[Freiheit]

(Original post by Clessus)
Yes, see my post above.




Provided they do not wantonly kill civillians, then yes. And killing civillians while attacking a legitimate military target (i.e. in a crossfire) is not a war crime, nor a violation of the Geneva conventions.

I checked the post you referred me to. You agree that is was a "violation of the laws of war". If this is true then I do not understand why some people believe the rebels are better or are morally justified anymore than the Assad regime if both sides have violated the aspects of the law.

[Clessus]

(Original post by Freiheit)
I checked the post you referred me to. You agree that is was a "violation of the laws of war". If this is true then I do not understand why some people believe the rebels are better or are morally justified anymore than the Assad regime if both sides have violated the aspects of the law.

, you would probably equate the Allies and Axis during WW2.

Also, I was mistaken when I said that it was a "violation of the laws of war", it wasn't, as the Shabiha are illegal combatants, because they do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance and do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by Clessus)
, you would probably equate the Allies and Axis during WW2.

Also, I was mistaken when I said that it was a "violation of the laws of war", it wasn't, as the Shabiha are illegal combatants, because they do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance and do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

You seem to suggest that the FSA are justified in treating illegal combatants in any way they like. If they abuse that situation then I still cannot understand how the Assad regime is worse.

[milesofsea]

These prisoners are the same people who for generations have been torturing and killing anyone who gets on the wrong side of Assad or any of his family. I'd never condone killing anyone as a form of justice but why on earth are you defending them? Like the previous poster said, what are the rebels meant to do with them?

[Clessus]

(Original post by Freiheit)
You seem to suggest that the FSA are justified in treating illegal combatants in any way they like. If they abuse that situation then I still cannot understand how the Assad regime is worse.

You may think it is morally wrong, I can understand that view, but illegal combatants are not protected by the Geneva convention, and if captured are subject to summary execution. So you can't really evoke the Geneva Convention as an argument against it.

I honestly don't beleive that there is an equivalence beteen the summary executions of members of a sectarian death squad, and firing on peaceful protesters and massacring villages. To refer to an example from my area of speciality in regards to history, to equate them is like trying to equate the Sarajevo Column 'massacre' with Srebrenica.

[Brandmon]

What, people actually think there are good sides in this conflict? Maybe several months ago, but Assad's hard approach on dissent only radicalised the opposition which escalated the situation to the civil war that we see today. In such a civil war, only brutality prevails at the expense of any possible compromise or peaceful resolution. Such was the case in civil wars such as the Russian Civil war of 1917 and the Spanish Civil War of 1936. This one is no different. At this point, there is very little chance of a happy ending so all I can say is: expect worse to come.

[kyleball]

(Original post by cl_steele)
Ooop probably should have read that bit slightly more closely, apologies But still i just disagree with extra-judicial killings in the street...

Just arguing the toss here but couldnt one equally argue the point they do little more than the rebels but on the flip side though?

Unfortunately what can they do?

If they set them free, they will regroup, take up arms again and murder more people.

They cannot keep them confined; they are constantly moving and under attack - they would not waste personnel on this.

Unfortunate as it is.

[De Chirico]

Is it as clear cut as Assad vs the rebels? Our media make it out to be, but in a country as unstable as Syria I'm sure there are other forces at work. Anyone can release a video and make claims about what it shows to suit their own agenda. I'm highly skeptical of anything I read about Syria nowadays. The only people we can be sure are innocent are those who are unarmed and caught in the crossfire.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by Clessus)
You may think it is morally wrong, I can understand that view, but illegal combatants are not protected by the Geneva convention, and if captured are subject to summary execution. So you can't really evoke the Geneva Convention as an argument against it.

I honestly don't beleive that there is an equivalence beteen the summary executions of members of a sectarian death squad, and firing on peaceful protesters and massacring villages. To refer to an example from my area of speciality in regards to history, to equate them is like trying to equate the Sarajevo Column 'massacre' with Srebrenica.

Ok, it does not apply then.
With regards to the Syrian situation I think it just boils down to opinion then. From my view, both are unarmed, both aren't offered a trial and both are humans if seen from a more objective way.

With regards to the specific scenarios you mentioned, I think any lives lost are sad and tragic. Was the Yugoslav PA armed? Personally, I believe the Assad regime's killing of civilians is not systematic like in a case of ethnic cleansing but a genuine attempt to try and defeat the rebels. As stated, the last part is an opinion not a fact.

[Clessus]

(Original post by Freiheit)
Ok, it does not apply then.
With regards to the Syrian situation I think it just boils down to opinion then. From my view, both are unarmed, both aren't offered a trial and both are humans if seen from a more objective way.

Fair enough, I can respect that, even if I don't agree with it.

I believe the Assad regime's killing of civilians is not systematic like in a case of ethnic cleansing but a genuine attempt to try and defeat the rebels. As stated, the last part is an opinion not a fact.

That may be so, but that doesn't justify it. And the fact remains that the situation in Syria would not be as it was if not for Assad's violence and repression towards peaceful protests.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by Clessus)
Fair enough, I can respect that, even if I don't agree with it.



That may be so, but that doesn't justify it. And the fact remains that the situation in Syria would not be as it was if not for Assad's violence and repression towards peaceful protests.

Yes, I agree that his actions are not justified and made people use violence in return. Wouldn't you be concerned that the rebels who use violence can easily continue to use such tactics once Assad is gone?

[Clessus]

(Original post by Freiheit)
Yes, I agree that his actions are not justified and made people use violence in return. Wouldn't you be concerned that the rebels who use violence can easily continue to use such tactics once Assad is gone?

Perhaps, nobody can guarantee that the Syrian revolution will end happily, that is up to the Syrian people. I will not however, support repressive fascist dictators from a minority religious clique just because of the moral imperfections of the opposition to him.

There is some hope for optimism, most of the doom sayers have been shown to have been wrong in regards to Libya.

[milesofsea]

(Original post by De Chirico)
Is it as clear cut as Assad vs the rebels? Our media make it out to be, but in a country as unstable as Syria I'm sure there are other forces at work. Anyone can release a video and make claims about what it shows to suit their own agenda. I'm highly skeptical of anything I read about Syria nowadays. The only people we can be sure are innocent are those who are unarmed and caught in the crossfire.

If the western media makes it out to be too clear cut, the syrian media does the opposite, and insists that the rebels are entirely foreign conspirators, and 'terrorists' which is a blatant lie. the evidence shows that there are outside forces at work in syria - the reason? It's gone on for so long now that any dispute in the reigon, every jihadist nut, everyone with an enemy that either side has any influence with, has surged into syria, or offered surreptitious aid (saudis, qataris, russians, turks, even - gasp - the US) and taylored their media to suit their own agenda.

The sad thing is that thousands of innocents have been caught in this crossfire, and the ultimate guilty blame lies with one person - Assad. His job was to govern and protect his people, and he failed. Any outside, sinister hands in this conflict were effectively invited into the country by his obstinacy to cling to power, make no concessions, and fail to keep his country a secure land.

[Nice.Guy]

Yeah, globally, this does show the rebels in a bad light, but that's what I would do if I was in their place....
who on earth thinks the rebels should let these government forces go free? seriously?! this is civil war people, unfortunate though it is...

(Original post by De Chirico)
Is it as clear cut as Assad vs the rebels? Our media make it out to be, but in a country as unstable as Syria I'm sure there are other forces at work. Anyone can release a video and make claims about what it shows to suit their own agenda. I'm highly skeptical of anything I read about Syria nowadays. The only people we can be sure are innocent are those who are unarmed and caught in the crossfire.

why would it not be assad vs the rebels?? what other reasonable possibility is there?

[g_star_raw_1989]

It is hardly surprising. The FSA soldiers have been hardened by months of fighting and witnessing horrors and revenge is going to be a motivating factor for them to carry on fighting; they're hardly going to be thinking about Geneva Conventions and rules of war when they're trying to avenge the killing of their family and friends.

[L i b]

You don't pick sides in a civil war based on who seems nicer. Ultimately both sides - generally speaking - make beasts of themselves.

You pick on the basis of who will provide a more stable future for the country and, possibly, who looks most likely to win.

[De Chirico]

(Original post by Nice.Guy)
Yeah, globally, this does show the rebels in a bad light, but that's what I would do if I was in their place....
who on earth thinks the rebels should let these government forces go free? seriously?! this is civil war people, unfortunate though it is...



why would it not be assad vs the rebels?? what other reasonable possibility is there?

The rebels aren't an organised force, there will be numerous splinter groups and local militias who aren't fighting as part of a wider cause. Not to mention opportunists taking advantage of the anarchy, al quaeda being an obvious example.

[Nice.Guy]

(Original post by De Chirico)
The rebels aren't an organised force, there will be numerous splinter groups and local militias who aren't fighting as part of a wider cause. Not to mention opportunists taking advantage of the anarchy, al quaeda being an obvious example.

yeah but, in effect you can divide all the fighters into those supporting the regime, and those against it... there would be no advantage in anyone else interfering in this war - it's too dangerous, and there's nothing to be gained from it whatsoever. Only the people whose futures and lives are at stake will be involved

[Studentus-anonymous]

(Original post by B-Man.)
Killing civilians is not the same as killing militants (The Shabiha) as this article claims may have occurred..

So it's perfectly fine for the government to kill the fighters rebelling against the country, and the foreign Islamic militants fighting with them?

[Clessus]

(Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
So it's perfectly fine for the government to kill the fighters rebelling against the country, and the foreign Islamic militants fighting with them?

From the point of view of the law, then yes, attacking the military forces of a beligerant party is acceptable. It is not okay to massacre villages and attack peaceful protestors.