Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows - Polidicks

[U][B][quote]Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows[/B][/U] [B]Western nations are pressing for a response to the massacre in the Syrian town of Houla, with the US calling for an end to President Bashar al-Assad's "rule by murder".[/B] UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council this week. The UN has confirmed the deaths of at least 90 people in Houla, including 32 children under the age of 10. Syria's foreign ministry denied army involvement, blaming "terrorists". Spokesman Jihad Makdissi said there was a clash in the area on Friday afternoon between security forces and armed terrorists. He said hundreds of armed men then gathered, armed with heavy weapons including mortars and anti-tank weapons, and attacked Houla. The government had sent a team to investigate the killings, he added. However, activists say the Syrian military bombarded Houla after demonstrations. Activists say some of the victims died by shelling, while others were summarily executed by the regime militia known as the "shabiha". [B]'Flagrant violation'[/B] The killings have sparked a chorus of international condemnation. Mr Hague said he would lobby Russia, the regime's only major foreign ally, where he is heading, during a visit to Moscow starting on Sunday. He wrote on his Twitter feed: "Will call on Russia to support rapid and unequivocal pressure on Assad regime and accountability for crimes." US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it an "appalling" massacre, saying President Bashar al-Assad's "rule by murder and fear must come to an end". In a statement on Saturday, Mrs Clinton called the deaths an "atrocity" and said Washington would increase pressure on "Assad and his cronies" to give up power. France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said he was making immediate arrangements for a Paris meeting of the Friends of Syria group. The group includes Western and Arab nations, but not Russia or China, which have blocked previous attempts to introduce UN sanctions. In a joint statement, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan said the attack was a "flagrant violation of international law". They said the crime involved "indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force" and violated commitments by Syria's government. In April, Damascus pledged to implement a six-point plan brokered by Mr Annan, including a ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weaponry from urban areas. Mr Annan is expected to visit Damascus on Monday to try to breathe life into the political process. But the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) said it could no longer commit to the ceasefire unless the Security Council could ensure that civilians were protected. In a statement, the FSA said that if urgent steps were not taken, then Mr Annan's plan was "going to hell". It said killings in Syria were taking place "under the eyes of the UN observers," and called on states to "announce the failure of the Annan plan". [B]'Deplorable'[/B] Violence in Syria has continued despite the deployment of some 260 UN observers sent to oversee a ceasefire. The head of the observer mission in Syria, Maj Gen Robert Mood, called the massacre a "brutal tragedy", but did not say who carried out the murders. After a UN visit to the town on Saturday, he said they could confirm "the use of small arms, machine gun, artillery and tanks". "Whoever started, whoever responded and whoever carried out this deplorable act of violence should be held responsible," Gen Mood said. The UN has confirmed the deaths of at least 90 people, but the opposition Syrian National Council, as well as rights groups, put the toll higher. Activists have complained that they called for help as the massacre was taking place. Abu Emad, speaking from Houla, said their appeals to UN monitors failed to produce action. "We told them at night, we called seven of them. We told them the massacre is being committed right now at Houla by the mercenaries of this regime and they just refused to come and stop the massacre," he said.[/quote] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18224559"]BBC[/URL]

Send coalition troops please Or bomb Al Assad.

As bad as its getting over there, I still firmly believe the UK shouldn't get involved in this one.

[QUOTE=dunkace;36098844]As bad as its getting over there, I still firmly believe the UK shouldn't get involved in this one.[/QUOTE] Why? Libya should have demonstrated that this stuff can be stopped without an invasion force

[QUOTE=smurfy;36098927]Why? Libya should have demonstrated that this stuff can be stopped without an invasion force[/QUOTE] It could help, however financially we just cant afford it anymore, not to mention our army is stretched as it is.

[QUOTE=dunkace;36098963]It could help, however financially we just cant afford it anymore, not to mention our army is stretched as it is.[/QUOTE] Bombs and jet fuel aren't all that expensive. Plus, spending a few million dollars to stop a massacre and get these people out from under Al asaad seems worth it to me.

Watch at your own fucking risk. Not for the light hearted. Watch with subtitles if you do, though. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jffUNQw8Fl8&skipcontrinter=1[/url]

[QUOTE=dunkace;36098963]It could help, however financially we just cant afford it anymore, not to mention our army is stretched as it is.[/QUOTE] But despite [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/25/libya-conflict-uk-defence-bill]reports[/url] that it could be as high as £1.75 billion, the cost to the UK of intervening in Libya turned out to be just £212 million, and this was all taken from the Treasury reserve so no new money was actually spent. £212 million sounds like a lot but I personally feel it was well worth it considering what it went towards I don't really see how our army is overstretched since it achieved its objectives in Libya and I for one am not advocating any more than what we did there. The often-cited lack of aircraft carriers was shown not to be an issue, as we just deployed from Italy instead and used HMS Ocean to launch attack helicopters. We're also beginning our withdrawal from Afghanistan this year with 500 troops due home by the end of the year so if anything we have more resources now than we did last year If we were to intervene it would almost certainly be as part of a coalition so any shortages we did face could be covered by our allies, such as France who are due to be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year, or the US who always have a ridiculous amount of spare resources due to their insane military budget

[QUOTE=Conspiracy;36099170]Watch at your own fucking risk. Not for the light hearted. Watch with subtitles if you do, though. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jffUNQw8Fl8&skipcontrinter=1[/url][/QUOTE] Would you mind putting that in URL though ? The preview image is already gigantic and is already showing some dead kids, no thanks.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36099250]Would you mind putting that in URL though ? The preview image is already gigantic and is already showing some dead kids, no thanks.[/QUOTE] Sure, done.

[QUOTE=dunkace;36098963]It could help, however financially we just cant afford it anymore, not to mention our army is stretched as it is.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, because finances and money are [B]FAR[/B] more important than human lives. This is the dumbest fucking excuse for not intervening. No matter how much money the UK loses, you guys will still have a good enough economy and far more shit than most of the world, the same can be said for all developed nations. We need to help those less fortunate than us, especially on a global scale.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36099326]Ah yes, because finances and money are [B]FAR[/B] more important than human lives. This is the dumbest fucking excuse for not intervening. No matter how much money the UK loses, you guys will still have a good enough economy and far more shit than most of the world, the same can be said for all developed nations. We need to help those less fortunate than us, especially on a global scale.[/QUOTE] It's a calculated risk though. If one western countries economy completely shits on itself as a result of rampant spending, there could potentially be much more suffering. I do support the syrian movement, but you dismissing concerns about economies collapsing is foolish.

U.s still has some nuclear bombs right? [editline]27th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dunkace;36098963]It could help, however financially we just cant afford it anymore, not to mention our army is stretched as it is.[/QUOTE] You value money more than the death of thousands?

[QUOTE=dunkace;36098963]It could help, however financially we just cant afford it anymore, not to mention our army is stretched as it is.[/QUOTE] National finances operate a little differently then personal finances, whoever intervenes won't be losing that much money at all. Besides, even if it did end up costing you millions of dollars, that's absolutely miniscule as far as Western economies go.

[QUOTE=The golden;36099728]Offering assistance in Libya did not collapse anyones economy by any stretch of the means.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Syria good friend with Israel ? If the US or pretty much anyone in the NATO attacked Syria, Israel would probably flip its shit and cause some big problems.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36100359]Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Syria good friend with Israel ? If the US or pretty much anyone in the NATO attacked Syria, Israel would probably flip its shit and cause some big problems.[/QUOTE] Pretty much the opposite. They've fought 4 major wars in the past 65 years and are constantly at each other's throats over the ownership of the Golan Heights, among other things.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36100359]Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Syria good friend with Israel ? If the US or pretty much anyone in the NATO attacked Syria, Israel would probably flip its shit and cause some big problems.[/QUOTE] I haven't heard anything about that, but I know they've been to war four times, the Syrian regime is supported by Iran, and Israel has been occupying Syrian territory in the Golan Heights for decades, so I can't imagine they're on particularly good terms

[QUOTE=smurfy;36100763]I haven't heard anything about that, but I know they've been to war four times, the Syrian regime is supported by Iran, and Israel has been occupying Syrian territory in the Golan Heights for decades, so I can't imagine they're on particularly good terms[/QUOTE] I always said that if Israel wants a good excuse to "Reclaim the Holy Land" then this is the perfect time to do it. They just don't because they think Iran actually has a military, which is stupid because on a technical level Iran and Syria's armies are both slightly better than the Russians in WWII. Besides, as paranoid as Israel is (especially with religious fervor possibly intermixed into the conflict) I'd still much rather see them ruling Syria than the current regime. Honestly, we have the money, the military, and a good excuse to intervene, but nobody fucking intervenes!

Can we fucking do something [B]PLEASE?[/B] I could give a shit about the money or the international response, DO SOMETHING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.