E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
George Orfalian / Reuters
At least 25 people were killed following an explosion at this building and a second security site in Syria's northern city of Aleppo on Friday.
BEIRUT -- Two explosions targeted security compounds in the Syrian city of Aleppo on Friday, state media reported, saying 25 people were killed and 175 wounded in a major city that has so far largely stood by President Bashar Assad in the nearly 11-month-old uprising against his rule.
The blasts were the first significant violence in the northern city, Syria's largest. Along with the capital Damascus, Aleppo is Syria's economic center, home to the business community and prosperous merchant classes whose continued backing for Assad has been crucial in propping up his regime. The city has seen only occasional protests.
State TV blamed "terrorists" in the blasts, touting the regime line that armed groups looking to destabilize Syria are behind the uprising. Anti-Assad activists accused the regime of setting off the blasts to discredit the opposition and to avert protests that had been planned in the city on Friday.
PhotoBlog: Blasts hit security HQs in Aleppo
Two earlier bombings in Damascus in December and January that killed dozens prompted similar exchanges of accusations. There has been no claim of responsibility for those attacks or Friday's.
In a live broadcast from outside the compound of the Military Intelligence Directorate, a reporter on state television said the blast had been audible 12 miles away.
Report: US may be forced to 'militarize' Syria crisis
The damage shown in the footage suggested the bomb may have detonated on the road outside the five-story building. A concrete wall around it was badly damaged and its windows were blown out. At least one car appeared blackened and destroyed, and several more were damaged.
The reporter said the blast went off near a park where children were playing and claimed children were also killed.
The second blast went off outside the headquarters of a police force in another part of the city. State television cited the Health Ministry as saying 25 people were killed in the two blasts and 175 were wounded.
More disturbing evidence emerged today of how children are apparently being caught up in Syria's savage crackdown on the people of Homs. UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon has condemned the "appalling brutality" of the onslaught. ITN's John Ray reports. Video contains graphic images.
Reuters reported that Syria's government vowed an "iron-fist response."
Mohammed Abu-Nasr, an Aleppo-based activist, blamed Assad's regime for the explosions, insisting the opposition would not carry out bombings in residential areas.
"Had the opposition wanted to detonate bombs they would not do that in a residential area," Abu-Nasr said. "The opposition and the Free Syrian Army don't kill civilians," he said, referring to the force of army defectors that frequently attacks regime military forces.
Economic privileges
Abu-Nasr said the blasts came on a day when activists were planning wide protests in the city after the Friday prayers. "Despite the blasts, were will go out and protest today," he said.
So far, Assad's opponents have had little success in galvanizing support in Aleppo, in part because the business leaders have long traded political freedoms for economic privileges. The city of around 2 million also has a large population of Kurds, who have mostly stayed on the sidelines of the uprising since Assad's regime began giving them citizenship, which they had long been denied.
The Aleppo blast was the latest in a string of bombings that the regime has sought to blame on the opposition, which denies any role. On Jan. 6, a suicide attack in the capital Damascus killed 26 people. Two weeks earlier, 44 people were killed in a twin suicide bombings that targeted intelligence agency compounds in Damascus.
Assad's crackdown has killed more than 5,400 people since the uprising began in March.
'Punishing the residents'
In another development Friday, Syrian troops who for the past six days have been bombarding the city of Homs made their first ground move of the campaign to seize one of the city's restive neighborhoods.
Soldiers backed by tanks pushed into the neighborhood of Inshaat. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said troops were going from house to house detaining people.
"They are punishing the residents," said the Observatory's chief Rami Abdul-Rahman who added that there is lack of food in the area.
Group: Syria militia 'slaughtered' 3 families
Inshaat is adjacent to Baba Amr, a neighborhood that has been under rebel control from months. Many Syrians refer to Baba Amr as the "Misrata of Syria," in reference to Libya's third-largest city that was heavily damaged by troops loyal to the late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
Hundreds of people are believed to have been killed in the past week in Homs from relentless shelling and gunfire on several rebellious neighborhoods in the city, an operation activists said aimed to soften up the areas before moving in.
Troops shelled parts of the city with tanks and heavy machine guns through the night until daylight Friday, said Majd Amer, an activist in Khaldiyeh, one of the targeted districts. He said troops nearby appeared to be preparing to move into Khaldiyeh as well.
Reforms?
Mohammed Saleh, a Syria-based activist, said the regime appears to be trying to take over rebel-held areas in Homs and the northwestern restive province of Idlib before Feb. 17, when Assad's ruling Baath party is scheduled to hold its first general conference since 2005.
The conference is expected to move on reforms that Assad has promised in a bid to calm the uprising, but which the opposition has rejected as insincere. During the conference, Baath party leaders are expected to call for national dialogue and announce they will open the way for other political parties to play a bigger role in Syria's politics.
State media also reported this week that a committee in charge of drafting a new constitution that reportedly removed a section that says that the Baath party is the leader of the nation and society, once a key demand by the opposition.
The Syrian opposition says it will not accept anything less than Assad's departure.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Report: US may be forced to 'militarize' Syria crisis
Forced????
When the people you supposedly 'lead' prefer civil war to your 'leadership' then it is time to go.
The US and other nations within the UN have to do something now...
If they continue to stay on the sidelines and watch as all of the innocent civilians are killed then their own nations' moral and ethical standings will come into question as well.
The citizens of all nations know, that if their own countries do nothing then they are condoning the violence and that sends a message that those same countries could probably do this to their own citizens.
This fear will cause citizens not to trust their governments even more and many component breakdowns will occur to just about every governmental structure in the world.
"Peel-Layer in Affect...."
(the peeling away of layers from various abstract walls, set up by governments so that the entitled can keep power and all else fight for scraps.)
It is time for a nation to step up to the plate!!!!!
It is time for a nation to stand up and represent what MAN is about!!!
It's like all of the leaders around the world have no purpose in life other than to rule and live fat.
We have no LEGEND LIKE LEADERS at this present time.
All of them are scared of doing the right thing for The GOOD OF ALL!!!!
I don't get it, what do they live for?
What is their purpose in life other than to rule and look good in front of people?
I know that my purpose in life is to fight for doing the right thing no matter what.
Even if I don't like what the right thing is.
Such a load of bologna you are spreading. Thousands of people a day die of disease and starvation every day. Dozens if not hundreds of countries are ruled by tyrants. It isn't the job of the US to "free" all these oppressed countries. The US has neither the time nor the resources let alone the moral authority to impose its values on other countries. The most the US should do is provide moral support and actions short of hostilites because when it comes down to it the only ones who should change the government in Syria is the Syrians.
The US tried to put a democracy in place in Iraq and look what happened. Ten years, almost a trillion dollars, and tens of thousands of lives lost and Iraq is anything but a stable democracy. Change must come from within.
Sooner or later, you reap what you sow.
Assad is a butcher.
Ken,
What is America about if we coward in the face of the moral standards that we value most?
Are we about Freedom???
Are we about Fairness???
What are we about???
It doesn't matter how many nor how large the countries are that do this to its citizens.
If this occurs because freedoms and fairness is wanted for the citizens then, I back them!!!!!
Most would sit back and allow for wrong to foster and grow its ugly head until they are impacted and that is when it's too late to do something about it.
If this mindset continues to go on without being addressed, it will spread across many other boarders.
The Iraq war was created under false notions.
Therefore, you can ultimately never get good results out of doing something that you know is wrong in the long run.
Lets put this in perspective. Yes, those who want democracy should be supported, however, when it comes to a military engagement:
1) Syria has no resources to speak of
2) Though they might be rising up against the younger Assad, lets remember that Syria has been an enemy of our allies for far longer than that. They've also been an ally of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, and a highway for arms to Hamas and Hezbollah.
3) They are hard to get to strategically.
4) Though Russia and China have the filth of supporting the slaughter of Syria's civilians on their hands, they are far more invested in protecting the regime than we would be of overthrowing it. Because they have more to lose if it doesn't work out.
5) We might as well start a war with Iran while we are at it, becasue they have the most to lose, outside the Syrian regime. I have less problem with that, believe it or not, but frankly, the proper response to an Iran who insists on building a bomb is not a ground invasion of Syria based on morality.
So, unless someone has some magical way of having this all work out, morality doesn't make you more capable of dealing with this tragedy. Its not about wanting to. It is about can we. And really, militarily, the US can't.
I am all for the overthrow of Assad. I think he should be dragged through the streets for what he has done. I hope the revolution succeeds and Syria begins a history of being constructive in the Middle East.
There are a million ways to stop this, even providing the citizens with a means to protect themselves.
The fear that Russia will lose a financial and strategical interest is Russia's fault for being on the wrong side of the subject on this issue.
If their leaders want to support this type of behavior then they'll feel the consequences at home from their own citizens not just from us expressing what we will fight for.
You can only prolong the inevitable when you ignore things.
But, the longer it takes to be addressed the harder it will become to defeat this mindset.
Sometimes we have to think about more than just ourselves.....
Now is one of those times.
High Tech Security: 12345 Case Closed, next.
Laya, by all means you are more than welcome to travel to the ME and join the Free Syrian Army and fight the government. Oh wait... you just rant online and want other people to go and do that? Chicken Hawk.
Why not? we went to Iraq even when Sadam was cooperating...
when you hear people by the thousands are been killed, especially women and children, that s good enough for me and any one else to go there and stop this massacre!!!
if Bashar Assad cannot do it! will do it for him and put someone else there better than him who can do better, there are millions of them waiting for their chance to do good for their countries but for some reason! bad people are always the one ending up with high leadership
So, People want the U.S. to stop acting like the World Police. They say we have no business in the Middle East. It is said that our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs only makes the conflicts worse. It is believed that it is due to U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern affairs that lead to terrorist attack on U.S. and allied interests. People claim the only reason the U.S. takes action in the Middle East is to protect oil production.
Then, there is an about face! Suddenly it is about human rights! To assist an uprising against an oppressive regime! It is to stop the massacre of innocent people! It's hypocrisy.
Saddam Hussein was one of those oppressors, he was a killer of his own people, he committed genocide, and he taunted the U.S. and threatened the American People. Yes, it was a bluff. But there was reasonable doubt.
Iran poses a threat, they taunt. North Korea poses a threat, they taunt. Does Syria? NO! Does Libya? NO! Does any other nation of the Arab Spring pose a real threat to the American People? NO!
No matter what the U.S. does, there is a critic. Even IF the U.S. assists the current uprising, in a few years or less, there will be a new uprising. New oppression, new massacres, new dictators, new threats to other Middle Eastern nations. This is the history of the region!
These people made decisions that lead to to the turmoil. The supported the last leader to gain power, they support the uprising to remove that leader, they support an uprising to remove that one!
Yes, innocent people are dieing!
But that is THEIR CHOICE! That has been their culture since before Christ! We cannot stop it, nor should we.
If there is truly a threat to the American People, then by all means, assist! But until then, STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!
Jobless.. : Thanks for your feedack on my comment.. I do agree with you but it s not fair for US to pick an chose their enemies only for their own interest!!
if US is against regimes like the one Assad is leading now, why not stop it? they stopped other bad regimes before why not now?
either way!! US will always be blamed for their actions! regardless if if they did it for good intention or bad intentions..this is how things are.. some people accept and some dont! too bad if US is doing the right thing why not? I think when it comes to bad and good! we know the difference between the two.. Syrian issue is a bad one and needs UN/NATO/ whomever to take an action ASAP
What does that mean?
Assad is planning a conference in Homs? Is he kidding? There will be no human left in Homs when his forces are done.
Its pretty obvious that there are other ways to support the revolution without sending troops directly. Unless you want to be one of those people who thinks military intervention is the only thing that matters. I don't happen to believe that.
common sense you are right sooner or later you reap what you sow, a simple concept but it works--------
when the solution is simple God is answering and I am quoting Albert Einstein And Assad is
screwed!
Ken please tell me you are not comparing people being killed by their Government to those being killed by disease. Please tell me you did not just do something as stupid as that or else you may have lowered my expectations of my fellow Americans yet again.
You cannot compare the situations, not logically anyway. One is killed by a small microbial bacteria while the other one is killed by the Government sworn to protect them. Do you see the difference now? If our own Government was doing this would you still have that indifferent tone? I highly doubt it.
P - Laya...
Huh? Wow, I seen people on NewsVine contradict themselves from one post to the next but I don't know if I've ever seen anyone do it within the same post. ANY argument that could be used to justify military action in Syria would have worked equally well in Iraq even if those weren't the excuses we used at the time. So what exactly is your stance? Should we interfere with other countries or shouldn't we?
Electing Obama sure confused this didn't it?
US, British and many allies tried to do it in Iraq twice.
After militarization, NATO marched backwards leaving only barracks, where the NATO forces militarized.
Result: Greece and many nations. US on the line.
We are again back on Saudi, oil companies and their lobbyists’ directions to militarize Syria, Iran and some more.
Net results: Greece right in our streets.
More unemployed and on streets!
Interesting that these "terrorists" are chaterized as "activists" by the socialists.
Haygay! I wish you lived in Syria.
and freedomfighters by the conservative. ;)
When it comes to Muslims, look to the many in the US and allies and all of UN, human rights and their Saudi puppets' dictionaries, there is no word like "terrorists."
There are only liberators or holy warriors!
Most of the Shiites majority nations (Bahrain and some more) are ruled by Sunnis.
The most intolerant Sunni Islamic religious Nazis can't tolerate one Shiite ruler, Syria.
Syria's Assad is the best among most of the barbaric, bigoted and beastly Sunni rulers of ME.
Time has come for Assad to start bombing all the Sunni rebellion places. He should erase them to ground.
9/11 is a good working model.
Sure, forced to help people that hate us again! Here's wishing they would knock each other off. If they live like dogs lt them be.
It's about time they started using their terroristic tactics on their own government.
They are so quick to suicide bomb us and plant IEDs so troops along with innocents get killed.
Now the Syrian Govt are calling them "terrorists" interesting how the rhetoric works.
Well, the Syrian government claims everyone opposing them is a terrorist. Or a foreign conspirator.
It's interesting that this happened and nobody took responsibility for it; it probably wasn't the opposition, as random bombings in civilian areas might make people turn to the regime for security. But I'm not ready to blame the regime, as destabilizing the nation further in the interest of gaining popular support is way more dangerous and convoluted than simply shooting their opponents (which is what they've done so far).
There are plenty of real terrorists in Syria (specifically, I'm referring to extremists aligned neither to the government, the protesters, or the rebels with their own agenda), and there's also a lot of sectarian tension. This might just be a "normal" bombing.
Just another day in the Middle East.
A little like here.
After 9/11, every country in the world started calling their internal enemies 'terrorists' so WE wouldnt be able to complain about them. Typical spin.
$64,000 dollar question: To what extent should the world involve itself, meaning NATO, the U.N. and the Arab League?
To those advocating a hands-off approach, remember that was pretty much the world view about Afghanistan after the Soviets left. We all remember what came of that benign neglect.
Then again, if any outsider sticks their nose in, they risk getting sucked into a quagmire like Iraq, or like Lebanon, or like Vietnam, or like Afghanistan.
I don't see a clear, no-brainer, course of action here. But then again, I'm not a politician.
God, does this mean you're not a Republican? They love simple no-brainer "solutions" to every problem. They are so ignorant in the face of a complex world. Then again, these are the people who don't believe in evolution, who think that slavery was a great deal for Africans, who would deny women birth control(and the vote!), who make up lies about the President that nobody believes except their friends in the Klan and Neo-Nazi party. That is the Republican Party--Lies, Simple Stupid Solutions, Hypocrisy, and more Lies. All so that the wealthy--not the actual right-wing Republican voters, most of whom are born losers--can make even more money.
That will happen when half your party sells out to the other half so you can win elections. Neither half of the Republican party could win anything on its own. The corporate half would always loose, and the really conservative half would always loose. So the conservatives always sell out so they can elect someone.
????
Well, back on subject, it is interesting because I read an article yesterday that said Syria could be the key to Iran since they are their only ally in the region. If Syria has its own regime change it could mean the end of Iran's support.
So in giving support we may be able to kill 2 birds with one stone, pun intended. I only recommend token support like we did in Libya. I would not want to see boots on the ground.
MIND BOGGLING....
Just think of the children currently being killed over there.
Is it a crime to want freedom from an oppressive regime?
Is it a crime to want fairness within a society?
What thought process allow so many to miss the most important points within a situation?
Oh Yeah,
Thanks John McMain for having the guts to stand up and explain options to save innocent lives in this situation.
leftard northlite; clinton ignored the growing Taliban threat and abandoned the one effective fighting force that opposed the Taliban; the Northern Alliance. now go cry like a good leftard do
Sad but true.
A diplomatic solution would probably be best. Working closely with the Arab League, which has more legitimacy in the region than the UN, is probably our best recourse now that Russia and China have made clear that they don't want the larger international community standing behind insurrection and pro-democracy movements.
I'm hoping for non-military support for the opposition, to whatever extent we can get it to them in Syria, perhaps advisement on creating an alternative political structure for the international community to recognize (ala Libya's Transitional National Council), and supplies to the rebels camped out in Turkey. The ideal solution is for the regime to exhaust itself to the point that it accepts that a negotiated withdrawal from power is better than ongoing conflict, but that can only happen if the protest/rebel movement doesn't peter out first.
This would be much better than a successful insurrection, which still leaves armed thugs in charge, just different ones.
Over here, Obama calls it abortion but at lease it will be covered by insuurance.
Hopefully the November elections will restore this.
Pretty sad when the Arab Dictator League has more legitimacy than the UN.
Sorry, northlite, while I'm not a Republican, I do not aggree with your assessment of Republicans. Yes, many of them jump to conclusions and make simple [and false] assumptions about complex issues; but this not a trait found only among members of the GOP. I've seen my fair share of Democratic yahoos, whose ideas seem just as malformed and rigid.
My original point was to spark thought and an honest conversation regarding what can and should be done about Syria. In my mind the possible answers run the gamut, from doing absolutely nothing, to staging an intervention by NATO troops [not just U.S. troops marching under a U.N. Flag].
Of all the responses, I like those of J.Scott and S.F. Accountant best.
Let syria handle their own affairs. Let them fight it out amongst themselves until other nations are threatened in a real manner.
That would be fine if the opposition were supported with weapons like Russia & china support Assad!
We got Bin Laddin on Obama's watch, not because of his leadership, but because of our persistence. But now when the CIA could slip in weapons to the opposition, Obama-san wants us to pursue diplomatic & economic means.
No, I do not want to see us "boots-on-the-ground" in Syria. Just make it a more fair fight, like Libya
That's unrealistic, because the Libyan resistance was backed up by an extensive air campaign that would be far, far more difficult in Syria.
A strong resistance movement in Syria would probably lead to a pretty bad civil war, the kind with lots of infighting and widespread chaos and larger nations jockeying for power on the sidelines. In Libya the opposition was united and was capable of maintaining order in areas that they controlled.
I doubt this will be settled with military force, with or without the United States involved.
It doesn't take a whole lot of discussion. The Assad family business (also known as Syria) is about to go south. Assad and their loyalists probably won't have to wait long before the rebels get armed. Then, watch out.
The fact that Syria IS a family business is proof positive that it is destined to crumble. A family can't effectively operate a country. It's too susceptible to corruption. Look at South Korea. Look at the Bushes......
Can't we use the same method Obama uses to arm the Mexican drug cartels?
I didn't see any condemnation from MSNBC regarding the bombings mentioned in the Article. Sounds like MSNBC is taking sides again, as w/ Libia, w/ biased reporting. Were not the terrorists "killing their own people"?
Until somebody figures out who placed the bombs, there's no one to condemn.
Read the Article again. Where were the explosives set. Think about it.
There is a civil war in Syria. The war is between the brutal, autocratic dictatorship of Bashar al Assad and Sunni Islamic extremists. The people supporting freedom and democracy are for the most part peaceful. They will, however, be crushed no matter which sides wins the civil war. America should not be involved. It's not our war.
It sounds to me like like you favor killing those who are peaceful off so as too allow those who want to kill each other to fight and kill each other.....maybe somewhere you have a base of profit that you are hoping to increase by the two sides fighting.
What is with the personal attack dwight? Wanting the US to stay out of another country's internal affairs doesn't mean he has a profit motive! If enough people in Syria decide that Assad must go, then they will get rid of him. It might cost thousands of lives but that will be their cost of freedom to do with as they wish. Freedom isn't free and must be paid for by those wanting freedom or it will mean too little.
Our freedom was bought with the blood from our men and women in the millitary..
Whether he survives the current civil war or not, Assad must see that the times have changed. Whatever his 'reforms' are now seem destined to be too little too late. Staying only means the blood-letting goes on, to the further weakening of Syria. If he is at all patriotic, he will work to transition himself out of there-while he still has some choices of where to go.
He's not that patriotic.
That's the thing about dictatorships. Loyalty is supposed to be to the nation, but it actually goes to the dictator. Assad thinks he IS Syria.
Nationalism is always dangerous, but even more so when you get it wrong.
Loyalty goes to whoever delivers the goodies. Its the dictator version of picking winners and losers.
So the civil war continues and Clinton and Obama want to choose a side? Why? America will not serve as a on-call mercenary force for foreign nations who want to start fights.
Sure we will. Haven't you been paying attention to the past few decades?
All we need is a reason, whether economic, political, or philosophical. Of course we'll choose a side.
Gotta use that military for something. Gotta protect our phoney baloney defense budget.
We as Americans should be supporting the Anti-Assad groups by supplying them with weapons and ammunition that are just laying around gathering dust in our military armories.
Once Assad is ousted or killed outright for his crimes just like Hussein, Ghadaffi and others like him are always dealt with, Syria will be in a better position for each side to sit down in a Democratic setting to not discuss religion but to discuss how all sides can come together to build Syria as a united nation whose goal is the prosperity for all Syrians and not just one select group of Syrians.
If you truly believe that dwight, then I encourage you to expend your own resources providing the Syrians as much weaponry as you can. Just don't pick anyone else's pockets too! Just because Syrians are tired of Assad doesn't mean they want democracy it just means they want to get rid of Assad. What replaces him might be worse than he was. The middle east has no experience with democracy and the likelyhood of a true democracy taking hold there is minimal. Far more likely will be an Islamic nation following sharia law and an enemy of the west. I wouldn't waste a penny of my own money for that result, but I guess you would!
Example is Egypt. Hey man, the Moslem Bro's got the power. A moslem theocracy is wat usually springs up.
"Example is Egypt. Hey man, the Moslem Bro's got the power. A moslem theocracy is wat usually springs up."
Actually, Egypt doesn't have a fully functional democratic government yet. And when it does, it will probably be a Muslim DEMocracy, not THEocracy. The requirement for a government to be a democracy is it has to rule with a popular mandate verified by a fair and free election process. Whether or not religion is involved somewhere in that process is irrelevant.
Also, assuming Dwight pays taxes, he already gives his resources to the federal government for the purposes of enabling it to conduct foreign policy operations like he's suggesting based on the will of the voters (I'm assuming he's one of those, too). He may be quite a bit more optimistic than most about the outcome, but it's a fair strategy.
Syria doesnt have as much oil as Libya; and it would be harder to bring about the downfall of assad. so dont look for obama to be so concerned about "humanitarian' reasons to send cruise missiles into Syria
it would take an idiot leader to get the u.s. involved in syria, but if obama and hillary would grab an m-16 and lead a two people army, i would change my mind. call them the sucide leaders.
Huzzahh!!!!
HELLLO??? We are NOT the World police we don't have to do anything. You go there, they will turn on you eventually. No way would I get involved there, let the Russians and Chicoms pay the price for blocking the UN. Hell no, its not gonna be us.
MY PEOPLE thy love ME, Yes-yes Thy do.....Power to the people!
@Laulaus
Our FREEDOM was bought by the blood of a bunch of citizens who were fed up with the tyranny and abuses from England.
In short, we held our own for a while, but we pretty much got our butts kicked until the French supplied us with weapons. When the fight became a bit more even, our resolve carried us over the top.
We can not turn our backs on other countries battling for their freedom from tyrants. Once their gov't has shown their true colors and intentions, as Assad has, the least we can do is level the playing field with logisical support to offset the inputs of Russia and China.
Our president is too busy fending off attacks from foreign influences in Rome which are supported by fifth columnist America-haters, or he would figure out a way around the intransigence of china and russia. We need to jail those who stand with NAMBLA, or the "catholic church," as it sometimes calls itself.
Unfortunately, republican evangelicals are a natural ally of rome, since they, too, have great difficulty keeping their hands out of the pants of children - and since they, too, hate America.
Huh? Obama's having trouble with Catholics?
I must have missed that news posting. What are you talking about, exactly?
It's sad innocent children and people are killed, just like it was sad in WW II when inncocent Germans and Japanese were killed after their governments started a brutal war and aggressiona against peaceful countries. These people back Assad and Assad is mudering everyone else, so what do they expect. It;s hard to feel sorry for them. If the military or people close to him or powerful enough would take Assad out and then start talking peace, maybe these people could live in peace too.
We can take any country and find dissidents and fund and arm them and meddle in their business... as France did in ours... also any group cna taunt and provoke Biritsh soldiers into a show of powers and force that can discredit them and get support for the dissidents like happened against the British. The worst battles in our revolution were actually with colonists who supported the British. Loyalists were tarred and feathered and fled the country leaving all their property and belonging some being colonist from the earliest of times. If it had not of happened with lots of killing and suffering we might have ended up like Canada, yikes.
provoking revolution is provoking pain, death and suffering on massive scale by outside forces for personal or strategic gain. And like our civil war the pain never goes away and could any time erupt again in another war... old wars never die!
"And like our civil war the pain never goes away and could any time erupt again in another war... old wars never die!"
I'm sorry, I must have missed something in my national history class. Didn't the Civil War conclusively end slavery and set the stage for the civil rights movement, eventually catapulting the black minority to legal equality and, quite recently, the White House? Also, I'm pretty sure that there was no "Civil War II: Return of the Confederacy", so what are you talking about? That old war died a long time ago.
Not saying that the Syrian conflict will turn out that well, but that's a rather absurd statement you had there.
SF, i'm with you whats going on here. Rome attacking big O and the civil war thats never ended. I know I'm a bit off the wall but man today there bouncing out from every where, who ever left the key in the door, hey their getting away!
We have no strategic or economic business there to protect. Let them take to the streets against a huge army backed by a dictator just like Egyptians did. Let the Syrians take care of their own business.
Don't care - move on to something else.....
Too bad Assad wasn't one on them.
You know what happens when you get an '' Assad " involved in government ? He kills your "Ass ", and he makes an "ad " telling the world it was your fault !
If a peaceful life for each person in middle east is to ever be realised. Then they must win that freedom for themselves or never know the cost of letting someone take that freedom away.
Iraq a perfect example of freedom that not one citizen paid the cost to win. So in the end they had nothing invested that they could call their freedom. A freedom that they paid for or would die to keep. As it was one ruler replaced by another whose ideals of a stable Iraq had nothing to do with them. They again live under the rules of someone elses ideals of their freedom, of how they should live. Some day the Iraqi's will rise up for their own freedom but it's not today and it certainly wasn't yesterday.
Syrian's need to win their freedom and then struggle for many more years having that freedom cover every voice in Syria. A time no one but Syrian's will ever be able to invest insuring it does. Support is all anyone can ever do to insure Syria is free for all Syrian's.
Then they have to figure out how to keep it. See Egypt for a BAD example.
The best thing would be is let both sides kill off each other until there is no one left . These animals do not know how to live in a civilized world. Other Arab countries are not coming in to stop the fight. All these people know is to hate the USA and Israel, what has Syria done to better mankind.
Your right if the individual Syrian is as hateful as the governing ruler's. Or if just brain washed through years of hatred. That given a chance of free will might change for the better or naturally by chance get worse. We all know to well that the actions of government are not always the actions of it's citizens. Though it is hard to believe anyone would live for so long hateing what their country does for generations. You never know what keeping the masses uneducated can do. Maybe what we are seeing is finally the scales of thought being tipped?
@Ron-2402090 Amen, brother. These are people who have despised us for decades. They sided with the soviets in the cold war, attacked Israel, and when the tables are turned, they are insenced that the US does nothing. Letting them whittle each other away is the best thing that could happen. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of savages.