Car Bombs and Conspiracy Theories.

Today was the second day in which a car bomb explode outside of a government building in Syria. The blast occurred in the city of Aleppo, Syria's second-largest city according to Voice of America News. The current statistics on this blast, list only two dead with thirty-plus injured. It's a large decline from yesterday's twin bombings in the city of Damascus that killed twenty-seven while injuring more than 100 people (VOA News). Al Jeezera has reported that a firefight has since broken out between rebel forces and pro-opposition forces in the city of Damascus, following the suicide bombing in Aleppo (Link).

While the government is blaming the Free Syrian Army "terrorists," the rebels deny the responsibility for the bombings saying that they do not have the means to carry out such sophisticated bombings. Even Bassma Kodmani, a member of a "Paris-based member of the opposition Syrian National Council" doubts that the rebels would have the "capacity to do such an operation to target these buildings because they are fortresses." According to Kodmani, "They are very well guarded. There is no way anyone can penetrate them without having strong support and complicity from inside the security apparatus" (Link). Thus, if Kodmani's statements are true, and these are fortresses; it would seem that the most feasible reason to this is that it was the government itself carrying out these attacks in order to gain support.

A third possibility has been thrown onto the table by the United States: According to the Voice of America article, al-Qaida may be to blame (Link). In my opinion, this possibility is definitely one that is very much "out there," when seen at face value. First, why would al-Qaida want to get involved, especially on the side of the rebels? I highly doubt that they would be able to take power, should the current regime should fall, especially given that the population is calling for a democratic society with demands for more individual freedoms; albeit the majority of the population is Sunni Muslim, which are more inclined to support al-Qaida with its extremist Sunni agenda, according to the Huffington Post (Link). Secondly, it would just add another member (in this case, at least the current government of Syria, and possibly the rebel one too) to the growing list of countries that would like to see al-Qaida elminiated. Third, and in my opinion the most important aspect of this is what proof does the U.S. have to back up this claim? Simply claiming that a third-party has entered the arena could be a very dangerous claim to make; especially since it has the possibility to just be propaganda to garner support of the American people for a Syrian intervention.

Intervening in Syria

Oliver Knox, on Yahoo! News, wrote an article today entitled "McCain Calls for U.S. -led airstrikes in Syria."In it, Knox quotes McCain in saying "the time has come for a new policy. . . The United States should lead an international efforct to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad's forces."

I can see where McCain is coming from on this one: He's trying to act as a police force against President Assad and his forces in Syria; however, it's directly undermining a U.N. veto against such actions. Personally, I do think something more should be done to pressure President Assad into not only allowing aid into all parts of the country to aid the victims of the violent crackdown on the rebellious populous; but also ending his crackdown on the rebellion.

However, I oppose Senator McCain's views on how to go about forcing President Assad to stand down. Not only does it violate a U.N. resolution, as I said before; but it further escalates the conflict in Syria. Airstrikes, even in today's technologically advanced era, are still all not that precise: In the initial invasion of Iraq, airstrikes were responsible for 31% of civilian deaths, according to a Washington Post article entitled "Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000" (Link). Plus, not to mention the possibly causalities that we could receive as a result of such operations.

Also, starting a militaristic intervention on behalf of the rebels could have drastic, unintended consequences: If it doesn't lead to an all-out war, or cold war as I wrote about in a previous article; the rules of engagement could change for the Syrian army. What if they were to occupy the cities and civilian buildings instead of surrounding the city? Would we still deem it safe to continue bombing? What if the Syrian Army decides to completely level the cities via their own airstrikes?

Escalating the situation to a military intervention is definitely not the answer to ending the crisis in Syria. Nations must work together to come to a resolution on the issue and not act independently to advance their own agenda (E.g. the U.S. airstriking the Syrian Army). This is a very delicate situation that should be the of the utmost importance on the world stage to find a resolution to end this conflict, so that further bloodshed of non-combats is ceased.

Indiscriminate Shelling In Syria

It's been all over the news: "Journalist Marie Colvin died trying to get her shoes, her paper reports" (CNN), "Marie Colvin's killing piles pressure on Assad as civilian death toll rises" (Guardian), "American war reporter Marie Colvin killed in Syria" (Fox News), and "Journalists Marie Colvin, Remi Ochlik killed in Syria, activists and French official say" (MSNBC). While this is a tragedy, this post will focus more on the indiscriminate shelling, specifically in the city of Homs by the Syrian Army.

This video (courtesy of youtube) is probably thebest video that gives an example of the type of shelling that is occurring in the rebel-held, Syrian city of Homs; which, from the reports, is occurring daily, especially in the Baba Amr district of the city.

In reaction to the video, I was shocked to see how different my mental image was from reality: In my mind I picture a nearly destroyed city, say about the size of La Crosse being flattened via indirect fire from mortars, rockets, and artillery. However, I was quite surprised in seeing a glimpse at how large the city is, given that a majority of buildings still standing albeit it has been under constant shelling. I'm also quite appalled at the actions of the Syrian military and their backing from President Assad, which are slaughtering countless numbers of civilians. A video on Huffington Post that describes Marie Colvin's time there references the shelling; but also the fact that if one to be lucky enough to be spared that cause of death, they would most likely be sniped by a Syrian army sniper team as they are positioned throughout the city and shoot anyone on the streets.

It's quite sickening to think about how Russian and China could be so blatantly ignorant on such human rights violations, by not wanting to impede on Syria's sovereignty in order to end the violent,murderous actions by the Syrian government.