Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Dohnjoe

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Do you neocons actually believe that there is any difference between what the US backed rebels want and ISIS? They are the same effective groups, all looking for a Sunni dominated Islamist caliphate to replace the secular dictatorship.

The FSA and certain affiliates were fighting to topple Assad and pave the way for proper elections before ISIS were on the scene. Their commanders repeatedly stressed they wanted a civil society based on democratic principles.

They have been since overshadowed by the larger, better armed and better funded Islamic extremist groups and supergroups like ISIS - which as you say want nothing more than to set up an Islamic religious prison straddling Syria and Iraq

Let's hope the US neocon plan of another failed state doesn't lead to another genocide. The best way is to protect the Syrian government. Whether run by Assad or not.

Few if any countries want Syria to fracture and fall apart, much least the US. It's been a headache for the Obama admin, they've had to back up a failing Iraq, take part in impotent UN votes, draw lines in the sand re chemical weapons and then had to back down, pour money into refugee programs, deal with the geopolitical nightmare of regional destabilisation. Their efforts to broker peace has been a failure, their efforts to shore up moderate rebels have been futile. It's been hugely expensive. It's not an engineered situation, it's one that is out of control.

Why don't they (or many other countries) support Assad? because at the beginning of the conflict his atrocities were so severe. They can't exactly rescind on that.

smurgen

glued wrote: »

Yes, bombing terrorists is a terrible crime.

It's amazing how people are too short-sighted to see that letting NATO co-ordinate this offensive would be a complete disaster. The Russians are no better or worse than any of the coalition nations.

Assad is a despot and needs to be removed. Neither the Russians or NATO are capable of doing that on their own. The American's don't want to commit to fighting Assad or ISIS outside air support. They both need each other. The CIA have supported Sunni Extremist rebels. They have armed and trained countless of 'moderates' who have since gone on to merge with extremist factions.

While the CIA are creating another Taliban; the Russians are blowing these idiots back to the stone age. Let's not imagine what an American backed SNC government would be like for the Alawis and Christians of Syria. Also while NATO are letting Saudi Arabia and Qatar back extremist groups such as the Army of Conquest the Russians are also stopping them too.

Let's not pretend that either side actually cares about the Syrians. There all as bad as each other.

What isn't mentioned much is that ISIS was until a couple of years ago al Qaeda Iraq, and Nusra was their Syrian faction. Therefore when David Petraeus and many 'analysts' talk about using al Qaeda to fight ISIS, they aren't mentioning that the two are as bad as each other - just one gets all the publicity. A member of the Western-funded Syrian National Coalition said in an interview a few days ago that they are ready to hold talks with al Nusra because 'they aren't killing the Syrian people'. I guess to them only Sunnis are 'Syrian people'? The woman also said that the SNC are in contact with Zahran Alloush, the leader of Jaysh al-Islam who has called for a genocide of Alawites. Nice friends Cameron and Obama.

cerastes

Gatling wrote: »

Nato released a statement calling on Russia to stop air attacks on anti assad forces and civilians and issues a cease and detist from breaching nato airspace.
This situation is getting more interesting every day

You call that interesting? I call it rich.

Gatling wrote: »

Not to be confused with ISIS ,

See last week the assad regime was dropping barrel bombs on his own civilian populations now this week we have Russia bombing syrian civilian populations .

Whats so democratic about that

Do you have some proof of these barrel bombs or is this like when Assad used chemical weapons?
The Russians are there at least at the invitation of the legitimate govt, fighting what are essentially foreign mercenaries.

Gatling wrote: »

Several posters have alluded to Assad been democraticly elected ,
My point is Assad bombing his own civilian populations he's totally lost the plot that most can agree on ,
Now we have Russia flexing it's muscles and getting involved and bombing syrian civilian populations and we well know from previous Russian military actions including in Russia they don't care who or where they bomb killing civilians is no issue to them ,
Which makes adding them to the mix absolutely stupid and unnecessary.
Russia have repeatedly blocked the UN from intervening who then preach at the UN about respecting sovereign states ,then launched his own airstrikes,
The same was seen in Ukraine (thats a whole different thread )

Who is most? Do you mean the media? And when was it any different when western aligned or western nations bomb syria? I don't recall the US or European nations being invited into Afghanistan? Libya? Iraq?

smurgen

cerastes wrote: »

You call that interesting? I call it rich.




Do you have some proof of these barrel bombs or is this like when Assad used chemical weapons?
The Russians are there at least at the invitation of the legitimate govt, fighting what are essentially foreign mercenaries.



Who is most? Do you mean the media? And when was it any different when western aligned or western nations bomb syria? I don't recall the US or European nations being invited into Afghanistan? Libya? Iraq?

Russia hit 12 isis targets yesterday.go Russia.

Gatling

cerastes wrote: »

You call that interesting? I call it rich.

Do you have some proof of these barrel bombs


Who is most? Do you mean the media? And when was it any different when western aligned or western nations bomb syria? I don't recall the US or European nations being invited into Afghanistan

My god why do all these anti Americans ask the same question about barrel bombs really what else could one deny.

Afghanistan was a **** hole with no functional government since the Russians massacred it's way across the country till the goat herders got their hands on stingers missles and destroyed several hundred Russian aircraft and forced the then almighty Russian war machine to leave the country in total loss.

And again I find it very interesting that while some are cheering the Russians and assad for massacring his own population while Russia gives them a helping hand .

I also find it interesting that vlad Putin named turkey as part of his new alliance in the middle east only for an incursion yesterday only turkey doesn't look like there part of vlads party at all .
And I also do find it very interesting that Nato seem to put a shot across vlads bow yesterday.

Hopefully for the syrian people we get a NO FLY zone over syria soon.

So those saying the assad regime hasn't used barrel bombs prove it

Subcomandante Marcos

Gatling wrote: »

So those saying the assad regime hasn't used barrel bombs prove it

You do know it's impossible to prove a negative, right?

Gatling

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

You do know it's impossible to prove a negative, right?

Seem people are quick enough to deny there use let's hear there reasoning behind it

Subcomandante Marcos

Gatling wrote: »

Seem people are quick enough to deny there use let's hear there reasoning behind it

They feel that there hasn't been any credible evidence given?

The fact that most of the reporting about the situation in Syria is being done from a semi-detached house in South England by someone who's not a qualified investigator or credible journalist doesn't really help either.

Is Assad capable of indiscriminately using barrel bombs on civilian population centres? Sure he is, he's a despotic scumbag, but the US and it's allies are just as capable of using equally messed up ordinance like cluster-bombs and white phosphorous on civilian population centres, and have been doing it for decades, so why are you pretending to care about it now?

You don't give a hoot about the civilian population of Syria, you just don't like Russia and their allies because you're weirdly obsessed with NATO and it's allies and can't admit they are all equally as despicable as each other.

Hexen

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not an engineered situation, it's one that is out of control.

Key statement about the region generally, I think. A great unravelling ...

cerastes

Gatling wrote: »

My god why do all these anti Americans ask the same question about barrel bombs really what else could one deny.

Afghanistan was a **** hole with no functional government since the Russians massacred it's way across the country till the goat herders got their hands on stingers missles and destroyed several hundred Russian aircraft and forced the then almighty Russian war machine to leave the country in total loss.

And again I find it very interesting that while some are cheering the Russians and assad for massacring his own population while Russia gives them a helping hand .

I also find it interesting that vlad Putin named turkey as part of his new alliance in the middle east only for an incursion yesterday only turkey doesn't look like there part of vlads party at all .
And I also do find it very interesting that Nato seem to put a shot across vlads bow yesterday.

Hopefully for the syrian people we get a NO FLY zone over syria soon.

So those saying the assad regime hasn't used barrel bombs prove it

You really are in a delusional view, its astonishingly immature and blinkered
You reinterpret what you read as meaning something else.
I am not anti American, I quite like most us citizens I have ever met, often I find them much nicer than Irish people.
So where did you get anti American?
I do not like the US govt interference, in particular driven by elements I consider most right minded decent people anywhere would find revulsion in. The US govt has openly stated they wish to overthrow existing govts, I find it hypocritical and strongly obvious what's going on.

Your seemingly racist views of what Afghanistan was before the US provided stinger missiles, well do you really think the US had an interest in Afghanistan? Or was it a place they could given the soviet union a bloody nose? And create a future radical enemy.

No one is cheering the Russians to massacre Syrians, you seem to think it's acceptable if NATO or the US or their allies bomb people, really it would be better for the US govt to stop meddling, none of us know how this started, I have my suspicions about the Arab spring, syria was on the hit list after all, forment dissent, it exists everywhere, just support the right people.
Thing is, like Saddam who was essentially installed by the US anyway, had this whole situation been left alone then the level of bloodshed and destruction would have been significantly less. Russia has come in long after syria has been devastated, from an international political perspective it's no surprise Russia would come in on the side of their Syrian allies, no less than the US would to theirs.
Assad is far from perfect, ask the population of Iraq or Libya would they prefer have the former situation back, or the current scenario where there is continued unrest, murder, sectarianism, fundamentalism, these countries could function, aside from sanctions on some, which really just affected the worst most. Bombing the hell out of them directly or by funding proxies to fight on their behalf has done nothing.
You know zero about what's going on out there, I'm wondering if I'm speaking to someone that hasn't grown out of a certain stage of life.
You have a stunnignly one sided view,

You are the one stating Assad has used barrel bombs, you need to prove your assertion.

Shurimgreat

cerastes wrote: »

You really are in a delusional view, its astonishingly immature and blinkered
You reinterpret what you read as meaning something else.
I am not anti American, I quite like most us citizens I have ever met, often I find them much nicer than Irish people.
So where did you get anti American?
I do not like the US govt interference, in particular driven by elements I consider most right minded decent people anywhere would find revulsion in. The US govt has openly stated they wish to overthrow existing govts, I find it hypocritical and strongly obvious what's going on.

Your seemingly racist views of what Afghanistan was before the US provided stinger missiles, well do you really think the US had an interest in Afghanistan? Or was it a place they could given the soviet union a bloody nose? And create a future radical enemy.

No one is cheering the Russians to massacre Syrians, you seem to think it's acceptable if NATO or the US or their allies bomb people, really it would be better for the US govt to stop meddling, none of us know how this started, I have my suspicions about the Arab spring, syria was on the hit list after all, forment dissent, it exists everywhere, just support the right people.
Thing is, like Saddam who was essentially installed by the US anyway, had this whole situation been left alone then the level of bloodshed and destruction would have been significantly less. Russia has come in long after syria has been devastated, from an international political perspective it's no surprise Russia would come in on the side of their Syrian allies, no less than the US would to theirs.
Assad is far from perfect, ask the population of Iraq or Libya would they prefer have the former situation back, or the current scenario where there is continued unrest, murder, sectarianism, fundamentalism, these countries could function, aside from sanctions on some, which really just affected the worst most. Bombing the hell out of them directly or by funding proxies to fight on their behalf has done nothing.
You know zero about what's going on out there, I'm wondering if I'm speaking to someone that hasn't grown out of a certain stage of life.
You have a stunnignly one sided view,

You are the one stating Assad has used barrel bombs, you need to prove your assertion.

Heres a good start.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ipPPf1d29g

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ApZdvz_n4ro

Not that I think for one moment you will accept this as proof your favourite dictator is guilty of barrel bombing his own people.

Assad is I'm sure in your view a really nice guy, very misinterpreted, not guilty of anything, definitely didnt arrest or torture or disappear people by the tens of thousands.

Shurimgreat

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I wouldn't even put the term "moderate" in scare quotes or use it. The US has armed the rebels, all of whom are sectarian Sunni terrorists

All of them? Including the Kurds? The Druze? Christian militias? And some Yasidis too who have taken up arms? Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Here's a concept I just know you will struggle with. The FSA or what remains of it have spent as much time fighting Isis as they have Assad. Isis and Assad on the otherhand have only fought occassional skirmishes. And theres no evidence the Russians are interested in fighting isis either. Its well established however that Assad gave Isis a helping hand at the start because the regular opposition just werent crazy jihadist enough. Its sad that now palmerya is being destroyed by a force ultimately created by assad. 2000 years of history gone in a flash. All because one man refused to allow his people have a say in who their leader was.

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Heres a good start.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ipPPf1d29g

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ApZdvz_n4ro

Not that I think for one moment you will accept this as proof your favourite dictator is guilty of barrel bombing his own people.

Assad is I'm sure in your view a really nice guy, very misinterpreted, not guilty of anything, definitely didnt arrest or torture or disappear people by the tens of thousands.

You didn't read my post, I said assad is far from perfect but the situation certainly hasn't been improved by the west supplying arms and bombing the country.
I also asked the other poster to provide proof, that civilians are being bombed as was their claim, something credible.

Atlantic Dawn

I get the feeling that Russia in a couple of days have done more damage to IS/ISIS/Fruit Loops than months of US/Brit "bombing".

cerastes

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I get the feeling that Russia in a couple of days have done more damage to IS/ISIS/Fruit Loops than months of US/Brit "bombing".

You'd wonder what the US/others were bombing for months?

Subcomandante Marcos

cerastes wrote: »

You'd wonder what the US/others were bombing for months?

Well the Turks were too busy bombing the Kurds to offer any real help against ISIS.

Atlantic Dawn

cerastes wrote: »

You'd wonder what the US/others were bombing for months?

Targets of not much use, trying to fight Assad. Private companies can produce satellite imagery good enough for a person in their house with a laptop and an internet connection to target these clowns yet we are led believe the US and UK with their realtime satellites can't target these idiots driving around dressed in black in Hilux/Humvees looking like idiots, not believable at all.

Shurimgreat

cerastes wrote: »

You didn't read my post, I said assad is far from perfect but the situation certainly hasn't been improved by the west supplying arms and bombing the country.
I also asked the other poster to provide proof, that civilians are being bombed as was their claim, something credible.

I read your post. You said Assad doesn't use barrel bombs but clearly he does. I'd take everything he claims with a pinch of salt. Murderous dictators aren't exactly known for telling the truth. Barrel bombs are indescriminate weapons. Theres no hope of them being accurate. They've already killed thousands of civilians. They are mostly punishment weapons and one of the main reasons why there are 4 million refugees from the country, 2 million of which are trying to cross the mediteranean.

Gatling

cerastes wrote: »

A.You really are in a delusional view, its astonishingly immature and blinkered

B.Your seemingly racist views of what Afghanistan was before the US provided stinger missiles, well do you really think the US had an interest in Afghanistan? Or was it a place they could given the soviet union a bloody nose? And create a future radical enemy.

C.No one is cheering the Russians to massacre Syrians, you seem to think it's acceptable if NATO or the US or their allies bomb people, really it would be better for the US govt to stop meddling, none of us know how this started, I have my suspicions about the Arab spring, syria was on the hit list after all, forment dissent, it exists everywhere, just support the right people.
Thing is, like Saddam who was essentially installed by the US anyway, had this whole situation been left alone then the level of bloodshed and destruction would have been significantly less. Russia has come in long after syria has been devastated, from an international political perspective it's no surprise Russia would come in on the side of their Syrian allies, no less than the US would to theirs.
Assad is far from perfect, ask the population of Iraq or Libya would they prefer have the former situation back, or the current scenario where there is continued unrest, murder, sectarianism, fundamentalism, these countries could function, aside from sanctions on some, which really just affected the worst most. Bombing the hell out of them directly or by funding proxies to fight on their behalf has done nothing.
D.You know zero about what's going on out there, I'm wondering if I'm speaking to someone that hasn't grown out of a certain stage of life.
You have a stunnignly one sided view,

You are the one stating Assad has used barrel bombs, you need to prove your assertion.

A .no your wrong .

B .again your wildly wrong but most tribal mountain areas where the majority of the Mujahideen were based were actually goat herders and mountain folk that's not racist that's historical fact.
I could debate many points on Afghanistan pre Russian, post Russian,pre Taliban, post Taliban and current day situation but that an 3 separate threads in itself.
.
we could. debate Saddam it would be quite short though .

Current day syria assad should have stepped down several years back now but no he's decided for whatever reason he's in to the death because there's no way out ,
Syria is a dead state millions of refugees who will never be able to return to Syria because it's gone bar Damascus ,
Proxies every one is involved one way or another the US ,nato ,EU ,the various arab countries from Kuwait to Saudi and qutar,
Even the Chinese have shipped weapons now remember early on America didn't want to arm anybody in syria it,Obama bowed for one reason or another from congress but yet won't send weapons or decent equipment to Ukraine (again again whole different thread ).

What should have happened in syria and Libya was the UN should have deployed massive peace keeping and peace enforcement missions but alas that's never going to happen now is it because they won't ever be given a mandate to act and look at isreal and America mainly America using its vetos and then the Russians vetoing everything full stop.
All the while using the UN to banstand there individual policy's .

There is no longer political solution and it's getting to the point military solutions are getting no longer an option,
America and the other states hitting isis have done what they hoped for they have contained isis for the most part .
America armed some moderates but assad and Russia by proxy are funding isis themself's .
Assad is the biggest customer for isis oil who is turn supplies electricity for isis strong holds .

There's no hero's in this only dead People and dead money

Shurimgreat

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I get the feeling that Russia in a couple of days have done more damage to IS/ISIS/Fruit Loops than months of US/Brit "bombing".

Except Russia haven't been bombing Isis, thats the problem. Isis are largely based in the east near the kurds and in the centre near raqqua and palmerya. The russians have been bombing west syria where there is neglible isis presence.

The only ones actually bombing isis is the western coalition. Where was putin when kobane was attacked or mt sindar or palmeyra or mosul? Thsts right nowhere. Now he's interested when assad is in trouble. The russians dont have the capability to defeat isis. The americans have twice the aircraft on one aircraft carrier in the gulf than the russians have in the whole of syria.

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I read your post. You said Assad doesn't use barrel bombs but clearly he does. I'd take everything he claims with a pinch of salt. Murderous dictators aren't exactly known for telling the truth. Barrel bombs are indescriminate weapons. Theres no hope of them being accurate. They've already killed thousands of civilians. They are mostly punishment weapons and one of the main reasons why there are 4 million refugees from the country, 2 million of which are trying to cross the mediteranean.

Can you show me the post where I said Assad didn't use barrel bombs, I asked the poster for credible proof.thousands you say? How do you know? Then reason there are so many refugees from syria is because there is a war at all, supported in the main by the UK and US govts. I am not biased I take with a pinch of salt either side says, you're quite foolish to believe one side is good.

Shurimgreat

cerastes wrote: »

Can you show me the post where I said Assad didn't use barrel bombs, I asked the poster for credible proof.thousands you say? How do you know? Then reason there are so many refugees from syria is because there is a war at all, supported in the main by the UK and US govts. I am not biased I take with a pinch of salt either side says, you're quite foolish to believe one side is good.

I'm confused. You accept he uses them but you want proof? There's ample proof to support it. Hundreds of hours of video footage for a start. I mean who else flys russian made helicoptors over syria?

gobsh!te

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Except Russia haven't been bombing Isis, thats the problem...... The russians have been bombing west syria where there is neglible isis presence.

This is true. I saw it on the BBC

AbusesToilets

Russia is in Syria to secure it's own strategic objectives. I doubt they have much concern with the plight of Syria's population, beyond the impact the situation has on their own goals. Assad is a useful tool to achieve those aims, nothing more.

Subcomandante Marcos

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Russia The US is backing the SNC and rebal groups in Syria to secure it's own strategic objectives. I doubt they have much concern with the plight of Syria's population, beyond the impact the situation has on their own goals. Assad is A new government made of hand-picked shills would be a useful tool to achieve those aims, nothing more.

Works no matter what foreign interest you insert.

Elmer Blooker

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Except Russia haven't been bombing Isis, The russians have been bombing west syria where there is neglible isis presence.

Yes, western Syria is a stronghold of NATO allies Al-Nusra Front/ al-Qaeda. Their aims are identical to ISIS which is to turn Syria into an Islamic Caliphate and turn the women, Christians, Alawites into slaves (thats if they don't chop their heads off!)

I saw it on the BBC

I saw the BBC describe those responsible for 9/11 as "pro-democracy"

FTA69

Shurimgreat wrote: »

.

The only ones actually bombing isis is the western coalition. Where was putin when kobane was attacked.

Some of the worst offenders in attacking the Kurds in Syria is the NATO member state of Turkey, likewise many allies of the "Western coalition" such as Saudi are actively aiding ISIS.

Despite all the wittering about how we need to row in behind the U.S. etc in attacking ISIS, the only ones actually fighting them in a real sense are Assad, Hezbollah, the banned PKK and Iran which is an uncomfortable fact for those cheerleading US policy in Syria.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I saw the BBC describe those responsible for 9/11 as "pro-democracy"

No you didn't .

Seems Russia is now sending Volenteers to fight in syria now not soldiers but Volenteers and they can't be stopped according a Russian minister.

Last time we seen Russian Volenteers in Crimea and eastern Ukraine 16 months ago to today

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

No you didn't .

Seems Russia is now sending Volenteers to fight in syria now not soldiers but Volenteers and they can't be stopped according a Russian minister.

YES I DID. A programme called Dateline London on BBC News, Sunday Oct 4th 1.30pm.

Which Russian minister? I've just had a look for info.
NY Times - Russians "hinting" that volunteers ......
Guardian - Russian volunteers "could" be heading to Syria.
Bloomberg - Russian volunteers "may" be heading to Syria.
Reuters - Russian volunteers "likely" going to Syria.

Lockstep

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Isn't it bizarre how the rotten to the core morally bankrupt media have now suddenly forgotten the crimes committed by these blood thirsty head chopping women traffickers and are now calling them "opposition" or as I heard on the BBC, these Jihadis are now known as "pro-democracy" rebels.

Depends on the rebels really. Some are little better than ISIS (Al Nusra, although they're working bizarrely hard to portray themselves as moderate and non-sectarian). Not all rebels are like this though. And they're distinct from ISIS.
At any rate, Al-Nusra are only 10% of total rebel numbers and most of their soldiers are motivated by opposition to Assad rather than Jihadism source

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Yes, western Syria is a stronghold of NATO allies Al-Nusra Front/ al-Qaeda. Their aims are identical to ISIS which is to turn Syria into an Islamic Caliphate and turn the women, Christians, Alawites into slaves (thats if they don't chop their heads off!)

I saw the BBC describe those responsible for 9/11 as "pro-democracy"

Al-Nusra are terrorist scumbags but they're nowhere near as bad as ISIS. Al Nusra have adopted a much more population-centred strategy than ISIS and ISIS atrocities was a key reason why ISIS split from AN in the first place.

cerastes wrote: »

Can you show me the post where I said Assad didn't use barrel bombs, I asked the poster for credible proof.thousands you say? How do you know? Then reason there are so many refugees from syria is because there is a war at all, supported in the main by the UK and US govts. I am not biased I take with a pinch of salt either side says, you're quite foolish to believe one side is good.

Sure. Here's an Amnesty report

From January 2014 to March 2015, government forces launched continual attacks usingbarrel bombs and other imprecise explosive weapons on areas populated with civilians,including at least 14 public markets, 12 transportation hubs and 23 mosques, and oncivilian objects, including at least 17 hospitals and medical centres and three schools. Thevast majority of fatalities caused by barrel bomb attacks in Aleppo have been civilians.According to the Violations Documentation Center, a Syria-based monitoring group, barrelbomb attacks killed at least 3,124 civilians – and 35 fighters – in Aleppo governorate fromJanuary 2014 to March 2015. For this report, Amnesty International conducted in-dept hinquiries into eight barrel bomb attacks and found that they killed at least 188 civilians; only one fighter was recorded among the fatalities. Meanwhile, the Syrian government has failedto acknowledge that its aerial bombardment campaign in Aleppo has resulted in a single civilian casualty and has insisted that air attacks have targeted only “terrorists”. These and other factors examined in this report suggest that the aerial bombardment campaign conducted by government forces in Aleppo city deliberately targeted civilians and civilian objects. It is a war crime to intentionally make civilian objects and civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities the target of attacks. Such a systematic attack on the civilian population, when carried out as part of government policy as appears

Also, seeing as how closely Russia is working with Hizbollah (a key reason Assad is still in power), any claims of counter terrorism on their part is very dubious. There certainly aren't any "good" sides, but ISIS and the Assad government are certainly among the worst.

Lockstep

FTA69 wrote: »

Some of the worst offenders in attacking the Kurds in Syria is the NATO member state of Turkey, likewise many allies of the "Western coalition" such as Saudi are actively aiding ISIS.

Despite all the wittering about how we need to row in behind the U.S. etc in attacking ISIS, the only ones actually fighting them in a real sense are Assad, Hezbollah, the banned PKK and Iran which is an uncomfortable fact for those cheerleading US policy in Syria.

The Assad regime has been very reluctant to tackle ISIS. There's a very important reason for this: ISIS' continued existence allows Assad to peddle himself as the bulwark against their terrorism.

See here , here and here

I don't think the West are the good guys here, but they're considerably better than of Russia which is supporting the most brutal actor within the Syrian conflict and not even targeting ISIS.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

The Assad regime has been very reluctant to tackle ISIS. There's a very important reason for this: ISIS' continued existence allows Assad to peddle himself as the bulwark against their terrorism.

I don't think the West are the good guys here, but they're lightyears ahead of Russia which is supporting the most brutal actor within the Syrian conflict and not even targetting ISIS.

Russia have targeted ISIS and have proven this. It's indisputable that Russia have targeted ISIS. The US are not light years ahead of Russia. They're exactly the same. The anti-Russian rhetoric here is quite misplaced. Assad isn't targeting ISIS as much as the rebels because the Rebels are at his front door while ISIS are more concentrated to the East. Assad also needs oil from ISIS as coalition forces have failed miserably to stop ISIS generating money through oil, in fact a report in the last few hours suggests that Washington has put huge pressure on the DoD to overstate the campaign against ISIS.

What NATO are doing here is quite dangerous. They have no end game. Most, if not all, of the CIA trained rebels have defected or merged with Islamsic Extremists. If NATO gets its way the country will be in a far worse situation that it was under Assad, alarmingly.

NATO have no real means to remove ISIS from Syria. A major ground offensive would be required to do this and that looks extremely unlikely at the moment. If you remove Assad the country will become overrun by nothing but terrorists. No matter what NATO do at this point they have failed miserably.

Lets not try and pretend that any of these sides care about the Syrian people.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Russia have targeted ISIS and have proven this. It's indisputable that Russia have targeted ISIS. The US are not light years ahead of Russia.

Bar one of two token strikes they haven't been hitting isis at all

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

Russia have targeted ISIS and have proven this. It's indisputable that Russia have targeted ISIS. The US are not light years ahead of Russia. They're exactly the same. The anti-Russian rhetoric here is quite misplaced.

Criticizing Russia's support for the most brutal faction in the Syrian Civil War is anti-Russian rhetoric? Yeah, Russia have targetted ISIS but they're not focussing on them, are they? Considering RUssia is focussing on airstrikes in western Syria (rather than the north-east where ISIS are strongest), it's hard to take Russia seriously on this.

Even Russia is finding it hard to spin this one

glued wrote: »

Assad isn't targeting ISIS as much as the rebels because the Rebels are at his front door while ISIS are more concentrated to the East.

Eh, no they're not. They're doing so because it's easier for Assad to justify his terror when he can point to ISIS and portray himself as a check on them.
Have you any evidence for your claims at all?
Hell, Assad is effectively cooperating with ISIS

glued wrote: »

Assad also needs oil from ISIS as coalition forces have failed miserably to stop ISIS generating money through oil, in fact a report in the last few hours suggests that Washington has put huge pressure on the DoD to overstate the campaign against ISIS.

Wait, are you trying to justify his oil trade with ISIS? That's some god-tier level apologism.

glued wrote: »

What NATO are doing here is quite dangerous. They have no end game. Most, if not all, of the CIA trained rebels have defected or merged with Islamsic Extremists. If NATO gets its way the country will be in a far worse situation that it was under Assad, alarmingly.

NATO have no real means to remove ISIS from Syria. A major ground offensive would be required to do this and that looks extremely unlikely at the moment. If you remove Assad the country will become overrun by nothing but terrorists. No matter what NATO do at this point they have failed miserably.

Lets not try and pretend that any of these sides care about the Syrian people.

What Russia is doing is even more dangerous. They're backing a terrorist supported regime which is the biggest killer of civilians in the entire conflict. How is a peace agreement going to come out of this?

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

What do you expect? The Russians are only there to keep Assad in power, at least for the time being. The rebels are much closer to Assad so it's not surprising that Russia has targeted them first.

Considering they've been trumpeting this as an anti-ISIS exercise, it is reasonable to question them when they're actually focussing on other rebel groups.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Criticizing Russia's support for the most brutal faction in the Syrian Civil War is anti-Russian rhetoric? Yeah, Russia have targetted ISIS but they're not focussing on them, are they? Considering RUssia is focussing on airstrikes in western Syria (rather than the north-east where ISIS are strongest), it's hard to take Russia seriously on this.

Even Russia is finding it hard to spin this one

Take them seriously on what? Without Russian intervention the country would be overrun by American backed terrorists and ISIS. Syria has absolutely no future within its current borders, surely everybody must realise this. The alternative to Assad is just as bad. NATO have been making a complete mess of Syria. NATO's solution to Syria would be to hand over the country to a bunch of genocidal maniacs.

Eh, no they're not. They're doing so because it's easier for Assad to justify his terror when he can point to ISIS and portray himself as a check on them.
Have you any evidence for your claims at all?
Hell, Assad is effectively cooperating with ISIS

What are you talking about? Why would Assad focus his attacks on ISIS when the Rebels are far closer to Assad and are far more hell bent on toppling Assad than ISIS are? It would make no sense for Assad to attack ISIS when the Rebels impose for more of a danger to his regime. Attacking ISIS, would be nothing but sheer stupidity, especially when NATO are already doing that for him. What do you mean do I have any evidence? Just look at a map.

Wait, are you trying to justify his oil trade with ISIS? That's some god-tier level apologism.

No I'm not. It's pretty clear that I'm not justifying it; I'm providing an explanation for his co-operation with ISIS. I don't know where you're pulling that nonsense from but it's very 'Fox News' like.

What Russia is doing is even more dangerous. They're backing a terrorist supported regime which is the biggest killer of civilians in the entire conflict. How is a peace agreement going to come out of this?

Give me a break. The US are sponsoring terrorism as well. I don't see you mentioning that or perhaps it doesn't fuse itself with your 'interesting' view of this conflict.

You do realise that the Rebels have murdered civilians too? The difference between Assad and the Rebels is very minimal. They're both a massive set of scumbags. If the Rebels had the access to the weapons Assad did they would have no problem murdering Alawis and Christians in the same way Assad did to many Syrians. Without Russia and Iran, the Alawis are going to be slaughtered. NATO would be putting the likes of Abu Sakkar into power, who has actively called for the slaughter of the Alawis.

I don't care about Russia or the US. I just don't want to see countless more people murdered as NATO fails to solve the Syrian crisis. I have no qualms about saying I'd love to see the Rebels, ISIS and Assad destroyed. Hopefully the country can be dividend up as soon as possible so some form of peace can be restored to the region.

Dannyboy83

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Quick jump to the world bank and I see.

Check again;

Russia’s economy is now seen shrinking by 3.8% in 2015 and by a further 0.6% in 2016, according to the World Bank baseline scenario.

In what the World Bank called a “lower-bound scenario” in which oil prices drop well below the baseline projection of $53 per barrel, gross domestic product could contract by as much as 4.3% this year and by another 2.8% in 2016, followed by zero growth in 2017.

The World Bank noted that household consumption, which is Russia’s key economic driver, dropped at a record pace. Russia’s poverty rate is projected to climb to 14.2% this year from 11.2% in 2014.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

Take them seriously on what? Without Russian intervention the country would be overrun by American backed terrorists and ISIS. Syria has absolutely no future within its current borders, surely everybody must realise this. The alternative to Assad is just as bad. NATO have been making a complete mess of Syria. NATO's solution to Syria would be to hand over the country to a bunch of genocidal maniacs.

Take them seriously in any claims to be opposing ISIS. Considering the biggest bloodletter in Syria is the government, I'm not sure why you're so critical of NATO here: the country is already being run by bloodthirsty maniacs who are killing a lot more people than ISIS is.

glued wrote: »

What are you talking about? Why would Assad focus his attacks on ISIS when the Rebels are far closer to Assad and are far more hell bent on toppling Assad than ISIS are? It would make no sense for Assad to attack ISIS when the Rebels impose for more of a danger to his regime. Attacking ISIS, would be nothing but sheer stupidity, especially when NATO are already doing that for him. What do you mean do I have any evidence? Just look at a map.

It's pretty clear what I'm talking about: Assad is avoiding tackling ISIS because it makes him seem better by comparison. This is fairly common knowledge. Hell, Assad even released captured Jihadists for this reason Michael Weiss expands on this a lot in "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror"
Have you any evidence for this beyond telling me to look at a map? Hardly a very good argument, is it?

glued wrote: »

No I'm not. It's pretty clear that I'm not justifying it; I'm providing an explanation for his co-operation with ISIS. I don't know where you're pulling that nonsense from but it's very 'Fox News' like.

Exactly, Assad is co-operating with ISIS. So he's hardly a bastion against terrorism, is he? Cooperating with a group like ISIS show's how reprehensible he is and makes it clear how ridiculous Russia's claims to be fighting ISIS are.

What nonsense am I pulling? I've sourced all my arguments (not once have I brought in Fox).

glued wrote: »

Give me a break. The US are sponsoring terrorism as well. I don't see you mentioning that or perhaps it doesn't fuse itself with your 'interesting' view of this conflict.

Damn right they are. The US is acting atrociously on the Syrian conflict. Then again, at least they're actually attacking ISIS and not supporting the most brutal actor in the conflict.

glued wrote: »

You do realise that the Rebels have murdered civilians too? The difference between Assad and the Rebels is very minimal. They're both a massive set of scumbags. If the Rebels had the access to the weapons Assad did they would have no problem murdering Alawis and Christians in the same way Assad did to many Syrians. Without Russia and Iran, the Alawis are going to be slaughtered. NATO would be putting the likes of Abu Sakkar into power, who has actively called for the slaughter of the Alawis.

I never denied the rebels killed civilians. I specifically state Assad's forces have killed the most. Stop bringing in false equivalence. The rebels have killed far less than Assad's forces have. No amount of hand wringing or obfuscation on your part will change this.

glued wrote: »

I don't care about Russia or the US. I just don't want to see countless more people murdered as NATO fails to solve the Syrian crisis. I have no qualms about saying I'd love to see the Rebels, ISIS and Assad destroyed. Hopefully the country can be dividend up as soon as possible so some form of peace can be restored to the region.

Yeah but Russia supporting Assad's regime will make things worse, not better. The only reason Assad's regime hasn't collapsed already is because of the international support he's been receiving (initially from Iran but increasingly so from Russia)

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

Considering they've been trumpeting this as an anti-ISIS exercise, it is reasonable to question them when they're actually focussing on other rebel groups.

I think you should question more the media's action.

Lots of blame using old photos...WTF is that all about?

I hope Russia bombs the so called moderate rebels and ISIS. What is the difference? The US have admitted they have had trouble identifying it.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

I think you should question more the media's action.

Lots of blame using old photos...WTF is that all about?

Are you denying that Russia is mainly targetting rebel groups other than ISIS?

gobsh!te wrote: »

I hope Russia bombs the so called moderate rebels and ISIS. What is the difference? The US have admitted they have had trouble identifying it.

You don't see a difference between ISIS and other rebel groups? ISIS: an organisation so brutal that even Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra is repulsed by it?

Shurimgreat

The west have been played off the field in syria. The probability is Assad will recover most of a destroyed syriacwith russian backing. Aleppo is the big prize for everyone. It will take years to fully retake the country though and would probably require tens of thousands of russian ground troops.

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

Are you denying that Russia is mainly targetting rebel groups other than ISIS?

I don't know. Do you? I question everything.

Mainly, was that a BBC report or CNN?

Lockstep wrote: »

You don't see a difference between ISIS and other rebel groups? ISIS: an organisation so brutal that even Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra is repulsed by it?

The US themselves have had trouble telling the difference. Surely you've seen the generals talk of this?

Do you think the US did a good job bombing ISIS over the last 13 months?

CNN said they did.....why question it?

The western media reported on Russia killing victims using old photos, sometimes even before the bombing started. Meanwhile the US still hasn't got its excuse right for a real bombing in Afghanistan which did involve killing innocents.

What are the Kurds saying about Putin?

Don't fall for the bullsh!t in the western media. How many times do you need to be lied to before you question it?

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Take them seriously in any claims to be opposing ISIS. Considering the biggest bloodletter in Syria is the government, I'm not sure why you're so critical of NATO here: the country is already being run by bloodthirsty maniacs who are killing a lot more people than ISIS is.

I'm heavily critical of NATO because they have made a bad situation worse. Their tactics make little sense and it's clear that they have no coherent plan to bring peace to Syria. I don't care what Russia says in the media. It's a moot point. What Russia says its doing and what they actually do are two entirely different things. The same can be said of the USA. The CIA have armed more terrorists. How is that a good thing?

It's pretty clear what I'm talking about: Assad is avoiding tackling ISIS because it makes him seem better by comparison. This is fairly common knowledge. Hell, Assad even released captured Jihadists for this reason Michael Weiss expands on this a lot in "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror"
Have you any evidence for this beyond telling me to look at a map? Hardly a very good argument, is it?

Where is the evidence for your claim? The only way I could prove that to you was if I was able to get into the head of Assad. It's clearly a strategic move. You're making a completely preposterous point. What you're essentially saying is that Assad has allowed ISIS to control many of his oil fields and kill many of his soldiers all in the name of looking better by comparison. Do you realise how ridiculous that notion is?

Exactly, Assad is co-operating with ISIS. So he's hardly a bastion against terrorism, is he? Cooperating with a group like ISIS show's how reprehensible he is and makes it clear how ridiculous Russia's claims to be fighting ISIS are.

What nonsense am I pulling? I've sourced all my arguments (not once have I brought in Fox).

The nonsense you're pulling is alleging that I was justifying Assad's oil deal with ISIS.

Damn right they are. The US is acting atrociously on the Syrian conflict. Then again, at least they're actually attacking ISIS and not supporting the most brutal actor in the conflict.

No, the US are too busy supporting the Islamic Extremist rebels. The very people that the US have trained want to kill every Alawi and Christian in the country. You're making an absurd point. Both the rebels and ISIS need to be removed. You do realise that both sides are fighting Islamic Extremism. The rebels would be as bad as ISIS once Assad falls.

I never denied the rebels killed civilians. I specifically state Assad's forces have killed the most. Stop bringing in false equivalence. The rebels have killed far less than Assad's forces have. No amount of hand wringing or obfuscation on your part will change this.

Do you have any figures to back up that claim? I would believe that Assad has killed more people but it's hard to actually estimate considering the wild estimates I've seen from both the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Violations Documentation Centre. Can you provide substantial evidence from a reputable agency backing up those figures and allegations? Please, no silly links to an Israeli newspaper or an American News agency.

Yeah but Russia supporting Assad's regime will make things worse, not better. The only reason Assad's regime hasn't collapsed already is because of the international support he's been receiving (initially from Iran but increasingly so from Russia)

The only reason Assad's regime hasn't been toppled yet is because NATO doesn't want to be responsible for putting a a bunch of butchers into Government. The US may want Assad gone but the current alternative is to put in the SNC, which would be a continuation of the disaster.

Who are you actually supporting here? You're not exactly supporting peace because without Russia supporting Assad, then the Alawi's would almost certainly be wiped out. Russia are a necessary evil here.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

I don't know. Do you? I question everything.

Mainly, was that a BBC report or CNN?

I trust Western media sources more than I do the authoritarian and oppressive Russian government.
Russia has mainly bombed areas where ISIS have a negligible presence
So it's hard to believe them when they say they're bombing ISIS.

gobsh!te wrote: »

The US themselves have had trouble telling the difference. Surely you've seen the generals talk of this?

Do you think the US did a good job bombing ISIS over the last 13 months?

CNN said they did.....why question it?

The western media reported on Russia killing victims using old photos, sometimes even before the bombing started. Meanwhile the US still hasn't got its excuse right for a real bombing in Afghanistan which did involve killing innocents.

What are the Kurds saying about Putin?

Don't fall for the bullsh!t in the western media. How many times do you need to be lied to before you question it?

You've used a lot of words to say very little.
ISIS is renowned for their brutality. This was a major reason why they split with AQ/AN who've adopted a population-centred approach. ISIS brutality was a key factor in their split from AQ/AN.

No amount of false equivalence on your part can change this.

Shurimgreat

gobsh!te wrote: »

I don't know. Do you? I question everything.

Mainly, was that a BBC report or CNN?



The US themselves have had trouble telling the difference. Surely you've seen the generals talk of this?

Do you think the US did a good job bombing ISIS over the last 13 months?

CNN said they did.....why question it?

The western media reported on Russia killing victims using old photos, sometimes even before the bombing started. Meanwhile the US still hasn't got its excuse right for a real bombing in Afghanistan which did involve killing innocents.

What are the Kurds saying about Putin?

Don't fall for the bullsh!t in the western media. How many times do you need to be lied to before you question it?

The bbc and cnn are a million times more accurate and objective than russia today for example. You are right to question. But the bbc have a pretty good record on impartiality. That comes from being based in a democracy. Sadly you cant say the same about russian tv. I believe all the main channels in russia are state controlled mouthpieces. I'd like to see you criticise russian media just once. The other day a weather forecaster on russian tv said it was a nice day for bombing syria. I can understand how russians have been brainwashed in recent years but i dont understand why non russians have been brain washed. Finally if u dont like the channel change it. No one forces u to watch the bbc. Theres plenty other news outlets out there.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

I'm heavily critical of NATO because they have made a bad situation worse. Their tactics make little sense and it's clear that they have no coherent plan to bring peace to Syria. I don't care what Russia says in the media. It's a moot point. What Russia says its doing and what they actually do are two entirely different things. The same can be said of the USA. The CIA have armed more terrorists. How is that a good thing?

So have Russia.
I'm not defending what NATO have done but they're not backing the most brutal faction in the conflict. Russia are.

glued wrote: »

Where is the evidence for your claim? The only way I could prove that to you was if I was able to get into the head of Assad. It's clearly a strategic move. You're making a completely preposterous point. What you're essentially saying is that Assad has allowed ISIS to control many of his oil fields and kill many of his soldiers all in the name of looking better by comparison. Do you realise how ridiculous that notion is?

I've already provided evidence. See here
Likewise, check out the Weiss book I mentioned.

It's not a ridiculous claim. If you'd been following the conflict you'd know this. Assad is keen to portray himself as the best option within Syria. What better way than to make sure ISIS are around so he can tar all the rebels with the same brush?

glued wrote: »

The nonsense you're pulling is alleging that I was justifying Assad's oil deal with ISIS.

You weren't? We agree Assad has oil deals with ISIS. How is this no cooperation?

glued wrote: »

No, the US are too busy supporting the Islamic Extremist rebels. The very people that the US have trained want to kill every Alawi and Christian in the country. You're making an absurd point. Both the rebels and ISIS need to be removed. You do realise that both sides are fighting Islamic Extremism. The rebels would be as bad as ISIS once Assad falls.

No, you're arguing an absurd point but one which is a staple of apologists for mass-murderers.
"The Rwandan government might be committing genocide but the Rwandan Patriotic Front are just as bad and would be doing the same if they could"
"Bosnians are just as bad as the Serbs and will commit genocide on them if they could"
Like it or not, Assad is the most bloodthirsty and brutal killer in Syria by a huge margin. You cannot deny this. No amount of "What if" will change this.

glued wrote: »

Do you have any figures to back up that claim? I would believe that Assad has killed more people but it's hard to actually estimate considering the wild estimates I've seen from both the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Violations Documentation Centre. Can you provide substantial evidence from a reputable agency backing up those figures and allegations? Please, no silly links to an Israeli newspaper or an American News agency.

Sure, the Syrian Network for Human Rights for one. Likewise, Amnesty International see the Center for Documentation of Violations in Syria as a reputable source for deaths caused by government forces. They also highlight that Assad's regime is guilty of crimes against humanity.
Somehow, I think you'll just disregard any evidence that doesn't fit with your pre-formed opinions. Especially as you've just flat out rejected two reputable sources like Haaretz and Time.

glued wrote: »

The only reason Assad's regime hasn't been toppled yet is because NATO doesn't want to be responsible for putting a a bunch of butchers into Government. The US may want Assad gone but the current alternative is to put in the SNC, which would be a continuation of the disaster.
Who are you actually supporting here? You're not exactly supporting peace because without Russia supporting Assad, then the Alawi's would almost certainly be wiped out. Russia are a necessary evil here.

I'm supporting the Syrian people here. They're not going to have peace as long as a murdering tyrant like Assad is in charge. Considering what he's done to his own people, they're hardly likely to agree to any peace deals where he remains in power.
Have you any evidence that without Assad, the Alawites would be wiped out? Sure, groups like ISIS would be happy to do so, but others like Al-Nusra have said they'd be expected to change aspects of their faith but not be wiped out. And that's assuming they take control if Assad falls. So yeah. Evidence please.

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

I trust Western media sources more than I do the authoritarian and oppressive Russian government.

Ok here's your problem. Show me RT lying. Show me the BBC showing RT making up stuff........Clearly you can't. You can however see the BBC lying. You can see RT showing western media showing making up stuff.

RT has an agenda for sure but it only needs to show the truth to make the west look bad.

Russian government also did a good thing with Snowden. Do you see him as a traitor like most people in the US government do?

Russia has mainly bombed areas where ISIS have a negligible presence

This is great, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted again.....lol.
Do you know anything about this "group"? How they get their info? Haha
Ridiculous. Are you actually reading what I am saying?

So it's hard to believe them when they say they're bombing ISIS.

Yeah because of what The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported, right?

So let me get this right, 41 groups say they are joining together against the Russians.....This means the US was not bombing this over the past 13 months but only bombed ISIS........How the **** did ISIS get more powerful in the last 13 months then?

Do you know what critical thinking is?

You've used a lot of words to say very little.

No I have not....Have you seen the reports on western media using old photos with casualties before Russia even started bombing? No? Yes?

ISIS is renowned for their brutality. This was a major reason why they split with AQ/AN who've adopted a population-centred approach. ISIS brutality was a key factor in their split from AQ/AN.

No amount of false equivalence on your part can change this.

Check the sources please....https://www.rt.com/news/317712-media-syria-military-fails/

How do the Kurds feel? Do you even know who the Kurds are? They mention them on the BBC I think.

Lockstep

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The bbc and cnn are a million times more accurate and objective than russia today for example. You are right to question. But the bbc have a pretty good record on impartiality. That comes from being based in a democracy. Sadly you cant say the same about russian tv. I believe all the main channels in russia are state controlled mouthpieces. I'd like to see you criticise russian media just once. The other day a weather forecaster on russian tv said it was a nice day for bombing syria. I can understand how russians have been brainwashed in recent years but i dont understand why non russians have been brain washed. Finally if u dont like the channel change it. No one forces u to watch the bbc. Theres plenty other news outlets out there.

Agreed. There's a lot of false equivalence that Western media is as bad as Russian media.
Not true.
Western media is very free. Russia scores abysmally for press freedom

gobsh!te

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The bbc and cnn are a million times more accurate and objective than russia today for example.

One example of BBC lying

One example of CNN lying

Why are they a million times more accurate?

Because of Operation Mockingbird? Gotcha.

RT just needs to expose Western fcuk ups as they do every few weeks.

For entertainment I watch the BBC.

Shurimgreat

The fact is there would be no isis in syria if assad had shown the slightest regard for democracy or human rights. He held on and on until isis were up and running. He even gave them a helping hand. And now they are up and running he portrays himself as the only one who can fight them. Only he's a weak leader, good at barrel bombing and massacring defenceless women and children, hopeless when it comes to fighting armed rebels. He needs big brother russia to save him.

His cowardice has destoyed his country, its history and heritage. Destroyed its past, present and future. A terrible leader but still admired by some it seems. His supporters have a lot in common with isis. Both show a complete disregard for innocent civilians in pursuit of personal and material gain under one false pretext or another.