Shortly after some rebels entered into Damascus, fighting also occurred in the northern city of Aleppo. As the military began to reassert itself in Damascus, rebels focused very heavily in Aleppo. Besides being one of the country's major cities (it is the largest by population and commercially stronger than Damascus), it is located close to the border with Turkey which the rebels have used to get supplies.
The military was determined to fight hard for this city, and this past Friday the military was seen massing outside Aleppo as city police and security forces were pulled out of the city to make way for them.
This past weekend saw heavy fighting between the rebels and military. Reportedly this has caused a large refugee crisis with an upwards of 200,000 people attempting to flee the city.
Both the government and rebels are naturally claiming the battle is in their favor. Rebels have reported they've captured a military base while the government says they've taken control of the rebel stronghold in the Saladin neighborhood. It is hard to say who has the momentum right now but it's clearly causing a lot of violence and furthers fears of sectarian violence if the military and rebels continue these kinds of engagements to cause a power vacuum.
The rebels continue to hold the position that they are responding only to violence from the government, while the government says continues to hold the position that these rebels are cadres of mercenaries backed by foreign powers, singling out Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia in particular. The rebels must also face the issue of how to deal with some of its more fundamentalist and conservative religious factions which are not sitting well with its sympathizers outside the country.
Meanwhile, Kurdish groups in the east of Syria as well as their enclave of Afrin near Aleppo have reportedly taken control of their cities after ejecting the Syrian government from there. The Turkish government however sees this as a "hand off" from the government to PKK front groups in Syria. Accordingly Turkey has not responded to these developments warmly, leading to speculation as to whether or not they'll use it as a pretext to intervene in Syria, on top of its previous issue with the jets. This would not be unprecedented, as Turkey has used this before in Iraq.
All signs point to western backed terrorists in Syria are loosing ground, as a result turkey is moving troops to it's boarder with Syria to allow Jihadi's easier access from a wider area of Syria as the Antakya to Latakia transit route is being shut down.
With the "rebels" loosing ground in the north, Turkey is amp'ing up it's war rhetoric and drums, claiming that these troops are there to prevent Syrian Army from chasing after the fleeing terrorists, and or to stop the kurds from Syria entering Turkey which it actively represses in it's own country.
And according to unconfirmed reports, and official reports from Saudi Arabia denying the contrary, is amassing a huge number of troops on the boarder of Jordan for passage to Syria if not already in Jordan.
Seems to be the end game of all of this is Nato's wish to dominate and crush any nation capable of resisting Nato and it's Dictatorship partners in it's goal to dominate the Mediterranean through direct and indirect means, essentially defeating military powers to ensure Iran will be essentially cut off from any other nation capable of supporting it when it's their turn for "rebels" to invade it.
Interesting that the rebels try to make a stand, it seems like a risky thing to do. They seem to have held on to the city for a few days though. It doesn't look like either side has a definitive advantage at the moment, despite the SAA's heavier weapons.
The Kurds have been mentioned more often in the news in recent days. Adding an ethnic dimension to this sectarian conflict probably won't make things better. It is no surprise that many western politicians are relatively quiet about the conflict. Turkey seems to be the most likely candidate for taking action. But if Turkey decides to intervene this might lead to a counter attack by Iran. An Iranian attack on Turkey will force NATO to enter the war. The two unknown variables are Syrian's chemical weapons (will they actually be used in case of intervention?) and Iran's willingness to enter a war on the losing side.
Iran seems to have its own problems, with the sanctions leading to some unrest as food becomes more expensive. I don't think they will risk involvement in a major war lest they provoke an insurgency in their own country, which would be likely after a massive bombardment by the US (which could start at any moment given the two carriers and unknown number of ground based US fighters in the area). As for the chemical weapons - if you intervene they might be used against you, if you don't intervene they still might be used against you.
Well, it ties back into what the position of Syria means in the region. The US and others could stand to gain by eliminating one of the countries that have never really stepped along its same line with regards to the region's relations, especially regarding Israel. It would also help to have a *neutralized* Syria than a belligerent one if tensions with Iran continue to develop the way they go.
Turkey has long had tensions with Syria, though it appeared to have been thawing in recent years (heck, same thing could be said with the rest of Syria's relations in trying to improve its image as Libya did), but it fell apart quickly here. On Turkey's books it's possibly looking to further its influence in the region, which it has done a lot in Iraq already and is looking to become an economic powerhouse for the region. And it also needs to make sure the Kurds there don't do what their counterparts in Iraq did with autonomy, which will rile up its own Kurdish population right across the border.
Iran sees in Syria pretty much its only real friendly partner. While it has improved trade contacts with Turkey they're still competitors with that nation. Iran has been able to improve its position in Iraq, but that nation is too broken to be worth much and is competing with the US and others in there. Syria shares its position on the region's politics, and if Syria was to be gone it would be alone in the region.
Russia and China have well-developed ties with Syria, one that has been carefully developed over the past 40 years or so, which would be utterly destroyed if the government was to abruptly change.
I must point out though that internally there's a lot going on that's independent of what external powers can exert on them. Even with these countries backing the rebels, that's only really a "push" to existing tensions in the country. There's only so much a foreign actor can create a rebellion, but it can provide the support for one to sustain itself materially.
Bombing(s) in Aleppo
Rebel base of activities in the Saladin district
Rebels executing tribal men seen as "friendly" to the government, or in the pro-government militias.
All signs point to western backed terrorists in Syria are loosing ground, as a result turkey is moving troops to it's boarder with Syria to allow Jihadi's easier access from a wider area of Syria as the Antakya to Latakia transit route is being shut down.
With the "rebels" loosing ground in the north, Turkey is amp'ing up it's war rhetoric and drums, claiming that these troops are there to prevent Syrian Army from chasing after the fleeing terrorists, and or to stop the kurds from Syria entering Turkey which it actively represses in it's own country.
Atleast they suffered a major public relations blow with the execution of pro-Assad persons in a school yard as was the topic in Commissar MercZ's last Youtube video.
"Human rights activists have condemned the public shooting in Syria of four apparent Assad loyalists by rebels in the battleground city of Aleppo."
Not that Libyan anti-Gaddafi forces acted in any other way than blind victor's justice, with Gaddafi and loyalists being shot without a trial. But acting like bandits already and ending up on every news central in the Western countries, that's not doing very good PR.
If Assad wins, and they end up executing every rebel like this, it's a big war crime for sure. But if the rebels win...
Not that Libyan anti-Gaddafi forces acted in any other way than blind victor's justice, with Gaddafi and loyalists being shot without a trial. But acting like bandits already and ending up on every news central in the Western countries, that's not doing very good PR.
If Assad wins, and they end up executing every rebel like this, it's a big war crime for sure. But if the rebels win...
Anti-Gaddafi forces were accused of executing Gaddafi-loyalists throughout the course of the conflict, in particular targeting 'black' Africans whom they suspected of being mercenaries hired by Gaddafi. Gaddafi himself is widely believed to have been extra-judicially murdered after his capture by vengeful rebels (didn't the rebels blame crossfire or something?). About a week ago in the news there were some articles/reports about Libyan militias that have refused to relinquish their weapons and have continued reprisal executions of former regime supporters and officials.
I guess that's a problem in societies after the deposing of a dictator or totalitarian regime, reprisals against those responsible (as well as suspected of being responsible, regardless if they are or not) of oppressive actions during the regime's existence. I can't imagine things going any differently in Syria regardless of who is victorious.
Anti-Gaddafi forces were accused of executing Gaddafi-loyalists throughout the course of the conflict, in particular targeting 'black' Africans whom they suspected of being mercenaries hired by Gaddafi. Gaddafi himself is widely believed to have been extra-judicially murdered after his capture by vengeful rebels (didn't the rebels blame crossfire or something?). About a week ago in the news there were some articles/reports about Libyan militias that have refused to relinquish their weapons and have continued reprisal executions of former regime supporters and officials.
The black mercs employed by Gaddafi were more myth then anything else, Libya before the rebels took over had a good population of black Africans, some of who were in the army, I mostly say this due to the fact that, the rebels were killing black people there no matter if they were armed or not.
As for Gaddafi's murder, it was an ordered execution knowing that no fair trial could be given to him since it would of been impossible to present evidence of guilt of killing his own people before the rebels had guns.
If Assad wins, and they end up executing every rebel like this, it's a big war crime for sure. But if the rebels win...
From your article:
Quote:
Human Rights Watch has told the BBC the act was potentially a war crime.
Everyone knows that both sides commit crimes. The difference is that with Assad you have an existing government where you can assign blame relatively easily to one of the officials. The rebels, on the other hand, are just a bunch of ad-hoc militias. The only legislation they are going to face is the shoot-on-sight policy by the SAA.
The black mercs employed by Gaddafi were more myth then anything else, Libya before the rebels took over had a good population of black Africans, some of who were in the army, I mostly say this due to the fact that, the rebels were killing black people there no matter if they were armed or not.
As for Gaddafi's murder, it was an ordered execution knowing that no fair trial could be given to him since it would of been impossible to present evidence of guilt of killing his own people before the rebels had guns.
There were mercenaries Qaddafi brought in (we've seen the long-term impact of the Tuareg mercenaries that both sides employed), the issue came in with how many. I remember early on the media here tried to make it appear that somehow Qaddafi was managing to use so many mercenaries that he was able to drive the war primarily with that. This was false, as he still did everything with the regular army as we saw later on. The idea that somehow he had used mercenaries to defy the will of the masses is the falsehood here.
The rebel militias that killed the African migrant workers, as is the case here with the militia that killed these tribal men in Aleppo. were employing a flawed logic that tends to pop up a lot in civil wars. If x is of a particular ethnicity or tribe, then they must be supporting the enemy. This is really why in time the insurrection on the ground has taken a distinctly Sunni Arab shape, with very few Alawites fighting with them. This has gotten worse as time has gone on, a consequence of the strains of war and the impacts of foreign support some of the branches have been receiving there. Especially in how it factors in to the balance of power in the region and Iran's position in it that might be undermined with the fall of Assad's government.
Rule of thumb here is that Civil Wars aren't really pretty and neither side is in the right, even as the media favoring either tries to uphold them as victims and on the defensive. Assad isn't the only one who has played "dirty".
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Syrian military and rebels battle for Aleppo 
Linear Mode
