Air strike in a Syrian market kills around 100 civilians

[in the]

Evil and good, black and white.

If Assad is evil, that means all that fight him are the good guys right? or maybe Assad is just one of the lesser evils in one of the most fucked up regions in the world.



Right, Assad the ever scheming cartoon villain.

Fact remains that among all arabs involved in Syria, Assad is certainly the lesser evil, which is not much to say considering that he is up against ISIS and Al-Nusra

Exactly. Assad might not be good, but he is better than the radical Islamic groups fighting under different banners in that region. Even a major agitprop campaign against Assad hasn't totally convinced everyone, and working in his favor was/is the instability in Iraq caused by toppling the government and figurehead of said government.

It sucks, too, because there are so many historical places in Syria I'd love to visit.

 

[whougonnacall]

Evil and good, black and white.

If Assad is evil, that means all that fight him are the good guys right? or maybe Assad is just one of the lesser evils in one of the most fucked up regions in the world.



Right, Assad the ever scheming cartoon villain.

Fact remains that among all arabs involved in Syria, Assad is certainly the lesser evil, which is not much to say considering that he is up against ISIS and Al-Nusra

By fact you mean opinion and its an odd one given hes commited more hortific crimes than isis and nursrs combined so far

 

[RubberGuard5]

Frequency is just part when cross referenced to where they hit ,how well knowm the targets where as hospital etc ,distance from rebel frontlines and bases ,reports from defectors etc you get the idea


Also people never stop getting scared of tnt raining ftom above....they are funny likr that

Rod1 explained the first part, i'll just add that all those things you mentioned happen in nato bombings too. Just a couple of examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bombing_of_Niš
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade

There you go, weird targets, hospitals, targets not close to military targets...
Is this a sign of intention? No way in hell we can determine. Once again, using intention as an excuse is bullshit.

The other part, yes, you get numb after a while. That's why you switch from continuous to partial reinforcment. Ask yourself, what makes you more nervous, your boss coming to your office to check on you on hourly basis, or not knowing when he's gonna come? What's worse, getting a shock every minute or getting shocks at irregular intervals?

Like i said, i know this from first hand experience. I was a kid when it happened, but i remember first few days as really stressful, and then you get numb and act more calmly. But then bombing stopped for a day or two, and when it started again it just makes you feel vomit all the time. Just terrible feeling.

 

[whougonnacall]

Again, they are thrown from helicopters at maximum altitude on makeshift bombs.

Allies in WW2 precision bombing was around 1000ft radius and less than 20% of bombs fell inside that radius.

Claiming that Syrians are targeting specific buildings with such makeshift bombs thrown overboard from a helicopter is a joke.

Feel free to google reports on that and feed them how u feel about that then
Im sure everytime a school miles from any rebel base or front line is targeted its just pure accident despite what defectors tell us

 

[whougonnacall]

Rod1 explained the first part, i'll just add that all those things you mentioned happen in nato bombings too. Just a couple of examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bombing_of_Niš
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade

There you go, weird targets, hospitals, targets not close to military targets...
Is this a sign of intention? No way in hell we can determine. Once again, using intention as an excuse is bullshit.

The other part, yes, you get numb after a while. That's why you switch from continuous to partial reinforcment. Ask yourself, what makes you more nervous, your boss coming to your office to check on you on hourly basis, or not knowing when he's gonna come? What's worse, getting a shock every minute or getting shocks at irregular intervals?

Like i said, i know this from first hand experience. I was a kid when it happened, but i remember first few days as really stressful, and then you get numb and act more calmly. But then bombing stopped for a day or two, and when it started again it just makes you feel vomit all the time. Just terrible feeling.

so we're actualy comparing the handful of nato mistakes vs the daily amount of assads strikes on civilians now? on top of actual confessions and the fact poor intel cant be the blame.
Id say knowing 24/7 you can die would be the worst esp given the greater volume, risk of it being gas , and longee time period

 

[whougonnacall]

Not defending these airstrikes, but every side of the Syrian civil war, outside of ISIS, are shades of gray (ISIS is, of course, solid black). I'll take Assad winning the war over seeing jihadi groups get yet another "safe space" in the world.

At this stage assad 'winning ' would need a miracle,hed be very lucky to end up holding onto a strip along the coast at this stage

 

[RubberGuard5]

so we're actualy comparing the handful of nato mistakes vs the daily amount of assads strikes on civilians now? on top of actual confessions and the fact poor intel cant be the blame.
Id say knowing 24/7 you can die would be the worst esp given the greater volume, risk of it being gas , and longee time period

You are still making a mistake of attributing subjective interpretations to these incidents. You can't know that nato bombing of chinese embassy is a mistake. My personal opinion is that you have to be pretty naive to believe that, but i don't have any means of determining true intention of that attack. And btw it's not really a handful of mistakes, they happen often.

We have 4 different options here, which are all plausible.

1. Both Assad and NATO are targeting civilians intentionally. Assad thinks it's better to scare people with constant bombing, while NATO thinks it's better to do it using irregular intervals.

2. Neither Assad or NATO are targeting civilians intentionally. Assad doesn't have the capacity to do precision strikes and doesn't care about collateral damage, while NATO sometimes makes mistakes/don't care about collateral damage.

3. Assad is targeting civilians intentionally, while nato is just making mistakes/doesn't care about collateral damage

4. Assad is making mistakes/doesn't care about collateral damage, while nato is doing intentional strikes on civilians.

As for the other part, irregular intervals are much much stressful. Talked to a couple of friends about our bombing experience, they all agree with me. First couple of days it's scary, and then you go numb. We live in a area that's close to a military complex that was targeted all the time, so we were at a risk of being "collateral damage". And yet you go numb. But it gets much worse any time bombing stops for a few days, and then suddenly continues. Psychology confirms this. So if Assad's wanting to do terror bombings, he doesn't have any idea how to do it properly. Which is of course very likely.

 

[whougonnacall]

You are still making a mistake of attributing subjective interpretations to these incidents. You can't know that nato bombing of chinese embassy is a mistake. My personal opinion is that you have to be pretty naive to believe that, but i don't have any means of determining true intention of that attack. And btw it's not really a handful of mistakes, they happen often.

We have 4 different options here, which are all plausible.

1. Both Assad and NATO are targeting civilians intentionally. Assad thinks it's better to scare people with constant bombing, while NATO thinks it's better to do it using irregular intervals.

2. Neither Assad or NATO are targeting civilians intentionally. Assad doesn't have the capacity to do precision strikes and doesn't care about collateral damage, while NATO sometimes makes mistakes/don't care about collateral damage.

3. Assad is targeting civilians intentionally, while nato is just making mistakes/doesn't care about collateral damage

4. Assad is making mistakes/doesn't care about collateral damage, while nato is doing intentional strikes on civilians.

As for the other part, irregular intervals are much much stressful. Talked to a couple of friends about our bombing experience, they all agree with me. First couple of days it's scary, and then you go numb. We live in a area that's close to a military complex that was targeted all the time, so we were at a risk of being "collateral damage". And yet you go numb. But it gets much worse any time bombing stops for a few days, and then suddenly continues. Psychology confirms this. So if Assad's wanting to do terror bombings, he doesn't have any idea how to do it properly. Which is of course very likely.

option 3 is the correct awnser, we've gone over why and no the voulme of 'mistakes' isnt even close
we have defectors literaly telling us its the case

Theres a wealth of reports of people in places like aleppo feeling different , many would love a short break in the constant terror of never knowing if you or your loved ones are about to die not to mention the effect of the constant noise ..but to each his own
plus Id say theres a huge difference in possibly being accidently targeted and being targeted by design too

 

[Videer]

Most entertaining second page of the thread, might even read again.

 

[Luger]

Like i said, i know this from first hand experience. I was a kid when it happened, but i remember first few days as really stressful, and then you get numb and act more calmly. But then bombing stopped for a day or two, and when it started again it just makes you feel vomit all the time. Just terrible feeling.

Just out of curiosity, where did you grow up in a conflict?

 

[Perfidious]

Most entertaining second page of the thread, might even read again.

Do you have 30 posts per page or something? I took your word for it and now I'm disappointed.

 

[RubberGuard5]

option 3 is the correct awnser, we've gone over why and no the voulme of 'mistakes' isnt even close
we have defectors literaly telling us its the case

Theres a wealth of reports of people in places like aleppo feeling different , many would love a short break in the constant terror of never knowing if you or your loved ones are about to die not to mention the effect of the constant noise ..but to each his own
plus Id say theres a huge difference in possibly being accidently targeted and being targeted by design too

We are going in circles now. I've clearly shown that number of incidents isn't an indicator of intention. That way someone could say allies intentionally targeted civilians in Tokyo or Dresden during ww2. Intention is really hard to determine and it shouldn't be used as an excuse.

Of course people in Aleppo want a break, when you are tortured it's normal to want a break. I'm telling you that irregular intervals are much more psychologically devastating than constant torture.

Once again you are going with this accidental targeting. Yes, it would make a difference morally. For people being bombed it wouldn't. I'm using the example again, my hometown was bombed twice during ww2, once by Germany and once by allies. Allied bombing did much more damage. You think intention mattered to people being bombed?

And it's really interesting how people use the term accident. Accident is something that happens without intention of it happening, and when you can't predict the consequences of your action. For example, you want to feed the homeless, so you donate canned food. People die cause food was contaminated. You had no means of knowing it, so you did nothing wrong.

What happens in war is different. It's the equivalent of donating food to the homeless, but knowing that there is a good chance that half of the food is contaminated. You clearly did something wrong there, even though you had a good intention.