E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe key city of Aleppo has come under ferocious assault, bombarded by fighter jets and machine gun fire. NBC's Richard Engel reports from northern Syria.
NORTHERN SYRIA – Syrian rebels are dismayed by the U.S. response to the stepped-up fighting around the commercial capital of Aleppo.
What is the United States saying? Are they not listening? Do they want us all to die? These are just a few reactions to what in the eyes of the Syrian rebels looked like a weak and confused American position on the ongoing war.
The rebels, who are battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, are specifically reacting to statements from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. On Thursday she said Washington is “deeply concerned” about the threat of potential massacres in Aleppo, but that the United States will not assist in the supply of arms to the opposition.
Engel: Syrian regime's thugs face retribution
“We do not believe that pouring more fuel on this fire is going to save lives," she said, adding that there had not been the kind of “groundswell call for external support" seen elsewhere.
Syria's commercial capital has been attacked again by government forces. NBC's Richard Engel reports.
When rebels I’m traveling with heard that, they were shocked. One young man with a Russian AK-47 by his side could hardly believe it.
“This is completely the opposite of what we’ve been saying and the opposite of the truth,” he said. “If they give us weapons, or help us get weapons, there would be less bloodshed, because Bashar would fall more quickly. The longer the war lasts, the more people will die,” he said.
US official: Syrian regime seems to be readying for massacre
The young rebel is in his 20s, secular, generally pro-American and says he joined the revolt to end government oppression. His unit has lost 28 men fighting Assad’s government. His home has been burned down by Syrian troops.
Ghazi Balkiz / NBC News
Rebels on a motorcycle in Northern Syria. Click on the photo to see a complete slideshow of life behind enemy lines for Syria's rebels from NBC News.
Yesterday, I met one of his neighbors, Umm Ahmed. She says she’s 105 years old, the oldest woman in her village. She’s nearly deaf. Her eyes are cloudy with cataracts. She has shrapnel in her leg from a Syrian artillery shell that exploded by her home. Her son, 74 years old, lost a leg. Her other son was killed by Syrian forces; her friend, a woman of 85, had her house burned by government troops.
The young rebel who was so surprised by U.S. statement says he wants weapons to defend his neighbors and free his country from an army that he says is attacking the Syrian people. His unit is armed mostly with homemade bombs and a few rifles.
He doesn’t understand how giving him the ability to defend himself and 105-year-old Umm Ahmed, who still walks everyday even with an injured leg, is “pouring fuel on the fire.” The fire in Syria is already burning.
Ghazi Balkiz / NBC News
Umm Ahmed, 105 years old, is a resident of a village in Northern Syria who was has shrapnel in her leg from a Syrian artillery shell that exploded by her home.
As for the groundswell, every rebel I’ve spoken to for the last month – each one I’ve quoted in articles or seen quoted in articles written by other reporters – has asked for outside help. The rebels don’t want American troops on the ground, they want to fight to free the country themselves, but they do want U.S. assistance in obtaining arms.
Syrian regime 'reeling, armed to the the teeth' with chemical weapons
Russia is openly supplying the Assad government with weapons. Iran has military trainers on the ground, according to numerous witness and Western intelligence reports. The rebels are fighting with bombs that look like firecrackers. It’s hardly a fair fight.
From here in the war zone, the State Department’s fears about a massacre in Aleppo seem like crocodile sympathy. A rebel here explained it to me like this. “If a person is drowning, and you have a life preserver in your hand and don’t throw it, but only talk and say you’re sorry he’s drowning, then you are responsible too.”
Engel: Separating myth vs. truth in the Syrian conflict
Stringer / Reuters
After months of protests and violent crackdowns, a look back at the violence that has overtaken the country.
Many people in rebel-held areas are starting to suspect that Washington is in a secret alliance with Assad.
It seems clear that the situation in Aleppo is only going to get worse.
Rebels say that 100 armored vehicles have already been sent to attack the city of 3 million people. Aleppo is already surrounded and strafed by jet and helicopters.
PhotoBlog: Who are the Syrian rebels?
If a massacre does happen in Aleppo, rebels will believe the U.S. saw it coming but chose to do nothing other than express concern and sympathy and claim nobody asked for help. They are asking for help. They say they want to prevent a massacre in Aleppo before it happens.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Millionaire medalists: Does the Olympic spirit live on?
- In Japan, a nuclear ghost town stirs to life
- Researchers: 'Grand Canyon' under Antarctica tied to ice loss
- Wife of ousted China politician charged with murder
- Romney compliments Olympic preparation after tizzy in British press
- Rebels fear Syria's 'ghost fighters,' the regime's hidden militia
- Stowaway schoolboy: 'It was easier than my homework'
- Olympics security plan turns London into fortress
- Sea Shepherd founder skips bail in Germany
- UK cops: Fraudster tries to sell missing oil executive's $1M home
Follow World News on NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
If Syria only had oil I'm sure big business er... our government would intervene.
No oil, no help! This is the big business er.. (again) american way.
Syria is not our problem. It's funny that every rebel group assumes that the US is going to ride in and save the day. We are flat broke and can't afford to play "Superman" anymore.
Republicans are cowards and have even surpassed the Democrats, and maybe even the French, in their ability to run away like crybabies from conflict.
Americans, in general, put politics BEFORE results. Not politics for results.
In other words, if Bush W. appointed an effective Defense secretary, like Gates, Democrats poo pooed all over it. Until Obama decided to keep him on. And now Republicans are jacking up their pink skirts and screaming BARBIE DOLL PLEASE, NO MORE WAR! Which is a load of s**t from the so called Republicans.
Your political party sucks. Yeah yours. Whichever one you happen to be part of.
Hanko37- so what if its oil interest, its how we enjoy the quality of life today so get over your self. And second, the main reason we don't support is there is no clear leader in their operation as stated over and over. With no leader to usher them past the governments transition what use would our assistance be worth? If it was not for the oil we would have gotten burnt by our deal in Libya.... The military does not want to create any more Osama-to-bes down the road unless we really have to.
Derek-381097
The last time I looked, the White House had a Democrat occupying it. Foreign policy is defined largely by the chief executive in the White House. At least for now, that is President Obama.
But you blame the cowardly Republicans. Help me understand how it is that President Obama (and also the Democratically controlled Senate) get passes on any responsibility while the Republicans get all of the blame. I would like to understand your reasoning. I am simply confused (and mystified).
I am a independent and I say stay the he** out of this, we have no reason to get involved. I also believe that all muslim country's are inherently anti-America and even if helped they would stab us in the back. Let them continue to kill each other, better each other that Americans.
Ummmmmmm, no.........we here just want you to go pound sand. You're on your own. Let this be a lesson to you: don't start a fight you can't finish.
We've had it up to the eyeballs with trying to "help" you, and all the rest of your neighbors. Good day.
Its not hard, Tom. I am saying both Republicans and Democrats suck. And when one sucks, the other party decides to lower its standards to their level.
So go ahead with your holy grail repukes, who are no better than the dimocrats. Its your version of 'Hope and Change' and rainbows blown up a skirt.
Syria has neighbors with more at stake. Why doesn't Turkey supply the weapons? Maybe Saudi Arabia. Both of these countries are well armed, and Turkey is part of NATO, so Russia could scream all they wanted. Why is it up to the US to arm the rebels?
America armed the Afghanistan mujahedeen fighters in the 1980's war of independance with Russia. Look where that got them.
I support the cause of the rebels in general, and the overthrow of tyrrany, but I hear the constant chant of "AllahuAkbar" coming from the rebels. Those were the same last words shouted by Muhammed Atta and fellow Jihadists before final impact.
If we arm the rebels they will turn against the US after achieving power, and we will have the hatred of the Alawites, the Christians, the Russians and the Chinese. Syria is in the midst of it's '30 years war' 400 years after the first one.
Nobody likes to see dead bodies in the street, or in tanks, or destroyed towns, but arming the rebels will not stop the killing. There is little to gain, either way.
My thoughts (a bit of a rant!)
The problem is, we should never have backed the other so called "Rebels" or "Freedom fighters" in any of the other surrounding countries. How in the world do we decide to support any groups that are infested with the radical mulim extremist ideals that our men and women die fighting against in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere?
It is such a pleasure to look at the stability that we are responsible for creating in the region through our overthrow of the ruling powers in the surrounding countries isn't it?
Get our men and women out, bring every weapon we can find and every piece of equipment we have home and let them all decide their own fate. Can you imagine how well our economy would do if we brought all of our troops home, continued paying them and they actually spent their money here?
I am sick of spending money and most of all the life of Americans for oil. How about we actually develop the friendships and trade within the Americas and let the middle east eat sand? South America and our own country have all the oil needed if we only worked towards building the region into the strong partnerships that it should be. But instead, we dump our efforts into a region that is proven to hate us and allow our neighbors to the South to form bonds with Iran?
Uh, maybe this Administration learned a lesson via OJT after supplying assistance to the Egyptian MB "Rebels"/"Freedom Fighters"/"All for Democracy". Just another "story" to tell.
So, just WHO are these "Rebels"/"Freedom Fighters" ?
Looks like Mrs. Clinton is staying behind the scenes on this one, sending State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to the forefront to make comments.
@ Give it a rest!
Syria is not our problem. It's funny that every rebel group assumes that the US is going to ride in and save the day. We are flat broke and can't afford to play "Superman" anymore.
Interesting point. I was just thinking the same thing, when I read your comment. The Syrians have seen us time and again get into the "democratic freedom wars" of Muslim countries, and it is natural to assume that we'd do the same for them. Though very patriotic in my views, I'm extremely tired of policing the world. Everyone loves American interdiction for freedom's sake until the dirty deed is done...then, they despise us as the great Satan of the West.
As far as Syria goes, they need to tough it out. The world needs to stop blaming the US for the successes OR failures of their own lives. When America fought for its own independence, the world just stood by and watched....and (in their envy), hoped the silly colonists would fail. Don't get pissed at us because we now do the same....minus the envy, of course...
Perhaps you should look back a little and take note of what happened the last time we got involved giving weapons and aid to rebels. Does Afghanistan ring a bell. We are the ones who created the Taliban in the first place.
This is a civil war and we have no busisness being involved.
Why we wont help:
We are not the world's police
We help and then end with a government that's hostile towards the U.S.
The "rebellion" is actually a result of sectarian differences between various brands of Islam
We provide arms that end up in the hands of extremists
We want our troops and wealth put towards worthy causes, not lose-lose propositions.
Sorry, y' all, this is the war Dubbya and Dick should have fought. Syria is the key to all the unrest in the Middle East. This is one time that the CIA could play arms dealer and actually do some good.
There are a lot of reasons NOT to intervene at this time in Syria:
1) Syria is the ONLY country allied with Iran (except for Iraq which is moving closer evey day.) Syria is incredibly important to Iran because it allows Iranian naval forces to resupply, refit and re-arm in the Mediterranean. This allows the Iranian navy/merchant ships to arm Hezzbollah. This could well persist even if Assad falls because the rebels have noit taken a stance on Iran or Hezzbollah, which is a little strange considering that the rebels are virtually all Sunni.
2) Tarsus is the ONLY overseas military base the Russians have (versus over 2,000 military bases for the US military.) There has been no real committment by the rebels that the Russians would be kicked out. The base is critically important to the Russians because without it, the Black Sea Fleet (nominally a joint Russian-Ukrainian fleet, but actually 100% Russian) could well be bottled up in the Black Sea by Turkey, a NATO member, or even worse, allowed to run out of fuel outside of the Black Sea. Tarsus is Putin's "baby" and he has hung a lot of prestige on maintaining Assad and the naval base.
3) The rebels have no central voice or central policy. They are a mishmash of secular and religious elements with unknown affiliations. The concern, and current State Department policy, is that we do not give weapons and training to unidentified, unknown groups. We did that with the Taliban to help them kick out the Russians in Afghanistan and have been paying for the folly ever since.
4) I won't even go into the effects of the Syrian situation and any potential US intervention on Lebanon. You will just have to go and see what a horrible situation the Assads, father and son, have created there. The simple expectation is that a victory by the rebels could just as easily exacerbate the situation in Labanon, which would carry it right to Israel's doorstep. The more complex expectation is that it would create a power vacuum, similar to what happened when we removed Sadaam, that would destabilize the region for decades.
5) Decades ago the small (5%) Christian community chose to throw in its lot with the tiny Alawite minority (10%) to rule Syria via the brutal and repressive Baathist Part. It was a very bad choice. Alawites and Christians are the ruling elite with the Alawites often being the trusted military leaders (mostly from a subsistence villager background) and the Christians are the government and professional leaders. When the rebels take over, there will be a massive blowback for the over 100,000 Syrians killed and 50,000 maimed by the Baathists (and the 50,000+ Lebanese killed by Assad's people.) Almost every person in Syria has a family member that was killed, imprisoned or maimed by Assad's secret police and military. If and when the rebels win, you can expect a lot of massacres of Christians and Alawites. And there is likely to be a massive refugee flight to Lebanon of Christians which could result in blowback there as well. When Sunnis start executing Christians wholesale, regardless of the justification, it will not play well in the US and Israel will use it to improve their stance here as well.
6) Letting Turkey be the "point man" is a wise move. The Turks are mostly secular with a basically fundamentalist Sunni Muslim President, Erdogan. This gives them considerable cachet in the region with both religious Sunnis and secularists as well. It could also eventually lead to a Syrian military that is similar to the Turkish military which sees itself as a guarantor of secularism (though that stance has been weakened in recent years.) Turkey is a NATO member and that gives the US and other countries a way to funnel any assistance through a well-organized and well-known NATO channel.
7) Assad has made a critical and fatal choice that will eventually cause his ouster and most probably his demise. He has allowed the rebels to turn it into a war of attrition. In such a war of 80% against 15%, the 80% will eventually win, albeit with expected huge casualties on both sides. The current battle for Allepo is a good example of what is happening in the country as a whole. The rebel forces took Allepo because they controlled the surrounding countryside. Assad's forces will retake Allepo eventually, but the rebels will just fade into the countryside. When the Assad forces move on, the rebels will just retake Allepo again. Assad is already to the point that he cannot control both major cities and the surrounding countryside. It is anticipated that the final move by Assad (other than the use of chemical weapons) will be to try to establish a canton centered around the Alawite village area and most Christians will join him there. But this effectively cedes control of 90% of the country to the rebels and is just an end statge of the civil war.
8) There is the issue of chemical weapons. The military calls them "poor men's nukes" because they can be so devastating. The point to watch here is that normally the military would keep the actual gas or its binary components separate from the actual missiles, shells, rockets, etc until they were ready for use. It appears that the chemicals have already been united with the delivery systems in preparation for use. And Assad's father has already used CW agents against the Sunnis on at least two past occasions.
9) As Assad is forced into a corner, he is very likely to try a last ditch effort to rally support by claiming Israeli influence on the rebels and firing his remaining CW weapons at Israel, just as Sadaam did. There is also a significant chance that Assad received at least some fissile material from North Korea in the past and could use it to make several "dirty" conventional bombs. Any such action, even if vaguely hinted at, could well trigger Israeli paranoia.
The bottom line is that these rebels will win, with or without US or NATO help. The US cannot change that, nor can Assad or Iran or Israel. But without knowing the future direction that a new Sunni government might take, it is not a good idea to arm and train people who could end up being the next Taliban. What we don't want to do is to create a power vacuum in Syria/Lebanon as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we don't want to upset Israel, who could well use the Syrian civil was as a causus belli to attack Iran. And we don't want to do anything to destabilize Lebanon which has been improving the situation on Israel's northern border since 2006.
I agree with the sentiments that we should stay away from these conflicts since we do not understand the internal dynamics of these countries. But we pick and choose instances to get involved and to stay away. More often we fight for oil producing nations giving credibility to the argument that it is all about protecting interests and our nation's military is just subservient to influential commercial enterprises.
Additionally we need better writers to draft statements for State Dept , the one quoted in the column sounded callous and hollow even to me.
@Chris: that's an excellent analysis. Not sure whether I agree with all of it, but an excellent analysis nonetheless. RTR!
@freedman,
Been trolling for the Arabs long?
1) Richard Engle has never made his religion public and there is no credible source as to his religion. The "accusation" that he is Jewish is directly from Fox News and is without any foundation.
2) Engle is not "beating the drums for war." He is observing what he can and reporting that, just as he has done in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Reporting on the Syrian civil war appears one-sided because it is. Assad does not allow any journalists to cover the was from their perspective.
3) There has been no connection between the rebels and al-Quaeda. Period. And even if there was, they would not be doing anything to help Assad in any way. This same specious claim came up with Iraq and was false then until the US invaded and a brand new al-Quaeda in Iraq was formed.
4) The reason Engle is so successful as a war reporter is that he is a fluent reader and speaker of Arabic as well as Italian and Spanish. The four languages give him an almost unique ability to gain the trust of Arabs. You should notice that he does not need a translator when talking to the rebels. He has also written two books, both of which fly in the face of your ill-informed assumptions about his activities. Engle has risen, on his own merit, to being one of the most premier journalists in the Middle East.
Chris, the Christian community is about double what you say. Then there are the Shiites - another 15%, and they're none too crazy about the Sunni Al-Qaeda rebels. The Druze, another 3%, feel the same way. Then there's the Kurds. The Kurds are on nobody's side. They want a homeland, however that can come about, fine. Kurds are real willing to take on the Turks. They need an excuse. Add the Russians to the mix, and there is a recipe for disaster.
The jews have been run out long ago. There's only about 200 of them in the entire country.
I think Engel may be in a bad spot. He's really been beating the drums hard. What's going to happen to him? It's common knowledge he's jewish. He's there because it is supposed he can help with public opinion, but it doesn't seem to be working out, no matter how hard he's trying. I don't know if he could get away right now. He wrote the story himself about Assad's ghost fighters. Man - the publicity of a mangled Richard Engel, decimated by an Assad ghost rider would be tremendous. Coverage would be non-stop for days on end.
I think Engel is in a bad spot, I hope he knows what he's doing.
Chris - it's common knowledge. Whether or not Fox News reported it.
Last year the White House summoned Engel, now based in Beirut, for what turned out to be a 90-minute chat with Bush. The president asked whether Engel is Jewish, which he is. (Engel was taken aback but realized that might be a relevant factor for a Middle East correspondent.) During the conversation, Engel wasn't shy about offering solutions to the conflict, such as dividing Iraq into three states with a weak central government. At one point -- based on notes he took afterward -- Engel said, referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "Mr. President, you need to get involved. It's your vision. You're the president. Condi doesn't have the juice."
http://tinyurl.com/c7nkhyy
Syria's civil war is none of our business. If there was an armed insurrection in this country, US government would be doing the same stuff Assad is doing. Remember the Civil War? Over half a million dead in several years of government sponsored mayhem.
it's easy to ask "why us? why arent they asking where support is from other nations?"
but the reality, WE are the ones who invade and occupy nations, under the banner of "we must free the iraqi people from the brutal dictator saddam!"
and we invade and occupy afghanistan under the banner of delivering democracy to the people...
we help out in Libya and Egypt...
but then sit idle while this is happening in Syria.
Simple answer why we are doing nothing - RUSSIA AND CHINA.
they are our "friends" right now, and they support Assad. END OF STORY.
so next time our leaders try to pretend like what we are doing is FOR THE PEOPLE, TO FREE THEM AND DELIVER DEMOCRACY...
CALL THE BS THE MINUTE YOU SEE IT.
Why should they care what we say or think. Their struggles have nothing to do with us. They should be talking with Iran, Russia or China since that's who they'll align themselves with if they happen to win. They're just hoping we'll be foolish enough to sacrifice our money and lives for them. Sorry, Bush is gone.
Chris, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and others are reporting Al-Qaeda's involvement. You're right - they're not there to help Assad. They are there to help themselves.
http://tinyurl.com/cugoyl9
inadvertently posted twice - reposted here for thread integrity
We have to be very careful. The 70's and 80's policies have backfired. Arming Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets massively backfired on us. We armed them to the teeth, then left them unchecked.
I don't have a solution, but our past policies caused our nation and our citizens great dangers after the Iran/Iraq and Soviet/Afghan wars were over. What do we do with Syria after we arm and help them win? Let them run amok again and harbor Al Queda?
"On Thursday she said Washington is “deeply concerned” about the threat of potential massacres in Aleppo, but that the United States will not assist in the supply of arms to the opposition. “We do not believe that pouring more fuel on this fire is going to save lives," she said, adding that there had not been the kind of “groundswell call for external support" seen elsewhere."
They shouldn't be surprised, this is the current position of the State Department that was used when the Green Movement (Pro US, anti Achmimiminjadh) wanted to overthrow in Iran. I do want to salt this with a bit of pecimism as we my not know all of the rebel's affiliations (IE- Egypt went radical anti-US, Libya went anti-West) so we should be careful. That being said it's curious when and where the US lately has been quick to move vs. sitting back and watching.
Is it technically our fight, no. Are there fights across the globe that we should be concerned with- if you consider allies and strategic partners then you have to say yes. If turning Syria such that a new government would support US and local allies then some assistance might be good. The alternative- as noted in other comments- staying out, is neat until a region goes completely against the US' interests; then you have a bigger problem. Say the Middle East went completly anti-US- they could create an embargo that would directly impact the US and our allies. That would be very bad, so we've got to watch the blanket statements on foreign policy.
@Texson55:
Actually, that's not true at all. We would never have won that war if France had not assisted us.
Lafayette, we are here!
The CIA reported about 6 years ago that France was one of the biggest suppliers to Assad of chemical warfare weapons.
You want the oil so damn bad...ruck-up and move out smartly. I for one have had enough of deploying our soldiers into harms way for incredibly stupid reasons, and your quality of life is one of them.
Amazing. You've completely accepted that military action is merely an arm of international business. I'm curious as to how you feel about the merging of corporate and government power?
The military doesn't give two sh!ts what we do or don't create. That's not their job. By the way, we've created numerous bin Ladens throughout our history. There's nothing we like more that to back a good despot.
And we were Saddam Husein's biggest supplier of chemical warfare weapons, just ask Cheney. So what's your point?
Sorry Syria....
We are no longer the World Police...
We shouldnt get in the middle of religious wars either...there is never a winner. Topple one crazy ass religious leader and another will just pop up in his place, look to Iraq to see how that one turned out.
I suppose Ol_Doc, that it is about time western countries quit selling the tools of destruction, only to have to spend more money and lives to squash their use.
It's a sick cycle.
It would be like the police selling heroin, then later busting the people that bought the stuff.
Somewhere in our soul we know this is wrong. Politicians and money grubbers not withstanding.
Chris @ 1.16
So, why do we not want to upset Israel? Why should we care? If they want to attack Iran, let them. As long as they know up front, we're not helping them either. Just like the Syrians, they need to be able to finish what they start on their own. They're really good at sabre rattling with their uncle looking over their shoulder. I'd love to sit on the sidelines and see just how tough they are on their own these days.
@freedman,
1) It is not 'common knowledge" that Engle is Jewish. The "accusation" that he is Jewish came from Howard Kurtz in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post in which Kurtz claimed that Engle had confessed his secret religion in a secret meeting with GW Bush in the White House. The timing is a little suspect because Engle had just beaten out Kurtz for a jouranlism prize. At the time Kurtz was attacking Engle because Engle was opposing the Bush administration view that Iraq could be a single unified democratic country. When the Bush administration was demanding that reporters report only "feel good" stories from Iraq they went after Engle with a vengence because he was reporting what was actually happening.
2) I did reduce the percentage of Christians in the Syrian population by about half. This is based on reports of tens of thousands of Christian family members sent to other countries and the number of Christians who have fled to avoid future reprisals.
3) There is no "al-Quaeda in Syria." Assad had no use for religious fanatics, just as Sadaam did not. There may be such a future organization, but the chances are greatly lessened by the Turkish role and by the US staying out of the fight.
4) If you go back and read Engle's two books, you will see that he is not an advocate for Israel, that he clearly saw why the First Gulf War was a success and the Second Gulf War a disaster.
5) Engle has been putting himself in harm's way continuously since 2003. The Washington Post at one time alledged that he had never been in Iraq and had done all his reporting from a hotel room in Tel Aviv. The righties still promulgate these BS stories today, such is their hatred of Engle. But he has risen to being the Chief Foreign Correspondent in the largest news organization in the world.
I would also point out that trying to "out" someone as Jewish who is a war correspondent in Arab countries is called "plaming" and is a low and evil form of attempted murder.
freedman1 banned, derailing about the possibility of Richard Engel being beheaded. Way off-topic, User Agreement violation:
History was discouraging.
To Sunni Syrian rebels and their supporters and proxies of Sunni Saudi and co Islamic religious beasts like al-Qaida, MB and other Islamic militants: go to hell with your Shiites vs Sunni battles.
We have better things to do.
Hey, Chris - I'm not too up-to-date on the Syria conflict and the rules of how NATO works, but couldn't USA and the remaining European nations focus on pressuring Turkey to assist Syria instead of trying to get a joint resolution? Since Turkey could make the move via power of sovereignty, China and Russia couldn't harp on them like they could USA (especially since from what little I know, Turkey doesn't have the record that we do, making it easier for them to take flak since they had [almost?] zero involvement in the other Middle Eastern conflicts)?
Also, why not just try and call out China and Russia on their stance? It's obvious they're two-timing NATO by playing secret ally with Assad, but they won't openly admit it - they know they'd get heavily blasted if they did.
Pressure them to confess their stance, much the same way Romney hasn't confessed about his tax returns or his time with Bain (or even why he's too damn focused on the economy - a little too much, in fact).
Again, I say all this without really knowing all the info, rules, and facts, so forgive me if I make a suggestion that wouldn't work because of a rule or such I don't know.
First of all let me say that I don't think we should get involved, for many reasons that others already mentioned.
Its always the same old story, the USA jumps in and help against invaders and/or overthrow dictators, and ends up getting blamed for everything (regardless of a country's own past and history of violence - in Afghanistan for example, there was thousands of deaths every year due to conflicts between different groups, and this had been going on long before the russian invasion), and for all victims (whether they were victims of the country's dictator, insurgent groups, or involuntary collateral damage due to NATO operations). Hopefully this time we won't repeat this same old story. I can only wish good luck to the "good guys", and hope they will not be overpowered by the "bad guys", whoever they may be, who may become dictators themselves after overthrowing Assad.
Also I often see people who mention that if there was oil in Syria we would help; maybe you should know that there is oil in Syria. Maybe you would also like to know the US only won one (or maybe 2) auction for the iraqi oil fields, it is other countries who benefit the most from this "invasion", eventho many of them didn't help nor participate at all.
But lets just hate and blame the US for everything ... again, while other countries are sneakily getting rich while still being perceived as "the nice countries who don't meddle in other countries' affairs".
A few examples:
China Opens Oil Field in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/world/asia/29chinairaq.html
South Korea Signs $3.55 Billion Iraq Oil Field Accord:
http://www.iraqinews.com/economy/south-korea-signs-3-55-billion-iraq-oil-field-accord/
Russia's Lukoil Big Winner At 2nd Iraq Oil Auction:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/12/lukoil-iraq-oil-business-energy-west-qurna-auction.html
We don't need another proxy war with Russia. Stay out of their dilemma.
And remind me why it is OUR responsibility to help them win THEIR battles? Spain? Germany? France? UK? No??? Just us huh?
The Sunni Islamic religious Nazis imagine that we are there to do dirty jobs for them as in Iraq and other places.
When in trouble the songs and dances change: "Where is Amerika", "Why Amerika is not helping" and so on!
At other times: "Death to Amerika" and so on!
Hee hee, GOOD ONE!
Answering machine message: "We're sorry, but the warranty on the bailing your sorry butts out expired today. Actually, it ended when you called all Americans the Great Satan, which was quite a long time ago. There's NOTHING we can do."
Jonathan:
I absolutely agree with you. Islam is not a religion it is a virus and a disease spreading upon the earth. When in trouble islamists scream for America's help, then when it is over, it is "Yankee Go Home". Burning our flag and screaming "Death To America" becomes commonplace. "Don't expect anything from us but if you send us billions in aid and we will be your friend". We need the money to buy munitions to kill innocent people and randomly blow people up. Someone needs to tell these idiots that you should not start something you are not prepared to finish on your own. They should get a grip on reality and realize they are infected with this horrible virus known as islam.
Though I agree with many of the comments I've seen, remember---we fight against "thrones, principalities, and governments"...not against the people of other nations who just want to live peaceful lives like the rest of us. The media footage of flag burning, "death to Amerika" chants, etc., are done by an incredibly small minority of twisted regimes and their paid-ilk, and the great Silent Satan, which is our own media, make it look like all of these countries are at our door threatening to attack us... Propaganda has been a useful tool to indoctrinate the ignorant masses (us included), for thousands of years. Take a step back, people, and take a breath and calm yourselves. Don't play into the hands of those who make $$$billions on this kind of rhetoric.
Chris, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and others are reporting Al-Qaeda's involvement. You're right - they're not there to help Assad. They are there to help themselves.
http://tinyurl.com/cugoyl9
@Jonathan,
Agreed. Nobody wants the U.S. involved until they are getting their butts kicked, then all you hear is "Where's the concern for the helpless victims?" As soon as the "rebels" get aid, they become "freedom fighters." When they win, they become the new government, which hates our guts just as much as the old government. And the beat goes on ... and on ... and on ...
Well said, Texson55!
the U.S. saw it coming but chose to do nothing//Obama and Hilary saw it coming and chose to do nothing say it right. The rebels are the Muslim Brotherhood. They are all over the place in Egypt and Libya ask them for help or it ain't repeat AIN"T a brotherhood but some farce !
More dangerous Sunni al-Qaida is with the Syrian rebels. See the suicide bombings!
See the damages these very Sunni Islamic beasts are doing in Mali, Nigeria, S. Sudan and other places!
Not many care about Darfur, where there were genocides of 300000 Christians.
I don't really have any use, for Obama or Hillary per se, but in all fairness, these wars we find ourselves in, or even threatening to be drawn into, have been on the burners for many years. For example, Israel has had the Muslim world swearing oaths and drinking blood---if you will, for their destruction for generations, if not thousands of years (Muslims made up the citizenry of Babylon, who "carried away" the Israelites after destroying Jerusalem). Our involvement really has nothing to do with oil, but rather political posturing for our government's own (and often "secret") interests.
Much has been said about Obama being "the one who brought down Bin Ladin". He quickly took a bow for the assassination, but in his own words, he "didn't do that, someone else did!" That was the culmination of about 10 years of hunting... Still, our government continues to serve the many of it's own agendas. Anyway, don't be haters of the people of other countries, just keep an eye on their governments...
I say....arm the rebels. France did it for us back in the 1700s.
Russia arms the other side. Give these people the chance to earn their freedom.
WAL004,
France armed the colonies and provided most of the funding for war against England. The result was France went nearly bankrupt and the French government was overthrown in a revolution a few years after the war.
Russia is SELLING their arms to Syria, but we would be expected to GIVE ours to the rebels. What a joke when our country is so broke. We need to help ourselves and solve our own problems here inside the US before we have our own rebel forces....
States, counties and cities are broke and in debt. We are laying off police and firemen by the hundreds when crime is at an all time high. Screw these middle eastern American haters!!
WAL, these rebels consist of members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida, as well as local Syrians. Watch what you wish for. We could end up in another Afghanistan.
The rebels "consist of" the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaida? The rebels may enjoy support from both factions, but they are overwhelmingly military defectors and citizens. And even if they weren't, how exactly would this become another Afghanistan? I suppose they could harbor people who attack us, but any country could do that, and are in fact LESS likely to do it if they view us as supportive.
Al, while that may be true, I'm still glad they did it.
And how do you the rebels are any better then the government in power? Time to learned from the past, Afghanistan & the Taliban which our government helped to power would be a good example.
There are few "secular", "pro-American" among Sunni Islamic religious Nazis.
These Syrian rebels are supported by Sunni al-Qaida, MB and other Islamic militants.
For these religious Nazis, the US, West, Israel and other non-Muslim nations are enemy No. 1!
How many are secular and pro-American in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Islamic hell holes?
By removing Saddam by Iraqi wars and saving Sunni Saudi Arabia ruler with his 5000 princes and princesses, UAE, Kuwaiti and other rulers, did they become a pro-Amerian and secular?
Instead these ungrateful barbaric and beastly bigoted rulers manipulated high oil prices; became richer and funded their Sunni Islamic extremist Salaffi and Wahhabi mosques all over the world.
How many mosques were there before 1991 and now many are there now?
How many Islamic militant and radical activities including terror planning and acts were there before 1991 and how many have been there since then?
It is difficult to call these these most ungrateful and backstabbing Isalmic religious Nazis as humans.
Syria, Iran and other Sunni Saudi invented problems are not our problems.
They should handle their problems at least once a while instead of marching: "Death to Amerika", "Death to so ..."
We lost from all sides in the Iraqi wars.
We got more enemies among Muslims!
"Generally" pro-American.....yeah, until the Muslim Brotherhood comes into power, but that would never happen. Wait, whatever happend in Egypt???
...
Sorry guys.
Try to hold out until after the election.
You cannot expect the president to risk his reelection chances. That is just not how it works.
...
Right! He may not drag us into another useless, unwinable war like W did.
Way to go again Obama administration. Do nothing, and when the Syrian government falls into the hands of the opposition, they will remember what the US did to help them. Now is the time to build an ally. Not later.
I have to agree with you Harry. We should be arming the opposition to a regime that is directly responsible for many thousands of deaths of their own citizens. Great Britian, has in principal, agreed to send some armaments to the rebels, and maybe a few other European "powers", but that's about it. And no, you silly liberals, Syria doesn't have any oil. Syria does, however, possess a HUGE amount of biological and chemical agents. If this doesn't scare the crap out of you, then you must be partially brain dead. If for this fact alone, we should get at least obliquely involved. And when assad does fall, and it's only a matter of time, there needs to be an adequate force, ON THE GROUND, to secure these W.M.D.s. But I guess hills, and barry are just too afraid of stepping on any Russian or Iranian toes. Cowards.
Wrong, America can not be allies with a muslim country, their very existence and religious government makes us enemies and their goal is to convert to islam or die. If a muslim country is allowing America to use their country in another conflict it is because they also want the other country or religous sect destroyed. It is the same as the protestant and the catholic except we have managed to live together in peace, where all the muslim sects want to do is enslave or kill the other.
We did that already back in the 80's. We armed the rebels against the invading Soviet army. Look what that got us.
Of course America can be allies with a Muslim country. What do you think Turkey is? Indonesia isn't quite an ally, but they have the largest population of Muslims in the world and they do not practice a "convert or die" agenda toward other countries. In fact, NO COUNTRY does, not even the blatantly fundamentalist Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Like any other religion, Islam has its fanatics, its violent zealots, and vast swathes of ordinary practitioners that don't intend to harm anybody and wouldn't support a government that practices such an absurd policy. We have yet to see who emerges from this conflict in charge, but don't be so quick to label them all violent fanatics.
of course, if the obama administration decided to aide the syrian rebels, you'd be crying "WE CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER WAR!!! IT'S THE ECONOMY!!!"
Just in case any of you Syrian rebels missed it, the US did not issue a memo saying we would jump in and save your ass if you tried to topple Assad. Just a reminder that you are ON YOUR OWN over there.
There are also civil wars in Chad, Somalia, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Sudan, Mali, and Columbia. Shall we also intervene in all of those conflicts which the media chooses not to focus on?
The rebels intentionally infiltrated Alleppo ( BBC - TV, video of convoy of perhaps a 1000 or so fighters slipping into Alleppo ). So that was their intent - they were clearly not there before the infiltration - if they were there would have been no need to truck fighters in. Perhaps the Syrian army even allowed it - as then the rebels have trapped themselves. Bottom line - it was their choice to occupy a civilian area and essentially force a fight on that ground. If you play that game you have to take your lumps.
It doesn't matter who wins the battle, the US will be blamed for something. Leave these damn Muslims to their own devices, keep absolutely quiet no matter what they cry about. Remember, the US will be blamed for something.
Gee - if we only knew who the rebels really are - maybe - then - we could make a decision on supporting them - - the USA does not have a very good "track record" on supporting democracies!!! No more sacrifices of our young warriors!!!
Regardless of the makeup of the FSA (most are defectors and Syrian civilian volunteers), the massacre of innocent women and children cannot be tolerated. Do not forget, this uprising started out as peaceful demonstrations, that Assad sought to crush with lethal force.
Russia and Iran continue to openly supply arms to Assad and America, the super power that promotes freedom and democracy and champions human rights is supposed to stay on the sidelines?
YES
The Obama administration is reluctant to enter the fray. It has bad mouthed the Bush Administration for its foreign adventures and its caution is understandable. This, however is very different from Iraq and Afghanistan. When we intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan there was no on going active military resistance to the regime so our arrival with armed forces upset the whole population and nobody was glad to see our troops on their streets. Indeed, the Syrians don't want that either, but I suspect they would not mind US or NATO air cover as they have nothing to oppose Assad's planes and copters. They certainly could use small arms and anti tank weapons. The situation there now is more analogous to Libya than Iraq. I think the rebels have a good chance of winning. They hate the Russians and Chinese for keeping the UN from decisively intervening and I fear they will soon be angry at us for talking about democracy and Arab Springs but turning our backs on then when they take the talk seriously. If the Assad administration is not brought down swiftly it will turn to its weapons of mass destruction, first on its own population and then in a kind of Gotterdimerung, lash out at its neighbors, certainly Israel. The Obama Administration needs to assert itself by first arming the rebels, now, and warning the Syrian military that if they obey Assad's orders and unleash weapons of mass destruction on anybody they will be held to account by the US (not the UN which will not impose the death penalty on anybody). Sometimes a president must decisively take action even when the political fallout might turn out to be disadvantageous to his re-election bid. PS President Obama, don't dump this off on the UN, NATO, The Arab League or your Secretary of State. Do it yourself.
It is time to act outside of the UN charter and enforce a no fly zone and safe havens for the Syrian people. While most Americans have no stomach for further fighting in the middle east, we cannot, with good conscience, sit on the sidelines and watch this massacre continue.
We invaded Iraq based on suspicions of WMDs, while Syria has admitted they have them and are willing to use them. Twice in recent history, Syria has used WMDs on their own people.
Like it or not, America is a beacon of hope and we have vowed countless times to promote democracy and freedom for all. Isolationism only drags us in deeper in the long run.
A no fly zone would not be easy. Syria has a significant antiaircraft capability including missiles purchased from Russia and radar from Iran. The Syrians also have anti-ship missiles along the coast which will force any Naval force to stand off a considerable distance. The Russians have a naval base at Tartus and they would defend it. The Syrians are using attack helicopters in close quarters in urban environments where targeting could be problematic. A no fly zone could be done, but implementing it means accepting loses....something I doubt the American people would accept for long.
Bottom line...these rebels have taken up arms against their legitimate government, period. How would in look if we armed them? Look at it this way...let's say the US joined the UN small arms treaty, and regular soldiers from our government started an offensive moving house to house, confiscating arms from the 25% of gun owners that didn't surrender to them. An insurgency begins, and the rebels resist, though out gunned. Who should help them? Who will arm them? Russia? China? No, you see...they are REBELLING against their own, legitimate government, right?
The government lost it's legitimacy when it sent military forces to quash peaceful street protests with lethal force. A government that terrorizes, imprisons, tortures it's own populace to squash political dissent has no legitimate claim to govern.
They are rebelling over 40 years of dictator rule and a lack of political reforms that were promised to them. They took up arms because protestors were being killed by the militias and the military.
Well, that depends greatly on your definition of "legitimate". I don't think of any dictator as a "legitimate" governer of a state. A legitimate government has a democratic mandate, while Assad rules by gunning down people who oppose him.
And your example, while probably intending to be a cheap strawman, is actually quite complex and not at all clear-cut. If our government started seizing weapons in violation of our Constitution, then people probably would rebel, and they would have a point in that it is totally unlawful for even our "legitimate" government to violate its Constitution to abide by a foreign treaty.
Either way, if our president decided to respond to the rebellion by barraging the rebelling cities with artillery, I'd take up arms against him too. A rebellion can't excuse that kind of brutal response.
"A government that terrorizes, imprisons, tortures it's own populace to squash political dissent has no legitimate claim to govern."
I'll keep that in mind.
It would look bad for gun contol if we suddenly armed Syria's civilian population...After all, only soldiers should have AK-47's, right?
And for those of you who skipped civics class or haven't figured this out yet, that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. It is not to arm the citizenry for self protection from criminals; it is to arm the citizenry for protection from the federal government and its standing armed forces. It is the reason AK-47s are legitimate arms for the common citizen.
Why does everyone think if the US helps the Syrian rebels they will be an ally. Once the take control and overthrow Assad, they would turn on America just as all the Middle Eastern countries have. I applaude President Obama for not getting the US involved in another Middle East hell hole causing the death of American service members. And No, you can't just send weapons as when the US does the Syrians will want more help, like boots on the ground. I'm tired af all the bleeding hearts out there wanting the President to do something. Why can't we just stay out of other countries problems. If you want to help, take a plane to Syria and join the rebels yourself.
Your sentiment was shared by many Americans in the late 30's and early 40's.
One shouldn't forget history, lest it repeat itself....
Feel bad for them, but these same people do not like us very much. That's why Obama is passing on this.
You're on your own. As soon as some US soldiers accidentally do something that offends their ultra sensitive sensibilities, they'll be in the streets, burning American flags. Thanks, but no thanks.
Americans, take heed:
American citizens are just beginning to realize that Obama and Hillary Clinton's 'foreign policy' has backfired big: whilst fighting al-quaeda in Afganistan, Obama and Clinton are supporting, arming, financing, and providing media support to the same jihadis in the Mid East. Thanks to these two blunderers, jihadi extremists have come in to power for the first time in the world: Egypt, Libya and soon in Syria....
Chemical weapons in the hands of al-quaeda in the Mid East would be a real frightening scenario. Soon, we'll be sending shiploads of our troops and spend trillions of our tax dollars to fight the same hooligans that we are now supporting.
Americans, do we need four more years of this buffoonery?
Get real. Even by the most critical standards, the new governments in Egypt and Libya aren't "jihadi". I know that for some people all the words describing Islam (Islamist, Islamic, fundamentalist, jihadist, terrorist, etc.) kind of blend together into one big mess that they file under "bad scary people", but these things are actually more complicated than that.
Gadaffi's son was right. "When you find out who the "rebels" are, you will be surprised"...but the damage will be done.
Right! We need 4 years of President W Bush, (in other words "Mitt the Bush"), cause he did such a great job!
Well said, Hank!
American citizens are just beginning to realize that Obama and Hillary Clinton's 'foreign policy' has backfired big: whilst fighting al-quaeda in Afganistan, Obama and Clinton are supporting, arming, financing, and providing media support to the same jihadis in the Mid East. Thanks to these two blunderers, jihadi extremists have come in to power for the first time in the world: Egypt, Libya and soon in Syria....
Chemical weapons in the hands of al-quaeda in the Mid East would be a real frightening scenario. Soon, we'll be sending shiploads of our troops and spend trillions of our tax dollars to fight the same hooligans that we are now supporting.
Do we need four more years of this buffoonery?
Why don't we get a proxy to do it in our place like we did with the Afghans in their fight afgainst the russians? No creativity or doesn't anyone trust the leaky white house anymore. Blame them??? We have no credibility left. Unfortunately obama's word is about as good as his domestic policy.
I was 15 years old in 1958 & watched as the US stood by doing nothing while children fought the Russians tanks & soldiers in Hungary with nothing more than Molotov cocktails, rocks, and whatever they could get their hands on. We all know how that turned out. Once again, our leaders don't have the guts to be on the right side of history. Wish someone could explain to me why US and us, always seem to back the wrong people. The history is long on that score. When the rebels win, as they surely will thru shear willpower, if nothing else, our countries lack of action will be long remembered & the diplomatic road to be walked by our diplomats will be all that much harder.
It's simple risk versus reward, and Obama has never really understood that (or anything remotely related to finance).
He campaigned on the basis of opposition to military intervention and adventures. He only intervened in Libya because it was literally a PERFECT opportunity, with the consent of the UN, NATO, Congress, and the Arab League. And even then he didn't want America in a combat role.
I can appreciate his caution in stepping into the Middle East; we have not had many good ventures there. But I agree with you that I think we will regret our refusal to help.
Let me bask in the glow of gratitude from the people of Iraq for freeing them from the tryanny of Hussein before responding to your post.....
Or the overwhelming support from the people of Afganistan for on-going efforts to modernize and turn that nation into a thriving democracy.....
Well then, the gratitude from the people of Pakistan for billions in aid....
The well-spring of joy and admiration from the grateful nation of Libya for US assistance in overthrowing Quadafi....
Nope, I'm not feeling any of it. The US should stay out of Syria and let them handle their own internal affairs.
Oh Larry, and the US was on the right side of history in Hungary. The Soviet Union had nukes, a huge army, and Hungary was in their sphere of control. Any intervention could have cost tens of millions of lives had any 'intervention' provoked war. Today Hungary is in control of its own destiny without risking the lives of millions.
Don't you war mongers ever get enough? Since when are we the worlds police? At any given time there's genocide occurring in half a dozen countries, millions have been murdered in Africa and millions starved, hung or imprisoned in North Korea. Name any recent war we've been involved in that the people or the world see us as saviors and not murdering conquerors. If your heart bleeds so much for these people go join the struggle and see what these Hamas and Al'Queda rebels or even unaffiliated muslims think of Americans. Whatever happens when it's over these people will hate us and cheer and burn our flag when any tragedy befalls us.
Operation Desert Storm. I was there to see the grateful Kuwaitis cheer us as we entered Kuwait City. The "war mongers" as you so succinctly put it, were sent packing to the North. And I'm pretty sure that the French, English, Belgians, Dutch, etc., were also pretty happy to be freed from the yoke of Nazism. And yes "Larry", war is a horrific and terrible thing. Thank God we have people who are willing to stand for the innocent and weak, instead of peck away at a goddamn keyboard to get their point across.
How many warring factions should the US support? There has got to be an end to the involvement in other countries conflicts.
they do not care for the US one bit,( either side ) only to be used,, let the brotherhood spend there power and money. we have already been used by egypt, afganistan and others.