The difference between Aleppo and Mosul?

Johndoe86

recedite wrote: »

What I find strange is that all these "hospitals" that are being bombed seem to keep following the rebels into the ever decreasing area that they still control. The same goes for the UN aid convoys. They always seem desperate to resupply the "civilians and children" in rebel held areas, but as soon as that area changes to Assad controlled, they suddenly lose interest.
If it was really a neutral and humanitarian mission, they would be building hospitals and soup kitchens in the govt.controlled liberated areas behind the front lines, so people could have somewhere safe to go to.

Maybe they support the rebels and wish to provide cover and keep the rebels anonymity

Gatling

recedite wrote: »

If it was really a neutral and humanitarian mission, they would be building hospitals and soup kitchens in the govt.controlled liberated areas behind the front lines, so people could have somewhere safe to go to.

Remind us all what happened to the last aid convoy that tried to enter Aleppo ,

Obliterated in a Russian air strike and Assad wont allow aid in be delivered to any part of Syria.
If they have no issues Bombing hospitals and aid convoys do you actually think they wouldn't attack soup kitchens or medical facilities ,
We've seen safe zones been proposed but it's not allowed ,

Johndoe86

Gatling wrote: »

Remind us all what happened to the last aid convoy that tried to enter Aleppo ,

Obliterated in a Russian air strike and Assad wont allow aid in be delivered to any part of Syria.
If they have no issues Bombing hospitals and aid convoys do you actually think they wouldn't attack soup kitchens or medical facilities ,
We've seen safe zones been proposed but it's not allowed ,

How do you know the Russians blew it up? Aleppo is being evacuated as we speak

aled

I am at a loss to understand why civilians and rebels are being moved from Aleppo to Idlib. If you were to read Robert Fisks articles you get the impression that Aleppo's civilians are caught between Assad forces and rebel forces. So they are the one's suffering. So you move them to Idlib, another city controlled by rebels and they get caught in the middle of the next Assad offensive. Its groundhog day for them. Why would they want to go to Idlib. Even more confusing is why Assad would allow rebels back into rebel territory so they can start their fight all over again. That just seems a bizarre decision. I am not saying either side is right. I just don't understand what is going on. I don't believe the civilians are either rebel or Assad supporters. Which leaves me confused why they are being shunted to another rebel area so they can be used as targets again

Kitsunegari

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A lot lot better than Syria.

ISIS in Libya:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/740517/Islamic-State-ISIS-defeated-Libya-soldiers-retake-Sirte

ISIS in Syria:

https://www.rt.com/usa/370310-isis-palmyra-townsend-coalition/

That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed in Syria, 12 million displaced, several million in Turkey and 1 million migrating to Europe.

I'm guessing you are going to compliment Assad and criticise the west for Syria.

The difference is the west imposed a no-fly zone in Libya which brought the conflict to a quick end.

The west didn't do the same in Syria where it drags on and will do for several more years.

Again the lefties will focus solely on criticising the west and ignore aggression and human rights abuses of everyone else. Its tiresome at this stage.

Libya is in the state it is now thanks to the US supporting a coup there. IS capitalised massively on the power vacuum. I note that you neglected to leave that part out. You know the part where the West actually started this nonsense in the first place.

I don't see anyone complimenting Assad or Russia on here. People are merely how highlighting the hypocrisy of the west's foreign policy and the people that support their foreign policy blindly.

It's clear that still some people still have their heads embedded firmly in the sand.

recedite

aled wrote: »

I am at a loss to understand why civilians and rebels are being moved from Aleppo to Idlib.

Probably because most of them are not actually civilians, and those that are civilians would be supporting or connected to rebel fighters in some way. As cooks, medics, blogger/propagandists, or their own immediate family members.

aled

recedite wrote: »

Probably because most of them are not actually civilians, and those that are civilians would be supporting or connected to rebel fighters in some way. As cooks, medics, blogger/propagandists, or their own immediate family members.

But even that still doesn't make sense.If, as you say, they are all rebels, why provide a route for rebels into rebel territory. If many of them are not rebels what future do they have?

recedite

Gatling wrote: »

Obliterated in a Russian air strike

It got to its destination (along with military equipment as seen in this video) and was subsequently destroyed by fire, but not by air strikes. The UN handlers admitted later on that they had lied about the air strike.

Gatling wrote: »

..and Assad wont allow aid in be delivered to any part of Syria.

Whats your source for that?
Convoys to resupply besieged areas are severely restricted. Whats the point of laying siege to a place if you are going to allow aid convoys in to resupply the defenders? It just prolongs the conflict. The humanitarian thing to do in that situation is to have regular ceasefires and exit corridors which facilitate non combatants to leave. Which they did.
Then, finally, kill anyone who refuses to give up and stays on to the bitter end. Which may well be happening but is difficult to ascertain at the moment.

aled

recedite wrote: »

Convoys to resupply besieged areas are severely restricted. Whats the point of laying siege to a place if you are going to allow aid convoys in to resupply the defenders?

The convoys are to not resupply rebels but instead to feed the civilians caught in the crossfire

oneten

aled wrote: »

I am at a loss to understand why civilians and rebels are being moved from Aleppo to Idlib. If you were to read Robert Fisks articles you get the impression that Aleppo's civilians are caught between Assad forces and rebel forces. So they are the one's suffering. So you move them to Idlib, another city controlled by rebels and they get caught in the middle of the next Assad offensive. Its groundhog day for them. Why would they want to go to Idlib. Even more confusing is why Assad would allow rebels back into rebel territory so they can start their fight all over again. That just seems a bizarre decision. I am not saying either side is right. I just don't understand what is going on. I don't believe the civilians are either rebel or Assad supporters. Which leaves me confused why they are being shunted to another rebel area so they can be used as targets again

These "civilians " are the families and dependants of the headchoppers.
Been looking at as much footage of the evacuation as I can find , I can't see any bus load of the mysterious , disappearing ,white helmets.
For those screaming about hospitals being bombed check kunduz hospital , see how its done proper.

the headchopper supporters are in overdrive tonight:rolleyes:

aled

oneten wrote: »

These "civilians " are the families and dependants of the headchoppers.
Been looking at as much footage of the evacuation as I can find , I can't see any bus load of the mysterious , disappearing ,white helmets.
For those screaming about hospitals being bombed check kunduz hospital , see how its done proper.

the headchopper supporters are in overdrive tonight:rolleyes:

I don't disagree with your viewpoint. However I do suggest that there are a lot of innocent civilians mixed up in this conflict. So its not as simple as you make it out to be

Gatling

recedite wrote: »

It got to its destination (along with military equipment as seen in this video) and was subsequently destroyed by fire, but not by air strikes. The UN handlers admitted later on that they had lied about the air strike

They took out airstrikes because russia demanded they do ,
Nobody admitted they lied about it ,one single vehicle was spotted by a Russian drone minutes later the convoy was obliterated ,

KingBrian2

The Syrian gvt provided humanitarian corridors and when the civilians and surrendering rebels were offering to leave the militants & snipers took aim.

recedite

aled wrote: »

But even that still doesn't make sense.If, as you say, they are all rebels, why provide a route for rebels into rebel territory. If many of them are not rebels what future do they have?

Its a good question. If I was in charge, I'd make a simple calculation. Will I lose more of my men rooting them out of their well fortified and booby trapped positions in Aleppo than I would fighting them in Idlib?
Assad has been losing soldiers for years and does not have an infinite supply of them, even with the help of the militias from Lebanon and Iran.
Also there's a good chance that some foreign fighters will scarper back through Turkey when they reach Idlib, and never be seen in Syria again.

aled wrote: »

The convoys are to not resupply rebels but instead to feed the civilians caught in the crossfire

When a convoy arrives into Al Nusra controlled territory (or Al Sham or whatever), they decide who gets the food and the medical supplies. You think the fighters will go hungry so that some old woman living in the basement can eat? No way. If they had any decency, they would let her leave without putting a bullet in her back. But they don't even do that most of the time. The snipers are very active.

aled

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Syrian gvt provided humanitarian corridors and when the civilians and surrendering rebels were offering to leave the militants & snipers took aim.

That goes back to the logic I suggested. Why would you let rebels leave Aleppo and move to Idlib (a rebel held town). It makes no sense. So why would you be surprised by such an action. It brings the rebels out into the open. Its a cheap tactic but it makes targeted sense.

wigsa100

I find it hilarious that conservatives who scream and shout about curbing immigration because of the threat of Islamic extremism, seem perfectly happy to defend Islamic extremist organisations in other countries and even support them being provided with financial support and arms. There were a multitude of groups in Eastern Aleppo who would be and are considered nothing other than terrorists in other countries. But hey, as long as they're not coming over here, let them wage Islamic war on a secular Middle Eastern country.

The levels of gullibility are quite extraordinary. People are taking at face value every piece of nonsense that they see shared on Facebook or retweeted on Twitter. With even the smallest amount of digging, one can see that The White Helmets are a mythical organisation. I have watched footage myself of them waving the Al-Nusra flag, carrying weapons, taking bodies away immediately after executions. There seems to be complete ignorance of the fact that for an 'impartial' organisation, they are only present in areas controlled by terrorist groups.

No doubt people are lapping up the Bana Alabed twitter account, apparently run by a seven year old Syrian girl who tweets with perfect English.

Then you have some of the seemingly neutral journalists, such as Bilal Abdul Kareem, who works for 'On The Ground News'. In his "last message from Aleppo" video (it wasn't by the way), he criticised the Saudis and Qataris for not intervening on behalf of Fatah Al-Sham in Aleppo. He is a salafist, and has regularly interviewed the commanders of Al Nusra (when they were called that). I'm not making this stuff up. A tiny bit of independent research can reveal all of this to anyone. However, news outlets around the world are simply referring to Bilal as an American journalist.

This level of ignorance would be laughable, were it not so irritating and infuriating.

KingBrian2

aled wrote: »

That goes back to the logic I suggested. Why would you let rebels leave Aleppo and move to Idlib (a rebel held town). It makes no sense. So why would you be surprised by such an action. It brings the rebels out into the open. Its a cheap tactic but it makes targeted sense.

The only explanation I can offer is to divert the fighting from the heavily populated city of Aleppo. The militias can't control the high ground in Aleppo so this new location provides them with breathing space to carry on yet more offensives against Syrian gvt. The Syrian gvt and Russia in turn are under pressure to be kind to the Jihadists so this hiatus in fighting opens up a chance however slight of a peaceful cessation of hostilities.

oneten

aled wrote: »

I don't disagree with your viewpoint. However I do suggest that there are a lot of innocent civilians mixed up in this conflict. So its not as simple as you make it out to be

I would suggest not so many innocent civilians as rte would have us believe ,but anywho it has come down to a simple choice , get goin' or get dead.
If you choose the company of headchoppers don't start crying when the bombs are falling.
By the way there are a few posters on here posting pure fantasy facts and absolute bs on the situation and still haven't twigged that the headchoppers need to be exterminated, for a long term solution and for long term security.
Many Irish people have family in european cities that have been the target of attacks by these same headchoppers and to date while the rest of the world is pointing fingers , the Syrian army , the Russian army and the Iranians are the ones doing the heavy lifting .

johnp001

aled wrote: »

That goes back to the logic I suggested. Why would you let rebels leave Aleppo and move to Idlib (a rebel held town). It makes no sense. So why would you be surprised by such an action. It brings the rebels out into the open. Its a cheap tactic but it makes targeted sense.

The Syrian government would want to continue governing the country when the insurrection or civil war is over so therefore it has to do whatever it can to protect civilians. In this situation it makes sense to give free passage or amnesties to the opposition if it means that the civilians in densely populated urban areas can be liberated.
In any country with an armed rebel force the rebellion can only be sustained without major outside inputs when a significant proportion of the population sympathises with it.
By acting to protect the people of aleppo from terrorism the government aims to win the hearts and minds of the people and makes the insurrection more difficult even at the expense of having to possibly fight the same terrorists again. The alternative of fighting until the last terrorist is defeated would run counter to their aims, especially if civilians are being used as human shields.
Saudi, Qatari and US arms will not be able to sustain the opposition indefinitely if there is no sympathy for their cause from the general populace.

aled

johnp001 wrote: »

therefore it has to do whatever it can to protect civilians.

and this is exactly what confuses me. citizens are not being protected. they are being targeted

oneten

aled wrote: »

and this is exactly what confuses me. citizens are not being protected. they are being targeted

its the headchoppers being targeted , the "citizens" are standing too close , simples

johnp001

aled wrote: »

and this is exactly what confuses me. citizens are not being protected. they are being targeted

Depends who you listen to. UK and US both tried to get parliamentary approval for action against the Syrian government in 2013 and failed as there was no public support. Since then the public in the West have been subjected to a barrage of anti-Assad propaganda in the Western media to try to get it on side for getting involved in another costly, destructive war with no benefit to the man in the street in the average NATO country.
If the people telling me something have a vested interest in me believing what they say I question what they are telling me.
The only logical explanation for the current situation is that the administrations of Obama, Cameron, Hollande, Merkel etc. had a reason to want to destabilise Syria and cause regime change there without it being in the interest of their respective electorates.
The Syrian government would have no earthly reason to target civilians as doing so would only mean it could never "win" the ongoing war. The Russian military is only present in Syria at the request of the government so would not be able to act counter to the governments aims without being asked to leave.
Who is saying civilians are being targeted and by whom? Syrian and Russian government both deny targeting civilians and those telling us that it is happening have a strong vested interest in our believing that it is so despite the fact that there would be no logical reason for it.

I listened to Vanessa Beeley reporting from Syria this afternoon on the Ron Paul show and she describes a situation completely unlike what is reported on the news here:

aled

johnp001 wrote: »

Depends who you listen to. UK and US both tried to get parliamentary approval for action against the Syrian government in 2013 and failed as there was no public support. Since then the public in the West have been subjected to a barrage of anti-Assad propaganda in the Western media to try to get it on side for getting involved in another costly, destructive war with no benefit to the man in the street in the average NATO country.
If the people telling me something have a vested interest in me believing what they say I question what they are telling me.
The only logical explanation for the current situation is that the administrations of Obama, Cameron, Hollande, Merkel etc. had a reason to want to destabilise Syria and cause regime change there without it being in the interest of their respective electorates.
The Syrian government would have no earthly reason to target civilians as doing so would only mean it could never "win" the ongoing war. The Russian military is only present in Syria at the request of the government so would not be able to act counter to the governments aims without being asked to leave.
Who is saying civilians are being targeted and by whom? Syrian and Russian government both deny targeting civilians and those telling us that it is happening have a strong vested interest in our believing that it is so despite the fact that there would be no logical reason for it.

I listened to Vanessa Beeley reporting from Syria this afternoon on the Ron Paul show and she describes a situation completely unlike what is reported on the news here:

think vanessa said exactly what i said and described my concerns

Shurimgreat

aled wrote: »

I don't disagree with your viewpoint. However I do suggest that there are a lot of innocent civilians mixed up in this conflict. So its not as simple as you make it out to be

Over 90% of those caught up in the Syrian Civil war are unarmed civilians and a similar percentage have been casualties.

Again, we have posters on here continually trying to portray Assad as the good guy and anyone who opposes him or protests against him as a "head-chopper".

The cheer-leading of Assad is truly stomach churning. How his fans can look themselves in the mirror is beyond me.

Assad is far and away the worst option for Syrians going forward. He has pursued bloody offensive after bloody offensive, involving chemical weapons, barrel bombs, cluster munitions (banned) and all sorts of heinous weapons. And yet he still has his fans around here, mostly from the Hard Left, who are doing themselves no favours in the long run by cheer-leading him.

K-9

I don't think there is much concern for civilians on either side. At this stage it is about winning at all costs

johnp001

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Over 90% of those caught up in the Syrian Civil war are unarmed civilians and a similar percentage have been casualties.

Again, we have posters on here continually trying to portray Assad as the good guy and anyone who opposes him or protests against him as a "head-chopper".

The cheer-leading of Assad is truly stomach churning. How his fans can look themselves in the mirror is beyond me.

Assad is far and away the worst option for Syrians going forward. He has pursued bloody offensive after bloody offensive, involving chemical weapons, barrel bombs, cluster munitions (banned) and all sorts of heinous weapons. And yet he still has his fans around here, mostly from the Hard Left, who are doing themselves no favours in the long run by cheer-leading him.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote yesterday an article describing the juxtaposition of the current Syrian government with the only likely alternative.

The Syrian War Condensed: A More Rigorous Way to Look at the Conflict

Juxtaposition. The way to analyze the situation is to look at the factions comparatively. You do not compare Assad’s regime to the Danish or Norwegian governments, but to the alternative. The question becomes if there is anything in the left column that is worse than the right column?
More...

Shurimgreat

oneten wrote: »

its the headchoppers being targeted , the "citizens" are standing too close , simples

Yes...I mean how dare civilians use hospitals and other medical facilities.

:rolleyes:

Gatling

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yes...I mean how dare civilians use hospitals and other medical facilities.

:rolleyes:

No I think it more along the lines of you don't support assad and putin your then a legitimate target ,man woman or child ,

Shurimgreat

johnp001 wrote: »

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote yesterday an article describing the juxtaposition of the current Syrian government with the only likely alternative.

Moderates don't last long in Syria. Assad exiled or murdered most of them. A recent conference in Switzerland failed to get off the ground when Assad called even lifelong moderates "terrorists".

Basically anyone who opposes Assad is a terrorist, from rebel fighter down to doctors, aid organisations, unarmed civilians and children who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Either you are pro Assad or you are fair game to be slaughtered by Assad. It appears to be fairly straight forward.

Still no condemnation of Assad from many which means a tacit approval of what he is doing. To some, Assad is one of the greatest leaders who ever lived and his massacring of hundreds of thousands of his own people is ok by them. Its always everyone else's false.

The lies perpetrated by the pro Assadists on here and elsewhere are endless. They tie themselves in such knots to support their "hero". Won't hear a bad word said against him. Pathetic really.

recedite

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The lies perpetrated by the pro Assadists on here...

What you call "lies" are accounts from independent journalists who have actually been to Aleppo and mingled with ordinary people there to get a sense of what is really going on.

But you have already swallowed a completely different narrative, so you probably didn't even listen to them.

But just think for a minute where your information has come from. A few bloggers operating within the rebel ranks, and sending out regular propaganda reports, usually ending with something like "this is probably going to be my last report, I expect them to break down the door and kill me any minute now".

And of course the BBC's "live reports" from a luxury hotel in Beirut. How does a reporter staying in a completely different country give an accurate "live update" on Aleppo? They may as well be going "live" to Blackpool.

And of course RTE's reports; basically a rehashed version of whatever the Beeb says.