The first signs of Mercenary Madness creeping in to the discussion was identified here and here.

This is just more of the same.

Carry on, pony!

Cool, so you can't back up your propaganda! Ride 'em Cowboy!

Oh, and Pelosi is still a Cunt, REDUX.

Of course it made the news. I didn't 'read' a great deal about it, but I listened to an awful lot of radio news and investigative journalism. The BBC World service runs through the night. I listen to it when I can't sleep, have done for years and years. It's how I know what's going on in the world.

I listened to the reports of the two presidents (Rwanda and Burundi) being killed whne their helicopter ws shot down. I listened (and watched on tv) as the violence grew. I also listened to the reports that followed, as the violence spread into the Congo. Just like I listened to the ongoing tragedy of Afghanistan, with the women of that country being brutalised and effectively enslaved, whilst the world did nothing, for years. And the unfolding horror of Darfur and the brutality of the Janjaweed.

Not much of note happens in the world without a mention on the BBC World Service. Not much happens without a mention on TV news. Very little happens without coverage in the Guardian and The Times.

I don;t know what news service you are watching, but seriously, this stuff should all be there.

I am more curious about who the "well known terrorist organization" is that is supporting Ghaddafi.

Or that he and the Libya government are supporting, given that the Bush administration removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2006.

Why so much silence? Every informed dweller needs to know what this "well known terrorist organization" is that is supporting Ghaddafi. Why so many accusations without relevant facts or citations? Why so much silence?

It's more than 1000 dead in Syria so far, but what happens now?

The fearless people respond by announcing that Friday is in memorial of all the children killed, calling it "Children's Friday", and they go to the streets again. It takes aljazeera 12 windows to show all the protests around the country:



That 13-year-old Hamza Ali al-Khatib, who I mentioned in this post, has become a symbol:
The rest of that story is Human Rights Watch, documenting what happened in one city. They call their report "We've Never Seen Such Horror" and report on random killing, mowing down of protesters, torturing people and terrorizing the city.

<crickets chirping>

It is horrific.

But what should be done or how should the US and the world community respond?

Given that the UN is being held hostage by Russia and China.

And given the nature of the relationship between Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas that most observers other than Mercenary understand and that could easily lead to a broader conflict in the region.

I don't know. My only answer is to have the editors at Vogue provide sanctuary for Assad and his wife.

This displays the fallacy of the UN. Comes back to "Why did we help in Libya and not there? Money, Oil, power, control. The poor people being slaughtered in Syria aren't getting helped because they have nothing we, the countries that could help, want.

I think that is a little simplistic and completely ignores the other external factors in the region.

Particularly, Iran which has an interest in keeping Assad in power. Or potentially having Hezbollah start shooting Syrian-supplied scud missiles into Israel from Lebanon as retaliation for any Western intervention and then Israel, responding in kind. Not saying it would happen, just that it could happen.

What, we the countries that could help, dont want is to have the region blow up.

From last April:
I am not suggesting it would happen, but is it beyond reasonable to believe that Iran and Syria would direct Hezbollah to fire those scuds if the US or NATO respond militarily in Syria? I dont think so.

Then what happens?

The "what they can offer us" that you've been ignoring :hedfone:
Alter the situation to one where Syria is an oil supplier or offers us some other valuable, to us, resource. Do you really think the US would be taking the same non-action? Nor do I.

I am not ignoring it; I just dont think it is that simple or that black and white. But evidently, you do, unless I am reading you wrong. You seem to dismiss or ignore the big elephant in the room (Iran) that did not exist with respect to Libya, Egypt or Yemen, and the potential for a far greater outbreak of violence throughout the region if its its proxy Hezbollah were to jump into the fray.

You dont think a greater Mid East war could erupt if this happened?

Do I think the US would take same non-action?

Yes, under the current administration, based largely on the limited role the US has played in the Libyan action, getting a UN mandate first and then, after the initial action. letting NATO lead.

No, under an administration with a rigid neo-con foreign policy that has to demonstrate US global leadership by being the big dog in every fight.