"Why Assad's army hasn't defected"

Yeah its not so black and white and not really like that. In fact it's not.

And im sure apartheid South Africa was the only african democracy back during its time, its pretty easy to be a democracy when you can disenfranchise all those you dont want to vote while still enjoying the benefits of ruling over them.
 
Are you dumb? They are men with lives, wives and kids. They will stay and die protecting their homeland.
 
Assad is not the only one using siege tactics, its just the more effective due to the fact that he has an air force capable of supplying his own besieged towns.

Just because others have used it doe not absolve him from responsibility.
 
Just because others have used it doe not absolve him from responsibility.

Actually it kinda does, for example international law claims that if one side uses chemical weapons, the other one is entitled to do the same.
 
Umm 70% of the pop still lives in goverment held areas. What the hell do you know about Syria and Syrians? Millions of people stand behind him. You want to throw it in with sunni supremacists because you read some piece by a think thank paid by Qatar.

Oh no shit the people would choose Assad rather than ISIS. You don't say??? That doesn't mean they will follow him once ISIS is gone.

That doesn't make him any less of a war criminal. Do you refute that he has starved towns, created blockades that do not allow aide through? Do you refute his use of barrel bombs (in which only an estimated 1% killed were rebel fighters)? Do you refute his use of chemical weapons? Do you refute his sniper killing unarmed civilians (women and children)?
 
Actually it kinda does, for example international law claims that if one side uses chemical weapons, the other one is entitled to do the same.

You're not seriously trying to justify the use of chemical weapons on civilians are you?
 
I dont, international law does.

We were originally speaking about the use of siege tactics to starve towns. I'm also not aware of said law. Not calling you a liar, I'd just like to see a source.
 

Seige tactics aren't. Refusing to allow humanitarian aide is.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jq32.htm

The prohibition to starve civilians as a “method of warfare” is included in Article 54 of Protocol I and Article 14 of Protocol II. “To use starvation as a method of warfare would be to provoke it deliberately, causing the population to suffer hunger, particularly by depriving it of its sources of food or of supplies.”
 

Not that I'm defending chemical attacks but when the famous strike on eastern Damascus happened UN inspectors were actually in Syria to investigate a chemical attack on goverment soldiers in Aleppo.
 
Oh no shit the people would choose Assad rather than ISIS. You don't say??? That doesn't mean they will follow him once ISIS is gone.
I guess you don't know that 90% of what ISIS controls in Syria is empty desert, they have never been that influential in highly populated areas. So no it is not a choice between Assad and ISIS. There are still areas where people can live fairly normal lives, the alawite majority coast has taken in hundreds of thousands of Sunni refugees and has seen little fighting. The only fighting these areas see are when jihadists blow themselves up in civilian crowds.

That doesn't make him any less of a war criminal. Do you refute that he has starved towns, created blockades that do not allow aide through? Do you refute his use of barrel bombs (in which only an estimated 1% killed were rebel fighters)? Do you refute his use of chemical weapons? Do you refute his sniper killing unarmed civilians (women and children)?
It is a bloody civil war, you think you are making some sort of original point here or what? I mean right from the beginning policemen were dying left and right. Islamists taking control over the protests wasn't surprising. It is blowback from the Syrian goverment looking the other way when the same islamists were going into Iraq to fight the coalition building networks inside Syria. Turkey is facing the same kind of blowback right now, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
 
Here is protocol 1

It doesnt says anything about sieges.


Here is protocol 2

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1125/volume-1125-I-17513-English.pdf

It doesnt refers to sieges, but the targetting of water and food resources, like burning fields, poisoning wells and the such.

Under protocol 2;

Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless, for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.

The first sentence says it all.

Additionally, missed numerous parts in what I posted earlier;

Deliberate impeding of the delivery of food and medical supplies to the civilian population in internal armed conflicts was condemned as a violation of humanitarian law by the Security Council on many occasions. It was also stressed that “those who commit or order the commission of such acts will be held individually responsible in respect of such acts” (S/RES/794 (1992), para. 5, on Somalia). See also S/RES/787 (1992), para. 7, on Bosnia-Herzegovina. With regard to Bosnian enclaves, the President of the Security Council declared that “the deliberate impeding of the delivery of food and humanitarian relief essential for the survival of the civilian population constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Council is committed to ensuring that individuals responsible for such acts are brought to justice” (S/25334, 25 February 1993). Furthermore, the General Assembly and an Independent Commission of Experts called for those responsible for the impediment of humanitarian assistance in Sudan and starvation in Rwanda, respectively, to be “brought to justice” (UNGA res. 52/140 (1997), para. 2; Interim Report of the Commission of experts on the evidence of grave violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda, S/1994/1125, paras 107 and 150).

Here is what the :Rome Statute" of the International Criminal Court has to say. The ICC has the power to try people for international crimes when a country is unable or unwilling to.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/RomeStatutEng.pdf

Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

So what should Assad's forces have done? The following of course is commentary of international law by the ICRC, and not an actual statute itself, but it's the most logical description of what should have happened.
“Moreover, if it turned out to be impossible to send sufficient aid for that part of the population of a besieged or encircled area that is particularly weak, the principle of the prohibition of starvation should henceforth dictate the evacuation of such persons.” ICRC Commentary on Protocol I, op. cit. (note 9), ad Art. 54.1, para. 2096, p. 654.

I know you're a smart guy and I know you're a solid poster, but I just don't understand why you're defending this guy lol.
 
how is shooting people indiscriminately in the streets a reasonable response? What about gassing and barrel bombs?

You want to know what type of guy Assad is? Just Google "Yarmouk refugee camp". It's a refugee camp that was encircled by Assad's forces, that refused to allow shipments of food in. The UN was finally allowed in to distribute relief. Here's a pic.

Damascus-v2.jpg

Wasnt that camp being contest, is being contested by various forces including the western backed FSA? Assad may feel any aid will just be co-opted by enemy forces. Did he prevent anyone from leaving? It is war. It is an ugly business.
 
Here are more articles about Assad's use of starvation on the Syrian populous

https://news.vice.com/article/how-assad-is-using-sieges-and-hunger-to-grab-more-of-the-useful-syria


Here's an article about how children have to resort to eating the leaves off of trees to survive in Madaya

https://news.vice.com/article/child...es-the-nightmare-of-the-siege-of-madaya-syria






The below link has transmissions and messages that have been sent out by the people of Madaya
http://abcnews.go.com/International/syria-starving-familys-fight-survival-madaya/story?id=36374004


Isnt he fighting rebels in those areas? Again he probably thinking the enemy will co-opt the aid supplies. War is ugly.
 
Wasnt that camp being contest, is being contested by various forces including the western backed FSA? Assad may feel any aid will just be co-opted by enemy forces. Did he prevent anyone from leaving? It is war. It is an ugly business.

Yeah, they prevented people from leaving. It took the UN teams months just to get access inside to provide basic relief such as food and medical attention. This wasn't isolated either. it's happened numerous times in numerous towns.
 
Isnt he fighting rebels in those areas? Again he probably thinking the enemy will co-opt the aid supplies. War is ugly.

yes. there were rebels embedded within the city. That's still no justification for completely cutting off a populous like that. When the US invaded iraq and areas throughout Afghanistan, we would announce that we were coming prior. Obviously, this allowed enemy forces to better prepare, but it also gave the population time to get the hell out and minimized casualties.
 
Assad is not the only one using siege tactics, its just the more effective due to the fact that he has an air force capable of supplying his own besieged towns.
Hes the one who began using these tactics though long before the rebels did
Not that changes anything....we should bomb him at least til he stops using these tactics,otherwise other tyrants will feel its ok to do the same if they experience uprisings
 
Back
Top