UN warns Aleppo risks becoming a ‘graveyard’

[webfact]

UN warns Aleppo risks becoming a ‘graveyard’

 

 

NEW YORK: -- The Syrian city of Aleppo risks becoming a ‘giant graveyard’ unless urgent action is taken to assist its people. That was the message at a meeting of the UN’s security council.

 

On Wednesday a barrage of artillery on rebel-held eastern Aleppo killed at least 26 civilians and injured dozens of others, while another eight died in government controlled areas.

 

Meanwhile UN humanitarian chief, Stephen O’Brien who was on a video link to New York, didn’t mince his words:

 

“For the sake of humanity, we call on, we plead with the parties and those with influence to do everything in their power to protect civilians and enable access to the besieged parts of eastern Aleppo before it becomes one giant graveyard.”

 

O’Brien also said dozens of humanitarian staff were trapped in the besieged part of eastern Aleppo.

 

Security Council members had been meeting to try to agree a ceasefire for Aleppo. Russia which is backing the Syrian government with air strikes said ‘easing civilian suffering wont happen by ceasing the counter terrorist operation’.

 

Gains by the Syrian army and its allies since last week have brought whole districts of rebel-held territory back under government control and triggered a human exodus as thousands have fled the bombardments.

 

For the mostly Sunni Muslim rebel groups, the fall of Aleppo would deprive them of their last big foothold in a major city. A leadership council of the rebel groups in Aleppo called on all men able to bear arms to “defend the oppressed”.

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-12-01

 

 

[craigt3365]

Quote

Russia which is backing the Syrian government with air strikes said ‘easing civilian suffering wont happen by ceasing the counter terrorist operation’.

 

Hmmm....let's see.  Stopping the bombing won't ease civilian suffering?  Really? LOL  Seems only Russia and Syria agree with this stance.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/envoy-aleppo-residents-risk-extermination-161130191818013.html

Quote

 

Stephen O'Brien, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, made the comments on Wednesday as at least 45 more civilians, including seven children, were killed while trying to flee the government ground offensive in rebel-held east Aleppo.

 

"Today there was another massacre, I witnessed it," said Aref al-Aref, a nurse and photographer in the city's east. "The displaced people were coming at 6:30am. There was artillery shelling while they were walking in the streets. Really it was so, so horrible." 

 

 

The shelling has been confirmed to have come from the Russian/Syrian operation.  But to balance out the blame:

Quote

Rebel shelling of government-held districts in western Aleppo killed eight people, including two children, and wounded seven, the official SANA news agency reported, citing a police official. 

 

[F4UCorsair]

Provided It becomes a graveyard for only EVERY IS lunatic, it will be fine, but sadly that won't be the case.

[thaibeachlovers]

Hmmmm. Russia is a member of the UN. Could it be that it is only SOME of the UN that think that.

 

Lot's of hand wringing going on, which seems the only thing the UN is good at, other than spreading cholera and troops that exploit women in countries they are supposed to be helping, not to forget allowing massacres of populations they are supposed to be protecting.

Perhaps the problem is that the UN isn't of any value for stopping conflict.

 

BTW, what western country is going to send troops to die to protect people that hate them and want to destroy their way of life? There are no western allies in Aleppo. This is a problem for the Muslim world to sort.

 

If that seems harsh, I am thinking of the soldier that got executed on the streets of Britain by an Islamic terrorist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amyoU_hircY

 

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. Russia is a member of the UN. Could it be that it is only SOME of the UN that think that.

 

Lot's of hand wringing going on, which seems the only thing the UN is good at, other than spreading cholera and troops that exploit women in countries they are supposed to be helping, not to forget allowing massacres of populations they are supposed to be protecting.

Perhaps the problem is that the UN isn't of any value for stopping conflict.

 

BTW, what western country is going to send troops to die to protect people that hate them and want to destroy their way of life? There are no western allies in Aleppo. This is a problem for the Muslim world to sort.

 

If that seems harsh, I am thinking of the soldier that got executed on the streets of Britain by an Islamic terrorist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amyoU_hircY

 

The head of the UN said this:

http://www.politico.eu/article/un-chief-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-condemns-aleppo-airstrikes-as-appalling-syria-russia/

Quote

 

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said relentless airstrikes on Aleppo were “appalling” as the Security Council prepared to meet later today to discuss another failed attempt at a ceasefire in Syria after five years of war.

 

At least 45 civilians were killed in government raids on Friday as bombs rained on opposition-controlled parts of Aleppo. Backed by Russia, the Syrian army launched an offensive on Thursday to retake control of the eastern part of the city, where hundreds of thousands of people have been trapped and besieged by government forces for nearly three years.

 

Ban warned the use of bunker buster bombs and other advanced munitions against civilians may amount to war crimes, according to an AFP report.

 

 

The UN does some very good things.  Like any large organization, they have problems also.  Many actually.  Reform is desperately needed.

 

Syrian's don't necessarily hate Westerners.  Actually, quite the opposite.

 

It'd be great if the Muslim world could sort this out.  Unfortunately, they are making it worse with the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[thaibeachlovers]

56 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The head of the UN said this:

http://www.politico.eu/article/un-chief-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-condemns-aleppo-airstrikes-as-appalling-syria-russia/

 

The UN does some very good things.  Like any large organization, they have problems also.  Many actually.  Reform is desperately needed.

 

Syrian's don't necessarily hate Westerners.  Actually, quite the opposite.

 

It'd be great if the Muslim world could sort this out.  Unfortunately, they are making it worse with the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

There are probably thousands of non Syrians fighting in Aleppo, and I bet not many of them love the west.

The UN needs to get Russia to allow the civilians to leave. If they can't, the UN is a waste of money, at least as far as the general assembly is concerned.

[Billy Bloggs]

Im sorry but the civilians were being butchered by these so called rebels, so what action do they want the syrians and russians to take, let them kill all the civilians as they were doing before or try and liberate those that they can. The UN is a total waste of space on most matters military. They even tell their own forces they cant retaliate even when coming under life threatening  attack. Also again I see no talk of war crimes against the rebels for the atrocities that they have carried out.

[ddavidovsky]

The rebels have lost this war. Why don't they surrender and spare their people?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The rebels have lost this war. Why don't they surrender and spare their people?

I find it hard to understand that anyone doesn't know that they actually believe that if they die in combat they have a wonderful time coming to them with lots of virgins.

[DogNo1]

It takes two sides to have a war.  If a terrorist group (the rebels) lays down their arms, their lives are not assured but their families and other civilians might be spared.  On the other hand, if death is the only option, that means that is probably the only option for the families and civilians too.  America is feeding the slaughterhouse by supporting these terrorists.  Oops!  Sorry.  I should have said freedom fighters who will ensure democracy and secularism if they win -- NOT.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

It takes two sides to have a war.  If a terrorist group (the rebels) lays down their arms, their lives are not assured but their families and other civilians might be spared.  On the other hand, if death is the only option, that means that is probably the only option for the families and civilians too.  America is feeding the slaughterhouse by supporting these terrorists.  Oops!  Sorry.  I should have said freedom fighters who will ensure democracy and secularism if they win -- NOT.

There use to be two sides to the opposition in this war.  Those opposed to Assad (moderate rebels) and ISIS (who are trying to create a caliphate in the ME).  Now, many moderate rebels have sided with ISIS in their batter with Assad.  Unfortunately.  Neither will stop their fight.  You are aware what started this mess?  Assad's brutal crackdown on civilians protesting this dictator.  The civil war allowed IS to flourish. Why doesn't Assad step down to protect his people?

 

You need to research who the main players are in this war.  Saudi Arabia and Iran.  With Russia backing Assad.  These are the ones feeding the slaughterhouse.  Good articles to read:

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708682/sunni-shia-iran-saudi-arabia-war

 

One reason Russia is still bombing:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html

 

Assad also helped IS:

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-selling-oil-to-biggest-enemy-2015-11

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Billy Bloggs said:

Im sorry but the civilians were being butchered by these so called rebels, so what action do they want the syrians and russians to take, let them kill all the civilians as they were doing before or try and liberate those that they can. The UN is a total waste of space on most matters military. They even tell their own forces they cant retaliate even when coming under life threatening  attack. Also again I see no talk of war crimes against the rebels for the atrocities that they have carried out.

Might want to read this:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-has-killed-more-civilians-than-isis-kg7wfsw8w

Quote

 

Russia has killed more civilians in Syria than Islamic State in about a third of the time, according to a monitoring group.

 

Airstrikes orchestrated by the Kremlin have killed at least 2,704 people since Russia entered the conflict on the side of President Assad last September. Isis has caused 2,686 civilian deaths, according to the Syrian Network for Human Rights.

 

 

[Morch]

15 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

The rebels have lost this war. Why don't they surrender and spare their people?

 

And here I was thinking that the civilians in Aleppo were Syrians, hence also Assad's people.

 

[ddavidovsky]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And here I was thinking that the civilians in Aleppo were Syrians, hence also Assad's people.

 

 

You are confused by useless terminology. Syria is an artificial concept. 'Assad's people' are not 'Syrians' but Alawites. This is an ethnic conflict. The rebels are in it for their own kind, as is Assad. If the rebels were in control they would suppress the Alawites with equal brutality. They had a go, they lost, they need to give up now while they still have some wives and children left.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

You are confused by useless terminology. Syria is an artificial concept. 'Assad's people' are not 'Syrians' but Alawites. This is an ethnic conflict. The rebels are in it for their own kind, as is Assad. If the rebels were in control they would suppress the Alawites with equal brutality. They had a go, they lost, they need to give up now while they still have some wives and children left.

 

I'm not "confused" by anything, and you can save your lectures. Assad's claim for legitimacy lies on being the elected head of state, that comes with, supposedly, a responsibility for all Syrians. If the argument is that Syria is an artificial concept (which I agree with) then it might be that Assad's claims for legitimacy is less founded.

 

There are also Sunni among those supporting Assad's regime, and among those serving in the Syrian Army.

 

Seriously doubt that surrender will result in humane and fair treatment of civilians by Assad's forces.

[bangon04]

The UN is a toothless talking shop with no power. All the power rests with the security council, and Russia is a permanent member. If they do not agree, it will not happen.

[DogNo1]

I acknowledge that Asaad's brutal crackdown on the protesters was a factor in starting the war.  I wonder what instigated the protesters and whether they would have remained peaceful when Asaad didn't step down.  There are obviously complicated proxy fights going on but I think that it was clear to the Syrians that the alternative to Asaad would not have been a secular, democratic regime.  It probably would have been a strict, Sunni-dominated Islamic regime with dire consequences for the Alawites, Christians and other non-Sunni groups.  The Western press laments the destruction and death in Eastern Aleppo on a daily basis.  There seems to be no speculation as to the consequences if the Asaad regime loses the fight and no reporting of the suffering on the othe side.  The bias is glaring and the reporting is superficial.  As it has been noted, the rebels and civilians are not going to walk away from the fight, so Assad and the Russians will have no alternative but to destroy them completely.  Somehow, the Condoleezza Rice objective of creating democratic countries in the Middle East seems still to be operative and underlying the Western approach and propaganda.  It didn't and doesn't seem to be achievable.  Given the tribal nature of politics and power in the Middle East, it wasn't a rational objective to begin with.  Possibly with Mr. Trump as president we will see a much better organized campaign to destroy ISIS and put their backers in their place.

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Because they are mercenaries still getting paid and supplied by foreign countries- Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, and on and on.

Iran has soldiers in Syria and is paying mercenaries to fight for the Syrian army.  Fighters are also coming in from Lebanon.  You might want to look at both sides of the coin.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

I acknowledge that Asaad's brutal crackdown on the protesters was a factor in starting the war.  I wonder what instigated the protesters and whether they would have remained peaceful when Asaad didn't step down.  There are obviously complicated proxy fights going on but I think that it was clear to the Syrians that the alternative to Asaad would not have been a secular, democratic regime.  It probably would have been a strict, Sunni-dominated Islamic regime with dire consequences for the Alawites, Christians and other non-Sunni groups.  The Western press laments the destruction and death in Eastern Aleppo on a daily basis.  There seems to be no speculation as to the consequences if the Asaad regime loses the fight and no reporting of the suffering on the othe side.  The bias is glaring and the reporting is superficial.  As it has been noted, the rebels and civilians are not going to walk away from the fight, so Assad and the Russians will have no alternative but to destroy them completely.  Somehow, the Condoleezza Rice objective of creating democratic countries in the Middle East seems still to be operative and underlying the Western approach and propaganda.  It didn't and doesn't seem to be achievable.  Given the tribal nature of politics and power in the Middle East, it wasn't a rational objective to begin with.  Possibly with Mr. Trump as president we will see a much better organized campaign to destroy ISIS and put their backers in their place.

Interesting post.  Interesting questions.  I think fundamental change is required in the ME before ISIS can be wiped out.  I've posted this before, but it's an interesting read.  No easy answers:

 

https://twitter.com/KarlreMarks/status/671689425739456512/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

[OMGImInPattaya]

Another foreign policy fiasco that can be laid at the feet of the Obama-Hillary administration. 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Another foreign policy fiasco that can be laid at the feet of the Obama-Hillary administration. 

Can't blame the US entirely for this mess.  Too many fingers in this pie, Assad included.  But yes, an absolute mess.

[OMGImInPattaya]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Can't blame the US entirely for this mess.  Too many fingers in this pie, Assad included.  But yes, an absolute mess.

Assad is the President of Syria and fighting a civil war to keep his country together...would you have labeled Lincoln as part of the problem for fighting to keep the United States together?

 

If it wasn't for Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians, you'd have in the heart of the Middle East another complete fiasco like we see in Libya.

Edited December 3, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Assad is the President of Syria and fighting a civil war to keep his country together...would you have labeled Lincoln as part of the problem for fighting to keep the United States together?

 

If it wasn't for Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians, you'd have in the heart of the Middle East another complete fiasco like we see in Libya.

There's some serious debate as to whether Syria currently exists.  It almost imploded last year. 

 

So you are saying Syria isn't a complete fiasco now? LOL  I think Libya is in better shape! 5555

[simple1]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Assad is the President of Syria and fighting a civil war to keep his country together...would you have labeled Lincoln as part of the problem for fighting to keep the United States together?

 

If it wasn't for Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians, you'd have in the heart of the Middle East another complete fiasco like we see in Libya.

 

I assume you know that at the beginning of the current conflict in 2011 Assad released from his prisons hundreds of Islamists to take on the moderates in an effort to gain sympathy for his methods, which backfired enormously. Assad fully supports the Syrian militia, Shabiha, (prior function was equivalent to an organised crime gang protected by the Govt) who carry out many war crimes against civilians. Hardly fighting to keep his country together, rather to enforce & protect his brutal minority dictatorship and those who profit from his regime corruption

 

By the way you omitted the armed wing of Hezbollah fighting with Assad forces, a terrorist organisation who define the Syrian Civil War as a "Zionist plot".

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by simple1

[OMGImInPattaya]

27 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

I assume you know that at the beginning of the current conflict in 2011 Assad released from his prisons hundreds of Islamists to take on the moderates in an effort to gain sympathy for his methods, which backfired enormously. Assad fully supports the Syrian militia, Shabiha, (prior function was equivalent to an organised crime gang protected by the Govt) who carry out many war crimes against civilians. Hardly fighting to keep his country together, rather to enforce & protect his brutal minority dictatorship and those who profit from his regime corruption

 

By the way you omitted the armed wing of Hezbollah fighting with Assad forces, a terrorist organisation who define the Syrian Civil War as a "Zionist plot".

 

Assad is no choir boy...however the relevant point, especially after the ME disasters of the past decade, is do we want to encourage "regime change" in another country, with all the potential uncertainties that can have.

 

Obama/Hillary encouraged such a policy, with little follow through, thus leading to the current stalemate and refugee/humanitarian disaster. They should have left well enough alone.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Assad is no choir boy...however the relevant point, especially after the ME disasters of the past decade, is do we want to encourage "regime change" in another country, with all the potential uncertainties that can have.

 

Obama/Hillary encouraged such a policy, with little follow through, thus leading to the current stalemate and refugee/humanitarian disaster. They should have left well enough alone.

The Syrian debacle is not due to Obama/Hillary nor US foreign policy.  It's the direct result of a brutal dictator who's treated his people poorly for a long time, and his father before.  Blame lies with the head of state.  Which is Assad.  He's the flash point.  Though US foreign policy sure didn't help things.  Nor did the interference from Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc....it's a huge mess with no easy answers.

 

With respect.

[OMGImInPattaya]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The Syrian debacle is not due to Obama/Hillary nor US foreign policy.  It's the direct result of a brutal dictator who's treated his people poorly for a long time, and his father before.  Blame lies with the head of state.  Which is Assad.  He's the flash point.  Though US foreign policy sure didn't help things.  Nor did the interference from Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc....it's a huge mess with no easy answers.

 

With respect.

I agree...it's a right-royal mess, with unclean hands all around. My opinion, and that's all it us, is that the people of Syria were better off before the revolt by some elements of Syrian society against the Assad dictatorship than they are now.

 

Sometimes change for change's sake is not always better...especially when lives are at stake.

 

 

[Scott]

The days have been numbered for a very long time for Syria.   They have messed with their neighbors for a very long time.   They harbored terrorists and groups opposed to many of their neighbors and the overall feeling in the ME toward Syria was negative and that they could not be trusted.  

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I agree...it's a right-royal mess, with unclean hands all around. My opinion, and that's all it us, is that the people of Syria were better off before the revolt by some elements of Syrian society against the Assad dictatorship than they are now.

 

Sometimes change for change's sake is not always better...especially when lives are at stake.

I guess that depends on who you were.  If arrested, put in jail, and tortured by Assad's people, then perhaps life now is about the same. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad#Human_rights
 

Quote

 

Human Rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have detailed how the Assad government's secret police allegedly tortured, imprisoned, and killed political opponents, and those who speak out against the government.^[125][126] In addition, some 600 Lebanese political prisoners are thought to be held in government prisons since the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, with some held for as long as over 30 years.^[127] Since 2006, the Assad government has reportedly expanded the use of travel bans against political dissidents.^[128] In an interview with ABC News in 2007, Assad stated: "We don't have such [things as] political prisoners," though The New York Times reported the arrest of 30 Syrian political dissidents who were organising a joint opposition front in December 2007, with 3 members of this group considered to be opposition leaders being remanded in custody.^[129]

 

Foreign Policy magazine released an editorial on Assad's position in the wake of the 2011 protests:^[133]

During its decades of rule... the Assad family developed a strong political safety net by firmly integrating the military into the government. In 1970, Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, seized power after rising through the ranks of the Syrian armed forces, during which time he established a network of loyal Alawites by installing them in key posts. In fact, the military, ruling elite, and ruthless secret police are so intertwined that it is now impossible to separate the Assad government from the security establishment.... So... the government and its loyal forces have been able to deter all but the most resolute and fearless oppositional activists. In this respect, the situation in Syria is to a certain degree comparable to Saddam Hussein’s strong Sunni minority rule in Iraq.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/massive-and-systemetized-violence-the-un-just-released-a-horrifying-report-on-assads-human-rights-abuses-2016-2
 

Quote

 

In July 2014, a Syrian government defector, code-named Caesar, provided international investigators with startling evidence of abuses within the Assad regime's prison system.

 

Caesar reported that more than 10,000 people had died in government custody since the 2011 outbreak of the Syrian Civil War and provided photos documenting what The Wall Street Journal described as "evidence of [an] industrial-scale campaign."

 

 

Sorry, but impossible to justify Assad's existence.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I guess that depends on who you were.  If arrested, put in jail, and tortured by Assad's people, then perhaps life now is about the same. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad#Human_rights
 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/massive-and-systemetized-violence-the-un-just-released-a-horrifying-report-on-assads-human-rights-abuses-2016-2
 

 

Sorry, but impossible to justify Assad's existence.

I'll take a few jailed and tortured/killed political dissidents over hundreds of thousands of maimed and killed innocents any day.

 

You're arguing for making the perfect the enemy of the good.