Deadly &#x27;Russian airstrike&#x27; hits market in Syria&#x27;s Idlib

It's controlled by the rebels, civilian casualties are inevitable in war

Reply 2

Ascend

13

Original post by demx9

It's controlled by the rebels, civilian casualties are inevitable in war

And our nonchalant attitude towards "inevitable civilian casualties" is one of the major stains on recent Western history and moral thought that has been going on for too long.

Reply 3

Aj12

18

Russia has shown it's willing to pay a high price to keep assad in power. Any talk of fighting ISIS is just tacked on to give them more legitimacy.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

OP

Original post by demx9

It's controlled by the rebels, civilian casualties are inevitable in war

For both parties ?

I'm not sure you'd have the same response if 40 + Russians were gunned down in a high street somewhere in Moscow.

Reply 5

Original post by AlifunArnab

For both parties ?

I'm not sure you'd have the same response if 40 + Russians were gunned down in a high street somewhere in Moscow.

Russia is not a war zone last time I checked

Reply 6

Original post by Ascend

And our nonchalant attitude towards "inevitable civilian casualties" is one of the major stains on recent Western history and moral thought that has been going on for too long.

No, it is just an acceptance that mistakes happen in war.

The major stain on recent Western History and moral thought has been to be stand around whilst millions are made refugees and hundreds of thousands die at the hands of fascists.

Furthermore, I should add that it is the West's attitude towards "inevitable civilian casualties" that has led to a low civilian causality rate of 300 hundred civilian deaths in 7000 airstrikes.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7

Original post by AlifunArnab

For both parties ?

I'm not sure you'd have the same response if 40 + Russians were gunned down in a high street somewhere in Moscow.

No. A 100+ people died on the streets of Paris and that was on purpose.

The fact you cannot differentiate between the two means you are a troll or a fool.

Reply 8

Illiberal Liberal

2

Original post by AlifunArnab

most of their strikes have been aimed at the revolutionaries.

By "revolutionaries" you mean "primarily foreign radical Islamists", right?

Reply 9

OP

Original post by Aj12

Russia has shown it's willing to pay a high price to keep assad in power. Any talk of fighting ISIS is just tacked on to give them more legitimacy.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well, they seem to have that legitimacy at the moment.

Original post by demx9

Russia is not a war zone last time I checked

Sorry, I completely forgot Russia can fly jets to wherever they want and attack a group of people with no accountability.

Original post by DorianGrayism

No. A 100+ people died on the streets of Paris and that was on purpose.

The fact you cannot differentiate between the two means you are a troll or a fool.

Consistently killing civilians 'accidentally' is no different to attacking them on purpose. Taking the precautions to AVOID civilians at all costs should be done by everyone involved. However, the fact people can downplay the killings of civilians as collateral damage is a complete joke.

However, forget about attacking civilians for a minute. Is it fair game if Russia attack a rebel group and the rebel group manage to enter Russia and shoot at Russian armed forces?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 10

OP

Original post by Illiberal Liberal

By "revolutionaries" you mean "primarily foreign radical Islamists", right?

No.

Reply 11

Illiberal Liberal

2

Original post by AlifunArnab

No.

Not that I'd expect any different from someone who supports the use of stoning as a method of punishment.

Your agenda is obvious. :smile:

Reply 12

Original post by AlifunArnab

, I completely forgot Russia can fly jets to wherever they want and attack a group of people with no accountability.

Russia's help was asked by Assad, Putin didn't decide by himself to bomb the rebels.

Reply 13

iamthetruth

1

They are all fighting under the same banner I don't buy the media propaganda all of them can go to hell

Reply 14

Original post by AlifunArnab

Consistently killing civilians 'accidentally' is no different to attacking them on purpose. Taking the precautions to AVOID civilians at all costs should be done by everyone involved. However, the fact people can downplay the killings of civilians

Actually, killing people accidentally is very different to killing them on purpose. All law codes from Western to Islamic are very clear on that. So I suggest you take a read.

Again, Western forces take great precautions avoiding civilian casualties. That is why there have been very few Civilian causalities in the 7000 airstrikes.

The only people who downplay the killings of Civilians are the left wing and Muslims who forget about the tens of thousands murdered by Fascists whilst moaning about the airstrikes which have killed hundreds by accident.

Anyone concerned about Civilians is advocating a full scale invasion under UN mandate.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 15

iamthetruth

1

Original post by DorianGrayism

Actually, killing people accidentally is very different to killing them on purpose. All law codes from Western to Islamic are very clear on that. So I suggest you take a read.

Again, Western forces take great precautions avoiding civilian casualties. That is why there have been very few Civilian causalities in the 7000 airstrikes.

The only people who downplay the killings of Civilians are the left wing and Muslims who forget about the tens of thousands murdered by Fascists whilst moaning about the airstrikes.

Anyone concerned about Civilians is advocating a full scale invasion under UN mandate.

How us it accidental it is the same thing as terrorism

Reply 16

Original post by iamthetruth

How us it accidental it is the same thing as terrorism

Try writing it properly so it makes sense. I am not interested in statements. I am interested in reasoning.

Reply 17

OP

Original post by Illiberal Liberal

Not that I'd expect any different from someone who supports the use of stoning as a method of punishment.

Your agenda is obvious. :smile:

Instead of wasting your time arguing with me, go and research the groups in Idlib to see for yourself whether they're mainly Syrian or foreign fighters.

Original post by demx9

Russia's help was asked by Assad, Putin didn't decide by himself to bomb the rebels.

Assad couldn't bomb as many civilians as he wanted to so he called his friend Putin to help.

Reply 18

OP

Original post by DorianGrayism

Actually, killing people accidentally is very different to killing them on purpose. All law codes from Western to Islamic are very clear on that. So I suggest you take a read.

Again, Western forces take great precautions avoiding civilian casualties. That is why there have been very few Civilian causalities in the 7000 airstrikes.

The only people who downplay the killings of Civilians are the left wing and Muslims who forget about the tens of thousands murdered by Fascists whilst moaning about the airstrikes which have killed hundreds by accident.

Anyone concerned about Civilians is advocating a full scale invasion under UN mandate.

When we talk about accidentally, I mean trying to the best of your ability to avoid civilians and if they're targeted, then it's unfortunate.

However, when you're bombing a marketplace or a wedding, I simply refuse to believe that it was careful planning. It was negligence and a disregard for those civilian lives. If you consistently kill civilians day in, day out and claim it's collateral, is it any different to purposely targeting them?

You also didn't answer this :

Is it fair game if Russia attack a rebel group and the rebel group manage to enter Russia and shoot at Russian armed forces?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 19