With just six days left until the “deadline” for a ceasefire, fighting was intense in Syria today. Reports from opposition factions claimed at least 54 people had been killed nationwide in the fighting.
Opposition factions claimed that most of the regime attacks targeted sites in Homs, while the Syrian state news agency reported that rebels had killed a number of civilians in Dir Baalba. Fighting between the two factions was reported in Idlib as well, with a number of combatants slain.
The Red Cross aid center in Homs was also set on fire early in the morning. No one was inside but a lot of humanitarian aid was destroyed. The Syrian government blamed an unnamed “terrorist group” for that attack, but no group has yet taken credit for it.
The ceasefire terms have Syria removing their troops from the cities by April 10, and rebels agreeing to a full ceasefire within 48 hours. Though reports do have some troops moving out of the cities, there has been no indication from the rebels that the attacks are going to stop.
com on guys, be real, this report is from a Kuwaiti news agency, they are part of UAE (United Arab Emirates) what do you expect that they will say, they are not going to admit that Syrian government is withdrawing the troops from where the terrorists are not attacking, looting, killing people. My question is this, where did this news paper get this, are they on the ground monitoring the entire matter or they are on the ground with “opposition” newsing the news, or they having some of those communication equipments that are sent to “opposition” by the US and thats how they get the news….?
“The Syrian government blamed an unnamed “terrorist group”
This shows the mark of a biased reporting. How can anyone blame an “unnamed” anything. The best way to report is: the Syrian government blamed a terrorist group (obviously because it didn’t know which terrorist group, hence they did not name). By adding the word “un-named” Anti-war attempts to make the Syrian announcement less credible. Nice try.
No everyone is fool to believe all your lies!
"This shows the mark of your biased reporting."
Did the Syrian government blame a "terrorist group?" Yes.
Did the Syrian government name the "terrorist group?" No.
The statement is exactly factual with no bias whatsoever.
It's your reading comprehension that's biased. Despite the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever that Antiwar.com supports US/UN/NATO intervention in Syria (for the simple and obvious reason that it doesn't), you have for some reason become obsessed with the idea that it does, and therefore read that meaning into anything and everything.
Ignorance can be cured. Willful rejection of reality, less easily so.
Thomas, I still believe the unbiased way to report is: the Syrian government blamed a terrorist group. And I believe your reader would agree with me.
The Syrian Government did not blame an un-named group as Anti-war has reported. They just blamed a group!
Thomas, it is unfair and a sign of defeat not to publish my response. It makes me feel I was danm right.
[Nathan, it would indeed be unfair and a sign of defeat not to publish your response. It’s also unfair of you not to register for an IntenseDebate account so I can just “whitelist” you instead of listening to you whine every time you post a comment and I’m off getting a sandwich and take more than five seconds to approve it – TLK]
Thomas, I still believe the unbiased way to report is: the Syrian government blamed a terrorist group. And I think your readers would agree with me.
The Syrian Government did not blame an “un-named” terrorist group as Anti-war has reported. They just blamed a terrorist group! You have added the “un-named.”
Nathan, if Antiwar.com had just reported that the Syrian government blamed a "terrorist group," it would have taken you about 30 seconds to ask "why didn't Antiwar.com NAME the terrorist group, huh? I know why — because Antiwar.com HATES PUPPIES."
If you don't like the complaints, you should report as your site name implies. This site has become nothing more than what Pepe calls War Porn and should change its name to War.com accordingly.
"In my imagination, this site has become nothing more than what Pepe calls War Porn"
There, fixed that for ya.
Well, you certainly "fixed" it for someone, but it wasn't for me; nor was it for clarity or honesty or for the sake of anti-war or anti-imperialism. So, what was the purpose of your puerility? Imagination says…..
There's a difference between being anti-war/anti-imperialist on the one hand, and cooking the news to make everyone else who claims to be anti-war/anti-imperialist feel good about themselves on the other.
Does Antiwar.com always get the facts right? No.
Do we always try to? Yes.
Will we continue to try to get the facts right, whether you're comfortable with those facts or not? Absolutely.
I like facts. What you need to do, especially if you work for a site called AntiWar, is to study just a bit about propaganda techniques so that you will at least know what the complaints are about. Or, if you do know and your motivation is more nefarious, don't expect those who are serious about the subject to not notice.
We're well aware of both intentional propaganda and mere competing narrative.
The question is whether your assertion that "this site has become nothing more than what Pepe calls War Porn and should change its name to War.com accordingly" is a blatant case of the former, or an extremely misinformed case of the latter.
How informed should I be about this site? Every day I go through all of your front page listing. It's a rare jewel to find anything that isn't just a rewrite from, or link to, the most notorious MSM warmongers. This site should be a resource for those who are serious anti-war, which obviously includes anti-imperialist, activist. It no longer is – to say the least.
Thomas, obviously if Syria knew which terrorist group, it would’ve named it, and hence no one would ask Anti-war for names.
Terrorist groups generally do not leave a signature unless they want to get some benefit or recognition.
Ironically the said report implicitly reveals that there are numerous terrorist groups working against Syrian people and government.
Thank you for inviting me to an IntenseDebate account. How do I join?
"Thomas, obviously if [the Assad regime] knew which terrorist group, it would’ve named it, and hence no one would ask Anti-war for names."
Why do you think that? Going back at least as far as Roman-occupied Judea, where the Romans referred to Jewish guerillas as "lestai" ("bandits") and "sicarii" ("dagger-men") rather than publicizing the name of their resistance group (the Zealots).
States usually only name organized enemies when they think doing so is more beneficial (as a tool of demonization) than harmful (by giving them publicity and allowing the public to identify with, and possibly join with, them). Otherwise state organs generally refer to opposition groups as common criminals or, lately, "terrorists."
"Terrorist groups generally do not leave a signature unless they want to get some benefit or recognition."
If the actors don't say "we did that — give us what we want or we'll do it again and more of it," they are by definition not terrorists. The whole point of terrorism is to create fear of your organization.
"Ironically the said report implicitly reveals that there are numerous terrorist groups working against Syrian people and government."
I don't doubt it. Nor do I doubt that the regime's report may have been released before the terrorist group claimed credit. But the fact remains that the regime report attributes the acts to unnamed terrorists. Reading bias into Antiwar.com reportage of that FACT is unwise.
"Thank you for inviting me to an IntenseDebate account. How do I join?"
Go to IntenseDebate.com, sign up, and sign in when you comment. The first time I see a comment from you in moderation, I'll "whitelist" that IntenseDebate account, after which you should never have to wait again for me to moderate stuff.
Thomas, Thank you, Moochas Gracias, merci, Shokran, mot-sha-kram & adios amigo.
.
Not sure what I did to rate that, but you're welcome!