• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia guilty of 'egregious' war crimes in Syria, human rights group says

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,136
Reaction score
82,405
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Russia guilty of 'egregious' war crimes in Syria, human rights group says

February 22, 2016

9998614036.jpg

Bombed hospital in Syria

Amnesty International has told Sky News that Russia is guilty of some the most "egregious" war crimes it has seen in decades. The human rights organization claims Moscow's warplanes have been deliberately targeting civilians and rescue workers in Syria over the last week. Tirana Hassan, director of Amnesty's crisis response program, said the attacks are ongoing, with strikes documented on schools, hospitals and civilian homes. She claimed the bombing of civilian targets by Russian and Syrian forces was in itself a war crime, but warned there have been consistent reports of additional bombardments which injure and kill humanitarian workers and civilians attempting to evacuate the wounded and the dead.

The Kremlin denies it has been hitting civilian areas and insists it is dropping bombs only on terrorist targets. However, evidence obtained by Sky News suggests that this is not the case. Rescue workers claim the assaults are happening every day, and that civilian areas are being hit by cluster and thermobaric bombs.
Click to expand...

In addition to using cluster and thermobaric bombs against civilians, hospitals, and schools, Russian attack aircraft also use "dumb" gravity bombs which are notoriously inaccurate...

Russia dropping ‘dumb’ bombs in Syria, indiscriminately killing rebels and civilians alike

People are ‘too afraid to go to hospitals’ in Syria — and it signals Russia’s gruesome endgame in the war
 
So what's Obama going to do about it?
 
War crimes charges are only for those little countries that dont really matter. When youre a big gun on the world stage there's no such things as war crimes.
 
Well that clears things up... so now what?
 
PoS said:
War crimes charges are only for those little countries that dont really matter. When youre a big gun on the world stage there's no such things as war crimes.
Click to expand...

When it comes to UN actions and activity, that is especially true.
 
As if Russia gives a rip.
 
Simpleχity;1065583364 said:
Russia guilty of 'egregious' war crimes in Syria, human rights group says



In addition to using cluster and thermobaric bombs against civilians, hospitals, and schools, Russian attack aircraft also use "dumb" gravity bombs which are notoriously inaccurate...

Russia dropping ‘dumb’ bombs in Syria, indiscriminately killing rebels and civilians alike

People are ‘too afraid to go to hospitals’ in Syria — and it signals Russia’s gruesome endgame in the war
Click to expand...

We like to get excited about such things. But the reason is not so much that this one is "illegal" and that one not. It is the problem of democratic governments under public pressure looking for non-coercive alliances. But this is good only for propaganda.
I think worrying about the types of bombs used used in these cases and generally in war is misplaced. Don't forget, what was the linchpin of MAD. That was that both sides were convinced that the other side would use hundreds of A-bombs.
 
PoS said:
War crimes charges are only for those little countries that dont really matter. When youre a big gun on the world stage there's no such things as war crimes.
Click to expand...

That and the fact that most of the things people claim to be war crimes are not and would, if they were require considerable forensic information to legally make it stick. Usually it is collateral damage and nothing more.
 
American said:
So what's Obama going to do about it?
Click to expand...

He had his chance and Putin played a poor hand better than the strong one Obama started with. So now he has Crimea and the equivalent of a Cuba on the Near East coast. Boy, Obama goofed!
 
I'd like to know how anyone from Amnesty International knows that Russian aircraft intentionally targeted innocent civilians. Does that organization have the pilots' orders? And whoever is fighting Assad's regime but not wearing a uniform that identifies him is committing a war crime himself.
 
matchlight said:
I'd like to know how anyone from Amnesty International knows that Russian aircraft intentionally targeted innocent civilians. Does that organization have the pilots' orders? And whoever is fighting Assad's regime but not wearing a uniform that identifies him is committing a war crime himself.
Click to expand...
It's not too difficult to arrive at such a conclusion when 3 hospitals and 2 schools are all hit on the same day. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) also accuses Russia of purposefully bombing its hospitals/clinics.
 
joG said:
We like to get excited about such things. But the reason is not so much that this one is "illegal" and that one not. It is the problem of democratic governments under public pressure looking for non-coercive alliances. But this is good only for propaganda. I think worrying about the types of bombs used used in these cases and generally in war is misplaced. Don't forget, what was the linchpin of MAD. That was that both sides were convinced that the other side would use hundreds of A-bombs.
Click to expand...

IF this was a massive force on force war, maybe. But do remember the use of open nosed bullets were replaced by FMJs, Napalm was outlawed. In MAD the theory wasn't a blind flinging of nukes but a pretty precise targeting of the enemy's launch sites as well as seats of government- not just getting the warhead close to a major population center.

This war isn't total war but a rather limited one where the civilian population isn't a target. Scattering bombletts among friend and foe doesn't win anything.
 
notquiteright said:
IF this was a massive force on force war, maybe. But do remember the use of open nosed bullets were replaced by FMJs, Napalm was outlawed. In MAD the theory wasn't a blind flinging of nukes but a pretty precise targeting of the enemy's launch sites as well as seats of government- not just getting the warhead close to a major population center.

This war isn't total war but a rather limited one where the civilian population isn't a target. Scattering bombletts among friend and foe doesn't win anything.
Click to expand...

1. Maybe you should look up the acronym and the meaning of MAD. The best we could have hoped for was a nuclear night and possibly nuclear winter.
2. If the you have committed not to use a specific weapon or type, but did? Well, that could be said to be crime.
3. You do not require total war to do, whatever it takes to win. But you are quite wrong in this case. For Assad it is existential and Russia defines it to be of major strategic importance.
 
Here we are with Putin's response to the allegation and his expectation of a severe reaction from the international community and the US:

whoops.jpg

Whoops?
 
joG said:
1. Maybe you should look up the acronym and the meaning of MAD. The best we could have hoped for was a nuclear night and possibly nuclear winter.
2. If the you have committed not to use a specific weapon or type, but did? Well, that could be said to be crime.
3. You do not require total war to do, whatever it takes to win. But you are quite wrong in this case. For Assad it is existential and Russia defines it to be of major strategic importance.
Click to expand...

I was living MAD decades ago. If you study the weaponry used in the various nuclear arsenals they didn't just blanket a nation like dumb bombs- they had some pretty tight CEPs.

Whatever it takes to win is often the premise that leads minor nation leaders to prison. Would you agree to use nukes if we weren't 'winning' one of our conflicts in say Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan???

It was existential for Germany in WWII but they never used gas. It was existential for Saddam but he had already destroyed his WMD...

But the real bottom line is the use of bombletts and dumb bombs by the Russians doesn't insure victory- it creates more enemies than it kills... as they should remember from Afghanistan where they used all manner of dastardly bombs (some looked like toys to target children) :peace
 
danarhea said:
What would YOU do about it if you were president?
Click to expand...

I would call up Putin and congratulate him on taking a tough stance against ISIS and then I'd mention that I would stop supporting "moderate rebel" terrorists in the area.
 
Putin is following the Chechnya model, which worked, and is the only instance of a state beating islamic radicals.
 
notquiteright said:
I was living MAD decades ago. If you study the weaponry used in the various nuclear arsenals they didn't just blanket a nation like dumb bombs- they had some pretty tight CEPs.

Whatever it takes to win is often the premise that leads minor nation leaders to prison. Would you agree to use nukes if we weren't 'winning' one of our conflicts in say Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan???

It was existential for Germany in WWII but they never used gas. It was existential for Saddam but he had already destroyed his WMD...

But the real bottom line is the use of bombletts and dumb bombs by the Russians doesn't insure victory- it creates more enemies than it kills... as they should remember from Afghanistan where they used all manner of dastardly bombs (some looked like toys to target children) :peace
Click to expand...

1) Sure there were lots of different levels of precision nuclear weapons. That was because the paths along one expected war could develop were considerably different. In one case it might start loping 80 tactical nukes per section of the Eastern front at advancing armees. In another it might mean the response to the perceived attempt to knock out the second strike capability. In most cases we are talking collateral damage that would make the Vietnamese conflict appear tame.
2) The level of detail does not allow me to say, if use of a nuclear bomb would make sense in your examples. But I do not see any reason to a priori take the option off the table. As a matter of fact, I am increasingly convinced that we might be well advised to use such force in the near future. But that leads down an other path.
3) If I can rightly remember the German command had discussed use of gas and decided that it could not improve the military situation or shift the balance.
4) The Russian bombing seems very successful in attaining their goals. It has improved Assad's probability of stabilizing his regime in a secure area.
 
danarhea said:
What would YOU do about it if you were president?
Click to expand...

Tell Putin that his pilots and technology suck, if that's the best he can do.
 
I remember when people were crying when we bombed ONE hospital for completely legitimate reasons. Meanwhile Russia here...
 
Why would Russia purposely bomb hospitals? Because its servicemen are fiends who guffaw and rub their hands together with glee at the prospect of murdering completely innocent people, just for the hell of it? That does not ring true.

The most obvious reason is that the Russian commanders know these places are being misused as fire bases by the people they are fighting against. Once combatants start firing from hospitals, schools, churches, and other similar places, they are no longer immune to attack. I already went into this in a lot of detail in quite a few posts on another thread several months ago, with specific quotes from the Geneva Conventions. The Islamist curs the Russians are attacking are mostly war criminals anyway, for fighting out of uniform, among other reasons.
 
matchlight said:
Why would Russia purposely bomb hospitals? Because its servicemen are fiends who guffaw and rub their hands together with glee at the prospect of murdering completely innocent people, just for the hell of it? That does not ring true.

The most obvious reason is that the Russian commanders know these places are being misused as fire bases by the people they are fighting against. Once combatants start firing from hospitals, schools, churches, and other similar places, they are no longer immune to attack. I already went into this in a lot of detail in quite a few posts on another thread several months ago, with specific quotes from the Geneva Conventions. The Islamist curs the Russians are attacking are mostly war criminals anyway, for fighting out of uniform, among other reasons.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between us and Russia. When assholes use women and children as human shields, we find a way to get at them without hurting the innocent. Russia, on the other hand, kills them all and lets God sort them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom