The difference between Aleppo and Mosul?

Dohnjoe

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I think its worth having a look at the latest Russian atrocity, this is a school with its roof intact and with desks not a centimeter out of place! There even seems to be a school book on one of the desks that withstood the shock waves- amazing!
If anyone wants the see the REAL effects of an airstrike find photos of the airstrike by our Saudi allies on a funeral in Yemen. I'm not going to post them as the are too graphic. This atrocity barely made the news in our free and fair media for some reason?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1028/827472-syria-school-attack/

35 people died in that attack on the school, 20 of them children

Both attacks are atrocities and were widely reported

One fact doesn't support your world view so you revise it, another supports your view so you grave-dance and exaggerate it

recedite

Truth is the first casualty of war. Whatever happened there, it does not look like it was caused by an air strike.

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No, the jihadists arrived later in the conflict.

Assad was butchering his own people long before that

Wrong the butchering only happened after the protests called for the overthrow of the gvt. In any country if a political group movement or party called for the deposing of the gvt they would be arrested for disturbing the peace. Like when the Neo-Confederates in the Deep South call for the overthrow of President Obama and restoring of the founding fathers values or the PIRA abstaining from democratic parliament in the Dáil. I could cite many other examples. Palestinians walking away from peace process and calling for Israel to be attacked. Refusing to accept the majority of the state is breaking the law full stop.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Wrong the butchering only happened after the protests called for the overthrow of the gvt.

Ah, that's alright then. :rolleyes:

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Ah, that's alright then. :rolleyes:

Tell it to your Washington masters. Those are the people financing the terrorist gangs running amok in Iraq and Syria.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Tell it to your Washington masters. Those are the people financing the terrorist gangs running amok in Iraq and Syria.

Oh dear. The Syrian uprising had nothing to do with Washington. Tell that to your Infowars masters.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear. The Syrian uprising had nothing to do with Washington. Tell that to your Infowars masters.

Nothing about the infowars and all about Saudi Arabia spreading their warped version of Wahhabi Islam across the region and targeting the people of Syria while at the same time America was backing terrorist organizations like the MB and Sunni terrorists in Iraq.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Nothing about the infowars and all about Saudi Arabia spreading their warped version of Wahhabi Islam across the region and targeting the people of Syria while at the same time America was backing terrorist organizations like the MB and Sunni terrorists in Iraq.

Let's break this down for clarity:

1. There was no ISIS in Syria in 2011. There was no ISIS at all. The ISIS that is now embedded in Syria came from Iraq, and long after the uprising began in Syria. So, so much for the wahhabi role in the uprising.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood got itself elected through a popular mandate in Egypt, and (in it's coalition role) in Iraq. It was not particularly enamoured with, or supported by, the US in either case.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Let's break this down for clarity:

1. There was no ISIS in Syria in 2011. There was no ISIS at all. The ISIS that is now embedded in Syria came from Iraq, and long after the uprising began in Syria. So, so much for the wahhabi role in the uprising.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood got itself elected through a popular mandate in Egypt, and (in it's coalition role) in Iraq. It was not particularly enamoured with, or supported by, the US in either case.

ISIS was originally Al Qaeda in Iraq like you said before its leader was Baghdadi it was Zarqawi a member of Al Qaeda who led the group. The MB like Hamas and the Free Syrian Army all have the same views when it comes to Islamism. They want to take Islam back to the days of the Prophet and have a literal interpretation of the Quran. That is why the areas under ISIS control are practicing a form of Islam which is thought in Saudi Arabia.

K-9

@alastair and KingBrian, less of the masters stuff!

recedite

I see Russia has been voted off the UN human Rights Council, with their alleged actions in Aleppo cited as a major reason.

Their place has been taken by Saudi Arabia. Apparently mass beheadings and bombing the $hit out of neighbouring Yemen is not a problem, so long as they keep professing to be a US ally.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Elmer Blooker

There are more important things than human rights you know!
number three
The UN has been heading in the same direction as Amnesty International for a long time.

KingBrian2

recedite wrote: »

I see Russia has been voted off the UN human Rights Council, with their alleged actions in Aleppo cited as a major reason.

Their place has been taken by Saudi Arabia. Apparently mass beheadings and bombing the $hit out of neighbouring Yemen is not a problem, so long as they keep professing to be a US ally.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

The west don't believe in human rights. It's all for show. the Syrian civilians who are being targeted by ISIS and their accomplices in Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia and elsewhere are quickly forgotten.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The west don't believe in human rights. It's all for show. the Syrian civilians who are being targeted by ISIS and their accomplices in Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia and elsewhere are quickly forgotten.

Just another helpful reminder that the west doesn't actually support ISIS.

recedite

IS, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Al Sham... its difficult enough to tell one from the other, especially with name changes, shifting alliances and overlapping membership.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Just another helpful reminder that the west doesn't actually support ISIS.

No they only support those as bad when it suits them like the MB. http://europe.newsweek.com/muslim-brotherhood-backers-jail-cairo-riot-515005

Timberrrrrrrr

alastair wrote: »

Just another helpful reminder that the west doesn't actually support ISIS.

They just arm them

Skommando

It's the same play, different actors . . . .
As usual in most wars it's innocent civilians that suffer, while those who crave power and wealth will do anything deplorable they can think of to achieve and hold onto it.

KingBrian2

Skommando wrote: »

It's the same play, different actors . . . .
As usual in most wars it's innocent civilians that suffer, while those who crave power and wealth will do anything deplorable they can think of to achieve and hold onto it.

What is lunacy is blaming the side doing actual counter-terrorism activity and calling them murderers.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

No they only support those as bad when it suits them like the MB. http://europe.newsweek.com/muslim-brotherhood-backers-jail-cairo-riot-515005

ISIS are a terrorist organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood are not.

ISIS seize territory by force, the Muslim Brotherhood put themselves up for election.

Different situations altogether.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

ISIS are a terrorist organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood are not.

ISIS seize territory by force, the Muslim Brotherhood put themselves up for election.

Different situations altogether.

The MB are in all matters terrorist. They called on a Jihad, opposed making peace with Israel to the point of being involved in assassinating Sadat and disillusioned followers joined the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They call for the overthrow of gvt across the Arab world and desire Islam to return to its true origin in Saudi Arabia. Don't take my word for it look at the sermons and ideology they preach. Pretty hard core ****. Another thing for all you admirers of the MB they absolutely despise Shia Islam.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The MB are in all matters terrorist. They called on a Jihad, opposed making peace with Israel to the point of being involved in assassinating Sadat and disillusioned followers joined the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They call for the overthrow of gvt across the Arab world and desire Islam to return to its true origin in Saudi Arabia. Don't take my word for it look at the sermons and ideology they preach. Pretty hard core ****. Another thing for all you admirers of the MB they absolutely despise Shia Islam.

They're not a terrorist group. Not proscribed here, not in the UK, not in the EU, not in the USA, not in Israel. Don't take my word for it, look at the list of terrorist groups and see if they show up.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

They're not a terrorist group. Not proscribed here, not in the UK, not in the EU, not in the USA, not in Israel. Don't take my word for it, look at the list of terrorist groups and see if they show up.

And that's the problem is it not. Why are we not proscribing it as a terrorist organization when it most clearly is. People complain about Hamas when it calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. The MB is exactly the same. It would appear it is being used by the USA, UK, EU and Israel in order to inflame Iran, blatantly backing a political party that calls on violence against non Muslims.

AV277

Of course the MB is a terrorist organisation. Can't believe this is being disputed. Their slogan contains 'jihad is our way' and they've proven themselves time and time again to be a very violent organisation. They're not for democracy either. A very unknown fact is that 2 years ago when running for election in Libya they lost out but took control through violent means. This is by all means a dangerous, vile and intolerant group.

alastair

AV277 wrote: »

Of course the MB is a terrorist organisation. Can't believe this is being disputed. Their slogan contains 'jihad is our way' and they've proven themselves time and time again to be a very violent organisation. They're not for democracy either. A very unknown fact is that 2 years ago when running for election in Libya they lost out but took control through violent means. This is by all means a dangerous, vile and intolerant group.

Are you terrorised by their slogan? Because that's not really the criteria for determining whether a group is designated terrorist, or not.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

And that's the problem is it not. Why are we not proscribing it as a terrorist organization when it most clearly is. People complain about Hamas when it calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. The MB is exactly the same. It would appear it is being used by the USA, UK, EU and Israel in order to inflame Iran, blatantly backing a political party that calls on violence against non Muslims.

They're not a proscribed terrorist group in Iran either. I guess they must be in on this conspiracy too?

AV277

Of course I'm 'terrorised' by their slogan. If you actually understand their slogan you will know that their aim is to implement violent, harsh rules on EVERYONE including non Muslims. Some examples include amputating limbs of thieves, whipping of fornicators and death for apostates. These folks are practically a less violent ISIS (to put it nicely).

It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or not because I can't believe there's a MB apologist... I don't waste my time with trolls.

alastair

AV277 wrote: »

Of course I'm 'terrorised' by their slogan. If you actually understand their slogan you will know that their aim is to implement violent, harsh rules on EVERYONE including non Muslims. Some examples include amputating limbs of thieves, whipping of fornicators and death for apostates. These folks are practically a less violent ISIS (to put it nicely).

It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or not because I can't believe there's a MB apologist... I don't waste my time with trolls.

I'm no apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, but neither am I someone who pretends that they're a terrorist organisation. They're not - and that's a fact reflected in their absense from the proscribed terrorist group listings in the vast majority of nations worldwide. They're an Islamist organisation who use the electoral system to attain their goals.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

I'm no apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, but neither am I someone who pretends that they're a terrorist organisation. They're not - and that's a fact reflected in their absense from the proscribed terrorist group listings in the vast majority of nations worldwide. They're an Islamist organisation who use the electoral system to attain their goals.

Use the electoral system in order to impose Islamism onto the rest of the population more like it. Their ideology is in total contrast with how an electoral system works. Under them minorities and non pure Muslims would face discrimination and a worldwide Jihad would be called for against enemies of the prophet.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Use the electoral system in order to impose Islamism onto the rest of the population more like it. Their ideology is in total contrast with how an electoral system works. Under them minorities and non pure Muslims would face discrimination and a worldwide Jihad would be called for against enemies of the prophet.

Still doesn't make them a terrorist group though. How did that theory of yours work out in Egypt, when they won the election and drafted a constitution protecting the rights of minority religions?