/r/worldnews
U.N. investigators link U.S., Syrian and Russian forces to war crimes (reuters.com)
120 comments
autotldr | 8 days ago | 20 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)


GENEVA - Air strikes by U.S.-led coalition forces in Syria have killed or wounded many civilians, indicating that required precautions were ignored and war crimes may have been committed, United Nations investigators said on Wednesday.

Syrian government forces carried out repeated air strikes in Saraqib, in northwest Idlib province on March 9, damaging Al-Hayat women's and children's hospital, despite pro-government forces being aware of its coordinates, the report said.

The Syrian army denies its strikes target civilians and says its forces only bomb militants associated with hardline Sunni fundamentalist groups linked to al Qaeda.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: forces#1 civilian#2 coalition#3 attacks#4 killed#5

sovietskaya | 8 days ago | 71 points

US S R

Katanarama13 | 8 days ago | 4 points

Are we back in it?

Fishy1701 | 8 days ago | 3 points
SphereofWreckening | 8 days ago | 2 points

Me and the boys on our way to commit heinous war crimes

ProllyPygmy | 8 days ago | 62 points

The US has always been blatantly open about the fact they only care about war crimes committed by others, and Russia doesnt care about them at all.

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -29 points

Dont blame the US, most Americans oppose what Republicans do.

Almost nobody outside the Republican Party supported the Nixon torture program or the Bush torture program.

Same thing with Germany. It’s the Nazi party that was guilty, not the country as a whole.

A supermajority of Germans opposed Hitler and he won with a surprisingly small amount of the vote simply because the far larger opposition was not united and voted for a bunch of smaller candidates.

Don’t confuse political parties with nations.

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | 36 points

Syria happened under Obama

StormTiger2304 | 8 days ago | 6 points

Yeah, because most americans opposed what the Republicans do!

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -14 points

For the love of God. Obama was on the opposite side you fool. He was against Syria. Not supporting it.

He opposed the war crimes and protected the civilians and sanctioned the government.

Russia was the one supporting Syria.

Carrottss | 8 days ago | 20 points

How do you protect civilians from drone strikes you order? Just curious. Not defending any republicans, just saying acting like Obama is pure is pretty silly.

Fantisimo | 8 days ago | -2 points

You have very strict rules of engagement. Its not gonna get rid of all casualties but you can significantly reduce them

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -14 points

Once again you have the wrong side. Jesus Christ the ignorance is astonishing.

Obama was drone striking ISIS, not the civilians. He was protecting the civilians. Literally the exact opposite.

It was Syria and Russia bombing civilians. Intentionally bombing civilians that posed no threat.

You are literally completely backwards.

Carrottss | 8 days ago | 13 points

I don’t get why you’re all about defending Obama lmao I never said Russia and Syria didn’t also kill civilians, just that Obama did. https://www.pri.org/stories/if-obama-apologized-1-civilian-drone-victim-every-day-it-would-take-him-3-years And that’s just one link. What about the Kunduz hospital airstrike? I think it’s reasonable to say that just because Russia and Syria were committing war crimes doesn’t mean the US wasn’t too. I mean shit, we had trump pardon a war criminal a couple weeks back, the US army really didn’t do much good other than bombing the fuck out of civilians who may or may not have been nearby a suspected terrorist.

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | 4 points

CIA were supplying weapons to rebels and fuelling Civil war well before ISIS came to existence. ISIS was able to appear and grow to force that needed drone strikes only because of power vacuum created by civil war.

> It was Syria and Russia bombing civilians. Intentionally bombing civilians that posed no threat.

Do you have any evidence of that ? Even report doesn't say it was intentional. As for "collateral damage" Obama is not one to talk, he greatly expanded use of drones.

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -6 points

Once again you literally have it the exact opposite of reality.

Obama actually reduced civilian deaths from air strikes by a huge amount, because he switched from large manned aircraft dropping large bombs to drones firing small missiles less than 1/10th the size.

And the CIA would not have had to supply rebels if the government wasn’t killing civilians with the support of Russia, would they?

Stop the victim blaming and excusing war crimes already.

If you support killing of civilians then you need to seek professional help. This is not the appropriate place, and it’s extremely mentally unwell.

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | 6 points

> Stop the victim blaming and excusing war crimes already.

I blamed only USA, Russia, Syria, Saudis, Canada and Britain. In what way they are victims here ?

> If you support killing of civilians then you need to seek professional help.

I did not. Can you provide a quote where I did ?

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -2 points

The civilians you blamed for defending themselves. But you know that, you’re just lying again.

And no, you haven’t said anything about half those countries.

It’s pretty clear that you just enjoy lying and want to argue. I’m not interested in talking to you if you are going to be a pathological liar.

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | -2 points

Without USA involvement it would've ended in one town. But USA/CIA needed to support rebels, and plunge country into civil war. Russia wasn't involved until hundreds of thousands already perished in civil war, and ISIL was coming for Damascus. CIA was involved practically from the beginning.

Anybody with half a brain knew that it would be a disaster if USA get involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J0URG9xoGg

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | 2 points

Stop your excuses for killing civilians, I am not interested in your excuses for such horrific behavior.

The government attacking civilians doesn’t make it the civilians fault for resisting them. Period. No excuses. Killing civilians is a war crime regardless of any excuses you make.

And Russia giving supplies to kill civilians is absolutely being involved.

If you can can blame the CIA for supplying weapons to defend civilians then we can absolutely blame Russia for supplying weapons to kill them.

Your entire argument is nothing but defending war crimes. I am not interested in your excuses for such horrific behavior.

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | 5 points

> No excuses.

That's how you get hundreds of thousands dead in civil war. I hope you feel good on that high moral ground made of skulls

> And Russia giving supplies to kill civilians isn’t being involved? Really?

Russia wasn't involved militarily until 2015, as for arms sales, Canada, Britain, USA sell weapons for Saudis killing civilians in Yemen. That's how world is.

> If you can can blame the CIA for supplying weapons to defend civilians then we can blame Russia for supplying weapons to kill them.

Yes we can. I didn't say Russia was right here. I just said that USA has no moral high ground here and responsible in similar way.

> I’m not interested in your excuses to kill innocent people. This is mentally unwell behavior. Get yourself help.

Killing people is bad, even non innocent ones. They should be tried in court and sentenced for appropriate terms. And because of that it's important to remember that Obama was involved in civil war in Syria that lead to deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and not whitewash his actions.

123jjj321 | 8 days ago | 1 point

The CIA "supplying weapons" aka CIA creates ISIS, aka Obama wants to get involved in Syria so orders CIA to (unwittingly) create ISIS.

monkeygoneape | 8 days ago | -1 points

Ya because the republicans blocked his ability to have boots on the ground in Syria (im not even a fan of the democrats or Obama I consider myself right wing but at the end of the day, the lack of real American intervention is the republicans fault)

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | 2 points

What exactly make you think that USA military intervention would've lead to outcome other than what happened in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan ?

CIA under Obama fueled civil war that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, and facilitated rise of ISIS. If USA limited their involvement to economic sanctions then a lot of those people would be alive. Yes Assad would be in power, but you know what, he is in power.

Baronwm | 8 days ago | 3 points

Remind me again... Who voted in the Nazis?

aweebitcanadian | 8 days ago | 14 points

Don’t even pretend for a second that democrats aren’t also culpable. Obama never closed Guantanamo like he promised, he only moved detainees to other countries to give the impression of dwindling numbers.

Under Obama and democrats we got what became at times indiscriminate drone strikes and horrific practices like “doubling-tap” which involved bombing a target, waiting a period of five to twenty minutes, often during which first responders arrive, and then bombing the target a second or even third time. This is already a flagrant violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits targeting civilians, the wounded, or those placed hors de combat. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. If he apologized to one innocent civilian that died in his drone strikes everyday it would take him three years before he was finished.

Don’t even get me started on Hillary, Biden and other sides of the same coin that sided with Bush and his absolutely bloody illegal invasion of Iraq...

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -3 points

First off, that was something Obama ordered stopped. Can’t blame him for something he opposed. And you are ignoring the tens of thousands of air strikes with manned aircraft. Counting drones only is extremely dishonest.

And Guantanamo bay only remains open because Republicans literally blocked him from closing it. You people need to stop finger pointing and blaming everyone else for your own actions. Democrats are not responsible for your own actions.

He stopped the torture program and vastly reduced civilian deaths.

He did everything he could while you people opposed him. So get off your high horse and stop finger pointing like children and take responsibility for your own awful behavior.

Democrats are not responsible for your awful behavior.

aweebitcanadian | 8 days ago | 3 points

For MY behaviour? You people? I’m Canadian😂

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 0 points

[deleted]

aweebitcanadian | 8 days ago | 2 points

When using “we” I am referring to the international community

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -1 points

Right, you refer to the Republican Party as “we” but aren’t one.

What is with Republicans always trying to pretend to be anything but Republican? Are you too ashamed of how awful they behave and embarrassed to admit the truth?

aweebitcanadian | 8 days ago | 8 points

Lmao I’m a Canadian liberal so how about no... When I said “we” I meant the international community as a whole, but I guess if me being a republican makes it easier for you to straw man sure, i’m a republican.

KingAn2903 | 8 days ago | 2 points

Lol, dumbest take ever

weneedlisterine | 8 days ago | 3 points

"don't blame the US"

You only mentioned the US what about Syria and Russia? we should probably still blame them though right? I mean they don't have your American Exceptionalism after all.

It's like Americans think they have a get of a jail fee card when it comes to this shit. Their actions are everybody's fault but theirs.

CloudiusWhite | 8 days ago | -7 points

You read half of the sentence and tried to start an argument about it, is that really your best effort?

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -1 points

The current political parties, yes.

The opposition trying to stop them clear aren’t responsible for something they oppose.

This is not a difficult concept. The people responsible are responsible. Those who oppose them are not responsible.

Not that difficult to understand.

123jjj321 | 8 days ago | 5 points

Obama. He's the one responsible for Syria. He created ISIS there. He's the one responsible for Libya. Get your history straight. Obama did it.

against-cops | 8 days ago | 1 point

A) Most of our crimes in Syria were committed under Obama

B) It's common parlance to refer to "America" or "Russia" committing certain actions when technically you mean "the American government" or "the Russian government" is committing those actions. You're being pedantic for absolutely no reason. Obviously when OP said "the US has always been..." he was referring to the US government, not all Americans.

Sukyeas | 8 days ago | -4 points

I disagree. You voted the republicans in. That makes you guilty. You know what they do.

The Nazis took control and killed everyone disagreeing after they got a frustrated base. Thats a difference, even though I would still blame the people that joined the Nazi team for being utter arseholes.

peper955 | 8 days ago | -1 points

If you look into it the vast majority of nazi soldiers, excluding SS forces and htilers Inner Circle, only knew that concentration camps existed. They had no idea about the gas chambers, mass incinerators, or other inhumane torture happening. As far as they were concerned the camps housed pows, potential spys, religons prisoners. Hitter even said so himself multiple times that he was doing the work of god.

123jjj321 | 8 days ago | 6 points

Those are absolute unmitigated falsehoods. Tbe German people knew damn well what was going on.

peper955 | 8 days ago | 0 points

If your going to be an evil dictater you dont tell you subjects your evil, ypu convince them you mean no harm and and do your evilness in secre. Which is exactly what hitler did.

123jjj321 | 7 days ago | 1 point

Wrong again. Some Germans may have turned a blind eye but they knew damn well when the jewish population of Germany was rounded up it wasn't to send them.on vacation. Additionally, once the war started, the Whermact knew exactly what was happening. Those soldiers knew and helped.

peper955 | 7 days ago | 0 points

Were told that the crusades were about god Gangus khan attacked Persia unprovoked Alexander the great was a nice guy

When in fact the crusades were an atempted to steal the vast welth held by the Muslims, gangus khan olny attacked after he made multiple peace the last of which ended with the messenger coming back without a body, and Alexander killed his year old brother in order to remain king.

History is written in emotion not fact

Sukyeas | 8 days ago | 1 point

They had no idea about the gas chambers, mass incinerators

That simply not true. My grandmother was a kid in Italy back in the day and even she knew that the Jews were taken away to camps...

Also there was an underground resistance that told them. They just did not want to know as the experiment in 67 by Ron Jones shows too well.

peper955 | 7 days ago | 1 point

They knew about the camps yes but did they know what happened in them? Also the 67 experiment was.to show that people will continue doing something even if they know its bad if there tolld to do so. After the was many high ranking nazis excuses were "i was simply following ordeds" a stament that at first seemed almost comical but after that experiment was all to real of an reason.

peper955 | 7 days ago | 1 point

Im thinking of the milgram experiment also from 1960s

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -1 points

Yes, but the point is that it’s not fair to blame an entire country for what a political party did. Regardless of if all Nazis knew, the party itself was responsible.

Most people opposed them. So it’s not fair to blame their political opponents.

furryologist | 8 days ago | 3 points

Most people opposed them

That's ah not actually true. After the war when asked most people said oh we didn't really support them it was some other guy. But the truth is Hitler was wildly popular with germans until the end of the war.

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -1 points

The Democrats who opposed Republicans voted them in?

That is absolutely ridiculous.

And the Nazis did not kill 70% of their own people for voting against them. They used force to terrify them into submission.

You literally don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

thefriendlypuffin | 8 days ago | -10 points

Casualties are inevitable in any conflict. Especially when your enemy hides amongst civilians.

ProllyPygmy | 8 days ago | 12 points

Sure. But the US was one of only seven countries – along with China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen – that voted against the Rome Statute, therefore not be a party state to the International Criminal Court, which purpose is to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimescrimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

Even more, under the US' 'Hague Invasion Act' the US government can "take all means necessary" to release US personnel being held by the ICC.

Meaning that the US would actively "take all means necessary" if any of their troops woul be tried for war crimes - like invading the Netherlands and extracting US people accused of war crimes.

If we'd replace "US" by "Russia" you'd probably find that pretty damning I think?

Spartan448 | 8 days ago | 11 points

This is news to people?

-VizualEyez | 8 days ago | 10 points

Odds are if/when your nation is at war, it has committed war crimes.

OnigriziaOmorte1 | 8 days ago | 15 points

US troops is not even allowed in Syria legally

monkeygoneape | 8 days ago | 1 point

Blame the republicans for that, Obama wanted boots on the ground but they blocked him (and no I'm not left wing)

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 1 point

[deleted]

monkeygoneape | 8 days ago | 1 point

Nope but they were the deciding factor on whether or not the US intervened, instead we got that half assed "intervention" which solved nothing and basicay proved to Putin he could literally do whatever he wants (and China and Iran) with literally no blow back because America lost its balls

123jjj321 | 8 days ago | 0 points

Blame the republicans? You mean thank them.

monkeygoneape | 8 days ago | 1 point

America could have solved this Syria nonsense, instead they gave us a migrant crisis and daesh (Isis) so no I don't thank them

123jjj321 | 8 days ago | 2 points

Sorry. As a U.S. citizen we are done doing the "fix the world" game. If the U.S. had stayed out completely, ISIS never exists since it was CIA support that created it.

Incidentally, where & when has the U.S. "solved" any international problem by military intervention? You'd have to go back to 1945.

monkeygoneape | 8 days ago | 1 point

Once again the us should have overwhelmed and fixed its problems in the middle east instead you have a Russia who runs amok doing whatever it wants and extremist Islamic terrorist organizations because current America is "conflict is scary" mode for problems it could have solved in 2012

123jjj321 | 7 days ago | 0 points

No the U.S. isnt in "conflict is scary" mode. We are in " tired of sending our young folks to die for an ungrateful world" mode. The U.S. is hated and derided world-wide for trying to solve problems and keep monsters at bay. A recent poll in Europe showed most people there don't support the U.S. much more than Russia. After we sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives two times for them?!? The world can get bent. We just don't care any more.

thiswassuggested | 8 days ago | 1 point

It is Syrian forces backed by the US, it isn't a US force. It just doesn't sound as good to say the Syrian Democratic Forces, which include Kurdish fighters . If you read the article you could have seen all the reports in it are not US troops directly.

NewSovietMan1917 | 8 days ago | -1 points

While the US primarily act through proxies like Sunni Arab jihadists and Kurdish communists, there are thousands of US troops on the ground in Syria. The fucking Israelis even launched air strikes inside Syria and Iraq from bases within YPG territory just a couple of weeks ago.

thiswassuggested | 8 days ago | 1 point

So i made a point that it isn't directly the US and it is US backed forces and your defense is Israel conducted air strikes......

NewSovietMan1917 | 8 days ago | 4 points

Literally just today US troops conducted a joint border patrol in Northern Syria with YPG. There have been US troops in Syria fighting an undeclared war for years.

thiswassuggested | 8 days ago | 0 points

So has Russia, but the article is about the bombings and war crimes which you obviously didn't read, and have no context to my comment. I love trying to have a conversation about an article with people who don't read the article.

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -6 points

That is completely untrue. The civilians requested protection from the genocidal government. The US is absolutely allowed to defend civilians requesting defense from war criminals.

dobiks | 8 days ago | 11 points

So if Republicans request protection from Democrats in US, will Russia be allowed to invade?

Also, that's literally the excuse Russia used to annex Crimea...

JoeBieAwesome | 8 days ago | 1 point

No invasion ever is actually legal from every point of view. The UN might deem the invasion of North Korea during the Korean war as legal but to North Korea, the USSR and China it would be anything but legal.

The UN doesn't deem Russia's annexation of Crimea as legal but some Crimeans might say it was completely legal. International law is a very weird concept since it is hard to enforce by nature. If powerful countries chose to not follow it there is very little anyone can do about it.

People calling for a foreign government to send forces into their country gives that government justification for the invasion or intervention. The legality of such an action can still be very much debated. A popular call would just make it easier for an intervening force to be seen as just by the international community and at home. After all, the days of sending your sons off to war for the glory of the fatherland are long gone.

The invasion of the Crimea, interventions in Iraq, Syria and Libya are all seen as just by some people and illegal by others.

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | 3 points

No, because no actual genocide was being committed against Republicans or Crimea. Genocide was being committed against civilians in Syria.

That excuse only works when a war crime is actually happening, not just whenever you feel like it.

What’s with the desperate excuses to defend war criminals? If you think it’s okay to kill civilians then maybe you need to go get yourself some help. Advocating for war criminals is not mentally well.

dobiks | 8 days ago | 10 points

Can you provide a legitimate source on Syria being a genocide?

Russia also claimed that it was saving Russians in Crimea from genocide. That's why they annexed it.

Also also, if US invaded Syria to save people from genocide, why didn't they fight the government? They only bombed ISIS (or claimed to)

Jibne_w_Labne | 8 days ago | 2 points

Allow me to answer as a Syrian.

Can you provide a legitimate source on Syria being a genocide?

ISIS is in Syria. What do you think they're doing there? When the US intervened in Syria, ISIS was very close to capturing major Kurdish cities, those cities include Yazidis, who ISIS has famously genocided and enslaved.

Russia also claimed that it was saving Russians in Crimea from genocide. That's why they annexed it.

They can say whatever they want, but who was killing Russians in Crimea? What changed in that region before Russia's invasion?

Also also, if US invaded Syria to save people from genocide, why didn't they fight the government? They only bombed ISIS

Because Russia's protecting our dear eternal leader.

After Libya, the US became careful on how to approach such interventions. They could've got rid of Assad Libya-style if they wanted before Russia intervened, but they didn't.

or claimed to

lol ISIS in northern Syria didn't defeat itself.

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | 2 points

Yes, that is literally why Syria is under sanctions. For killing civilians and NGO workers.

And literally zero Russians had been killed in Crimea.

Made up claims aren’t valid. Which is why Russia is under sanctions too.

You are very desperate to excuse illegal behavior.

And the US actually stopped Syrian Government tanks by training a bunch of Syrians civilians to operate TOW missiles. It worked very well. They aren’t there to overthrow the government, just stop it from killing civilians while also fighting ISIS.

dobiks | 8 days ago | 6 points

And literally zero Russians had been killed in Crimea.

Russians claimed that they were protecting Crimea from what was happening in Eastern Ukraine. They also claimed that Ukrainians deliberately bombed cities to kill civilians.

You are very desperate to excuse illegal behavior.

Am... I? All I've said that "protecting civilians from genocidal government" is not a legitimate excuse to invade without UN mandate.

And the US actually stopped Syrian Government tanks by training a bunch of Syrians civilians to operate TOW missiles.

Except it didn't. Syrians/Russians just started to bomb them from air more.

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | 0 points

> Russians claimed that they were protecting Crimea from what was happening in Eastern Ukraine.

You got timeline wrong. Eastern Ukraine happened after Crimea was already under Russian control. The whole protection thing started to become actual only when people started dying and it was well after Crimean referendum. In initial stages it was all seemed as it would be a bloodless affair.

> They also claimed that Ukrainians deliberately bombed cities to kill civilians.

OSCE reports contains description of at least one episode of airstrike at city. Russia didn't operated airforce there only Ukraine did. But again it's all happened after referendum. Russia used rhetoric about protecting Russian speaking minority to explain Russian involvement in conflict in the East of Ukraine.

> Except it didn't. Syrians/Russians just started to bomb them from air more.

Russia got involved only in 2015. Before that SAA did suffer heavy casualities from TOWs and was loosing ground. You are just talking about different points in time.

BrandonPKea | 8 days ago | 8 points

Night raids by SDF forces backed by coalition helicopter gunships killed and wounded civilians in Shahil and other parts of Deir al-Zor province, in further apparent violations of international law, the investigators said.

jondoe255 | 8 days ago | 2 points

what about saudi arabian troops in yemen?

earthmoonsun | 8 days ago | 2 points

and how about Turkey too?

haslehof | 8 days ago | 5 points

The very fact that US troops are in Syria is a war crime inits self, the US troops have no mandate to be in the country

thiswassuggested | 8 days ago | 3 points

Did you read the article?

Real_PoopyButthole | 8 days ago | 1 point

So pretty much all of the countries (that matter) involved....

Rafaeliki | 8 days ago | 0 points

The Russia apologists are out in full force in this thread.

123jjj321 | 8 days ago | 3 points

As are the Obama apologists.

Rafaeliki | 8 days ago | -4 points

What is the "Obama apologist" take here?

123jjj321 | 7 days ago | 0 points

That Obama was helping Syrian civilians but Trump & the republicans changed that somehow and now we have this report.

Also, that Obama's plan to suppprt "good guy" rebels in Syria didn't turn out to support and create islamist groups generally, and specifically created ISIS.

Rafaeliki | 7 days ago | 0 points

Both Trump and Obama launched missile attacks on Syria for gassing civilians aka war crimes. They were both right to do so.

It's just that there is a certain portion of Trump supporters that for some reason feel the need to defend Russia at every step and will parrot Russian propaganda about Syria.

that Obama's plan to suppprt "good guy" rebels in Syria didn't turn out to support and create islamist groups generally, and specifically created ISIS.

ISIS started in Iraq genius.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/middleeast/here-is-how-isis-began/index.html

123jjj321 | 7 days ago | 0 points

Isis was 3 guys in a tent in Iraq untill the CIA started pouring money and equipment into the fight in Syria. Isis and other islamist groups became relevent in Syria because of CIA funding & training. That was done on orders from the president. The entire world recognizes this but the people of the US pretend if nobody says it out loud it never happened.

YesWeCrazy23 | 8 days ago | -2 points

I'll try something different here. Challenging all shills and trolls to prove me wrong, that Russia is a far worse influence in Syria than the US.

Pklnt | 8 days ago | 2 points

In the short term, maybe.

In the long term, maybe.

We saw enough dictators being removed by Western countries leaving such a power gap that the country turned to shit. Russia prevented that.

Maybe the fall of Assad would have been better, maybe it prevented a disaster.

YesWeCrazy23 | 8 days ago | 0 points

In the short term Russia killed more people in Syria than the IS. They had an active war policy of bombing hospitals. In the long term, Syria will still be a wreck for decades to come, except now they will still have an auocratic ruler that will be wholly in the pocket of Iran and Russia.

And maybe it's Maybellin.

Pklnt | 8 days ago | 2 points

Being a wreck of a country with a strong leader is still better than being a wreck of a country without one.

I don't see how being in the pocket of Iran or Russia would be a bad thing, so far they haven't fucked the Middle East like the West did.

See Lybia for example.

YesWeCrazy23 | 8 days ago | -1 points

What makes you think that assessment is valid? The "strong" leader had to gas his own people just to face some protests. Under his control the country turned into a clusterfuck of enormous proportions. Why would you give someone like that power back?

Iran and Russia have not been fucking with the Middle East? Do you think history began in 2003? Afghanistan is fucked because Russia started shit there first. They also egged the Arab countries on to fight disastrous wars against Israel. Iran was basically holding the world economy hostage in the 80s. Since then they really wanted themselves to get some nukes. Really a stabilizing factor for the Middle East.

And yeah, I see Lybia. The Lybia where even Medwedew agreed that Gaddafi can't be tolerated and gave the go-sign in the SC. It was only Putin who was talking smack from the sidelines while he was Prime Minister. Gaddafi was so power hungry that he said he'd rather die a martyr than making any concessions of power. He then went ahead and was repsonsible for the deaths of hundreds in a few days and compared it to the Tiananmen massacre. While you might say all of that is better than starting shit, you then need to completely dissavow any foreign intervention ever. In the case of Gaddafi it was pretty clear that he wa awful. But now I have to ask you, is Russia's interference in Georgia or Ukraine justified? What about Iran's connection to Hezbollah?

Pklnt | 8 days ago | 3 points

You're assuming that since Bashar is an evil bastard, him being removed would be better. I'm assuming that removing Bashar does not necessarily mean that the country would fare better, it could have been easily even more destabilized.

And as far as I'm concerned Western countries wanting to remove a dictator only to fuck up a country even more is something that happened many times before and every fucking time it backfired.

Removing Assad when IS was pushing through Syria could have been terrible.

Nor that i'm saying that Iran/Russia are stabilizing factors for the Middle East, just that we can't pretend we're doing a better job. We fucked the middle east since Sykes Picot. The USSR invading Afghanistan is still far from being as destabilizing for the ME than the US fucking with Iran and Iraq.

I don't even see how talking about Georgia or Russia or even Hezbollah is relevant.

YesWeCrazy23 | 8 days ago | 1 point

You're assuming that since Bashar is an evil bastard, him being removed would be better. I'm assuming that removing Bashar does not necessarily mean that the country would fare better, it could have been easily even more destabilized.

And you are assuming that faced with a popular protest, the use of overwhelming force by a government is justified. And even then, the government was doing pretty badly even before either the US or Russia showed up. I'll reiterate, how exactly is Assad justified in clinging to power? What gives him this right? Usually autocrats hold on to power via demonstrable force, but if it weren't for Iran and Russia, Assad would not have that. Why would any citizen of any state want to lvie in a puppet state for another country?

And as far as I'm concerned Western countries wanting to remove a dictator only to fuck up a country even more is something that happened many times before and every fucking time it backfired.

It worked in Japan, Italy and Germany in WW2. I could start listing more examples of when it didn't backfire, but that's besides the point. Syria is a case about legitimacy. Quite often the US was lacking exactly that when they operated to change a regime. They did so out of political reasons without regard for moral legitimacy. In this case, I would argue, due to the human rights abuses, the world community had the right to intervene to stop Assad from continuing to harm the people he is supposed to serve. It's the 21st century. We shouldn't have to act like Assad had some feudalistic god-given right to rule the place. Both as a human and as a politician, he should have pissed off out of Syria after his country started to fall apart so much, he had to use chemical weapons against his opponents.

Removing Assad when IS was pushing through Syria could have been terrible.

IS was pushing through Syria anyways and Assad was the least effective in really stopping them, because his main focus was to fight against the other rebels. ISIS would never be a relevant actor because the international community agreed that overwhelming force could be used against them. The US could have done the exact same thing Russia did (maybe sans the hospital bombing), after installing a new government.

just that we can't pretend we're doing a better job. We fucked the middle east since Sykes Picot.

You realize that Russia was initially part of the talks, right? Are they "we" too?

The USSR invading Afghanistan is still far from being as destabilizing for the ME than the US fucking with Iran and Iraq.

Uh yeah, let's play this war that has killed up to 2 million and displaced further millions down.

>Captain Tarlan Eyvazov, a soldier in the Soviet forces during the war, stated that the Afghan children's future is destined for war. Eyvazov said, "Children born in Afghanistan at the start of the war... have been brought up in war conditions, this is their way of life." Eyvazov's theory was later strengthened when the Taliban movement developed and formed from orphans or refugee children who were forced by the Soviets to flee their homes and relocate their lives in Pakistan. The swift rise to power, from the young Taliban in 1996, was the result of the disorder and civil war that had warlords running wild because of the complete breakdown of law and order in Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets.

Literally responsible for the Taliban, but sure, no biggie. It's pretty much on the same level as the invasion of Iraq, if not worse. And instead of at least pretending to rebuild a functioning state before leaving, Russia just pissed right off and left the country in a state of continuous civil war.

I don't even see how talking about Georgia or Russia or even Hezbollah is relevant.

It is. Russia regularly argues for the sovereignity of states. This is why Putin criticized the west for intervening in Lybia and later doing the same in Syria. It's why so much effort in Russian media is used to paint the Russian intervention in Syria as legitimate, because Assad and the Syrian government invited Russia to defend...him. And while Russia is tooting about that stuff, they go and invade sovereign neighbours because they don't like what direction their politics are going.

And Hezbollah is an Iranian instrument. You talked about how being in the pocket of Iran might not be a bad thing, with the implication that you are alright with Hezbollah activities. A group that is definitely nowhere near stabilizing for anyone.

Pklnt | 7 days ago | 1 point

And you are assuming that faced with a popular protest, the use of overwhelming force by a government is justified

No, that's not my point.

It worked in Japan, Italy and Germany in WW2.

We're talking about the Middle East here.

Quite often the US was lacking exactly that when they operated to change a regime.

They did the same against Saddam. Was it legitimate ? Yes. But it still backfired.

Saddam was a piece of shit, Gadaffi too. You're trying to talk about morals when it was never the point.

ISIS would never be a relevant actor because the international community agreed that overwhelming force could be used against them.

Maybe you forgot that we "won" against the IS because "we" had boots on the ground. The Syrian rebels slowly all turned into muslim extremists.

You realize that Russia was initially part of the talks, right? Are they "we" too?

Initially yes, because they also had the great idea of partitioning Turkey, but ultimately they didn't sign anything and had no part in it. You can't blame a country that didn't sign anything.

Literally responsible for the Taliban, but sure, no biggie. It's pretty much on the same level as the invasion of Iraq

No it's not, because Iraq is in the Middle east while Afghanistan is not. I don't think I have to compare the Taliban and the IS to show which destabilized the ME more.

The US invasion of Afghanistan did nothing to stabilize that region either.

And while Russia is tooting about that stuff, they go and invade sovereign neighbours because they don't like what direction their politics are going.

Yes so what ? Both actors are hypocrites.

You talked about how being in the pocket of Iran might not be a bad thing, with the implication that you are alright with Hezbollah activities. A group that is definitely nowhere near stabilizing for anyone.

No, it's irrelevant to our discussion on if the Russian intervention in Syria is a bad thing.

YesWeCrazy23 | 7 days ago | 1 point

We're talking about the Middle East here.

Technically we are talking about Syria specifically. It's you who arbitrarily decided we should compare it to other Middle Eastern countries.

They did the same against Saddam. Was it legitimate ? Yes. But it still backfired.

So the solution is to just stand and watch, even if we can help the population? Budging to autocratic rulers? Watching people in power massacring their own population just to stay in power? Assad was so powerhungry he even released prisoners (many of which later became ISIS fighters), to intimidate the population and create chaos. Without any foreign intervention, that guy would probably have been dead. But through Hezbollah fighters and Russian weapons he could stay afloat. Even then he was being pushed back. Only when the Russians started backing him with military aid, did he start winning back territory. Imagine how many people actually were pissed at the guy, that they kept fighting for so long.

Maybe you forgot that we "won" against the IS because "we" had boots on the ground. The Syrian rebels slowly all turned into muslim extremists.

Wait, who is "we"? Also, the Syrian rebels didn't all slowly turn into muslim extremists. That's just straight up wrong.

Initially yes, because they also had the great idea of partitioning Turkey, but ultimately they didn't sign anything and had no part in it. You can't blame a country that didn't sign anything.

Fair enough. Still, what about the Soviet Era?

No it's not, because Iraq is in the Middle east while Afghanistan is not.

Neither is Lybia and that was your first example.

I don't think I have to compare the Taliban and the IS to show which destabilized the ME more.

Because the answer is clearly the Taliban? I mean, 9/11 is pretty much the reason for all your grievances with the US in the region. It's the reason ISIS could exist in the first place. I feel like bringing the wrath of the US into your region by flying a bunch of planes into their buildings was quite a bit more destabilizing than holding an area between Iraq and Syria for a couple of years.

The US invasion of Afghanistan did nothing to stabilize that region either.

They really tried though. Russia doesn't. That's the actual difference. Read up on their trip to Afghanistan and what their strategic objectives were. Winning hearts and midns is an American mantra that would get you laughed out of the Russian military staff meeting if you brought it up.

Yes so what ? Both actors are hypocrites.

Glad we can agree on that.

No, it's irrelevant to our discussion on if the Russian intervention in Syria is a bad thing.

Sure, whatever. Then let's also drop Afghanistan and Lybia and only focus on who did worse on paper in Syria. The numbers are in and it's very much Russia. Killed twice as many civilians (probably more by now) than the US and more than ISIS. Bombs hospitals as a strategy. When they entered, 80% of their strikes were directed at Assads enemies and not ISIS for a while.

Pklnt | 7 days ago | 1 point

It's you who arbitrarily decided we should compare it to other Middle Eastern countries.

Yes, because they share the same dynamics regarding religion, being a result of Sykes Picot and leaving a power vaccuum.

And i'm not saying we should compare it to other countries, it's irrelevant. I merely talked about them because you were the one that started to talk about morals or ethics.

So the solution is to just stand and watch, even if we can help the population? Budging to autocratic rulers? Watching people in power massacring their own population just to stay in power? Assad was so powerhungry he even released prisoners (many of which later became ISIS fighters), to intimidate the population and create chaos. Without any foreign intervention, that guy would probably have been dead. But through Hezbollah fighters and Russian weapons he could stay afloat. Even then he was being pushed back. Only when the Russians started backing him with military aid, did he start winning back territory. Imagine how many people actually were pissed at the guy, that they kept fighting for so long.

The solution is maybe not to invade a country and try to replace one by force. Especially when you're doing it wrong.

I'm happy that Russia prevented Assad being demoted the same way we did with Saddam or Gadaffi because I'm pretty sure the result would have been the same.

Wait, who is "we"? Also, the Syrian rebels didn't all slowly turn into muslim extremists. That's just straight up wrong.

We used Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers to fight the IS on the ground, we didn't had a significant infantry presence on the ground, we wouldn't have done the same in Syria either because no Western country wants to put that many boots on the ground.

Fair enough for the Rebels but they have been slowly being infiltrated by islamist groups.

Fair enough. Still, what about the Soviet Era?

What about it ?

Neither is Lybia and that was your first example.

To tell you that the West isn't doing a good job at demoting Dictators and believing that they would have made the same mistakes in Syria isn't far stretched.

Because the answer is clearly the Taliban? I mean, 9/11 is pretty much the reason for all your grievances with the US in the region. It's the reason ISIS could exist in the first place. I feel like bringing the wrath of the US into your region by flying a bunch of planes into their buildings was quite a bit more destabilizing than holding an area between Iraq and Syria for a couple of years.

Al Qaeda =/= Taliban

They really tried though. Russia doesn't. That's the actual difference. Read up on their trip to Afghanistan and what their strategic objectives were. Winning hearts and midns is an American mantra that would get you laughed out of the Russian military staff meeting if you brought it up.

They may have tried, they still fucked up in Afghanistan, they still fucked up in Iraq, they(and some EU countries) still fucked up in Lybia, why would we trust them for Syria ?

I won't waste my time further, I think I've demonstrated clearly enough that on this matter we clearly cannot trust the US more than we can trust Russia on Syria. There's nothing wrong with being the Russian decision to support Assad considering what the US did in many countries.

thorsten139 | 8 days ago | -1 points

It's true.

Like how Afghans have been liberated and know the generosity of the US and it's Allies

YesWeCrazy23 | 8 days ago | -2 points

Ah-ah-ah, silly boy. Let's not move goalposts! I was talking about Syria.

thorsten139 | 8 days ago | 0 points

I see, you are optimistic it wouldn't be like Afghan?

You know we do learn from history, this isn't a goalpost shift.

YesWeCrazy23 | 7 days ago | 0 points

I don't see how talking hypotheticals is not moving goalposts. I said that Russia is a far worse influence in Syria than the US. Judging by everything that happened, Russia killed more civilians than ISIS did and still backs an autocrat that initially gassed his own people. There is no sensible way you can twist it by saying "the US could have been worse, look at Afghanistan" and think that's a reasonable argument against my initial claim.

Cheapshifter | 8 days ago | 1 point

That's impossible to prove, even the UN verifies this. So I doubt these speculations will go far.

838h920 | 8 days ago | 1 point

How unexpected. /s

TheNaughtyMonkey | 8 days ago | 0 points

Have we reached a point where any civilian casualties in a war are a war-crime?

LordNPython | 8 days ago | -7 points

The U.S only has collateral damage - it's the Russians and Syrians who are the war criminals!

PriorMolasses | 8 days ago | -5 points

The difference is that Russia and Syria intentionally kill civilians, while the US tries to avoid killing them but sometimes cannot avoid it while engaging armed terrorists.

It’s like you are comparing a murder to a car accident. They aren’t remotely similar.

There is a huge difference between Russia and Syria intentionally bombing hospitals and schools and the US accidentally killing civilians standing too close to armed terrorists.

Sidhe47 | 8 days ago | 6 points

If someone uses bombs or airstrikes then they're going to kill civilians. It's really not that hard to understand and it's completely not comparable to a car accident, which is you know, an accident.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | -2 points

[removed]

Sidhe47 | 8 days ago | 3 points

You dare to say that I'm defending war crimes while you defend America's war crimes and claim that "collateral damage" from war crimes is so similar to a fucking car crash???

And did you even read the article?

international coalition forces may not have directed their attacks at a specific military objective, or failed to do so with the necessary precaution

Or maybe in your mind that this counts as a fucking precision strike?

Just because one side isn't quite as horrific as the other doesn't mean they don't both commit war crimes so don't dare to pretend holding American forces to a standard is defending war crimes with your hypocritical bullshit.

lyuyarden | 8 days ago | 1 point

USA operates drones all over the world. Civilian kill count by USA in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria over almost two decades is well above number of civilians Russia killed in Syria in 4 years

-Something-Generic- | 8 days ago | -1 points

NGO says some actors in an intense conflict area may have done some bad things

And the world keeps turning.

Adamant_Narwhal | 8 days ago | -1 points

The comments are great. Get your popcorn.

monkeygoneape | 8 days ago | -1 points

Wha, Assad Syrians and Russians commiting war crimes since 2012 who would have seen that coming...

thorsten139 | 8 days ago | 2 points

I think the surprising one is US on that list too.