Michael wrote:Russia Defense Ministry says 5 of 6 of alleged hospitals don't exist and denies bombing the sixth one.
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151102/1029484605/syria-russia-airstrikes-n-hospitals.html
Arutz Sheva
Syrian doctors: Russia bombed nine hospitals
Syrian-American Medical Society reveals Russia is hitting medical facilities and killing staff; latest strike kills 10, wounds 28.
By Arutz Sheva Staff
First Publish: 10/23/2015, 12:21 PM
Created by Wibbitz
Nine Russian air strikes have hit hospitals or field clinics operating in war-torn Syria, killing civilians and medical staff, a Syrian medical organization said late Thursday.
The Syrian-American Medical Society, which operates several facilities in Syria, said a deadly strike earlier this week "adds to the previous estimated eight Russian air strikes on hospitals in Syria, as well as the 313 attacks on medical facilities since the start of the conflict."
It said several of its facilities had been hit in Russia's bombing campaign, including in the Mediterranean coastal province of Latakia and the central province of Hama on October 2 and in the northwestern province of Idlib on Tuesday.
The latest strike killed two medical personnel and at least 10 civilians, and wounded 28 civilians, it said.
Russia has strongly denied reports that its aircraft hit the hospital in the Idlib province town of Sarmin, describing them as "fake."
The society's president, Ahmad Tarakji, called for international action to stop hospitals and clinics being hit again.
"We call on the international community to use all means necessary to end attacks on civilians and to prevent the further targeting of healthcare facilities in Syria," he said.
Russia began its air campaign in Syria on September 30 in order to prop up President Bashar al-Assad.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Tuesday that of the 370 people killed in the Russian strikes since they began, only 52 are from Islamic State (ISIS), belying Russia's claims of an anti-ISIS campaign. Of the victims 127 are civilians, including 36 children and 34 women, and the rest are largely Western backed rebel forces.
AFP contributed to this report.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... jedCiunzgM
Syria: Russian bombs kill children in Anadan
7th Oct 2015
ANKARA (AA): Two children were killed in Russian airstrikes on a Syrian town on Tuesday, health workers said.
The attacks on a residential area of Anadan, to the northwest of Aleppo, left many civilians injured, according to medical staff at a local field hospital.
Anadan lies in a region where Daesh is fighting opposition groups.
Russia, which says the air campaign it launched in Syria last week targeted Daesh, has been accused of bombing “moderate” fighters opposed to Russia’s ally President Bashar al-Assad.
In a separate airstrike, Russian warplanes attacked ammunition depots in western Aleppo province belonging to the Suqur al-Jabal group, Commander Hassan Haj Ali told Anadolu Agency.
“All of the ammunition depots were completely destroyed,” he said, adding that three Russian aircraft had attacked.
Suqur al-Jabal fights under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and has reportedly been supported by Turkey and the West.
Author: Servet Günerigök, Hatice Vildan Topaloğlu
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/middle ... in-anadan/
The New York Times
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Barrel Bombs, Not ISIS, Are the Greatest Threat to Syrians
By KENNETH ROTH
AUGUST 5, 2015
GAZIANTEP, Turkey — As the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS, commits horrendous videotaped executions, it might seem to pose the greatest threat to Syrian civilians. In fact, that ignoble distinction belongs to the barrel bombs being dropped by the military of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. The Islamic State has distracted us from this deadly reality.
Barrel bombs are improvised weapons: oil drums or similar canisters filled with explosives and metal fragments. They are dropped without guidance from helicopters hovering just above antiaircraft range, typically hitting the ground with huge explosions and the widespread diffusion of deadly shrapnel. They pulverize neighborhoods, destroy entire buildings and leave broad strips of death and destruction.
The Syrian military has dropped barrel bombs, sometimes dozens in one day, on opposition-held neighborhoods in Aleppo, Idlib, Dara’a and other cities and towns. They have pulverized markets, schools, hospitals and countless residences. Syrians have described to me the sheer terror of waiting the 30 seconds or so for the barrel bomb to tumble to earth from a helicopter hovering overhead, not knowing until near the very end where its deadly point of impact will be.
From the start of the war, the Assad government has pursued a murderous policy toward Syrian citizens who happen to live in areas that have been seized by opposition armed groups. The apparent aim is to kill and terrorize civilians (and destroy civilian structures) so as to drive civilians from opposition-held areas and to send a warning of the misery that attends anyone whose neighborhood is taken by opposition groups. Mr. Assad is thus pursuing the “total war” strategy that the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war flatly prohibit and criminalize.
Beyond killing civilians, barrel bombs are playing a big part in forcing Syrians from their country. In most wars, civilians can find a modicum of safety by moving away from the front lines. But Mr. Assad’s indiscriminate use of barrel bombs deep in opposition-held territory means that for many there is no safe place to hide. That ugly reality has played a major part in persuading four million people to flee the country.
Yet the international community has made little effort to stop Mr. Assad’s barrel bombing of civilians. The two governments with the greatest potential to influence Mr. Assad — his principal backers, Russia and Iran — have refused to get him to stop. Western governments have been reluctant to exert strong public pressure on them because of other priorities — Ukraine, in the case of Russia, and the nuclear deal, in the case of Iran. The European Union is putting far more effort into stopping Syrian asylum seekers from reaching the Continent than addressing the root causes of their flight. The United States and Turkey recently announced a plan to make a 60-mile strip in northern Syria an “ISIS-free zone,” but the goal is to fight ISIS militants, not protect civilians.
In February 2014, the United Nations Security Council demanded an end to the “indiscriminate employment of weapons in populated areas, including shelling and aerial bombardment, such as the use of barrel bombs,” but it has not done much to stop it. Western governments are now proposing a new Security Council resolution that would have the United Nations monitor the use of barrel bombs and that hints at, though does not actually impose, sanctions should the barrel bombing continue.
If Russia blocks further Security Council action, Western nations should start ratcheting up public pressure on Damascus for using this indiscriminate form of warfare and on Moscow and Tehran for backing it.
Because of Western reticence, too few people understand the extraordinary slaughter that the Syrian military is committing with its barrel bombs. Mr. Assad’s chlorine gas attacks, terrifying as they are, kill a tiny fraction of the barrel-bomb toll, though they have recently attracted more attention than the barrel bombs.
Western nations should also continue to collect evidence of Syrian war crimes, and if Russia persists in blocking the International Criminal Court from having jurisdiction to pursue war-crimes charges, an alternative tribunal should be found.
One reason for soft-pedaling is a fear that ending the barrel-bomb attacks might undermine Mr. Assad’s ability to cling to power, and thus facilitate an Islamic State takeover. But barrel bombs are so imprecise that the Syrian military does not usually drop them near the front lines, for fear of hitting its own troops. They are useful mainly for pummeling civilian neighborhoods.
That is one reason residents of opposition-held parts of Aleppo told me that, unlike in almost any other war, some civilians have — astonishingly — moved closer to the front lines, preferring to brave the more predictable artillery and snipers than the barrel bombs’ random death from the sky.
The failure to address the barrel bombs arguably helps extremist groups like the Nusra Front and the Islamic State, which recruit Syrian members by presenting themselves as the most powerful military force to counter Mr. Assad’s government’s atrocities.
President Obama has reportedly been reluctant to act too decisively in Syria for fear that he might then “own” the country and the chaotic mess it has become. But firmer pressure on Syria, Russia and Iran to stop the barrel bombs wouldn’t make the United States responsible for anything other than fewer civilians dead, injured and displaced.
Some say that, rather than targeting a particularly monstrous weapons system, the best way to end the barrel bombs is to make peace. That is a laudable goal, but few believe a negotiated solution to the Syrian crisis is anywhere near. In the meantime, virtually all the Syrians I have spoken with agree that stopping Mr. Assad’s barrel bombs is probably the single most urgent task to reduce their suffering now.
Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch.
grzegorz wrote:According to this Assad is purposely destroying neighborhoods in areas the government doesn't control which is why Syrians are fleeing because there is no place safe for them to live.
The New York Times
Barrel Bombs, Not ISIS, Are the Greatest Threat to Syrians
By KENNETH ROTH
Mr. Assad’s chlorine gas attacks, terrifying as they are, kill a tiny fraction of the barrel-bomb toll, though they have recently attracted more attention than the barrel bombs.
Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, the United States and its allies have supported opposition factions they consider to be "moderate," and have called for President Bashar Assad to resign.
Russia considers Assad the legitimate authority in the country and has promoted a peaceful settlement of the Syrian conflict.
source wrote:Russia criticized the United States on Wednesday for refusing to support the statement of the United Nations Security Council condemning the terrorist attack against the Russian Embassy in Damascus.
"Unfortunately our American colleagues, who are interested in whether we are fighting terrorism, refused to support it (the statement) in the wording which described the incident as a terrorist attack," Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the Duma, or lower house of parliament.
Lavrov stressed that the U.S. proposed instead to write that «we condemn the attack and affirm that responsibility for the security of embassies and consulates are covered by the host party», referring to the Syrian government.
"It is sad that our American colleagues in this case in fact do not side with those who fight against terrorism and condemn terror.
"Once again we have to speak about double standards," Lavrov added.
Lavrov stressed that the Security Council of the U.N. "always" issued statements condemning "this kind of attacks (...), wherever they take place."
The Russian embassy in Damascus came under mortar shelling on Tuesday morning.
The embassy's residential quarters was hit by two shells.
No one was killed or wounded.
Lavrov also mentioned that Washington rejected the proposal of Russian President Vladimir Putin to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest political and military levels to coordinate positions in the fight against terrorism and the settlement of the conflict in Syria.
According to Lavrov, the U.S. said it is only willing to coordinate with Russia to take steps to avoid incidents in Syrian airspace.
"Unfortunately our American colleagues, who are interested in whether we are fighting terrorism, refused to support it (the statement) in the wording which described the incident as a terrorist attack," Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the Duma, or lower house of parliament.
Lavrov stressed that the U.S. proposed instead to write that «we condemn the attack and affirm that responsibility for the security of embassies and consulates are covered by the host party», referring to the Syrian government.
"It is sad that our American colleagues in this case in fact do not side with those who fight against terrorism and condemn terror.
"Once again we have to speak about double standards," Lavrov added.
Squealer/US/ displays even more of his skill at doubletalk
why did the USA (and France, UK, etc.) complain that so much about Russia's bombing attacks on ISIS?
Steve James wrote:why did the USA (and France, UK, etc.) complain that so much about Russia's bombing attacks on ISIS?
They never did. They said (and Putin confirmed) that the majority of Russian bombing missions were directed against the Syrian rebels, not IS. That is why Russia began bombing in the first place: i.e., to support Assad, whom it's been supporting before IS existed.
Michael wrote:Another example of the problem with USA foreign policy on Syria. On October 13, 2015, during a pro-Assad and pro-Putin demonstration in the streets that eventually led nearby to the Russian embassy in Damascus, there were two mortar attacks on the embassy building. Russia categorized these as terrorist attacks, but the USA refused to acknowledge them as such in a letter issued by the UN Security Council.source wrote:Russia criticized the United States on Wednesday for refusing to support the statement of the United Nations Security Council condemning the terrorist attack against the Russian Embassy in Damascus.
"Unfortunately our American colleagues, who are interested in whether we are fighting terrorism, refused to support it (the statement) in the wording which described the incident as a terrorist attack," Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the Duma, or lower house of parliament.
Lavrov stressed that the U.S. proposed instead to write that «we condemn the attack and affirm that responsibility for the security of embassies and consulates are covered by the host party», referring to the Syrian government.
"It is sad that our American colleagues in this case in fact do not side with those who fight against terrorism and condemn terror.
"Once again we have to speak about double standards," Lavrov added.
Lavrov stressed that the Security Council of the U.N. "always" issued statements condemning "this kind of attacks (...), wherever they take place."
The Russian embassy in Damascus came under mortar shelling on Tuesday morning.
The embassy's residential quarters was hit by two shells.
No one was killed or wounded.
Lavrov also mentioned that Washington rejected the proposal of Russian President Vladimir Putin to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest political and military levels to coordinate positions in the fight against terrorism and the settlement of the conflict in Syria.
According to Lavrov, the U.S. said it is only willing to coordinate with Russia to take steps to avoid incidents in Syrian airspace.
Return to Been There Done That
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests