Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[The Grand Nudger]

-and we return to the disturbing notion that russia isn't fighting isis...they're leveling aleppo. Fighting isis is pretext.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/....html?_r=0

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course it's a pretext. Driving moderates into radical arms would be sound strategy, if you're a Russian commander.

One additional motive not mentioned in the article: Russia may be wishing to terrorize the non-combatants in Aleppo so that other cities don't welcome any rebel presence for fear of similar treatment.

Making an example of them, if you'll pardon the callousness of the phrase in this context.

ETA: At the very end the article makes a nod to this idea. Disregard this comment.

[abaris]

The poor media coverage is -exactly- why people think aleppo is an isis stronghold

Who the hell said that? Who the hell believes that?

But Isis isn't the only islamist faction there. There's also an Al quaeda branch in Syria and some others I can't be bothered to look up their names right now, sometimes in league, sometimes fightng Al Quaeda. The possibilities are endless and nobody bothers to go to the bottom of all of this.

Yes, Russia and Assad are just other shit factions fighting there, but as with the insrugents, the list of shit factions is endless. We're picking out Assad and the Russians now, but we conveniently turn blind eyes on the Saudis in another region and the Turks. And you're absolutely right. The insurgents get lumped together. In a fashion that is covenient right now. Either they are brave fighters or they are another branch of Al Quaeda or whatever. The politicians and the media don't bother too much to tell a real story.

This country is being trampled to the ground and Aleppo is just one of the many hotspots. It's just the one we are required to focus on, since it's our "enemies" (we always have been at war with Oceania) doing the damage there.

And at the same time, refugees, tragic, tragic, but please don't come to our shores. Stay where you are, if you please or go to that other country over there. We kick you out in any case and we run our political campaigns on calling you rapefugees or terrorists. So get lost, but be sure we shed some tears if it's our enemies bombing you. If it's our allies, tough, but we're sure you get over it. The few survivors, that is. You can rebuild in a few decades.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Pretty much nutshells it there, Abs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course it's a pretext. Driving moderates into radical arms would be sound strategy, if you're a Russian commander.

One additional motive not mentioned in the article: Russia may be wishing to terrorize the non-combatants in Aleppo so that other cities don't welcome any rebel presence for fear of similar treatment.

Making an example of them, if you'll pardon the callousness of the phrase in this context.

ETA: At the very end the article makes a nod to this idea. Disregard this comment.

So let me get this straight...radicalizing moderates serves our interests? Our interest in defeating radicals?  Doesn't that seem counterproductive to -american- interests?
(I;m not concerned with whatever shortsighted and shitty idea a russian commander may have)

@abaris
....I don't think that you're really engaging in this conversation.  You;re still trying to create or imply equivalences between un-aligned groups, while criticizing bad reporting...even as good reporting that does exist shows us that there isn't one.  Your comments...read back through them, are an -affirmation- of the contents of bad reporting that has been acknowledged and retracted.

-I- focus on aleppo because civilians are being targeted explicitly.  -I- focus on aleppo because chemical weapons appear to have been deployed.  Not for any of the reasons you just listed off as "ours". -I- think we should accept more refugees, and -I- don;t think that washing our hands and waiting a decade to fight all over again is a good idea.

-and look, if, as before, you're not actually talking to me....then just don't quote me.

[abaris]

-I- focus on aleppo because civilians are being targeted explicitly.  -I- focus on aleppo because chemical weapons appear to have been deployed.  Not for any of the reasons you just listed off as "ours".

I get that much, since you're certainly not focussing on something like that.

Saudi-led warplanes struck a funeral at a community hall in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, the country's Houthi-run administration said on Saturday, but the coalition denied any role in the attack. More than 140 mourners were killed, according to local health officials cited by the United Nations, in an attack that prompted a strong rebuke from Washington, a key Saudi ally.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-...SKCN1280OR

I am participating in this discussion, since the selective perception really makes my blood boil. People are killed left, right and center in the region. But we are supposed to focus only on the one instance that isn't us or forces backed by us doing the damage.

And at the same time we shrug off the suffering by not admitting people fleeing the region to our shores to at least give them time to breathe.

So yes, I would say, I am participating in this discussion. I'm just not as selective to only focus on Aleppo.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you think my opinion of the above story would be? Do you expect to see me waiving a saudi flag? Talk about a tactical retreat.

A strong rebuke, from who..again..in your own story?

[abaris]

What do you think my opinion of the above story would be?  Do you expect to see me waiving a saudi flag?  Talk about a tactical retreat.  

Most certainly not. But riding the Aleppo train is more or less closing one's eyes about everything else happening in the region and the way we react to it.

So I consider picking out one wave in a sea of destruction to be selective perception.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus christ Abaris.  
A. My news feed is clearly better than whatever news your complaining about.  This has already been touched upon.  
B. The saudi airstrike was criticized, by washington. That's the opposite of ignoring it.

Wanna talk about kurds now, or..really, anything other than how you just found out you'd been the mouthpeice of shitty reporting and a half hearted, but completely unintentional war crimes apologist?

[abaris]

The saudi airstrike was criticized, by washington.

Yes, a strong rebuke. I'm sure the Saudi pilots are shivering in their boots when next boarding their American planes.

Don't you realize what this is all about? Jesus Christ, yourself. As long as it suits the Wests needs the most abysmal regimes are supported and lesser evils demonized. I think noone can argue that the Saudis are among the worst regimes in the Middle East. People get executed there for witchcraft and atheists considered terrorists.

And all at the expense of the ordinary people there. To which we offer next to no help, other than lip service and a few crocodile tears and which we antagonize in the process by obviously not valuing their lives and livelihoods.