• Half A Million Protest On Streets Of Hama
    21 replies, posted
[URL]http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/07/2011780473138345.html[/URL] [QUOTE]More than 500,000 people have taken to the streets of Hama, according to activists, in what they say is the biggest protest yet against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government. Activists said eight people have been killed so far on Friday, including three in Maarat an-Numan, three in Homs and one in the Midan neighbourhood of the capital. Syrian state-run TV said the deaths in Damascus and Homs were caused by snipers from "armed gangs". An activist told Al Jazeera on Friday that Hama, where marchers were seen carrying olive branches, had become a "tangible example of resistance to injustice" in Syria. Hundreds of thousands also protested last Friday, prompting mass arrests and reports of several deaths when Syrian security forces subsequently moved into the city, Syria's third largest, and the surrounding area. "Hama with all the support it is receiving from all over the country is becoming a role model for peaceful demonstrations and we are protesting here for all of Syria," the local activist said. [B] Western solidarity[/B] Friday's protests followed a visit to Hama by Robert Ford, the US ambassador in Syria, who toured the city on Thursday to show solidarity with residents, the US State Department said. A US official said Ford left Hama on Friday afternoon so as not to be a distraction during the weekly demonstrations. Diplomats said on Friday that French ambassador Eric Chevallier was also in Hama to show support for the city. Damascus accused Washington of "interfering" in its affairs. "The presence of the US ambassador in Hama without previous permission is obvious proof of a clear evidence of the United States' involvement in current events in Syria and its attempt to incite an escalation in the situation, which disturbs Syria's security and stability," the Syrian foreign ministry said in a statement. In response, the US state department said: "The fundamental intention was to make absolutely clear with his physical presence that we stand with those Syrians who are expressing their right to speak for change." [B] Fleeing Hama[/B] About 1,000 people have fled Hama fearing another military crackdown on protests calling for Assad to quit and an end to the Baath Party's decades-long grip on power, a Syrian rights group has said. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the residents had headed for Salamiyah, a town 30km from Hama, on Thursday, after it said security forces killed at least 23 civilians there and conducted mass arrests since Tuesday. Ammar Qurabi, head of the National Organisation for Human Rights, said on Wednesday that an influx of troops following the massive Friday protest had brought a dramatic escalation of "killings and arrests in the city". But [I]Al-Watan[/I], a state-run newspaper, said on Thursday that the situation in Hama was calm and the barricades erected in the streets by protesters to keep security forces out had been dismantled. The newspaper said authorities had told demonstrators to avoid any confrontations and clear the streets so residents could go to work. They also told protesters to avoid a "last resort" military operation, the paper said. Hama has been a symbolic city of opposition since the 1982 crackdown on a revolt by the banned Muslim Brotherhood against then-president Hafez al-Assad, father of the current leader. [b]About 20,000 people are believed to have been killed in the crackdown.[/b] There has also been a security crackdown in the city of Hasrata just outside Damascus, the capital, where three people have been killed and nine injured, sources told Al Jazeera. Security forces surrounded the Hassan mosque on Thursday and fired at people coming out after prayers, the source said. [b]According to reports, police also fired tear gas into the local hospital.[/b] [/QUOTE] And again, the US, NATO and the UN will conveniently just sit by and watch the suffering in Syria.
[quote]Syrian state-run TV said the deaths in Damascus and Homs were caused by snipers from "armed gangs".[/quote] You know your country is fucked when gangs have access to sniper rifles, that is, of course, if it isn't bullshit and it was the military. [QUOTE=valkery;30991010]And again, the US, NATO and the UN will conveniently just sit by and watch the suffering in Syria.[/QUOTE] They're kinda busy with Libya right now.
[QUOTE] They're kinda busy with Libya right now.[/QUOTE] They only have priority on Libya because they have more oil, and they aren't that powerful. They (US,NATO and UN) are just ignoring Syria because there is nothing to be gained, and that is just wrong.
Yes, send in armies wherever there is any form of unrest what so ever. I agree entirely.
[QUOTE=valkery;30991127]They only have priority on Libya because they have more oil, and they aren't that powerful. They (US,NATO and UN) are just ignoring Syria because there is nothing to be gained, and that is just wrong.[/QUOTE] Or maybe because Syria hasn't started a civil war yet, they went into Libya to help the already existing rebel groups, there are no rebel groups to help in Syria. Besides Syria is right next to Israel, that's one reason to help them when the time comes.
[QUOTE=Collin665;30991165]Yes, send in armies wherever there is any form of unrest what so ever. I agree entirely.[/QUOTE] 500,000 people rioting is hardly a simple form of unrest. 20,000 people have died and you call that simply, "unrest"!? shame on you and your poor parents, they obviously have raised a callous and stupid child. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Autumn))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=valkery;30991127]They only have priority on Libya because they have more oil, and they aren't that powerful. They (US,NATO and UN) are just ignoring Syria because there is nothing to be gained, and that is just wrong.[/QUOTE] So you're in favor of sending troops to Syria, Egypt (still unrest), most African countries, more troops in the middle east, sending troops to america (Hey, you're also violating human rights with your bullshit bills and laws concerning women and gays) and the list goes on? If you say no to any of those, then explain WHY Syria is more important than the rest. They were in Libya first, There is an actual civil war going on in Libya. The Libyan leader as declared war on a member of NATO. Syria is a lower priority issue.
[QUOTE=valkery;30991206] shame on you and your poor parents, they obviously have raised [U][B]a callous and stupid child[/B][/U].[/QUOTE] Someone has a different opinion than me, thus is brought up wrong. :downs:
[QUOTE=Miskav;30991260]So you're in favor of sending troops to Syria, Egypt (still unrest), most African countries, more troops in the middle east, sending troops to america (Hey, you're also violating human rights with your bullshit bills and laws concerning women and gays) and the list goes on? If you say no to any of those, then explain WHY Syria is more important than the rest. They were in Libya first, There is an actual civil war going on in Libya. The Libyan leader as declared war on a member of NATO. Syria is a lower priority issue.[/QUOTE] At the moment, yes, Syria is a lower level issue. However, I hope it doesn't stay that way. There are too many atrocious things happening there for us to just turn a blind eye forever.
[QUOTE=valkery;30991206]500,000 people rioting is hardly a simple form of unrest. 20,000 people have died and you call that simply, "unrest"!? shame on you and your poor parents, they obviously have raised a callous and stupid child.[/QUOTE] I think he was trying to use sarcasm.
[QUOTE=gt118;30991325]Someone has a different opinion than me, thus is brought up wrong. :downs:[/QUOTE] Yup.:v:
[QUOTE=valkery;30991010][URL]http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/07/2011780473138345.html[/URL] And again, the US, NATO and the UN will conveniently just sit by and watch the suffering in Syria.[/QUOTE] We don't intervene, you complain. We intervene, you complain...
[QUOTE=valkery;30991127]They only have priority on Libya because they have more oil, and they aren't that powerful. They (US,NATO and UN) are just ignoring Syria because there is nothing to be gained, and that is just wrong.[/QUOTE] Because Bosnia and Serbia totally had oil. :downs:
[QUOTE=valkery;30991127]They only have priority on Libya because they have more oil, and they aren't that powerful. They (US,NATO and UN) are just ignoring Syria because there is nothing to be gained, and that is just wrong.[/QUOTE] They're "ignoring" them because if the Western countries seriously fuck up, like the rebels/protestors LOSING, Iran will see it as a reason to escalate their influence in Syria, or worse. Every time we intervene, something seems to go wrong.
[QUOTE=valkery;30991010]And again, the US, NATO and the UN will conveniently just sit by and watch the suffering in Syria.[/QUOTE] We need to stop being world police some time god damn
well we are already kinda busy cutting entitlements , preserving tax cuts for the rich, keeping oil subsidies for oil companies who are having record high profits, and plus we are busy in afganistan, Iraq, Libya,Pakistan,Germany,Korea,SE Asia.
NATO couldn't intervene if they wanted to, Russia and China won't even let them put UN sanctions on Syria because they think it will be the first step to intervention. They'd be told to fuck right off if they actually proposed intervention
10 bucks they will shoot them in a while
[QUOTE=valkery;30991127]They only have priority on Libya because they have more oil, and they aren't that powerful. They (US,NATO and UN) are just ignoring Syria because there is nothing to be gained, and that is just wrong.[/QUOTE] THIS! Syrian unrest begun earlier than Libyan one. Fucking imperialist America... I, personaly, will never justify invasion to the Greater Middle East by America, may it be Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, whatever. World police my ass, they were never there when help was needed and let me loose the past tense - they are not here as the help is needed. Jokers. Occupant pricks.
[QUOTE=valkery;30991206]500,000 people rioting is hardly a simple form of unrest. 20,000 people have died and you call that simply, "unrest"!? shame on you and your poor parents, they obviously have raised a callous and stupid child. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Autumn))[/highlight][/QUOTE] You're stupid. It is not the U.S.'s role or any other countries role for that matter to play WORLD POLICE. Guess what, playing world police costs money, lives and time.
[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;30996062]THIS! Syrian unrest begun earlier than Libyan one. Fucking imperialist America... I, personaly, will never justify invasion to the Greater Middle East by America, may it be Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, whatever. World police my ass, they were never there when help was needed and let me loose the past tense - they are not here as the help is needed. Jokers. Occupant pricks.[/QUOTE] Yeah because NATO intervention in Libya totally constitutes a "US Imperialist Invasion".
[QUOTE=valkery;30991206]500,000 people rioting is hardly a simple form of unrest. 20,000 people have died and you call that simply, "unrest"!? shame on you and your poor parents, they obviously have raised a callous and stupid child. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Autumn))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Nato can't do anything without some kind of rebel force, at the moment it's just protests meaning an attack on Syria could make matters even worse, think with your fucking head for once rather than your "oooooh the humanity" emotions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.