Just one week from today the Syrian Civil War is to fall silence. At least that is the hope.
UN special envoy Kofi Annan has set 6 AM on April 12 as the formal deadline for the ceasefire, two days after the April 10 deadline for the Assad regime to remove heavy ground forces from cities. With the deadline so close, the violence shows no sign of letting up, with both sides launching regular attacks on the other.
Government forces are still using their tanks in the area around the capital city, but reports say that they are slowly but surely removing them from major population centers elsewhere to comply with the letter of the agreement.
Not necessarily the spirit of the agreement, however, with neither side trusting the other to stop attacks when the time comes, Assad forces are said to be relying increasingly on helicopter gunships against rebel targets in the far north.
Western nations are jumping the gun on what they assume will be Assad’s failure to meet the deadline, with French FM Alain Juppe insisting that his government never considered Assad’s agreement trustworthy and US officials maintaining since last weekend that only regime change will do. Assad’s regime, meanwhile, insists it will abide by the requirements, but continues to doubt whether the rebels will.
The rebels have been oddly quiet on the matter in recent days, initially rejecting the idea of negotiations on general principle but since Annan’s latest push have simply let the West do the talking, with the underlying assumption that they will eventually find an excuse for international intervention.
Look people, as long as US – EU – NATO, countries, Saudis, UAE are involved in this there is not going to be peace no matter what Syrian government will do or have done, these regimes are after blood, they are testing the blood of Syrian people. If they wanted the peace, peace was offered to them both by Gaddafi government and Assad government long time ago, they are committed to bigger picture, that is the entire middle east to be militarized, that for the entire northern Africa to be militarized, that is for entire central Asia to be militarized, when is don then the world economy (Oil and other natural resource located in middle east and central Asia) would be dominated by the US and its tyrants, the EU and its puppets, in another word vulture capitalism is not going to build all that weaponry and killing machines for nothing, this is their livelihood, capitalism by not being able to charge a fee or an interests on you credit card, with not having a war or two this year or few more next year the system will collapse. Obama, Hillary, and the rest are working for that idea, they are working with that tyrants and others to create their supremacy. When it come to democracy, you can order it on line and you will get a written memoir by Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, thats where democracy ends.
What the hell do the Americans have any business complaining? What timetables have they not routinely failed to meet or rewrote?
As far as the US, NATO, and Arab dictators of Saudi and Qatari types are concerned, this is not going to happen. These crazies want war, and the terrorists are not bound by Kofi Annan’s words. A good guess has it that as soon as the Syrian security forces move out, the terrorists would move it. The Syrian government has again been outsmarted as China and Russia were with regards to Libya.
Anti-war doesn’t like it when I say it puts its own spin on the news. Why does it say “Assad regime” instead of Syrian government? Why use the same language as those of corporate media?
Assad regime, Assad forces, as if it’s a war between the terrorists and a person, not a nation or a country.
Nathan,
I can't speak for everyone at Antiwar.com on this, but I personally refer to ALL specific administrations as "regimes" — the Obama regime, the Karzai regime, the Nouri al-Maliki regime, etc.
"as if it’s a war between the terrorists and a person, not a nation or a country"
Well, it's a war, and that's about all that's clear.
Both sides claim popular support, and to what extent those claims are true or false on either side is hard to tell.
Both sides make various claims as to atrocities by the other, and all of those claims by both sides are almost certainly at least partially propaganda.
The opposition may very well be, or at least include, terrorists. The regime, by definition, is terrorist (as are all states).
FWIW, I agree with you that there is no good faith on the part of the US/UN/EU/NATO/Arab League interventionists.
No matter what Assad says or does, the attempt to overthrow him an impose a pro-US regime will continue. These "ceasefire" calls are designed to benefit the interventionists either way. If Assad doesn't agree, he's the asshole. If he does agree, his opponents will use the ceasefire time to improve their position before starting in again, all the while accusing him of breaking the truce whether he does or not.
But, once again, Antiwar.com doesn't have to pretend that Assad is anything but what he is — just another authoritarian murderer — in order to oppose intervention in Syria. You're not upset with us because we're biased. You're upset with us because our biases and yours aren't identical.
Thank you, Thomas, for admitting that you are biased. As you have indicated, I am also biased—in favor of fairness, justice, and peace.
You may see me criticizing the US and Anti-war, but please rest assured that I care about both. It’s like a father criticizing his offsprings.
I know that Assad is a dictator and should be replaced if Syrian people so desire. I also know that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the west are arming and sending terrorist groups to change the government there.
Anti-war quotes Yemeni sources that “100 Al-Qaeda are killed.” You should agree that if the US populations hear that 100 Al-Qaeda are killed, they would not, and perhaps should not, shed a tear, because, after all they were allegedly responsible for 9/11.
Here’s our difference: You think Anti-war hasn’t done anything wrong since it has quoted the source verbatim, right? Not really. I think by quoting them Anti-war is acting as a propaganda agent. Who counted exactly 100? Were they really all 100 Al-Qaeda? Etc. etc.
Nathan,
If you're referring to this article on the "100 al Qaeda killed" claim, then … well, just … wow. If you think that's an uncritical verbatim quote, then I think you're smoking crack.
Sorry Thokmas, I should've started by saying: In another article Anti-war quotes…..
However, the criticism is still valid. Don't you think so?
Nathan,
No, the criticism is not valid, for the simple reason that the article does exactly the opposite of what you say it does.
There must not be anyone left to kill.