[Cog]

Why in the world would we want to admit to that. Admitting it means you have to pay to fix it. Just deny, it goes away. Proof isn't even relevant.

Why in the world would the Russians, Syrians, or Iranians admit to bombing it? See how that works Agent?

[AgentR11]

I'm not saying anyone should admit to it. That would be stupid. I'm saying use rational analysis to assign probabilities to each of the possible actors and draw your own conclusions from that.

There will be no war crimes trials.
There will be no admissions of guilt.
There will be no reparations.
There will be no "proof" of anything.
From anyone.

On the other hand, I do find it interesting to discuss how the war is progressing, why it is going as it is, and who is doing what.

One small area of interest is a water plant in Aleppo. It went boom, and I described the probable actors, and why I felt one was more likely than the other.

The most telling of which to me, is that the plant got blown up, just as Russia and Iran would have been wanting to use it.

[Cog]

Accidents happen in war, pilots make errors. I would like to see the evidence that the USA purposely targeted the plant and they are the ones who dropped the bombs on it. That should be a trivial matter for the Russians to come up with.

[AgentR11]

There will be no evidence. From anyone. And anything either shows us, should be discounted as propaganda and treated with extreme skepticism.

We can only assign probabilities, and make guestimates.

And yes, accidents do happen, a Russian pilot could have been twitchy and guided it to the wrong building. That is an extremely unlucky roll of the dice though, to blow up something expensive, just as your team would want to use it... but otoh... Russians. between the vodka, the metal, and the walmart gps, anything is possible! (incoming diss attack..)

[Keith_McClary]

Accidents happen in war, pilots make errors. I would like to see the evidence that the USA purposely targeted the plant and they are the ones who dropped the bombs on it. That should be a trivial matter for the Russians to come up with.

If there were armed forces guarding the plant, wouldn't the Americans bomb it? They bombed telephone exchanges and TV stations in Iraq.

[dissident]

The US state department spokes-turd is bleating that Russia is attacking civilian infrastructure in Syria.

Clearly, the US considers people on this planet to be idiots who can be told anything no matter how ridiculous. US bombs falling on civilian infrastructure are the kisses of angels.

[Cog]

Syria has used aerial bombardment in the past. Barrel bombs are a good example. And the Russians are not known for their discrimination in taking out targets in their war with Chechnya.

[AgentR11]

Diss, just as it is unreasonable to think the Russians blew up that particular water plant, it is also unreasonable to believe Russia isn't blowing up some civilian infrastructure in Syria that is used by Daesh and friends. Heck, Rus MoD showed at least one vid of an intentional bridge hit. By chance or intent the bridge was broken in the easiest to repair spot... but it was broken. The bridge was a valid military target in this case, being used to supply Daesh forces; but there are also conditions where a the water plant area becomes a valid target for NATO/US forces.

Also, this fascination with "barrel bomb" bugs me... Isn't a "barrel bomb" essentially just a badly manufactured, unguided fuel-air bomb? Ours are cooler looking, but they do basically the same things, burn everything in a large radius, delete the oxygen, etc...

[Peak_Yeast]

If we try to remember the illegal war against Iraq to gain control of the oil ressources - Water and electricity for civilians were prime targets for the US "coalition" - the quadrant of abomination.

It was also promised after the war that these facilities would be rebuilt quickly. But pentagon managed to "lose" some 90+% of the rebuilding money that were allocated. So that didnt happen.

It doesnt prove anything concerning this situation, but it sure proves that the US and their henchmen (like Denmark where I live) has absolutely no qualms about killing innocent civilians directly and indirectly and lying about it while moaning and whining about evil everybody else is.

[ROCKMAN]

Not as if the Danes don't understand collateral damage: The Danish Ministry of Education has detailed Denmark's losses in WWII of about 8,000 persons including 2,685 killed in Denmark in bombing raids (including those killed by Allied bombings), resistance fighters and those executed by the Germans and 3,000 who died outside Denmark including 2,000 merchant seamen, 600 in German camps and 400 workers in Germany. In addition 2,000 Danish volunteers were killed serving in the Germany military.