"U.S. Led Coalition Air Strikes Kill 106 Civilians' In ..." Topic

…Al Mayadeen, Syria.

"Air strikes since Thursday evening have killed more than 100 people including children and other family members of Islamic State fighters in al-Mayadin, a town held by the jihadists near Deir al-Zor in eastern Syria, a war monitor reported.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the raids were carried out by U.S.-led coalition warplanes.

A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State told Reuters that its forces had conducted strikes near al-Mayadin on May 25 and 26 and were assessing the results.

The Observatory said more than 40 children were among those killed in the strikes, which leveled al-Mayadin's municipality building…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The casual acceptance in the West of civilian deaths these never-ending wars of intervention by Western powers produces is only fueling terrorism. This is not an original observation. The cycle of violence is not broken by more violence. And relying on air power rather than direct ground forces might be easier for the West to accept, but it comes at a terrible cost in terms of mission effectiveness and loss of any goodwill from the locals.

Yes, war is messy, and ground forces would also cause noncombatant casualties; but imagine how this all looks and feels to the locals; arbitrary, impersonal death raining down from the skies. Not even an enemy with a face.

The Assad loyalists and Russians would approve of our new ROE.

Katy Perry lives in a world of rainbows and butterflies.

Hmm. Those people must have had no clue that the world is finally bombing the crap out of ISIS.

Dan
PS. Is mainstream media keeping such an exact count also of all the civilians thatthe enemy has purposely gone out of their way to kill?

The solution has to be something other than what's been done so far. The powerful nations can't always intervene in other countries' internal strife and should have a plan for achieving some better solution if they do. I don't see any sign of this in the Syrian situation, only a lot of ad hoc decision making and very cynical pursuit of extra-national interests (not Syrian).

How many radicalized Muslim terrorist attacks took place in Europe before 2001? Think about how the world has changed since then, in ways that would not have been seen as normal before. This is a result of not working toward finding a better way. The US and NATO (dragged along behind) have been giving Bin laden exactly what he wanted us to do: intervene and get bogged down in the Middle east and make all the problems worse and spend ourselves into ruin while radicalizing Muslims the world over. Did the people of Manchester ask to be put in the firing line? Not any more than the people of Mosul did.

We're (Americans) taking our eyes off the ball, and endless warmaking because we can't think our way out of the box is going to end in disaster at home and abroad. My "solution," as if anyone really cares, would involve a mix of more pragmatic and muscular military approaches along with patiently negotiating a new world order (yes, if I must employ that loaded term, much co-opted by various ideologies). We should work toward a truly global and truly United Nations that can become what the EU has been to Europe -- a mechanism to prevent wars and promote the common good. I say "patiently" because this will be the work of decades. But only global actions are going to save this planet from war, environmental collapse, and the growing power of international corporate feudalism.

And in the short term, if a war is worth fighting, the US/NATO should be willing to put its soldiers on the line. Risk-aversion has been criticized by American military writers as no substitute for victory. Isn't the role of the military supposed to be to defend other people, not itself? Whether it's your own people or not. Ground forces are still the only way to hold and pacify territory in many circumstances.

I'm not necessarily in favor of a ground war in Syria today, the mission creep going on there is already pronounced. What would be the objective? There never seems to be a clear objective for the US in Syria that doesn't flip-flop with every new president or military commander. I'm not in favor of prolonging the war in Afghanistan. I think those conflicts went out of control long ago and now things are so broken, there may be no best solution any longer. I do believe that as a matter of general principle, if you're going to interfere in these sort of internal clashes, it needs to be with a sensible and achievable goal and it should be pursued with an eye to keep civilian losses down and what's the likely blowback. (Nobody thought that out too carefully when the US armed the mujahedin in the 1980s.)

Something's gotta change, and I think the US preferred way of warmaking at long-range is part of the problem. It keeps stirring up the hornets but doesn't make them go away. The US is fighting little air wars across the planet. We'd go nuts if anyone else was doing this, but we're normalizing this. We're fortunate the Kurds and certain Iraqi units are there doing the heavy lifting and shedding most of the blood . But maybe cynical planners in Washington think this is just fine and will give them what they want in the end, no matter the cost to civilian lives and society.

Ramble and ramble. It all stinks. Nobody made me King, or gave me any super powers to change things, or to be all-wise. But I don't have to like what I see. I think I'm getting crankier because the US has been at war for most of my life now, I don't see any sign of it ever stopping in my lifetime; I look around and see all the problems at home being ignored; I see fellow citizens becoming more and more antagonized with each other as our society fractures under its own stresses; and I see most of this killing and empire-building as folly.

@Piper: "The solution has to be something other than what's been done so far. The powerful nations can't always intervene in other countries' internal strife and should have a plan for achieving some better solution if they do."

Piper, I agree with that statement except for the very last part. The plan and burden for the solution must come from the fellow Muslims if they are to ever be seen as anything but, well, how they are viewed today.

"Nobody made me King, or gave me any super powers to change things, or to be all-wise. But I don't have to like what I see. I think I'm getting crankier because the US has been at war for most of my life now, I don't see any sign of it ever stopping in my lifetime; I look around and see all the problems at home being ignored; I see fellow citizens becoming more and more antagonized with each other as our society fractures under its own stresses"

You are absolutely spot on there! The world needs to finally take care of itself, instead of begging for international help and then always ragging on the only ones who answer the call. But that shouldn't keep the West from intervening if it's people and vital resources are threatened and if appeasement, diplomacy and negotiations keep failing.

Dan
YouTube link

I am not sure it works. We bomb the crap out of a bunch of Syrian civilians. And so what? We are exactly in the same spot than before, except for the dead.

It is an atrocity, a horrible war crime. It is a shame.

It is a criminal colonial war. Western countries (U.S., France, U.K., etc.), Russia and their respective allies (a bunch of lackeys) are fighting for their strategic and economic interests, using the different local factions like chess pieces, and killing thousands of civilians in the process. It is an immoral massacre.

It is the same colonialist behaviour and always invading and destroying the same countries (and many others) from the 19th Century until now.

It is the same hypocritical and liar rhetoric: they are fighting for ‘civilization, freedom and democracy'. It is a criminal fallacy. In fact, they are fighting for strategic interests (to control the area, its infrastructures and facilities), for economic interests (oil pipelines, gas pipelines and other resources). Of course, they make a profit from arms trade and they can test new lethal weapons: those inhabitants, all barbarians, deserve death and they are disposable.

Unfortunately, our ‘clever' Western politicians know very well that we have to pay a price: terrorism. But they are convinced that it is worth. Great economic and strategic benefits mean that some victims of terrorism are acceptable, and that massive war crimes are necessary.
The same old song: the end justifies the means, at any price. Where is our critical thinking? It is lost in the mud, or lost in the crowd.

I don't believe it is the same, Joseph. Our "leadership" isn't trying to colonize, nor civilize anything. It is sadder than that. It is the consequence of a Western leadership whose reaction to every stimulus is to bomb someone, somewhere. Thus they pretend they are doing something useful. Their voters, at least a part of their voters, are all riled up by the pseudo-nationalist rethoric and cheer them up. Many others just look in disbelief and pray they are never in the receiving end of a terrorist attack.

Bottom line is that our countries are not attacking Syria out of greed, as in colonial times, but out of stupidity and lack of imagination and political will in the part of our leaders. To focus in what really works against terrorism, i.e. intelligence gathering, surveillance, analysis and disemination of the relevant information, doesn't look as "decisive" and "leader-ish" as bombing some unpronounceable town in Syria.

It is an atrocity, a horrible war crime.

A war crime is the deliberate targeting of civilians, not killing civilians because non-uniformed combatants (aka War Criminals) are hiding behind them.

Read the Conventions.

It is a shame.

It is a horrible shame that we are not able to kill only the War Criminals that attempt to hide behind a lack of uniforms in and among civilians, that in our attempts to stop these War Criminals from committing more War Crimes civilians get caught in the fire. I really wish it was possible to only kill the War Criminals.

How would you like to deal with War Criminals that engage in conflicts while not wearing items to identify themselves as combatants, hide among civilians, deliberately attack civilians, conduct reprisals against civilians, and use schools and hospitals as military bases and armories? (By the way, those actions are Class A War Crimes)

How would you like to deal with War Criminals that engage in conflicts while not wearing items to identify themselves as combatants, hide among civilians, deliberately attack civilians, conduct reprisals against civilians, and use schools and hospitals as military bases and armories? (By the way, those actions are Class A War Crimes)

Boots on the ground. But that would be expensive, unpopular and would take a long, long time before any results are achieved. It is cheaper and easier to launch a bomb and later discuss how sad is that 100+ civilians died in the bombing.

Basileus66,

Your comments are quite interesting and I agree with some of them, but I think that there are real strategic and economic interests in those wars (Syria, Irak, Afganistan, etc.).
It is evident that our goverments (and economic corporations behind) are lying, and they know it. They are totally hypocritical, they are using invasions and bombings in order to obtain their gains. They are using the different local factions, even the civilians, like chess pieces with the intention of control the area. And they are commiting atrocities and unjustifiable war crimes. They know and they accept that we have to pay the price of being affected by terrorism. And it is evident the existence of a lucrative arms trade, including the testing of many new lethal weapons using civilians as a target. It is a new type of despicable colonialism and not a supposed fight for 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

Lion in the Stars,

Regarding atrocities and true war crimes, I am not interested in narrow-minded definitions from dictionaries or legal justifications. Cultural definitions and human laws change continuously depending on the circumstances, the ideologies, the political and economic interests, and so on. They are irrelevant concerning true moral matters.

This bombing is a despicable war crime. It is a horrible atrocity.

The question is not ‘How to fight'. This is not the point. The key question is ‘Why this war'. How to fight is irrelevant: whatever method you use, the result will be the same: lots of casualties, many civilians killed, lots of atrocities and war crimes, destroyed countries, etc.

If we want to stop or avoid wars like these, we have to ask ourselves ‘why'. It is the use of critical thinking. We have to analyse the real causes and reasons behind these wars. We have to be demanding citizens who cannot be manipulated and deceived by false justifications and childish propaganda.

The real Western and Russian aims and reasons are deeply immoral.

Politicians, civil authorities and military authorities who accept, organise and/or carry out these kinds of invasions and bombings which kill defenceless civilians are despicable war criminals. It is clear: they are war criminals and they must be prosecuted and judged. And, unfortunately, there are many war criminals from our Western ‘civilised' countries.

In WWII we dropped a lot of bombs on German and Japanese cities. The fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden targeted civilian populations. If we would have lost the war many of our leaders would have been tried for war crimes. But we won and our adversaries knew they were defeated beyond doubt and we rebuilt these nations.

The innocents always die in war; it has been that was since the beginning of times.

The innocents always die in war; it has been that was since the beginning of times

Indeed, but that is the rationale of Islamist terrorists too.

That is one of the reasons why I believe it would be in our best interests to stop treating the fight against radical Islamists as a war.

That is one of the reasons why I believe it would be in our best interests to stop treating the fight against radical Islamists as a war.

If not a war, then what is it?

Pest extermination?

@Ruchel: atrocities are deliberate. While I agree that it is a horrible shame that there were civilians caught in the blast, we're back to my question about how to deal with war criminals that hide behind civilians.

So, Ruchel, how do YOU want to deal with War Criminals that engage in conflicts while not wearing items to identify themselves as combatants, hide among civilians, deliberately attack civilians, conduct reprisals against civilians, and use schools and hospitals as military bases and armories?

Boots on the ground who have to personally knife every jihadi because a bullet might hit a civilian?

USAFpilot,

Those World War Two bombings were real atrocities, horrible war crimes. People who accepted, organised and took part in those massacres should have been prosecuted and judged accordingly.

A war crime is a war crime regardless who commits it, war winner or war loser. Do you think that war crimes committed by the winners were good and moral actions for the simple reason that they were committed by the ‘good guys'? No, they were horrible atrocities committed by despicable war criminals.

I would like to offer several conclusions:

- Killing defenceless civilians is a war crime and an immoral action. The concept of ‘collateral damage' is an aberration, a despicable euphemism. It summarises the disgusting Western cynicism and hypocrisy.

- Western countries, Russia and a bunch of allied lackeys invaded and bombed that area, and nowadays they continue invading and bombing the area. They are the invaders, and the war criminals come from those countries.

- Since the start of this war, schools, hospitals and housing areas have been bombed, and thousands of defenceless civilians have been killed, including many children.

- Most victims of this war are civilians, and they are mostly Muslims.

- The real causes and reasons for this war are strategic and economic, a modern type of neo-colonialism. The argument: ‘we are fighting for freedom and democracy' is a fallacy and pure propaganda.

- Irak and Syria have been Western colonies (British and French). Irak and Kuwait were countries artificially created by Western countries. Dictators and political regimes have been promoted and supported by Western countries and Russia according to their strategic and economic interests. Afghanistan has been invaded and ravaged several times by foreign countries (U.K., Soviet Union, U.S.). Do you think that people from those Eastern countries are very happy with these historical facts and with the current situation? Well, we should put ourselves in their shoes.

- This war is a perfect occasion for a lucrative arms trade and for testing new lethal weapons. It is a complete immorality.

So, you can draw your own conclusions from those facts. It is the time to use your critical thinking.

Lion in the Stars:

Some suggestions: stop invading and bombing countries in a colonial way for strategic and economic reasons. Stop promoting and supporting dictators or puppet regimes according to strategic and economic interests. Stop creating artificial countries and borders according to strategic and economic interests. Stop creating and supporting local factions and terrorist groups according to strategic and economic interests. Stop using those local factions, and ethnic and religious groups, like chess pieces in order to control that area. Stop killing hundred thousands of defenceless civilians in the name of ‘freedom, democracy and Western values'. And stop the war and leave those countries. All actions carried out by Western countries (and Russia) are not part of the solution, they are the main part of the problem.

Ruchel, I suggest you stop coming on here describing WW2 allied pilots as war criminals who committed real atrocities. I for one am not impressed with your accusations, most of the people on here are American or British. The Axis countries may well have suffered from the bombing, but it has to be looked at in the context of total war.

Foxweasel,

I am not interested in talking about the WW2, but I was answering a comment written by USAFpilot.

Sorry, but when I talk about war crimes and war criminals, nationalist sentiments or feelings are irrelevant to me. Moral and ethical matters are above any kind of nationalism or fanatical patriotism. I am not afraid to say this loud and clear.

Bombings which cause atrocities, killing defenceless civilians, are war crimes, in the WW2 and now. People who accept, organise and carry out those actions, regardless the country they come from, are war criminals and they must be prosecuted and judged accordingly.
And the concept ‘total war' is an aberration, an unacceptable immorality, a monstrosity.

I was a Forward Air Controller/JTAC in Afghanistan, does that make me a war criminal?

Ruchel,

In one thread you're all about precise definitions and here you don't care about the definitions. In both cases, it's whatever favors your point of view.

Dan
PS. Reminds me of a joke I heard about a certain candidate … where she's asked were you lying then or are you lying now? :)

Ruchel, perhaps you describe the way the world "should be"; I describe the way the world "is". It would be nice to live in a world of peace; but the history of human civilization is the history of constant war through the ages where the strong defeat the weak irregardless of right or wrong. You are an idealist whose view of warfare is based upon morality. The problem is that your enemys will not be moral and just; and they we use that against you.

Ruchel – So better to play by the rules and lose, eh? Oh to live in your perfect world where the "lesser of two evils" is NEVER an issue.

If not a war, then what is it?
Pest extermination?

Not that bad idea…

Seriously? In my opinion: not a single Western soldier, plane or ship fighting in Syria, Iraq, Lybia or Afghanistan. Strict protection of our interests, and then police work inside our frontiers until no Islamist can take a fart without our police forces knowing about it and being prepared to act, if necessary.

Call it war if you wish. I prefer call "murderer" a murderer, not "enemy combatant" (illegal or not, it is to given them more credit than they deserve)

But if you want a war, then make war and stop procrastinating. That means soldiers, tanks, planes and a clear and achievable political goal. What we have now in our hands is our own contemporary version of gunboat diplomacy; we use F35s instead a gunboats, but the principles are the same.

Supercilious Maximus: "'lesser of two evils' is NEVER an issue"

Lol. I know, right! The more one lives the more every decision becomes "lesser of two evils". But some people want to remain 12 years old forever. :)

If a cop tries to save a building full of people by taking out the bad guys and, in the process one or two civilians get caught in the crossfire, some idiots today would probably go so far as to call that a "war crime".

Dan

So better to play by the rules and lose, eh? Oh to live in your perfect world where the "lesser of two evils" is NEVER an issue.

This is a false dicothomy. You can play by the rules and win; you can play by the rules and lose; you can decide not to play by the rules and still lose; and finally you do not play by the rules and win. It is not an either-or alternative, and you have examples in history of the four possibilities.

And yet, none has dealt with the elefant in the room: has anyone proved that there is a relation cause-effect between bombing an ISIS stronghold in Syria and a lesser threat of terrorist attacks in the West? In other words, how effective it is, as strategy, at reinforcing the security of our populations in US and Europe?

No, nor do they have to. have you any information indicating that it does not? Do you have any information that allowing ISIS to continue unopposed would equate to a lesser threat of terrorist attacks in the West? Or for that matter, in the East? Or the executions if you can't quote the Koran? Or the kidnapping of women to be "brides" for the ISIS warriors? Or the destruction of Churches?

Seems to me that if there is an elephant in the room, it is "what happens if we stop trying?"

Hard to negotiate anything, let alone peace with someone whose opening position is "You have no right to exist."

Again: why are those the only options? Or the most effective?

How many of the terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by ISIS terrorists that have come from Syria? How many have been committed by homegrown terrorists? What next? Will you defend the idea of bombing San Bernardino? Paris? London?

Do you really believe it is a good idea to stop terror attacks in Europe or US to bomb a small town in Syria where might or might not be an ISIS stronghold? It is spectacular, indeed, but effective? Don't think so.

Effective or not may not even be the issue here. These bombings satisfy the thirst for revenge of those who ordered the strikes and the public after a terrorist attack like the one in Manchester. It may be based on emotions as opposed to reason and may even be counterproductive (pushing victims toward extremism for killing their loved ones), but sometimes lashing out in a ham-fisted manner is what people demands.

Not saying it's the right thing to do, but it is what it is.

Supercillius Maximus and Cacique Caribe,

Regarding the ‘lesser of two evils' argument (if it can be so called):

Firstly, you have to establish that one evil is better than other. And it depends on who consider the situation in their own favour. That is, the issue is unavoidably subjective and biased. In this case, Western invasions and bombings are horrible evils and the terrorism is a horrible evil as well.

Honestly and morally speaking, I cannot choose between them. Both choices are absolutely unacceptable. Those people who choose one of those options, are selling their humanity and morality in the name of a blind or fanatical nationalism or patriotism. If we rejected both evils and look for other ways, we will manage to break this vicious circle of violence.

Secondly, I would like to analyse some historical examples of the failure (or fallacy) related to the ‘lesser of two evils' argument, with actions carried out by ‘civilized' Western countries.

Belgian Congo. The aim was to create a colony which avoided economic and territorial conflicts between the British and French Empires. The result: more than twelve millions of dead. A lesser evil, yes, ask those victims. Was it unavoidable? No, it was an useless mess. It was not a lesser evil, it was a criminal atrocity.

Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan. It was promoted and supported by Western countries (and their lackeys, the Saudi monarchy) against communism. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were considered as lesser evils. And we know very well the consequences.

Saddam Hussein. He was incited and supported by Western countries against Iran. He was considered as a ‘lesser evil'. And we know very well the consequences.

Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, bombings in Syria. All those actions were considered as ‘lesser evils'. Well, after years of war, hundred thousands of civilians have been killed and nothing has been yet solved. The massacre continues. By the way, one of the recent consequences of those ‘lesser evils' was the formation of ISIS.

So, ‘the lesser of two evils' is a useless, dangerous and morally unacceptable argument.

Cacique Caribe,

Regarding your comment about the use of definitions, firstly, I have never encouraged the use of short or simplistic definitions in order to explain religious matters. It has been just the opposite: I have recommended studying deeply these kind of matters if you want to understand them and to talk seriously about them, avoiding nonsenses and prejudices. I think you have not read carefully my previous posts, in this and other topics.

On the other hand, concerning to moral or ethical matters, I repeat that the use of narrow-minded definitions from dictionaries or from human civil laws is useless. We know very well that human laws change continuously depending on ideologies and political or economic interests.

So, my arguments are consistent.

Regarding your comment about cops and ‘bad guys', I think that it is a bit simplistic and not very adequate either.
Firstly, you are considering Western countries as a sort of police force, which are fighting to save innocent lives. So it seems that you blindly believe in a fairy tale: Western countries are fighting for ‘freedom', ‘democracy' and ‘Human Rights' (when they have been violating them continuously since their proclamation). No, Western countries and Russia are fighting for their strategic and economic interests, and with the aim of control that area. Killing thousands of defenceless civilians is just a ‘collateral damage' (a real war crime), a ‘lesser evil' which is acceptable in order to achieve their goals.

It seems that you blindly believe in a fairy tale but in your opinion other people here are idealistic…

Some people think that people who accept, organise and carry out invasions and bombings for strategic and economic interests, killing defenceless civilians in the process, are realistic and pragmatic people. I prefer to call them war criminals, because they are war criminals. And I say this not because I consider myself as an idealistic, but because I like to call things by their right name.

Well that's clarified things then, I am a war criminal. I might get a T shirt.

Terrement,

A cynical or hypocritical criminal and an undisguised criminal are both criminals. In fact, 'cynical', 'hypocritical' and 'undisguised' are all adjectives. The main part is the noun: criminals. It is easy to understand.

foxweasel,

We are talking about serious matters because many people (most of them civilians and children) are dying daily in those countries (hundred of thousands since the invasions and interventions), so I think there is no place for jokes in this topic.

In our countries occasionally we suffer from terrorist attacks, but the level of destruction of those countries is infinitely greater. And the number of victims is infinitely greater as well. There is no possible comparison.

I wasn't joking, by your definitions I'm a war criminal, I'm quite proud.

28mmFanatik

Yep. I agree with you. Maybe we are too cynical to believe that governments act for high-minded principles.

foxweasel,

I am not interested in your self-concept, and your declaration of self-confidence is irrelevant to me, and irrelevant to this discussion as well.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, the opinions of someone who directs coalition air power (in a discussion about coalition air power) are irrelevant!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Get over yourself, it's almost worth getting DH'd for this utter dog toffee.

Hell, by Ruchel's definition, I'm probably a war criminal too, since my job in the Navy was to deliver nuclear weapons. Even though I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself after getting orders to launch, I'd still launch, because the only way we'd get launch orders is if the US had already been attacked.

Ruchel, the DAESH monsters are killing people for the crime of not believing in the DAESH version of Islam. They are kidnapping and raping women. They are using chemical weapons in attacks on civilians. If anyone attacks a DAESH 'soldier', DAESH conducts reprisal killings against civilians.

Even under today's laws of war that hold civilian 'collateral damage' deaths as 'accidents happen', DAESH's actions are considered War Crimes. And you don't want to stop them.

You, sir, scare me a hell of a lot more than DAESH does.

Lion

That is not what Ruchel is saying. He is saying that:

A) the bombing in Syria is whitewashing, as the sources of terrorism are not being really dealt with; and

B) ISIS won't be stopped by bombing Syrian cities.

Also, that the cavalier disregard for civilian casualties in the part of Western politicians is akin to war crimes.

Also, that the cavalier disregard for civilian casualties in the part of Western politicians is akin to war crimes.

The problem is the direct opposite. There is too much concern over civilian casualties to the detriment of effective military operations.

The problem is the direct opposite. There is too much concern over civilian casualties to the detriment of effective military operations.

Perhaps, that is not the problem either, but that the means being used are not adequate for the task at hand. Bombing might be spectacular, but Douhet's ideas that wars can be won just by airpower haven't proved correct so far.

basileus66, I wasn't talking about air power per se; but the view that you can somehow fight a war without getting your hands dirty is nonsense. It is a matter of priorities. I think too much emphasis is placed on mitigating collateral damage at the distraction of mission.

No, Western countries (and Russia) are not trying to minimize civilian casualties. It is untrue and it is an immoral fallacy.

The absolute true is that they have no concern for minimizing civilian casualties. It is of no importance to them.

Please, follow this reasoning:

First, when Western countries wanted to destabilise the Assad regime, they helped to create several groups of combatants and numerous factions. They supported them and armed them (and this ‘aid' continues today). They KNEW that those supports and interventions were going to provoke a horrible civil war and to cause thousands of civilians dead in the process. So, Western countries had no concern for civilian casualties.

Then, Western countries decided to use bombings in order to help those groups and mercenaries. And the number of civilian casualties continued to increase (and continues today). So, Western countries have no concern for civilian casualties.

The Assad regime was an obstacle which had to be removed, at any price, and in the name of strategic and economic interests.

Second, the Russian counter move. Russian government wanted to protect its own strategic and economic interests. The first decision was to support Assad regime and to create and use another handful of ‘loyal' factions and groups. Russia KNEW that those supports and interventions were going to cause thousands of dead (mostly civilians). So, like the Western countries, Russia had not concern for civilian casualties. Their priority is their own strategic and economic interests.

Then, Russia, like those Western countries, decided to use bombings, and the number of civilian casualties continued to increase (and continues today).
All actions carried out by Western countries and Russia, starting with the incitement to this civil war, lead to maximize civilian casualties. So, it is the opposite to minimize casualties.

Third, new countries (allied lackeys) decided to take part in the massacre (Turkey, Jordan, Saudi monarchy, Iran). All were warmly welcomed by their respective patrons (Western powers and Russia). ISIS made its triumphal appearance, necessarily promoted and supported by foreign countries.
The consequences were obvious: more civilians killed. And the story continues today.

In conclusion, it is clear and evident that Western countries and Russia have never had real concern for civilian casualties, from the beginning.

It is clear and evident that Western countries and Russia have no real intention of minimizing civilian casualties. They have been interested (and they are interested today) in achieve their strategic and economic goals, by any means and at any price. And the massacre continues.

Western countries (governments, that is, economic and political elites) just try to avoid getting a bad press. They lie constantly and they mislead public opinion. This is their only one concern. And Western people believe in their fallacies. It is the end of critical thinking.

Behind the disguise and the fairy tale, we can see a new type of despicable colonial war.

It is an indisputable and undeniable fact. It a horrible atrocity, it is a despicable and massive war crime.

Ruchel, you are totally and absolutely wrong about the west not wanting to minimise civilian casualties. I'm going to use your favourite phrase here, you need to "study hard". I've banged on about my credentials enough on this site. But this is one topic where I know a hell of a lot more than you.

Ruchel seems to be expressing his opinion on the political/strategic level of warfare which is above my paygrade. I know at the tactical and operational level of warfare that colateral damage is a big deal. They even have military lawyers assigned to the Ops center to advise the commander. What I am advocating is a return to old school style of warfare. If we really are at war, then we need to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our back. There will be civilian casualties, it's ugly; but so is war. Let's fight it hard and fast and get it over with the sooner.

@Ruchel: "No, Western countries (and Russia) are not trying to minimize civilian casualties. It is untrue and it is an immoral fallacy. The absolute true is that they have no concern for minimizing civilian casualties. It is of no importance to them."

Ridiculous. What you're implying is intentional genocide. And if that's the case, then they're doing a horrible job at succeeding in such an evil agenda. The numbers just don't add up.

On the other hand, the declared intention is abundantly clear and does involve the specific targeting of civilians. And so far, their deeds are consistent with their promises.

Just another example of selective myopia. More of the same illogical propaganda we already get from the terrorists.

Dan

Sorry. That should read:

On the other hand, the declared intention of the enemy is abundantly clear and does involve the specific targeting of civilians. And so far, their deeds are consistent with their promises.

Dan

foxweasel and Cacique Caribe,

No, I am not wrong. Please, read again my last post. All arguments are real facts.

A brief summary:

Western countries wanted to eliminate the Assad regime, so they provoked a horrible civil war. Result: thousands of civilians killed. Everyone knows the consequences of a civil war: thousands of civilians killed. Conclusion: those countries had no (and have no today) concern for civilian casualties. They have never tried to minimize civilian casualties.

Russia wanted to maintain and support the Assad regime, so the civil war continued (and continues today). Result: the addition of several thousands of civilians killed. Russia knew very well the consequences. So, again, no concern for civilian casualties.

And Western countries and Russia were (and they are) fighting for their respective strategic and economic interests. It is the pure and crude reality. Please, wake up.

Those are undeniable facts.

The 'declared intention' is only propaganda. The words are words, and the facts are facts. Those false declarations are the typical cynical and hypocritical rhetoric, proclaimed in order to disguise their real intentions, in order to justify their atrocities, and with the evident intention of confusing Western public opinion.

By the way, I say it loud and clear: ISIS is a handful of despicable criminals.
Western governments (and the Russian one) are disguised criminals. ISIS are undisguised criminals. But both are despicable criminals.

If, as the above stated opinion states, the plan is to totally depopulate the country of Syria and possibly the entire middle east, I have a question.

Does this plan include the complete extermination of all human life? Does it also include all animal and plant life? Is there a plan to render the soil as unable to be farmed?

One man's facts are another man's complete nonsense. I'm bored with arguing with you, let's just say nobody's right and nobody's wrong. I'm off back to the threads about toy soldiers.