http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/02/2013218104042830191.html Both government forces and armed rebels are committing war crimes, including killings and torture, spreading terror among civilians in a nearly two-year-old conflict, they said on Monday. The investigators' latest report, covering the six months to mid-January, was based on 445 interviews conducted abroad with victims and witnesses, as they have not been allowed into Syria. The independent team, led by Brazilian Paulo Pinheiro, called on the UN Security Council to "act urgently to ensure accountability" for grave violations, possibly by referring the violators to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution. "The international community, and the UN Security Council, must take the decision to refer this to justice," Carla del Ponte, a former UN prosecutor and a member of the commission, said. "We suggest the International Criminal Court." War crimes on both sides We as human beings can not remove this most important issue from global agenda. Unfortunatly there is a sense of routine, day passes day.. The war in Syria is a huge crime, the biggest and most cruel in recent decades. My Great concern is what would be after the fall of Assad ? what would happen to Syria's million alawaim ?
Granny says "Try `em an' den hang `em... UN panel says Syria war crimes should go to trial Feb 18,`13 -- A United Nations commission on Monday said fighters on both sides in Syria's civil war have committed atrocities and should be brought to justice, while European Foreign Ministers extended an arms embargo on the country in hopes it would limit the ability of both sides to wage war.
The US of AIPAC didn't give a monkey's cuss about civilian deaths in Iraq. In fact , the message might have been that ' we are killing you for your own good '. One million dead and four million displaced. Vietnamese civilian deaths ? Incalculable really. Afghanistan ? So far out of hand that its president has banned calling in NATO air strikes. If there'd have been any concern for civilians in Syria then the West shouldn't have fostered civil war in the first place. The reason it did is because Syria opposes Zionism and so Washington wants it broken. International Criminal Court ? When does that become important ? When things aren't going Washington's way. The US of AIPAC isn't even a signatory to the ICJ. Why not ? Its reason is ........' a fear of politically motivated prosecutions. ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States...he_International_Criminal_Court#United_States
The diffrences are: you named countries the US had- at that time - to make war with, right or wrong it was the Gov decision, Syria is not at war with the US so concerning over its citizens is not from intersts. The US waged war with regular armies, the civilian deaths were not intentional, its stupid and paranoid to think otherwise... Lastly, in Syria the fighting started against the civilians - long before there was even a resistance - Assad Army butchered hundreds, thats a fact you cant confuse with propaganda, its recorded. And in any case, where is the Arab League ? where are the Arabs that freed themselved from Tyranny? they are fighting over who hates Israel more , what good are you anyway......
We hope that today some arab one-sided will seriously comment about the situation in Syria besides acusing Us and the west.. Will it happen ? Will we see an attack against the "man" ( Assad the monster ) who is in charge of countless dead people in Syria ? bets are on the table
Both Assad and the rebel terrorists are committing atrocities.. When all is said and done, whichever Islamic dictator who fills the void will be committing atrocities as well. And if you love Israel, then you shouldn't support the overthrow of Assad because his replacement will be worse for Israel. And don't forget they'll probably have loads of chemical weapons, and high tech weapons from the United States.
Iran and Lebanon (well a big part of Lebanon anyway) are fight to keep a tyrant BECAUSE he stands against Israel, the west, imepralism , Goblins and Orcs....., the rest of the league are afraid to take sides, the propaganda wars between the the rebels and Assad is which side actually fights for Israel...
There isn't a great deal that the rest of the world can do ??? I know that !! I'm reffering to all those arab one-sided forum members that attack Israel 24 hours a day for 0.00000000001% problematic situation, and Do not cry out loud 24/7 against the murder of their sisters and brothers.
Slowly but surely, I am starting to realize that maybe the Arabs countries need a Dictator ?? Can they live in democracy ? Can they stop killing each other ? The only thing that unite them is their hate against Israel.
Iran, along with Russia and some entities in Lebanon have an interest in the Assad regime, and it is important for them to protect their interests. Afraid to take sides? Are you serious? The Gulf has taken sides long ago. With regards to the propaganda wars, Israel is just one subject among others.
Well the sun sure doesnt rise and sets from our jewish asses but its them that keep bringing us up in every conflict. Perhaps our news emphesys that more, seems to me most Assad quets are accusing the US and Israel behind the rebals.
roger that. The arabs have rarely intervened when their fellow arabs are at war (with Israel being a noticeable exception). Other than that it appears to be every man for himself.
It is a stretch to call the Taliban in Afghanistan "regular army" ... The rebels in Syria are as much "regular army" as the Taliban in any case. Bombing small villages with hellfire missiles from drones and assassination missions is not fighting against "regular army". Such attacks , on non "regular army" targets, often results in collateral damage/ (killing of innocents). Since in many cases it is known that civilians are present prior to the firing of the missile, the civilian deaths are indeed intentional. Claiming .. "there was some bad buy there that we were targeting " , does not change the fact that there were civilians there and that firing a missile at the bad buy would kill them as well. If you want to kill just one person you use a sniper, not a hellfire missile.
Why would they? They're made up of different nation-states, each pursuing its own interests. Think Europe throughout the course of history.
TheTaliban had an official Army just like they had official gov and police, they were not a western army but still a lone gunner in Afgan hills can be more deadly that a unit in the open field. point is the US was a declared enemy of the Taliban and eventually the US decided to excersize that to full armed conflict, why full land invasion and occupation? dunno, I think it was a mistake but it was their call. that's not the situation with Syria not from the start of things anyway, today its more complex, in fact I dont think the fighting will stop even after Assad is gone, seculars and diffrent Muslim fractions will probebly continue to fight. that alone is reason for concern. Death of innocents are always the cause of ending wars, its the cause because no one is happy with that, not the victims and not the offenders so while such death cant really be defended I likewise dont accept it means nothing, the case you described is a case pf priority rather than a mistake, in priority the attacker thinks of more lives that will be saved if they hit right now before the traget vanishes or enters a more populated area. that's why all wars suck, innocents always die. Defeanding the war in Afgan is not my concern, I think its a waste of time and lives anyway. but to say the US doesnt care for civilian lives because it killed civilians in the past is just - scuse me - dum and clueless comment.
Makes sense, in our case they ganged up so we naturally looked at them as one risk to be addressed but we are aware of their diffrences ofc, there is/was an attempt to join to one force if im not mistaken, also "Umma" jumps to mind (or was it just Egyptians?)
There are many times in the past where the US has been callous towards civilian life ( ignoring this fact ... scuse me - is perhaps not dumb and witless as many folks are not aware of this stuff, but it does show a certain level of ignorance). I make no comment here on whether or not killing of innocents is justified on one basis or another, and "these days" I think that the US does "generally" try to avoid civilian casualties. To suggest that the US has never knowingly killed civilians or shown callous disregard for human life is just demonstrable rubbish. ( If you would like 5-10 examples of really nasty examples of callous disregard for human life do feel free to ask) 1) The rebels in Syria are just as armed and dangerous as the Taliban when intermixed with civilian populations. The complexity of the situation has little bearing on this issue. Shooting hellfire missiles into civilian areas of Pakistan ( where the enemy "might" be hiding) is not substantively different than Assad firing missiles civilian areas in Syria (where the enemy might be hiding) We are on the same page with regards to the various blood feuds, mostly due to religious extremism, in the middle east. Often there is no right or wrong side and we only make enemies by getting involved. It blows me away when I hear politicians calling on Obama to fund/support the pro Al Qaeda rebels in Syria. I do not expect the average Joe to understand .. but I do expect our elected representatives to have some clue about what they are talking about when they urge us to get involved in a foreign conflict.
It's amazing how many people forgot that only 3 nations on earth had recognized the Taliban as the legitimate governement of Afghanistan at the time the U.S. invaded Afghanistan on the cheap (in support of the Northern Alliance). That doesn't spell official government to me and that means the Taliban's military forces were NOT regular army.
Sure, there was Pan-Arabism; and although it was popular among citizens across the Arab world, there was opposition from their governments. With regards to the Umma, other than reviving Islam throughout the world, its been mostly impotent on the world stage.
