Accusations of war crimes can easily be prevented simply by not going to war.

What really interests me is why is there a war to begin with? What is Russia protecting other than its own interests and who is pushing for the removal of Assad and Russia's sphere of influence?

Is it really necessary? Oh thats right I forgot we're told its for freedom and democracy.

Uh, like rape can be prevented by not wearing short skirts? :doh:
No one forces anyone to commit war crimes in a war, really.

Your logic, your comparison is seriously failing here.

Poland could have prevented to get invaded by not provoking Hitler?

Kuwait could have prevented to get invaded by not having provoked Saddam?

You may not wish to find yourself in a war. But sometimes war nevertheless finds you.

And if that is the case, then you either accept to commit suicide or to surrender, that is called radical pacifism and is quite ruinous to your own autonomy - , or you decide to defend yourself and fight back.

But then some clever Willy strolls by and tells you that due to using force yourself you are not any better than the attacker who attacked you first. :06: Thats is as clever as somebody reminding me that I cannot eat the gold I own and thus better should sell it...

War follows its own logic and demands. You end up in hells kitchen if you try to assess these by standards that are usable in peacetimes - both intellectually, emotionally and in reality. Peace might be more than the absence of war, but war is the absence of peace for sure. To define war by something that does not exist, since war is wartime and not peacetime, is absurd.

War is not the continuation of peace by other means. :03:

Rockstar is right. War events - and war crimes are part of war, whether that is wanted or not, you simply have to expect such things to happen - can be prevented from happening - by finding ways to not going to war and not having war finding you.

No, you just don't get it, but that's your problem.

Yep, you don't get it.
Stopped reading there. This is pointless.

Tell me - are you levitating already? Your last words somehow had a breath of divine verdict around them... :D

Darwin's Law of Natural Selection plays a large part. along with man-kinds penchant for self destruction. ;)

what is happening in Aleppo may be a war crime, but that is academic since neither Syria nor Russia are subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The U.N. security council has the power to refer cases to the ICC, but of course, that will not happen as long as Russia has a veto.

What is happening in Syria is a tragedy, but there is no easy solution. The West wants Assad to go, fine, but what then? who will take over?

The West does not have a good track record in the ME. Full invasion of Iraq turned into a bloody quagmire. Trying to support rebels on the ground in Libya turned into a civil war, a failed state and insecurity in the entire region since Ghadaffi's arsenal supplied every terrorist organization in the region with heavy weapons, one result being the invasion of Mali and an ongoing guerilla war throughout North Africa.

The West is hoping that it will all turn out OK on its own, that Assad will leave and a western style liberal democratic government will replace it. The time for that is long gone though, the only way that will happen is if a multinational military force goes in, imposes order and builds a democratic government from the ground up. What are the chances of that happening?

As to why Russia is involved, there seem to be two principal rationale:

1. Putin does not agree with western style regime change. Russia tacitly agreed to the 2011 Libya operation and the result is a mess. Western policy in Syria up until last year was basically leading to another Libya scenario;

2. Putin is involved in Syria as a bargaining chip to secure a more favorable outcome to the Ukraine war, i.e. sanction relief and better ultimate peace deal.

I personally think it has more to with #2 than #1.

Fourth Geneva Convention

Wounded and sick III. Protection of hospitals

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.
Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.
The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.
In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

Wounded and sick IV. Discontinuance of protection of hospitals

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.


If both parties are signatories, then these are the rules. Plain and simple.

Emphasis is mine. How is situation considered to be, when both major parties in one side are signatories, but other side does not include any (directly participating) state actor which could sign up?

http://aytiws.com/wp-content/uploads...-wrolds_11.jpg
Written spell versus death beam 0:1.

You can take it as granted fact that all major countries able to wage cyber warfare, are ready and prepared to destroy civilian infrastructure like powergrids and water suplies, even to destroy dams and to defunct airport controls and to derail trains and send nuclear powerplants into travel-to-China mode, and they do not care then one bit for Geneva Convention or Hague Convention or whether they kill people in hospitals.

Welcome in the 21st century.

Interesting .... US/UK is accusing Russia of war crimes for allegedly using "Bunker Busting" bombs against targets in Aleppo.

Turns out NATO has also dropped "Bunker Busting " bombs in Libya and the current campaign against ISIS:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-in-isil-war/

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...depose-gaddafi

So why is the use of such ordnance now a "war crime"? because the Russians are dropping them instead of NATO? :hmmm:

Not to take side

Didn't NATO use their Bunker Buster against the ordinary Libyan army, while Russia/Syria has used it against a non-ordinary army.

Markus

The Syrians/Russians use them against tunnels and subterranean enemy strongholds and storage sites, apparently. Just saying.

Israel went after such subterranean targets as well during Gaza 2006. The amount of destruction in Aleppo is for the same reasons like in Gaza, I assume: its densely populated, urban environments with buildings standing side by side.

Tell the rebels to line up in the desert so that they can be bombed there, and collateral damages will go down in Aleppo. :hmmm: Also helps to save the amount of atockpiled bunker busters the Syrians got delivered from the Russians (at least I think they got them from them, as long as the Russians do not bomb themselves).

the Guardian has a more in depth article on the subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-bomb-reports

If Russia is using this ordnance, it is presumably to hit underground rebel structures, which are military targets.

If Russia is using the bombs to deliberately hit civilian targets, then yes that would be a war crime, although there are more effective, less expensive way to hit civilian targets then using PGMs.

In 2011, NATO frequently used "Bunker Busting" bombs to hit underground military targets in downtown Tripoli.

This war is getting worse by the day and there is no end in sight.

Actually there now is an end in sight. Not in near sight but the Syrian army is gaining ground thanks to the air support they get. Our way of waging that war was just a never ending story. There is no way to win this without boots on the ground which is why our air campaign is about as helpful as Rolling Thunder was in Vietnam IMHO.
The Russian/Syrian way of fighting is dirty and cruel but at least they are making progress so there might be an end to this nightmare somewhere down the road instead of this never ending carnage that we've had until now.

Could also be the start of the next step in the war.

Markus

I'm afraid you're right. This doesn't end with an Assad victory.

Well, at the moment it looks like Russians have decided this won't end to their defeat either.

If someone has Syrian leader candidate in mind who would be palatable for both West and Russia, and who would be willing to provide guarantees for Russia's interests (whatever they may be), then I would like to know who that miracle maker is. Otherwise Assad's victory and iron fist rule looks like best of bad options...

It ends with a split Syria if Assad stays. The part he controls as a Russian puppet then, maybe will regain some stability, the rest will drown in civil war between those who now are "united" to fight him.

If Assad's side looses, then all of Syria will drown in such a civil war, not just some part.

The worst is yet to come.

Or in other words: Syria, as a nation with the borders we once knew, is a thing of the past. The stability and predictability that was there before, though enforced with an iron fist, was to be preferred to the unpredictable chaos there is now, and will be for many more years to come - if not for decades.

Winner:clearly Russia. It keeps its wanted naval base in the Mediterranean. And has managed to lure the West again into making a fool of itself.

Lets see if somebody in Europe and Washington learns the lesson this time, finally. By now the lecture has been repeated often enough, one would think.

While I understand the reasons Russia is involved In the Syrian civil war, I don't quite get the reason the rest of us are involved. This civil war is and should remain an internal matter between the Syrian Government and her citizens.