Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I just read this on the BBC news website.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34627441

    Do you think the Russians would seriously help the FSA if the US and coalition partners were to give details of their location to the Russians?

    Part of me is hesitant but the other part of me believes that IS is just so bad everyone needs to work together to get rid of them. They are possibly the worst organisation that has ever existed and the FSA, Assad, and all the parties should focus on them before going at each others' throats.

    What are your thoughts?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    I just read this on the BBC news website.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34627441

    Do you think the Russians would seriously help the FSA if the US and coalition partners were to give details of their location to the Russians?

    Part of me is hesitant but the other part of me believes that IS is just so bad everyone needs to work together to get rid of them. They are possibly the worst organisation that has ever existed and the FSA, Assad, and all the parties should focus on them before going at each others' throats.

    What are your thoughts?
    The Free Syrian Army is anti Assad.

    The FSA are currently getting hit by the Russians who claim they're ISIS.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The Russians are allies with Assad.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    That would be like supporting rebels that want to topple the Saudi Regime. It aint gonna happen.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Ridiculous. Russia saying they'll support the FSA against ISIS as long as they get details of where the FSA are? Just a ruse to get more intelligence for their air strikes, and Russia has bombed the FSA already and apparently killed some commanders.

    Only about a fifth of Russian air strikes in Syria have been against ISIS. Russia are there to target any enemies of Assad, not just ISIS. Of course a considerable number will have been against Nusra and Ahrar al Sham, but the FSA has been hit as well.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Ridiculous. Russia saying they'll support the FSA against ISIS as long as they get details of where the FSA are? Just a ruse to get more intelligence for their air strikes, and Russia has bombed the FSA already and apparently killed some commanders.

    Only about a fifth of Russian air strikes in Syria have been against ISIS. Russia are there to target any enemies of Assad, not just ISIS. Of course a considerable number will have been against Nusra and Ahrar al Sham, but the FSA has been hit as well.
    Are you planning on being a war correspondent?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Ridiculous. Russia saying they'll support the FSA against ISIS as long as they get details of where the FSA are? Just a ruse to get more intelligence for their air strikes, and Russia has bombed the FSA already and apparently killed some commanders.

    Only about a fifth of Russian air strikes in Syria have been against ISIS. Russia are there to target any enemies of Assad, not just ISIS. Of course a considerable number will have been against Nusra and Ahrar al Sham, but the FSA has been hit as well.
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Are you planning on being a war correspondent?
    It's a dangerous job and someone has got to do it! :eek: Rather him than me,
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Russia being the Tyrrels to Assad (Lannister).

    FSA are fighting Assad but are also fighting other groups who are fighting against the ruler Assad. So like Stannis and Renly Barathean. Russia will fight either regardless as their mission objective is to obliterate Assad's opponents no matter who they are.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Russia being the Tyrrels to Assad (Lannister).

    FSA are fighting Assad but are also fighting other groups who are fighting against the ruler Assad. So like Stannis and Renly Barathean. Russia will fight either regardless as their mission objective is to obliterate Assad's opponents no matter who they are.
    You, Sir, deserve a medal.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Russia being the Tyrrels to Assad (Lannister).

    FSA are fighting Assad but are also fighting other groups who are fighting against the ruler Assad. So like Stannis and Renly Baratheon. Russia will fight either regardless as their mission objective is to obliterate Assad's opponents no matter who they are.
    You better keep your spelling on point mate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Hope russia blow up and kill FSA and ISIS
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sdotd)
    Hope russia blow up and kill FSA and ISIS
    I hope Tony Blair gets put on trial for war crimes. That idiot was part the reason ISIS came into being in the first place! He even admitted it himself over the weekend!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ser Alex Toyne)
    You better keep your spelling on point mate.
    I must remember next time to check the spellings of fictional characters before I post. Thanks for the heads up
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    I hope Tony Blair gets put on trial for war crimes. That idiot was part the reason ISIS came into being in the first place! He even admitted it himself over the weekend!
    Yh agree but it will never happen
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sdotd)
    Yh agree but it will never happen
    Never say never. If someone with some balls gets into power it may well happen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    What are your thoughts?
    It's a fascinating story, and it works on two levels. The first is that Lavrov has previously said that the FSA are not terrorists and should be part of the political process. He knows that eventually, Assad must reconcile with them (or at least with part of their movement) if he has any chance of staying in power. This is also to burnish Russia's (very dubious) credentials viz. fighting Islamists.

    The second level on which it works is that it is well known that on a personal level Putin and Assad hate each other. Putin views Assad as arrogant, and he resents that Assad has rejected his advice to pursue a political solution. Assad sees Putin as imperious, and ignorant of Middle Eastern realities.

    I think Putin is subtly putting pressure on Assad with this position
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    I hope Tony Blair gets put on trial for war crimes.
    You are confused. What war crime has Tony Blair committed?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    You are confused. What war crime has Tony Blair committed?
    Well he carried out an illegal war on Iraq on the false pretence of them having WMD's which subsequently resulted in the loss of over 100,000 people. :lolwut:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    Well he carried out an illegal war on Iraq on the false pretence of them having WMD's which subsequently resulted in the loss of over 100,000 people. :lolwut:
    You are still confused. A war crime would be, for example, a massacre of prisoners, a mass rape, etc. Can you provide an example of a single massacre that Blair ordered? On what day did it occur? What units were involved? Details please.

    As for "an illegal war", leaving aside the fact it clearly was not illegal (for which I am happy to provide details), the relevant offence you are thinking of is the "crime of aggression", not a "war crime". They are different.

    In 2003, the International Criminal Court did not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, that only happened in 2010. In 2003, the only body that had jurisdiction to conclusively certify the occurrence of a crime of aggression was the UN Security Council, on which the UK has a veto. So there will be no such resolution there. You may not like it, but it's the law (hence the idiocy of the far left constantly screeching about arresting Tony Blair and international law, as if they have the vaguest clue about international law).

    Finally, Tony Blair wasn't the dictator of Britain. His policy was agreed by the cabinet, and then approved by the House of Commons. The Commons was subsequently re-elected at the 2005 election. Why don't the far left call for Geoff Hoon to be arrested? Or the top generals? It's because this obsession with Blair is a childish, pseudo-religious Manicaean obsession that allows them to confer on one "evildoer" figure all that's wrong in the world. It's a simplistic worldview that means they don't actually have to think about anything in a systemic way, to consider how the ministerial and parliamentary structure approved the war, and they were then approved by the people after the fact.

    As for "false pretence", as prime casus belli cited in the Commons' war resolution was that Saddam had developed long-range missiles (the Al-Samoud 2, with a range of 180km) in breach of UN Resolution 687 (the resolution that brought the Gulf War to an end, which restricted him to missiles of 150km range). Nobody has denied that he did breach the treaty in that way. There is no false pretence as far as that is concerned.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    You are still confused. A war crime would be, for example, a massacre of prisoners, a mass rape, etc. Can you provide an example of a single massacre that Blair ordered? On what day did it occur? What units were involved? Details please.

    As for "an illegal war", leaving aside the fact it clearly was not illegal (for which I am happy to provide details), the relevant offence you are thinking of is the "crime of aggression", not a "war crime". They are different.

    In 2003, the International Criminal Court did not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, that only happened in 2010. In 2003, the only body that had jurisdiction to conclusively certify the occurrence of a crime of aggression was the UN Security Council, on which the UK has a veto. So there will be no such resolution there. You may not like it, but it's the law (hence the idiocy of the far left constantly screeching about arresting Tony Blair and international law, as if they have the vaguest clue about international law).

    Finally, Tony Blair wasn't the dictator of Britain. His policy was agreed by the cabinet, and then approved by the House of Commons. The Commons was subsequently re-elected at the 2005 election. Why don't the far left call for Geoff Hoon to be arrested? Or the top generals? It's because this obsession with Blair is a childish, pseudo-religious Manicaean obsession that allows them to confer on one "evildoer" figure all that's wrong in the world. It's a simplistic worldview that means they don't actually have to think about anything in a systemic way, to consider how the ministerial and parliamentary structure approved the war, and they were then approved by the people after the fact.

    As for "false pretence", as prime casus belli cited in the Commons' war resolution was that Saddam had developed long-range missiles (the Al-Samoud 2, with a range of 180km) in breach of UN Resolution 687 (the resolution that brought the Gulf War to an end, which restricted him to missiles of 150km range). Nobody has denied that he did breach the treaty in that way. There is no false pretence as far as that is concerned.
    Who are you? Tony Blair's right hand man? I can't believe you are defending that scum bag :lolwut:
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.