Syrian Rebels Lose Their Halo

cyberhog

Syria's armed rebels have committed "serious human rights abuses," including kidnappings and torture, and reportedly executions, of security personnel and civilians, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.

The group painted a dark picture that is in stark contrast to the "freedom fighter" image that the rebels and their political allies outside Syria have sought to project to the world.

In an open letter to the opposition, Human Rights Watch depicts a decentralized, disparate guerrilla structure in which armed groups seem to operate with complete autonomy, sometimes acting on sectarian motives to kidnap and kill security force members and civilians considered pro-government.

...

In its latest report, the group includes statements from witnesses suggesting that some insurgent atrocities may stem from animosity against minority sects, notably Shiite Muslims and members of the offshoot Alawite sect.

One Syrian activist, identified only as Mazen, told Human Rights Watch that members of one armed faction known as the Abu Issa group had kidnapped pro-government residents in northern Idlib province and tortured three of them to death.

...

In one especially grisly episode, an Alawite resident of Homs told the rights group that armed gang members entered his neighborhood on Jan. 23 and took his elderly parents from the family home. The gang leader first demanded money, but the man's parents later were found dead, their bodies displayed in a YouTube video, the report says.

"This is a sectarian crime," the son, identified only as Marwan, told Human Rights Watch. "My father has nothing to do with the government."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-rights-report-20120321,0,3882780.story


The facade of courageous freedom fighters battling ruthless Syrian forces is beginning to crumble. Syria and its people are under attack from murderous, deceitful extremists who are committing acts of terrorism in a desperate attempt to destabilise the country. The Syrian government should do everything it can to protect the people from the sectarian extremists and terrorists that make up the insurgency.

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

The Syrian government should do everything it can to protect the people . . .

The Syrian regime will protect only themselves, as they have been doing since assuming power.

NakedNNettles

cyberhog wrote: »

The facade of courageous freedom fighters battling ruthless Syrian forces is beginning to crumble. Syria and its people are under attack from murderous, deceitful extremists who are committing acts of terrorism in a desperate attempt to destabilise the country. The Syrian government should do everything it can to protect the people from the sectarian extremists and terrorists that make up the insurgency.

Shame on you, Cyberhog

If you had any seen any of the recent documentaries reported from Syria, you would think twice. Only the hardest of hearts could ally themselves with a regime that murders innocent children.

Take your propaganda elsewhere.

You should hang your head in shame there lad. Karma comes to all in the end.

Palmach

NakedNNettles wrote: »

Shame on you, Cyberhog

If you had any seen any of the recent documentaries reported from Syria, you would think twice. Only the hardest of hearts could ally themselves with a regime that murders innocent children.

Take your propaganda elsewhere.

You should hang your head in shame there lad. Karma comes to all in the end.

How is it propaganda? He is quoting HRW.

NinjaK

Only stupid people thought they had a halo in the first place, there are no 'good guys'. There are just people the west supports and those they dont.

Sponge Bob

Her is a helpful link for that poster. Human Rights Watch are a well known independent NGN, Shame on YOU for not knowing that much.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/syria-armed-opposition-groups-committing-abuses

Armed opposition elements have carried out serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said today in a public letter to the Syrian National Council (SNC) and other leading Syrian opposition groups

Nodin

cyberhog wrote: »

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-rights-report-20120321,0,3882780.story


The facade of courageous freedom fighters battling ruthless Syrian forces is beginning to crumble. Syria and its people are under attack from murderous, deceitful extremists who are committing acts of terrorism in a desperate attempt to destabilise the country. The Syrian government should do everything it can to protect the people from the sectarian extremists and terrorists that make up the insurgency.

So the Syrian government hasn't committed abuses of a similar nature then?

biko

Just because there is an uprising it doesn't mean the rebels are much better than the people they're trying to replace.
As usual the civilians are the biggest losers, as in any conflict.

mike65

The reaction to Cyberhogs propaganda is understandable, why he is is so hostile to regime change in the middle east is up to him to explain but at every turn he highlights the downside to any force that opposes dictators while blithely overlooking the excesses of same.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well it's fair enough to point out that the west's darling freedom fighters don't appear to be any/much better than the regime they're fighting. As usual it'd just be best for the west to stay out of it, unlikely as that is to happen.

mike65

Omelettes and Eggs, its always omelettes and eggs.

donaghs

Nodin wrote: »

So the Syrian government hasn't committed abuses of a similar nature then?

That's silly, almost all the media coverage is of the government's atrocities. The OP is just pointing out that its not a one-way affair.

Interesting reading Robert Fisk's Independent articles on Syria recently. I get the impression he believes the regime will survive as enough Syrians are more afraid of the alternative, e.g. an intolerant Sunni-theocracy.

biko

mike65 wrote: »

The reaction to Cyberhogs propaganda is understandable, why he is is so hostile to regime change in the middle east is up to him to explain but at every turn he highlights the downside to any force that opposes dictators while blithely overlooking the excesses of same.

If previous uprisings is anything to go by then the new overlords won't be much better than the old one's.

mike65

Well if that's not a compelling reason for oppressed people to do nothing....

garhjw

i think the general public perception of these uprisings can be "good vs evil" a lot of the time. that is very very rarely what is actually happening. i think that is all the OP was pointing out.

czx

biko wrote: »

Just because there is an uprising it doesn't mean the rebels are much better than the people they're trying to replace.
As usual the civilians are the biggest losers, as in any conflict.

Except when Che Guevara is involved, right?

Laminations

mike65 wrote: »

Well if that's not a compelling reason for oppressed people to do nothing....

Yes. Because they are the only options - kidnap, torture, execute or do nothing.

Not that cyberhogs suggestions are supportable

cyberhog wrote: »

The Syrian government should do everything it can to protect the people from the sectarian extremists and terrorists that make up the insurgency.

Would that include kidnap, torture and execution? Mass indiscriminate killings? Do you want to qualify that 'do everything they can' remark?

We should only support regime change if it's a change for the better, towards democratic self governance. But in this and most conflicts we should always support the innocent civilians caught in between.

Jonny7

Few are suggesting that the rebels in Syria are whiter than white - its practically a civil war, there is now violence on both sides.

Demonising the rebels and opposition in Syria is not the same as understanding them, and is clearly just an effort to continue using Syria as a proxy for some other agenda, carefully ignoring the root cause of the violence.

Assad clearly intends to hold onto power by any means necessary. Even if he goes or is ousted, there will be a lot of violence, reprisals, upheaval - he and his brother and the regime bare the burden of responsibility and culpability for bringing their country down this path.

Defiler Of The Coffin

As the article says; there is no one 'opposition' to the Assad regime, there are numerous groups fighting to bring down the Syrian government, all of which are poorly-armed and vastly outnumbered by government forces. It's not a case of the entire opposition being a motley crew of terrorists and murderers as the OP seems to be implying. I haven't seen any reports of atrocities carried out by rebels that comes close to what the government has committed.

Nodin

donaghs wrote: »

That's silly, almost all the media coverage is of the government's atrocities. The OP is just pointing out that its not a one-way affair.

............

I suggest you re-read his OP, as he's suggesting rather more than that.

Border-Rat

biko wrote: »

Just because there is an uprising it doesn't mean the rebels are much better than the people they're trying to replace.
As usual the civilians are the biggest losers, as in any conflict.

It all depends on how the TV presents it for most.

RichieC

It would be the evil rebels all over the papers if the yanks had as much investment in Syria as Russia do.

Einhard

Wow, quelle surprise that cyberhog sets up another thread dedicated to the evils deeds of those rebelling against dictators. Never seems to get too bothered about the leaders themselves though....unless they're of the elected, Israeli sort that is.

RichieC

Einhard wrote: »

Wow, quelle surprise that cyberhog sets up another thread dedicated to the evils deeds of those rebelling against dictators. Never seems to get too bothered about the leaders themselves though....unless they're of the elected, Israeli sort that is.

Not much to add, so, Einhard?

Lantus

Since the beginning of this 'developing situation' I hae looked with dispair at our media that seems to report in the mainstream predominantly about innocent syrians being killed by an oppresive and evil regime. If the west has to intervene then who benefits?

why do we never get to hear the other side of the story? who are we to decide what is right or wrong in another country? What side would we take today if the media portrays the confederates as being freedom fighters against an oppressive regime?

We are far too easily engaging our armed forces in other countries (or about to in the likes or Iran) based on the tenuous precedence of iraq and afghanistan (which were both false) and it's troubling. We are becoming judge and jury for the world based on the the geo political intentions of a very small number of people and it's not right.

The media campaing will no doubt justify our war mongering and the use of words like freedom fighters will galvanise our sense of wrong doing and justification that our ultimate weapons of war should lay utter waste to this country. A country almost none of us has ever set foot in or lived in. While wrong doing does occur and will always exist we should be mindful of being so eager to wage war on a people we know almost nothing about except what our highly controlled media tells us.

HamletOrHecuba

NakedNNettles wrote: »

If you had any seen any of the recent documentaries reported from Syria, you would think twice. Only the hardest of hearts could ally themselves with a regime that murders innocent children.

So you believe only the hardest of hearts would have allied with the British and Americans in WWII?

HamletOrHecuba

Einhard wrote: »

Wow, quelle surprise that cyberhog sets up another thread dedicated to the evils deeds of those rebelling against dictators. Never seems to get too bothered about the leaders themselves though....unless they're of the elected, Israeli sort that is.

Assad is evil- but he is by far the lesser evil. Pointing out the evil he opposes is not necessarily siding with him, and any way he has made more than enough concessions to the point that there is no justification at all for the continued rebellion. Learn the lessons of Libya and learn them well.

SamHarris

RichieC wrote: »

Not much to add, so, Einhard?

A little more than you, it would seem.

Hardly surprising some of the rebels are less than clean, does it change what the moves should be for a government to be established with an ounce of authority and legitimacy? Hardly.

SamHarris

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Assad is evil- but he is by far the lesser evil. Pointing out the evil he opposes is not necessarily siding with him, and any way he has made more than enough concessions to the point that there is no justification at all for the continued rebellion. Learn the lessons of Libya and learn them well.

Again, hardly the point. He is a murdering dictator, the only proven method we have for establishing a government with legitmacy, particularly after such slaughter if free and fair elections. One major body is opposing this with all its power, that is the Syrian regime.

Its sad to see how childishly alot of people seem to form their opinion on a given event. I could tell the "side" various posters would take in nearly any conflict merely by listening to what major western powers say concerning it. If they make postive tones towards one side, it will be their enemy. That this cartoonish thinking can so quickly and easily be seen again and again, throughout this site and in various publications is a sad reflection of the enormous moral and intelectual decline of the mainstream left over the last 2 decades.

Hannibal

donaghs wrote: »

That's silly, almost all the media coverage is of the government's atrocities. The OP is just pointing out that its not a one-way affair.

Interesting reading Robert Fisk's Independent articles on Syria recently. I get the impression he believes the regime will survive as enough Syrians are more afraid of the alternative, e.g. an intolerant Sunni-theocracy.

it was the same with Libya, attempts to demonise Gaddafi to the highest extent just to enable NATO to pursue a decades long agenda to topple him while the so called "rebels" were no better.

SamHarris

Dotsey wrote: »

it was the same with Libya, attempts to demonise Gaddafi to the highest extent just to enable NATO to pursue a decades long agenda to topple him while the so called "rebels" were no better.

Are you implying there is some sort of cabinet that directs the world media? If so please, share your evidence with the world.

If NATO did have a decades long agenda to destroy Gadaffi, it really is irrelevant, and one could argue entirelly justified. You may be willing to take the risk that a dicatator is merely "joking" when he is threatening to go door to door in a city killing any "rat" he finds. However, for the international community this is one of the tell tale signs that a massacare is about to take place.

Really alot of these posts are more CT stuff, hinting at some sort of shadow power controlling world media. Your all also under the eronious (and entirelly childish) assumption that because one side is "demonised" or slaughtering people it must mean the other is "angelic" and free of any wrong doing. Why?

Toby Take a Bow

SamHarris wrote: »

That this cartoonish thinking can so quickly and easily be seen again and again, throughout this site and in various publications is a sad reflection of the enormous moral and intelectual decline of the mainstream left over the last 2 decades.

A (ridiculous) point which could surely be made about the right as well? Reverse everything you've just said and it applies to yourself just as much.

Personally, labeling the 'rebels' as one group who are committing atrocities seems a bit simplistic, and is a problem endemic throughout media outlets. There are huge divergences in opinion within the groups jostling for power in Syria.

JustinDee

Apparently from reading through the large number of retroactively 'researched' posts about Syria, the only viable solution, in the name of stability, is . . . that nobody should do anything about it.

How . . . Irish.

Einhard

RichieC wrote: »

Einhard wrote: »

Wow, quelle surprise that cyberhog sets up another thread dedicated to the evils deeds of those rebelling against dictators. Never seems to get too bothered about the leaders themselves though....unless they're of the elected, Israeli sort that is.

Not much to add, so, Einhard?

I've said all I have to say on the other threads set up to tarnish all the libyan rebels as murderers and torturers. This is just more of the same-hypocrites who claim to care about human rights attempting to bolster murderous regimes for transparent ideological reasons.

HamletOrHecuba

SamHarris wrote: »

Again, hardly the point. He is a murdering dictator, the only proven method we have for establishing a government with legitmacy, particularly after such slaughter if free and fair elections. One major body is opposing this with all its power, that is the Syrian regime.

Its sad to see how childishly alot of people seem to form their opinion on a given event. I could tell the "side" various posters would take in nearly any conflict merely by listening to what major western powers say concerning it. If they make postive tones towards one side, it will be their enemy. That this cartoonish thinking can so quickly and easily be seen again and again, throughout this site and in various publications is a sad reflection of the enormous moral and intelectual decline of the mainstream left over the last 2 decades.

The problem is that Assad has called for an election on a new consitution from which multi-party elections would follow if its approved by the people. The rebels are not interested in western style democracy but in a fanatical interputation of Islam which will see the end of the ancient Christian communities in Syria. Also Im hardly someone who could be described as mainstream left.

wes

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The problem is that Assad has called for an election on a new consitution from which multi-party elections would follow if its approved by the people.

Why should anyone believe a word Assad says? The rebels are not Angels and some of them seem to be no better than Assad, but it seem pretty clear that Assad has brought this all on himself. He could have set up a proper democracy years ago, but he resorted to repression, which has now blown up into what amounts to a civil war. IMHO, Assads repression gave a perfect breeding ground for extremists to recruit people. Ultimately, all the trouble in Syria is on Assad.

SamHarris

wes wrote: »

Why should anyone believe a word Assad says? The rebels are not Angels and some of them seem to be no better than Assad, but it seem pretty clear that Assad has brought this all on himself. He could have set up a proper democracy years ago, but he resorted to repression, which has now blown up into what amounts to a civil war. IMHO, Assads repression gave a perfect breeding ground for extremists to recruit people. Ultimately, all the trouble in Syria is on Assad.

Perhaps more importantly, the power rests on him alone to end the conflict in the only "fair" fashion - an internationally monitored election.

The fact that there are other "bad" groups in the country does not even begin to change that.

Its ironic that the same people who inevitably defend regimes like this based purely on thier anti west stance are the exact same types politically who (sometimes quiet rightly) guffaw at the claims of more pro Western dictators that their regime is necassary to prevent chaos. That they can be so blinded by ideology in a case so similiar is sad.

SamHarris

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

A (ridiculous) point which could surely be made about the right as well? Reverse everything you've just said and it applies to yourself just as much.

Personally, labeling the 'rebels' as one group who are committing atrocities seems a bit simplistic, and is a problem endemic throughout media outlets. There are huge divergences in opinion within the groups jostling for power in Syria.

Really? Then you dont know too much about my opinions. I dont have any group I always agree with, nor do I have a group who I instantly think any action taken against is legitimate. If you can find one, sure show me.

Which makes the necessity for an election even more clear. And not an Iranian "election", one with monitors from other states and international bodies, and carefully watched for corruption and graft.

cyberhog

wes wrote: »

Why should anyone believe a word Assad says? The rebels are not Angels and some of them seem to be no better than Assad, but it seem pretty clear that Assad has brought this all on himself. He could have set up a proper democracy years ago, but he resorted to repression, which has now blown up into what amounts to a civil war. IMHO, Assads repression gave a perfect breeding ground for extremists to recruit people. Ultimately, all the trouble in Syria is on Assad.

Why should anyone believe a word the opposition says?

The US intelligence group Stratfor stated the opposition are waging a "disinformation campaign" against Assad and advised caution on the accuracy of the mainstream media narrative on Syria.

Syrian opposition groups have improved their ability to develop contacts in the media and reach mainstream Western outlets such as Reuters, AFP and BBC with their stories. Western wire services run stories regularly that quote casualty totals provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, without the ability to verify the information.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=284880901563688&_fb_noscript=1

These reports, like those from the regime, should be viewed with skepticism; the opposition understands that it needs external support, specifically financial support, if it is to be a more robust movement than it is now. To that end, it has every reason to present the facts on the ground in a way that makes the case for foreign backing.

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-syrian-opposition-perception-and-reality

Case in point:

A Stratfor investigation into a purported "massacre" in Homs found "no signs of a massacre", concluding that "opposition forces have an interest in portraying an impending massacre, hoping to mimic the conditions that propelled a foreign military intervention in Libya".


Stratfor suggests massacres are unlikely because "the regime has calibrated its crackdowns to avoid just such a scenario."


http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=284880901563688&_fb_noscript=1


Reuters recently profiled the outfit identified by Stratfor as the media's primary source for casualty totals, in an article titled, "Syrian shop-keeper wages lonely war from English city."

Thousands of miles away from home, in a small rented house in Coventry, Abdulrahman runs Syria's most prominent activist group which has become central to the way the uprising is being reported - and understood - in the world.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-syria-observatory-idUKBRE82D0XW20120314

So the media narrative on Syria is largely based on unverified reports from one man in Coventry but all the Assad haters just lap it up without thinking or questioning and lick their lips for more.

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

Why should anyone believe a word the opposition says?

Followed by a couple of Facebook links and a lobby group's view, led to by an unsubstantiated 'wikileak'?

Blinkered views supporting the actions of a regime such as Assad's aren't really becoming, in my own opinion. Don't just settle on one viewpoint because its suits the anti-Big Western Devil agenda. Try those of Murphy or Byman too, for example.
Wasting time babbling on who has the moral high ground is pointless sanctimonious and irrelevant. The issues that affect are determined by what is best for all concerned, including those of proxies and allies/enemies/neighbours. You don't actually have to take a side to have an opinion on what has been happening in Syria, you know?

Toby Take a Bow

SamHarris wrote: »

Really? Then you dont know too much about my opinions. I dont have any group I always agree with, nor do I have a group who I instantly think any action taken against is legitimate. If you can find one, sure show me.

Fair enough.

SamHarris wrote: »

Which makes the necessity for an election even more clear. And not an Iranian "election", one with monitors from other states and international bodies, and carefully watched for corruption and graft.

Agree completely. I can't see it happening with the regime still in power.

wes

cyberhog wrote: »

Why should anyone believe a word the opposition says?

I wouldn't trust the opposition right now either, as there is no way to know if any group talking is actually representative.

cyberhog wrote: »

The US intelligence group Stratfor stated the opposition are waging a "disinformation campaign" against Assad and advised caution on the accuracy of the mainstream media narrative on Syria.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=284880901563688&_fb_noscript=1

Maybe if Assad allowed in foreign media, then we would know what was going on. Personally, when any country doesn't allow in foreign media, I become suspicous. So I am far more suspicous of Assad then the opposition due to this.

cyberhog wrote: »

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-syrian-opposition-perception-and-reality

Case in point:

A Stratfor investigation into a purported "massacre" in Homs found "no signs of a massacre", concluding that "opposition forces have an interest in portraying an impending massacre, hoping to mimic the conditions that propelled a foreign military intervention in Libya".

Stratfor suggests massacres are unlikely because "the regime has calibrated its crackdowns to avoid just such a scenario."

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=284880901563688&_fb_noscript=1

Reuters recently profiled the outfit identified by Stratfor as the media's primary source for casualty totals, in an article titled, "Syrian shop-keeper wages lonely war from English city."


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-syria-observatory-idUKBRE82D0XW20120314

So the media narrative on Syria is largely based on unverified reports from one man in Coventry but all the Assad haters just lap it up without thinking or questioning and lick their lips for more.

Well, you seem to put a great deal of trust in Strafor, but there hardly unbiased themselves. The leaks exposed by Wikileaks, would lead me to not trust them. Secondly, the entire idea of a "private intelligence" paying off reporters, government officials etc doesn't sit right with me either.

Nodin

cyberhog wrote: »

Why should ............ .

You used HRW as a source to castigate the insurgents. Do you acknowledge the incidents contained here concerning the Syrian Government?

http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/syria

cyberhog

wes wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the opposition right now either, as there is no way to know if any group talking is actually representative.

That's certainly a good reason to be wary of the opposition, the HRW report detailing the torture and execution of civilians is another good reason to be cautious about the simplistic victims and aggressor meme that is prevalent in the Westerm media.

wes wrote: »

Maybe if Assad allowed in foreign media, then we would know what was going on. Personally, when any country doesn't allow in foreign media, I become suspicous. So I am far more suspicous of Assad then the opposition due to this.

Syrian authorities say they have given permission to 365 Arab and Western journalists to enter the country since the start of the uprising.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-03/10/c_131458020.htm

wes wrote: »

Well, you seem to put a great deal of trust in Strafor, but there hardly unbiased themselves.

I don't claim they're unbiased but I think it's fair to assume a US intelligence firm is unlikely to be spreading anti-opposition propaganda.

cyberhog

Nodin wrote: »

You used HRW as a source to castigate the insurgents.

Do you have a problem with castigating rebels that torture and kill civilians?

Nodin wrote: »

Do you acknowledge the incidents contained here concerning the Syrian Government?

I share the view of HRW concerning the Syrian government’s behaviour.

“The Syrian government’s brutal tactics cannot justify abuses by armed opposition groups,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/syria

Nodin

cyberhog wrote: »

Do you have a problem with castigating rebels that torture and kill civilians?



I share the view of HRW concerning the Syrian government’s behaviour.


http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/syria[/QUOTE]

I've no problem with castigating anyone involved in such activity.

Do you accept the following?

The statements of soldiers and officers who defected from the Syrian military and intelligence agencies leave no doubt that the abuses were committed in pursuance of state policy and that they were directly ordered, authorized, or condoned at the highest levels of Syrian military and civilian leadership.
Human Rights Watch’s findings show that military commanders and officials in the intelligence agencies gave both direct and standing orders to use lethal force against the protesters (at least 20 such cases are documented in detail in this report) as well as to unlawfully arrest, beat, and torture the detainees. In addition, senior military commanders and high-ranking officials, including President Bashar al-Assad and the heads of the intelligence agencies, bear command responsibility for violations committed by their subordinates to the extent that they knew or should have known of the abuses but failed to take action to stop them.

http://www.hrw.org/node/103558/section/3

Zombrex

cyberhog wrote:

The Syrian government should do everything it can to protect the people from the sectarian extremists and terrorists that make up the insurgency.

cyberhog wrote: »

I share the view of HRW concerning the Syrian government’s behaviour.

Will you clarify that "everything it can" does not include the abuses mentioned by the HRW condemnation of the Syrian government?

cyberhog wrote: »

Do you have a problem with castigating rebels that torture and kill civilians?

I would imagine he has the same problem you have with the rebels kidnapping and executing member of the brutal Syrian regime who torture and kill civilians.

Son Of A Vidic

cyberhog wrote: »

The facade of courageous freedom fighters battling ruthless Syrian forces is beginning to crumble. Syria and its people are under attack from murderous, deceitful extremists who are committing acts of terrorism in a desperate attempt to destabilise the country. The Syrian government should do everything it can to protect the people from the sectarian extremists and terrorists that make up the insurgency.

Facade? Why does it surprise you that the FSA/insurgents may have resorted to such counter measures, in the face of overwhelming odds? Because this behaviour has been virtually the norm throughout history of armed struggle.

Have you any idea of the brutality needed, to free this little nation from the rule of The Crown? Or perhaps that Saint Nelson Mandela's ANC had a penchant for putting tyres around opponents neck and burning them to death? Today's terrorist, tomorrows esteemed statesman I suppose.

With the lack of a central organisation/command structure in Syria, the potential risk of unsavory acts occurring will naturally increase. You have also conveniently forgotten, that it was the murderous brutality meted out to unarmed protesters that has brought Syria to the present crisis. So who do you blame for this, the cause or the symptom?

laoch na mona

both sides are doing terrible thins but its the governments job to be good so people need to turn to rebels

SamHarris

Its irrelevant if people cant trust either the government or the rebels to be totally truthful. As Wess pointed out what would be needed to ascertain the truth would be foreign jounalists to be allowed full access.

Only one of the parties has the power to allow this. If their "truth" is so self evident then why would they fear allowing this access so much?

A little application of Occams Razor to determine if they are in fact telling the truth wouldnt go astray.

cyberhog

Zombrex wrote: »

Will you clarify that "everything it can" does not include the abuses mentioned by the HRW condemnation of the Syrian government?

Why are you so concerned about the welfare of sectarian extremists and terrorists? Don't you think Assad should do everything he can to stop the jihadists from destabilising the country?


I wonder if you're as concerned about the action Assad's enemies have in mind when they threaten to do "everything they can"?

William Hague

Mr Hague told MPs that Syria had "drawn comfort" from Saturday's veto at the UN. But he warned: "We will do everything we can to make sure that comfort is short-lived.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4112424/William-Hague-raps-Syria-hell.html


David Cameron

"We need to take all the action we can to put the maximum pressure on Assad to go.... I am not satisfied that we are taking all the action we need to, but it is difficult, it is complicated, and we need to work very hard with our friends, allies and neighbours in the region to make sure we can do everything we can."

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2012/02/20/exiled-family-living-in-huddersfield-call-for-military-intervention-in-syria-86081-30363190/2/