people, not fucking around in some forgotten corner of the world where most of the people back home in their country would never have heard of the place or speak the language or even be able to pronounce the names.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, I knew it.
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
6, lol
Thg,
I already said. I posted 1 story by Sy Hersh, there are others, anyone can just search seymour hersh, syria, and fine everything.
Second, wikileaks i mentioned, again, search wikileaks syria, and you'll find these accounts in agreement.
third, i mentioned the turkish militants confess, somewhere i already posted the story, but again, easier to find it probably just by searching.
this isn't like climate change, there actually really isn't a debate about differing accounts with solid backing. Even the UN agreed with this account, and said they wouldn't put it in the first report, because they didn't want ot anger the US, so they made a second report and released it anyway.
So everybody knows, HRC put the hit on Benghazi to cover up the hit they put on Syria, We were defeated by Lebanon, of all nations, and Russia came in to clean up the mess. Well, good for Russia. I hear Syria is a very nice place, I'd like to go sometimes. And all those immigrants in Sweden I'm sure would love to get back there, once the US is gone.
It's strange that all the liberals are baking the fundamentalist far right sunni theocrats against the alawite (unitarian) socialist govt of Bashar al Assad. That's not liberal, that's just party line democrat into high absurdity.The Saudis and their US puppets want this, but no one else wants it. God knows the Syrians don't want it.
If the Syrians wanted someone else, it's a democracy, they could just vote for someone else. The fact of the matter remains that Assad, like Putin, has a higher approval rating than any US president this century. And they deserve it, because they're actually defending their people, not fucking around in some forgotten corner of the world where most of the people back home in their country would never have heard of the place or speak the language or even be able to pronounce the names.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME