Heavy fighting over police academy in north Syria

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By RYAN LUCAS

BEIRUT (AP) - Syrian government forces fought fierce clashes with rebels attacking a police academy near the northern city of Aleppo on Friday, while the bodies of 10 men - most of them shot in the head - were found dumped along the side of a road outside Damascus, activists said.

Rebels backed by captured tanks have been trying to storm the police academy outside Aleppo since launching a new offensive on the facility last week. The school, which activists say has been turned into a military base used to shell rebel-held neighborhoods in the city and the surrounding countryside, has become a key front in the wider fight for Aleppo.

The Syrian state news agency said Friday that government troops defending the school had killed dozens of opposition fighters and destroyed five rebel vehicles.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights activist group also reported heavy fighting Friday around the school, and said there were several rebel casualties without providing an exact figure.

FULL story at link.

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130301/DA4OA8083.html

---

Free Syrian Army fighters, take their positions as they observe the Syrian army forces base of Wadi al-Deif, at the front line of Maarat al-Nuaman town, in Idlib province, Syria, Tuesday Feb. 26, 2013. Syrian rebels battled government troops near a landmark 12th century mosque in the northern city of Aleppo on Tuesday, while fierce clashes raged around a police academy west of the city, activists said. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

[roxy1234]

1. My friend who works in Saudi Arabia

Told me how he meet 2 Jihadi fighters on their way to join the fight in Syria when he went to the shoe maker. These 2 young men were in the shop to mend their gun belts. He saw them holding their gun belts and decided engage with these guys and wouldn't you know it, they were non Syrians and were being paid by to attack Syria

Free Syrian Army my ass.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. While there are many Syrians figting Assad, it is true that Syria is now a magnet for jihadis.

From Libya to Chechnya, they're heading for Syria to get their jihad on.

[roxy1234]

8. Yup and the Syrian people

are the ones taking the brunt of the punishment. Making it a string reason not to assist these people in any way shape or form. The true Syrian uprising has been squashed by Assad and the ones fighting right now are foreigners supported by foreign govts.

I say we stay the fuck away from em and not even give em humanitarian aid cos that just frees up funds for buying weapons and paying soldiers.

[LanternWaste]

9. Jane's Weekly posits the opposite premise....

"he true Syrian uprising has been squashed by Assad and the ones fighting right now are foreigners supported by foreign govts...."
Jane's Weekly posits the opposite premise. The Syrian rebels gained the upper hand 8 months ago, and it was only then that foreign support (in both men and money) began to flow in from what previously had been a mere trickle.


"Syrian people are the ones taking the brunt of the punishment. Making it a string (sic) reason not to assist these people..."
Your contention then is that without assistance the Syrian people won't be taking the brunt of punishment?

[roxy1234]

10. Just like in every civil war

The instigators are taken good care of once the fighting is over and the civilians are for the most part untouched. Look at our civil war history, the collective pain for the south stopped when they stopped fighting. Why do you think it will be any different when they surrender?

[LanternWaste]

12. My only contention was that with or without external aid, the Syrian people will...

My only contention was that with or without external aid, the Syrian people will, are and have been suffering. The aid will do little to prevent that or escalate that.

You may want to try Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to see which side is, and has been directly contributing to more civilian casualties, as the one far outweighs the other.

[Paul E Ester]

3. If only the police were the only people these Jihadist attack, here they are blowing up a school.

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=fb63e5b125eb

[Xithras]

4. Al Nusra has now admitted to attacking unarmed civilians more than 20 times.

They have confirmed that their position is essentially "If you're not fighting with us, you are supporting Assad and are the enemy". They've now claimed repsonsibility for more than 20 civilian attacks against schools, hospitals, and markets.

There's also a growing body of evidence suggesting that at least a few of the early Assad atrocities may have actually been false flag operations carried out by Al Nusra in order to inspire jihadis from other countries to come to Syria and fight with them.

Assad's hands aren't clean, but Al Nusra is the most effective military wing of the FSA and it's pretty clear that they're just a bunch of terrorists looking to create the next Afghanistan. No matter who wins, the people of Syria lose.

[pampango]

5. I dare say that Assad's bombers, artillery, tanks and missles have attacked civilians way, way, way

more than 20 times. Most human rights organizations believe that his forces has killed more than 90% of the civilians who have died in Syria. Using bombers, artillery, tanks and Scud missiles in attacking urban areas leads to many civilian casualties - collateral damage perhaps in the eyes of the government.

Assad's position is exactly the opposite of Al Nusra: "You are with me or you are with the terrorists." (Kind of reminds me of our recent republican president.)

Juan Cole has written that the jihadists are the most effective fighter man-for-man but only represent 10-20% of opposition fighters in Syria now though that percentage increases as the civil war drags on. The Free Syrian army is composed of soldiers who defected and Syrian civilians who took up arms still represent 80-90% of opposition fighters according to Cole, but the civilians, in particular, are not very effective fighters.

Assad's government is based on a minority of the population, similar in percentages to the white government of apartheid South Africa back in the day. The majority (70%) of Syria's population is Sunni just as the similar percentage of South Africa's population was Black (70% Black, 20% white, 10% Asian and mixed.

I understand that for Assad's sect to continue to rule Syria, force is his only option. He never could, and cannot now, negotiate any opening up of the political system or he is history. I also understand the fear of retribution that his and other minorities in Syria have. Decades of repressing the majority has caused a lot of ill will and this last-gasp military campaign does not seem likely to lead to a happy ending. (The current civil war is something like what many predicted would eventually happen in South Africa. Fortunately, the minority government there was replaced without a civil war and subsequent retribution - thank you, Mr. Mandela and others.)

As you said, "No matter who wins, the people of Syria lose." I agree. If Assad wins, he has to rule by force as he (and his father before him) always has or he is gone. If the opposition wins, there jihadists are not going to go away quietly and the minorities in Syria will be endangered.

[Xithras]

6. You're dangerously conflating two very different concepts.

I've heard it repeated many, many times and it always pisses me off.

Assad's government is based on a minority of the population, similar in percentages to the white government of apartheid South Africa back in the day. The majority (70%) of Syria's population is Sunni just as the similar percentage of South Africa's population was Black (70% Black, 20% white, 10% Asian and mixed.)

Sunni is a RELIGION. Black is a RACE. Sunni, Shia, Alawites, and Christians in Syria are all the same race, have the same skin color, speak the same language, share the same traditions, and have the same history. They just attend different "churches".

The argument against the Alawites in Syria seems to boil down to "they're a religious minority, so they can't fairly rule a country that follows another religion". That entire argument makes NO sense to me. That's like saying a Catholic can't run a nation full of Protestants! Furthermore, there is NO comparison between that situation and the situation in South Africa, where the descendants of outside white invaders were keeping the native black population subjugated based on the unchangeable color of thier skin. In Syria, the only difference between the sides is the faith they profess, and the Alawites-dominated government has always been secular (unquestionably authoritarian, but all sides admit that it's secular).

[LanternWaste]

11. However, I believe his initial premise is correct...

However, I believe his initial premise is correct... Assad's forces appear to have killed many more civilians by far than the rebel opposition (see both UNICEF and Amnesty International casualty numbers).

Additionally, UNICEF has been reporting that over the past eight months (this coinciding with Assad's forces going to a tactical defensive posture overall as the rebels gained strategic initiative) reports Assad's forces are imprisoning children-- something the rebels have not been doing so far as reports go.


"n Syria, the only difference between the sides is the faith they profess..."

Not quite. If we recall, the catalyst for the conflict were mainly college students protesting Assad's regime and demanding that he sign the Damascus Declaration (which called for democratic reforms... not religious-- a rather salient point), who were then quickly followed by secular political activists such as Riad Seif, Kamal al-Labwani, and Aref Dalila-- politicians more than religious leaders by any definition. Assad's response was simply to throw any dissident in jail. And it was the imprisonment of protesting college students which was the straw that broke the camels back resulting in the rebels torching Ba'ath Party HQ. To that date, religion was not a factor in any way.

This student-led counter-measure was of course, founded on Assad's history of an obvious disregard for human rights (again-- see Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for details), and his history of violent and repressive measures taken (e.g., you may or may not remember the Hama Massacre of 1982) to maintain internal security.

Of course, shortly after the conflict began, Assad's propaganda machine did rationalize religion as a factor-- and well he should, as it's his last and best defense.

[Paul E Ester]

13. "Rebels" don't keep prisoners, they torture and then execute them.

They also don't imprison children they give them a gun, a magazine belt, and a magic headband and throw them into battle

[LanternWaste]

14. I keep going back to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

Do we have an objective source which validates your premise as an ongoing patten of behavior? I keep going back to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International... both of which consistently give Assad the lion's share of violations of human rights in the conflict, however you may have a more reliable and more objective source.

On edit: Forgot to add UNICEF as part and parcel of where I get my numbers from.

[pampango]

15. Obviously a racial minority can lead a majority white country as well. I have yet to see

a Shia elected to lead a majority Sunni country or vice versa. As a matter of fact, everyone worries that the Syrian civil war will spark a wider Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East. To say that Sunnis and Shia "just attend different churches" ignores reality in the Middle East. To me they 'just attend different churches' but that obviously is not how too many who live in the Middle East see it.

In general, Americans do not consider religion as a great dividing issue. For the most part we don't care what you do on Sunday morning (or whenever your worship happens to be) or if you sleep in. That is not true in much of the rest of the world. For instance, Protestants and Catholics "just attend different churches" but that 'difference' was quite sufficient to lead to much violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the past century.)

Rather than focusing on religion, Americans are raised to understand that race is the 'big divide' that has to be surmounted. Some Americans will not vote for someone of a different race - not as true now as 50 years ago, but still true for many. My sense is that the Sunni-Shia split is the 'big divide' in many Middle Eastern countries. The split doesn't seem like a reason for fighting to me, but neither did the split between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and there was plenty fighting there, too. (Oddly, Muslims must have wondered what Catholics and Protestants were fighting about since they are all Christians.)

Obviously, a Catholic or a Black can be a president of the US. (Heck even a Mormon had a shot at it.) Both have happened. It is not as obvious, to me anyway, that a Sunni can get elected president in a majority Shia country or a Shia elected president in a majority Sunni country. One day that will be possible just like an African-American could not have been elected here 50 years ago but it has happened.) I suspect that Assad doubts (to put it mildly) that he could be elected president in Syria. If he wants to retain power, force is his only option. I hope I am wrong and I am sure that one day I will be, because Syrians will learn that 'going to a different church' is not a valid reason not to vote for someone. As of today, however, I think Assad knows he could not get elected fairly.

I agree that differences in religion are different than those in terms of race, but in terms of its potential to spark violence the difference that makes someone an 'other' is in the eye of the beholder. To an American race is a much bigger 'deal' than religion. That is not true everywhere. The real tragedy is that whatever differences there are between humans some idiots will find that 'difference' (whether is is race, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.) a reason to decide that that person is an "other" which they feel justifies using violence.

[Mosby]

16. +1000

[Paul E Ester]

7. That we support Jihadist anywhere is a sick joke. Meet David the american...

Hipster hanging out with terrorists.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c3_1361998386

[Mosby]

17. I hope David is not Jewish

And if he is I hope he's smart enough to claim otherwise if asked.