A beginner's guide to the conflict in (and country of) Syria
thehowardbealeshow.tumblr.com
thehowardbealeshow.tumblr.com
The Guardian also has a great summary of the issue here. [2]
[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au...
is complete BS. Syria is an historical ally of Iran. It dates way before the protests, and the proof of that is in its control over Lebanon via the Hezbollah (which has been financed by Iran for more than 20 years).
If you want to understand arabs war in general, look at who's Shia and who is Sunni (and from time to time, when sunnis and shias don't fight each other, look at who is a jew).
Now for a quick sum up on the situation : Iran is trying to become a nuclear power. It's a shia country. Sunni don't want that (mainly saudi arabia and qatar). Syria is ruled by shias but the population is mostly sunni, so the ruling party is allied with Iran. Rebels are sunnis and mostly financed by saudi arabia and qatar.
Until there was chemical weapons involved, most occidental countries were quite happy to see iran fight saudi arabia using a proxy war in Syria. They sell weapons (Russia sells to Syria, US sells to Saudi Arabia), and enjoy seeing radical islamists and dictatorial regime kill each other instead of joining forces against Israel or bomb european cities.
But since Mr Obama said there was a "red line" and now that that "red line" has been crossed, US is forced to take side.
On a sidenote, the US has helped islamists gain power recently in Egypt, against dictatorial regimes, hoping for a middle term transition to democracy (a bit like what is hoped for Turkey), but that failed very recently with egyptians wanting islamist party out. So the whole US strategy in the middle east right now is a bit of a mess anyway.
Frankly, I would not trust most any of the journalism on this topic. It's not malice or propaganda, it's just very likely to be very poorly researched.
If the above is true, then:
> it's just very likely to be very poorly researched.
Is just a strong assumption with no factual basis.
I just watched the documentary linked in the post and found it fascinating ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E_oOuqsuQs ). I agree with you that it is a westerners introduction to the conflict but that does not necessarily mean it is untruthworthy, incorrect, or poorly researched. It simply means it is seen through the eyes of a westerner.
Think of it as the same photo shot by two accomplished photographers, one 5ft tall, another 7ft tall. Neither is fabricating anything, just looking at the same thing from a slightly different point of view. Just because the 7ft tall photographer is not a native like the 5ft tall photographer, does not mean the photo is unreliable.
Stupid question: If a pornographic imagery some how increased the likely hood of help or even peace to Syria, should people use it such a tactic? Would "we" think less of them for doing so?
>Also, it doesn’t hurt that Syria happens to produce a lot of gorgeous human beings:
WTH? Doesn't hurt what?
It has been brewing for a long time.
My friend's grandfather was sent to jail when his mother was 6, becuase his grandfather was a sunni politian against hafez assad's regim.
His grandfather was in jail for 20/30 years and he told me how his mother didnt even know or remember her father until he was let out and she got to know him.
He told me how when his mother was in school soldiers would drag sunni girls wearing hijab (face cover) by their hair out of the schools and they would never be seen again.
The government would treat Sunnis like second class citizens.
And something he didn't mention and most people don't know is that this very same thing is starting to happened in Lebanon.
The army of Lebanon is hizbollah which is a Shia terrorist organisation and they have been mistreating Sunnis and now Sunnis are starting to rebel. I have a friend that was living in Lebanon and moved back to Australia because he told me a civil war is going to start.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29...
http://www.therevoltingsyrian.com/post/50495350134/does-this...
Only a single post, this one, has ever been posted on the account.
And now this article claiming to provide info on the conflict has not a single mention about it. I call BS!!
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Dale Gavlak. [4]
Dale Gavlak has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdvbinNLH8
[2] http://www.opendemocracy.net/rozh-ahmad/mass-slaughter-of-ci...
[3] Search the Web for "Lattakia Massacre" (caution, very explicit content!)
[4] http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-sau...
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/05/27/chemi...
Can you share a link substantiating that French investigations proved rebels were behind some of the chemical attacks?
UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use
Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said.
"According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas," del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, said in an interview with Swiss radio late on Sunday.
"We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas," she added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".
Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.
Later, the commission stressed that it had "not reached conclusive findings" as to their use by any parties.
"As a result, the commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time," a statement added.
The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the statement was terse and shows that the UN was taken by surprise at Ms Del Ponte's remarks.
No, it's also consisting of many (perhaps mostly) innocent people like you and me who did nothing wrong and just want to live and get through their day peacefully.
It's not some unified entity. It's a lot of innocent people caught in the middle.