Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should rebels in Aleppo surrender for the sake of its people? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think the jihadists in Aleppo should surrender to the regime for the sake of the innocent people women and children. These people just want peace, and the rebels can't win now. Why don't they just give up and end the suffering for everyone?

    I mean ask any 5 year old child if they would rather have the peace of pre-2011 under Assad or the hell of today? Assad only wants to punish the terrorists and the terrorists are prolonging the misery for women and children because they don't want to be punished that's why the un-winnable battle goes on. They are grown men who are being selfish. They should quit for the sake of peace.

    The only other option is that all the innocent people are allowed to leave East Aleppo and allow the Syrians and Russians to storm the place and round up the terrorists, clean up the place and allow people to return in peace.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Assad is firing bunker busters at apartment blocks and throwing themobaric weapons around like rice at a wedding. What do you think he'll do to those that surrender?

    He's already trying to entice rebels and civilians to government lines, when they get there they are shot at. This is the environment you expect someone to throw themselves on the mercies of the government. You have a very simplistic and naive view of the entire Syrian/Iraq conflict.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They are Sunni Jihadist. No question. Have you ever met a Shia, Christian or Alawite who supports these scroungers. They need to be eliminated, and Syria needs to return to what it was before. SECULAR !
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Assad is firing bunker busters at apartment blocks and throwing themobaric weapons around like rice at a wedding. What do you think he'll do to those that surrender?

    He's already trying to entice rebels and civilians to government lines, when they get there they are shot at. This is the environment you expect someone to throw themselves on the mercies of the government. You have a very simplistic and naive view of the entire Syrian/Iraq conflict.
    The women and children just want it all to end and it can only end if the Jihadists surrender or flee Aleppo. Many of the jihadists arn't even Syrian they're from places like Tunisia, Afghanistan, Czech Republic etc. They don't care about ordinary Syrians.

    Assad and Putin are doing bombing in the expectation that the jihadists do the decent thing for their people and surrender like they did a few weeks ago in Manbij, but as many arn't even Syrian they don't care. Civilans are scared to criticise them for fear of reprisals.

    Assad isn't Pol Pot. He's not gonna evacuate and murder the entire population of Aleppo. Putin would never let that happen to innocent women and children. The likely outcome is that the regime will restore control of Aleppo. Rebuilding will begin helped with Russian money. I mean look at how Czechen Republic was rebuilt after the wars of the 1990s. A popular leader can be found to run the city looking after the interests of the people and the regime. Hospitals, homes and schools will rebuilt. Life will resume as normal but of course the jihadist just want war and misery.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Assad is firing bunker busters at apartment blocks and throwing themobaric weapons around like rice at a wedding. What do you think he'll do to those that surrender?

    He's already trying to entice rebels and civilians to government lines, when they get there they are shot at. This is the environment you expect someone to throw themselves on the mercies of the government. You have a very simplistic and naive view of the entire Syrian/Iraq conflict.
    How the hell did that nutjob get hold of thermobaric weaponry? Please tell me we weren't the idiots who sold them to him...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    How the hell did that nutjob get hold of thermobaric weaponry? Please tell me we weren't the idiots who sold them to him...
    No, Putin has been supplying them and in some cases the Russian military is firing them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    The women and children just want it all to end and it can only end if the Jihadists surrender or flee Aleppo. Many of the jihadists arn't even Syrian they're from places like Tunisia, Afghanistan, Czech Republic etc. They don't care about ordinary Syrians.

    Assad and Putin are doing bombing in the expectation that the jihadists do the decent thing for their people and surrender like they did a few weeks ago in Manbij, but as many arn't even Syrian they don't care. Civilans are scared to criticise them for fear of reprisals.

    Assad isn't Pol Pot. He's not gonna evacuate and murder the entire population of Aleppo. Putin would never let that happen to innocent women and children. The likely outcome is that the regime will restore control of Aleppo. Rebuilding will begin helped with Russian money. I mean look at how Czechen Republic was rebuilt after the wars of the 1990s. A popular leader can be found to run the city looking after the interests of the people and the regime. Hospitals, homes and schools will rebuilt. Life will resume as normal but of course the jihadist just want war and misery.
    You aren't worth debating with if you think the war crimes committed in Grozny were simply an excellent opportunity for rebuilding. Or that Putin, the man who's actions led to a civilian airliner being shot down by a Russian BUK cares about civilian lives.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You aren't worth debating with if you think the war crimes committed in Grozny were simply an excellent opportunity for rebuilding. Or that Putin, the man who's actions led to a civilian airliner being shot down by a Russian BUK cares about civilian lives.
    Pretty much this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You aren't worth debating with if you think... Putin, the man who's actions led to a civilian airliner being shot down by a Russian BUK cares about civilian lives.
    Does either side?

    The West wants the Aleppo siege to continue indefinitely if it means more damage to Assad and some chance of eventual rebel victory, in the knowledge this will require civilian deaths.

    Russia and Syria want the Aleppo siege over even if it means killing lots of civilians.

    What both sides what is victory.

    What we should be asking ourselves is not who is in favour of killing civilians - this is a question for babies as we are both in favour of killing civilians - but rather what is victory worth and how much does it cost to bring about.

    If victory for "us" means victory for Jihads - victory for groups that are basically extensions of al-Qaeda in Iraq or at best a bit less extreme - then is that a victory at all?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Does either side?

    The West wants the Aleppo siege to continue indefinitely if it means more damage to Assad and some chance of eventual rebel victory, in the knowledge this will require civilian deaths.

    Russia and Syria want the Aleppo siege over even if it means killing lots of civilians.

    What both sides what is victory.

    What we should be asking ourselves is not who is in favour of killing civilians - this is a question for babies as we are both in favour of killing civilians - but rather what is victory worth and how much does it cost to bring about.

    If victory for "us" means victory for Jihads - victory for groups that are basically extensions of al-Qaeda in Iraq or at best a bit less extreme - then is that a victory at all?

    OP put the debate in terms of a humanitarian Putin and evil rebels so I took issue with that portrayal, it is obviously inaccurate. Unfortunately you are right and the terms of what victory is and what it means for either side should be dominating the question.

    In terms of the West I think we need to accept that we don't have enough influence to push Assad and Putin into constraining their tactics. I think the only way we could achieve that is by arming rebel groups on an industrial scale, which would lead into groups we do not like getting weapons and gaining ground.

    Given that the West cannot realistically change facts on the ground we are going to have to tactically accept Putin and Assad are going to "win" control of the majority of the country. But I do not think we should be silent about the means they are using to get there and should be ensuring the world knows the price of their victory.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    OP put the debate in terms of a humanitarian Putin and evil rebels so I took issue with that portrayal, it is obviously inaccurate.
    It is probably true that Putin doesn't care about civilians. But what he has said is probably more accurate than the BBC narrative that the Western actions are optimal for civilians and that resupplying the rebels under siege in Aleppo is optimal for civilians. The government is winning so the quickest way to end the war is for the government to complete its victory. The quickest path to victory is probably the least bloody.

    Someone who did not care about who won the conflict and was only focussed on ending it would probably support Putin and the government, not the West and the rebels.

    Unfortunately you are right and the terms of what victory is and what it means for either side should be dominating the question.

    In terms of the West I think we need to accept that we don't have enough influence to push Assad and Putin into constraining their tactics. I think the only way we could achieve that is by arming rebel groups on an industrial scale, which would lead into groups we do not like getting weapons and gaining ground.

    Given that the West cannot realistically change facts on the ground we are going to have to tactically accept Putin and Assad are going to "win" control of the majority of the country. But I do not think we should be silent about the means they are using to get there and should be ensuring the world knows the price of their victory.
    I am afraid I do not agree.

    We defeated Nazi Germany with stupendous brutality, far worse than anything Assad or Putin have done. We recently built a multimillion pound marble monument to Bomber Command. I don't have a problem with that and nor do most people.

    War is necessary to sustain any social order. In judging war, we should judge its goals and not its methods. We should condemn sadistic violence - violence that serves no military purpose and is inflicted for the enjoyment of the attacker - but bombing fortified buildings full of enemy troops is not sadistic violence.

    If we think that the rebels should win, we should simply destroy the Russian and Syrian forces in Syria (this will kill a ton of civilians!). If we think they shouldn't, we should not complain about Russia's methods.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i dont completly understand whats happening in aleppo and syria in general .. all i know is that they are fighting ISIS
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It is probably true that Putin doesn't care about civilians. But what he has said is probably more accurate than the BBC narrative that the Western actions are optimal for civilians and that resupplying the rebels under siege in Aleppo is optimal for civilians. The government is winning so the quickest way to end the war is for the government to complete its victory. The quickest path to victory is probably the least bloody.

    Someone who did not care about who won the conflict and was only focussed on ending it would probably support Putin and the government, not the West and the rebels.


    I am afraid I do not agree.

    We defeated Nazi Germany with stupendous brutality, far worse than anything Assad or Putin have done. We recently built a multimillion pound marble monument to Bomber Command. I don't have a problem with that and nor do most people.

    War is necessary to sustain any social order. In judging war, we should judge its goals and not its methods. We should condemn sadistic violence - violence that serves no military purpose and is inflicted for the enjoyment of the attacker - but bombing fortified buildings full of enemy troops is not sadistic violence.

    If we think that the rebels should win, we should simply destroy the Russian and Syrian forces in Syria (this will kill a ton of civilians!). If we think they shouldn't, we should not complain about Russia's methods.
    Is the deliberate targeting of hospitals not sadistic violence? The use of chemical weapons that by their nature are completely indiscriminate and generally harm civilians more than any military target? What about the use of double tap strikes that are aimed at rescue efforts? Some of the tactics used by the Syrian government serve little purpose and seemed to have only galvanised military efforts against the regime. Take the latest assault on Aleppo, other players are responding (the gulf states and Saudi) by sending heavier weapons to the rebels to enable them to withstand Russian and Syria air strikes. The use of starvation tactics merely encourages further intervention by outside powers, extending the conflict.

    I cannot accept that we should simply accept and ignore the methods if it achieves a good outcome. Perhaps in a situation where there is little other choice than your own destruction it is acceptable. But the Syrian government has options available to it that do not involve chemical weapons, strikes aimed at hospitals and bunker busters against residential buildings. Even if you accept that the only route to peace is through a Syrian government victory that does not mean accepting all their tactics. People die, it is a war after all, but that does not mean scorched earth tactics should be condoned.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    I think the jihadists in Aleppo should surrender to the regime for the sake of the innocent people women and children. These people just want peace, and the rebels can't win now. Why don't they just give up and end the suffering for everyone?

    I mean ask any 5 year old child if they would rather have the peace of pre-2011 under Assad or the hell of today? Assad only wants to punish the terrorists and the terrorists are prolonging the misery for women and children because they don't want to be punished that's why the un-winnable battle goes on. They are grown men who are being selfish. They should quit for the sake of peace.

    The only other option is that all the innocent people are allowed to leave East Aleppo and allow the Syrians and Russians to storm the place and round up the terrorists, clean up the place and allow people to return in peace.
    Maybe the Russians could just stop shelling them and the Syrians could stop with the barrel bombing hospitals. You are always an apologist for Assad and Isis.

    What they should have done is let in the humanitarian food convoys from the UN and Aid agencies, which you are quite happy to ignore. They should also ahve let them restore the water, which in turn will cause widespread disease. I dont see you making threas about that Ambitious1999, which summs your stance up quite nicely. Hypocrite.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Is the deliberate targeting of hospitals not sadistic violence? The use of chemical weapons that by their nature are completely indiscriminate and generally harm civilians more than any military target? What about the use of double tap strikes that are aimed at rescue efforts?
    I don't believe that Assad and Putin are sadists for much the same reason I don't believe they care about civilian casualties. Assad is fighting for his life, while Putin is pursuing a larger conflict against America. Both are playing for high stakes with limited resources. They simply don't have the money or manpower to throw around deliberately on actions that do nothing to help their cause. That doesn't mean such things never happened but then we surely devastated hundreds if not thousands on hospitals in Nazi Germany. It was just cheaper to not discriminate, we didn't have the resources, and we needed to win. War is hell.

    Some of the tactics used by the Syrian government serve little purpose and seemed to have only galvanised military efforts against the regime. Take the latest assault on Aleppo, other players are responding (the gulf states and Saudi) by sending heavier weapons to the rebels to enable them to withstand Russian and Syria air strikes. The use of starvation tactics merely encourages further intervention by outside powers, extending the conflict.
    This is silly logic because it applies just as well the other way: the West's interventions and Saudi's interventions have galvanised Russia or whatever. If you want to argue for strict external neutrality then I can respect that but strict external neutrality would have meant the rebels already being crushed long ago.

    To me the question is whether 1. we have a side in this at all and 2. if yes, is that side better Russia's or Saudi Arabia's? To 1. I think I answer "no" but if I have to answer "yes" I am rather leaning toward "Russia" in answer to question 2. Not that I have any love for them, but Saudi Arabia is far worse in every respect.

    I cannot accept that we should simply accept and ignore the methods if it achieves a good outcome. Perhaps in a situation where there is little other choice than your own destruction it is acceptable. But the Syrian government has options available to it that do not involve chemical weapons, strikes aimed at hospitals and bunker busters against residential buildings. Even if you accept that the only route to peace is through a Syrian government victory that does not mean accepting all their tactics. People die, it is a war after all, but that does not mean scorched earth tactics should be condoned.
    But Assad's situation is directly analogous to ours in 1942 or 1943. If he were going to win easily the war wouldn't already be 5 years old. He is fighting with all possible tactics and even then only gradually winning.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Maybe the Russians could just stop shelling them and the Syrians could stop with the barrel bombing hospitals. You are always an apologist for Assad and Isis.

    What they should have done is let in the humanitarian food convoys from the UN and Aid agencies, which you are quite happy to ignore. They should also ahve let them restore the water, which in turn will cause widespread disease. I dont see you making threas about that Ambitious1999, which summs your stance up quite nicely. Hypocrite.
    You could look at it from the view that the rebels/ jihadists are running East Aleppo and deciding the outcome. We see news program's with children wanting the war to stop but they never critises the jihadists running their city for fear of reprisals yet a lot of residents feel easier critising Assad probably because they fear him less. After all he isn't gonna behead them or burn them alive if they say the wrong thing and they know sooner or later Assad and Putin forces will take Aleppo, but they don't fear criticising him on the news, But criticising the jihadists is a different matter entirely.

    Then there is the fact that these jihadist know the score. If they loved their people they would stop and surrender to Assad, but the fact is they're not even Syrian most of them are Afghan, Czech, Libyan, Tunisian, Somali etc. They know they can't win but are willing to fight to the death to avoid capture and that includes endangering innocent families. It's like innocent people are being used as human shields and the west is too dim to see that.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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