Despite this unimaginable terror, the Syrian people refuse to be silenced, and are committed to a non-violent path out of this nightmare. But while they have no shortage of bravery, they are short of funds. They are asking for financial and other support -- for needs ranging from urgent medical help to ads and public messages urging soldiers to refuse to shoot protestors.
Our best chance to protect tens of thousands of Syrian families at risk is to support their struggle.
Here is the link if you want to support the Syrian people.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/syria_stand ... 101&v=9323
It seems that the army are hitting the Sunni towns and villages and bypassing the Alaouite ones. The country's ruling family are Alaouite.
How is this unrest going to end? How do western governments decide which regimes they will help to topple? Who polices the world?
I have no answers :-(
Seems that the owner of the Syrian comms company, who came in for a lot of name calling and stone throwing from the protesters it seems, has decided to give all the profits to charity and social development.
Commentators seem to think this is due to pressure from the government, as a sop to the people, try to please them a little, rather than a crack in the ruling cadre.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/collis/e ... s_what_big
How can any regime in this age expect to hide their actions, unless the effectively reduce their country to a totalitarian police state or a medieval state of technology - but Syria seems to be heading for a combination of the two.
However, the rest of the world is not going to forget easily, any country that might have been their allies or supporters before (though I would guess only for commercial reasons probably) will almost certainly distance themselves in future.
The biggest dangers, IMO, are the effects of sanctions etc. on the people and the possibility, that if/when the police actions stop, diplomacy demands that the criminal leaders end up being re-absorbed into the world's politics, unpunished. But it seems that the people are willing to risk this as they were in the early days of Libya. But what chance international military action of any sort in Syria short of a UN ordered one - and what chance of that?
'European countries proposing a new UN resolution over Syria have dropped demands for immediate sanctions against President Bashar al-Assad's government.
The draft, proposed by the UK, France, Germany and Portugal and backed by the US, threatens sanctions only if the repression of protests does not end.
The scaled-back version is aimed at winning the support of China and Russia, which oppose sanctions.
Western diplomats say they are planning for a vote by the end of the week.'
...and more at:
My mind just started looking for comparison between our actions - sometimes quite violent - in NI and the current situations, especially those involving sectarian or tribal elements (if "tribal" can be applied to certain facets of NI's problems). Could we be called hypocrites?
A judge who went scrumping for apples as a boy would not be a hypocrite if he later jailed a violent bank robber, except by the most ridiculous and 'over technical' definition of 'hypocrisy'. While no-one can defend something like Bloody Sunday, such events were isolated and exceptional. In Syria there has a Bloody Sunday or worse every day for six months as a matter of a routine policy. The parallel is there, but so are significant divergences.My mind just started looking for comparison between our actions - sometimes quite violent - in NI and the current situations, especially those involving sectarian or tribal elements (if "tribal" can be applied to certain facets of NI's problems). Could we be called hypocrites?
It is a debating trick to justify your own great wrong by pointing to a lesser wrong by your opponent, as if a small wrong (and every individual and state has many of those in its past) somehow justifies your own much, much greater wrong, or disqualifies them from criticising you. Imagine a violent bank robber in the dock saying the judge was a hypocrite because he knows the judge stole apples from an orchard when he was a lad. Technically, the robber would be right, but let's not our lose our sense of perspective and remember that mountains are not molehills, whatever abstract similarity the share!
Even if 'our' actions in NI were a hundred times worse than they were, that would be no reason not to do the right thing now. If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do even if it could be called hypocritical, even if it is hypocritical.
The policies and actions of governments are seldom pure. States are probably incapable of 'pure altruism' by their nature, but I think NATO (primarily Britain and France) did the right thing in Libya, and I would like to see them do the same in Syria, but there is no chance of that unless the revolution will certainly succeed without 'NATO boots on he ground', and that is not clear at this time. Hypocritical or not (I don't think it is) direct action in support of the Syrian people against their government is the right thing to do.
With each passing day, Syria's crackdown on democracy protesters reaches new levels of horror -- bombing crowded neighborhoods filled with innocent civilians, cutting off electricity and phones so families can’t call for help, and blocking medical aid to the wounded. But finally a flicker of hope is emerging that could stop the terror.
After the UN Security Council failed last week, Syria's neighbours in the the Arab League are taking the lead. They have called other key powers to an emergency meeting in 4 days in Tunisia, and Avaaz will be sitting at the table with the Syrian democracy movement to deliver a clear mandate for strong action.
Right now, the level of public outrage could make the difference between forceful action and feckless diplomacy. Let's deliver a 1 million-strong call to action, and press negotiators to move now to stop the bloodbath. Click below to sign the petition -- it will be delivered directly to the delegates in the meeting:
U.N. Rights Chief Decries Inaction Over Syrian Assault (New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/world ... -homs.html
Syria rejects UN charges as Homs battered (AFP)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... b0c0df.af1
Tunis to host meeting on Syria on February 24 (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... DN20120212
Syrian regime 'emboldened' by UN inaction, says human rights chief (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... sfeed=true
‘Heaviest shelling’ in Homs for days, say activists, as massacres reported (al Arabiya)
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2 ... sfeed=true
I have no TV and so do not see actual pictures of the suffering and violence (and I admit that I do not look for it) - it is bad enough on the radio.
Yes - and I have been onto Virgin - asking why they do not have it. I suppose it is all down to commercial greed.getreal wrote:I thought Al Jazeera was available on freeview, Jaywhat.
It is unbelievable (to me) that Virgin do not think Al Jazeera is important.
It is getting worse in Syria and our UK news broadcasts are only telling us half of it. If that.
That's the news for you, today's happenings push last week's, no matter how bad they are, into increasing lower priority. I have not watched BBC News 24 to see whether they repeat the same things every hour or reprise older, but still current, happenings?It is getting worse in Syria and our UK news broadcasts are only telling us half of it. If that.
A friend watches a Russian world-wide news TV prog (on Freeview I think) and says that he is always surprised as to how wide the coverage is and how objective and unbiased it seems.