Rebels storm Pro-Assad Syrian TV channel

World Jun. 28, 2012 - 04:12PM JST ( 24 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

24 Comments

1

Ben JackJun. 29, 2012 - 07:33AM JST

Never Submit,

Let's review, shall we? You claim the UN does not condemn rebel activities. You are shown to be incorrect. You claim a person representing casualty figures is in London. You are shown to be incorrect. You claim foreigners are running around Syria speaking foreign languages and never back up this claim. You claim the Russian foreign minister said there were foreigners running around Syria speaking foreign languages. You are shown to be incorrect. You call other people names and question people's intelligence and then claim you do not want to get drawn into name-calling. You claim you don't expect the TV station attacks to be reported in the Western press, when they are being reported everywhere and it is clear that the rebels did this. You claim people here are "supporting" the rebels, when I have seen little or nothing of this. In fact, the only one I see regularly supporting a specific side, but not backing up their claims, is you. You consistently back the Assad regime side and have done so from the beginning. All while claiming you are not taking sides. Care to explain that?
1

Ben JackJun. 29, 2012 - 08:11AM JST

I bumped into your repetitive posts in every discussion. I have said many times, I do not support the rebels as I do not even know what kind of Syria they envision and I think an unstable Syria would be bad for the region. However, I merely asked for an explanation so as to avoid all that propaganda you say I should avoid. So, could you explain it now?
1

nandakandamandaJun. 30, 2012 - 09:59AM JST

The rebels in Syria tend to be Sunnis, and they are supported by Sunni communities in Lebanon.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia compete with each other to supply arms to them, to kick out Alawite-Shia and Shia Iranian influence.

The Saudi government has probably asked Hillary to speak out, but she is surely just a side player in this conflict between branches of Islam.

Larger regional checks and balances are being tested, and as tensions rise there is no knowing what will happen there. All the players, Hezbollah, Israel, Salafists, Iran, the Alawites, the Christians, Hamas, will be struggling to hold position or take advantage as and when any opportunity presents itself. Realignment is like tectonic plates shifting.

Assad may be in a position to stop all the fighting, but how? Is it better to continue to bear down? Is it better to resign? Or is it too late either way?
0

smithinjapanJun. 28, 2012 - 06:35PM JST

I suspect as more and more Assad 'loyalists' defect to other nations and the rebels make grounds we'll suddenly hear Assad have a change of heart and want to make a deal -- so long as he can stay in power being the main condition.
0

MadvertsJun. 28, 2012 - 06:53PM JST

I reckon he'll hang in to the end like Gadhaffi, and end up the same way. These despot types can't give up power, even Saddam thought he would be making a comeback tour.
0

NeverSubmitJun. 28, 2012 - 06:58PM JST

So the S.O.P. for the "Free" Syrian Army (the rebels) is to storm into buildings and ruthlessly murder unarmed people in cold blood.

And the West thinks it's a good idea to give them more weapons because...???

Interesting that Rami forgot to mention the killings of the unarmed office workers in his daily diatribe.
0

sdf_crew_memberJun. 28, 2012 - 08:43PM JST

Most of us would like to see Assad step aside and allow a democratic process to be allowed as the people are demanding.

I guess the same outcome it's happened in Lybia - chaos and violence - wonderful result. More democratic bombing, please.
0

MadvertsJun. 28, 2012 - 09:01PM JST

"I guess the same outcome it's happened in Lybia - chaos and violence - wonderful result"

That chaos and violence stemmed from a civil uprising - like in Syria - against the rule of a dictator. Are you seriously suggesting that had the rebels not been aided that there would have been less bloodshed?
0

skipbeatJun. 29, 2012 - 12:05AM JST

I guess the same outcome it's happened in Lybia - chaos and violence - wonderful result. More democratic bombing, please.

The wonderful result is Islamic rule???
0

MadvertsJun. 29, 2012 - 03:28AM JST

"No weapons and ammo from the west, no bloodshed, pure and simple."

In the beginning of the uprising against the Syrian dictator the protests were peaceful. The more your man Assad has tried to squash the rebellion, the more the rebels have found the means to arm themselves, be it from selling their own effects to obtain them, or more recently from local players and perhaps even international ones. In the beginning some of the rebels were equipped with WW2 era rifles for pete's sake.

The Syrian's aren't going to stop their movement to rid themselves of Assad simply because you're peddling mis-information. It's their right.

"I don't get the alien connection. Let's keep the discussion civil and down to earth."

I am being civil - your far-out theories that have been long proven fantasy of Blackwater mercenaries spreading unrest, or the West lead by the demonic Americans are "itching to invade" simply have no place in reality after a year and a half of armed struggle.

I have no problem with you getting off playing some sort of a devil's advocate - but please at least have the courtesy to make your theories hold the road and support them with evidence if you wish to remain "down to earth".
0

lostrune2Jun. 29, 2012 - 04:45AM JST

With Assad attacking civilian residences, is it OK for rebels to attack civilian stations?

Chances of Syrian rebels not receiving arms is the same chances as Taliban not receiving arms fighting NATO, i.e. fat chance.
0

SuperLibJun. 29, 2012 - 04:54AM JST

NeverSubmit: If Western governments stop suppling weapons and ammo to the rebels the shooting would stop within a week.

Yeah, but wouldn't the West rather supply a few weapons to keep the thing going and possibly get rid of Assad, assuming we could get a government more to our liking in his place? Granted, Assad has his own supporters, but with a little tweaking by the West we can achieve a more favorable outcome. He seems like an easy target and it will help to put pressure on Iran. And let's be honest, the guy should shoulder most of the blame for putting himself in this position anyway. He practically invited the West in.
0

SuperLibJun. 29, 2012 - 11:17AM JST

NeverSubmit: I support the rule of international law, which clearly stipulates that states cannot supply military grade arms, ammunition, support or otherwise to any non-state criminal groups.

But every now and then you have to turn a blind eye in order to get things done. As long as the West focuses on Assad and mostly ignores the actions of the rebels the actions can be presented as just to the world.
0

nandakandamandaJun. 29, 2012 - 03:54PM JST

Quote from article: "More than 150 people were killed in fierce fighting across Syria on Wednesday, 86 of them civilians, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. Intensified fighting in the country have driven up the death toll averages to around 100 people per day in the past week".

OK, so where does it say which side killed those people? Nowhere. The reader concludes that civilians are being killed in the fighting, not that civilians were killed by just one side.

Now, which do I prefer, governemnt-controlled silence from Syria, or information about what is happening there? Clearly people throughout the world prefer independent figures, and the more reliable the better, even if they cannot be proved 100%.

BTW The person in London, Mousab Azzawi, runs a rival Syrian Observatory, and this man (not Rami) believes in outside armed intervention.
0

SuperLibJun. 29, 2012 - 05:21PM JST

Nah, Syria will be better with him gone. Just ignore the rebels and focus on Assad and things wil be easier for ya.
0

MadvertsJun. 29, 2012 - 05:26PM JST

NS - "Syrians by and large support Assad because he gave them relative stability"

Did you go there personally and interview them yourself? Or are you just regurgitating comments you're fed from sources you refuse to name?
0

nandakandamandaJun. 29, 2012 - 09:03PM JST

Actually I think the suppressed tribes in Syria had been waiting for the opportunity to break free. Al Qaida (mainly Sunni) had been preaching to young people throughout the Middle East to topple their top-down oppressive regimes. The Arab Spring brought about a series of uprisings, and some people within Syria judged it was time to make an open move, ie it's now or never and because of the secret police you can never go back to the original state once you've made your move.

One big difference with Syria's situation is the very lack of large-scale external involvement. The situation was never at any point clear-cut and Western powers were and are unwilling to be drawn in. How can you support rebels, for example, if you do not know who or what they are?

Why do the West not support Assad? Ask who has he supported over the years.

Sure there are fighters from all over the Middle East, and weapons that got into rebel hands in Libya, but no overt or official state intervention, even if Hillary Clinto tries to threaten Assad over the horrors that he continues to direct on his own peoples.

Russia, China and Iran on the other hand have chosen to take sides in the conflict. Perhaps they feel that better the devil you know than the devil you don't know?
0

bass4funkJun. 29, 2012 - 11:23PM JST

Which people? Did you go there personally and interview them yourself? Or are you just regurgitating the biased guff that you're fed from the AP and Reuters?

So then how do you personally know that the people are happy with this degenerate of a coward. How do you know? Did you personally interview Assad? Do you know exactly what and how he is thinking?
-1

NeverSubmitJun. 28, 2012 - 08:42PM JST

Most of us would like to see Assad step aside and allow a democratic process to be allowed as the people are demanding.

Which people? Did you go there personally and interview them yourself? Or are you just regurgitating the biased guff that you're fed from the AP and Reuters?
-1

NeverSubmitJun. 28, 2012 - 11:56PM JST

If Western governments stop suppling weapons and ammo to the rebels the shooting would stop within a week. The rebels would be arrested and face justice for their crimes. Perhaps those that weren't involved in the killing of civilians could be given amnesty.

No weapons and ammo from the west, no bloodshed, pure and simple.

Madverts: than an alien "abductee".

I don't get the alien connection. Let's keep the discussion civil and down to earth.
-1

NeverSubmitJun. 29, 2012 - 05:58AM JST

Yeah, but wouldn't the West rather supply a few weapons to keep the thing going

What you're suggesting is a war-crime and it's clearly against international law. The rebels are just thugs and they're not bound by the Geneva convention nor do they used uniformed soldiers.

They are a guerrilla army purposefully hiding among the civilian population and using tactics such as terrorist bombs in city markets, and cold-blooded murder of journalists. Nobody should nor is legally permitted to supply these hooligans with weapons.

If Hillary doesn't like Assad then she can resort to sanctions, diplomacy and the UN process. But to spark and fuel an insurgency only leads to bloodshed. How many civilians have died because of Hillary's pet project?
-2

MadvertsJun. 28, 2012 - 07:09PM JST

"And the West thinks it's a good idea to give them more weapons because...???"

Because the dictator you support has bigger and better guns to murder the citizens protesting against his iron grip.

Most of us would like to see Assad step aside and allow a democratic process to be allowed as the people are demanding.
-2

NeverSubmitJun. 29, 2012 - 04:26PM JST

As long as the West focuses on Assad and mostly ignores the actions of the rebels the actions can be presented as just to the world.

Perhaps the family members of those murdered in cold-blood by the rebels will find it hard to "ignore" their actions.

Syrians by and large support Assad because he gave them relative stability, a developed economy and a peaceful life.

Now thanks to Western intervention there's daily carnage and bloodshed. The flow of weapons and bombs to the rebels must stop immediately, otherwise Syria will forever be in civil war. But perhaps Hillary wants just that. Who knows.
-3

NeverSubmitJun. 29, 2012 - 08:00AM JST

Ben, if you spent less time obsessing over my posts and more time reviewing the real situation in Syria you might be less susceptible to fall for the propaganda that's being dished out about this conflict.

I support the rule of international law, which clearly stipulates that states cannot supply military grade arms, ammunition, support or otherwise to any non-state criminal groups.

The law is very clear in this regard and all CIA support for the rebels should cease immediately, since it's a violation of international law as in constitutes interference in a sovereign state that the US is not at war with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.rt.com/news/syrian-family-massacre-rebels-936/

All support for the rebels should cease immediately. Considering their horrific tactics and the the illegality of fueling a conflict.