[Syria] Coalition strike 'kills government forces'
52 replies, posted
[t]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/872/cpsprodpb/157F6/production/_86745088_86745087.jpg[/t]
[quote]
A suspected US-led coalition air strike has killed four Syrian military personnel, according to a monitoring group.
...
If confirmed, it would be the first coalition strike to have killed Syrian government forces.
The UK-based Syrian Observatory said 13 military personnel were also wounded.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35024408[/url]
Is the intel so bad they air strike the wrong forces?
Is "bombing ISIS" in Syria being used as a way to fulfil the "lets bomb Assad" agenda?
Only the first strike to kill government forces is pretty impressive really.
Already bombed more public utilities than that so far.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49264101]Doubt they'd be that stupid to do that right after S-400s arrived.[/QUOTE]
So bad intel it is
On a positive note it might force Assad and coalition forces to communicate better their positions and coordinate attacks on ISIS/other nutter groups.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49264463]So bad intel it is
On a positive note it might force Assad and coalition forces to communicate better their positions and coordinate attacks on ISIS/other nutter groups.[/QUOTE]
So we're forgetting that Assad basically started the whole mess in the first place by slaughtering unarmed protesters? Not surprised.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49264852]More like we're recognizing that all the alternatives will slaughter unarmed civilians for even less than protesting.[/QUOTE]
Assads terrorism is the reason we're in this mess. It's an example of what happens when the world is too scared of political backlash of intervention and watches a world leader destroy his own country.
Syria as a country no longer exists.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;49264814]So we're forgetting that Assad basically started the whole mess in the first place by slaughtering unarmed protesters? Not surprised.[/QUOTE]
So bombing the Syrian army and lying to the electorate is ok because Assad is an asshole? No.
Removing Assad would only introduce more instability to the region. There is potential for a diplomatic solution.
[quote]President Barack Obama expressed optimism Tuesday that Russia will ultimately come around on the need for Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power to end his country's long civil war[/quote]
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/r-russia-iran-say-future-of-assad-a-matter-for-syrians-2015-8?op=1&IR=T[/url]
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/obama-urges-turkey-russia-set-tension-aside-focus-105605900--politics.html[/url]
It might be a dirty deal but if Russia can get Assad to step down and make way for a different leader then it will be a huge step toward ending the conflict. Bombing Assad and breaking whats left of the Syrian state would lead to more miltias and more violence + more power to ISIS and other radical groups (some like islamic front being our 'moderate' rebel friends) + potential conflict with Russia.
More civilians will die bombing government forces + ISIS + the rebel groups which come after.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;49264889]Assads terrorism is the reason we're in this mess. It's an example of what happens when the world is too scared of political backlash of intervention and watches a world leader destroy his own country.
Syria as a country no longer exists.[/QUOTE]
Maybe people learned from Libya what happens when you remove a dictator.
Or even Iraq, get rid of 1 shitlord and put in another.
Last I checked Libya was a lot better off than Syria so yeah we should've removed him. I don't care what the possible downside is no one should condone bombing your own civilians and as it stands we all stood and watched. Assad is a Terrorist and any deal that doesn't result in him being dead or rotting in an awful prison for the rest of his life is unacceptable.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
Even post-war iraq is a fucking haven compared to Syria. The power vacuum started in Syria and spread to Iraq because iraqs government was shit and incapable of defending itself. Literally all problems with isis we have now come down to Assads terrorism and bombing his people.
[QUOTE=OvB;49264889]Assads terrorism is the reason we're in this mess. It's an example of what happens when the world is too scared of political backlash of intervention and watches a world leader destroy his own country.
Syria as a country no longer exists.[/QUOTE]
The US intervened and that lead to a better armed ISIS. You guys forget that whole rebel arming thing that even made it onto the news?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49264943]The US intervened and that lead to a better armed ISIS. You guys forget that whole rebel arming thing that even made it onto the news?[/QUOTE]
Our intervention was poorly exicuted because noone wants to do their own dirty work. Remember when we had a "Red Line" that we were going to strike Assad if he used Chemical weapons and then did nothing when he did? That was the time to remove him by force. If you're going to talk the talk you got to walk the walk. We failed as a planet to stop this situation because we were too scared. We let the worst case scenario happen because no one wants to get their hands dirty because it's bad for their party.
We should've removed Assad when he bombed civilians with chemical weapons. We should've bombed ISIS when they took Falujah and entered Iraq. People would die but more die from inaction. We have a huge invested interest in Iraq that we failed to defend.
[QUOTE=OvB;49264990]Our intervention was poorly exicuted because noone wants to do their own dirty work. Remember when we had a "Red Line" that we were going to strike Assad if he used Chemical weapons and then did nothing when he did? That was the time to remove him by force. If you're going to talk the talk you got to walk the walk. We failed as a planet to stop this situation because we were too scared. We let the worst case scenario happen because no one wants to get their hands dirty because it's bad for their party.
We should've removed Assad when he bombed civilians with chemical weapons. We should've bombed ISIS when they took Falujah and entered Iraq. People would die but more die from inaction. We have a huge invested interest in Iraq that we failed to defend.[/QUOTE]
Is this^ US world police attitude ever going to go away? Legitimate question with our own safeties in mind.
[QUOTE=OvB;49264990]Our intervention was poorly exicuted because noone wants to do their own dirty work. Remember when we had a "Red Line" that we were going to strike Assad if he used Chemical weapons and then did nothing when he did? That was the time to remove him by force. If you're going to talk the talk you got to walk the walk. We failed as a planet to stop this situation because we were too scared. We let the worst case scenario happen because no one wants to get their hands dirty because it's bad for their party.
We should've removed Assad when he bombed civilians with chemical weapons. We should've bombed ISIS when they took Falujah and entered Iraq. People would die but more die from inaction. We have a huge invested interest in Iraq that we failed to defend.[/QUOTE]
Assad already stated that he is willing to step down but only after ISIS is defeated, soo every time U.S. Decided to be an ass and attack his forces they are simply pushing away very goal they are claiming to achieve. You can't keep overthrowing governments at will, sometimes a transition has to be done, for sake of both sides ( yeah believe it or not there are people who support Assad in Syria) сoming to terms with each other.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;49265112]Assad already stated that he is willing to step down but only after ISIS is defeated[/QUOTE]
And who says he isn't going to find a reason to stay in power?
Does Assad stepping down result in him being in a prison forever for his crimes against humanity, or lounging in a posh retreat in Sochi? He used Chemical weapons on civilians. His time to step down has passed years ago.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49264943]The US intervened and that lead to a better armed ISIS. You guys forget that whole rebel arming thing that even made it onto the news?[/QUOTE]
Ya no, the thing that made it to the news was that Isis took a couple vans of ammo from the rebels, they siezed 1000x as much from when they raised Iraqi armories
It makes my blood boil that people are willing to forgive that monster and grant him retreat.
[QUOTE=OvB;49265179]It makes my blood boil that people are willing to forgive that monster and grant him retreat.[/QUOTE]
Holy fucking shit look what your government has done.
When are all your leaders going to the hangman's noose for doing far worse? NONE OF THEM
That makes my blood boil.
[QUOTE=OvB;49265179]It makes my blood boil that people are willing to forgive that monster and grant him retreat.[/QUOTE]
There will never be stability in Syria as long as he remains in power. Assad has caused 95% of civilian casualties in the war so far. In my (hawkish) opinion we should have had a ground invasion to support the FSA before it became completely overrun by Saudi-funded Islamists, but there was never the stomach for it in the US, let alone in Britain after Iraq.
[QUOTE=OvB;49265144]Does Assad stepping down result in him being in a prison forever for his crimes against humanity, or lounging in a posh retreat in Sochi? He used Chemical weapons on civilians. His time to step down has passed years ago.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you're after vindication and revenge rather than a conclusion to the situation in Syria. Probably be wrong but that's the impression I'm getting.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49265195]Holy fucking shit look what your government has done.
When are all your leaders going to the hangman's noose for doing far worse? NONE OF THEM
That makes my blood boil.[/QUOTE]
What has his government done? I don't recall when the US started intentionally bombing and killing civilians. Or when it started chucking chemical weapons around.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49265211]What has his government done? [B]I don't recall when the US started intentionally bombing and killing civilians. [/B]Or when it started chucking chemical weapons around.[/QUOTE]
Pick up a history/politics book and turn to page 1.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
[img]http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/2012/06/11123645-large.jpg[/img]
[img]http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/798.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=OvB;49265144]Does Assad stepping down result in him being in a prison forever for his crimes against humanity, or lounging in a posh retreat in Sochi? He used Chemical weapons on civilians. His time to step down has passed years ago.[/QUOTE]
does it matter? Transition after ISIS gone would bring all factions to unite and uphold fair and balanced voting without terrorist threat across country and with pressure from both Russia and U.S. , those elections would get as fair as possible. Meanwhile "removal" of Assad right now only helps ISIS bite in harder into government controlled areas due to chaos that such scenario would lead to. This is a case where a vendetta must wait for better times.
You know it's fucked when there are museums around the world dedicated to the atrocities caused by the US. That are still unaccounted for. And nobody will do so because of your military, economic and diplomatic influence.
I'm talking about the post-Cold War years.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49265211]What has his government done? I don't recall when the US started intentionally bombing and killing civilians. Or when it started chucking chemical weapons around.[/QUOTE]
Sanctions on Iraq killed millions. General destabilisation and propping up bad regimes over the world. Using debt to exploit other countries (in Madagascar debt induced austerity meant the government had to cut mosquito killing programs killing over 10000 people in 1 year). The US supplied the shells used by those chemical weapons. The arab spring has caused trouble all over the middle east and africa (ok so maybe the CIA involvement is questionable). US has supported the Saudi Regime and enabled their toxic influence. Support and covering up torture, murder and rape in iraq (shia militias, when a US soldier reported it they were threatened into silence). On a smaller scale giving contractors in iraq more power over iraqi police without the accountability of being actual military - resulting in civilians and police being killed by trigger happy PMCs.
Doesn't make Assad right but it does make criticism of him slightly hypocritical. IMO an unsavourly stable solution (Assad dissapearing to russia with a cushy retirement while a new government restores peace) is better than a vengeful "solution" (more bombs, more militias, more death and removing the 1 stabilising force of the region + potential of trouble with russia + further weakening relations with iran + diverting both sides forces from fighting isis)
The "moderate" rebel forces who would inherit the region consist of groups like Islamic Front (oppose the west + want to make an islamic state). The none moderate rebel forces Al-nusra are worse. The kurds seem ok for the most part but turkey (lets not forget their influence as nato ally) and iraq won't want the kurds to be separate = more war later on with the kurds getting dicked on.
Did you just claim that Assad is a 'stabilising force'? I'm done.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49265286]Did you just claim that Assad is a 'stabilising force'? I'm done.[/QUOTE]
Currently is. Who else is in the best position to stabilise the region? The kurds? (nope they stick up north), "moderate rebels"? ISIS? turkey? (they only want the oil in the north, they dont want the people or the burden to repair the economy)
Syrian gov, hezbolla, Russia, iran and iraq are the groups in the best position to stabilise the area. It might not taste good but its more realistic than the "bomb everyone and let the 'moderate rebels' rise from the ashes" pipe dream.
The US has done bad things. Doesn't make it a fundamentally evil regime that you are portraying it as. Saddam and Assad were murderous, and in Saddam's case, genocidal, dictators, following Baathism (essentially Arab nazism), whilst the US is a stable democracy that seeks to promote democracy (an honourable goal) whilst protecting its own national security (another perfectly honourable goal). You're trying to create moral equivalence between the US because the US has done stuff that is bad in the past, but that doesn't mean that who the moral actor is all murky, because to me and most people it is obvious. During World War II, the US dropped the atom bombs, interned Japanese civilians, carved up the world and along with us, killed thousands of civilians in bombings of Dresden. Whilst we should acknowledge these actions, condemn them (and try to avoid repeating them where possible), we should also not allow ourselves to be convinced that the evil was anything but the Axis powers. Nor should we try to strip all agency of non-Western actors and excuse their atrocities in order to stick it to the US. A similar situation applies here.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49265318]Currently is. Who else is in the best position to stabilise the region? The kurds? (nope they stick up north), "moderate rebels"? ISIS? turkey? (they only want the oil in the north, they dont want the people or the burden to repair the economy)
Syrian gov, hezbolla, Russia, iran and iraq are the groups in the best position to stabilise the area. It might not taste good but its more realistic than the "bomb everyone and let the 'moderate rebels' rise from the ashes" pipe dream.[/QUOTE]
The assorted Anti-Assad (which I am fully aware have many groups who are extremists) along with the Kurds in the north are best placed in my view. The fighting won't stop until Assad is gone, so why claim he can stabilise the region? Unless you mean that we should let him win the war and kill hundreds of thousands more of his own people in order to 'stabilise' the region. Which you will then no doubt go on to blame the US for in 'propping up unsavoury regimes' when the next bout of violence hits the region.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49265237]I'm talking about the post-Cold War years.[/QUOTE]
Why the absolute living fuck would you just conveniently choose to ignore hundreds of years just so it better fits your argument?
No, fuck that
All the atrocities still unaccounted for should be accounted for. You ask the same of the Armenian genocide, right? You ask the same of [B]other[/B] governments who assassinate other people?
What makes the US unaccountable? I'm not saying they're total evil or anything but why do they answer to nobody while it feels like the whole world answers to them. And is not a real friend or Ally to them, but a controlled extension of the system designed to keep the US as #1.
This uncompromising and self-righteous attitude about assad is why there has been no political solution for Syria and why many non-sunni minorities turn to his protection. Besides, we've been eying his overthrow long before 2011.
In this thread we are seeing the same naive liberal democratic views that led to disastrous de-baathification in Iraq and the destruction of that nation-state. People seem to think they're fighting for justice and the people by, for example, handing power over to a majority of Islamic conservative Sunni 'moderates'. That's not even why your politicians are doing what they do.
I'd like to remind everyone that the likes of turkey, the gulf monarchies, and other ultra-reactionary Sunni muslim states (as well as jihadists themselves) view their proxies the same way. This isn't 1776 and I suggest you stop relating your western liberal ideals to Syria, it's that kind of smoke screen that our governments use to enforce their regional interests, insisting on the myth of the FSA and the '70,000' that was just used to justify British intervention.
This is not a democratic revolution, it was never going to be. It was impossible, too much is across ethnic and sectarian lines. This is a war between population groups over who controls Syria, what Syria IS, and God willing it won't be Sunni muslim peasants and their sponsors in a miserable marriage between US imperialism, Sunni ideology and influence, and Israeli security interests. There is your real axis of evil and sponsors of terrorism.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49265210]Sounds like you're after vindication and revenge rather than a conclusion to the situation in Syria. Probably be wrong but that's the impression I'm getting.[/QUOTE]
It's not about revenge, it's about stopping problems before they're problems. For the record I think most foreign policy matters in the past 15 years were handled poorly. We shouldn't be there to begin with, etc.
But I think we already made it our problem and unless we invent a time machine to go back in time and convince Bush that Iraq is a mistake, we have a responsibility to make sure Iraq doesn't fall and we've made mistake after mistake doing that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.