Meanwhile, in Syria

[TimothyC]

After all of the brouhaha over the MSF facility in Afghanistan, I am disappointed in the failure of this board to condemn the actions of the Russians in Syria.

Four Syrian hospitals bombed since Russian airstrikes began, doctors say

Latest attack on Idlib hospital left at least 12 people dead and comes less than two weeks after a US attack on Kunduz hospital, Afghanistan


At least four hospitals have been bombed by fighter jets in north-western Syria since Russia’s intervention in the war began in late September, doctors and international observers claim.

The latest attack, on Tuesday, killed at least 12 people at Sarmin hospital in Idlib province. At least three of the victims were believed to be medical staff. Survivors and witnesses said the hospital was hit by two airstrikes at about 1pm.

Dr Mohamed Tennari, director of Sarmin hospital, said the facility appeared to have been directly targeted and could no longer serve patients on one of the fiercest frontlines in the war.

He said the hospital had been the target of at least 10 other airstrikes earlier in the conflict. Throughout the war, international medical organisations have repeatedly claimed that medical facilities in opposition areas have been systematically targeted.

Physicians for Human Rights said it had documented 313 attacks on medical facilities and the deaths of 679 medical personnel in Syria since protests against the regime of Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011 until the end of August 2015. “Syrian government forces have been responsible for more than 90% of these attacks,” the organisation said. “Each of which constitutes a war crime.”

The latest attack comes less than two weeks after a US attack on a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, which killed at least 22 people – 12 of them medical professionals and the rest patients. That attack was widely condemned and has forced an apology from senior US officials, as well as several international investigations.

Khaled Almilaji, the country director of Medical Relief in Syria, said: “The whole world has to be just as angry as they were with what happened in Afghanistan. Their anger must not just be directed at Bashar, who has been inhuman with us, but also at the Russians, who are just as bad, but more accurate in their targeting.”

Since early October, Russia has closed the airspace over north-western Syria as its air force has embarked on an extensive campaign to target the armed opposition to the Syrian leader. Airstrikes have been especially intense around Hama and Idlib, where some US- and Gulf-backed groups had been making gains against Syrian forces in recent months.
Map - recently attacked Syrian hospitals

Russia’s claims that its attacks have targeted Isis have been at odds with evidence on the ground in areas that have have been heavily bombed but have no Isis presence.

Video shot during the attack shows massive explosions, then dust clouds and screams. “Until now, 12 people have been killed,” said Dr Tennari, adding that another 20 had been injured. Among the dead were two hospital staff, who he named as physiotherapist Hassan Taj al Deen and a security guard Khaldoun Abu Din, both in their 20s.

In mid-March Sarmin hospital was the lead treatment centre in the aftermath of a massive chlorine attack. At the time Syrian regime helicopters dropped barrel bombs filled with chlorine, which left six dead and 50 injured and prompted further claims that Damascus had continued to use banned chemicals as instruments of war. Last month the hospital treated between 5,000-7,000 patients and undertook 100 surgeries, Tennari said.

“I think it was Russian,” he said. “When we were targeted by the Syrian regime airstrikes, it was different from this time.”

The head of the Union of Syrian Medical Relief Organisations, Zedoun al-Zoubi, said Sarmin was one of three medical facilities targeted in the past week. The other two allegedly hit al-Harb and al-Eis clinics in Aleppo province. This month, a field clinic in Kfar Zeita in Idlib and another in Latamneh were also reportedly hit.

Physicians for Human Rights said Hraytan hospital in northern Aleppo had also been hit by Russian jets on 13 October. “Missiles landed directly outside the hospital’s entrance and on nearby buildings, damaging the hospital and injuring three civilians,” it said. “Syrian government forces previously attacked this hospital on September 1.”

“In the last three four weeks the airstrikes have become very accurate, very precise and very intense,” he said. “(In the past) four weeks we know the situation has become really horrible and the number of displaced people are far more than before and we are talking about people who are used to war.”

The director of programmes at Physicians for Human Rights, Widney Brown, said Russia was following in the footsteps of the Assad regime. “These attacks are inexcusable. Claiming that the fight is against terrorists does not give any government the right to tear up the laws of war, which specifically protect health workers and facilities. With these actions, Russia is damaging hospitals, putting patients and medical staff at risk, and depriving civilians of life-saving access to healthcare.”

[Adam Reynolds]

My dad recently made exactly that comment when I brought up the MSF incident. The idea that that what happens in a war.

My guess as to why is that there aren't any Russians on the board not wanting to feel guilty and arguing about it. It is also the fact that the Russian Air Force isn't pretending to be the good guys in this situation. They realize what they are doing more than Americans do.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What were you hoping for? Russia has been sufficiently demonized in American and English press that Americans expect Russia to even gas babies and all.

So what are you hoping for? Your country claims to hold itself to the highest standards, yet when those standards are not upheld, obviously you will receive the greatest scorn. What else would you think would not happen?

[Thanas]

Eh, it is the expected behaviour of the Russians.

Are you saying we should expect the same of the USA as well?

[madd0ct0r]

Expectations or propoganda,targeting hospitals is still shifty and a war crime

[K. A. Pital]

It is (though a peculiar choice of words for the piece: was it bombed by Russian airforce, and if so, why not say so directly?). But me being one of the few people who care, and me being already against Russian intervention both in Syria and Ukraine a d against Russia's government to the point of leaving it for good?

What else is there to say? Dunno. Russia is running a dirty war in Syria in the hopes of propping up its client, Bashar Assad, and committing war crimes of its own? Yes. Do I condemn attacks on hospitals by Russian air forces? Yes.

I guess the problem with Russia is that given its recent conduct, nobody expects it to be a moral example. Though I guess the idiots who still think the US is one after what happened during 2003-2015 are also few in numbers by now.

[Simon_Jester]

Eh, it is the expected behaviour of the Russians.

Are you saying we should expect the same of the USA as well?

Could you expand a bit on the reason why we only need to talk about war crimes committed by nations from which it is a 'surprise?' As in, not 'expected behavior?'

That seems... counterintuitive.

[Esquire]

It's like how we have a general thread for North Korea being weird, and another for police brutality. It's not news anymore, everything worth saying has already been said.

[Thanas]

Eh, it is the expected behaviour of the Russians.

Are you saying we should expect the same of the USA as well?

Could you expand a bit on the reason why we only need to talk about war crimes committed by nations from which it is a 'surprise?' As in, not 'expected behavior?'

That seems... counterintuitive.

If that is truly your opinion - that we should post about every illegal military action / war crime around the world - why aren't you posting non-stop about the dirty war in Burma, Child soldiers in Africa and innocent people being killed by drone strikes?

[K. A. Pital]

Even with Americans themselves... The war in Afghanistan lasts over 10 years, but mostly also comes up as news in the context of singular and prominent crimes - murder and torture at CIA black sites, the attack on MSF hospital, etc. There is no non-stop coverage of any dirty war, I believe.

[Welf]

Eh, it is the expected behaviour of the Russians.

Are you saying we should expect the same of the USA as well?

Could you expand a bit on the reason why we only need to talk about war crimes committed by nations from which it is a 'surprise?' As in, not 'expected behavior?'

That seems... counterintuitive.

It is somewhat pointless to talk about Russian war crimes because the Kremlin doesn't give a fuck about what people think about them. And we already know the Kremlin (and similar regimes) would do that shit, so it is not really a new information, just another confirmation. Talking aout US war crimes however might change something, because they try, or at least intend to want to try to b better.
Plus some US Americans are arrogant dicks about being better than foreigners. That is annoying. The Russians are only dicks to the people they genocide.

[Darmalus]

Given the amount of human suffering and wasted blood and treasure cause by America's staggeringly incompetent good guy act, the USA might be better off imitating the Russians. The only war it could get measurably worse would be by throwing around nukes.

[Simon_Jester]

Eh, it is the expected behaviour of the Russians.

Are you saying we should expect the same of the USA as well?

Could you expand a bit on the reason why we only need to talk about war crimes committed by nations from which it is a 'surprise?' As in, not 'expected behavior?'

That seems... counterintuitive.

If that is truly your opinion - that we should post about every illegal military action / war crime around the world - why aren't you posting non-stop about the dirty war in Burma, Child soldiers in Africa and innocent people being killed by drone strikes?

Because, due to my own personal habits, I don't follow international news closely and would almost never be the first person to post about any given atrocity. Indeed, there are many atrocities that have taken place in the past five or six years that I literally only know about because I frequent this webboard.

But the opinion you attribute to me is a fictional one I don't actually hold.

What I am confused by is the implication that if the US isn't the nation doing it, then the war crime isn't "news" and should therefore not be discussed in a news forum.

Also the implication that it is somehow pointless or unworthy to mention Russians bombing hospitals, while being very much worthy of our time and energy to talk about Americans bombing hospitals.

I can think of a few ways to justify such an attitude... but they don't make any sense to me, they're logically incoherent.

Eh, it is the expected behaviour of the Russians.

Are you saying we should expect the same of the USA as well?

Could you expand a bit on the reason why we only need to talk about war crimes committed by nations from which it is a 'surprise?' As in, not 'expected behavior?'

That seems... counterintuitive.

It is somewhat pointless to talk about Russian war crimes because the Kremlin doesn't give a fuck about what people think about them.

If the White House gives any signs of caring what we on this forum think about them, then please let me know- because I sure haven't seen any evidence of that either...

So I don't see this as a difference between the US and Russia. Both nations are run by political elites that honestly aren't going to stop doing evil to others unless a very solid majority of their own population gets tired of it.

And we already know the Kremlin (and similar regimes) would do that shit, so it is not really a new information, just another confirmation.

...And what, did you NOT already know the US can blow up a hospital out of sheer ham-handed bloodymindedness?



I mean, when the thread about the Afghanistan Doctors Without Borders hospital getting blown up emerged, I honestly can't say I was surprised that such a thing could happen. I figured it was news because it was a hospital being blown up by armed forces, not because it was somehow new information that the US was capable of doing such a thing.

So I don't see this as a difference between the US and Russia.

Talking aout US war crimes however might change something, because they try, or at least intend to want to try to b better.

This strikes me as... oddly cynical and oddly idealistic at the same time. But it at least merits thinking about.

Plus some US Americans are arrogant dicks about being better than foreigners. That is annoying. The Russians are only dicks to the people they genocide.

I would imagine that there are plenty of Russians who are arrogant dicks about being better than foreigners... the only catch being that they probably talk about this in Russian, a language I don't speak and so far as I know, you don't either.

Other than Stas, who here speaks Russian and still frequents these threads? Can anyone comment firsthand on whether there are obnoxious Russian nationalists who think their nation is the greatest thing ever and can do no wrong?

I'd be truly amazed if there weren't... so I don't see this as a difference between the US and Russia.

[Balrog]

I'd be truly amazed if there weren't... so I don't see this as a difference between the US and Russia.

It's the soft discrimination of low expectations.

More seriously, this board has always had a significant proportion of its population which was more critical than not of the US, for various reasons and with varying levels of legitimacy to their criticism. Its just that, with a reduced board population, it's more noticeable now.

[K. A. Pital]

I think I have argued both against the US and Russia's imperalistic endeavours precisely because I have been exposed not just to the lunatic mouth-foaming patriotic supporters of both (and yes, idiots who brag about "Russia the greatest!" do exist), but I also had contacts with the blameless victims of such policies: the Middle Eastern refugees, the Belarusians and Ukrainians who were quite unhappy with Russia strong-arming them into economic and military alliances. In fact, sometimes I wish I have argued against both more consistently. Due to their habit of preferring violent solutions, their arrogance, imperialistic delusions of grandeur and priority of foreign policy over internal issues, I think neither US nor Russia are fit for anything but a second-in-line role in world politics. The rise of China, SEA, India and Latin America seems to actually make the old powers, including both Russia and America, diminish in the long run, which is in my view a positive development. No idea if this satisfies the posters here. I know most Americans dread the day when their country is no longer number one even in their own "sphere of influence", while for Russia that day already came a long Autumn night of 1991.

Nobody is saying this is not news and should not be posted, by the way. But the lack of "outrage" I think is explained by the fact most people neither know nor care about the precise incidents involving Russia, and by the fact Russia does not picture itself as a shining bastion of justice and all things good, so it seems less of a disconnect between the actions and the claims. Basically, if someone your media has already demonized as Sauron breeds Orcs and catapults cut-off heads into Gondor's citadels, that is one thing. If someone pretending to be Aragorn the wise and just King of Men suddenly does the same, the reaction is more pronounced.

[Thanas]

What I am confused by is the implication that if the US isn't the nation doing it, then the war crime isn't "news" and should therefore not be discussed in a news forum.

Nobody has said that. People were answering OPs thinly veiled accusation of bias.

[Simon_Jester]

Perhaps I am wrong to perceive this implication when people say "meh, it's Russia, what do you expect except atrocities?"

It's just... jarring that when superpower A bombs a hospital the response is "those bastards!" and when superpower B bombs a hospital the response is "yawn, business as usual." For me, that's the sort of thing that triggers cognitive dissonance.

I think I have argued both against the US and Russia's imperalistic endeavours precisely because [extremely good reasons]...

As a matter of fact, yes, you have, I have clear memories of you doing so.

There are plenty of good reasons to argue against and trash the US as we know it. Many of these reasons are well founded in objective, blindingly obvious facts that any sane person should be prepared to accept.

And I retain full respect for anyone who does so, while being internally consistent and making their case with intellectual honesty.

Due to their habit of preferring violent solutions, their arrogance, imperialistic delusions of grandeur and priority of foreign policy over internal issues, I think neither US nor Russia are fit for anything but a second-in-line role in world politics. The rise of China, SEA, India and Latin America seems to actually make the old powers, including both Russia and America, diminish in the long run, which is in my view a positive development. No idea if this satisfies the posters here. I know most Americans dread the day when their country is no longer number one even in their own "sphere of influence", while for Russia that day already came a long Autumn night of 1991.

I think most Americans are in deep, profound denial about this possibility, but yeah, it's a lingering fear which drives the denial. And Americans' collective denial leads them to make spectacularly bad policy choices (domestic even more than foreign) which are bringing about the very outcome that is feared- a long term 'hollowing out' of the essential sources of the US's strength.

Nobody is saying this is not news and should not be posted, by the way. But the lack of "outrage..."

So long as people do not assert that it is not newsworthy when Russia blows up hospitals, I have no problem with the lack of special outrage.

Although really, on this forum, no one should any longer be shocked or surprised if the US does something atrocious, since we have a constant stream of comparisons of the US to every horrible atrocity-monger the world has ever known, and it is... at most uncommon for a day to go by without active discussion in some thread about how bad some aspect of American foreign or domestic policy is.

At some point, the mere fact that Sauron claims to be a nice guy, then attacks Minas Tirith, is just plain no longer shocking enough to be news.

...and by the fact Russia does not picture itself as a shining bastion of justice and all things good, so it seems less of a disconnect between the actions and the claims...

What percentage of the Russian population do you think does see their nation's actions as highly just? I'm sure there's some, but is it a very small percentage as you imply? I ask because I have no way of judging this accurately myself.

[mr friendly guy]

Country A does x, and claims the opposite. They are criticised for both doing x and lying and being hypocritical about it.

Country B does x, makes no claims about doing the opposite. They are criticised for doing x only.

I think the principle is pretty straight forward here. Country A is doing two things wrong, while country B is only doing one thing wrong.

So Russia gets criticised for its claim on bombing ISIS targets (when it appears they are not) as well as the fact they are engaged in bombing targets in Syria. There has been discussion on Russia's duplicity before the US bombed a hospital. Wait, who thought I was going into a tirade about the US hypocrisy. I must admit though, every time the US waxes poetry about human rights people including myself just want to

[K. A. Pital]

I think Russian mostly do not really care what Russia does in Syria; very few think it is "just", most realize it is a matter of policy choices and not leaving Assad out there alone. Not sure many Russians are fans of Assad either. There is very few moral arguments to be made for Russia's intervention. Even the government itself centers on being there on the request of a legitimate government (kinda like the US actions in South Vietnam), but most of the population has no strong feeling of righteousness in the Syrian war (as opposed to Ukraine, where the majority of Russians feel the governemnt's creeping intervention has been not just the correct, but also fully morally justified action).

[Balrog]

The rise of China, SEA, India and Latin America seems to actually make the old powers, including both Russia and America, diminish in the long run, which is in my view a positive development.

You assume they would act any differently if they found themselves in the same position as America and (to a much lesser extent) Russia are currently in.

I know most Americans dread the day when their country is no longer number one even in their own "sphere of influence", while for Russia that day already came a long Autumn night of 1991.

Most citizens would prefer the country in which they reside in is one of the strongest on the planet and is able to exert its will at will, with all the benefits (as they perceive it) that come with attaining such a position.

Country A does x, and claims the opposite. They are criticised for both doing x and lying and being hypocritical about it.

Country B does x, makes no claims about doing the opposite. They are criticised for doing x only.

Did the Russians not say they didn't bomb multiple hospitals on purpose, or (like the US) did they say these were accidents/denied as being evil Amerikan psyops/etc.?

American forces bomb a hospital and claim it was an accident. Russians bomb multiple hospitals (among other presumably civilian/non-combatant targets) and claim they're totes blowing up only evil Islamist terrorists, for reals. Not seeing how the former is so much more worse than the latter.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Most citizens would prefer the country in which they reside in is one of the strongest on the planet and is able to exert its will at will, with all the benefits (as they perceive it) that come with attaining such a position.

Really? Seriously? Aside from countries that are constantly fed with drivel about the "Greatness of their countries", most would rather have their government mind their own bloody business.

[Channel72]

Although really, on this forum, no one should any longer be shocked or surprised if the US does something atrocious, since we have a constant stream of comparisons of the US to every horrible atrocity-monger the world has ever known, and it is... at most uncommon for a day to go by without active discussion in some thread about how bad some aspect of American foreign or domestic policy is.

Well, there's two factors at play here: Firstly, Russia's intervention in Syria is really the first time, in a long time, that Russia has exerted force on a trans-continental scale since the days of the USSR. Russia's intervention in Syria is the first sign of an upstart ex-superpower showing signs of regaining its former superpower status, (more so, I think, than with Ukraine and Crimea, which are not as distant as Syria) in terms of international influence. 10 years ago, Russia would likely not even have been able to afford such an intervention in Syria.

The US, on the other hand, has been stomping around the globe, imposing its will on the world, for literally 70 years non-stop, and this has escalated particularly glaringly in the early 21st century with the combined invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as nation-destroying operations in Libya and Syria.

Secondly, most people on this board are Americans, Canadians, and Europeans - i.e. they're basically all Westerners. Westerners share a similar outlook and cultural heritage, which includes holding up a standard (or at least, pretending to hold a standard) of humanitarianism rooted in our shared cultural background and Enlightenment ideals. Within this context, among all the Western nations, America is often seen as this big, boisterous gorilla that keeps rampaging around, making lots of noise, and knocking things over - a globally dominant superpower that often doesn't really think things through and doesn't take any responsibility for its actions. So it's very easy and tempting for Westerners (and Americans themselves) to criticize America.

Russia, on the other hand, is to most Westerners ... mostly just an "emerging market" built on the corpse of a former superpower, known for legendary levels of corruption. The reality is that Russia's current GDP is smaller than India, Brazil, or even Italy, and the only reason we consider it even remotely some kind of "peer" with the US is because of its former superpower status, giant land-mass, and relatively large military. So there's simply not as much of an incentive to criticize Russia bombing hospitals as there is when the US does it. Regardless of how naive it might seem, Westerners hold America (and other Western nations) to a higher standard.

[K. A. Pital]

Most citizens would prefer the country in which they reside in is one of the strongest on the planet and is able to exert its will at will, with all the benefits (as they perceive it) that come with attaining such a position.

Please do not project your frustrations on others. I would like to be a citizen of a small, but largely peaceful nation - like Singapore, Sweden, Ireland, Malta or Luxembourg, which clearly cannot "exert its will" and can never be "one of the strongest on the planet". Failing that, I would choose a bigger nation, but without imperialistic delusions of grandeur.

Most normal people think the same. They want their country to care for its own citizens and enjoy good relations with neighbors. That is all.

[mr friendly guy]

Most citizens would prefer the country in which they reside in is one of the strongest on the planet and is able to exert its will at will, with all the benefits (as they perceive it) that come with attaining such a position.

Are you projecting your insecurities onto others? Can you back that up?

I can understand if a country has a history of being attacked in history when you're weak, that they might feel the need to compensate with a strong military, say for example China. And even then their military took a back seat to economic priorities after the detente with the US. However if you had managed to be able to avoid war for ages I would rather be a responsible power than one trying to play world policemen. Not only is it a thankless job for a lot of the time, I don't see what business my country has in Shitholeastan.

Country A does x, and claims the opposite. They are criticised for both doing x and lying and being hypocritical about it.

Country B does x, makes no claims about doing the opposite. They are criticised for doing x only.

Did the Russians not say they didn't bomb multiple hospitals on purpose, or (like the US) did they say these were accidents/denied as being evil Amerikan psyops/etc.?

American forces bomb a hospital and claim it was an accident. Russians bomb multiple hospitals (among other presumably civilian/non-combatant targets) and claim they're totes blowing up only evil Islamist terrorists, for reals. Not seeing how the former is so much more worse than the latter.

You might want to quote the rest of my statement buddy where I explicitly SHOW Russia being criticised for doing one thing and claiming the opposite. Which is the whole point addressing the OP. The fact the example I gave was not the same as yours doesn't change that fact.

[Balrog]

Really? Seriously? Aside from countries that are constantly fed with drivel about the "Greatness of their countries", most would rather have their government mind their own bloody business.

Which is all well and good until someone else's government starts minding your business.

Please do not project your frustrations on others. I would like to be a citizen of a small, but largely peaceful nation - like Singapore, Sweden, Ireland, Malta or Luxembourg, which clearly cannot "exert its will" and can never be "one of the strongest on the planet". Failing that, I would choose a bigger nation, but without imperialistic delusions of grandeur.

Most normal people think the same. They want their country to care for its own citizens and enjoy good relations with neighbors. That is all.

The only person projecting here is you Stas. Small, weak and largely peaceful nations like Luxembourg can afford to be like that because they are client states allies of not just a superpower but arguably the most powerful at this moment in time and enjoy the protection for being a member of America's Auxilia NATO. Those who aren't members of the cool kids club or at least providing a decent service to them are riding on the hope that they're too unimportant, have nothing of value worth invading over, and/or are too distant to reasonably invade. Which admittedly is a good situation conducive to that type of thinking until the moment said situation no longer exists for XYZ reasons, then, well, sucks to be you.

Are you projecting your insecurities onto others? Can you back that up?

I can understand if a country has a history of being attacked in history when you're weak, that they might feel the need to compensate with a strong military, say for example China. And even then their military took a back seat to economic priorities after the detente with the US. However if you had managed to be able to avoid war for ages I would rather be a responsible power than one trying to play world policemen. Not only is it a thankless job for a lot of the time, I don't see what business my country has in Shitholeastan.

Perhaps you can actually try addressing the words on the screen instead of what you think is written there. Wanting your country to be one of the most powerful and able to exert its will easily is not the same as being a busybody in Shitholeastan, unless you actually have a good reason for being a busybody in Shithoelastan. Achieving that status is one of the few, realistic ways to prevent your country from being someone else's chew toy.