World Politics

Page 800 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Why would Russia spend all the money it doesn't have to go and kill Syrians?

They wouldn't. Their biggest fear is Chechnya 3.0. Syria is only 600 km away from Chechnya. Russia has a VERY big problem with a growing militant Islamic army that may or may not decide to give their Chechen brothers a helping hand. As it is, Russia is at the absolute limit of its force projection in Syria. They're stretching themselves so that they can maintain the Syrian government and work towards a negotiated peace. The effect is that terrorists get zapped and deny the Chechens an incubator for another go at Russia.

Speaking of force projection... if 600 km is the extent of Russia's capabilities then they obviously aren't capable of moving against Europe, no matter what NATO or the US says. Not capable means no intentions.

Now let's look at the US force projection capabilities. Anywhere. Anytime.

John Swanson
I don't doubt that Russia has a rationale for what they are doing in the ME. Nor do I doubt that the US can do damage in a greater scope of places. However, I doubt that entangling themselves in the ME will calm Muslims within their territory. Preventing Chechnya 3.0 might be better accomplished with domestic policy, rather than what they are attempting militarily. Ymmv.....

I don't think Europe is worried about incursions from Russia. I think many Ukrainians are though. I don't see much of a conventional military threat to Russia from the ME, especially with nations like Iran as a close ally.
ScienceIsCool said:
djpbaltimore said:
So, is anyone going to provide a reason why what happens in the Ukraine gives a country license to kill civilians in Syria? Do you think that the twin towers attacks gave the US license to kill civilians in Iraq? It seems like the same bogus argument.
They aren't killing Syrians. They're killing almost exclusively foreign, invading terrorists. Very unfortunately for Syria, the terrorists are bent on occupying and destroying the civilian population. Example: Daesh has cut off all water to Aleppo and has rigged the dam with explosives if the Syrians try to restore the supply - not that the press is reporting on it. So that's two months of no water for a million or more people. Which side do you think the government is on? So when Syria and Russia and Iran work together to defeat these bastards, they necessarily have to attack populated areas. What's the alternative?

John Swanson
The article we were discussing the last few days indicates that they are killing civilians. Python says it is a neutral source.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-coalition-killing-more-civilians-syria-russia-report-1850771101
I imagine you can make a case for doing the greater good by Assad and his Russian partners in some instances, but that doesn't explain things like UN convoy attack and the prison executions. And relating back to my quote above, that really has nothing to do with NATO incursions in the Ukraine.
....so now we have NATO incursions into The Ukraine ?.....could you perhaps expand on that a bit because a very cursory Google search didn't yield nothing...

Cheers
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/03/in-turkey-a-chechen-commander-makes-plans-for-war-in-syria/

From what I've read, this is exactly what Russia is afraid of. Chechens give ISIS a hand and when it's all over or ISIS has to make a retreat, why not head north and raise hell? It's spilled over and is more of a regional issue than a domestic one. Ramzan Kadyrov, is president of the Chechen Republic and used to fight for independence against Russia but he and his militia switched sides. He's well and truly got a lock on the domestic side of things.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Here we go. Here's a decent article on the subject:

"Carnegie Moscow Center has argued that the issue of Chechens in ISIS is a crucial test for Kadyrov’s power: Islamists have already promised to support a revolution in Chechnya and even offered a $25 million reward for the heads of Kadyrov and his associates."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-27/

John Swanson
 
Re:

python said:
my last post on the subject...

perhaps it is a total waste, but i am going to repeat here why i dont get the 'whitewashing of russia being more dangerous'. my only purpose here is stressing/repeating the well known facts...

gdp/economy: the us vs russia= 10 to 1
military spending: the us vs the world=1 to 1, the us vs russia= 12 to 1
military bases around the world: the us to russia= 600 to 3

i am withholding some more controversial parameters.

russia is a small, underdeveloped country still struggling to get together following the collapse of the su. the shrinking economy and the endemic corruption made it barely functional. any failure to see a spin on their latest moves b/c of the increased self assertiveness to the nato and the neocon aggression is rather ignorant
That is why Putin is an opportunist. He was in Crimea, he was in Syria when Obama took a step back and Netanyahu, Trump and Putin all seem to be on the same page when it comes to the Middle East. The political point scoring that Putin is making will probably continue until someone pushes back. What is interesting in Ukraine is that there are reports that the so called rebels in East Ukraine are feeling abandoned by Russia and they are very angry about it. It sounds like they expected things to escalate in their favor but the status quo is a win for Russia anyway and it will help them with any negotiations with Trump about lifting sanctions. With Trump Crimea probably won't even be considered but Merkel sees things differently as long as she is still there.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
djpbaltimore said:
So, is anyone going to provide a reason why what happens in the Ukraine gives a country license to kill civilians in Syria? Do you think that the twin towers attacks gave the US license to kill civilians in Iraq? It seems like the same bogus argument.
They aren't killing Syrians. They're killing almost exclusively foreign, invading terrorists. Very unfortunately for Syria, the terrorists are bent on occupying and destroying the civilian population. Example: Daesh has cut off all water to Aleppo and has rigged the dam with explosives if the Syrians try to restore the supply - not that the press is reporting on it. So that's two months of no water for a million or more people. Which side do you think the government is on? So when Syria and Russia and Iran work together to defeat these bastards, they necessarily have to attack populated areas. What's the alternative?

John Swanson
Russia was using battlefield weapons on school yards, hospitals. syrian 'air force' dropping barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods..terror campaign directed by putin and Al-assad. Russia's air campaign almost exclusively targeting rebels and civilians..few, if any targeted daesh.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
ScienceIsCool said:
djpbaltimore said:
So, is anyone going to provide a reason why what happens in the Ukraine gives a country license to kill civilians in Syria? Do you think that the twin towers attacks gave the US license to kill civilians in Iraq? It seems like the same bogus argument.
They aren't killing Syrians. They're killing almost exclusively foreign, invading terrorists. Very unfortunately for Syria, the terrorists are bent on occupying and destroying the civilian population. Example: Daesh has cut off all water to Aleppo and has rigged the dam with explosives if the Syrians try to restore the supply - not that the press is reporting on it. So that's two months of no water for a million or more people. Which side do you think the government is on? So when Syria and Russia and Iran work together to defeat these bastards, they necessarily have to attack populated areas. What's the alternative?

John Swanson
Russia was using battlefield weapons on school yards, hospitals. syrian 'air force' dropping barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods..terror campaign directed by putin and Al-assad. Russia's air campaign almost exclusively targeting rebels and civilians..few, if any targeted daesh.
I thought each and every one of those points had been thoroughly debunked as propaganda.

John Swanson
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Bustedknuckle said:
ScienceIsCool said:
djpbaltimore said:
So, is anyone going to provide a reason why what happens in the Ukraine gives a country license to kill civilians in Syria? Do you think that the twin towers attacks gave the US license to kill civilians in Iraq? It seems like the same bogus argument.
They aren't killing Syrians. They're killing almost exclusively foreign, invading terrorists. Very unfortunately for Syria, the terrorists are bent on occupying and destroying the civilian population. Example: Daesh has cut off all water to Aleppo and has rigged the dam with explosives if the Syrians try to restore the supply - not that the press is reporting on it. So that's two months of no water for a million or more people. Which side do you think the government is on? So when Syria and Russia and Iran work together to defeat these bastards, they necessarily have to attack populated areas. What's the alternative?

John Swanson
Russia was using battlefield weapons on school yards, hospitals. syrian 'air force' dropping barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods..terror campaign directed by putin and Al-assad. Russia's air campaign almost exclusively targeting rebels and civilians..few, if any targeted daesh.
I thought each and every one of those points had been thoroughly debunked as propaganda.

John Swanson
Reading poses an issue sometimes.
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
These maps helped show the world that Russia's claims of striking "terrorists" were clearly not accurate as they repeatedly attacked mainstream opposition groups, particularly those working with the West.
Interesting. I guess Russia are not as much a help against ISIS as some people around here and Trump would claim.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-airstrikes-syria-maps-september-2015-june-2016
I've never seen this article debunked as propaganda.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
djpbaltimore said:
These maps helped show the world that Russia's claims of striking "terrorists" were clearly not accurate as they repeatedly attacked mainstream opposition groups, particularly those working with the West.
Interesting. I guess Russia are not as much a help against ISIS as some people around here and Trump would claim.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-airstrikes-syria-maps-september-2015-june-2016
I've never seen this article debunked as propaganda.
The Idlib offensive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Syria_offensive_(October%E2%80%93November_2015)

That was a highly important operation to shut down all the traffic between Turkey and ISIS. Remember those kilometers long convoys of oil tankers? Anyways, have a good look at that list of beligerents. If you want to fight alongside Al Qaeda, even if you call yourself a rebel maybe you're not the "good guys".

John Swanson
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
djpbaltimore said:
These maps helped show the world that Russia's claims of striking "terrorists" were clearly not accurate as they repeatedly attacked mainstream opposition groups, particularly those working with the West.
Interesting. I guess Russia are not as much a help against ISIS as some people around here and Trump would claim.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-airstrikes-syria-maps-september-2015-june-2016
I've never seen this article debunked as propaganda.
....is this like a trick question thingee ?.....

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
djpbaltimore said:
djpbaltimore said:
These maps helped show the world that Russia's claims of striking "terrorists" were clearly not accurate as they repeatedly attacked mainstream opposition groups, particularly those working with the West.
Interesting. I guess Russia are not as much a help against ISIS as some people around here and Trump would claim.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-airstrikes-syria-maps-september-2015-june-2016
I've never seen this article debunked as propaganda.
The Idlib offensive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Syria_offensive_(October%E2%80%93November_2015)

That was a highly important operation to shut down all the traffic between Turkey and ISIS. Remember those kilometers long convoys of oil tankers? Anyways, have a good look at that list of beligerents. If you want to fight alongside Al Qaeda, even if you call yourself a rebel maybe you're not the "good guys".

John Swanson
Southern Idlib is not on the route from ISIS to Turkey. Plus you also have all the strikes in Dera'a, which is in the far south of the country. Nobody is giving rebels a white hat just because they are fighting against Assad. Many are probably as bad or worse than Assad. But striking the rebels is not striking Daesh as BK had brought up and was contrary to the Russian propaganda being put out.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Take a look at that list of belligerents again. No matter how the press has tried to frame it, Al Qaeda aren't Syrian nor are they rebels. One of the objectives of the Idlib campaign was to " seal off the northern Hama border with Idlib and "build a buffer-zone around the city of Khan Sheikhoun". Lots of airstrikes along that strip in support of Syria's push on the ground.

Now look at this: http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/ It's the path ISIS oil was taking to Turkey. Specifically, the Reyhanli crossing in northern Idlib. Take a look again at your map of strikes. A fair percentage are along that route. A huge number of strikes occurred right around the Syrian side of the Reyhanli border crossing. Basically, picking off the tankers as they were getting ready to cross the border.

Was Russia successful? Well, check out the sliding map here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034

After the campaign, there's no crossing point into Turkey any more. ISIS lost more than a million dollars per day in financing. They were less successful in securing Hama though.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
I thought each and every one of those points had been thoroughly debunked as propaganda.
You've got the word order wrong.
Propaganda was used to try and debunk these points.
I cannot believe someone that would have a scientific mind is so blinded by confirmation bias. Every side has *a lot* of blood on their hands.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

Jagartrott said:
ScienceIsCool said:
I thought each and every one of those points had been thoroughly debunked as propaganda.
You've got the word order wrong.
Propaganda was used to try and debunk these points.
I cannot believe someone that would have a scientific mind is so blinded by confirmation bias. Every side has *a lot* of blood on their hands.
Barrel Bombs: Propaganda
"Though this “barrel bomb” theme has become a favorite talking point of both the neocons and liberal “human rights” groups, it’s never been clear how these homemade explosive devices shoved out of helicopters are any more inhumane than the massive volumes of “shock and awe” ordnance, including 500-pound bombs, deployed by the U.S. military across the Middle East..."

But this theme has been used endlessly as propaganda that Syria is bad. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-21/

Rebels: Propaganda
See above. Also, the terrorists are so comingled with the actual rebels that the US thinks they can't be separated. Russia has been *very* patient over this. But they're going to whack the terrorists. If the rebels want to stick around? Okay. Have fun. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a63fb6f630ae4eb88ee0f1b93fb77843/russia-urges-syrian-rebels-separate-terrorists

Bombing Hospitals: Propaganda
In east Aleppo, 21 "last" hospitals were destroyed last summer/fall. It's actually quite hilarious.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/11/22/how-much-last-hospitals-russia-led-airstrikes-destroyed-in-aleppo/

White Helmets: Propaganda
I'm throwing this one in because it's just so transparent. Go Google it if you want.

John Swanson

edit: This is a much more eloquent take on barrel bomb propaganda. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/09/barrel-bomb-conundrum/
 
And I can conjure opposite stories for every of those points - so which ones to believe eh?
The ones you want, if you happen to think there are clear true or false answers to most claims. This is a very messy war, and I believe that the closest thing to the truth you can find, is that attrocities have been committed by all sides, causing 5 million people to be dislodged. No knights in shining armour, and definitely not Assad.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Re:

aphronesis said:
I thought the last was always a given. Strange how that was lost sight of.
let me guess why...the issue with a 'given' is that it's a free utility to be used endlessly. if in doubt, check the nauseatingly repetitious inputs from busted.... barrell bombs, barrel bombs, and more barrel bombs by the hated party yet not once a reflective input about the chap's (that's what he claimed) own role in a potential civilian victims

pls, note, i am not accusing anyone in the crimes against the civilians. just asking how a a proud flyer claiming to belong to us navy branch is so sure the professional flyers of the other nations air forces INTENTIONALLY (per him) targeted the civilians.

i am also asking the flyer (busted) why is he so sure he, by his direct action or by his auxiliary role, hadn't been a party to the death of the innocent civilians ? again, i anticipate the negative reaction but given the 100% certainty in the flyers convictions, it seems to me a fair question. again, NOT an accusation !

busted was very consistent about:

1) i am a proud us navy flyer with very many battle hours. americans never targeted the civilians.
2)the busted claimed his confidence the other professional flyers (the russ, the assad) targeted specifically the civilians.

my genuine puzzle is how a professional flyer claiming so many battle hours can be so sure he did not kill (or assisted in some way) in killing the innocent civilians YET being so sure his professional colleagues from the other air forces he does not appreciate had intentionally KILLED, KILLED, KILLED b/c they targeted the civilians.

pls help me. i see a huge disconnect. someone potentially, but certainly NOT unwittingly, may have had a role in the deaths of the civilians yet being so certain the fellow professionals killing the civilians intentionally ?

if we were dealing with the very stale specimen of the cold war much, much gets explained....

but quite frankly, i am not that old and i personally know several american professional military pilots. all very worldly. all very intelligent. their IQ i hear was the prerequisite for their prestigious selections.

somehow how all i hear from the busted is a very simplistic ideological stuff that i haven't been able to square off with the military flyers i personally know :idea:
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
ScienceIsCool said:
djpbaltimore said:
djpbaltimore said:
These maps helped show the world that Russia's claims of striking "terrorists" were clearly not accurate as they repeatedly attacked mainstream opposition groups, particularly those working with the West.
Interesting. I guess Russia are not as much a help against ISIS as some people around here and Trump would claim.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-airstrikes-syria-maps-september-2015-june-2016
I've never seen this article debunked as propaganda.
The Idlib offensive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Syria_offensive_(October%E2%80%93November_2015)

That was a highly important operation to shut down all the traffic between Turkey and ISIS. Remember those kilometers long convoys of oil tankers? Anyways, have a good look at that list of beligerents. If you want to fight alongside Al Qaeda, even if you call yourself a rebel maybe you're not the "good guys".

John Swanson
Southern Idlib is not on the route from ISIS to Turkey. Plus you also have all the strikes in Dera'a, which is in the far south of the country. Nobody is giving rebels a white hat just because they are fighting against Assad. Many are probably as bad or worse than Assad. But striking the rebels is not striking Daesh as BK had brought up and was contrary to the Russian propaganda being put out.
Agree. Russia used battlefield weapons(like cluster bombs) and A-Assad used barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods in Aleppo. Of that there is no doubt.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/middleeast/syria-russia-aleppo-civilian-areas

Yes, yes, you will spout 'fake news'..believe what you want but the spineless russia AF targeted these places intentionally. They are lucky nobody was there to shoot back.
 
Re: Re:

python said:
aphronesis said:
I thought the last was always a given. Strange how that was lost sight of.
let me guess why...the issue with a 'given' is that it's a free utility to be used endlessly. if in doubt, check the nauseatingly repetitious inputs from busted.... barrell bombs, barrel bombs, and more barrel bombs by the hated party yet not once a reflective input about the chap's (that's what he claimed) own role in a potential civilian victims

pls, note, i am not accusing anyone in the crimes against the civilians. just asking how a a proud flyer claiming to belong to us navy branch is so sure the professional flyers of the other nations air forces INTENTIONALLY (per him) targeted the civilians.

i am also asking the flyer (busted) why is he so sure he, by his direct action or by his auxiliary role, hadn't been a party to the death of the innocent civilians ? again, i anticipate the negative reaction but given the 100% certainty in the flyers convictions, it seems to me a fair question. again, NOT an accusation !

busted was very consistent about:

1) i am a proud us navy flyer with very many battle hours. americans never targeted the civilians.
2)the busted claimed his confidence the other professional flyers (the russ, the assad) targeted specifically the civilians.

my genuine puzzle is how a professional flyer claiming so many battle hours can be so sure he did not kill (or assisted in some way) in killing the innocent civilians YET being so sure his professional colleagues from the other air forces he does not appreciate had intentionally KILLED, KILLED, KILLED b/c they targeted the civilians.

pls help me. i see a huge disconnect. someone potentially, but certainly NOT unwittingly, may have had a role in the deaths of the civilians yet being so certain the fellow professionals killing the civilians intentionally ?

if we were dealing with the very stale specimen of the cold war much, much gets explained....

but quite frankly, i am not that old and i personally know several american professional military pilots. all very worldly. all very intelligent. their IQ i hear was the prerequisite for their prestigious selections.

somehow how all i hear from the busted is a very simplistic ideological stuff that i haven't been able to square off with the military flyers i personally know :idea:
1)I'm sure because I've never flown in combat(Dec 1972-January-1993)..

BIG difference between collateral damage(which is awful, always) and INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians, like hospitals. The US military has NOT targeted civilian targets, INTENTIONALLY. Russia has as has Al-assad.

In the 20 years I flew, F-4 and F-14, and I was a strike leader, and planned many strikes, both in training and in the real world(like a proposed 'strike right after the shoot down of Libyan fighters, my ship(USS Independence) was the next ship just north of Kaddafi's 'line of death), I never ever planed a strike against a civilian target, never, nor have I EVER heard of a US strike against a civilian target, like a hospital, school. Never. Are there mistakes, yes but not 'there's a hospital with civilians and patients and we are going to destroy it today'..not that.

You know military flyers? What country?

OBTW-IQ? never been tested. Flying is knowledge and 'monkey skills', hand-eye coordination. No need to be a genius, I certainly was not.

Last OBTW-I really don't GAS whether you believe me or not. You asked, I answered.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Despite vowing not to use depleted uranium (DU) weapons in its military action in Syria, the US government has now admitted that it has fired thousands of the deadly rounds into Syrian territory. As Foreign Policy Magazine reports:


US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airwars and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles in the country’s eastern desert.

Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman John Moore said in 2015 that:


US and coalition aircraft have not been and will not be using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve.

Now we know that is not true.

Numerous studies have found that depleted uranium is particularly harmful when the dust is inhaled by the victim. A University of Southern Maine study discovered that:


…DU damages DNA in human lung cells. The team, led by John Pierce Wise, exposed cultures of the cells to uranium compounds at different concentrations.


The compounds caused breaks in the chromosomes within cells and stopped them from growing and dividing healthily. ‘These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could possibly result in lung cancer,’ the team wrote in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.

We should remember that the United States is engaged in military activities in Syria in violation of international and US law. There is no Congressional authorization for US military action against ISIS in Syria and the United Nations has not authorized military force in violation of Syria’s sovereignty either.

The innocent citizens of Syria will be forced to endure increased risks of cancer, birth defects, and other disease related to exposure to radioactive materials. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of the enrichment of uranium to fuel nuclear power plants and has a half-life in the hundreds of millions of years. Damage to Syrian territory will thus continue long after anyone involved in current hostilities is dead.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/daniel-mcadams/cancer-war-crimes/

Cheers
 
blutto said:
Despite vowing not to use depleted uranium (DU) weapons in its military action in Syria, the US government has now admitted that it has fired thousands of the deadly rounds into Syrian territory. As Foreign Policy Magazine reports:


US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airwars and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles in the country’s eastern desert.

Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman John Moore said in 2015 that:


US and coalition aircraft have not been and will not be using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve.

Now we know that is not true.

Numerous studies have found that depleted uranium is particularly harmful when the dust is inhaled by the victim. A University of Southern Maine study discovered that:


…DU damages DNA in human lung cells. The team, led by John Pierce Wise, exposed cultures of the cells to uranium compounds at different concentrations.


The compounds caused breaks in the chromosomes within cells and stopped them from growing and dividing healthily. ‘These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could possibly result in lung cancer,’ the team wrote in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.

We should remember that the United States is engaged in military activities in Syria in violation of international and US law. There is no Congressional authorization for US military action against ISIS in Syria and the United Nations has not authorized military force in violation of Syria’s sovereignty either.

The innocent citizens of Syria will be forced to endure increased risks of cancer, birth defects, and other disease related to exposure to radioactive materials. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of the enrichment of uranium to fuel nuclear power plants and has a half-life in the hundreds of millions of years. Damage to Syrian territory will thus continue long after anyone involved in current hostilities is dead.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/daniel-mcadams/cancer-war-crimes/

Cheers
Which civilian targets in Syria were targeted by USAF A-10s? Since I was talking about the Russians and Syrians INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.

"It remains unclear if the November 2015 strikes occurred near populated areas.".

More targeting of civilians by Al-assad

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-17349593

wonder where they got the land mines, planted along the refugee border?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
Despite vowing not to use depleted uranium (DU) weapons in its military action in Syria, the US government has now admitted that it has fired thousands of the deadly rounds into Syrian territory. As Foreign Policy Magazine reports:


US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airwars and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles in the country’s eastern desert.

Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman John Moore said in 2015 that:


US and coalition aircraft have not been and will not be using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve.

Now we know that is not true.

Numerous studies have found that depleted uranium is particularly harmful when the dust is inhaled by the victim. A University of Southern Maine study discovered that:


…DU damages DNA in human lung cells. The team, led by John Pierce Wise, exposed cultures of the cells to uranium compounds at different concentrations.


The compounds caused breaks in the chromosomes within cells and stopped them from growing and dividing healthily. ‘These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could possibly result in lung cancer,’ the team wrote in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.

We should remember that the United States is engaged in military activities in Syria in violation of international and US law. There is no Congressional authorization for US military action against ISIS in Syria and the United Nations has not authorized military force in violation of Syria’s sovereignty either.

The innocent citizens of Syria will be forced to endure increased risks of cancer, birth defects, and other disease related to exposure to radioactive materials. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of the enrichment of uranium to fuel nuclear power plants and has a half-life in the hundreds of millions of years. Damage to Syrian territory will thus continue long after anyone involved in current hostilities is dead.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/daniel-mcadams/cancer-war-crimes/

Cheers
Which civilian targets in Syria were targeted by USAF A-10s? Since I was talking about the Russians and Syrians INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.

"It remains unclear if the November 2015 strikes occurred near populated areas.".

More targeting of civilians by Al-assad

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-17349593

wonder where they got the land mines, planted along the refugee border?
....and I'm talking about turning Syria into a fcuking radioactive wasteland ( you know a country where those civilians you profess to care so much about live ) courtesy of some exceptional military practices.....read, DU munitions are much much worse than anything in the "horse shoes and hand grenades " quip .....so no youse guys don't have to target anything specific you just destroy the country....

Officials have confirmed that the U.S. military, despite vowing not to use depleted uranium weapons on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria, fired thousands of rounds of the munitions during two high-profile raids on oil trucks in Islamic State-controlled Syria in late 2015. The air assaults mark the first confirmed use of this armament since the 2003 Iraq invasion, when it was used hundreds of thousands of times, setting off outrage among local communities, which alleged that its toxic material caused cancer and birth defects
.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/

Cheers
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Bustedknuckle said:
blutto said:
Despite vowing not to use depleted uranium (DU) weapons in its military action in Syria, the US government has now admitted that it has fired thousands of the deadly rounds into Syrian territory. As Foreign Policy Magazine reports:


US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airwars and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles in the country’s eastern desert.

Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman John Moore said in 2015 that:


US and coalition aircraft have not been and will not be using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve.

Now we know that is not true.

Numerous studies have found that depleted uranium is particularly harmful when the dust is inhaled by the victim. A University of Southern Maine study discovered that:


…DU damages DNA in human lung cells. The team, led by John Pierce Wise, exposed cultures of the cells to uranium compounds at different concentrations.


The compounds caused breaks in the chromosomes within cells and stopped them from growing and dividing healthily. ‘These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could possibly result in lung cancer,’ the team wrote in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.

We should remember that the United States is engaged in military activities in Syria in violation of international and US law. There is no Congressional authorization for US military action against ISIS in Syria and the United Nations has not authorized military force in violation of Syria’s sovereignty either.

The innocent citizens of Syria will be forced to endure increased risks of cancer, birth defects, and other disease related to exposure to radioactive materials. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of the enrichment of uranium to fuel nuclear power plants and has a half-life in the hundreds of millions of years. Damage to Syrian territory will thus continue long after anyone involved in current hostilities is dead.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/daniel-mcadams/cancer-war-crimes/

Cheers
Which civilian targets in Syria were targeted by USAF A-10s? Since I was talking about the Russians and Syrians INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.

"It remains unclear if the November 2015 strikes occurred near populated areas.".

More targeting of civilians by Al-assad

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-17349593

wonder where they got the land mines, planted along the refugee border?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah

Here's a little reminder for ya. In retaliation for some murdered Blackwater mercenaries, the US army destroyed Fallujah. Between 2000 and 3000 insurgents (freedom fighters?) were in a city that still had ~50,000 people in it. Prior to the battle, women and children were allowed to leave, but men of fighting age were not. Then using HX rounds, gunships, cluster bombs and white phosphorous, Fallujah was systematically destroyed. 1 in 5 buildings was reduced to rubble. 2300 people were killed and 1500 of those were labeled "insurgents".

But barrel bombs.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re: Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
python said:
aphronesis said:
I thought the last was always a given. Strange how that was lost sight of.
let me guess why...the issue with a 'given' is that it's a free utility to be used endlessly. if in doubt, check the nauseatingly repetitious inputs from busted.... barrell bombs, barrel bombs, and more barrel bombs by the hated party yet not once a reflective input about the chap's (that's what he claimed) own role in a potential civilian victims

pls, note, i am not accusing anyone in the crimes against the civilians. just asking how a a proud flyer claiming to belong to us navy branch is so sure the professional flyers of the other nations air forces INTENTIONALLY (per him) targeted the civilians.

i am also asking the flyer (busted) why is he so sure he, by his direct action or by his auxiliary role, hadn't been a party to the death of the innocent civilians ? again, i anticipate the negative reaction but given the 100% certainty in the flyers convictions, it seems to me a fair question. again, NOT an accusation !

busted was very consistent about:

1) i am a proud us navy flyer with very many battle hours. americans never targeted the civilians.
2)the busted claimed his confidence the other professional flyers (the russ, the assad) targeted specifically the civilians.

my genuine puzzle is how a professional flyer claiming so many battle hours can be so sure he did not kill (or assisted in some way) in killing the innocent civilians YET being so sure his professional colleagues from the other air forces he does not appreciate had intentionally KILLED, KILLED, KILLED b/c they targeted the civilians.

pls help me. i see a huge disconnect. someone potentially, but certainly NOT unwittingly, may have had a role in the deaths of the civilians yet being so certain the fellow professionals killing the civilians intentionally ?

if we were dealing with the very stale specimen of the cold war much, much gets explained....

but quite frankly, i am not that old and i personally know several american professional military pilots. all very worldly. all very intelligent. their IQ i hear was the prerequisite for their prestigious selections.

somehow how all i hear from the busted is a very simplistic ideological stuff that i haven't been able to square off with the military flyers i personally know :idea:
1)I'm sure because I've never flown in combat(Dec 1972-January-1993)..

BIG difference between collateral damage(which is awful, always) and INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians, like hospitals. The US military has NOT targeted civilian targets, INTENTIONALLY. Russia has as has Al-assad.

In the 20 years I flew, F-4 and F-14, and I was a strike leader, and planned many strikes, both in training and in the real world(like a proposed 'strike right after the shoot down of Libyan fighters, my ship(USS Independence) was the next ship just north of Kaddafi's 'line of death), I never ever planed a strike against a civilian target, never, nor have I EVER heard of a US strike against a civilian target, like a hospital, school. Never. Are there mistakes, yes but not 'there's a hospital with civilians and patients and we are going to destroy it today'..not that.

You know military flyers? What country?

OBTW-IQ? never been tested. Flying is knowledge and 'monkey skills', hand-eye coordination. No need to be a genius, I certainly was not.

Last OBTW-I really don't GAS whether you believe me or not. You asked, I answered.
Oops. Looks like the US does intentionally target hospitals and civilians. I'm certainly glad you never did and I believe you would have rejected any orders compelling you to do so. http://www.rense.com/general61/ssla.htm

John Swanson
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 4
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY