Syria fighting rages despite fresh efforts to end the war

[rooster59]

Syria fighting rages despite fresh efforts to end the war



Fighting continued to rage in Syria on Friday, as the world analyses the latest deal aimed at stopping five years of war.

The complex twists of diplomacy are far removed from the reality of men, women and children facing the horrors of daily violence.

Video uploaded to social media on Friday was said to show the aftermath of new air strikes
In the suburb of Saqba, east of Damascus.

World powers, led by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, struck a deal in Munich earlier to try to bring an end to hostilities in a week and to provide rapid humanitarian access to a handful of besieged Syrian towns as a first step.

It comes as President Assad vowed to retake the whole of Syria, saying it could take a long time, according to a new interview with the French AFP news agency.

The recent surge of violence has sent a fresh wave of refugees rushing to the border with Turkey which has already taken in more than 2.5 million refugees. That border remains firmly closed.

Trucks from the United Nations World Food Programme are being allowed to go in the opposite direction, into Syria, to deliver vital aid to an ever-growing migrant population.

“We are talking about tens of thousands of people who are moving towards the Turkish border looking for safety because of the conflict in Aleppo,” explained WFP spokeswoman Berna Cetin.

“WFP, as part of its regular operations, is sending hundreds of trucks to the Syrian side every month to meet the needs of the displaced people.”

But as the border camps get busier and busier, conditions are deteriorating. For those who have already lost so much, the struggle for survival continues.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-01-13

[Suradit69]

Not everyone got the memo.

[Chao Lao Beach]

There s a HUGE exercise about to get underway in SA. Are the Saudis getting ready for their final launch. No mention in western main stream media.

[thaibeachlovers]

If anyone believes that conflict is going to stop because John Kerry fronted up and told them to I have a bridge for sale.

BTW, did anyone ask the Iranians to attend that conference?

[arjunadawn]

Turkey, SA, Russia snatching FOB airbases, etc., are the run up to the sit down. The problem with positioning yourself for the better negotiation is the longstanding danger of "standing armies." In the run up to "peace talks" countries leverage their credibility and mobilize militarizes such as Turkey, SA, Russia projecting deeper into Syria, etc. When the diplomacy turns south or utterly fails standing armies on battlefields take on their own gravity, and the potential for error is quite dangerous. Russia is right in suggesting the moving of the current chess board sets up a dynamic for HIC (high intensity conflict). The region is already in a low to mid intensity conflict.

It is illustrative that while the US argues at home it funds a smaller though worthwhile FSA faction it can present itself at the table as able to offer peace on behalf of any one. There is a subtle concession in the US' peace offering, one that outs further that the entire proxy war and a majority of its factions spun directly from the US. One might not like Russia and protest its missiles, its support of Assad, even more, but Russia has been consistent and fairly transparent.

[Scott]

It's much easier to be transparent when you do not receive any criticism at home and very little from abroad over the massive amounts of civilian deaths and the utter destruction of cities and infrastructure.

[retarius]

Scott what possible benefit is it for Russia to waste missile targeting civilians who are not actors in the conflict? Bombs and missiles are expensive so they don;t want to waste them. There is no military benefit to killing civilians and a lot of downsides. Russia may be brutal but they are not stupid.

No are there going to be 'collateral damage' to civilians from dropping bombs on terrorists who have surrounded themselves with civilians. Yes, of course, but this applies equally to US bombs as to Russian bombs. The Western media and especially where they get their news from, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a grand sounding title for a single rebel supporting guy who lives in a bedsit and who has not been in Syria for 5 years. Mainstream news in propaganda, pure and simple.

[craigt3365]

There s a HUGE exercise about to get underway in SA. Are the Saudis getting ready for their final launch. No mention in western main stream media.

Are you talking about SA's recent statements about sending troops to Syria to fight? If so, it's all over the MSM.

[craigt3365]

Scott what possible benefit is it for Russia to waste missile targeting civilians who are not actors in the conflict? Bombs and missiles are expensive so they don;t want to waste them. There is no military benefit to killing civilians and a lot of downsides. Russia may be brutal but they are not stupid.

No are there going to be 'collateral damage' to civilians from dropping bombs on terrorists who have surrounded themselves with civilians. Yes, of course, but this applies equally to US bombs as to Russian bombs. The Western media and especially where they get their news from, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a grand sounding title for a single rebel supporting guy who lives in a bedsit and who has not been in Syria for 5 years. Mainstream news in propaganda, pure and simple.

There are many reasons for Russia to be in this. The proposed gas pipeline to Europe, which would reduce Russia's choke hold on Europe. Syria is one of Russia's largest customers for weapons. Cash Russia desperately needs. And protection of their base there.

The coalition had done a pretty good job of minimizing collateral damage. Precision bombs, no carpet bombing and no barrel bombs. Always saying MSM is propaganda gets old. And it's not always true.

Interesting how it seems Russia might be arming the Taliban to help fight ISIS. What a mess.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614710/Islamic-State-ISIS-Vladimir-Putin-Russia-Syria-Taliban

Putin to team up with the TALIBAN to wipe out Islamic State – and give them WEAPONS

[Scott]

Scott what possible benefit is it for Russia to waste missile targeting civilians who are not actors in the conflict? Bombs and missiles are expensive so they don;t want to waste them. There is no military benefit to killing civilians and a lot of downsides. Russia may be brutal but they are not stupid.

No are there going to be 'collateral damage' to civilians from dropping bombs on terrorists who have surrounded themselves with civilians. Yes, of course, but this applies equally to US bombs as to Russian bombs. The Western media and especially where they get their news from, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a grand sounding title for a single rebel supporting guy who lives in a bedsit and who has not been in Syria for 5 years. Mainstream news in propaganda, pure and simple.

My apologies if I suggested that Russia is targeting civilians. I very much doubt that Putin or his military personnel would do that. I think we are seeing a dichotomy between the Western extreme care that was taken to not kill civilians and the less stringent regard for civilian casualties on the part of Russia. Russia faces less pressure in civilian deaths. I don't think there is much domestic pressure and international pressure seems muted.

Assad has bigger scores to settle with groups of people who are less supportive. He might be inclined to be even less concerned with killing civilians from certain groups or areas, but Russia I think would rather take out its targeted enemies.

They just appear a little more ruthless than some other countries.

On a personal level, I don't trust Putin, but if in the long run he can bring a positive resolution to the situation, the power to him. History will tell whether the interference from the West has been the pivotal problem or whether the conflicts are even resolvable in our life time.

[i claudius]

Nothing can resolve the problems in the Muslim country's , the only people they hate more than each other ,is us .

[Grouse]

Scott what possible benefit is it for Russia to waste missile targeting civilians who are not actors in the conflict? Bombs and missiles are expensive so they don;t want to waste them. There is no military benefit to killing civilians and a lot of downsides. Russia may be brutal but they are not stupid.

No are there going to be 'collateral damage' to civilians from dropping bombs on terrorists who have surrounded themselves with civilians. Yes, of course, but this applies equally to US bombs as to Russian bombs. The Western media and especially where they get their news from, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a grand sounding title for a single rebel supporting guy who lives in a bedsit and who has not been in Syria for 5 years. Mainstream news in propaganda, pure and simple.

My apologies if I suggested that Russia is targeting civilians. I very much doubt that Putin or his military personnel would do that. I think we are seeing a dichotomy between the Western extreme care that was taken to not kill civilians and the less stringent regard for civilian casualties on the part of Russia. Russia faces less pressure in civilian deaths. I don't think there is much domestic pressure and international pressure seems muted.

Assad has bigger scores to settle with groups of people who are less supportive. He might be inclined to be even less concerned with killing civilians from certain groups or areas, but Russia I think would rather take out its targeted enemies.

They just appear a little more ruthless than some other countries.

On a personal level, I don't trust Putin, but if in the long run he can bring a positive resolution to the situation, the power to him. History will tell whether the interference from the West has been the pivotal problem or whether the conflicts are even resolvable in our life time.

Putin's goons are using dumb 250lb iron bombs while we use Brimstones at 100,000 GBP each. Why? Because Putin doesn't give a shit about civilian casualties.

Overarching ambition is hanging on and extending his base on the Mediterranean. They will be a bulwark to protect Assad from Turkey.

We should establish a no fly zone to include Aleppo and to hell with consequences. Then Syria can be carved up and people sent home

OK, there's not much oil and it's not really needed right now, so the Americans probably won't share the load, but Europe can, and should do so.

Turkey should lose a huge chunk of land to the Kurds. Give them Northern Iraq including Mosul also.

Time to stop pissing around. We have the equipment, let's do it and get the Refugees home to rebuild (Saudi must have few stones left over!)

[thaibeachlovers]

Scott what possible benefit is it for Russia to waste missile targeting civilians who are not actors in the conflict? Bombs and missiles are expensive so they don;t want to waste them. There is no military benefit to killing civilians and a lot of downsides. Russia may be brutal but they are not stupid.

No are there going to be 'collateral damage' to civilians from dropping bombs on terrorists who have surrounded themselves with civilians. Yes, of course, but this applies equally to US bombs as to Russian bombs. The Western media and especially where they get their news from, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a grand sounding title for a single rebel supporting guy who lives in a bedsit and who has not been in Syria for 5 years. Mainstream news in propaganda, pure and simple.

My apologies if I suggested that Russia is targeting civilians. I very much doubt that Putin or his military personnel would do that. I think we are seeing a dichotomy between the Western extreme care that was taken to not kill civilians and the less stringent regard for civilian casualties on the part of Russia. Russia faces less pressure in civilian deaths. I don't think there is much domestic pressure and international pressure seems muted.

Assad has bigger scores to settle with groups of people who are less supportive. He might be inclined to be even less concerned with killing civilians from certain groups or areas, but Russia I think would rather take out its targeted enemies.

They just appear a little more ruthless than some other countries.

On a personal level, I don't trust Putin, but if in the long run he can bring a positive resolution to the situation, the power to him. History will tell whether the interference from the West has been the pivotal problem or whether the conflicts are even resolvable in our life time.

Putin's goons are using dumb 250lb iron bombs while we use Brimstones at 100,000 GBP each. Why? Because Putin doesn't give a shit about civilian casualties.

Overarching ambition is hanging on and extending his base on the Mediterranean. They will be a bulwark to protect Assad from Turkey.

We should establish a no fly zone to include Aleppo and to hell with consequences. Then Syria can be carved up and people sent home

OK, there's not much oil and it's not really needed right now, so the Americans probably won't share the load, but Europe can, and should do so.

Turkey should lose a huge chunk of land to the Kurds. Give them Northern Iraq including Mosul also.

Time to stop pissing around. We have the equipment, let's do it and get the Refugees home to rebuild (Saudi must have few stones left over!)

Turkey will never accept a Kurdish homeland, period.

[Pakboong]

There s a HUGE exercise about to get underway in SA. Are the Saudis getting ready for their final launch. No mention in western main stream media.

Are you talking about SA's recent statements about sending troops to Syria to fight? If so, it's all over the MSM.

www.rt.com/news/332454-saudi-arabia-big-drills/

A Harvard University digest cited Sputnik International News Agency as a source of useful articles on nuclear, security-related issues and foreign relations, alongside top global media outlets.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160121/1033483784/sputnik-harvard-research-center.html#ixzz40IRoTkw1