Funerals continued to be held across Syria for the hundred plus protesters killed during Friday’s protests. There were a few people killed in marches again on Sunday, but the focus appears to have shifted to dissidents.
Indeed, homes across metro Damascus were raided overnight and into Sunday morning, and opposition figures say that nationwide scores of political opponents were rounded up. Arrests were also reported in the southern city of Daraa.
Less than a week ago when Syria’s government announced the end to a half century of “emergency rule” leading protesters scoffed, saying the regime’s policies toward dissent would not change. Even this might have been overly optimistic, as the regime has now set up checkpoints across the capital and has killed protesters at a rate unheard of before the move. The situation, it seems, has gotten even worse.
In reaction protesters are calling for a general strike, and the demonstrations are likely to continue to escalate nationwide. Each Friday of violence has been met the following Friday by even bigger protests. After what is being called the Good Friday Massacre, the regime is likely to face an even greater backlash.
From the al-Jazeera article linked in the second paragraph: "It is unclear who was firing at whom, that's part of the confusion."
It should be rather obvious now, from the well known pattern of FedGov operations, that an unnamed "color" revolution is being implemented in Syria, with the added twist that the FedGov and likely also the Mossad have upped the pressure by embedding gunmen amongst the protesters with the objective of provoking the Syrian security forces into firing into the crowds.
The so-called "Arab Revolution" will, in time, be revealed as a bewildering pot of chaos brought about partially by long-term resentment over repressive regimes, on the one hand, and FedGov/Zionist manipulation (NATO, of course, is a pliable tool of the FedGov), on the other hand. The Arab populations, however, will not benefit from any of the upheaval, as they will have been used as pawns by the FedGov and its minions.
As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, "The Bush administration, in a secret policy review… [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons [The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review approved by the Senate in late 2002] against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–but also China, Libya and Syria. (See William Arkin, "Thinking the Unthinkable", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002)
In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as "surprising military developments" of an unspecified nature. These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker-busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8. (ibid)
The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO) –endorsed by the Obama Administration– allows for the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons in conventional war theaters directed against "rogue states". While the "guidelines" do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US /NATO nuclear arsenal, Pentagon "scenarios" in the Middle East and North Africa are currently limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker buster bomb.
The fact that Libya had been singled out by the Pentagon for a possible 1997 mini-nuke "trial run" was a significant element in the formulation of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
===============================================================
From– 'US To Recoup Libya Oil From China'
Interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&…
“
Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.
Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It's a greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don't know the answer.
Possibly the countries are thinking to let the Americans get further over- extended, or they may not have wanted to confront the US with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don't know the reasons,
Washington is trying to cripple its main rival, China, by denying China energy. That's what this is really about; a reaction by the US to China’s penetration of Africa.
In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.
If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn't be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it's civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.
Washington wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. Washington wants hegemony over the world. That's what the word hegemony means. And Washington will pursue it at all costs.