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:


Many dictators have been disposed

What you should be asking is what happened next.

In Iraq, both Saudi and Iran, engaged in a proxy war.

The people of Iraq were then denied freedom

Is that your reason to deny people freedom?

Do you see how fucking dumb you are?

You can't bomb people into freedom, if that's not what they want.  If that were the case, the middle East would be teeming with freedom.  

Good one.

The more countries which get involved, the longer it will go on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If, by Nazis, you mean Germany, the Germans declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.  Up until then Congress had passed four Neutrality Acts, keeping the US out of Europe's war.

Careful - he'll call you "dumb" for saying that.

Haha...I've been called worse by Didge. Ad hominem arguments are a sign of weakness. I read for content, not names.

WWII really.isnt a good comparison to the Middle East anyway. It was about countries invading other sovereign nations and the Allied powers reaction to that. It was not about interjecting yourself into other nations civil wars and shitty forms of government. The UK didn't declare war on Hitler because he was a tyrant. In fact, he kept the commies in check so he was an acceptable tyrant. The UK declared war on the Germans because they invaded Poland.

That's why the first Gulf War was justified. It drove an invading army out of another country. When that mission was accomplished, the war was over.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The Russians are there at the request of Syrian govt... the US have no legal justification for any military action in Syria...

The Americans are there at the request of the Kurds I guess, but I'm fine with bringing them home.

And according to this story, those Russians were not acting at the behest of the Russian government, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows that's bull.

If they are in Syrian territorial land then the US has no legal justification to be there...!


It's quite simple!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The Americans are there at the request of the Kurds I guess, but I'm fine with bringing them home.

And according to this story, those Russians were not acting at the behest of the Russian government, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows that's bull.

If they are in Syrian territorial land then the US has no legal justification to be there...!


It's quite simple!

I don't disagree. Reckon Trump is going to pull them out anytime soon?

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...

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...

Well Tommy boy, I try to be clear when I say we need to get the fuck out. Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

I accept your apology...


And now you have made yourself clear... and in agreement with me about the illegality of US military presence/involvement/action in Syria... surely that also means that you think that those in the US who are responsible should face prosecution for war crimes...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

I accept your apology...


And now you have made yourself clear... and in agreement with me about the illegality of US military presence/involvement/action in Syria... surely that also means that you think that those in the US who are responsible should face prosecution for war crimes...!?

In what court?

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I accept your apology...


And now you have made yourself clear... and in agreement with me about the illegality of US military presence/involvement/action in Syria... surely that also means that you think that those in the US who are responsible should face prosecution for war crimes...!?

In what court?

The Hague.

Although in acknowledge of committing War crimes and it's desire to Commit War crimes in the future.
the USA Hypocritically protects it's military from Prosecutions by never ratifying the agreements that all other UN members have even though it was involved in it's creation.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In what court?

The Hague.

Although in acknowledge of committing War crimes and it's desire to Commit War crimes in the future.
the USA Hypocritically protects it's military from Prosecutions by never ratifying the agreements that all other UN members have even though it was involved in it's creation.

I guess we could put every president since who? Maybe Nixon (assuming they are alive) on trial for using arms against other countries. Probably could fill the prisons with world leaders from every corner of the globe.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Many dictators have been disposed

What you should be asking is what happened next.

In Iraq, both Saudi and Iran, engaged in a proxy war.

The people of Iraq were then denied freedom

Is that your reason to deny people freedom?

Do you see how fucking dumb you are?

You can't bomb people into freedom, if that's not what they want.  If that were the case, the middle East would be teeming with freedom.  

Really?

What do you think happened to Germany and Japan in WW2?

Have we had any problems since from them?

No

As their countries were utterly destroyed

Go figure

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You can't bomb people into freedom, if that's not what they want.  If that were the case, the middle East would be teeming with freedom.  

Really?

What do you think happened to Germany and Japan in WW2?

Have we had any problems since from them?

No

As their countries were utterly destroyed

Go figure

So what has happened in the middle east? Not enough bombs?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

What do you think happened to Germany and Japan in WW2?

Have we had any problems since from them?

No

As their countries were utterly destroyed

Go figure

So what has happened in the middle east? Not enough bombs?

Not enough destruction of its infrustructure.

Again this is the problem, both Germany and Japan were utterly defeated.

When a country faces that, as seen, they are not so stupid to try again.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So what has happened in the middle east? Not enough bombs?

Not enough destruction of its infrustructure.

Again this is the problem, both Germany and Japan were utterly defeated.

When a country faces that, as seen, they are not so stupid to try again.

So not enough damage. We need to make the people of the middle east suffer some more. They haven't been exposed to enough of the ravages of war during the past 16 years.

Have you seen pictures of Mosul?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not enough destruction of its infrustructure.

Again this is the problem, both Germany and Japan were utterly defeated.

When a country faces that, as seen, they are not so stupid to try again.

So not enough damage. We need to make the people of the middle east suffer some more. They haven't been exposed to enough of the ravages of war during the past 16 years.

Have you seen pictures of Mosul?

Yes I have seen pictures

Well we gave the Iraqi's their freedom, and then their country was invaded by insurgents that murder countless Iraq's. Funded and organised by Saudi and Iran

They had the chance to build a Democracy and what did the Islamists do?

Use it as a battle ground

The same in Afghanistan, because they were not utterly destroyed and defeated

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So not enough damage. We need to make the people of the middle east suffer some more. They haven't been exposed to enough of the ravages of war during the past 16 years.

Have you seen pictures of Mosul?

Yes I have seen pictures

Well we gave the Iraqi's their freedom, and then their country was invaded by insurgents that murder countless Iraq's. Funded and organised by Saudi and Iran

They had the chance to build a Democracy and what did the Islamists do?

Use it as a battle ground

The same in Afghanistan, because they were not utterly destroyed and defeated

You just described blowback. You can never guarantee the regime you instill, will be better than the one you bombed the fuck out of.

Iraq is not Germany. Iraq is a European creation of tribes that don't really get along, with zero experience in democracy.

When we invaded I assumed Iraq would look something like Turkey after a few years. I assumed that the people there would demand democracy. I was wrong.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes I have seen pictures

Well we gave the Iraqi's their freedom, and then their country was invaded by insurgents that murder countless Iraq's. Funded and organised by Saudi and Iran

They had the chance to build a Democracy and what did the Islamists do?

Use it as a battle ground

The same in Afghanistan, because they were not utterly destroyed and defeated

You just described blowback. You can never guarantee the regime you instill, will be better than the one you bombed the fuck out of.

Iraq is not Germany. Iraq is a European creation of tribes that don't really get along, with zero experience in democracy.

When we invaded I assumed Iraq would look something like Turkey after a few years. I assumed that the people there would demand democracy. I was wrong.

Again it worked before in WW2, did it not, because these nations were utterly destroyed

European creation?

It was created by the Mandates set up by the league of nations

Iraq will one day get better, when its own people stand up to these Islamists

It will come from women as well, I suspect, who will say enough is enough

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You just described blowback. You can never guarantee the regime you instill, will be better than the one you bombed the fuck out of.

Iraq is not Germany. Iraq is a European creation of tribes that don't really get along, with zero experience in democracy.

When we invaded I assumed Iraq would look something like Turkey after a few years. I assumed that the people there would demand democracy. I was wrong.

Again it worked before in WW2, did it not, because these nations were utterly destroyed

European creation?

It was created by the Mandates set up by the league of nations

Iraq will one day get better, when its own people stand up to these Islamists

It will come from women as well, I suspect, who will say enough is enough

^^^That is what I have been saying. As soon as we get out, they will focus on doing just that.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again it worked before in WW2, did it not, because these nations were utterly destroyed

European creation?

It was created by the Mandates set up by the league of nations

Iraq will one day get better, when its own people stand up to these Islamists

It will come from women as well, I suspect, who will say enough is enough

^^^That is what I have been saying. As soon as we get out, they will focus on doing just that.  

We did get out and then what happened?

ISIS and then we had to get back in and help did we not?

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The Russians are there at the request of Syrian govt... the US have no legal justification for any military action in Syria...

The Americans are there at the request of the Kurds I guess, but I'm fine with bringing them home.

And according to this story, those Russians were not acting at the behest of the Russian government, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows that's bull.

They're the Wagner Group, basically Russia's answer to Blackwater, and they do indeed work for Putin. I guess he uses them to retain some shred of plausible deniability, however implausible it might actually be.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I accept your apology...


And now you have made yourself clear... and in agreement with me about the illegality of US military presence/involvement/action in Syria... surely that also means that you think that those in the US who are responsible should face prosecution for war crimes...!?

In what court?

You need to answer the first question first...

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?

I am going to tear Tommy apart on this and going to enjoy it

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In what court?

You need to answer the first question first...

I can't, because I would need to know what court prosecutes world leaders for operating in other countries during times of war.

I mean, not a single country was asked to invade Iraq by Saddam. Do you you think the leader of every country that fought in Iraq should be prosecuted for war crimes?

Do you think Putin should be prosecuted for what he did in Ukraine or Crimea?

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


You need to answer the first question first...

I can't, because I would need to know what court prosecutes world leaders for operating in other countries during times of war.  

I mean, not a single country was asked to invade Iraq by Saddam.  Do you you think the leader of every country that fought in Iraq should be prosecuted for war crimes?  

Do you think Putin should be prosecuted for what he did in Ukraine or Crimea?

The ICC

Yet you have a point, as he basically annexed the Crimea

As to your points on should anyone be prosecuted for ending the reign of a mass murderer in Saddam?

In my eyes no.

Who could predict, that once Iraq had its freedom, other nations, would use this as a proxy to engage in a battle of supremacy over Islam. In this case Iran won this unconventional war and now holds sway over Iraq.

Most people embrace freedom, sadly here, they were never given the chance, based off a war that has continued unabated for 1400 years.

The problem here is beliefs.

Has the ICC ever prosecuted any leaders that didn't target civilians? Not hit citizens, but make them the target?

Maddog wrote:Has the ICC ever prosecuted any leaders that didn't target civilians?  Not hit citizens, but make them the target?

Sorry, but is that a crime under interntaional law?

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

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I can't, because I would need to know what court prosecutes world leaders for operating in other countries during times of war.  

I mean, not a single country was asked to invade Iraq by Saddam.  Do you you think the leader of every country that fought in Iraq should be prosecuted for war crimes?  

Do you think Putin should be prosecuted for what he did in Ukraine or Crimea?

The ICC

Yet you have a point, as he basically annexed the Crimea

As to your points on should anyone be prosecuted for ending the reign of a mass murderer in Saddam?

In my eyes no.

Who could predict, that once Iraq had its freedom, other nations, would use this as a proxy to engage in a battle of supremacy over Islam. In this case Iran won this unconventional war and now holds sway over Iraq.

Most people embrace freedom, sadly here, they were never given the chance, based off a war that has continued unabated for 1400 years.

The problem here is beliefs.

Anyone could have predicted that Iraq wouldn't end up as a happy little nation. There were too many factions, and a power vacuum was created for them to fight with each other.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


The ICC

Yet you have a point, as he basically annexed the Crimea

As to your points on should anyone be prosecuted for ending the reign of a mass murderer in Saddam?

In my eyes no.

Who could predict, that once Iraq had its freedom, other nations, would use this as a proxy to engage in a battle of supremacy over Islam. In this case Iran won this unconventional war and now holds sway over Iraq.

Most people embrace freedom, sadly here, they were never given the chance, based off a war that has continued unabated for 1400 years.

The problem here is beliefs.

Anyone could have predicted that Iraq wouldn't end up as a happy little nation. There were too many factions, and a power vacuum was created for them to fight with each other.

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.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Anyone could have predicted that Iraq wouldn't end up as a happy little nation. There were too many factions, and a power vacuum was created for them to fight with each other.

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.

Yes, of course they could - it was obvious.

If we had invaded after the Gulf war, not everyone in Iraq would have been pleased. Saddam his supporters, and I doubt that anyone would have liked being taken over by a western power. Besides, the aim of the Gulf war was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, it wasn't to take over Iraq.

Raggamuffin 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.

Yes, of course they could - it was obvious.

If we had invaded after the Gulf war, not everyone in Iraq would have been pleased. Saddam his supporters, and I doubt that anyone would have liked being taken over by a western power. Besides, the aim of the Gulf war was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, it wasn't to take over Iraq.

How is it obvious, when you are speaking in hindsight?

The point is, could you have predicted this before it actually happened?

No, maybe you can show me the mass of articles claiming this?

Well considering people celebrated when he fell and then the insurrection was caused by outside influence, shows many would have celebrated and at the time Islamism had no major hold.

The aim of the first war should have been also for humanitarian reasons. To free the Iraq people from oppression. Espically the Kurds

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, of course they could - it was obvious.

If we had invaded after the Gulf war, not everyone in Iraq would have been pleased. Saddam his supporters, and I doubt that anyone would have liked being taken over by a western power. Besides, the aim of the Gulf war was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, it wasn't to take over Iraq.

How is it obvious, when you are speaking in hindsight?

The point is, could you have predicted this before it actually happened?

No, maybe you can show me the mass of articles claiming this?

Well considering people celebrated when he fell and then the insurrection was caused by outside influence, shows many would have celebrated and at the time Islamism had no major hold.

The aim of the first war should have been also for humanitarian reasons. To free the Iraq people from oppression. Espically the Kurds

Yes, you could predict it before it happened - I did. Not everyone celebrated when he fell, or perhaps those who would like to be in power themselves celebrated for the wrong reasons. Come on - look at the history of the area. Do you really think it was suddenly going to turn into a nice area with people singing songs about "lurve" all day?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is it obvious, when you are speaking in hindsight?

The point is, could you have predicted this before it actually happened?

No, maybe you can show me the mass of articles claiming this?

Well considering people celebrated when he fell and then the insurrection was caused by outside influence, shows many would have celebrated and at the time Islamism had no major hold.

The aim of the first war should have been also for humanitarian reasons. To free the Iraq people from oppression. Espically the Kurds

Yes, you could predict it before it happened - I did. Not everyone celebrated when he fell, or perhaps those who would like to be in power themselves celebrated for the wrong reasons. Come on - look at the history of the area. Do you really think it was suddenly going to turn into a nice area with people singing songs about "lurve" all day?

Well, why can you not show me the mass of articles predicting, that Iraq, would turn into a proxy war between Saudi and Iran?

Come on, show me the evidence, to back up your claims.

In your own time

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, you could predict it before it happened - I did. Not everyone celebrated when he fell, or perhaps those who would like to be in power themselves celebrated for the wrong reasons. Come on - look at the history of the area. Do you really think it was suddenly going to turn into a nice area with people singing songs about "lurve" all day?

Well, why can you not show me the mass of articles predicting, that Iraq, would turn into a proxy war between Saudi and Iran?

Come on, show me the evidence, to back up your claims.

In your own time

No I can't because I'm speaking for myself. It's not my fault if others were short-sighted. Did you actually think there were WMD there too?

What do you actually want to happen in Syria now? Do you want Assad to be defeated? What then? The country is full of different factions. You don't surely think they'll suddenly all be mates do you? The best thing is for the US to stop interfering - it's just prolonging it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well, why can you not show me the mass of articles predicting, that Iraq, would turn into a proxy war between Saudi and Iran?

Come on, show me the evidence, to back up your claims.

In your own time

No I can't because I'm speaking for myself. It's not my fault if others were short-sighted. Did you actually think there were WMD there too?

What do you actually want to happen in Syria now? Do you want Assad to be defeated? What then? The country is full of different factions. You don't surely think they'll suddenly all be mates do you? The best thing is for the US to stop interfering - it's just prolonging it.

So basically, you want me to buy your claims in hindsight

Sorry, does not work that way.

Yes I want Assad to be defeated? Just as i want any extreme Islamist group to be defeated. What rational person would not, when he has murdered countless people?

Well the US, Britain etc interfered in both Bosnia and Kosova. The Balkans has had centuries of unrest and violence between groups within the region. Far more than the region of Iraq. Maybe you can explain to me why there is not been any mass inserrurection in these places or mass terrorism against the west due to our help ending these conflicts?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No I can't because I'm speaking for myself. It's not my fault if others were short-sighted. Did you actually think there were WMD there too?

What do you actually want to happen in Syria now? Do you want Assad to be defeated? What then? The country is full of different factions. You don't surely think they'll suddenly all be mates do you? The best thing is for the US to stop interfering - it's just prolonging it.

So basically, you want me to buy your claims in hindsight

Sorry, does not work that way.

Yes I want Assad to be defeated? What rational person would not, when he has murdered countless people?

Well the US, Britain etc interfered in both Bosnia and Kosova. The Balkans has had centuries of unrest and violence between groups within the region. Far more than the region of Iraq. Maybe you can explain to me why there is not been any mass inserrurection in these places or mass terrorism against the west due to our help ending these conflicts?

Believe what you like, but only a very naive person would have thought it would end in peace. I think you are naive actually - you don't seem to understand the dynamics of the area (not just Iraq) or the issue of the creation of power vacuums.

There were no power vacuums in the Balkans during the conflict - that's the difference.

You didn't answer my question as to what would happen in Syria if Assad is defeated.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:




So basically, you want me to buy your claims in hindsight

Sorry, does not work that way.

Yes I want Assad to be defeated? What rational person would not, when he has murdered countless people?

Well the US, Britain etc interfered in both Bosnia and Kosova. The Balkans has had centuries of unrest and violence between groups within the region. Far more than the region of Iraq. Maybe you can explain to me why there is not been any mass inserrurection in these places or mass terrorism against the west due to our help ending these conflicts?

Believe what you like, but only a very naive person would have thought it would end in peace. I think you are naive actually - you don't seem to understand the dynamics of the area (not just Iraq) or the issue of the creation of power vacuums.

There were no power vacuums in the Balkans during the conflict - that's the difference.

So your only response is to talk about me, hey ho. In other words, you have nothing to back your claims

No power vacums?

Man alive, do you not understand much about the region or why such conflicts started in the first place.

The reality is both are majority Muslim areas

So where is the mass insurrection in these places and terrorism against the west from stepping in and stopping the Serbs?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Believe what you like, but only a very naive person would have thought it would end in peace. I think you are naive actually - you don't seem to understand the dynamics of the area (not just Iraq) or the issue of the creation of power vacuums.

There were no power vacuums in the Balkans during the conflict - that's the difference.

So your only response is to talk about me, hey ho. In other words, you have nothing to back your claims

No power vacums?

Man alive, do you not understand much about the region or why such conflicts started in the first place.

The reality is both are majority Muslim areas

So where is the mass insurrection in these places and terrorism against the west from stepping in and stopping the Serbs?

I didn't just talk about you, I talked about other things, and you were the one who started the mockery.

It's you who doesn't understand the dynamics of the area. What did you think would happen when a Sunni Government was replaced?

I told you - the Balkans was a different issue. Perhaps they're not as fanatical as the Islamic extremists, or they're more sensible.

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

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So your only response is to talk about me, hey ho. In other words, you have nothing to back your claims

No power vacums?

Man alive, do you not understand much about the region or why such conflicts started in the first place.

The reality is both are majority Muslim areas

So where is the mass insurrection in these places and terrorism against the west from stepping in and stopping the Serbs?

I didn't just talk about you, I talked about other things, and you were the one who started the mockery.

It's you who doesn't understand the dynamics of the area. What did you think would happen when a Sunni Government was replaced?

I told you - the Balkans was a different issue. Perhaps they're not as fanatical as the Islamic extremists, or they're more sensible.

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

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't just talk about you, I talked about other things, and you were the one who started the mockery.

It's you who doesn't understand the dynamics of the area. What did you think would happen when a Sunni Government was replaced?

I told you - the Balkans was a different issue. Perhaps they're not as fanatical as the Islamic extremists, or they're more sensible.

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

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

Ahhh, yet more points about me and nothing to counter my points

Quelle surprise

Stop bothering me with your ignorance you pathetic ignorant brat

Get a real education and then you might actually be able to have a decent debate

On that i wish you luck

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

Ahhh, yet more points about me and nothing to counter my points

Quelle surprise

Stop bothering me with your ignorance you pathetic ignorant brat

Get a real education and then you might actually be able to have a decent debate

On that i wish you luck

So you can't answer the questions, and now you've resorted to abuse as usual when you're losing a debate. Don't waste my time. Go and do your research and come back when you have something useful to say.

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

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

Yet more fuckwittery and hilarity

She wants me to answer a question on what I think would happen, after it has happened.

Priceless

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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

Yet more fuckwittery and hilarity

She wants me to answer a question on what I think would happen, after it has happened.

Priceless

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.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:








Yet more fuckwittery and hilarity

She wants me to answer a question on what I think would happen, after it has happened.

Priceless

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

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Has the ICC ever prosecuted any leaders that didn't target civilians?  Not hit citizens, but make them the target?

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.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Anyone could have predicted that Iraq wouldn't end up as a happy little nation. There were too many factions, and a power vacuum was created for them to fight with each other.

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?