Our media loves to highlight any collateral damage from our military. I wonder if they will show the same courtesy to the Russian air strikes?
Buy on AliExpress.com
Syrian civil war (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
You think highlighting civilians you kill is a bad thing? 
To the answer to your question, do they report on what the Russians done in Ukraine, or Georgia previously? If so, the answer is a given.
To the answer to your question, do they report on what the Russians done in Ukraine, or Georgia previously? If so, the answer is a given.
- - - Updated - - -
What a fantastic assumption and jump to conclusion.
You think highlighting civilians you kill is a bad thing?
To the answer to your question, do they report on what the Russians done in Ukraine, or Georgia previously? If so, the answer is a given.
To the answer to your question, do they report on what the Russians done in Ukraine, or Georgia previously? If so, the answer is a given.
If you think I think it's a bad thing to highlight collateral damage then I have nothing more to say to you other than the little bit of respect I lost for you for even thinking that was the case.
- - - Updated - - -
What a fantastic assumption and jump to conclusion.
- - - Updated - - -
What a fantastic assumption and jump to conclusion.
----
Putin wants to humiliate Obama with airstrikes in Syria
http://nypost.com/2015/09/30/putin-wants-to-humiliate-obama-with-airstrikes-in-syria/
It sound like you were indirectly complaining of your media reporting about collateral damage by linking it with the Russians airstrikes (ofcourse a media would be more invested in reporting more about its govts /air force actions).
Wouldn't exactly see it as much of a critique they "report" on it. The fact they call it collateral damage is bad enough, and generally tend to put deflecting spin on civilians they killed like it's an insignificant foot note in most of these wars in over decade. Most of the media pretty seem to follow the cue of the govt and status quo as is.
Wouldn't exactly see it as much of a critique they "report" on it. The fact they call it collateral damage is bad enough, and generally tend to put deflecting spin on civilians they killed like it's an insignificant foot note in most of these wars in over decade. Most of the media pretty seem to follow the cue of the govt and status quo as is.
----
Putin wants to humiliate Obama with airstrikes in Syria
http://nypost.com/2015/09/30/putin-wants-to-humiliate-obama-with-airstrikes-in-syria/
Assad's crumbling army was/is about to lose. Putin is simply protecting Russia's geopolitical and geostrategical positions and interests.
There's a reason why Russia has 'stayed out 'of the wasp nest for so long despite clear and immediate interest in Syria (Assad).
This is a far better read than the Ralph Peters article you posted: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/syrian-military-weakness-russian-intervention
None of that is surprising to me, it still doesn't explain the hundreds of thousands of protestors that went out against Assad in the streets of cities like Homs, Hama and Aleppo. If you're only point is that the US is supporting opposition groups in Syria then you won't find many who disagree with you, if your point is that if it weren't for the US and other Arab countries funding, the rebels wouldn't have lasted this long, you won't find any disagreement there also. But if your point is that the whole revolution was orchestrated by the CIA, that is where I strongly disagree, I think Syrian people had enough of an autocratic regime and went out against it. If you're against foreign powers supporting opposition groups, how come I don't see the same attitude towards the blatant support of Russia and Iran for Assad's regime?
How can you compare the two? Forget about people's motives to revolt against Assad (he's corrupt, people had enough etc), can't you see the difference between arming and funding various opposition groups against the government of a sovereign country and supporting the very government? If the US starts funding and arming opposition groups in say Spain to revolt against the government, will you find it strange the Spain's allies in Europe support the government (for obvious reasons from having and following common purposes and fearing a destabilized region among others)?
In this thread, pretty much everyone was against Assad in the beginning. Snoop and Rami were the exceptions, and X was skeptical (he knows what he's talking about, i remember he believed that Syrians are not educated enough to not be manipulated by those who were orchastrating the revolution, and i disagreed mainly because i believed no matter what, Assad had killed so many people he had to go. Turned out he was right). So it's funny to accuse anyone of being pro-Assad here. I now believe everyone got what they were hoping to get. Assad is still there so Iran and Russia are happy, the region is destabilized enough so the US and Israel must also be happy. A few hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and a lot more displaced, but who cares.
In this thread, pretty much everyone was against Assad in the beginning. Snoop and Rami were the exceptions, and X was skeptical (he knows what he's talking about, i remember he believed that Syrians are not educated enough to not be manipulated by those who were orchastrating the revolution, and i disagreed mainly because i believed no matter what, Assad had killed so many people he had to go. Turned out he was right). So it's funny to accuse anyone of being pro-Assad here. I now believe everyone got what they were hoping to get. Assad is still there so Iran and Russia are happy, the region is destabilized enough so the US and Israel must also be happy. A few hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and a lot more displaced, but who cares.
