User talk:Pbfreespace3/Syria

I'd like for people to give their thoughts on my version of the Syria article. Is it better or worse than the original? What changes would you make? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So far I'm only seeing very minor changes, so I can't say one is significantly better than the other at this point. In what universe is Assad charismatic, though? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the Shias (and a lot of Sunnis) support the government. Most of these like Assad a lot, in much the same way that Nazis loved Hitler or Russians loved Stalin. In other words, this universe. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't just go from "there's popular support for him" to "he's charismatic" though. Also, some sources would be nice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the reference to "Creation Week" in the existing article, but I agree that the bit about Syria getting its "ass kicked" by Israel could go. Both could use more references. The link to Kurdistan should be the first reference to Kurds. Why is "al-Qaeda" occasionally italicized? I suspect the GDP and other info. is outdated now. --Read-Write (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The "asskick" remark was from one of the A's (Avenger or Arisboch), if I recall correctly. People who were really pro-Israel against Syria. One italization was to emphasize the fact that Israel was providing aid and comfort to terrorists. It's a way of saying "no, you read that right. Al-Qaeda. Israel was supporting al-Qaeda! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, have you read this: George Friedman on HuffPo: Why Putin went into Syria? I like George Friedman. I just finished Flashpoints, which wasn't as good as his earlier books, but still interesting. Read-Write (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"grammar fixes" ? o.O So is Israel justified in bombing Gazan civilians for supporting Hamas then? Just wondering. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Gaza is fully blockaded. Civilians are not able to leave, not by the Israeli border, and not by the Egyptian border. They get shot by Israel. In fact, that's the policy of the border wall between the two. They can't leave by sea, because the Israeli ships will turn them back. So we've got a situation on our hands where civilians are literally incapable of leaving the battlespace. That could easily be changed by Israel: it could let people in Gaza flee to the West Bank or the Arab country of their choice, for example. But no, it doesn't do that. So in this situation, extreme caution should be taken when conducting bombing or other military operations in this enclosed urban area packed with 2 million civilians. Gaza is a fundamentally different situation from Aleppo, for example. Take a look at the city. Civvies living under rebel-held areas are totally free to leave through the road. In fact, many have. They can go to the Bab al-Hawa border crossing into Turkey, and go either to a refugee camp or travel to Greece and elsewhere. If you have a family with kids in Aleppo, the rebels take your block, and the government starts bombing, you are free to pack your bags and leave. If you choose to stay in an area held by FSA/Islamic Front/al-Qaeda, you are actively making a choice, knowing full well that you will be bombed. In Gaza, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever.

So is Israel justified? No, not really. If you take a look at a lot of the strikes they've conducted, many of them have been on residential blocks, power plants, schools, and hospitals. Even if the hospital is stuffed with rockets, I don't care. The only conceivable scenario in Gaza in which I think the bombing of a hospital could possibly be justified would be if it were not occupied by any civilians at the time of the strike. That's almost impossible to prove, even with spies and drones, and therefore should be essentially discarded as a viable option. Also, intentional bombing of civilians is wrong in all cases, regardless of whether it's Syria or Israel. So there's my view. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You sure have a simplistic view of the dilemmas faced by Syrian civilians. Where do you suppose they should flee to? The oh so welcoming neighbouring countries? The oh so welcoming European countries? Ah, no no, what you want them to do, of course, is to settle in government-controlled areas of Syria, because it's all sunshine and rainbows over there, right?

"Fleeing itself thus can be risky, with abuses and attacks continuing en route. Safe access to food, water, shelter, medical care and other essentials is a daily struggle. For example, fewer than 3% of IDPs find shelter in official collective centres set up by the government. The rest live with host families, or in private accommodation for as long as their resources will permit, or in makeshift camps and scattered informal settlements where security risks are rampant." Oops! Guess you got that one wrong. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

"Where do you suppose they should flee to?" Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraqi Kurdistan, Greece, Germany, many other European countries that accept refugees. Or they could leave for the government-held areas, as thousands have. Let's do a thought experiment. Say al-Qaeda takes over your city. A few thousand masked gunmen, black suits, everything. What would you do? Would you pack your bags, get in your car with your belonging and leave? Or would so sit on your ASS and stay exactly where you are? Maybe go to the marketplace, buy some vegetables? In either case, you know damn well your government is going to start bombing your town using airplanes, and you might be killed in that counterattack. Is it Antwerp, where you are? What would you do if ISIS pulled something and managed to take control of that city? What would you do?

My point is that many of the people who stay behind in areas controlled by FRICKIN' AL-QAEDA know exactly what they're doing. They are thinking "I like these people more than the government. I'd rather live under al-Qaeda than a socialistic authoritarian state." Why would the think that? They're al-Qaeda supporters. And quite frankly, they deserve to be criminally punished for their material support of a terrorist organization. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So, uh, I guess you only read my first two sentences? And sure, history teaches us that when a territory is taken over by an invading force, the first thing people do is leave their house and walk through warzone after warzone under the friendly supervision of the fighting factions. Especially since some people might seriously think they support the invaders because they have the gall to stay in the home they grew up in and lived in for their whole life!... Honestly dude, what have you been smoking? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

But to answer your question, if ISIS or Al Qaeda took over my home town, and I had a family to worry about, then I'd lay the fuck low. What, you think they'd let us leave just like that? The last thing I'd be worried about is getting bombed, because:

1. I very much doubt any Western power would want to bomb Western European cities (unless when the foe is a European country, but that's not the case here). Nosirree, those boots would be hitting our soil faster than the speed of light (slight exaggeration).
2. But even ignoring that (since your point seems to be to put me in a similar position as a Syrian civilian) the chances of my house getting bombed out of all the others is pretty small. Unless someone is intent on massacring massive amounts of civilians by carpetbombing the whole city, in which case, ISIS might not be the worst faction in the war after all...

And if I didn't have a family to worry about? Then I'd still be sticking around, to fight the occupiers! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Say you were a Syrian civilian, and your city (say you live in Aleppo) has just been partially taken by a coalition of Islamic rebels. You find this out, then pick up pamphlets on the ground distributed by airplane that say

"Civilians, leave this area now for the government-held area. There will be an anti-terrorist operation by the Syrian Air Force very soon. If you do not leave, you may be killed. This pamphlet can be used as currency to pass through government checkpoints. Leave now."

Would you do what the pamphlet says, or would you "law low"? My point is that if you stay behind, you will be hurt or killed. All of the civilians that stay behind know this, and yet they choose to stay behind.

You say "Unless someone is intent on massacring massive amounts of civilians by carpetbombing the whole city, in which case, ISIS might not be the worst faction in the war after all...". I totally disagree with this sentiment. ISIS is absolutely the worst faction in the war. They have attempted to commit mass ethnic violence/genocide multiple times, and they have intentionally slaughtered innocent civilians in non-combat situations. The Syrian government has done precisely not that. If a city gets taken over by an enemy force, you bomb it. The fact that the Syrian government has shown the decency to ask civilians in the places they are about to bomb to leave the area demonstrates they care about civilians, whereas ISIS doesn't care at all. We can talk about carpetbombing too if you want. State-of-the-art American drones in Pakistan and Yemen, with precision missiles, have killed far more innocent civilians than terrorists. The Syrian government's aim is always to kill terrorists, not to kill their people, because your people will not support you if you are killing them. No one wants to massacre large amounts of civilians here, except for ISIS and the rebels. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"If a city gets taken over by an enemy force you bomb it"

Wow, just wow. I hereby revoke your right to ever criticize any bombing campaign performed by the Allies during WWII (including Hiroshima), and then some. Keep in mind that Assad's dad leveled entire cities in the 80s due to protests. Was it Homs or Hama? I forget. The son has the more high ground, but the battle is being fought below sea level. StickySock (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hama. And also, I agree with all Allied bombing campaigns. Nagasaki in particular could've probably been avoided by just waiting, but the atomic bombings net saves lived that would've been lost in an invasion of Japan. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Also, intentional bombing of civilians is wrong in all cases, regardless of whether it's Syria or Israel. So there's my view." Uh-huh. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:22, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

It all depends on what you means by "civilian". IT's true that there is a difference between someone who is actively fighting on the frontline and someone who is working in a military factory. However, someone who works in a factory producing railway that is used to transport soldiers across the terrain is not a civilian, as their actions directly assist the war effort. Say someone works at a train station that has been commandeered to ship soldiers around and transport prisoners of war. Your train station can now be bombed for aiding the enemy. Do you see what I mean? If I order that train station to be bombed, knowing that several hundred non-combatants are going to be killed, does that make me a war criminal? I'm only attacking targets which directly assist the enemy.

In much the same vein, say you have a bakery in rebel-held Syria that bakes bread for exclusively rebel fighters; they like to come there daily and eat your bread for breakfast. Say I'm the head of the Syrian Air Force, and my reconnaisance flights notice the pattern of enemy soldiers coming into this shop to eat. My job is to defeat the enemy, and depriving him of his food is one surefire way to do that over a period of time. If the soldiers can't eat, they can't fight. So am a now a criminal for ordering that bakery to be bombed?

Intentional bombing of civilians is different when there's a route of escape for said civilians. There sure was in Germany (head for the hills), and in Syria (Turkish/Jordanian border). But in Gaza, there's no escape. That's why Gaza is different. If every single person who doesn't support Hamas is allowed by Israel to leave, then I'd adopt a different stance on Israel's bombing. If the bomb a Hamas bakery, I won't care. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, seriously. I've told this to Avenger and Mona, and I suppose it applies to you too. You're spouting overzealous apologetic/extremist nonsense. It convinces no one and only harms the cause you seek to defend. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

I'm trying to get you to reconsider your view, and question what you think. There are deeper motives, but that's the main one here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If that's your intent, you should put more effort into not coming off as an uncritical Assad-apologist. And maybe don't try to justify the mass murder of civilians through unconvincing assertions about who they might support. Also, you're basically saying thoughtcrimes can and should rightly be punished through indiscriminate bombings. o.O 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Here is what the Red Cross has to say about distinctions between combatants and non-combatants. Generally, it is one of taking part in direct hostilities. I'm not a fan of Assad, and I would ideally like FSA or some secular or moderate Islamic (oxymoronic, but I mean this to apply to a group who doesn't apply sharia law and governs like say an Erdogan without the harsh punishments typical in an Islamic state) group to take power instead provided they have the support of civilians. Regardless, I defer to the ICRC on this: "The military manuals of Germany and the United States point out that there can be other non-combatant members of the armed forces besides medical and religious personnel. Germany’s Military Manual explains that “combatants are persons who may take a direct part in hostilities, i.e., participate in the use of a weapon or a weapon-system in an indispensable function”, and specifies, therefore, that “persons who are members of the armed forces but do not have any combat mission, such as judges, government officials and blue-collar workers, are non-combatants”.[15] The US Naval Handbook states that “civil defense personnel and members of the armed forces who have acquired civil defense status” are non-combatants, in addition to medical and religious personnel.[16] Non-combatant members of the armed forces are not to be confused, however, with civilians accompanying armed forces who are not members of the armed forces by definition.[17] While in some countries, entire segments of the population between certain ages may be drafted into the armed forces in the event of armed conflict, only those persons who are actually drafted, i.e., who are actually incorporated into the armed forces, can be considered combatants. Potential mobilization does not render the person concerned a combatant liable to attack." I think this is a good source to rely upon, and it's usually the definition I use when valuing the statistics of Palestinian civilians killed by Israel. To my knowledge, Assad is no better and likewise participates in indiscriminate bombing. Source: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule3 ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Erdogan; seriously? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

I was going to explain more, but what I mean is a party that defines itself as Islamic (the AKP in this instance) but doesn't violate the rights of minorities nor seeks strict sharia punishments like banning of alcohol, stoning, etc. That wasn't meant to imply that Erdogan doesn't govern like an autocrat. Tunisia might be a better example. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"doesn't violate the rights of minorities"? Some Kurds may disagree with that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

I would say, recently, yeah, with the calls to strip citizenship. But in his earlier years, I did not think he was too awful given his (and the EU's) participation in the "solution process" that restored the Kurdish language in broadcast media among other measures. By protection of minorities, I mean to say not to the extent where say Bahais are treated in Iran, or where churches are banned in Saudi Arabia. So I should mean to say for protection of minorities more specifically the right to free religious worship and not enforcing religion on people to the extent that minorities are disproportionately impacted. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with almost all that you've said, Chris. I'd like to again emphasize my point that people who cook food for soldiers, provide them with clothing, shelter, or support in a direct way, should be legitimate military targets. If the USAF sees an ISIS convoy, it should be bombed. Just the same, an ISIS ceramic factory being used to produce weapons should be bombed and destroyed. A hospital that treats ISIS fighters should be destroyed. There have been a lot of cases where hospitals have been targeted in Syria. Most of them have provided care to armed fighters, and are thus legitimate military targets. If, through a Predator drone say, we can see that an injured ISIS fighter travels back from the battlefield to a hospital ISIS has commandeered, then I think that hospital should be bombed to hell.

But with regards to the Syrian government, we're going to have to iron out terms here if we get anywhere. You say "Assad is no better and likewise participates in indiscriminate bombing". It all depends on what you call indiscriminate. If you're going to drop a bomb on a city, it depends on what you call discriminate. Say I see a court building used by my enemy. I bomb that court building (say, it's the Islamic Sharia court run by al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria). Is that an indiscriminate bombing? It all depends. Does the fact that I killed some innocent prisoners and janitors who mopped the floor make that an indiscriminate bombing? I would no. The court building was being used by al-Qaeda to unjustly sentence people, and its existence supports and strengthens the enemy. I would view the target as a legitimate one. What do you think? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The ICRC states that in cases of doubt as to whether an object is being used for a military purpose (say to fire a rocket or artillery shell), then it shall be presumed not to be in use. "Additional Protocol I formulates an answer by providing that “in case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used”. [. . .] In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that, in case of doubt, a careful assessment has to be made under the conditions and restraints governing a particular situation as to whether there are sufficient indications to warrant an attack. It cannot automatically be assumed that any object that appears dubious may be subject to lawful attack. This is also consistent with the requirement to take all feasible precautions in attack, in particular the obligation to verify that objects to be attacked are military objectives liable to attack and not civilian objects (see Rule 16)." Source: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter2_rule10.

There exists technologies like drones that can make detailing viewing of a building and whether it is being used by militants for a military purpose/to conduct hostilities. Simply attacking a building with militants inside of it when civilians are present is, I think, immoral and frankly little different than a 9/11 attack where civilian objects are used against military objectives (Pentagon in this case) because there's no clear distinction between civilians and combatants. Israel often uses this argument, but it's a weak one because much of the independent analysis has found that Hamas militants were not nearby (7 UN schools approx), and that even in cases where they were slightly closer, they were not close enough that Israel couldn't target them with distinction (within a meter). ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think there's much disagreement here between us. I would simply like you to make your position clearer. I think it's ok to bomb an ISIS sharia court. Do you? If there's a military school run directly by al-Qaeda or ISIS that we know is being used to indoctrinate "cubs of the caliphate" to fight as child soldiers, would you agree with my proposal to flatten the school at 5 in the morning? Because this stuff is actually happening both by Syria and America. It's so effective that ISIS is covering entire city streets with umbrellas to prevent coalition aircraft from spying on and finding out their troop movement patterns. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't bomb a sharia court because courts have members who can be non-violent and not posing a threat/end of life circumstance to a soldier or aircraft. There are several sharia courts around the world in some fashion or another, but that doesn't entail violence. As far as schools, I would say if it is being used exclusively by militants and doesn't have civilians inside, I'd target it. If not, then I would not flatten it and instead try to launch a ground attack. It would produce too much collateral damage and I think there should be greater precautions taken if possible. I ideally would want to target someone who is traveling on the battle field and prepared to fight (so NOT someone who is captured and is being used as a human shield), is wearing a military uniform, has a weapon in his or her hands, holds someone hostage, or is doing some form of activity to which you can say he or she is definitely a fighter/combatant without question and will pose an imminent threat to someone. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so let's see if I get what you're saying here. Your enemies have committed several particularly bad crimes, most notably (I assume) mass murder. This means they've forfeited all of their rights, even the right to such basic necessities as food or clothing. (A view which I don't agree with, but can to an extent empathize with.) But worse still, these people haven't only forfeited their rights, they've reached such a point of moral depravity that any charity or most basic supportive transaction with them is now effectively a crime punishable by death. Am I getting everything so far? Okay, now see what would happen if this 'system of justice' is put into practice: Assad wins the war and all his opponents and their supporters are rightfully condemned. The morning after the executions, the world awakes to the aftermath of the second-worst genocide in human history, committed by Assad's executioners. Is that justice, Pb? How valuable is peace if it needs to be enforced through the same mass murder as it condemns? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:27, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

If you intentionally provide material support to a group whose policy it is to commit genocide and mass murder civilians, and you do so willingly (not at the barrel of a gun), then you should be criminally liable for that support. This is already the case. I don't think all the rebel supporters should be killed, but people who cook food for fighters of the Army of Islam or fucking al-Qaeda should be imprisoned, and treated as fair game in airstrike scenarios. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hitler's secretaries were executed. The guards at death camps (where civilians were intentionally killed for religious-political goals (terrorism)) were executed. All of them! They had a choice. They chose wrong. Take the Nuremburg standard and apply it to al-Qaeda's press secretaries. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That's all nice and dandy, but little Assad is also mass murdering civilians, just through slightly more technologically advanced means. So what do we do now, put Assad and all his government functionaries in front of a firing squad? Will that be conducive to peace? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

As long as Syria is secular and democratic (long shot), sure. I'd don't know if I'd applaud or show up, but I would not cry about it. I'm by no means pro-Assad. I'm anti-terrorist. That means ISIS, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and those who work with them. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So anything's justified as long as it achieves a secular democracy, in your view? It's not like it's ensured it would stay that way, you know. Just look at Turkey. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

My personal view (at least in Syria) is that once the enemy is defeated, you shouldn't kill people who voluntarily used their bakery for al-Nusra, and dried terrorists' uniforms on the clothesline in the yard. Maybe imprison them, but don't kill. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that. Israel treats Al-Nusra fighters (source: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862), but that wouldn't mean I support targeting Israeli hospitals. I think the purpose someone commits to an organization needs to be scrutinized before we decide on targeting them. If you, say, are providing fighters food or clothing, that does not communicate a military objective to me because it's not partaking directly/indirectly in hostilities. If you design weapons and willingly (I use this word precisely to distinguish it form non-willingly or someone who's just looking for a job and not necessarily an ideological jihad) give it to someone to be used against civilians and you know the consequences of what you're doing (you could apply this to any arms trade between countries more broadly), I could say, yeah that's serving a military objective because you are expressing a desire for civilians to be hurt or massacred. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I agree with that. I was pointing out an airstrike scenario where you've got say, a group of 6 ISIS fighters eating at a cafe in Raqqa city. If we tracked their truck, knew they were fighters (carrying AKs on their backs), and saw them walk in, I'd bomb. Preferably with a Hellfire. I'd try to get them before they walk in though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not wait till they walk out again? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:10, 19 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

That works. Look at the way this murderer was killed: right in the middle of the street. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)