Syria In Civil War, Says UN Official Herve Ladsous

Syria In Civil War, Says UN Official Herve Ladsous

www.bbc.co.uk

Syria is now in a state of civil war and the government has lost control of "large chunks" of cities, the UN's head of peacekeeping has told reporters.

It is the first time a UN official has formally voiced that view.

His comments came as UN monitors in Syria were fired on as they tried to reach the besieged town of Haffa.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia of supplying attack helicopters to the Syrian government.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now, I consider this to be breaking news due to it being the first time that the unrest has been referred to as "a civil war".

Well, no doubt it IS a civil war...but what is the major contributing factor in the terminology being readjusted to "civil war" as opposed to previously used terms such as; unrest, government troops clashing with protesters etc.?

I believe that this is the first step in the next stage of the ongoing, bloody saga in Syria.

Mark my words, from here on in media outlets will rapidly start adapting the "civil war" term in most, if not all news reports regarding this. War tends to cause more panic in people as opposed to alternate wording such as, unrest etc.

This, coupled with Clinton's accusations of Russia supplying attack helicopters would seem to be a heightened attempt at justifying a NATO/US/Western intervention in Syria.

Or perhaps, "the rebels" will be allowed to run their course until either side surrenders?

Regardless, i things are about to get a lot more interesting over there in terms of intervention and an increase in media coverage of "the war".

P.S Mods; I realise there is a similar thread in Middle East Issues forum, my justification of placing it here is that the media (based on UN officials statement) is now referring to the conflict as a Civil War and the ongoing conspiracy regarding foreign intervention.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

It might be new news to you ,but to us in the US it is old news www.abovetopsecret.com... not in tended to kill your thread, just that it is old news

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics
as you said "This, coupled with Clinton's accusations of Russia supplying attack helicopters would seem to be a heightened attempt at justifying a NATO/US/Western intervention in Syria." Now if they are operated by Russian forces and we do intervene would that be conceived as war with Russia? Turkey wants in as well.

Syrians point of view from the average westerner: "Save us from Assad please please!"

NATO: "We'll come save you once the rebels were backing kill enough of your people to influence public opinion"

Syrians: "Hurry! Please Assad is running rampant!"

NATO: "OK, looks like were done the first two steps. Problem, Reaction. Time for the solution. Start the airstrikes. After that we'll install our own regime that will be favourable to our interests"

Syrians: "This is worse then Assad!"

NATO: "Shuttup, Iran is next"

Even Henry Kissinger is not for military intervention

(MENAFN - Arab News) Henry Kissinger, who was US Secretary of State more than three decades ago and who is still one of the most influential men, opposed calls for military intervention against the Assad regime in Syria. However, he wrote in the Washington Post that military intervention to topple the regime would serve the US strategic interest aimed at besieging Iran.

back with the link, the above is from this link www.menafn.com...

reply to post by bekod


Kissinger the snake is still alive?? he should put in prison .

How can it be a civil war when the opposition to the government is not native to Syria?

Originally posted by bekod
It might be new news to you ,but to us in the US it is old news www.abovetopsecret.com... not in tended to kill your thread, just that it is old news

I'm not sure what me being in Australia has to do with it am if you read the OP I say that I'm aware of another thread.

P.S the U.S isn't in front of us...we're nearly a day ahead

Originally posted by bekod
Even Henry Kissinger is not for military intervention

That's wierd, saw an interview with Brzenski (spelling?) where he said the same thing.

It's not a civil war, and foreign intervention is a bad idea.

I think the older heads are cowardly enough to recognise a battle they cannot win. The younger leaders haven't worked it out yet.

It's not a civil war, and it's not a popular revolt. It's a foreign funded hostile takeover using terror tactics.

On the up side, these foreign mercenaries are about to have a bad day, Syria has changed tactics from defensive to offensive, with the FULL support of Russia and BRICS.