BEIRUT (AP) — Gunmen opened fire Sunday on a car carrying a senior Syrian state prosecutor and a judge in the restive northwest province of Idlib, killing both of them and their driver, according to the state news agency.
Syrian military defectors waging an armed struggle against President Bashar Assad's regime control parts of Idlib province, which borders Turkey. It has been one of the regions hardest hit by the government crackdown on an 11-month-old uprising against Assad's regime.
State news agency SANA said Idlib provincial state prosecutor Nidal Ghazal and Judge Mohammed Ziadeh were killed instantly in the attack.
A day earlier, SANA said gunmen shot dead Jamal al-Bish, member of the city council of the nearby northern city of Aleppo, Syria's largest. It said he was killed outside the city, a center of support for Assad that has been relatively quiet since the uprising began.
The Syrian government blames armed "terrorists" for the uprising and says they are carrying out a foreign conspiracy to destabilize the country.
LONDON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested on Thursday Syria's opposition will ultimately arm itself and said she would bet against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's staying in power.
Speaking directly to Russia and China, which have blocked U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to end the violence in Syria, Clinton said the government's "brutality" against its own people was unsustainable in the internet age.
"The strategy followed by the Syrians and their allies is one that can't stand the test of legitimacy or even brutality for any length of time," Clinton told reporters in London.
"There will be increasingly capable opposition forces. They will from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures," she added.
"It is clear to me there will be a breaking point," Clinton said. "I wish it would be sooner, so that more lives would be saved, than later, but I have absolutely no doubt there will be such a breaking point."
Speaking ahead of a gathering of Western and Arab powers on Friday, U.S. officials separately said the group planned to challenge Assad to provide humanitarian access within days to civilians under assault by his forces.
maybe i should just go to syria and try and do something. dunno how much i could really do, but it'd sure as hell be more than the whole UN is doing right now.
i am actually completely serious about this. i dont think anything has sickened me so much as the world just watching as people are dying. fucking politics.
On February 26 2012 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote: maybe i should just go to syria and try and do something. dunno how much i could really do, but it'd sure as hell be more than the whole UN is doing right now.
i am actually completely serious about this. i dont think anything has sickened me so much as the world just watching as people are dying. fucking politics.
from personal experience, being born from palestinian parents and living in the US, they dont need more men on their soil to fight the war. They need people to put pressure on their own leaders. You can throw thousands of men into battle, but it doesn't mean it will change things. The mindset of people needs to change first. It's rough.
On February 26 2012 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote: maybe i should just go to syria and try and do something. dunno how much i could really do, but it'd sure as hell be more than the whole UN is doing right now.
i am actually completely serious about this. i dont think anything has sickened me so much as the world just watching as people are dying. fucking politics.
from personal experience, being born from palestinian parents and living in the US, they dont need more men on their soil to fight the war. They need people to put pressure on their own leaders. You can throw thousands of men into battle, but it doesn't mean it will change things. The mindset of people needs to change first. It's rough.
Even if he could change the mind of every single American, what then? America already supported a change in the situation.
On February 26 2012 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote: maybe i should just go to syria and try and do something. dunno how much i could really do, but it'd sure as hell be more than the whole UN is doing right now.
i am actually completely serious about this. i dont think anything has sickened me so much as the world just watching as people are dying. fucking politics.
from personal experience, being born from palestinian parents and living in the US, they dont need more men on their soil to fight the war. They need people to put pressure on their own leaders. You can throw thousands of men into battle, but it doesn't mean it will change things. The mindset of people needs to change first. It's rough.
Even if he could change the mind of every single American, what then? America already supported a change in the situation.
A Russian and Chinese veto is still a veto.
Put pressure on America to put more pressure on China and Russia. Countries still care about their stance in the international community. Present the Syrian government as barbaric and you get the general public to be outraged. This isn't much of a hot topic in American news. I bet you that the average American does not know what's going on in Syria and doesn't know how it affects them. People rarely think that the matters of other countries affect them.
On February 26 2012 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote: maybe i should just go to syria and try and do something. dunno how much i could really do, but it'd sure as hell be more than the whole UN is doing right now.
i am actually completely serious about this. i dont think anything has sickened me so much as the world just watching as people are dying. fucking politics.
from personal experience, being born from palestinian parents and living in the US, they dont need more men on their soil to fight the war. They need people to put pressure on their own leaders. You can throw thousands of men into battle, but it doesn't mean it will change things. The mindset of people needs to change first. It's rough.
oh i dont even mean fighting. im a complete pacifist, though i do sort of kick ass at several different war games. i was thinking more along the lines of trying to help people get out, and providing medical help and supplies. i suppose id probably get blown up, but then at least id be a martyr, right?
you never know, one person could make a difference.
On February 26 2012 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote: maybe i should just go to syria and try and do something. dunno how much i could really do, but it'd sure as hell be more than the whole UN is doing right now.
i am actually completely serious about this. i dont think anything has sickened me so much as the world just watching as people are dying. fucking politics.
from personal experience, being born from palestinian parents and living in the US, they dont need more men on their soil to fight the war. They need people to put pressure on their own leaders. You can throw thousands of men into battle, but it doesn't mean it will change things. The mindset of people needs to change first. It's rough.
Even if he could change the mind of every single American, what then? America already supported a change in the situation.
A Russian and Chinese veto is still a veto.
Put pressure on America to put more pressure on China and Russia. Countries still care about their stance in the international community. Present the Syrian government as barbaric and you get the general public to be outraged. This isn't much of a hot topic in American news. I bet you that the average American does not know what's going on in Syria and doesn't know how it affects them. People rarely think that the matters of other countries affect them.
The notion that America could put pressure on China or Russia is a bit ludicrous. These countries are weaker than America by a good deal, but they are not so weak that they can be pushed around at will.
"The average American," is a bit of a hollow phrase. The average person on the planet is illiterate. The average person doesn't know who Barack Obama is. The average person can't tell you what a nuke is. The average person doesn't have internet acces. The average person doesn't own his own TV. The average person doesn't have freedom of speech.
The truth is that Syria doesn't actually affect the US all that much. Bringing Syria down would be a tactical advantage and the moral thing to do. It would knock down a Iranian and Russian pawn. It is moral because the government has obviously lost all legitimacy and has begun murdering its own people en masse.
Those images were all recorded when the government still thought that the UN might pass a resolution against them.
The truth is that you can show all the facts you like, but the internet makes this pointless. People don't have to adapt their worldview to the facts, they can now adapt their facts to their worldview.
People want to believe that the US is evil and Assad is a godsend? They just tune into Russian Today and scream that "TEH MEDIA!" is out to get them.
This isn't even taking into account that China isn't even a democracy and doesn't need to react to any ammount of outrage. What are their people going to do? Protest? They will drive tanks over them, like they did last time.
No, the only option that the US has (and is most likely pursuing) is to support the Syrian people in secret. It allows them to bypass the UN and the veto's that Russia and China will keep throwing in order to keep their buddies in power.
On February 08 2012 22:30 zalz wrote: There are two things that every society must eventually get to. Freedom of speech and democracy. True democracy cannot exist without free speech, so the two are connected at the hip.
Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted. A country belongs to its people and the people decide its course. Its not up for negotiations either. All dictators will be put to death in the end.
Come on man, you seem to be intelligent - stop being so naive. Define a "True democracy" please. Which Western democracies are really examples of shining beacons of populist rule? Representation by an oligarchic political caste is hardly a democracy.
Dictators as well, you use the word as if it has some sort of evil significance, as if all dictators are brutal and oppressive. Stop twisting words. Should a dictator be put to death if he has the backing of the people to which the country belongs? Case in point being Hugo Chavez.
What gives you the right to impose what you perceive to be correct upon other people? "Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted." What on earth do you have up your backside? Your own head? I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than the system you call "Democracy".
I suggest you go and read some documentation on the human rights violations under Gaddaffi. But do it before you have lunch. Wouldn't want you to throw up.
Even if the regime now in Libya was just as bad as under Gaddaffi, it would still be better because at least people can flee that regime. They couldn't flee Gaddaffi. Gaddaffi was well known for employing assasins to hunt down refugee Libyans, especially the more vocal ones.
I thought it was a well established fact that under Gadaffi Libya had the highest life expectancy, lowest child mortality rates and highest literacy rates in all of Africa. GJ bombing that back to the stone age. Oh wait, Libya wasn't within the Western Sphere, so the moment a valid casus belli appears our countries jumped on it. Just like Syria. Funny how countries that are already firmly in the Western Sphere get a virtually free rein to do what they want, as long as the oil keeps flowing. That's if you even consider a "humanitarian war" a just war.
You really tick me off, so please allow me to have a shameless go at you and your country.
We are all very sorry that you live in the UK. Fortunate as I am to live in Finland I can state with clear conscience that democracy works. I giggled a little at the words "populist rule". Populist is an insulting word in my country: It denotes intent to simply gather votes, rather than doing what is in the best interest of the nation.
That's right. Where I live, populism is a sin akin to outright abuse of power. The point of a democracy is that the elected are representatives whose will is the will of the people. Any intent on transgression from carrying out the people's expressed will is a damnable offense even if the intent eventually isn't acted out. I wouldn't expect you to understand, things like duty and honour do not fit well into the english law mindset.
Your thinking of right and wrong is based on absolutes, our's is based on trustworthiness, modesty and honesty. Do not presume the failures of your democracy generalise into anything.
I'm not saying Assad is a godsend. Ultimately I'd like to see him removed from power too, just not replaced with a farcical pro western puppet democracy.
There's just no such thing as a humanitarian war, it's a complete contradiction. But whatever, wave your flags, cry "Freedom and Demacracy!" and smother the rest of the world in napalm.
Zalz you really need to start acknowledging the limitations of Western "democracy". Oh, and stop treating your opinions as facts.
On February 08 2012 22:30 zalz wrote: There are two things that every society must eventually get to. Freedom of speech and democracy. True democracy cannot exist without free speech, so the two are connected at the hip.
Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted. A country belongs to its people and the people decide its course. Its not up for negotiations either. All dictators will be put to death in the end.
Come on man, you seem to be intelligent - stop being so naive. Define a "True democracy" please. Which Western democracies are really examples of shining beacons of populist rule? Representation by an oligarchic political caste is hardly a democracy.
Dictators as well, you use the word as if it has some sort of evil significance, as if all dictators are brutal and oppressive. Stop twisting words. Should a dictator be put to death if he has the backing of the people to which the country belongs? Case in point being Hugo Chavez.
What gives you the right to impose what you perceive to be correct upon other people? "Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted." What on earth do you have up your backside? Your own head? I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than the system you call "Democracy".
I suggest you go and read some documentation on the human rights violations under Gaddaffi. But do it before you have lunch. Wouldn't want you to throw up.
Even if the regime now in Libya was just as bad as under Gaddaffi, it would still be better because at least people can flee that regime. They couldn't flee Gaddaffi. Gaddaffi was well known for employing assasins to hunt down refugee Libyans, especially the more vocal ones.
I thought it was a well established fact that under Gadaffi Libya had the highest life expectancy, lowest child mortality rates and highest literacy rates in all of Africa. GJ bombing that back to the stone age. Oh wait, Libya wasn't within the Western Sphere, so the moment a valid casus belli appears our countries jumped on it. Just like Syria. Funny how countries that are already firmly in the Western Sphere get a virtually free rein to do what they want, as long as the oil keeps flowing. That's if you even consider a "humanitarian war" a just war.
You really tick me off, so please allow me to have a shameless go at you and your country.
We are all very sorry that you live in the UK. Fortunate as I am to live in Finland I can state with clear conscience that democracy works. I giggled a little at the words "populist rule". Populist is an insulting word in my country: It denotes intent to simply gather votes, rather than doing what is in the best interest of the nation.
That's right. Where I live, populism is a sin akin to outright abuse of power. The point of a democracy is that the elected are representatives whose will is the will of the people. Any intent on transgression from carrying out the people's expressed will is a damnable offense even if the intent eventually isn't acted out. I wouldn't expect you to understand, things like duty and honour do not fit well into the english law mindset.
Your thinking of right and wrong is based on absolutes, our's is based on trustworthiness, modesty and honesty. Do not presume the failures of your democracy generalise into anything.
Good post.
Populism is the tyranny of the majority. Representatives should do what we need, not what we want.
On February 08 2012 22:30 zalz wrote: There are two things that every society must eventually get to. Freedom of speech and democracy. True democracy cannot exist without free speech, so the two are connected at the hip.
Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted. A country belongs to its people and the people decide its course. Its not up for negotiations either. All dictators will be put to death in the end.
Come on man, you seem to be intelligent - stop being so naive. Define a "True democracy" please. Which Western democracies are really examples of shining beacons of populist rule? Representation by an oligarchic political caste is hardly a democracy.
Dictators as well, you use the word as if it has some sort of evil significance, as if all dictators are brutal and oppressive. Stop twisting words. Should a dictator be put to death if he has the backing of the people to which the country belongs? Case in point being Hugo Chavez.
What gives you the right to impose what you perceive to be correct upon other people? "Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted." What on earth do you have up your backside? Your own head? I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than the system you call "Democracy".
I suggest you go and read some documentation on the human rights violations under Gaddaffi. But do it before you have lunch. Wouldn't want you to throw up.
Even if the regime now in Libya was just as bad as under Gaddaffi, it would still be better because at least people can flee that regime. They couldn't flee Gaddaffi. Gaddaffi was well known for employing assasins to hunt down refugee Libyans, especially the more vocal ones.
I thought it was a well established fact that under Gadaffi Libya had the highest life expectancy, lowest child mortality rates and highest literacy rates in all of Africa. GJ bombing that back to the stone age. Oh wait, Libya wasn't within the Western Sphere, so the moment a valid casus belli appears our countries jumped on it. Just like Syria. Funny how countries that are already firmly in the Western Sphere get a virtually free rein to do what they want, as long as the oil keeps flowing. That's if you even consider a "humanitarian war" a just war.
You really tick me off, so please allow me to have a shameless go at you and your country.
We are all very sorry that you live in the UK. Fortunate as I am to live in Finland I can state with clear conscience that democracy works. I giggled a little at the words "populist rule". Populist is an insulting word in my country: It denotes intent to simply gather votes, rather than doing what is in the best interest of the nation.
That's right. Where I live, populism is a sin akin to outright abuse of power. The point of a democracy is that the elected are representatives whose will is the will of the people. Any intent on transgression from carrying out the people's expressed will is a damnable offense even if the intent eventually isn't acted out. I wouldn't expect you to understand, things like duty and honour do not fit well into the english law mindset.
Your thinking of right and wrong is based on absolutes, our's is based on trustworthiness, modesty and honesty. Do not presume the failures of your democracy generalise into anything.
Perhaps popular rule would have been more appropriate. Sorry for knowing so little about your political system. I was trying to attack Zalz's assertion that "true democracy" is the only government type that should be permitted and how that statement implies that we have "true democracy". I just despise the twisting of words. Representation is not democracy (at least in my books, democracy is by its nature direct).
Not to mention that "my" failure of a democracy is one of the most belligerent when it comes to inflicting democracy upon others. I think that is what I was getting at.
On February 26 2012 06:19 3Form wrote: Didn't the West back the Khmer Rouge?
I'm not saying Assad is a godsend. Ultimately I'd like to see him removed from power too, just not replaced with a farcical pro western puppet democracy.
Which in your book is any democratically ellected person.
There's just no such thing as a humanitarian war, it's a complete contradiction. But whatever, wave your flags, cry "Freedom and Demacracy!" and smother the rest of the world in napalm.
Zalz you really need to start acknowledging the limitations of Western "democracy". Oh, and stop treating your opinions as facts.
The limitations of western democracy? What shall I offer upon your altar of totalitarianism next? The limitations of freedom of speech?
You, and everyone else who believes that totalitarianism is the future will never get an inch of ground from me. Confuse cynicism with intelligence all you like. Beg me to add a stutter or two in my posts so that I don't come across so sure. I won't give you any of it.
The people own a nation, thus the people must, and will, rule over it.
Democracy is the only accepted form of government. A nation is its people, therefore any dictatorship is criminal, for it derives the people of their self determination.
All dictatorships are pointless or criminal. If they do the will of the people, then they are pointless, because they would be ellected if they did.
If they don't do the will of the people, they are criminal.
Democracy defends human rights and fights corruption. It allows the people to purge politicians and gives them the tool to control their government, and by extent, the course of their own nation.
I have said it before and it remains true still. Every nation in the world must have two things. Freedom of speech, and democracy. Freedom of speech is a must in order for democracy to work, because how can you have honest elections when people cannot offer the entire spectrum of ideas? How can you have a democracy when only socialists are allowed to speak? Or only conservatives?
So no, democracy is the only way forward. You can protest all you like but the wheel of history will run you over as it has done with many more that praised totalitarianism before you. It is fashionable to bash democracy, but it is the only just system.
I am a Democrat! I want Democracy! I do not feel that what I have now is democratic enough! I don't have the power to purge politicians or control my government as you assert!
You are right about the wheel of history. It is a gradual change from absolutism to people-power but we still have a long way to go. Change only comes with pressure from beneath.
And thus I don't think we are in any position to enforce our system upon others.
Zalz you really need to start acknowledging the limitations of Western "democracy". Oh, and stop treating your opinions as facts.
Shorter you: start treating my opinions as facts!
Change only comes with pressure from beneath.
That's a nice fantasy that's gained a lot of traction recently, but it simply isn't true. Change has come far more historically from the introduction and/or imposition of new ideas from the "top" that have gained acceptance from those who are politically active, which until the last century was a very small minority of society.
That's a nice fantasy that's gained a lot of traction recently, but it simply isn't true. Change has come far more historically from the introduction and/or imposition of new ideas from the "top" that have gained acceptance from those who are politically active, which until the last century was a very small minority of society.
The French, Spanish, and American Revolutions would like a word with you.
(To name but 3 examples out of the vast infinity of instances of 'pressure from below' which have radically changed the world.)
On February 26 2012 10:54 DeepElemBlues wrote: Shorter you: start treating my opinions as facts!
Touché I suppose. However, I'm not the one defining my ideal society as the only choice and determining that it is morally correct to impose it by force of arms upon all others.
On Monday, Qatar's prime minister declared his state's intent to start helping the Syrian opposition "by all means", including giving them weapons. Two days later, anti-Assad officials received an offer of a $100m (£63m) donation, from their brothers in arms in Libya. Coincidence? Unlikely, if the Libyan revolution is any indicator.
On February 26 2012 06:19 3Form wrote: Didn't the West back the Khmer Rouge?
I'm not saying Assad is a godsend. Ultimately I'd like to see him removed from power too, just not replaced with a farcical pro western puppet democracy.
Which in your book is any democratically ellected person.
There's just no such thing as a humanitarian war, it's a complete contradiction. But whatever, wave your flags, cry "Freedom and Demacracy!" and smother the rest of the world in napalm.
Zalz you really need to start acknowledging the limitations of Western "democracy". Oh, and stop treating your opinions as facts.
If they don't do the will of the people, they are criminal.
what you have said are all way too ideological. I can say something similar about communism and how everyone is working towards the benefit for everyone is the best and only way to go.
The problem is that when you apply to the actual world, it isn't any where as good as it should be The will of people are easily changed by media and often are short sighted. There is a reason why there are spending that just aren't recommended by economists and yet being spent solely for the purpose of gaining more positive feedback from the people.
China for example has the socialist economy is heavily planned and structured from the government. Most of the recent 5 years plans have proven to be really successful, some were only made possible by the strong government power.
Also it also means that most policies do not suffer from the long processing time through public survey etc which not only add up the costing, but also many of the times will need to be revised to fit what the public wants, making it much less powerful as a tool to achieve it original goals
The most fundermental issue with the word "people" is that most people fail to regonize it as a collective term of persons.
EPT
