If they are not then the most that can be done is a strongly worded letter.

W and his cabal are still walking the streets as free criminals.

Yes....I care. You care; but how can we expect the world to give a shit when our recent history, and even some of our actions in the world yet today, are worthy of war crime consideration as well.

"but how can we expect the world to give a shit when our recent history..."

I imagine the "the world" can look at two separate things and arrive at two conclusions, each independent of the other. I also imagine our individual concerns are not predicated on what the world expects of us nor what we expect of the world.

Concern over a tsunami in the Philippines does not deny that same and equal concern over a hurricane along the east coast.

....fuck them as hard as we can. I care also but not a damn thing is ever going to be done about such actions...UNLESS...in the future, some little country does a minor Bad Thing, then the USA will get all puffed up and outraged...just as phony as a 3 dollar bill.

Americans are taught we were the good guys in World War II after we bombed civilian populations. Then we did it again during Vietnam. And again during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Time to take the rose-colored glasses off.

It's important to note that they are not saying that these civilian deaths were not collateral damage while striking military targets, but rather that the people they had on the ground saw no evidence of military targets in the area. I don't really see what Russia (or the US) gets by purposefully targeting civilians though. Isn't the rebels ability to blend in with the population easily, part of what makes these sorts of wars so hard to fight?

I'm not defending Russia, as I don't doubt that they are causing large numbers of civilians deaths. I'm just not sure what the answer is. Should Russia send in ground troops instead? Let their ally Assad fall to the hands of ISIS or western back rebels? Only bomb targets that they know for 100% sure have no civilians around? Forms of these questions apply to US/Western activities too.


*I wonder how long it will take for someone to come by and say AI is a CIA front. I mean, they both an A and an I in their acronym.

Someone in America actually wants to open the stinking bag of excrement called the illegal and immoral bombing of civilians in the Middle East? The US certainly has no moral high ground when it comes to this subject. We are still searching for sanity in our foreign policy, and we're not making any progress.

I guess the folks who had their shiny MSF incident to fuel their outrage have moved on to other things...

If we're going to put Putin in that category, then we have to a put a lot of other world leaders into that group too. The world is a messed up placed.

1. invading sovereign nations 2. bombing your own citizens...not that hard to draw a red line...meanwhile us police....no boots on the ground....not invading sovereign nations...2. us state not bombing it's citizens....simple. clear. Cheers, Peace Maggie

My money is on zero.

Considering the Iraq war the Russians have along way to go to catch up with the US.

How do you feel about such reports about Russia? Do you think they should be discussed, or do you believe they should be disregarded so that focus can remain on possible US/Western war crimes?

What are your thoughts on this particular report about Russia?

I can't judge without bias. Maybe when we procecute our own war criminals I will develope a opinion about what others may or may not be doing.

or some other US government agency, but this is coming from an international human rights groups that has been known in the past to criticize US actions.

When other countries are as conserned as the US is supposed to be conserned we can all have ourselves a good ol WWIII with Russia.

This article is about an international human right's group finding that Russia may be causing large numbers of civilian deaths in Syria. So again, do you believe that international human rights groups like Amnesty International should not report on countries such a Russia, and instead focus solely on the US and the west? Also do you have an opinion on the AI report in question, or is that something you feel is untrustworthy or not relevant?


To make the amount of effort expended somewhat equal, I'm going to give my thoughts on it.
I think it's relevant all around if we're discussing the Syria as a whole, and how best to handle it. Russian bombs make people just as dead as American bombs, and they can cause the same blow back. Whether or not the bombing/war approach to "solving" the problem is worth the side-effects is worthy of discussion, but that shouldn't view some bombs as better than others.

It's kind of part of the whole civil war thing we've been bankrolling for the past few years.

But, yeah, Russia is the uniquely awful actor in all this.

and I support them. But what was their response to the U.S bombing of the Afghan hospital that killed many Doctors without Borders medical personnel along with many patients? That was a definite war crime.

put them on a cold hard floor to die.

Us or them, or those guys over there, or the ones up in that direction, we're all guilty as hell of destroying Syria. The Hague isn't big enough for all these crimes. Maybe Hell is.

When AI lost its perspective sometime last decade, if not its independence, it lost my respect.

> The Hague isn't big enough for all these crimes. Maybe Hell is.

I think that Hell is overflowing and the overspill is on this planet.