Dozens of Russians Are Believed Killed in U.S.-Backed Syria Attack

First topic message reminder :

MOSCOW — Four Russian nationals, and perhaps dozens more, were killed in fighting between pro-government forces in eastern Syria and members of the United States-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, according to Russian and Syrian officials.

A Syrian military officer said that about 100 Syrian soldiers had been killed in the fighting on Feb. 7 and 8, but news about Russian casualties has dribbled out only slowly, through Russian news organizations and social media.

Much about the attack and the associated casualties has been obscured in the fog of war. For reasons that remain unclear, Syrian government troops and some Russian nationals appear to have attacked a coalition position, near Al Tabiyeh, Syria.

The attack occurred in the vicinity of Deir al-Zour, a strategic, oil-rich territory that is coveted by the Syrians. Most of the fatalities were attributed to an American airstrike on enemy columns that was called in by American-backed Kurdish soldiers who believed they were under attack.

At no point, an American military spokesman said, was there any chance of direct conflict between United States and Russian forces.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/world/europe/russia-syria-dead.html

So Russian mercenaries are attacking US and Kurdish forces in Syria, who are fighting against Syrian forces, ISIS amd our NATO allies the Turks.

What could go wrong here?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry, but is that a crime under interntaional law?

If they did not target civillians, how is it a crime?

That's what I was saying. The ICC isn't going to prosecute leaders unless they are targeting civilians or committing some other serious war crime.  

Maybe you want to read first

https://www.icc-cpi.int/resourcelibrary/official-journal/elements-of-crimes.aspx

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No. I asked what you thought would happen - ie, before it happened. I also asked what you think would happen if Assad is defeated - that hasn't happened yet.

I know you'd duck out as soon as I asked you a reasonable question.

Bullshit alert

You asked "if" he was defeated

He has been defeated

You never stated until now what I thought at the time

Which is even more ridiculous a point

Hence Priceless fuckwittery

As to Assad, within a decade, if he is disposed, the region will be peaceful

Yeah, right. How many do you think will be killed in that decade?

Here's what I asked btw.

Come on Didge, what did you think would happen when Saddam was defeated?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:




Bullshit alert

You asked "if" he was defeated

He has been defeated

You never stated until now what I thought at the time

Which is even more ridiculous a point

Hence Priceless fuckwittery

As to Assad, within a decade, if he is disposed, the region will be peaceful

Yeah, right. How many do you think will be killed in that decade?

How many have already been killed?

How many millions have already been displaced?

Becuase of this, how much has far right parties grown due to this refugee crises?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yeah, right. How many do you think will be killed in that decade?

How many have already been killed?

How many millions have already been displaced?

Becuase of this, how much has far right parties grown due to this refugee crises?

Don't ask me questions before answering mine.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry, but is that a crime under interntaional law?

If they did not target civillians, how is it a crime?

That's what I was saying. The ICC isn't going to prosecute leaders unless they are targeting civilians or committing some other serious war crime.  

It was obvious what you said - I don't know how anyone could misunderstand it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

How many have already been killed?

How many millions have already been displaced?

Becuase of this, how much has far right parties grown due to this refugee crises?

Don't ask me questions before answering mine.

That is answering your question

As with Assad in power, its not only seen hundreds of thousands die but millions displaced. Which has had a knock on effect into Europe and the rest of the Middle East

His staying in power has had many more effects elsewhere, the point you miss.

This has and is happenning.

You though want me to think him being ousted will be worse?

Will it be worse for Europe?

Will actually millions be able to return?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:




Bullshit alert

You asked "if" he was defeated

He has been defeated

You never stated until now what I thought at the time

Which is even more ridiculous a point

Hence Priceless fuckwittery

As to Assad, within a decade, if he is disposed, the region will be peaceful

Yeah, right. How many do you think will be killed in that decade?

Here's what I asked btw.

Come on Didge, what did you think would happen when Saddam was defeated?

Liar, liar pants on fire

This is what you said

Raggamuffin wrote:
 So come on, what did you think would happen to Iraq if Saddam was defeated? 

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23498p50-dozens-of-russians-are-believed-killed-in-u-s-backed-syria-attack

Nothing worse than someone who tries to lie her way out of looking stupid

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I ridiculed your claims, when you cannot back them up

You need to get broader shoulders

You told me did you about the Balkans did you?

The only thing I can see here is your complete lack of historical knowledge

Many Muslims from the area have gone on to join extremists groups fighting in the Middle East and yet none due to the west intervening in Bosnia and Kosova

Go figure

So its very easy to understand why

And I told you were naive, which I still think. You need to get over someone not thinking you're perfect. How can I back up what I thought back then? You need to develop some common sense. So come on, what did you think would happen to Iraq if Saddam was defeated? You keep avoiding that question.

You're deflecting by talking about the Balkans, which was a different scenario - stay on topic

Here is the whole post again to prove Rags is lying

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Could they?

There was no factions at the time. As those factions were organized and finnaced by outside nations like Saudi and Iran.

Where the west failed and should have done something was after the First Iraq War.

The people rose up against Saddam and the west could have then invaded Iraq supporting them.

They failed to do this and 200,000 lost their lives under Saddam

If we had of acted then, there is no doubt, they would have been thankful for our help.

Its one of the reasons, that people took revenege after Saddam fell.

Like Syria and Libya?

Sorry, missed this post

Did shia Muslims take revenge in Syria and Libya, due to Saddam murdering many people after the 1991 uprising?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq



They did to people in Iraq who were part of the Ba'ath Party members who were systematic in murdering many shia's and Kurds. Even then, that does not mean their actions were right, does it in revenge?

Are you seriously claiming that groups like ISIS that went on a campaign of carnage in each country, murdering thousands of Muslims, Christians, Kurds, Yizadi's, Druze etc. That in Libya was down to helping the people of Libya be free of Gaddafi? Was down to Iraq being liberated?

Come again?

This is why I am astounded how people fail to actually look at what went on and is going on.

How extremist beliefs are the central core to this problem and an ongoing war within Islam, that has gone on unabated since the birth of Islam.

The view seems to be here, that, its going to happen, then we should do nothing.

Imagine appllying that failed logic to all crimes?

That we should do nothing to protect people or prosecute those who commit those crimes.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yeah, right. How many do you think will be killed in that decade?

Here's what I asked btw.

Liar, liar pants on fire

This is what you said

Raggamuffin wrote:
 So come on, what did you think would happen to Iraq if Saddam was defeated? 

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23498p50-dozens-of-russians-are-believed-killed-in-u-s-backed-syria-attack

Nothing worse than someone who tries to lie her way out of looking stupid

Don't call me a liar. My post is there for all to see. I asked the same question twice, and it's absolutely obvious when I meant. You just don't want to answer because then you'd have to admit that your support for the Iraq invasion was naive and stupid.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And I told you were naive, which I still think. You need to get over someone not thinking you're perfect. How can I back up what I thought back then? You need to develop some common sense. So come on, what did you think would happen to Iraq if Saddam was defeated? You keep avoiding that question.

You're deflecting by talking about the Balkans, which was a different scenario - stay on topic

Here is the whole post again to prove Rags is lying

Nope. You can find my other post if you look. That makes you the liar.

So then, before the Iraq invasion, what did you think would happen if Saddam was defeated? At the time, you didn't know he was going to be defeated.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Liar, liar pants on fire

This is what you said



Nothing worse than someone who tries to lie her way out of looking stupid

Don't call me a liar. My post is there for all to see. I asked the same question twice, and it's absolutely obvious when I meant. You just don't want to answer because then you'd have to admit that your support for the Iraq invasion was naive and stupid.

Your post is there for all to see and you disinegiously changed a word

Its hilarious

Busted

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Here is the whole post again to prove Rags is lying

Nope. You can find my other post if you look. That makes you the liar.

So then, before the Iraq invasion, what did you think would happen if Saddam was defeated? At the time, you didn't know he was going to be defeated.

I am not lying, as seen, people can go back and see for themselves that you said this

I did know he was going to be defeated by the allies

That is a no brainer, when they decided to go to war

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't call me a liar. My post is there for all to see. I asked the same question twice, and it's absolutely obvious when I meant. You just don't want to answer because then you'd have to admit that your support for the Iraq invasion was naive and stupid.

Your post is there for all to see and you disinegiously changed a word

Its hilarious

Busted

Nope - you're a liar. This is my first post when I asked you:

Come on Didge, what did you think would happen when Saddam was defeated?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nope. You can find my other post if you look. That makes you the liar.

So then, before the Iraq invasion, what did you think would happen if Saddam was defeated? At the time, you didn't know he was going to be defeated.

I am not lying, as seen, people can go back and see for themselves that you said this

I did know he was going to be defeated by the allies

That is a no brainer, when they decided to go to war

You are a liar, a troll, and a nasty person. I've shown you the first post twice now, and you're just trolling your nasty thick head off. I do not wish to have anything more to do with you. Enough is enough. If that means leaving this forum, I will. I've had enough of your revolting personality.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Your post is there for all to see and you disinegiously changed a word

Its hilarious

Busted

Nope - you're a liar. This is my first post when I asked you:

Come on Didge, what did you think would happen when Saddam was defeated?

That may be your first post, but it was not your second post, was it?

In essence its still the same retarded question, as we know that saddam was defeated

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



I am not lying, as seen, people can go back and see for themselves that you said this

I did know he was going to be defeated by the allies

That is a no brainer, when they decided to go to war

You are a liar, a troll, and a nasty person. I've shown you the first post twice now, and you're just trolling your nasty thick head off. I do not wish to have anything more to do with you. Enough is enough. If that means leaving this forum, I will. I've had enough of your revolting personality.

Ha ha ha ha

Oh no, Rags, is calling me names, what shall I do?

I know

Laugh

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Like Syria and Libya?

Sorry, missed this post

Did shia Muslims take revenge in Syria and Libya, due to Saddam murdering many people after the 1991 uprising?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq



They did to people in Iraq who were part of the Ba'ath Party members who were systematic in murdering many shia's and Kurds. Even then, that does not mean their actions were right, does it in revenge?

Are you seriously claiming that groups like ISIS that went on a campaign of carnage in each country, murdering thousands of Muslims, Christians, Kurds, Yizadi's, Druze etc. That in Libya was down to helping the people of Libya be free of Gaddafi? Was down to Iraq being liberated?

Come again?

This is why I am astounded how people fail to actually look at what went on and is going on.

How extremist beliefs are the central core to this problem and an ongoing war within Islam, that has gone on unabated since the birth of Islam.

The view seems to be here, that, its going to happen, then we should do nothing.

Imagine appllying that failed logic to all crimes?

That we should do nothing to protect people or prosecute those who commit those crimes.

Here is the logic that you fail to see. The people of Iraq, Syria and Libya have not benefited from our involvement.

Perhaps we couldn't know that before we acted, but we definitely know that now. There actually is something worse than brutal dictators and we are witnessing it.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry, missed this post

Did shia Muslims take revenge in Syria and Libya, due to Saddam murdering many people after the 1991 uprising?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq



They did to people in Iraq who were part of the Ba'ath Party members who were systematic in murdering many shia's and Kurds. Even then, that does not mean their actions were right, does it in revenge?

Are you seriously claiming that groups like ISIS that went on a campaign of carnage in each country, murdering thousands of Muslims, Christians, Kurds, Yizadi's, Druze etc. That in Libya was down to helping the people of Libya be free of Gaddafi? Was down to Iraq being liberated?

Come again?

This is why I am astounded how people fail to actually look at what went on and is going on.

How extremist beliefs are the central core to this problem and an ongoing war within Islam, that has gone on unabated since the birth of Islam.

The view seems to be here, that, its going to happen, then we should do nothing.

Imagine appllying that failed logic to all crimes?

That we should do nothing to protect people or prosecute those who commit those crimes.

Here is the logic that you fail to see. The people of Iraq, Syria and Libya have not benefited from our involvement.  

Perhaps we couldn't know that before we acted, but we definitely know that now.  There actually is something worse than brutal dictators and we are witnessing it.  

The Kurds have not benefited?

Really?

See again you look to blame the west and not those responsible for the mass killings?

The Islamists extremists.

Its like saying our involvement in WW1 was why the Nazi's murdered 6 million Jews

That is essentially what you are saying

Helping people be free from tyranny is not cause for then murderers who believe they can butcher people and that to them its righteous, is based on their warped beliefs. The moment you try to excuse that, as you are doing. Show you have no idea what is the problem.

Are you seriously telleng me that to free people from a mass murderer was what led to groups like ISIS then butchering countless other Muslims?

Even if we knew this now, are you saying we should do nothing?

Again its like saying we should do nothing knowing that crimes will happen.

That is emphatically what you are saying.

To say we should not act, because people with beliefs will kill no matter if we act or not. Shows you have no comprehension of these problems

ISIS existed before Saddam fell

And another major point for you Maddog

In the Middle East there is other religious and ethnic groups

Why is it will only see Islamic terrorism from this?

I mean Christians have long been persecuted in the Middle East long before any European involvment.

Where is all the terrorism from Christians there in response to their persecution, oppression etc and the Iraq war?

It does not exist.

How about the Druze?

How about the Yazidi's?

What crime did they do?

Where is the terrorism from them?

It does not exist, because its again hateful beliefs like islamism, that is the problem. Where a religion is politicized.

I will tell you why it does not exist, because in islam, it has a believe in trangsression and Jihad.

Their beliefs do not have this. Christians once used biblical scripture to commit and justify murder. The reality is though, today, many Christians are secular and hence why we only have problems in places like the US and Africa with Christian extremism.

The only group that has had some commited terrorism, is the Kurds, but that is localized and still wrong, mainly in Turkey

I have never heard something so ridiculous in my life. That we should think one form of dictatorship is better to put up with, than another. Even though thousands continually die and suffer under either.

Its an absurd argument. Its an argument that does not even contemplate the knock on effect of doing nothing and Syria is a massive example of this. We did do nothing at first in the west and as seen a far greater problem has arisen, than the aftermath of the Iraq war.

Hundreds of thousands are dead and 9 million displaced. This displacement has caused problems in Europe and the Middle East. Even worse Far right groups have capitalized on this.

How on earth is that a good thing?

Even if we had not taken out Saddam, are you are you seriously telling me. That the Arab Spring would not have happened in Iraq?
It would have happened and we would see Iraq in the same situation. Hundreds of thousands more dead and millions displaced.
Its close to happenning in Iran.

This is why those arguing to do nothing, are reaping the results of such poor inactivity. We acted too late here and now Russia, another dictatorship is gaining control within the Middle East with Iran as its puppet and you think this will not effect you all safe in Texas?

Think again. Iran has no problem siding with Russia to meet its aims and yet will have no problem ditching them, when it is able to control the Middl East. They have a globalization goal based on its belief. You and I may be dead before this happens, but if they do obtain their goals, then this problem will be on the doorstep of the US and Europe, which is already starting to happen now.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Here is the logic that you fail to see. The people of Iraq, Syria and Libya have not benefited from our involvement.  

Perhaps we couldn't know that before we acted, but we definitely know that now.  There actually is something worse than brutal dictators and we are witnessing it.  

The Kurds have not benefited?

Really?

See again you look to blame the west and not those responsible for the mass killings?

The Islamists extremists.

Its like saying our involvement in WW1 was why the Nazi's murdered 6 million Jews

That is essentially what you are saying

Helping people be free from tyranny is not cause for then murderers who believe they can butcher people and that to them its righteous, is based on their warped beliefs. The moment you try to excuse that, as you are doing. Show you have no idea what is the problem.

Are you seriously telleng me that to free people from a mass murderer was what led to groups like ISIS then butchering countless other Muslims?

Even if we knew this now, are you saying we should do nothing?

Again its like saying we should do nothing knowing that crimes will happen.

That is emphatically what you are saying.

To say we should not act, because people with beliefs will kill no matter if we act or not. Shows you have no comprehension of these problems

ISIS existed before Saddam fell

The Kurds may have benefitted, but they still don't have a country and are subject to being attacked by any number of neighbors including our allies the Turks.

The overall situation is not better in the Middle East.

And I comprehend blowback quite well. I don't think you believe it exists.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

The Kurds have not benefited?

Really?

See again you look to blame the west and not those responsible for the mass killings?

The Islamists extremists.

Its like saying our involvement in WW1 was why the Nazi's murdered 6 million Jews

That is essentially what you are saying

Helping people be free from tyranny is not cause for then murderers who believe they can butcher people and that to them its righteous, is based on their warped beliefs. The moment you try to excuse that, as you are doing. Show you have no idea what is the problem.

Are you seriously telleng me that to free people from a mass murderer was what led to groups like ISIS then butchering countless other Muslims?

Even if we knew this now, are you saying we should do nothing?

Again its like saying we should do nothing knowing that crimes will happen.

That is emphatically what you are saying.

To say we should not act, because people with beliefs will kill no matter if we act or not. Shows you have no comprehension of these problems

ISIS existed before Saddam fell

The Kurds may have benefitted, but they still don't have a country and are subject to being attacked by any number of neighbors including our allies the Turks.    

The overall situation is not better in the Middle East.

And I comprehend blowback quite well. I don't think you believe it exists.        

I agree the Kurds do not have a country and the world is denying them self determination, based on your reasoning. That giving a people the right to govern themselves will lead to war.

I mean WTF?

Which goes fundementally against your beliefs.

Imagine this view point based on Germany occupying France.

Think of the blowback by Nazi Germany in freeing France eh?

It means there is going to be problems and even people will sadly die for freedom, but your way leads to people under perpetual subjugation and oppression.

The situation after WW2 was horrendus, decades after. We saw this in Communism

In fact Jews continued to suffer ethnic cleasning in Poland and Russia

Are you saying we should have just bowed down to Communism?

We never did and in the end people saw what was wrong with Communist beliefs

You just want to buckle under.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


The Kurds may have benefitted, but they still don't have a country and are subject to being attacked by any number of neighbors including our allies the Turks.    

The overall situation is not better in the Middle East.

And I comprehend blowback quite well. I don't think you believe it exists.        

I agree the Kurds do not have a country and the world is denying them self determination, based on your reasoning. That giving a people the right to govern themselves will lead to war.

I mean WTF?

Imagine this view point based on Germany occupying France.

Think of the blowback by Nazi Germany in freeing France eh?

It means there is going to be problems and even people will sadly die for freedom and to have werll being, but your way leads to people under perpetual subjugation and oppression.

The situation after WW2 was horrendus, decades after. We saw this in Communism

In fact Jews continued to suffer ethnic cleasning in Poland and Russia

Are you saying we should have just bowed down to Communism?

We never did and in the end people saw what was wrong with Communist beliefs

You just want to buckle under.

Your WWII comparisons are irrelevant to me. I can judge the results of our actions by looking at current conditions.

You appear to think the Middle East is a better place now. Me and the millions trying to leave that shithole would probably disagree with you.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

I agree the Kurds do not have a country and the world is denying them self determination, based on your reasoning. That giving a people the right to govern themselves will lead to war.

I mean WTF?

Imagine this view point based on Germany occupying France.

Think of the blowback by Nazi Germany in freeing France eh?

It means there is going to be problems and even people will sadly die for freedom and to have werll being, but your way leads to people under perpetual subjugation and oppression.

The situation after WW2 was horrendus, decades after. We saw this in Communism

In fact Jews continued to suffer ethnic cleasning in Poland and Russia

Are you saying we should have just bowed down to Communism?

We never did and in the end people saw what was wrong with Communist beliefs

You just want to buckle under.

Your WWII comparisons are irrelevant to me. I can judge the results of our actions by looking at current conditions.

You appear to think the Middle East is a better place now. Me and the millions trying to leave that shithole would probably disagree with you.  

Well history teaches us many things and sadly you need to read up and learn on this.

That is some friendly advice because you can learn losts from the past

So looking at the present without looking at the past is emphatically misguided

Where did i claim it was a better place?

It took centuries for the west to be a better place. You and other think things should happen over night.

That is never going to happen, as it takes time. Just as we saw with the Cold war.

I mean look at the way you look at the the Middle East. To you its a shithole. You dont have vision or an end goal for peace, you want to walk away. Just as people already do when they see someone homeless in the street. Many walk away, some even try to have them removed, many more ignore them. They dont look to solve the problem of Homelessness by actually housing and helping them. You never solve problems, by attempting to push them away or ignore them.

The area could be a much better place and we need to stand by those looking to stand up against poor beliefs, to then help make it a better place to live. What you think does not effect you does in the long term. As the world is our home and that happens to others, effects us all in the end.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Your WWII comparisons are irrelevant to me. I can judge the results of our actions by looking at current conditions.

You appear to think the Middle East is a better place now. Me and the millions trying to leave that shithole would probably disagree with you.  

Well history teaches us many things and sadly you need to read up and learn on this.

That is some friendly advice because you can learn losts from the past

So looking at the present without looking at the past is emphatically misguided

Where did i claim it was a better place?

It took centuries for the west to be a better place. You and other think things should happen over night.

That is never going to happen, as it takes time. Just as we saw with the Cold war.

I mean look at the way you look at the the Middle East. To you its a shithole. You dont have vision or an end goal for peace, you want to walk away. Just as people already do when they see someone homeless in the street. Many walk away, some even try to have them removed, many more ignore them. They dont look to solve the problem of Homelessness by actually housing and helping them. You never solve problems, by attempting to push them away or ignore them.

The area could be a much better place and we need to stand by those looking to stand up against poor beliefs, to then help make it a better place to live. What you think does not effect you does in the long term. As the world is our home and that happens to others, effects us all in the end.

Our intervention isn't helping.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well history teaches us many things and sadly you need to read up and learn on this.

That is some friendly advice because you can learn losts from the past

So looking at the present without looking at the past is emphatically misguided

Where did i claim it was a better place?

It took centuries for the west to be a better place. You and other think things should happen over night.

That is never going to happen, as it takes time. Just as we saw with the Cold war.

I mean look at the way you look at the the Middle East. To you its a shithole. You dont have vision or an end goal for peace, you want to walk away. Just as people already do when they see someone homeless in the street. Many walk away, some even try to have them removed, many more ignore them. They dont look to solve the problem of Homelessness by actually housing and helping them. You never solve problems, by attempting to push them away or ignore them.

The area could be a much better place and we need to stand by those looking to stand up against poor beliefs, to then help make it a better place to live. What you think does not effect you does in the long term. As the world is our home and that happens to others, effects us all in the end.

Our intervention isn't helping.

Wow, is that it?

In the short or long term?

In both cases you would be wrong.

Do you know why?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Our intervention isn't helping.

Wow, is that it?

In the short or long term?

In both cases you would be wrong.

Do you know why?

I'm succinct, to the point and correct.

Give it try someday.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wow, is that it?

In the short or long term?

In both cases you would be wrong.

Do you know why?

I'm succinct, to the point and correct.

Give it try someday.  

lol I like you Maddog, but you are more stubborn than me

I dont think you are to the point, you miss the point when its glaring right at you, in front of you..

All the best

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm succinct, to the point and correct.

Give it try someday.  

lol I like you Maddog, but you are more stubborn than me  

I dont think you are to the point, you miss the point when its glaring right at you, in front of you..

All the best

I prefer the term "steadfast".

Sounds more noble.

I will leave you with one last point

Syria has been Israel's enemy for years and teaches its people to hate Israel

What does Israel do?

Opens its doors to help many of them

This short term effect, will have long reaching effects




Like I say, its about helping change beliefs for the better.

Winning hearts and minds

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

lol I like you Maddog, but you are more stubborn than me  

I dont think you are to the point, you miss the point when its glaring right at you, in front of you..

All the best

I prefer the term "steadfast".

Sounds more noble.

Yeah, I will give you that, on being noble. You are old fashioned in that sense and would do anything to defend a lady.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Your op article and your comment on it appears to suggest that US forces and other hostile anti Syrian militias have some sort of legal justification for being there and carrying out any military type actions against Syrian govt/forces who are trying to get control of Syrian territorial land...

Show me the international law that states they are illegally there?

No... you show me the legal justification for the US being involved in any military action in Syria...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Show me the international law that states they are illegally there?

No... you show me the legal justification for the US being involved in any military action in Syria...!?

Copout alert

Okay, and i knew this would be fun

You reckon ISIS have their hands on chemical weapons right?

Also I think it is well established that the invasion of Iraq was illegal... it was based on lies about WMD...!


And don't forget that Saddam Hussein was a lefty socialist and that Iraq was relatively peaceful and stable before the illegal invasion...!

Tommy Monk wrote:
Also I think it is well established that the invasion of Iraq was illegal... it was based on lies about WMD...!


And don't forget that Saddam Hussein was a lefty socialist and that Iraq was relatively peaceful and stable before the illegal invasion...!

Misdirection alert

So why has nobody been prosecuted?

The lies on WMD are irrelevant with Iraq and not even needed to make action there legal

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Show me the international law that states they are illegally there?

No... you show me the legal justification for the US being involved in any military action in Syria...!?

I think there were over 30 countries involved.

Are you going to have trials for all of their leaders?

Give it a rest Tommy. You can be opposed to the invasion, without going all bat shit crazy.


Edit.

My bad. I confused Syria posts with Iraq posts.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal as it was based on lies over WMD...


And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

The invasion of Iraq was illegal as it was based on lies over WMD...


And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Wow, standing ovation for Tommy's arguments

"Its illegal, right, because I say so"

Score

Okay with Syria, did Iraq not ask for US intervention to fight ISIS?

Yes

Were ISIS with their state formed within both nations?

Was Syria unable to prevent ISIS from attacking other states?

Clearly because they were able to invade and conquer parts of Iraq

Thus the actions in Syria, are based on defense of Iraq

Conclusion

It was legal

Conclusion - you talk bullshit!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Conclusion - you talk bullshit!!!

Second standing ovation for Tommy

His counter arguments are amasing tonight

I said...


"The invasion of Iraq was illegal as it was based on lies over WMD...

And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?"



1. Is true.

2. You didn't answer the question.

Tommy Monk wrote:I said...


"The invasion of Iraq was illegal as it was based on lies over WMD...

And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?"



1. Is true.

2. You didn't answer the question.

1) Another standing ovation, where you avoided all my factual points.

2) You mean where you avoided my very first question?

As you have not a scooby doo on the legality here.

Its good to answer a question, with a question, but it needs to be back up with hard facts. I did this earlier to Rags. She had no answer to my facts.

I actually gave you an answer this way

You avoided my question on you believeing ISIS had access to chemical weapons

The legality for intervention has been explained to you and you being very slow it seems, do not understand the UN charter.

So I will ask again, was the US asked to help militarily by Iraq?

I will also ask again, was Syria, under Assad able to prevent attacks in Iraq by ISIS?

From what I saw earlier RE Rags... was her repeatedly asking you a question, and you waffling on to attempt to avoid answering the question...!


Now... it is pretty well established that the war/invasion in Iraq was illegal, as it was based on lies about WMD...!


And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

From what I saw earlier RE Rags... was her repeatedly asking you a question, and you waffling on to attempt to avoid answering the question...!


Now... it is pretty well established that the war/invasion in Iraq was illegal, as it was based on lies about WMD...!


And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Well its no surprise two retards see the same errors they created themselves eh mate? 

For the slow witted

What court of law has established the Iraq war was illegal?

Try again

1) Another standing ovation, where you avoided all my factual points.

2) You mean where you avoided my very first question?

As you have not a scooby doo on the legality here.

Its good to answer a question, with a question, but it needs to be back up with hard facts. I did this earlier to Rags. She had no answer to my facts.

I actually gave you an answer this way

You avoided my question on you believeing ISIS had access to chemical weapons

The legality for intervention has been explained to you and you being very slow it seems, do not understand the UN charter.

So I will ask again, was the US asked to help militarily by Iraq?

I will also ask again, was Syria, under Assad able to prevent attacks in Iraq by ISIS?

Where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Humanitarian Intervention

It would help if you responded to my points, as I was trying to explain this to you

Assad forces have used chemical weapons

A war crime

Lets see if you can figure out the rest

Tommy Monk wrote:

From what I saw earlier RE Rags... was her repeatedly asking you a question, and you waffling on to attempt to avoid answering the question...!


Now... it is pretty well established that the war/invasion in Iraq was illegal, as it was based on lies about WMD...!


And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Exactly. You ask him a question and he merely asks a question back, and then whines that you didn't answer his question.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Also I think it is well established that the invasion of Iraq was illegal... it was based on lies about WMD...!


And don't forget that Saddam Hussein was a lefty socialist and that Iraq was relatively peaceful and stable before the illegal invasion...!

Yes, the invasion of Iraq was nothing to do with saving anyone there, it was based on the lie about WMD. In addition to that, there was no UN resolution to authorise the invasion, on account of the French saying they'd veto a resolution. Then it was conveniently decided that Resolution 1441 was enough, when it clearly wasn't.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

From what I saw earlier RE Rags... was her repeatedly asking you a question, and you waffling on to attempt to avoid answering the question...!


Now... it is pretty well established that the war/invasion in Iraq was illegal, as it was based on lies about WMD...!


And where is the legal justification for any US military action against Syrian govt forces in Syria...?

Exactly. You ask him a question and he merely asks a question back, and then whines that you didn't answer his question.

Guess you must need going to specavers. I tried to allow Tommy to think for himself

He failed as you have, by not understanding the questions, intended to have him think critically

Just told him it is based on Humanitarian Intervention, based on the "Responsibility to Protect" law doctrine.

It was what was used in rationale to intervene in Kosovo

So twice I have answered the question and yet he has continually failed to respond to mine

Quelle surprise

So the Kurds calling in a US air strike on Syrian gov forces in Syria (as said in OP article) is legally justified because...?