Syrian army 'massacres hundreds' in Homs, activists say

News_Editor · February 4, 2012

Syrian army 'massacres hundreds' in Homs, activists say

2012-02-05 02:28:02 GMT+7 (ICT)

DAMASCUS (BNO NEWS) -- Syrian security forces have killed more than 200 people in the city of Homs, opposition groups claimed on Saturday. The killings occurred on the thirtieth anniversary of the Hama massacre which left thousands killed.

The opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) said at least 260 civilians were killed over the past day after government forces bombarded the city. However, Syrian state-run media denied the accusations, saying the reports were part of a media campaign to cover "the crimes and aggressions of the armed terrorist groups in Syria."

"During the attack, residential buildings and homes were randomly and heavily bombed," the SNC said. An activist identified as Danny said the assault on Homs started after a few dozen members of the Syrian army defected and fled to a part of the city.

"The civilians went down to welcome (the defectors) to thank them for their bravery," Danny said, as quoted by CNN. "When the army found out, it started randomly bombarding with tank shells, mortar bombs. It's like they're killing animals."

For its part, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SABA) said the reports were part of "the ongoing distortion, falsification and instigation media campaigns by some satellite channels." "Such campaigns are viewed by many observers and analysts as a sinister bid to negatively affect the ongoing UN Security Council discussions about Syria," it added.

U.S. President Barack Obama condemned the "brutal killings" and urged the international community to protect the Syrian people. "Thirty years after his father massacred tens of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women, and children in Hama, Bashar al-Assad has demonstrated a similar disdain for human life and dignity," Obama said.

"Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now," he added in a statement released by the White House. "He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately."

Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague also condemned the violence, adding that he was "horrified" at the reports. "I condemn unequivocally the use of tanks, mortars and artillery in civilian areas," he said in a statement. "It is all the more chilling that these events occurred on the thirtieth anniversary of the Hama massacre, in which it is estimated that 20,000 people were killed."

The UN Security Council on Saturday voted on a draft resolution to end the situation in Syria, where thousands of people have been killed over the past 10 months in a government crackdown against a popular uprising. The resolution called for an immediate cessation of violence by all parties and progress towards national dialogue that leads to a peaceful political resolution of the crisis.

However, Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council and a trade partner with Syria, has been reluctant to sign on to any plan that could be seen as a mandate for regime change in Damascus. Russia, joined by China, have opposed previous draft resolutions on Syria and used its veto on Saturday, drawing worldwide condemnation.

Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Russian TV that a "scandal" would arise at the UN Security Council if the draft resolution went for a vote on Saturday. Russia, which counts Syria as a major weapons client, has said it is concerned about the prospect of a Syrian civil war and does not want al-Assad pushed from power.

According to the most recent figures released by the United Nations in January, at least 5,400 people have been killed as a result of violence during the uprising. Syrian human rights and opposition activists say the figure has since surpassed 7,000 and includes hundreds of children.

The Syrian government has repeatedly claimed that violent acts against protesters have been carried out by 'terrorists dressed as soldiers,' although international observers have rejected these claims. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad previously admitted that mistakes were made, but claimed protesters were no longer being targeted.

Credo · February 6, 2012

It sounds like the West needs to do some politicing with Russia to get them to be more agreeable to UN involvement in this situation.

It doesn't seem to be getting better.

Morch · February 6, 2012

It sounds like the West needs to do some politicing with Russia to get them to be more agreeable to UN involvement in this situation.

It doesn't seem to be getting better.

The UN initiative which was vetoed by China and Russia is a already a very mild version of the original one. It didn't include anything about military intervention, there were no hard sanctions - and still it didn't pass.

Russia stands to lose quite a bit if the current regime goes down (military presence, political clout, economic gains from weapon deals), It also plays internally, for Putin and gang are riding a somewhat nationalist sentiment, and being seen as reinstating Russia's superpower position goes down well with this.

Russian intel regarding Syria is probably good, so reasonable to assume they are quite aware of the regime's shaky position, the positions of different groups inside Syria and of the humanitarian issues.

I would guess they misjudged the force and timing of the uprising (and maybe also Assad's ability to put it down), which didn't leave them enough time to broker a favorable deal for themselvs before things got too messy. A week or two ago (if I'm not mistaken) there was some talk about discussions to be held in Russia between both sides, though nothing came of it. Can't be sure, but think that signals that they're ready to support something that wouldn't cost them everything.

They are in quite a jam now, quite a few countries (even the Arab League) upset by veto, and if the rebels win they won't be too happy with them as well.

On the other side of the fence, the USA, which usually doesn't go for harsh words vs. Russia, did this time. I think it was mostly a good PR move. Had the resolution been accepted, it would have been pretty meaningless, and the USA would have gained very little. Putting it to a vote knowing the Russians would shoot it down, gave a chance for some big words and maybe global/Arab brownie points.

Pity it would take more diplomatic bargaining and a lot more casualties for this to be acted upon.

gopnarak · February 6, 2012

Russia gave a clear explanation for their veto.

Reasonableman · February 6, 2012

Russia gave a clear explanation for their veto.

Clear enough, yes. Acceptable? That is far more open to debate. It's shameful to see nations playing childish payback while people die, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the "role creep" we saw in Libya and Iraq.

Rusty2009 · February 6, 2012

Russia gave a clear explanation for their veto.

Clear enough, yes. Acceptable? That is far more open to debate. It's shameful to see nations playing childish payback while people die, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the "role creep" we saw in Libya and Iraq.

i have been watching this closely, Al Jazeera in English show the most brutal and disturbing pictures, and Chinas explination is cold and hard, it amazes me how we can sit back and watch children being killed, for what???

Jingthing · February 6, 2012

Russia gave a clear explanation for their veto.

So you support Russia's action then?

Reasonableman · February 6, 2012

Is this at all relevant?

Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers. And China ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010, according to data from the European Commission. (CNN)

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/05/world/meast/syria-china-russia-relations/index.html

gopnarak · February 6, 2012

Russia gave a clear explanation for their veto.

Clear enough, yes. Acceptable? That is far more open to debate. It's shameful to see nations playing childish payback while people die, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the "role creep" we saw in Libya and Iraq.

i have been watching this closely, Al Jazeera in English show the most brutal and disturbing pictures, and Chinas explination is cold and hard, it amazes me how we can sit back and watch children being killed, for what???

China made it also clear what are their reasons. Turning a blind eye to disturbing pictures is it not.

gopnarak · February 6, 2012

Is this at all relevant?

Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers. And China ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010, according to data from the European Commission. (CNN)

http://edition.cnn.c...ions/index.html

How about listen to the Russians and the Chinese and not to CNN or Hillary?

Reasonableman · February 6, 2012

Syria and China see eye-to-eye on Tibet, another shameful human rights fiasco.

"China and Syria gave each other understanding and support on issues concerning each other's core and major interests," the statement said. "China showed consistent understanding and firm support for Syria's position on the Golan Heights while Syria remained committed to the one China position and rendered China staunch support on matters related to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and human rights." (CNN report)

Reasonableman · February 6, 2012

Is this at all relevant?

Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers. And China ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010, according to data from the European Commission. (CNN)

http://edition.cnn.c...ions/index.html

How about listen to the Russians and the Chinese and not to CNN or Hillary?

Since you are apparently an authority on their policies, perhaps you could clarify their positions so that we could all understand and appreciate them.

gopnarak · February 6, 2012

Syria and China see eye-to-eye on Tibet, another shameful human rights fiasco.

"China and Syria gave each other understanding and support on issues concerning each other's core and major interests," the statement said. "China showed consistent understanding and firm support for Syria's position on the Golan Heights while Syria remained committed to the one China position and rendered China staunch support on matters related to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and human rights." (CNN report)

I am pretty sure it is OFF TOPIC to discuss the Golan Heights and who are the biggest arms suppliers of the parties involved in that conflict. And so is Tibet pretty much off topic here.

You can either start to listen to the reasons China gave for their veto and argue about that or you continue to pet your bias and prejudice an search on CNN for anything else that can be used to bash China or Russia.

Reasonableman · February 6, 2012

Syria and China see eye-to-eye on Tibet, another shameful human rights fiasco.

"China and Syria gave each other understanding and support on issues concerning each other's core and major interests," the statement said. "China showed consistent understanding and firm support for Syria's position on the Golan Heights while Syria remained committed to the one China position and rendered China staunch support on matters related to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and human rights." (CNN report)

I am pretty sure it is OFF TOPIC to discuss the Golan Heights and who are the biggest arms suppliers of the parties involved in that conflict. And so is Tibet pretty much off topic here.

You can either start to listen to the reasons China gave for their veto and argue about that or you continue to pet your bias and prejudice an search on CNN for anything else that can be used to bash China or Russia.

Please just give the requested details about their policies and positions. Is that too hard? As an apologist, that should be easy for you.

Ulysses G. · February 6, 2012

Is this at all relevant?

Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers. And China ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010, according to data from the European Commission. (CNN)

http://edition.cnn.c...ions/index.html

Sounds like something reasonable to point out under the circumstaces.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Ulysses G.

gopnarak · February 6, 2012

Syria and China see eye-to-eye on Tibet, another shameful human rights fiasco.

"China and Syria gave each other understanding and support on issues concerning each other's core and major interests," the statement said. "China showed consistent understanding and firm support for Syria's position on the Golan Heights while Syria remained committed to the one China position and rendered China staunch support on matters related to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and human rights." (CNN report)

I am pretty sure it is OFF TOPIC to discuss the Golan Heights and who are the biggest arms suppliers of the parties involved in that conflict. And so is Tibet pretty much off topic here.

You can either start to listen to the reasons China gave for their veto and argue about that or you continue to pet your bias and prejudice an search on CNN for anything else that can be used to bash China or Russia.

Please just give the requested details about their policies and positions. Is that too hard? As an apologist, that should be easy for you.

I am an apologists?

Just do what i said: listen to the reason China and Russia gave for their veto and than argue about that. That would be a reasonable thing to do.

If you have no clue - don't judge.

Rusty2009 · February 6, 2012

Is this at all relevant?

Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers. And China ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010, according to data from the European Commission. (CNN)

http://edition.cnn.c...ions/index.html

Sounds like something reasonable to point out under the circumstaces.

i have to agree, watching world politics and seeing who is jumping in and out of bed together and who are the biggest whores, live news update they are moving tanks forward now, so its going to get worse not better

Reasonableman · February 6, 2012

Since you possess the immutable truth, please bless us with your insights, not just blather on fact-free.

Syria and China see eye-to-eye on Tibet, another shameful human rights fiasco.

"China and Syria gave each other understanding and support on issues concerning each other's core and major interests," the statement said. "China showed consistent understanding and firm support for Syria's position on the Golan Heights while Syria remained committed to the one China position and rendered China staunch support on matters related to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and human rights." (CNN report)

I am pretty sure it is OFF TOPIC to discuss the Golan Heights and who are the biggest arms suppliers of the parties involved in that conflict. And so is Tibet pretty much off topic here.

You can either start to listen to the reasons China gave for their veto and argue about that or you continue to pet your bias and prejudice an search on CNN for anything else that can be used to bash China or Russia.

Please just give the requested details about their policies and positions. Is that too hard? As an apologist, that should be easy for you.

I am an apologists?

Just do what i said: listen to the reason China and Russia gave for their veto and than argue about that. That would be a reasonable thing to do.

If you have no clue - don't judge.

koheesti · February 6, 2012

Syria and China see eye-to-eye on Tibet, another shameful human rights fiasco.

"China and Syria gave each other understanding and support on issues concerning each other's core and major interests," the statement said. "China showed consistent understanding and firm support for Syria's position on the Golan Heights while Syria remained committed to the one China position and rendered China staunch support on matters related to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and human rights." (CNN report)

I am pretty sure it is OFF TOPIC to discuss the Golan Heights and who are the biggest arms suppliers of the parties involved in that conflict. And so is Tibet pretty much off topic here.

You can either start to listen to the reasons China gave for their veto and argue about that or you continue to pet your bias and prejudice an search on CNN for anything else that can be used to bash China or Russia.

Please just give the requested details about their policies and positions. Is that too hard? As an apologist, that should be easy for you.

I am an apologists?

Just do what i said: listen to the reason China and Russia gave for their veto and than argue about that. That would be a reasonable thing to do.

If you have no clue - don't judge.

I have listened to the their reasons and I am amazed they would give ones that prove to the world they are as evil and horrible far beyond what anyone in the West ever thought. Disgusting.

gopnarak · February 6, 2012

I have listened to the their reasons and I am amazed they would give ones that prove to the world they are as evil and horrible far beyond what anyone in the West ever thought. Disgusting.

“Those who get angry are hardly ever right,” Lavrov stated at a media conference in Moscow.

http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-syria-veto-un-565/

Morch · February 6, 2012

I have listened to the their reasons and I am amazed they would give ones that prove to the world they are as evil and horrible far beyond what anyone in the West ever thought. Disgusting.

“Those who get angry are hardly ever right,” Lavrov stated at a media conference in Moscow.

http://rt.com/politi...ia-veto-un-565/

LOL

You got to hand it to Larvov. Staying straight faced while complaining about "extrnal players" meddleing and supplying arms to the opposition.

Reasonableman · February 6, 2012

Those who don't get angry hardly ever have the empathy to care enough.

I have listened to the their reasons and I am amazed they would give ones that prove to the world they are as evil and horrible far beyond what anyone in the West ever thought. Disgusting.

“Those who get angry are hardly ever right,” Lavrov stated at a media conference in Moscow.

http://rt.com/politi...ia-veto-un-565/

LOL

You got to hand it to Larvov. Staying straight faced while complaining about "extrnal players" meddleing and supplying arms to the opposition.

gopnarak · February 6, 2012

I have listened to the their reasons and I am amazed they would give ones that prove to the world they are as evil and horrible far beyond what anyone in the West ever thought. Disgusting.

“Those who get angry are hardly ever right,” Lavrov stated at a media conference in Moscow.

http://rt.com/politi...ia-veto-un-565/

LOL

You got to hand it to Larvov. Staying straight faced while complaining about "extrnal players" meddleing and supplying arms to the opposition.

Believe in the all up in tears for the peaceful protesters and children foreplay till "We saw, he died, I came" post coitum face.

Russia and China ≠ USA

Russia and China = bad.

Ulysses G. · February 6, 2012

I am an apologists?

Your posts make that point pretty well.

Morch · February 6, 2012

I have listened to the their reasons and I am amazed they would give ones that prove to the world they are as evil and horrible far beyond what anyone in the West ever thought. Disgusting.

“Those who get angry are hardly ever right,” Lavrov stated at a media conference in Moscow.

http://rt.com/politi...ia-veto-un-565/

LOL

You got to hand it to Larvov. Staying straight faced while complaining about "extrnal players" meddleing and supplying arms to the opposition.

Believe in the all up in tears for the peaceful protesters and children foreplay till "We saw, he died, I came" post coitum face.

Russia and China ≠ USA

Russia and China = bad.

No one said all the protesters are peaceful.

What does it have to do with Russia preaching even handed treatment of all factions involved, while arming the Syrian regime at the same time?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Morch

Scott · February 7, 2012

A baiting and inflammatory post has been removed along with the reply.

geriatrickid · February 7, 2012

This is somewhat good news for the west, particularly the USA, as they are fully onside with Arab sentiment. It's shaping up as the Russia, China and non Arab Iran on one side of the equation and everyone else on the other side. Quite the gamble the Russians have made, and they will lose because the Syrian regime will fall. A few thousand more non combatants may die before there is an ouster of Assad, and those deaths are on the shoulders of Russia & China.

Exsexyman · February 7, 2012

If the UN wants to be taken seriously as a democratic organization they should do away with the veto. The idea that an overwhelming vote on any motion by the vast majority of member countries can be overruled by a veto from one country looking after their own interests is surely just plain wrong. There are five so called 'super countries' who have the power of veto, and they all wield it when it suits them, in defiance of the wishes of the majority. The maxim, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others, lives on in the UN.

Steely Dan · February 7, 2012

This is somewhat good news for the west, particularly the USA, as they are fully onside with Arab sentiment. It's shaping up as the Russia, China and non Arab Iran on one side of the equation and everyone else on the other side. Quite the gamble the Russians have made, and they will lose because the Syrian regime will fall. A few thousand more non combatants may die before there is an ouster of Assad, and those deaths are on the shoulders of Russia & China.

I suspect it's a little more complicated than this, perhaps western powers + Sunni Islam versus Russia, China and Shia Islam, this of course is in a state of constant flux as interests mutate.

What is certain is that the self appointed champions of moral relativism are defending slaughter of civilians by the thousands just because their backers are opposing the U.S position. That said should there be regime change then democracy is again not the most likely outcome, but sadly yet more slaughter and score settling should just see a new set of victims and a fresh human rights disaster.

Credo · February 7, 2012

The outcome of conflicts like this are seldom predictable.

We teach our children to drive safely, but some of them still don't and get hurt in accidents. It's the same with nations. We can help them to have the opportunity to have a better situation, but if they don't avail themselves of the opportunity, there isn't much that can be done.

It would seem the status quo is not working, so there is little reason to support it.

Sign In

Syrian army 'massacres hundreds' in Homs, activists say

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US