STOP THE KILLING
The wonder about the killing lead to a bigger question, are both sides killer? Are both side became criminals under the umbrella of their own justification?
A MESSAGE TO BOTH SIDES: STOP THE KILLING, STOP THE DESTRUCTIONS.
The first impression after listening to discussion between Syrian's, we notice the emotional anger and the build up of disrespect to each other point of view. May be it's time to look for a better tomorrow, better solutions, better discussion, more understandings, more respect to each others. Syria Tomorrow as an independent voice, invite every one to try, to start somewhere to agree on and build up from there. We believe that will be the first step toward democracy and changes to meet all people demands and stop these massacres in our home, stop the destructions, and stop the animosity.
Many argues how can we start talking after all of this bloodshed? the answer is simple, no matter what, we have and we can stop more bloodshed, more killings. We need to show the world how we are as Syrian can change the world to a better place, better people, better government, better country. The path we are going through is the beginning of destroying it all, at that time we will have no people, no government and no country. Its time for all of us to work together for a better tomorrow, and start the healing process.
The 3rd Party:
We need to start, join our move.
Tell us what you think
Lets call on every honest Syrian, Arabic, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish, to think for a second about stopping this crime in Syria, lets forget what is happening and let our children build their own future, far from all of us a failed generation.
Lets start the new path, new blood stream in our veins, new ideas and new leaders.
The solution is not Assad any more or his group, because the credibility is lost, but also is not any one of what they called themselves the Syrian Counsil, or Muslim Brothers, or any fraction was part of the bloody end we see now in Syria, for one reason they are as guilty killing our kids as all of the Assad's army.
Some will consider what I am saying crazy, how dare I compare the Assad regime to the freedom fighters. I answer them in one sentence when you kill your muslim brother for whatever reason you are criminal like any one else, and you can find the reason to kill more in the future.
So I call on all of you as intellegent people to find another solution, we need to rasie our voice and say NO to Assad and NO to the freedom army, NO to the Syrian Councile, and NO the Mulims Brother Hood organization. No to weapons, NO to killing, NO to destruction, and finally NO to all of them
The crisis in Syria has reached what appears to be a decisive stage, after key members of the regime were killed in a blast in Damascus.
Four senior members of the Bashar al-Assad's inner circle have been killed in a bomb attack on the national security building in Damascus, in what amounts to a grave crisis for the ruling regime. The blast killed defence minister Dawoud Rajha and his deputy Assef Shawkat - Assad's brother-in-law. Also killer were the interior minister Mohammad Shaar and the assistant vice president, Hassan Turkmani. The blast occurred during a meeting of cabinet ministers and security officials, according to state TV.
Two groups have claimed responsibility for the explosions. Liwa al-Islam, an Islamist rebel group whose name means "The Brigade of Islam", said on its Facebook page that it "targeted the cell called the crisis control room in the capital of Damascus." The Free Syrian Army also claimed responsibility for the attack, according to spokesman Qassim Saadedine. "This is the volcano we talked about, we have just started," he said. Security sources have blamed the attack on a bodyguard for the regime's inner circle, according to Reuters.
Syria crisis: three members of Assad inner circle killed in Damascus
Defense minister and Assad's brother-in-law killed
Stop The Killing:
A young women message to all Syrian: Rime Dali
Last month in Damascus, one young woman stood alone in the middle of a busy street outside parliament. Her banner, as big as her, declared "Stop the Killing."
Passers-by stopped to applaud her message. The authorities detained her.
But this lone act of bravery by "the woman in the red dress" was captured on video and became something much bigger. Others copied her burst of defiance.
"It started as a personal scream of anger but it spread widely," reflected the strikingly soft-voiced Rime Dali.
"It even gathered people who support the regime because we all want to stop the killing, and build a Syria for all Syrians."
May be this young lady will be an example for our civil and peaceful call to end all killing, a message Syria Tomorrow support and believe in. We applaud you Rime because you are sending a message to all of us and hope we are listening.
How are you Ya Arab?
Syria is destroyed!
Are you happy?
The funny part in the Arab Spring is not the right of the people to be free from all dictators and to have a society give them their equal rights and opportunities. The most funny is how the dictators think about themselves as a human right supporters.
Look into the above picture and you will see all Arab dictators standing and supporting each other, and suddenly they became enemies and willing to destroy each other country under the umbrella of democracy and human right while their own countries lack the minimum of freedom. That is an insult to the Arab people intelligence.
We are wondering what is behind it? trying to understand it. The value of freedom is not a game we play with each other and use our money to have control under the umbrella of differences in ideology or religion, its a reserved right will and should spread all over, and at that time people will see how every one is a dictator in his own country. We need to look around and notice how is democracy is not something we buy, but something we believe in, support and implement.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia became the symbol of Arab democracy, and the question are we really on the right path. We have to say to ourselves and toll Arab, shame on us, shame on the principle when it's selected based on the needs.
It's time to weak up Ya Arab.
Bashar al-Assad, argues his violence is driven because of the other side are invaders and killers. Time Mr Assad to accept the fact that people look at you the same way, when you argue no logics, still living in the dream world, thinking that all of this will disappear soon.
You keep talking about the surgeon bloody hands is part of the treatment to save the patients life, but the surgeon bloody hands if its from killing some one to transplant his heart to some one else without his approval or consent, make that surgeon unethical and a killer. Its not life saving any more, its becoming a massacres has to be stopped Mr. President.
The inner cycle of your leadership were killed, including your brother in law, may be time to realize that the cost of being in power making things worse, leading to more killing and destruction. Some time we have to give up on stubbornness and believes of conviction when by doing something else, even if we do not believe it to save people, save Syria, instead of all what we doing now is making Syria a desert will take hundreds of years to build up again.
Mr. Assad: What you are doing now is giving all the reasons to continue the war and destructions, destroying our military, our economy, our respect to ourselves, our believe in humanity, and finally our country. Save us if you have any love to Syria, time to allow your heart, your honesty, your intelligence to come up with reasoning and logics to end this.
Said all of that, we call on the other side to do the same and stop this killing for the sake of power, its not a democracy any more what they are asking for, its the power of control, and may be with same logic we are asking Assad to use, ask them to stop, and allow the survival of Syria, before all we become no one and our country will be in the history book only.
Mr. Assad: It's time to think about Syria. Time to save Syria.
Simon Jenkins. The Guardians - July, 2012
A year ago the Syrian regime was "on the brink of collapse". Following the Houla massacre in May, President Assad was "on his way out". Now his opponents have reached the streets of Damascus and Aleppo, and it is "the beginning of the end for Assad". To Britain he is "unacceptable", to America brutal and bloodthirsty, to the United Nations the architect of "civil war". The language of international affairs seems unable to handle the morass of horror, damnation, reporting bias and wish fulfilment that overwhelms these half-understood conflicts. The task of analysis always falls to the great god cliche.
Lovers of Syria hope that its people can escape their present agony. Surrounded by torment in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel-Palestine, Damascus has seemed a haven of relative stability and tolerance. It has taken 2 million refugees from Iraq's ongoing war, including virtually all its Christians. But hoping is rarely enough. For a quarter of a century the west's political instinct has been to crave action. Taxpayers who have spent billions on armies cannot see why they must sit and watch death and destruction on television when they believe they have the means to stop it.
Some Syrian opposition groups clearly think the same. They saw brave insurgents with noble causes suck western troops into regime change in Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Arab spring failed to topple the Assad regime which, for all its faults, many Syrians still regarded as a guardian of stability. Could outsiders not do for Syrian insurgents what they did for Gaddafi's opponents in Libya?
The answer has been no. America and Nato are exhausted by ill-judged and expensive interventions in the Muslim theatre, even where they have succeeded in toppling rulers. The most valid revolutions have proved to be home-grown and home-won, as in Tunisia and Egypt. A foreign footprint on Syrian soil would weaken the legitimacy of whoever or whatever follows Assad. New rulers seem stronger if they gain power through a resolution of internal forces rather than with the overt aid of a foreign power.
That is plain. What is less so is how a west sated on interventionism can calibrate its response to these crises. How should it respond to Yemen, Mali or Congo, or sooner or later to events in the Gulf? Western diplomacy seems to know no middle ground between war and the vacuity of sanctions and Kipling's "killing Kruger with your mouth".
After Somalia, the UN formulated a "duty to protect" the victims of authoritarian rule, apparently anywhere on Earth. Formulating concepts proved easier than implementing them. Dickens noted how Britons were keener to pontificate on evils far from home than to grapple with those on their own doorstep. But at least in the days of empire, the motives for Mrs Jellaby's "telescopic philanthropy" were blatant.
Motives are now confused. Tony Blair's apologists equated fighting Saddam Hussein with confronting Hitler. Occupying his country was variously humanitarian, defensive, nation-building and democracy-enforcing. Afghanistan was a punitive expedition, then vital for national security, then rescuing a poor country from poverty, then finally keeping out the Taliban (whom the west had originally helped install). Politicians seem to crave war and leave others to find reasons. Hence Gordon Brown's nonsense that British troops were dying in Helmand "for the safety of Britain's streets", as if soldiers were speed bumps.
Until the end of the cold war, intervention in the internal affairs of foreign states was mostly humanitarian. Aid agencies in the 1990s debated at length the political origins of poverty, famine and enforced migration. Thus the civilian relief of Ethiopian famine in the 1980s morphed into militarised relief in Somalia and former Yugoslavia. The occupation of Baghdad in 2003 was declared to be humanitarian but soon became political and military. By the time of the Burma hurricane of 2008, aid was tainted with politics and was refused, yet the west declined the chance to invade and topple a military dictatorship and install democracy.
Over the past decade military intervention expanded its remit far beyond national interest or humanitarian relief, beyond even "a duty to protect". It became an assumed duty to take up arms against any dictator, in favour of any insurgency that could muster an international lobby. The regimes duly installed in Sarajevo, Pristina, Baghdad, Kabul and Tripoli may be "better" than those they succeeded. Whether they are so much better as to justify the cost is moot. Nor do these global policemen have anything to say to the wretched peoples of Africa, whom they refuse to help. Why do they walk down one (usually oil-rich) street and not another?.
The boundaries have been lost between intervention to relieve suffering, to promote democracy and to aid "national security" back home. US Republican candidates have demanded military intervention in Iran "to make Americans safe". The reason for intervening to topple a regime in Libya but not in Egypt or Syria was opportunistic; claiming liberation in Burma as a "success" for 16 years of sanctions was absurd. It emerged, as did the end of apartheid in South Africa, from the internal dynamic of the ruling class. As for 10 years of campaigning in Afghanistan, it led this week to the British army pleading with the prime minister not to withdraw or it would lose its mission.
The west appears to be executing a U-turn towards non-intervention. This is welcome. But the language of engagement with foreign states must follow suit. There is no point in politicians frothing at the mouth over every misdeed of a foreign power if they have no intention of doing anything about it. Economic sanctions – coward's aggression – besiege, isolate and entrench a ruler, and probably delay the political evolution by which all regimes eventually fall. Apart from making imposing nations feel good, their most common feature is the longevity of their victims. Witness Cuba, Libya, Iran, Burma and North Korea.
We have to find a way of reacting to the horrors that take place in foreign countries with an engagement that has meaning short of war. We must aid fellow human beings in so far as we can, but without dictating their form of government or adding to their miseries by abetting civil war. The political evolution of Burma and Egypt this year is good news because it has been autonomous. We fervently hope the same is soon true of Syria
This language of war won't help Syria escape its agony
In reacting to foreign conflicts, the west has to find a way of engaging that has meaning but stops short of bloodshed