Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda
nohero said:
“Former British Ambassador to Syria” isn’t the important fact about him, considering that was over a decade ago, and considering his current activities (as the BBC properly describes). And the quote from the article I excerpted doesn’t matter, since the article Paul relies on doesn’t note his ties.paulsurovell said:
Prove Peter Ford, former UK Amb to Syria wrongnohero said:
paulsurovell said:So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay. Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.
ridski said:The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]
22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras. Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."Click to Read Morepaulsurovell said:
Prove Peter Ford, former UK Amb to Syria wrongnohero said:
paulsurovell said:So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay. Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.
ridski said:The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]
22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras. Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."Click to Read Morenohero said:
paulsurovell said:So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay. Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.
ridski said:The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]
22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras. Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."
Edited to addd:
From the article you excerpted:
The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: "When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a 'long term critic of Western Policy', or part of 'a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria'."
Edited to addd:
From the article you excerpted:
The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: "When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a 'long term critic of Western Policy', or part of 'a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria'."Click to Read Morepaulsurovell said:
Prove Peter Ford, former UK Amb to Syria wrongnohero said:
paulsurovell said:So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay. Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.
ridski said:The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]
22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras. Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."Click to Read Morenohero said:
paulsurovell said:So Paul's story is that Assad says the hospitals were legitimate targets, so the bombing was okay. Well, if Assad says so, then it must be true.
ridski said:The article doesn't discuss the "tactic of bombing hospitals" because it doesn't discuss why the hospitals have been bombed:
The article was about the tactic of bombing hospitals, and she explains why. But please, continue to justify the bombing of hospitals, Peace Activist.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-fords-on-27455053?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare
[ by former UK Amb to Syria Peter Ford ]
22 health facilities have been attacked: the government say this is because the jihadis are using them as bases, which is almost certainly true based on experience in other now liberated areas.Edited to Add: Using a hospital as a military base is a war crime.
Paul's "source" is Peter Ford, director of the "British Syrian Society", a pro-Assad group set up by Assads father-in-law, Dr. Fawaz Akhras. Their job is to make excuses for Assad.
"Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft."
"In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured."
Edited to addd:
From the article you excerpted:
The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: "When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a 'long term critic of Western Policy', or part of 'a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria'."
I have no reason to doubt that the Assad regime is telling Peter Ford to repeat the government claim that the health facilities being bombed are being used for military purposes. So I can't "prove that wrong", but that's irrelevant.
Your protective attitude toward Al Qaeda -- in addition to opposing attacks on them by Syrians and Russians -- is reflected in the doubt you express that Al Qaeda would be so lawless as to use hospitals as military bases.
Why do you think Trump, Macron and May destroyed the hospitals in Raqqa?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:The article is about targeting hospitals, no matter which forces hold the territory being targeted. Just because Dr. Di Giovanni says that’s wrong (and so disagrees with Paul who justifies it) doesn’t make her a “shill for the establishment”, as earlier described by Paul, or a “propagandist".
She has a right to disagree with Ford's view that Al Qaeda used the hospitals as military bases, but when she pretends that Assad is not targeting Al Qaeda and omits that in her article, she is acting as a propagandist, not a journalist.
I know it's asking a lot, but you might want to stretch your limited intellectual curiosity to consider the possibility that while it is obvious that Assad is a brutal and ruthless dictator, that the narratives that he bombs hospitals and uses chemical weapons just to intimidate people might actually be the same kind of misleading war propaganda as the Kuwait-incubator-babies and Saddam-people-shredder stories that media hacks like Janine Di Giovanni pushed to incite the public in the first and second Iraq wars:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-17-mn-488-story.html
. . . refugees reported that incubators for premature babies were confiscated by Iraqi troops and the babies inside were piled on the floor and left to die . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia
My “limited intellectual curiosity” is enough so that I can imagine that it’s a cheap, sleazy form of "argument" to bring up unrelated incidents recounted in articles by unrelated individuals, as part of the smear of a war correspondent. [Edited to add] It's not even an honest comparison. There were no babies removed from incubators or people shredders; there most certainly are hospitals targeted and bombed by Assad and his ally Russia. In fact, Paul's argument (that the bombings are justified) is using the same technique as the arguments claiming "incubator babies/people shredders".
And with regards to my “limited intellectual curiosity” – I guess I’m supposed to respond with some sort of counter-insult. However, given the incredible sick burn inflicted on Paul as a result of being flamed in front of the entire world (via the Twitter) by a respected, honored, and trusted war correspondent, whatever additional insult I could add would just be the equivalent of urinating on the steaming ash pile that remains.
When you try to justify an article that pretends that Assad does not have a military opponent in Idlib (Al Qaeda) you get real incoherent.
Let me clarify a few points:
(a) The destruction of all but one of the hospitals in Raqqa by US, French and UK bombers is not an "unrelated incident" but a direct analogy to what Assad is doing in Idlib. Intelligent discussion includes the use of analogies to shed light on what is being discussed. You use analogies, but in this case you don't like the analogy because it devastates Di Giovanni's position. So you try to obfuscate by calling the analogy "unrelated".
(b) The Kuwait incubator / human shredder hoaxes were promoted by mainstream journalists to incide the public against Saddam. The reason I invoked these examples is that they should give pause when reading a mainstream journalist who ignores basic facts and makes inciteful claims. In this case Di Giovanni ignores the military occupation of Idlib by Al Qaeda and makes the inciteful claim that Assad is bombing hospitals just to intimidate the population.
(c) The "award-winning" journalist didn't "flame" me, she smeared me and ran away in a most undignified and cowardly fashion. That's what she "showed the world". The "world" learned something about her from that.
paulsurovell said:
(a) The destruction of all but one of the hospitals in Raqqa by US, French and UK bombers is not an "unrelated incident" but a direct analogy to what Assad is doing in Idlib. Intelligent discussion includes the use of analogies to shed light on what is being discussed. You use analogies, but in this case you don't like the analogy because it devastates Di Giovanni's position. So you try to obfuscate by calling the analogy "unrelated.”
The analogy might have some heft if you were arguing either that (1) bombing hospitals in both Idlib and Raqqa is an outrage or that (2) both actions are an acceptable military strategy. Instead, you are using it merely to argue that people are hypocrites. You can dress that up with all the “this is the attitude that promotes even deadlier regime change” moral finery you’d like, but it’s really just a petty stab at gamesmanship in comparison with arguments (1) and (2).
(It’s not clear to me, by the way, which of those two you’d side with, if you have any interest in elaborating.)
Are we allowed to say that raining bombs on civilian hospitals is a horrible tactic no matter who orders it or for whatever reason?
Or is it okay to do it if they have some Al Qaedas in them?
I went to beaboutpeace.com for guidance, but all I can find are some articles from 2013 where Paul Surovell organized a rally in Maplewood against going to war in Syria. "Maplewoodians rally to keep the U.S. from bombing Syria" reads one headline from the News Record.
Based on that website, and the writings of paulsurovell in this thread on MOL, one must presume that it's bad when the U.S. bombs Syria, but it's okay when Syria bombs Syria. When we bomb Syria, that's war - but when Syria bombs Syria, that's peace. Everyone in Idlib is now Al Qaeda and deserves to die - man, woman and child, but it would be bad if we killed them. Syria should be left alone to kill its own citizens with bombs sold to them by other countries. Would that be the official position of South Mountain Peace Action?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:The article is about targeting hospitals, no matter which forces hold the territory being targeted. Just because Dr. Di Giovanni says that’s wrong (and so disagrees with Paul who justifies it) doesn’t make her a “shill for the establishment”, as earlier described by Paul, or a “propagandist".
She has a right to disagree with Ford's view that Al Qaeda used the hospitals as military bases, but when she pretends that Assad is not targeting Al Qaeda and omits that in her article, she is acting as a propagandist, not a journalist.
I know it's asking a lot, but you might want to stretch your limited intellectual curiosity to consider the possibility that while it is obvious that Assad is a brutal and ruthless dictator, that the narratives that he bombs hospitals and uses chemical weapons just to intimidate people might actually be the same kind of misleading war propaganda as the Kuwait-incubator-babies and Saddam-people-shredder stories that media hacks like Janine Di Giovanni pushed to incite the public in the first and second Iraq wars:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-17-mn-488-story.html
. . . refugees reported that incubators for premature babies were confiscated by Iraqi troops and the babies inside were piled on the floor and left to die . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia
My “limited intellectual curiosity” is enough so that I can imagine that it’s a cheap, sleazy form of "argument" to bring up unrelated incidents recounted in articles by unrelated individuals, as part of the smear of a war correspondent. [Edited to add] It's not even an honest comparison. There were no babies removed from incubators or people shredders; there most certainly are hospitals targeted and bombed by Assad and his ally Russia. In fact, Paul's argument (that the bombings are justified) is using the same technique as the arguments claiming "incubator babies/people shredders".
And with regards to my “limited intellectual curiosity” – I guess I’m supposed to respond with some sort of counter-insult. However, given the incredible sick burn inflicted on Paul as a result of being flamed in front of the entire world (via the Twitter) by a respected, honored, and trusted war correspondent, whatever additional insult I could add would just be the equivalent of urinating on the steaming ash pile that remains.
This was such an excellent post that it deserves to be seen again.
"However, given the incredible sick burn inflicted on Paul as a result of being flamed in front of the entire world (via the Twitter) by a respected, honored, and trusted war correspondent, whatever additional insult I could add would just be the equivalent of urinating on the steaming ash pile that remains."
That's poetry right there! Poetry! Nohero, Bruce has nothing on you.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:The analogy might have some heft if you were arguing either that (1) bombing hospitals in both Idlib and Raqqa is an outrage or that (2) both actions are an acceptable military strategy. Instead, you are using it merely to argue that people are hypocrites. You can dress that up with all the “this is the attitude that promotes even deadlier regime change” moral finery you’d like, but it’s really just a petty stab at gamesmanship in comparison with arguments (1) and (2).
(a) The destruction of all but one of the hospitals in Raqqa by US, French and UK bombers is not an "unrelated incident" but a direct analogy to what Assad is doing in Idlib. Intelligent discussion includes the use of analogies to shed light on what is being discussed. You use analogies, but in this case you don't like the analogy because it devastates Di Giovanni's position. So you try to obfuscate by calling the analogy "unrelated.”
(It’s not clear to me, by the way, which of those two you’d side with, if you have any interest in elaborating.)
The analogy shows virtually identical military tactics by Assad and Putin and by Trump, Macron and May. But mainstream media only expresses concern when the tactic is used by Assad and Putin. That raises questions about the truthfulness of the mainstream media narrative (parroted by Di Giovanni) that Assad bombs hospitals not because he is targeting his military enemy but merely to intimidate civilians.
ridski said:
Are we allowed to say that raining bombs on civilian hospitals is a horrible tactic no matter who orders it or for whatever reason?
Or is it okay to do it if they have some Al Qaedas in them?
I went to beaboutpeace.com for guidance, but all I can find are some articles from 2013 where Paul Surovell organized a rally in Maplewood against going to war in Syria. "Maplewoodians rally to keep the U.S. from bombing Syria" reads one headline from the News Record.
Based on that website, and the writings of paulsurovell in this thread on MOL, one must presume that it's bad when the U.S. bombs Syria, but it's okay when Syria bombs Syria. When we bomb Syria, that's war - but when Syria bombs Syria, that's peace. Everyone in Idlib is now Al Qaeda and deserves to die - man, woman and child, but it would be bad if we killed them. Syria should be left alone to kill its own citizens with bombs sold to them by other countries. Would that be the official position of South Mountain Peace Action?
No, this is nonsense. I'll explain later.
paulsurovell said:
The analogy shows virtually identical military tactics by Assad and Putin and by Trump, Macron and May. But mainstream media only expresses concern when the tactic is used by Assad and Putin. That raises questions about the truthfulness of the mainstream media narrative (parroted by Di Giovanni) that Assad bombs hospitals not because he is targeting his military enemy but merely to intimidate civilians.
Here are some examples that undermine your second sentence. You'll scorn them as a paltry sum, if you accept them at all. Ah, well. They aren't meant to be exhaustive.
By Saudi Arabia https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/27/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-tactics-yemen-humanitarian-crisis.html
And feel free to disbelieve this account:
As I walked through those ruins, it was clear enough that the rebels who ruled eastern Aleppo had done some awful things there. Yet the whole hospital tour was designed, at least in part, to mitigate or obscure a very uncomfortable fact. The Assad regime repeatedly and deliberately bombed hospitals in the rebel zone, even when there was no reason to suspect that fighters were based there. No one would discuss this with me during my time in Aleppo, even when I did not have the minder with me. Instead, I had to speak to people who fled eastern Aleppo under the terms of the deal to evacuate the city in December, when the regime recaptured it. They were living in Idlib province, to the southwest, which is held by rebels, and I spoke to them by Skype. One was a young man who worked as a nurse at the Omar bin Abdul Aziz Hospital throughout 2016. He told me that the hospital was rendered inoperable 15 times by regime airstrikes. Each time, engineers and doctors would rehabilitate it, only to see it damaged again. When the regime soldiers got too close, they moved to another hospital, called Al Quds. It was so crowded that they sometimes tended the wounded in the street outside.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/magazine/aleppo-after-the-fall.html
paulsurovell said:
No, this is nonsense. I'll explain later.
It was in fairly clear English. Explanation not required.
dave said:
paulsurovell said:It was in fairly clear English. Explanation not required.
No, this is nonsense. I'll explain later.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Here are some examples that undermine your second sentence. You'll scorn them as a paltry sum, if you accept them at all. Ah, well. They aren't meant to be exhaustive.
The analogy shows virtually identical military tactics by Assad and Putin and by Trump, Macron and May. But mainstream media only expresses concern when the tactic is used by Assad and Putin. That raises questions about the truthfulness of the mainstream media narrative (parroted by Di Giovanni) that Assad bombs hospitals not because he is targeting his military enemy but merely to intimidate civilians.
By the U.S. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/664360606/entire-families-wiped-out-u-s-airstrikes-killed-many-civilians-in-syria
According to this article hospitals weren't bombed, they were "toppled." I guess that explains why the reporter didn't ask the military spokesman "Why did you target hospitals?"
DaveSchmidt said:
By Saudi Arabia https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/27/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-tactics-yemen-humanitarian-crisis.html
There is a fleeting mention of hospitals in the middle of this article about Yemen:
"Armed with American-made warplanes and bombs, they have carried out thousands of airstrikes on Houthi targets but also on hospitals, weddings and funerals"
but the article makes clear that the context of the airstrikes is the attacks of the enemy forces something that is absent in the Idlib hospital bombing stories.
So there is only a slight equivalence to the Idlib stories.
DaveSchmidt said:
By Israel https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/another-gaza-hospital-hit-israeli-strike-four-dead-40-hurt-n161086
Israel's explanation is provided here without commentary:
"Israel has defended shelling civilian-inhabited areas where Hamas allegedly hides rockets."
And usually Israeli spokespersons are given plenty of space to defend Israeli attacks on Gaza hospitals:
“integral use of civilians and civilian facilities as cover for its military activity; schools, mosques, hospitals, and civilian housing became weapons storage facilities, Hamas headquarters, and fighting positions … IDF imagery and combat intelligence revealed extensive use of civilian facilities.”
(see WaPo headline below)
DaveSchmidt said:
And feel free to disbelieve this account:
As I walked through those ruins, it was clear enough that the rebels who ruled eastern Aleppo had done some awful things there. Yet the whole hospital tour was designed, at least in part, to mitigate or obscure a very uncomfortable fact. The Assad regime repeatedly and deliberately bombed hospitals in the rebel zone, even when there was no reason to suspect that fighters were based there. No one would discuss this with me during my time in Aleppo, even when I did not have the minder with me. Instead, I had to speak to people who fled eastern Aleppo under the terms of the deal to evacuate the city in December, when the regime recaptured it. They were living in Idlib province, to the southwest, which is held by rebels, and I spoke to them by Skype. One was a young man who worked as a nurse at the Omar bin Abdul Aziz Hospital throughout 2016. He told me that the hospital was rendered inoperable 15 times by regime airstrikes. Each time, engineers and doctors would rehabilitate it, only to see it damaged again. When the regime soldiers got too close, they moved to another hospital, called Al Quds. It was so crowded that they sometimes tended the wounded in the street outside.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/magazine/aleppo-after-the-fall.html
If this individual in Idlib who the reporter spoke to by Skype was evacuated from Aleppo as part of the deal between rebel fighters and Syrian forces, there is a strong likelihood that he was either a rebel fighter or civilian sympathizer.
ridski said:
Are we allowed to say that raining bombs on civilian hospitals is a horrible tactic no matter who orders it or for whatever reason?
Yes.
ridski said:
Or is it okay to do it if they have some Al Qaedas in them?
Not if there are "some" Al Qaeda, but if the hospital is being used for military operations, perhaps. I think that's what ISIS did in Raqqa and likely why the US, France and UK obliterated Raqqa's hospitals. Do you doubt that Al Qaeda and ISIS are capable of turning hospitals into military bases?
ridski said:
I went to beaboutpeace.com for guidance, but all I can find are some articles from 2013 where Paul Surovell organized a rally in Maplewood against going to war in Syria. "Maplewoodians rally to keep the U.S. from bombing Syria" reads one headline from the News Record.
That's right. Were you there? Or were you rooting for a US attack on Syria?
ridski said:
Based on that website, and the writings of paulsurovell in this thread on MOL, one must presume that it's bad when the U.S. bombs Syria, but it's okay when Syria bombs Syria.
You may have noticed on the website
"We uphold the values of the United Nations Charter" which represents my views about when war is justified. Essentially that means when a country acts in self-defense (which can include imminent attack) or when military action is authorized by the UN Security Council.
So there was and is no justification for the US to bomb the Syrian government. Syria has been involved in a civil war for about 8 years, in which the Syrian government is fighting armed insurgents who have been mostly jihadi terrorists, including ISIS and Al Qaeda. The international aspect is fairly complex, with US, Saudi and Turkish funds and equipment for the jihadis, and Iran, Hezbollah and Russia fighting at the invitation of Syria. Some of the bombing is being conducted by the US-French-UK coalition, which was created to fight ISIS, with the tacit approval of Assad. The Turks are also bombing Kurdish forces near its border.
So yes, the Syrian government has the right to use its air force and to call on the assistance of the Russian, US, French and UK airforces to bomb the Al Qaeda and ISIS insurgents.
ridski said:
When we bomb Syria, that's war
When we attack the Syrian government, Yes. When we attack ISIS with the permission of the Syrian government, No.
ridski said:
but when Syria bombs Syria, that's peace.
No, this is nonsense.
ridski said: Everyone in Idlib is now Al Qaeda and deserves to die - man, woman and child, but it would be bad if we killed them.
Going from nonsense to derangement.
ridski said:
Syria should be left alone to kill its own citizens with bombs sold to them by other countries.
From derangement to insanity.
ridski said:
Would that be the official position of South Mountain Peace Action?
South Mountain Peace Action doesn't take positions on posts by lunatics.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:If this individual in Idlib who the reporter spoke to by Skype was evacuated from Aleppo as part of the deal between rebel fighters and Syrian forces, there is a strong likelihood that he was either a rebel fighter or civilian sympathizer.
And feel free to disbelieve this account:
As I walked through those ruins, it was clear enough that the rebels who ruled eastern Aleppo had done some awful things there. Yet the whole hospital tour was designed, at least in part, to mitigate or obscure a very uncomfortable fact. The Assad regime repeatedly and deliberately bombed hospitals in the rebel zone, even when there was no reason to suspect that fighters were based there. No one would discuss this with me during my time in Aleppo, even when I did not have the minder with me. Instead, I had to speak to people who fled eastern Aleppo under the terms of the deal to evacuate the city in December, when the regime recaptured it. They were living in Idlib province, to the southwest, which is held by rebels, and I spoke to them by Skype. One was a young man who worked as a nurse at the Omar bin Abdul Aziz Hospital throughout 2016. He told me that the hospital was rendered inoperable 15 times by regime airstrikes. Each time, engineers and doctors would rehabilitate it, only to see it damaged again. When the regime soldiers got too close, they moved to another hospital, called Al Quds. It was so crowded that they sometimes tended the wounded in the street outside.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/magazine/aleppo-after-the-fall.html
A "strong likelihood" that a health worker is not pro-Assad, after Assad's siege of Aleppo, is not surprising. There has been disagreement on this thread as to whether anyone who is not pro-Assad is a legitimate target, even if a civilian and/or rescue or health worker. Deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, especially medical facilities, was a tactic employed by Assad and allies in Aleppo in 2016. From Amnesty International:
“Syrian government forces claim to be attacking non-state armed groups but the real objective is clear: to inflict severe suffering on the civilian population in order to drive them out. The world continues to stand by as this pattern is repeated over and over throughout Syria,” said Lynn Maalouf [Deputy Director for Research in Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Regional Office].
According to the Syrian American Medical Society, 14 medical facilities have been hit by air strikes since 21 September, putting many of them out of service. Doctors have been struggling to cope with an influx of large numbers of casualties in need of emergency medical treatment – at one point, 800 wounded patients needing care were recorded in one week.
One eyewitness described to Amnesty International an attack on al-Sakhour hospital on 3 October. A bomb fell at the hospital entrance leaving behind a large crater and partially destroying a nearby field hospital. It was the third attack on the hospital that day, he said:
“I arrived at al-Sakhour hospital three hours after the attack had happened... I saw 10 injured and four killed... The injured included two of the hospital’s medical staff…The closest frontline is around 300 meters away.”
A doctor in Aleppo city told Amnesty International that supplies, equipment and fuel were fast running out because of the siege.
“In Aleppo city, residents fear living or being in or around a hospital because we have become a target for the regime,” he said.
“Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects are serious violations of international humanitarian law and amount to war crimes. The pattern of attacks targeting the civilian population, buildings and infrastructure of eastern Aleppo provides clear evidence that this is part of a calculated military strategy to make life unbearable for civilians and to empty the city by force,” said Lynn Maalouf
Tulsi's speech in Congress in September, 2018 (the reason for this thread in support of her position), was asking that Assad be allowed to do the same in Idlib as he did in Aleppo in 2016.
nohero said:A "strong likelihood" that a health worker is not pro-Assad, after Assad's siege of Aleppo, is not surprising. There has been disagreement on this thread as to whether anyone who is not pro-Assad is a legitimate target, even if a civilian and/or rescue or health worker. Deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, especially medical facilities, was a tactic employed by Assad and allies in Aleppo in 2016.
Again, you pretend that Al Qaeda forces were not fighting in Aleppo and that they and their sympathizers were not evacuated to Idlib. More later.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:A "strong likelihood" that a health worker is not pro-Assad, after Assad's siege of Aleppo, is not surprising. There has been disagreement on this thread as to whether anyone who is not pro-Assad is a legitimate target, even if a civilian and/or rescue or health worker. Deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, especially medical facilities, was a tactic employed by Assad and allies in Aleppo in 2016.Again, you pretend that Al Qaeda forces were not fighting in Aleppo and that they and their sympathizers were not evacuated to Idlib. More later.
Class, Paul has written on the board: If [AQ Member in Aleppo] Then [Evacuated During Ceasefire]. He then says that the converse is also true:
If [Evacuated During Ceasefire] Then [AQ Member in Aleppo]
Can any of you who have been paying attention in math class point out the error in his assumption that the converse of his first statement must also be true?
Other than calling out opponents of hospital bombings for being selective when writing op-ed pieces to denounce them, what’s your point, Paul?
Call me as demented as ridski, but you appear to be making the argument that such bombings are defensible in Idlib, since enemy combatants use hospitals as bases and Assad has a war to win. If you’re not arguing that, then your opposition to hospital bombings in Idlib has been as muted as you chastise others for being about Raqqa. I just don’t get what you’re trying get across, beyond the finger-wagging.
DaveSchmidt said:
Other than calling out opponents of hospital bombings for being selective when writing op-ed pieces to denounce them, what’s your point, Paul?
Call me as demented as ridski, but you appear to be making the argument that such bombings are defensible in Idlib, since enemy combatants use hospitals as bases and Assad has a war to win. If you’re not arguing that, then your opposition to hospital bombings in Idlib has been as muted as you chastise others for being about Raqqa. I just don’t get what you’re trying get across, beyond the finger-wagging.
My primary point has been that Assad is fighting Al Qaeda in Idlib and that he fought Al Qaeda and other Jihadi terrorists in Aleppo. It's necessary to emphasize this when discussing the reasons why Assad bombs hospitals (or any other targets for that matter).
Raqqa shows us that bombing hospitals in Syria is carried out not only by Assad but by our own beloved military forces as well as those of Macron and May. It takes a little work to uncover this fact because its downplayed if not censored by mainstream media because it undermines the narrative that Assad is the devil incarnate.
I chose to cite the destruction of hospitals by the US coalition in Raqqa because it is so close geographically as well as substantively to what Assad is doing in Idlib. But of course US bombing of civilian targets,including hospitals, is not unique to Syria.
So what I'm trying to get across is the reality vs the media myth about what is happening in Idlib, in order to have a rational discussion about Tulsi Gabbard's statement that Donald Trump was trying to protect Al Qaeda when he warned Assad not to attack Idlib on 9/11.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Class, Paul has written on the board: If [AQ Member in Aleppo] Then [Evacuated During Ceasefire]. He then says that the converse is also true:
nohero said:A "strong likelihood" that a health worker is not pro-Assad, after Assad's siege of Aleppo, is not surprising. There has been disagreement on this thread as to whether anyone who is not pro-Assad is a legitimate target, even if a civilian and/or rescue or health worker. Deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, especially medical facilities, was a tactic employed by Assad and allies in Aleppo in 2016.Again, you pretend that Al Qaeda forces were not fighting in Aleppo and that they and their sympathizers were not evacuated to Idlib. More later.
If [Evacuated During Ceasefire] Then [AQ Member in Aleppo]
Can any of you who have been paying attention in math class point out the error in his assumption that the converse of his first statement must also be true?
Fail.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:A "strong likelihood" that a health worker is not pro-Assad, after Assad's siege of Aleppo, is not surprising. There has been disagreement on this thread as to whether anyone who is not pro-Assad is a legitimate target, even if a civilian and/or rescue or health worker. Deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, especially medical facilities, was a tactic employed by Assad and allies in Aleppo in 2016.Again, you pretend that Al Qaeda forces were not fighting in Aleppo and that they and their sympathizers were not evacuated to Idlib. More later.
Here's a description of the evacuation by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which managed the evacuation:
https://medium.com/@ICRC/the-children-were-silent-5ad7316eb147
Here's a pretty good contemporaneous article on the evacuation by the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria-evacuation.html
Tens of thousands of people have been removed from eastern Aleppo since Dec. 15. Before the last buses left on Thursday, the Red Cross said that 34,000 people had left the city, including 4,000 fighters who had left in their own vehicles the previous night.
A separate convoy was waiting to carry residents out of two pro-government villages in neighboring Idlib Province that have been surrounded by rebels for years. It was unclear late Thursday whether the convoy had completed its trip.
[ . . .]
Many in the government-held western part of Aleppo also celebrated the routing of the city’s rebels, who often fired improvised rockets at their neighborhoods, flooding hospitals with the dead and wounded. And as hundreds gathered on Tuesday to see the lighting of a Christmas tree, a bomb exploded in western Aleppo, wounding no one but sending residents fleeing.
The evacuation was bitter for residents of the other half of the city, both rebel fighters seeking to topple Mr. Assad and the civilians who left their homes, unsure of when — if ever — they would return.
[ . . . ]
Under the agreement, civilians removed from eastern Aleppo could remain in government-controlled areas or continue on to rebel-held areas elsewhere. Most have ended up in Idlib, which already held many people displaced from elsewhere in Syria, raising concerns about the humanitarian situation there.
The evacuated fighters were allowed to keep light arms and had to go to other rebel-held areas.
Aid workers fear that because of the concentration of rebel fighters in Idlib, it is only a matter of time before the government and its allies attack there, endangering civilians.
Almost all of the province is held by rebel groups, including the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamist groups.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:My primary point has been that Assad is fighting Al Qaeda in Idlib and that he fought Al Qaeda and other Jihadi terrorists in Aleppo. It's necessary to emphasize this when discussing the reasons why Assad bombs hospitals (or any other targets for that matter).
Other than calling out opponents of hospital bombings for being selective when writing op-ed pieces to denounce them, what’s your point, Paul?
Call me as demented as ridski, but you appear to be making the argument that such bombings are defensible in Idlib, since enemy combatants use hospitals as bases and Assad has a war to win. If you’re not arguing that, then your opposition to hospital bombings in Idlib has been as muted as you chastise others for being about Raqqa. I just don’t get what you’re trying get across, beyond the finger-wagging.
Raqqa shows us that bombing hospitals in Syria is carried out not only by Assad but by our own beloved military forces as well as those of Macron and May. It takes a little work to uncover this fact because its downplayed if not censored by mainstream media because it undermines the narrative that Assad is the devil incarnate.
I chose to cite the destruction of hospitals by the US coalition in Raqqa because it is so close geographically as well as substantively to what Assad is doing in Idlib. But of course US bombing of civilian targets,including hospitals, is not unique to Syria.
So what I'm trying to get across is the reality vs the media myth about what is happening in Idlib, in order to have a rational discussion about Tulsi Gabbard's statement that Donald Trump was trying to protect Al Qaeda when he warned Assad not to attack Idlib on 9/11.
In other words, Paul is happy to have blood on his hands as long as he thinks he wins crazy *** debating points.
Got it.
Idiocy. She was right.
paulsurovell said:
My primary point has been that Assad is fighting Al Qaeda in Idlib and that he fought Al Qaeda and other Jihadi terrorists in Aleppo. It's necessary to emphasize this when discussing the reasons why Assad bombs hospitals (or any other targets for that matter).
Then it’s also necessary to emphasize, when discussing the Raqqa bombings, that the U.S. was fighting ISIS. And if someone claims an opponent of those bombings was trying to protect terrorists, then there’s a rational discussion to be had.
Those parallels would have to be part of the comparison you’re drawing, wouldn’t they?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Then it’s also necessary to emphasize, when discussing the Raqqa bombings, that the U.S. was fighting ISIS. And if someone claims an opponent of those bombings was trying to protect terrorists, then there’s a rational discussion to be had.
My primary point has been that Assad is fighting Al Qaeda in Idlib and that he fought Al Qaeda and other Jihadi terrorists in Aleppo. It's necessary to emphasize this when discussing the reasons why Assad bombs hospitals (or any other targets for that matter).
Those parallels would have to be part of the comparison you’re drawing, wouldn’t they?
Yes.
Scott Ritter on growing questions about the OPCW report on the alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad in Douma in April 2018:
The credibility of the OPCW itself and every report and conclusion it has released concerning allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government are now suspect. The extent to which the OPCW has, almost exclusively, relied upon the same Syrian opposition sources who are now suspected of fabricating the Douma events raises serious questions about both the methodology and motivation of an organization that had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for “its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons.”
He also wrote this today - -
An impartial observer is left to ponder the ramifications of the leaked OPCW report must consider the possibility that perhaps the Syrian Government has been the only one telling the truth when it comes to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
https://twitter.com/realscottritter/status/1141737154919510018?s=21
So we have it all wrong, and Assad is the one telling the truth?
South_Mountaineer said:
He also wrote this today - -
An impartial observer is left to ponder the ramifications of the leaked OPCW report must consider the possibility that perhaps the Syrian Government has been the only one telling the truth when it comes to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.https://twitter.com/realscottritter/status/1141737154919510018?s=21
So we have it all wrong, and Assad is the one telling the truth?
The evidence is moving in that direction. Recall that it wasn't Saddam who was lying, but US intelligence and US politicans who wanted to attack Iraq. Similar motivations behind bogus allegations of Iran attacking tankers and a US drone in international airspace. From Craig Murray:
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/18/the-ugly-view-of-western-democracy/
We have seen what appears to be the most unconvincing of false flags in the Gulf. I pointed out why it was improbable Iran would attack these particular ships. Since then we have had American military sources pointing to video evidence of a packed small Iranian boat allegedly removing a limpet mine from the ship the Iranians helped to rescue, which was somehow supposed to prove it was the Iranians who planted the alleged device. We also have had the Japanese owner specifically contradict the American account and say that the ship was hit by flying objects.
The Iranians certainly have a strange method of bomb disposal if they carry it out using unarmoured personnel, with as many as possible crammed into a small boat in immediate contact with the “mine.” It is also hard to understand why the alleged “limpet mines” would be four feet above the waterline.
Limpet mines are placed below the waterline. There are numerous reasons for this. Firstly, holes above the waterline will not sink a ship. Secondly, the weight of the water helps contain the blast against the ship. Thirdly, it is obviously harder to detect both the diver placing the mine and the mine once placed if it is below the water. In fact it would be very difficult for a diver to place a limpet mine four feet above the waterline, even if they wanted to.
So because of Iraq and Iran, Assad must be innocent!
I don’t follow.
With all the campaign coverage lately, I learned that Tulsi has been pushing her "bomb them in the name of the 9/11 victims" garbage for years. Here she is a few years ago demanding that Obama bomb rebels in Syria, and saluting Russia for its bombing campaigns.
"Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911"
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/649615636088365058?lang=en
Not in keeping with her current carefully cultivated image as the "anti-interventionist" candidate.
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
The article is about targeting hospitals, no matter which forces hold the territory being targeted. Just because Dr. Di Giovanni says that’s wrong (and so disagrees with Paul who justifies it) doesn’t make her a “shill for the establishment”, as earlier described by Paul, or a “propagandist".
My “limited intellectual curiosity” is enough so that I can imagine that it’s a cheap, sleazy form of "argument" to bring up unrelated incidents recounted in articles by unrelated individuals, as part of the smear of a war correspondent. [Edited to add] It's not even an honest comparison. There were no babies removed from incubators or people shredders; there most certainly are hospitals targeted and bombed by Assad and his ally Russia. In fact, Paul's argument (that the bombings are justified) is using the same technique as the arguments claiming "incubator babies/people shredders".
And with regards to my “limited intellectual curiosity” – I guess I’m supposed to respond with some sort of counter-insult. However, given the incredible sick burn inflicted on Paul as a result of being flamed in front of the entire world (via the Twitter) by a respected, honored, and trusted war correspondent, whatever additional insult I could add would just be the equivalent of urinating on the steaming ash pile that remains.