Syrian crisis: World waits to see if the U.S. will strike

[earlyriser]

Really interesting article from the Washington post which gives a great (and concise) guide to the background on the current situation, and why the use of chemical weapons will finally provoke a reaction.

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...sk/?tid=pm_pop

That's a great article. The most important thing to realise with conflicts like this in the Middle East is contained in the first section's brief description of Syria. It mentions the borders that were drawn up by the Europeans, effectively forcing all these tribes and religious denominations with wildly opposing views to live together under one ruling party (or dictator) and much of the time oppression results. This is why Western governments prefer secularist dictators like your Mubaraks and Assads. They keep everyone in line. The world is changing though and the West will have to accept that the people of the Arab world have to choose and overthrow their own leaders.

[rimmerguy]

With relation to the Washington Post article , does anyone not think it's a little biased and tends to lead you into the opinion that Syria needs it's ass kicked ? A story written by a very patriotic American perhaps . Where's this proof that Assad used these weapons ?

[earlyriser]

With relation to the Washington Post article , does anyone not think it's a little biased and tends to lead you into the opinion that Syria needs it's ass kicked ? A story written by a very patriotic American perhaps . Where's this proof that Assad used these weapons ?

There is apparent evidence that sarin gas was used - blood and hair test samples reportedly show this. The deployment of the chemical is still being investigated.

As for the article, well one thing I got from it was a sense that the fighting will last a considerably long time and there's not much we can do about it.

[rimmerguy]

I have no doubt that chemical weapons were used . However there is no conclusive proof who did it . All the news coverage is telling you Assad did it . If you are told something time and time again , you will believe it , and you will be less open to hearing the other side of the story . There is always another side to every story , but we do not hear this . Because then if we were told this other side , we may actually think that this is one big set up , and Assad didn't decide to one day murder his own people .

[earlyriser]

I have no doubt that chemical weapons were used . However there is no conclusive proof who did it . All the news coverage is telling you Assad did it . If you are told something time and time again , you will believe it , and you will be less open to hearing the other side of the story . There is always another side to every story , but we do not hear this . Because then if we were told this other side , we may actually think that this is one big set up , and Assad didn't decide to one day murder his own people .

Assad has been killing his own people for 2 years.

There is no conclusive proof who carried out the attack. At least not yet. The likeliest culprit is the Assad regime, simply because they have the means to do it, so naturally the media will point the finger of blame at them. The era of 24 hour news has little room for the patience of investigative journalism.

[earlyriser]

Assad has been killing his own people for 2 years.

There is no conclusive proof who carried out the attack. At least not yet. The likeliest culprit is the Assad regime, simply because they have the means to do it, so naturally the media will point the finger of blame at them. The era of 24 hour news has little room for the patience of investigative journalism.

Clarification. This doesn't necessarily mean that the sources for the news stories are unreliable. Mainstream media can get it right.