Syrian rebels blockade village- won't let medicine and food in

So in this Syrian civil war it seems that Westerners tend to sympathize with the rebels. But maybe the rebels aren't really any better than Assad.

recently a force of Syrian rebels blockaded, Rableh, a mostly Christian village in Syria. The Rebels blocked shipments of food and medicine and even used snipers to kill three men who were searching for food. However the rebels did allow a group called Mussalaha (the goal of the group is to bring about reconciliation between both sides of the conflict) to bring in some humanitarian aid.

Syrian forces eventually managed to free the village from the blockade, but they did accidentally damage part of an ancient Christian monastery with a bomb dropped from a helicopter (luckily the bomb didn't kill anyone).

Here is a video that contains a news brief talking about the blockade (the brief about the blockade appears about 1 minute and 40 seconds into the video).

I'm starting to think no one will ever learn over there.

Everyone in those countries seem stupid. When I say everyone I mean the MEN ARE STUPID IN THE MIDDLE EAST. For the most part. Don't know never been there.

IDK....

It seems kinda vague to me. Have the rebels made any announcements?

That's terrible.

Also the video I linked to points out that the Syrian violence has spilled over into Northern Lebanon, yet despite the violence, Pope Benedict XVI has not cancelled his visit to Lebanon, although he is mostly visited Southern Lebanon.

IDK....

It seems kinda vague to me. Have the rebels made any announcements?

MlauTheDaft

I'm starting to think no one will ever learn over there.

Everyone in those countries seem stupid. When I say everyone I mean the MEN ARE STUPID IN THE MIDDLE EAST. For the most part. Don't know never been there.

lo_Pine

And this is why the West shouldn't be so quick to jump to the rebels' side.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

This thread sure made you jump to conlusions quickly, though ;)

It's always been naive to consider the rebels white knights, that does'nt mean Assad is'nt a psychotic monster.

Edit:

It's always a clusterf*ck when the people takes justice into their it's own hands.

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]And this is why the West shouldn't be so quick to jump to the rebels' side.MlauTheDaft

This thread sure made you jump to conlusions quickly, though ;)

It's always been naive to consider the rebels white knights, that does'nt mean Assad is'nt a psychotic monster.

Well, considering that Assad's brutal/despotic regime (Dictatorship) has killed over 20,000 civilians and displaced 10s of thousands more, I wouldn't necessarily equate the rebels to the Syrian army...

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]And this is why the West shouldn't be so quick to jump to the rebels' side.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

This thread sure made you jump to conlusions quickly, though ;)

It's always been naive to consider the rebels white knights, that does'nt mean Assad is'nt a psychotic monster.

So you consider Assad righteous? Because that's what I got from your first post.

The man does have thousands of lives on his conscience and no tolerance for disobedience.

And this is why the West shouldn't be so quick to jump to the rebels' side.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

The thing I would say that the West should avoid doing is arming the rebels, since we have no idea if those arms will fall into bad hands (kind of like how U.S. and Arab governments armed Jihadis during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and much of those weapons ended up in the hands of terrorists or on the black market). I would rather have Western intevention that focuses on keeping foreign (namely Iranian) weapons out of Syria, and perhaps use Western warships to patrol Syria's sea in order to prevent Syrian gunboats from firing on civilian areas, we could also use SAMs to shoot down Syrian planes and copters that fire on civilians.

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"][QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

This thread sure made you jump to conlusions quickly, though ;)

It's always been naive to consider the rebels white knights, that does'nt mean Assad is'nt a psychotic monster.

MlauTheDaft

So you consider Assad righteous? Because that's what I got from your first post.

The man does have thousands of lives on his conscience and no tolerance for disobedience.

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"][QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

This thread sure made you jump to conlusions quickly, though ;)

It's always been naive to consider the rebels white knights, that does'nt mean Assad is'nt a psychotic monster.

MlauTheDaft

So you consider Assad righteous? Because that's what I got from your first post.

The man does have thousands of lives on his conscience and no tolerance for disobedience.

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"] I've been following the conflict since it first started. This wasn't the first instance I've seen where the rebels are just as guilty of doing inhumane things as Al-Assad's regime.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

So you consider Assad righteous? Because that's what I got from your first post.

The man does have thousands of lives on his conscience and no tolerance for disobedience.

I suppose it was just your wording.

I have no glorified sympathy for the rebels but as of right now, Assad is by far the greater evil.

not surprised and i still support the rebels,this is middle east where our best bet is to choose the bad over the worse.

not surprised and i still support the rebels,this is middle east where our best bet is to choose the bad over the worse.

VaguelyTagged

[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]

This thread sure made you jump to conlusions quickly, though ;)

It's always been naive to consider the rebels white knights, that does'nt mean Assad is'nt a psychotic monster.

Edit:

It's always a clusterf*ck when the people takes justice into their it's own hands.

MlauTheDaft

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

I'm starting to think no one will ever learn over there.

Everyone in those countries seem stupid. When I say everyone I mean the MEN ARE STUPID IN THE MIDDLE EAST. For the most part. Don't know never been there.

Nayef_shroof

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

not surprised and i still support the rebels,this is middle east where our best bet is to choose the bad over the worse.

sSubZerOo

Any sources other than RT and Vaitcan news?

It very well could be true, but still....

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

not surprised and i still support the rebels,this is middle east where our best bet is to choose the bad over the worse.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] .. If history has anything to say about it, its not to choose either side.. And to hold both at arms distance away.. The fact of the matter is the West does not need to support one side or the other, they can be neutral and give humanitarian aid to the people who need it.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] This is probably the best thing to do. As well as keep foreign weaponry from reaching either side. Also we could use armed predator drones to monitor the situation, and if need be, to fire on those who attack civilians.BossPerson

And no my point is this, inless its something truly horrific, such as mass scale genocide.. Then there are plenty of people to be helping in the world before we even think about places like Syria.. The only reason why Syria is getting coverage is because of its political importance..

not sure if true, but if it is, Im not sure why people are so shocked, this is a war.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yeah.. No.. That is a violation of sovereignty the United States has no right to violate, unless the UN rules otherwise.. Which they won't.. If we are really concerned about people suffering, we got hundreds of millions of those.. Hell we don't even need to go that far, Haiti has yet to recover from the hurricane.. sSubZerOo

And no my point is this, inless its something truly horrific, such as mass scale genocide.. Then there are plenty of people to be helping in the world before we even think about places like Syria.. The only reason why Syria is getting coverage is because of its political importance..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]...violation of sovereignty...basically let whatever a mad man wants to do because it's within his borders... Werent you in another thread saying that Clinton made a mistake not intervening in Rwanda?whipassmt

And no my point is this, inless its something truly horrific, such as mass scale genocide.. Then there are plenty of people to be helping in the world before we even think about places like Syria.. The only reason why Syria is getting coverage is because of its political importance..

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yep the difference is this.. The UN agreed to help they passed a ruling.. The problem? No security council member wanted to lift a finger in sending any kind of real forces to prevent it from happening.. Furthermore Syria has not gotten to the genocide levels of places like Darfur or Rwanda in which warlords unrecognized by the UN were committing the said acts.,,

And no my point is this, inless its something truly horrific, such as mass scale genocide.. Then there are plenty of people to be helping in the world before we even think about places like Syria.. The only reason why Syria is getting coverage is because of its political importance..

sSubZerOo

Any sources other than RT and Vaitcan news?

It very well could be true, but still....

BossPerson

But what's wrong with the sources? I don't think Fox or CNN would be "better".

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] I don't understand why you place so much importance on the UN. A government killing innocent people is killing innocent people, regardless of the UN's position on the matter.

whipassmt

Believe it or not, USA can't simply act as it pleases.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] I don't understand why you place so much importance on the UN. A government killing innocent people is killing innocent people, regardless of the UN's position on the matter.

whipassmt

Oh no, but how will I be able to maintain my stereotypical good/evil view on the matter?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Perhaps because the United States has a history of supporting said governments that kill their own people? Just a thought.MlauTheDaft

Believe it or not, USA can't simply act as it pleases.

Some of the rebels are a little sketchy. I saw some footage of them lining up and executing about 30 people. Supposedly those people worked or fought for Assad, but that's still not right to just shoot them in cold blood. Wars do have a tendency to lead to bad things like that, though.

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Which has what to do with the UN?

whipassmt

Believe it or not, USA can't simply act as it pleases.

I'm aware of that, it was you who needed correction.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

Believe it or not, USA can't simply act as it pleases.

MlauTheDaft

I'm aware of that, it was you who needed correction.

I'm at the point where I just don't really care anymore. The US isn't going to intervene given Russian and Chinese influence. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yeah.. No.. That is a violation of sovereignty the United States has no right to violate, unless the UN rules otherwise.. Which they won't.. If we are really concerned about people suffering, we got hundreds of millions of those.. Hell we don't even need to go that far, Haiti has yet to recover from the hurricane.. sSubZerOo

And no my point is this, inless its something truly horrific, such as mass scale genocide.. Then there are plenty of people to be helping in the world before we even think about places like Syria.. The only reason why Syria is getting coverage is because of its political importance..

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I'm at the point where I just don't really care anymore. The US isn't going to intervene given Russian and Chinese influence. sonicare

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I'm at the point where I just don't really care anymore. The US isn't going to intervene given Russian and Chinese influence. sonicare

???sonicare

You should've just read the first two pages of the thread ;)

It was because of this:

I don't understand why you place so much importance on the UN. A government killing innocent people is killing innocent people, regardless of the UN's position on the matter.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]...violation of sovereignty...basically let whatever a mad man wants to do because it's within his borders... Werent you in another thread saying that Clinton made a mistake not intervening in Rwanda?whipassmt

And no my point is this, inless its something truly horrific, such as mass scale genocide.. Then there are plenty of people to be helping in the world before we even think about places like Syria.. The only reason why Syria is getting coverage is because of its political importance..

Assad still needs to go. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]...violation of sovereignty...basically let whatever a mad man wants to do because it's within his borders... Werent you in another thread saying that Clinton made a mistake not intervening in Rwanda?whipassmt

And no my point is this, inless its something truly horrific, such as mass scale genocide.. Then there are plenty of people to be helping in the world before we even think about places like Syria.. The only reason why Syria is getting coverage is because of its political importance..

They did send troops, literally around 45 of them.. When they came under attack they were instantly pulled out.. And a time table was set fourth, the thing was that it had a kill switch that basically allowed the entire security council to pretty much ignore it.. Thats why it pisses me off and makes me roll my eyes when ever I hear that so and so, be it the United States.. Or west in general.. Is doing this mainly for humanitarian reasons.. Bullsh!t.. Darfur literally recieved minimal media coverage compared to places like Libya because of its political importance..

Assad's regime has commited far worse then anything the rebels have

Al-Assad? Khaled Al-Assad?

CoD 4 is predicting the future! :o