Evacuation under threat as Aleppo ceasefire unravels

[webfact]

Evacuation under threat as Aleppo ceasefire unravels

 

 

ALEPPO: -- Less than 24 hours after a ceasefire was agreed, shelling has resumed in eastern Aleppo.

 

Conflicting reports emerged over who had broken the truce, with violations being reported from both the Syrian forces and the opposition.

 

The plan to evacuate the rebel-held districts are under threat as Iran imposed new conditions on the deal, stating that a simultaneous evacuation should take place of the wounded by two villages besieged by rebel fighters, according to the UN and rebel sources.

 

A Beirut-based TV station showed buses, meant to evacuate thousands of civilians from the besieged city, returning to their depots.

 

There was no sign of when an evacuation might take place, but a pro-opposition TV said it might be delayed until Thursday.

 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov predicted that rebel resistance would last no more than two or three days, as the defence ministry claimed the rebels now controlled only 2.5 square kilometres.

 

UN war crimes investigators said the Syrian government was responsible for preventing attacks and reprisals in eastern Aleppo, after numerous reports emerged of violations by pro-regime forces including executions, arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances.

 

The investigators also received allegations of rebel groups preventing civilians from leaving the area, and of fighters merging with the civilian population, putting them at risk.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-12-15

[craigt3365]

Why is Iran involved in this and making new conditions?  What a mess.  And what a pity for the civilians still stuck there.

 

Great work:

Quote

UN war crimes investigators said the Syrian government was responsible for preventing attacks and reprisals in eastern Aleppo, after numerous reports emerged of violations by pro-regime forces including executions, arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances.

 

No wonder nobody wants to leave.

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Why is Iran involved in this and making new conditions? 

 

Iranian backed militias heavily involved with the fighting in Aleppo (claimed to more competent in urban fighting than Syrian forces) as well as trying to use leverage for issues outside of Aleppo.

 

The original ceasefire was agreed on Tuesday by Turkish intelligence and the Russian military. One of the rebel groups, Noureddine al-Zenki, said Iran had imposed conditions the rebels could not actually comply with.

When asked about the specifics of the demands, the group’s spokesman, Yasser al-Youssef, told the Guardian they included a lifting of the siege of Fua and Kefraya, two Shia villages in Idlib province that have been surrounded by rebels for years, as well as deals on prisoners of war, wounded fighters and missing members of Iranian-backed militias.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/14/aleppo-civilians-plea-as-airstrikes-resume-syria

 

[craigt3365]

 

Massively complicated!

[bark]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

 

Massively complicated!

The Western countries should just stay out of it. It is their fault that this is happening.

They sent jets to bomb the Government forces last year; which gave the Rebels time to build defenses.

This should have been over a year ago. The the Rebels had hoped for foreign powers; like France, UK, USA, to

come to their defense. The the government win, and then rebuild the country.

Don't cry for the dead, as they had a choice to stay or go, a year ago.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, bark said:

The Western countries should just stay out of it. It is their fault that this is happening.

They sent jets to bomb the Government forces last year; which gave the Rebels time to build defenses.

This should have been over a year ago. The the Rebels had hoped for foreign powers; like France, UK, USA, to

come to their defense. The the government win, and then rebuild the country.

Don't cry for the dead, as they had a choice to stay or go, a year ago.

Sorry, but the fault lies with Assad.  No way to argue this any other way.  Western powers wouldn't be there if he hadn't started dropping bombs on his own people.  Who were fighting him due to his repression.   Blame lies at the top and that's Assad.

 

But yes, Western countries should stay out, including Russia.  Also, Eastern countries should stay out, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[ddavidovsky]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sorry, but the fault lies with Assad.  No way to argue this any other way.  Western powers wouldn't be there if he hadn't started dropping bombs on his own people.  Who were fighting him due to his repression.   Blame lies at the top and that's Assad.

 

But yes, Western countries should stay out, including Russia.  Also, Eastern countries should stay out, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

You've said it again, so I'm going to have to say it again.

 

1. Assad was, perforce, oppressing only those who were out to eradicate him. You would do the same if someone was out to eradicate you. If everyone had opted to live quietly under his system, there would have been no oppression.

 

2. Authoritarianism is the only system that's going to work in a country with strongly opposed sectarianism (cf Iraq and Libya). Assad (arse that he no doubt is) has been the best option the minimise slaughter, at least until such time - perhaps the next generation or two - when society homogenises.

 

Call it realpolitik. I call yours, as you know, utopia.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

You've said it again, so I'm going to have to say it again.

 

1. Assad was, perforce, oppressing only those who were out to eradicate him. You would do the same if someone was out to eradicate you. If everyone had opted to live quietly under his system, there would have been no oppression.

 

2. Authoritarianism is the only system that's going to work in a country with strongly opposed sectarianism (cf Iraq and Libya). Assad (arse that he no doubt is) has been the best option the minimise slaughter, at least until such time - perhaps the next generation or two - when society homogenises.

 

Call it realpolitik. I call yours, as you know, utopia.

You need to do some research as to what life was like under Assad's rule.  But yes, if you were in his inner circle, life was good.  For the vast majority who were not, there was repression.  Not sure why you keep supporting this maniacal dictator. And no, authoritarianism isn't the only option there.  False argument.  But, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria
 

Quote

 

A state of emergency was in effect from 1963 until April 2011, giving security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention.^[2]

 

Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.^[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.^[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,^[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.^[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, ^[6][7] torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.^[8]

 

 

Please read the entire article, then come back with how good life was in Syria. LOL

 

Gotta love this.  You actually support that?

Quote

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion.^[25] However, the Government restricts this right. While there is no official state religion, the Constitution requires that the president be Muslim and stipulates that Islamic jurisprudence, an expansion of Sharia Islamic law,^[26] is a principal source of legislation.

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You need to do some research as to what life was like under Assad's rule.  But yes, if you were in his inner circle, life was good.  For the vast majority who were not, there was repression.  Not sure why you keep supporting this maniacal dictator. And no, authoritarianism isn't the only option there.  False argument.  But, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

 

 

There's always oppression, even in schools, even in families, it's a means of social organisation when groups won't cohere. No point whining about it. In any case, the oppression wasn't catastrophic - it was mainly a case of damaged pride as one group got the short straw (which again, is always the case). Rebellions were put down, as in any country. Given the sectarianism, Syria ticked along with relative stability.

 

For a bigger perspective (bigger even than the sectarian one), remember that Syria is a semi-arid country. Technology promotes population growth ahead of sustainability, temporarily resulting in too many people competing for limited resources. When everyone has enough, they will put up with the short straw (as in Thailand). When people start going hungry or thirsty, then the trouble starts - inevitably along sectarian lines.

 

Water security has proven a big threat. Poor people migrate to the cities like Aleppo where they live in urban poverty and inevitably organise into pockets of discontent. And then, opportunistically, on the back of the 'Arab Spring' they decided, quite recklessly, to fight to the death order to get things their way. Survival instinct no doubt, but much more ill-advised and far more catastrophic than Assad's.

 

Assad, with his 'brutal' discipline, caused thousands of deaths in suppressing uprisings aimed to destroy him, and no doubt controls with an iron fist  on a continuous basis in order to maintain stability and prevent his family, his people, and that relative stability, being swept away. And the rebels caused how much death and suffering and upheaval by their reckless civil war? Which side is the more immoral? Why would you support the rebels, who have no proven capacity for social organisation, no leadership ability (who is their leader?) and whose only faculty has been reckless conflict? That's no recipe for the future.

 

I don't support Assad, I just advocate stability - at least until such time as society changes naturally. In the meantime, those with the best system of social organisation should be in control. That is not, on any evidence, the rebels.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

There's always oppression, even in schools, even in families, it's a means of social organisation when groups won't cohere. No point whining about it. In any case, the oppression wasn't catastrophic - it was mainly a case of damaged pride as one group got the short straw (which again, is always the case). Rebellions were put down, as in any country. Given the sectarianism, Syria ticked along with relative stability.

 

For a bigger perspective (bigger even than the sectarian one), remember that Syria is a semi-arid country. Technology promotes population growth ahead of sustainability, temporarily resulting in too many people competing for limited resources. When everyone has enough, they will put up with the short straw (as in Thailand). When people start going hungry or thirsty, then the trouble starts - inevitably along sectarian lines.

 

Water security has proven a big threat. Poor people migrate to the cities like Aleppo where they live in urban poverty and inevitably organise into pockets of discontent. And then, opportunistically, on the back of the 'Arab Spring' they decided, quite recklessly, to fight to the death order to get things their way. Survival instinct no doubt, but much more ill-advised and far more catastrophic than Assad's.

 

Assad, with his 'brutal' discipline, caused thousands of deaths in suppressing uprisings aimed to destroy him, and no doubt controls with an iron fist  on a continuous basis in order to maintain stability and prevent his family, his people, and that relative stability, being swept away. And the rebels caused how much death and suffering and upheaval by their reckless civil war? Which side is the more immoral? Why would you support the rebels, who have no proven capacity for social organisation, no leadership ability (who is their leader?) and whose only faculty has been reckless conflict? That's no recipe for the future.

 

I don't support Assad, I just advocate stability - at least until such time as society changes naturally. In the meantime, those with the best system of social organisation should be in control. That is not, on any evidence, the rebels.

I don't feel I was ever oppressed in school, or by my family.  Quite the opposite.

 

As for uprisings "aimed to destroy him", there were done for good reasons.  Stop the brutal oppression and I bet the protests against him would stop.  Kinda like in Jordan.  Don't see protests there, but it's a somewhat similar country.  With a much better leader.  Great country to visit also, by the way.

[bark]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Sorry, but the fault lies with Assad.  No way to argue this any other way.  Western powers wouldn't be there if he hadn't started dropping bombs on his own people.  Who were fighting him due to his repression.   Blame lies at the top and that's Assad.

 

But yes, Western countries should stay out, including Russia.  Also, Eastern countries should stay out, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

First, I will say that what is happening to innocent kids is not good.  Also Assad is a murderer; but the UN doesn't have the balls to go into any country, very often. There are many countries who kill there own people. Iran, North Korea, China, and 1/3 of all African countries.

So when I blame the West. I say that because they started targeting bombing; only enough to take the air advantage away from Assad, as the rebels had no jets; and then they stopped the support. Russia then comes in and does the same thing to the rebels. But they continued to support, until the end.

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, bark said:

First, I will say that what is happening to innocent kids is not good.  Also Assad is a murderer; but the UN doesn't have the balls to go into any country, very often. There are many countries who kill there own people. Iran, North Korea, China, and 1/3 of all African countries.

So when I blame the West. I say that because they started targeting bombing; only enough to take the air advantage away from Assad, as the rebels had no jets; and then they stopped the support. Russia then comes in and does the same thing to the rebels. But they continued to support, until the end.

Your comment about the UN is spot on.  But remember, all 5 UN Security Council resolutions to stop the violence in Syria were vetoed by Russia and China.  Blame the UN, but also blame those who stopped the resolutions.

 

The West didn't start the targeted bombings until after Assad was already bombing and dropping chemical weapons on his own people.  How can anybody do that.

 

Here's the first resolution Russia and China vetoed back in 2011.  If passed, we wouldn't be where we are now.  No way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions_on_Syria

 

• Quote

   

  • Condemns the continued grave and systematic human rights violations and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities, and expresses profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children.
  • Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Syria of arms and related materiel of all types, as well as technical training, financial resources or services, advice, or other services or assistance related to such arms and related material.
  • Expresses its intention to review Syria's implementation of this resolution within 30 days and to consider its options, including measures under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter (complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations^[2]).