Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

[Stephan90]

Of course it is ironocal, because they focus on one single event while they are ignoring a whole war with multiple times more civilian victims. Of course there needs to be an investigation on this bombing like on every similar event. But is hypocritical from Obama and the UN. The UN aren't able to pull any real consequences out of the Iraq war. And Obama like its predecessor has not pulled consequences out of the civilian deaths during the Iraq war. What help do the local civilian families, who have lost family members, have received? Maybe I am just uninformed. But I haven't heard anything about Obama cleaning up the mess left by Bush.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Stephan90

[sivispacem]

No, it's hypocritical and incongruous. It's not ironic. And it certainly isn't "ironical", because "ironical" isn't a thing.

[Eutyphro]

Remember when they stormed the Fallujah hospital? Oh yeah, they don't give a sh*t about international law..

[Dingdongs]

Remember when they stormed the Fallujah hospital? Oh yeah, they don't give a sh*t about international law..

hard to give a sh*t about something that doesn't, and never really has nor will, apply to great power countries other than after WWII.

It also comes at a time when the West was rallying hard against the Russian intervention in Syria saying it will "lead to civilian deaths". Then not even 24 hours later we go and blow up a hospital. Then the other day Obama was saying "Russian strikes will lead to increased radicalisation and extremism" yh not like that hasn't already been happening for over a decade thanks to Western efforts or anything.

 

Comical levels of hypocrisy.

The main reason the West has been opposed to Russian intervention is that they're not targeting ISIS, they're targeting the FSA etc. to bolster Assad. I don't recall seeing the rmain eason we are opposed being "civilians will die more". Edited October 4, 2015 by Irviding

[Eutyphro]

 

Remember when they stormed the Fallujah hospital? Oh yeah, they don't give a sh*t about international law..

 

hard to give a sh*t about something that doesn't, and never really has nor will, apply to great power countries other than after WWII.

 

Then don't pretend to be applying it, or lecture others (Russia) on.

 

The most important thing is, it SHOULD apply. The rest doesn't matter. Morality doesn't completely depend on social contract. It's still wrong to murder someone or steal from them, even if it is in your self interest and you know you will not be punished.

 

The main reason the West has been opposed to Russian intervention is that they're not targeting ISIS, they're targeting the FSA etc. to bolster Assad. I don't recall seeing the rmain eason we are opposed being "civilians will die more".

 

The reason is, that we want to be the dominant geopolitical regional force, and we will not tolerate any other power having any influence whatsoever.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Eutyphro

[Stephan90]

Russia has no reason not to bomb ISIS. Obviously Putin doesn't care if they declare war on Russia. If Russia didn't bomb ISIS too, why did ISIS release this picture? If Russia only bombed the enemies of ISIS, then ISIS would thank Russia.

 

 

 

I think in the end they will bomb FSA, Al Nusra and ISIS all equally, because all are against Assad. Putin is allied Assad and wants to help him because, he allows Russia to have military bases including a harbour with access to the Mediterranian Sea there. And who says that if Assad loses, that the next government favoured by the West wouldn't allow the United States to have a military base there but not Russia?

Edited October 4, 2015 by Stephan90

[Dingdongs]

The reason is, that we want to be the dominant geopolitical regional force, and we will not tolerate any other power having any influence whatsoever.

Your point here is what?

[Sunrise Driver]

It also comes at a time when the West was rallying hard against the Russian intervention in Syria saying it will "lead to civilian deaths". Then not even 24 hours later we go and blow up a hospital. Then the other day Obama was saying "Russian strikes will lead to increased radicalisation and extremism" yh not like that hasn't already been happening for over a decade thanks to Western efforts or anything.

 

Comical levels of hypocrisy.

USA entered Afghanistan to bomb Taliban. They're bombing Taliban.

Russia entered Syria to bomb ISIS. They're bombing FSA.

 

USA isn't hypocritical. Russia is.

Russia has no reason not to bomb ISIS. Obviously Putin doesn't care if they declare war on Russia. If Russia didn't bomb ISIS too, why did ISIS release this picture?

ISIS declared a war to Russia before claiming North Caucasus as its (ISIS) territory.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Street Mix

[Stephan90]

Russia is not only bombing FSA, there a several sources stating that Russia bombs ISIS and Al Nusra too.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

But of course nobody of us will go there to look it up.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Stephan90

[sivispacem]

That photo looks like a terrible Photoshop job. Russia may have bombed IS to some degree but all available evidence is that they've primarily been targeting FSA groups in the West if the country where they are fighting for control of the coastal and inland cities with the Syrian armed forces and Hezbollah

[Eutyphro]

 

The reason is, that we want to be the dominant geopolitical regional force, and we will not tolerate any other power having any influence whatsoever.

Your point here is what?

 

That the West was opposed to Russia being involved before they even knew who Russia would target, and thus that the West being opposed and who Russia targets is completely unrelated. They are opposed to Russia being involved because they oppose Russian influence by definition. You could've understood that by trying a little harder. Better luck next time.

[Clem Fandango]

 

The reason is, that we want to be the dominant geopolitical regional force, and we will not tolerate any other power having any influence whatsoever.

Your point here is what?

 

What the f*ck do you think his point is?

 

 

[Eutyphro]

Meanwhile nobody even knows wtf the Free Syrian Army is by now. Robert Fisk says he thinks it doesn't exist. If anything, it's a name for a bunch of small disconnected units in different territories that by now have gotten increasingly overrun and underfunded. Who says Russia targeted the FSA., what's the source of the story? Oh, the US state department huh? And all the Western media is making big headlines about it without bothering to do any sort of real journalism related to the claim whatsoever? Hmm, it's almost like that good ol' WMD story.

[Dingdongs]

It was rhetorical. I know that we want to be the major geopolitical power in the region. My question is why does that bother you? You aren't even American.

[Clem Fandango]

It was rhetorical. I know that we want to be the major geopolitical power in the region. My question is why does that bother you? You aren't even American.

This is making my head hurt. Why do you think he'd be against a state- representing a minuscule fraction of the world's population- smashing through other countries and sucking up the resources? Why you aren't against it is another thing I'll never understand, you seem to understand it well enough.

[Dingdongs]

 

It was rhetorical. I know that we want to be the major geopolitical power in the region. My question is why does that bother you? You aren't even American.

This is making my head hurt. Why do you think he'd be against a state- representing a minuscule fraction of the world's population- smashing through other countries and sucking up the resources? Why you aren't against it is another thing I'll never understand, you seem to understand it well enough.

Whivh resources have the US smashed and taken from the Middle East? By the way, if you answer oil, you're wrong.

 

Having strategic influence in the Middle East on the part of the US is probably, from an international standpoint, the best possible outcome. If you'd rather a bunch of radical Islamist leaders running the region then that's fine, though. I'll take Sisi and Abdullah over Baghdadi anyday.

[Abel.]

Yeah I actually quite like El-Sissi. He's a pragmatic guy who appreciates the reality of the region, is committed to cracking down on Islamic extremism in the Sinai Desert and won't submit to Hamas' nonsense.

 

 

 

The current US administration is a bit too complacent as far as the Middle East is concerned to be honest.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Failure

[Eutyphro]

It was rhetorical. I know that we want to be the major geopolitical power in the region. My question is why does that bother you? You aren't even American.

In the context in which I said it it wasn't even relevant whether it bothered me. I made the assertion simply because it is true and insightful. Now why does it bother me? Why does it bother me that we ('the West') are going to provoke and destroy even the slightest challenge to our hegemony? It bothers me because it is causing a massive f*cking disaster on the scale of human suffering. That's pretty obvious. And apart from that:

 

 

[Stephan90]

What is the plan if Assad is overthrown and the United States organize the next government?! Will it not end in a disaster like in Iraq, where the discrimination of one religious group has helped the rise of ISIS? Maybe there should be a good concept for a working, democratic government before Assad is removed.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Stephan90

[Dingdongs]

 

It was rhetorical. I know that we want to be the major geopolitical power in the region. My question is why does that bother you? You aren't even American.

In the context in which I said it it wasn't even relevant whether it bothered me. I made the assertion simply because it is true and insightful. Now why does it bother me? Why does it bother me that we ('the West') are going to provoke and destroy even the slightest challenge to our hegemony? It bothers me because it is causing a massive f*cking disaster on the scale of human suffering. That's pretty obvious. And apart from that:

 

 

 

Yeah sorry, but you've failed to provide any evidence that the West is the sole reason for the problems in the Middle East. Arguing that modern day interventions in the MENA region are the causes of the issues in the region is simply not true. I know you absolutely love to try and find a way to blame the West for every single negative phenomenon in the world. Do you have any evidence to offer that the Middle East is a disaster solely due to the West? That it would be perfectly peachy without the West? The Iraq invasion is of course something the West did wrong in the region, but was everything just great before that? I really don't think so. And please spare me blaming the whole thing on British/French imperialism in the late 19th century. Yes, that's true. But the region has had its own rulers, some puppets of the Soviets, some of the West, some non-aligned, over the past 70 years and it has shaped itself.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Irviding

[Eutyphro]

Do you have any evidence to offer that the Middle East is a disaster solely due to the West? That it would be perfectly peachy without the West?

Imagine I throw a hand grenade into a classroom, and then ask you "do you have any evidence that the lives of the people in the classroom would've been perfect and peachy if they hadn't been blown the f*ck up"? That's pretty much how thick headed you are.

[Dingdongs]

Still waiting for some hard facts from you and not anti-West tirades.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Irviding

[Eutyphro]

lol I've given you facts time and time again man. They just don't enter your thick head.

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945."

There you go, bye

[Svip]

You did miss an important keyword in his question: "solely". Of course the leaders of the Middle East themselves are also to blame. It would be quite imperialistic and a bit racist to suggest that the West is solely responsible for the crisis in the Middle East, as it assumes that only Westerners can make 'big boy decisions' like that, which the Middle East is quite capable of that as well. Even if you are dealt a sh*tty hand, how you play that hand is also important.

 

It's not like the West got involved in the Middle East for no reason.

[Eutyphro]

Man... I did not miss anything at all. The word 'solely' functioned as a straw man anyway, because I've never argued everything that happens in the Middle East happens due to the West or some nonsensical bullsh*t like that. And saying the West caused the massive crises in the Middle East is not 'racist' at all. I mean, 'racist'? Are you even being serious here? It doesn't imply at all that "they can't make big boy decisions because they are brown". You are turning the world upside down. Our own f*cking media says they can't make big boy decisions for their own, because they are not as developed and righteous as us, and we need to intervene, bomb them, and spray them with radioactive bullets until they get newborns with two heads (like in Fallujah), because they need us to be their righteous saviors. You turn the reality completely upside down.

[sivispacem]

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945."

Bit of a correlation versus causation fail there.

[Eutyphro]

Maybe you should look into the depleted uraniunium and white phosphorus the US used there, and look whether you still think it's a 'correlation vs causation fail'. Whether the genetically deformed freak babies being born are a 'correlation vs causation fail'.. You probably think the agent orange babies are also just a bunch of 'correlation vs causation fails'.

[sivispacem]

...no, the carcinogenic and mutagenic characteristics of Agent Orange or more accurately 2,3,7,8-TCDD) are well understood. Conversely, the actual battlefield exposures risks of depleted uranium are open to a great deal of debate, and contrary to popular belief it wasn't actually used that much in Iraq. The absence of definitive empirical proof is whst makes it a correlation versus causation fail; you happpen to support a view because it fits your narrative even though there's a great deal of scientific debate about its validity.

 

DU's sole use is for kinetic energy penetrators. It's use is isolated to- Apache and Longbow 30mm chain guns when operating in an anti-tank role, 25mm guns on both US Harriers and certain IFVs, and anti-tank sabot rounds for the main guns of most battle tanks. It's designated purpose is pretty much just defeating armour. I'm not sure exactly how much was expended during the battle for Fallujah but contrary to popular belief it's only present in a handful of ammunition types, most of which are specifically designed to defeat heavy armour and are therefore suboptimal in much close-quarters combat type scenarios. The risk from overpenetration is simply too high. Remember, this is stuff designed to get through ceramic composite armour at 3,000m.

 

It's also worth noting that most of the alternatives- like tungsten and boron carbides- are also toxic and suspected human carcinogens when in a fine powder suspension. Tungsten carbide in particular was also extensively used (in fact to a far greater degree than DU) and many bullets (though not those used by NATO) are copper jackets with lead cores, lead being extremely toxic too...but very little attention is ever given to it, probably because it doesn't have the same snazzy uranium = nuclear bombs connotations.

 

I'd also comment on the fact WP has two uses, as both a smoke generator and an incendiary, the differing legalities regarding the use of either in urban areas, and on the numerous other factors which are likely to influence the susceptibility of people to illness- the stresses of conflict, toxic smoke from burning plastics and other manmade materials, the failure if infrastructure and the dumping of toxic materials, including organophosphate pesticides and byproducts of the petroleum industry- pointing out that amongst soldiers involved in conflicts such as the Falklands where neither DU or WP were used to any real discernible degree the same kinds of trends in long-term illness are also present...but I doubt you care.

[Eutyphro]

The absence of definitive empirical proof is what makes it a correlation versus causation fail; you happpen to support a view because it fits your narrative even though there's a great deal of scientific debate about its validity.

 

So I'm supporting a view just because it is supporting my narrative.. Right.. That's a good one. So what proof regarding the attacks and the giganic rise of birth defects and cancers have you actually looked into?

I'm not sure exactly how much was expended during the battle for Fallujah

It's kind of like you haven't read into it at all, and are just dropping a bunch of irrelevant information off, because actually looking into the research done on these birth defects and cancers would challenge your narrative..

 

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said [..] that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

 

The HRN report investigated recorded birth defects at a major hospital in Fallujah for the year 2012, confirmed first hand birth defect incidences over a one-month period in 2013, and interviewed doctors and parents of children born with birth defects. The report concluded there was:

"... an extraordinary situation of congenital birth defects in both nature and quantity. The investigation demonstrated a significant rise of these health consequences in the period following the war... An overview of scientific literature relating to the effects of uranium and heavy metals associated with munitions used in the 2003 Iraq War and occupation, together with potential exposure pathways, strongly suggest that environmental contamination resulting from combat during the Iraq War may be playing a significant role in the observed rate of birth defects."

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium

I'd also comment on the fact WP has two uses, as both a smoke generator and an incendiary, the differing legalities regarding the use of either in urban areas,

 

The March–April 2005 online Field Artillery magazine has confirmed the use of WP (white phosphorus) in so-called "shake 'n bake" attacks [...]: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with [high explosives (HE)]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

 

but I doubt you care.

 

I doubt you care, because you clearly have not at all read into the Fallujah assault, and are just pulling irrelevant info out of your ass.

[make total destroy]

Still waiting for some hard facts from you and not anti-West tirades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Mesopotamia_%28legal_instrument%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Iraq_Treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Western.2FU.S.-Iranian_relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

 

Western imperialism is directly responsible for the conditions of the Middle East.

 

And no, the argument that the Iraq war was fought for profit is not some sort of conspiracy--nearly all wars are fought for profit. It was literally the most privatized war in history, with private contractors and oil companies making millions.

 

In other news, Turkish cops will be cops:

Turkish Police Drag Deceased Body of Hacı Lokman Birlik Through Streets of Sirnak

Edited October 5, 2015 by make total destroy