Pap, the paragraph you’ve not quoted, that gives the biggest context to that article is this one:
– Few Iraqis are aware of the United States’ assertion that most of the Russian strikes in Syria have been directed at opponents of Mr. Assad, not at the Islamic State. Those details have been overshadowed by the dramatic images of Russian planes blasting their targets below.–
What the article is outlining, is that the Iraqi people want American intervention in Iraq. As they did when the US coalition first toppled Saddam Hussein. They want help.
Obviously, that’s tricky territory.
The Syria situation is incredibly complex. But I fail to understand how anyone can feel positive about Russian intervention in Syria when the Russians haven’t been singling out Daesh terrorists, but instead Syrian civilians or opposition groups to Assad’s terror regime.
Because Assad will bring stability to the region by whatever means and stability is key for all involved. Yes, people who live there will suffer but for the good of the world community, it is better to have some control in the region than none, which is presently the case. Assad and the Russians can/could/will fight Isis. No one else is doing that to any great effect. It’s just a different angle to what we are used to. I don’t know if the Russians will sort out any of the problems, but nothing the west has done has worked and in the meantime it all turns to shit. We get caught up in the Western European point of view…that our solution is the only solution…even when we don’t have a solution.
Meanwhile everyone else can wring their hands and say thousands must continue to die or flood Europe because restoring the Assad regime means this year’s Bogeyman stays in power.
The ONLy workable solution is stability THEN allow a phased transition with Bashar being retired to a beachfront property where the Yanks can Drone him in 4 years time.
Ministries, Military, Police, all need to be transformed - that has never succeeded in a total vacuum overnight. It takes time.
The West hates it because it screws with their view that you do not talk to evil.
In every addiction, a part of us is addicted to the process. Laying out the cigarette papers to build the joint; heating the spoon and flicking the syringe; dealing with our emails before our DMs; cueing up Netflix for when the kids go to sleep; methodically polishing the keys to our own prisons.
Britain seems to be going through the preliminaries associated with one of its most cherished addictions: bombing. Bombing Syria has probably only been postponed by Russia’s intervention. It was, of course, amusing to see the western press suddenly preoccupied about whether bombs were hitting their intended targets. Perhaps Putin should have avoided such rigorous international scrutiny by bombing only hospitals.
The recent immolation of a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Afghanistan presented us with the internal contradiction of our media’s presentation of bombing: that we have technology so precise our weapons can hear their victims begging for a trial, and that we sometimes blow up stuff “accidentally”. It has been suggested that non-white people caught up in our foreign wars are “unpersons reported”. More accurately, they are treated as subpersons. A handful of Afghans dying could make the front pages, but only if they were strangled one by one by Beyoncé as the half-time entertainment at the Super Bowl.
No speech, so by default, you just need eyes to see. The detached nature of the drone footage also gives it an air of impartiality, which of course, it isn’t.
Gotta wonder if you watched GB’s video, SaintBristol.
I did. It speaks about the background of the situation of people in Aleppo. According to the journalist, many of the civilians in the loving bosom of the rebels were being held there under duress, under threat of death to their loved ones.
Also, does sir only find the atrocities of war of note when committed by one side? If so, you’re as much of a hypocrite as John Kerry, who managed to say with a straight face that indiscriminate killing was wrong, while his government are conducting drone strikes which cause 95% collateral damage.
Corresponds with a lot of other information I’ve seen, but well worth a watch in its own right. Vanessa Beeley comes across as coherent, articulate and poses some interesting questions.
It’s probably the sanest articulation of the idea that the White Helmets are more than an NGO. Just why does an organisation of around 3,000 medics needs £100m?
Just why does an organisation of around 3,000 medics needs £100m?
The London Ambulance Service has about 3,000 medics, and costs £280m per year. I dunno anything about the thing you was posting about tho so don’t know if it’s same, I just thought it was Interest.
Don’t they pay those other white hat bros? That seems Raw Deal. I hope Theresa May don’t get to hear about that, my brother in law is Ambulance Man, if they stop paying him my sister will prob make me start paying her bills srs.
The White Helmets are “Volunteers”, mate. Heroes. As the video points out, they just happen to have access to both shitloads of Western funding and “rebel” held areas.
