The death toll in Syria is over 3500. 250 is children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... -un-report

Syria troops have killed more than 250 children, UN report finds

Report to UN human rights council accuses Damascus of crimes against humanity and operating shoot-to-kill policy

Syrian security forces have committed "crimes against humanity" since widespread anti-government protests began in March, according to a damning UN report (pdf) that will add to the mounting pressure on the president, Bashar al-Assad.

It said that least 256 children had been killed by government forces.

The investigation by the UN's independent international commission found patterns of summary execution, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance and torture, including sexual violence and abuse, some of it directed against children.

The UN report was published on a day that saw Syria lambast the Arab League for imposing unprecedented economic sanctions because of the refusal by Damascus to accept observers to protect civilians.

Further pressure came from France's foreign minister, Alain Juppé, who said Assad's days were "numbered". Britain condemned the "horrific and shocking actions carried out by the Assad regime against its own civilian population".

The 39-page document includes testimony from defectors from the security forces, who described indiscriminate shooting at unarmed protesters and snipers targeting those using loudspeakers or carrying cameras and mobile phones. A defector described the shooting of a two-year-old girl by an officer who said he did not want her to grow up to be a demonstrator. The figure of 256 children killed up to 9 November was attributed only to unspecified "reliable sources".

The report was based on interviews with 223 victims and witnesses, but investigators were denied access to the country, despite repeated requests.

According to UN figures issued this month, at least 3,500 people have been killed in Syria since March. The regime gives a figure of around 600. It says many of those were security personnel who were the victims of "armed terrorist gangs".

The report says: "State forces shot indiscriminately at unarmed protesters. Most were shot in the upper body, including in the head." Defectors told the commission that they had received orders to shoot at unarmed protesters without warning.

"In some instances, however, commanders ordered protesters to disperse and issued warnings prior to opening fire. In some cases, non-lethal means were used prior to or at the same time as live ammunition."

Snipers, it says, were responsible for many casualties, including people who were trying to rescue the wounded and collect the bodies of demonstrators. Defectors witnessed the killing of comrades who refused to fire at civilians.

Torture and killings reportedly took place in the Homs military hospital by security personnel dressed as doctors and allegedly acting with the complicity of medical staff. Torture was described as "rampant" at the detention facilities of the notorious air force intelligence branch at the Mazzeh airport near Damascus. ....

Diplomats said the Arab League could ask the UN security council to debate the abuses, though any referral to the international criminal court would require the support of Russia and China, which is unlikely to be forthcoming. (read rest of article)

I supported the Libyan intervention based on pragmatism but I would've opposed the invasion of Iraq (and opposed Saddam, and supported the insurgency whether it was against Saddam or the invaders). What, then is my position on Syria?

Firstly, it seems America and Israel are cautiously watching as the events unfold themselves, they are particularly worried about the alternative to Assad; he is a threat to his people but he is not a threat to his neighbours and hence provides stability. America is not known to be moral so this is expected. Furthermore, Russia and China have consistently attempted to block sanctions against Syria and have supported Assad throughout, they are also in the wrong but it is to be expected...it's Russia and China after all.

What matters, then, is what is the best option for the Syrian people? The best option would be a peaceful transition towards reform and democracy, initiated by Assad, to prevent sectarian war (it would only be natural for revenge to be taken against Alawites, a Shia sect that makes up 11% of the population yet largely control the country, while Sunnis make up 75% of the majority). However, it seems that Assad is not at all interested in doing this though things may change in the future as economic sanctions affect Syria further.

What, then, do we do? Do we sit and watch as Assad continues his massacres, hoping that he'll soon become tired and work towards reform and implementation of democracy? If you answered no, then read below.

Another option is to arm the insurgency, the Free Syrian Army, this option seems to be becoming more and more likely. As always, however, the problem with arming an insurgency is that you also need to have a no-fly-zone so that the insurgency actually has a chance of winning. Well, you technically don't...you can do what we did in Afghanistan when we armed the Mujahideen to have the ability to knock down the Soviet aircraft but it will result in a lot more Syrian deaths, hence, arming the insurgency will most likely be followed by a no-fly-zone.

Russia and China, however, will not sit on the sidelines as their friend Syria gets bombarded by Western-made weapons. What will they do? Who knows. A better question though is what can they do? Perhaps make a few more bucks with weapon sales but that's about it.

I don't really see any benefits (in regards to private interests) in intervening in Syria from the point of view by the West (the status quos), Assad isn't harming any of his neighbours, Syria doesn't have a lot of oil, and democracy can bring an alternative that is worse (in regards to territorial claims and relations with Israel, instability, and so forth). Then again, whenever there is a war, there is money to be made through the sale of arms...so I can see this as being a motivating factor for Western intervention. It's a chance to make another buck. Furthermore, I can see it being in Turkey's interest as well, to prevent a humanitarian situation on their borders.

Most importantly however, we have to take into consideration that Syria is not Libya, Syria's army is much more powerful and advanced and will have the capability to shoot down whatever aircraft the West sends.

What do you guys think, what should be done in regards to the Syrian crisis? Is it not more clear-cut than Libya, which was a civil war?

Keep in mind that a no-fly-zone will naturally be extended towards regime change (though like I said, I don't see how the West can in any possible way benefit from a regime change besides the fact it'll take longer and the longer a war the more money there is to be made, plus PR image that will become useful when/if it decides to illegally intervene in a different country in the future, though the West isn't known for thinking in the long-term...). Also, there will be an increased amount of casualties, on both sides, obviously, there's no such thing as a war without death. Is there any possible pragmatic way to support a military intervention that seeks to help the Syrians? What is best for the Syrians?

The best option for Syrians is a peaceful transition towards reform and democracy, though this can only be initiated by the status quo. The best option for the West is for Syria to successfully put down the uprising so that the stable regime can remain (in a couple months the media will forget about Syria and move on). What is the best option for the Syrians?

The reason that there is no Western intervention is not only because Assad doesn't threaten his neighbour Israel that much, but because it would lead to a lot of diplomatic troubles. Libya was an international paria in the way that Syria is not. To intervene in Syria would mean war with Iran (they are allies), which could be very troublesome.

The calls from Jordan and Saudi Arabia for Assad to step down have nothing to do with concern for the Syrian people. Assad is a Shiite (and an ally of Iran), the majority of Syrians are Sunnites. The Sunni states would surely love to have Assad replaced with a Sunni regime, not allied to Iran.

I think the Free Syrian Army is the best option.

Hugin wrote:The reason that there is no Western intervention is not only because Assad doesn't threaten his neighbour Israel that much, but because it would lead to a lot of diplomatic troubles. Libya was an international paria in the way that Syria is not. To intervene in Syria would mean war with Iran (they are allies), which could be very troublesome.

Syria is also allied with China and Russia, and I think that if China and Russia are unwilling to intervene, Iran would also be unwilling to intervene (well all three, especially Iran, would obviously send over some arms and have a proxy war like it did in Iraq but I don't think Iran would officially declare war). Considering that Iraq is has developed strong relations with Iran lately, that's something to take into account as well.

The calls from Jordan and Saudi Arabia for Assad to step down have nothing to do with concern for the Syrian people. Assad is a Shiite (and an ally of Iran), the majority of Syrians are Sunnites. The Sunni states would surely love to have Assad replaced with a Sunni regime, not allied to Iran.

Well I guess the greatest strategic advantage for the West would be to have another ally in the region (Sunni), hence, greater hegemony over the region since not only would it gain another ally which is quite insignificant, Iran would lose a strong ally (America has been attempting to isolate Iran for a very long time now). However, this would also mean that Iran would feel even more threatened and paranoid, perhaps providing an incentive to develop a nuke as a deterrent for defense. Then again, America's never been worried about upsetting Iran so it would take the short-term gain (America +1 Iran - 1) over the long-term potential consequences.

Indeed the Sunni states would like Assad to be replaced with a Sunni regime but I wouldn't give much weight to what they want. Saudi Arabia has also asked America to cut off the head of the snake for a long time by taking military action against Iran and America hasn't taken that seriously. I think America's got Iran where it needs it, there's no reason to further destabilize the geopolitics of the region though then again who would've thought that America would invade Iraq only a couple years after invading Afghanistan (both invasions leading to a rise in terrorism). The neo-conservative ideology is not concerned with rationality, it's only concerned with ideology, so I think we're making a mistake to assume that America makes rational judgments.

I think the Free Syrian Army is the best option.

Do you mean simply arming the Free Syrian Army with the capability to knock down Assad's aircraft? This will cause a surge in casualties, with the ratio being far more insurgents being killed than status-quo soldiers, though the possibility for success would be on the table (depending on if the Free Syrian Army can get enough support as the Mujahideen in Afghanistan did, which shouldn't be difficult since 75% of Syria is Sunni).

Assad isn't really known for his kindness, I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled a Saddam, beginning by toppling his father's record and pulling some shit like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

It really depends how important Syria is to Russia and China imo. America was willing to sit idle and allow Saddam to continue his massacres, is China and Russia willing to do the same in regards to Syria? As long as Assad has Russian and Chinese support he is free to do as he pleases.

For Iraq I would've given support to the insurgency against Saddam so perhaps arming the Free Syrian Army is a good first step. I don't know if that's what the West wants to do, it all depends on its interests, but that's what I'd do...arm them to the teeth and wish them good luck.

The mere fact that the Great Powers have to actually think about whether or not to respond to human rights violations is quite disgusting but hey that's the world of politics, supporting genocidal dictators and authoritarian regimes all around the globe as a means to an end with apathy towards the victims. The West, Russia, China, they're all the same in their principles.

Chop off the head.

Can only really support the rebels with weapons, possible with an airforce but if you stick in ground forces like in Iraq everyone will turn against the crusading armies and the country will get completely destroyed

mrjonno wrote:Can only really support the rebels with weapons, possible with an airforce but if you stick in ground forces like in Iraq everyone will turn against the crusading armies and the country will get completely destroyed

Well that's why I didn't mention military-intervention on the ground, occupation is a no-no, hell no.

Arming the rebels with weapons, sure. But regarding the airforce, this ain't Libya...the Syrians have some top-notch Russian technology so some of those planes will come falling down.

Like I said though, Syria is a threat only to its own people, not to its neighbours, and this fact will play a role in decision making. You can bet the war-profiteers are lining up though.

The international community will tsk, tsk and get on with life as before.

1) Remove Assad

2) Take Syria and open war with China and Russia finally

3) Give newly taken Syrian land to the Palestinians as their own country. Created a Syri-Palestinian community based on peace and democracy.

4) China and Russia realize how great the new Syri-Palestine is and readily thanks the West for their contribution. Absolving all debts the US owes to those countries.

5) Sit back and smoke a joint at the success of a brilliant foreign affair policy

What? It could happen!

It's your leap from starting a war with Russia and china to expecting both of them to congratulate you on your Middle Eastern diplomacy.. I may have misread mind. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Magic, or somesuch.

Ironclad wrote:It's your leap from starting a war with Russia and china to expecting both of them to congratulate you on your Middle Eastern diplomacy.. I may have misread mind. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Magic, or somesuch.

They see the errors of their ways and come to terms with the brilliance that is America. It's folly-proof

Yes, yes! I see this now. Quite brilliant really.


Sent from my iPhone using Magic, or somesuch.

We shouldn't do anything at all, it's their country and their problem. Why should we stick our noses into yet another middle eastern hornet's nest? It's never, ever done us any good before.

laklak wrote:We shouldn't do anything at all, it's their country and their problem. Why should we stick our noses into yet another middle eastern hornet's nest? It's never, ever done us any good before.

We stick our noses in all the surrounding countries for our benefit (well we help Israel to prepare for the end of the world so not my benefit) and it does affect what goes on in Syria

I'm surprised nobody has asked the most important question when it comes to intervening. In fact the only important question.

How much oil does Syria have?

Any moment now, there are going to be pro-Syrian anti-Assad marches all over Europe. Any moment...

virphen wrote:I'm surprised nobody has asked the most important question when it comes to intervening. In fact the only important question.

How much oil does Syria have?

do nothing

then we can count the casualties of the ensuing civil war and compare to Lybia

so next time we have a numerical base to make a choice

I'm still kind of hoping that the arab league will intervene out of sheer embarresment for their fellow dictator.

Btw when I ask "what is to be done" it's actually several questions, first, what will the west do, what should (realistically) the west do, and what would you do? For example, for the first, the West wants to keep Assad in power and maintain stability, for the second, the West could arm the rebels, and for the third, I'm undecided between arming the rebels or arming the rebels + no-fly-zone.

Do nothing. A successful, Libyan-style revolution will only lead to instability and there's absolutely no benefit in the West intervening and causing it.

andyx1205 wrote:Btw when I ask "what is to be done" it's actually several questions, first, what will the west do, what should (realistically) the west do, and what would you do? For example, for the first, the West wants to keep Assad in power and maintain stability, for the second, the West could arm the rebels, and for the third, I'm undecided between arming the rebels or arming the rebels + no-fly-zone.

Western people should protest. Really, 1.5 million people protested against Israel during Cast Lead, have they all died since 2009?