Toll rises as army storms Syrian towns

Toll rises as army storms Syrian towns

english.aljazeera.net

Syrian troops backed by tanks and heavy armour have stormed the southern town of Deraa and also Douma, a suburb of the capital Damascus, resulting in many deaths and dozens of arrests.

Security forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad, the country's president, have also continued a crackdown in the coastal town of Jableh for a second day.

An activist said late on Monday that 18 people had been killed in Deraa alone.

However, the government insists the army was invited in to rid the town of gunmen.

Al Jazeera's Rula Amin, reporting from Damascus, said the troop deployment was an "unpreced

(visit the link for the full news article)

I apologise if this has been previously posted. A search has yielded no results thus far.
I know a few here on ATS are concerned with the current instability in the Middle East and are specifically worried about Syria. There are reports that many have been killed as the government has sent in the military. The government itself insists that they were invited to do so in order to flush out the gunmen. I myself am worried if we could see another Western/U/S led intervention specifically one led by the U.S.

english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

Thank you, something that has gotten relative media attention, but not nearly as much media discussion in the west. I can only see escalation.

Thanks for posting this, S&F
I hope the opposition can weather these attacks. From what I've heard (could be biased, I'm sure), the Syrian government's volence is uncalled for. I hope peace returns, one way or another

Flagged.

This is the first I've seen about the situation in Syria.

Maybe Bashar is correct in his opinion of a western conspiracy...

the boogeyman aka Osama is back and his 100 man army is strong (according to CNN)...

Saudi Royal Family is with their buddies for a wedding...honeymoon, then war in the middle east

I don't understand why people think we shouldn't try to sway other country's going through turmoil to a way which is advantageous to us.

History shows many many cases of had we intervened a little earlier we could have prevented huge problems later. It's posts like these where you want America to bury her head in the sand and hope for the best that upset me.

Had we not had that attitude in the 30's ww2 may have been prevented. Had we actually had the balls to send troops to dien bien phu and helped the french we may have prevented Vietnam.

Isolationism is a failed policy and that's proven over and over again.

reply to post by kro32


That is both a bold and absurd statement. How can I say that? Becuase isolationism worked fine before the U.S went to war with the Spanish and intervened in Cuba. Intervensionism or in other words imperialism has been proven through history to be detremental to a nations success. The more you intervene the more you get drawn in to interven elsewhere. Ever since the U.S annexed Hawaii by overthrowing the popular constitutional monarchy, for the corporations running the sugar plantations America has been intervening in other nations affairs in order to protect there national/ there corporations interests. If America had never sold weapons to Germany in WW1 then the first World War wouldn't have been so destructive and that would mean that there would be no cause for a secound World War. If America didn't leave every country they intervened in or overtly/covertly overthrew regimes in those countries then wouldn't be stuck in such turmoil. If America sincerly feel they have to intervene then they should apply a Marshal Plan like they did in Germany and Japan. Of course they don't need to since there no longer is the Soviet threat. Intervensionism in a society run by corporations and the industrial military complex fails.