The tiny village of Ma’an is of no small strategic import in Syria, and is the latest focus of rebel fighters trying to cut off government supply lines. The latest sacking of the village has taken a heavy toll on the Alawite locals.
The latest estimates are at least 40 locals have been killed by the rebels, with roughly half of them deemed “fighters” for taking up arms when the rebels tried to enter their homes, and the other half simply women and children killed as part of the ongoing sectarian blood-letting.
Members of Syria’s Alawite minority are everywhere and always at risk of attack from rebels, since the religious sect is the same one President Bashar Assad belongs to. The value of Ma’an, which lies along the nation’s main north-south highway, means locals are at even greater risk.
If Sunni Islamist rebels retain the village is the long run, it can be expected that they will eventually depopulate the village one way or another, as they have considered Alawites presumptive Assad government loyalists.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Taliban Kills Dozens of Afghan Forces in Attacks on Checkpoints - October 14th, 2018
- Bombing Kills 22 at Afghanistan Election Rally - October 14th, 2018
- Israel to Expand Settlement in Hebron, First Time in 16 Years - October 14th, 2018
- Syria's Al-Qaeda Will Accept Idlib Deal - October 14th, 2018
- South Korea President: North Korea Leader Sincere, Should Be Rewarded - October 14th, 2018
"women and children killed as part of the ongoing sectarian blood-letting"
Misleading news again by Jason, it should read: "women and children killed as part of ETHNIC CLEANSING by Saudis mercenaries". Although Jason is trying hard not to take any side as his favorite side, question is what is different between him, an antiwar "journalist" if you can call him that, giving out such news, when it comes to Syrian imposed war by the western government the Saudis-Qatari, the Turkish government, the BBC or ABC or for that matter Fox News or CNN also trying hard not to side with any side and they are not even antiwar activist by any means.
Would Mr. Ditz be kind enough to explain to me why he and almost all others in the media, continue to refer to the fighters in Syria, as "Rebels"? It's infuriating to continue to read that, when, under any definition one would care to use, they are no more than thugs and paid mercenaries:: In other words, terrorists! Yet, the real freedom fighters in Palestine and Lebanon, are often referred to as "terrorists" when they are in fact, defending their lands from the real and obscene terrorist illegal country of "Israel"
What part of thugs and paid terrorists in Syria don't you quite understand Mr. Ditz?
"rebel, n. 2 a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority"
It is quite possible to be a thug, paid mercenary, terrorist, etc. AND a rebel.
It is obvious that at least some, and perhaps most, of the rebels in Syria are thugs and/or paid mercenaries, and/or terrorists. They are all, however, rebels.
Thomas: you are, as usual talking BS. Rebels have idea/s or are connected to a political ideology, terrorism have no idea nor presenting anything but what they are told that is the truth, thugs are murderous so as mercenaries whom are the saudis barbarians in Syria or hired by Adolph Prince whom modernized the version in being a mercenary in Iraq, whom killed innocent people there and elsewhere.
I understand that you are (perhaps) a very good friend of Jason but that doesn’t mean that you are right nor your friends at antiwar.com
I wouldn't know Jason if I ran into him on the street. We've never met, and we've only corresponded as to technical work matters. I'm sure he's a great guy, but my defense of his use of the word "rebel" is based on the facts, not on friendship.
Rebels are people trying to overthrow established governments.
You don't have to like the meaning of the word. It's the meaning of the word whether you like it or not.