HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Syria death toll now exce...

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 02:23 PM

 

Syria death toll now exceeds 200,000: monitor

Syria’s civil war has killed more than 200,000 people in less than four years, a monitoring group told AFP on Tuesday, adding that most were fighters from the two sides.

“We have documented the killing of 202,354 people since March 2011,” Syrian Observatory for Human Rights director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP, adding that more than 130,000 of them were combatants.

“Of the total, 63,074 of the killed were civilians, including 10,377 children,” said Abdel Rahman.

“Among the anti-regime fighters, 37,324 were Syrian rebels, while 22,624 were non-Syrian jihadists,” he added.

“On the regime side, there were 44,237 soldiers, 28,974 members of the (paramilitary) National Defence Force, 624 members of (Lebanon's Shiite) Hezbollah, and 2,388 pro-regime Shiite fighters from beyond Syria and Lebanon,” Abdel Rahman said.

Another 3,011 were unidentified, he added.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/12/02/Syria-death-toll-now-exceeds-200-000-monitor-.html



28 replies, 1135 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply Syria death toll now exceeds 200,000: monitor (Original post)
Rhinodawg Dec 2014 OP
Rhinodawg Dec 2014 #1
TwilightGardener Dec 2014 #2
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #3
Rhinodawg Dec 2014 #5
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #10
yeoman6987 Dec 2014 #7
Rhinodawg Dec 2014 #9
yeoman6987 Dec 2014 #15
Rhinodawg Dec 2014 #23
yeoman6987 Dec 2014 #25
pampango Dec 2014 #17
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #19
pampango Dec 2014 #20
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #21
pampango Dec 2014 #22
pampango Dec 2014 #28
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #12
Quantess Dec 2014 #18
leftynyc Dec 2014 #4
Rhinodawg Dec 2014 #6
leftynyc Dec 2014 #16
Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #8
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #11
Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #14
lpbk2713 Dec 2014 #13
True Blue Door Dec 2014 #24
Rhinodawg Dec 2014 #26
True Blue Door Dec 2014 #27

Response to Rhinodawg (Original post)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 02:25 PM

1. Practically on the level of genocide.

 

and the world does nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 02:33 PM

2. Well, it's hard to know what to do. There's so many factors, there's Russia

and Iran's support of Assad, there's ISIS and Nusra, there's a refugee crisis...even doing something decisive, like simply taking out Assad or his military is fraught with potential bad consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 02:42 PM

3. What would you do, Rhinodawg?

 

Here's what I would do:

1. Create informal local truces and ceasefires to begin to stop the killing. This is a process the UN backs.

2. Work toward a negotiated political settlement between the regime and opposition forces. Some sort of power-sharing arrangement, perhaps localized.

3. Don't demand Assad's ouster as the starting point. He isn't going anywhere anytime soon. A medium-term goal might be open elections in 6 years, when Assad's current term is up.

4. Work to unite all non-jihadi factions in the struggle against ISIS and Al Nusra.

Notice I said nothing about arming rebels, creating buffer zones, or attacking Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 02:57 PM

5. Sounds good...when does it happen?

 

and whats holding up progress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:04 PM

10. It already happened in Homs. Looks like it could happen in Aleppo.

 

"Syria conflict: Assad 'to study' UN truce plan for Aleppo"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29991667

It's bound to be a slow and messy process, especially since there is no hierarchically organized armed opposition, just various bands of armed rebels and their warlords.

Also, each side, to the degree it thinks it can prevail, will be reluctant to deal.

And, of course, the jihadis have no interest in any such deals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:02 PM

7. We can't have it both ways

 

We either stay out of wars or we don't. I thought most on here were not warmongers. For the record, I hope we stay out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:04 PM

9. Is there any number of dead civilians that would change you mind ?

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 04:07 PM

15. In the United States, yes.

 

Otherwise NO WAR!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 06:34 PM

23. Ok....so a certain number of dead americans you would favor war.

 

any number, even millions, of dead innocent foreign civilians and your answer is no.

got it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 06:40 PM

25. Well 911 for one and we went after Osama.

 

That is what countries do. Protect their own. You really want to be the World police???? I can't imagine any liberal wanting that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 04:20 PM

17. Many considered FDR a 'warmonger' before Pearl Harbor because he cared about dead civilians - even

those who were not American.

In the 15 months before the outbreak of World War II, the America First Committee dominated the national isolationist discussion. Its policies were: defend our shores, denounce FDR’s interventionist agenda and oppose aid to Britain in its war against Hitler. The AFC emerged to counter the interventionist Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.

Prior to Mr. Nye’s address, the Bellevue Methodist Church choir performed several selections, and speakers stoked the crowd. Among the group was former state Sen.C. Hale Sipe, who referred to FDR as “the chief warmonger in the United States.”

Mr. Nye glanced at the note and, without pausing, continued to harangue his audience. He asked, “Whose war is this?” The thunderous response reverberated throughout the hall: “Roosevelt! Roosevelt!” For another 15 minutes, his assault on the administration continued. Mr. Nye denounced FDR’s arrangement with Britain to exchange 50 destroyers for leases on eight Western Hemisphere bases. Some listeners responded with cries of “Treason,” and others shouted, “Impeach him.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/11/30/The-Next-Page-With-the-attack-on-Pearl-Harbor-a-collapse-of-isms/stories/201411300177

To some folks - today and back in the day - dead civilians only matter if their passports are the right color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 05:49 PM

19. The question is what the US can do that doesn't result in more dead civilians.

 

Heating up the civil war doesn't seem to be the answer. And that appears to be our policy, a very cynical policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 06:09 PM

20. Agreed. "Heating up the civil war doesn't seem to be the answer." A military solution to the protest

was always a bad idea. It still is. A huge number of (non-American) civilians and combatants have been killed and it serves no purpose to militarize it even more which would result in large numbers of new deaths.

Any strategy should be based on what has the best chance to work to produce the 'best' result, not just what would be a 'win' for one side of another. I think that is an approach that FDR would have approved of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 06:14 PM

21. That's why I favor starting small, with local truces.

 

I think getting a comprehensive settlement (or victory) is one fell swoop is very unlikely. This war is going to end piece-meal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 06:30 PM

22. That sounds like a plausible strategy. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 11:28 AM

28. Still think your idea has merit, but here is an idea from Juan Cole's site.

Could Years more of Syrian Civil War be Avoided by Comprehensive Talks with Iran?

Because the inner core of the Syrian regime is bound together by ties of sect and kinship, it is unlikely to fragment. And since it and its main constituency come from the minority Alawite community, it truly believes the only choices are to fight to the bitter end or face annihilation. Because the opposition is so fractious, it is unlikely to prevail, although it is improbable that the regime will be able to uproot it entirely from its rural and frontier strongholds.

As of now, a negotiated settlement is only possible if two conditions are met. First, both the regime and the “moderate” opposition – the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front, etc.– would have to view the battlefield situation as hopelessly deadlocked, and they would have to do so simultaneously. After all, if there was a chance your side might achieve total victory, why bother to attempt to reach a compromise through negotiations? (Jabhat al-Nusra, the “official” al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, and the Islamic State would also have to be neutralized to prevent them from acting as spoilers.)

The second condition that has to be fulfilled to reach a negotiated settlement is that outside players – the United States and other Western states, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Iran, and others – would also have to come to the conclusion, again simultaneously, that there was no chance their clients could score a victory on the battlefield and that, in the big scheme of things, the battle for Syria was just not worth the cost. Otherwise, when your side is down why not try to restore its fortunes by pumping in more supplies, heavier and more lethal weapons, cash, and perhaps fresh recruits?

There is one possibility, albeit farfetched, that might enable a negotiated settlement to prevail. So far, the United States and its allies have been acting as if Syria were a chess game where a win for one side on a two-dimensional board means a loss for the other. Why not start playing three-dimensional chess? In other words, why treat Syria as a separate problem to be solved in isolation? Why not complicate the Syria problem by making it one of a number of issues to be brought to the table at the same time? This would increase the number of possible trade-offs and compromises, allow governments to save face through reciprocal exchanges, and make grand bargains possible.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/12/syrian-avoided-comprehensive.html

The author himself admits that it is not very likely scenario given how many actors have to arrive at the same conclusions more or less simultaneously but I though it an interesting idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:13 PM

12. Not genocide, unless you're willing to consider auto-genocide. This is a civil war.

 

About 80,000 regime soldiers have been killed.

About 60,000 armed rebels have been killed.

About 60,000 civilians have been killed.

There may be (and have been) lots of little massacres--on all sides--but this isn't one big one-sided massacre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 05:48 PM

18. A lot of neighboring countries and european countries

Take in syrian refugees and asylum seekers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Original post)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 02:46 PM

4. That photo breaks my heart

 

but I expect this thread to sink like a stone. It doesn't mention Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:01 PM

6. Imagine if Israel killed 1/10000 of that....

 

I suspect this thread would light up like a pin-ball machine.

But 200,000 Syrians ? ...meh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 04:13 PM

16. Nobody here gives a shit

 

They pretend to but the evidence is overwhelming they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Original post)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:03 PM

8. In before someone tries to pin this all on Obama...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:10 PM

11. Well, now that you mention Obama...

 

...his policy there is pretty incoherent and has probably contributed to the blood-letting.

He determined several years ago that "Assad must go," as if we had any right to determine who governs Syria. He approved low-level, CIA-led arming and training of rebels, and now wants $750 million to openly arm and train them. His administration also turned a pretty blind eye to Saudi and Gulf state funding of the most vile rebels, the jihadis, which has now come back to bite us in the ass.

His policy seems to be to bleed Syria even further, in the vain hope of pushing Assad out.

That said, the US is not responsible for the Syrian civil war. We didn't start it.

And I sure as hell don't envy Obama having to deal with that mess. But I think his policy is wrongheaded here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:15 PM

14. I agree PBO's Syria policy has been an almost textbook "What Not to Do"

There's always some useful idiot blogger, writer or pundit on the left somewhere willing to put all the blame on U.S. Imperialism while completely ignoring or whitewashing the other players in the game...

And inevitably someone always posts a link to that blog post in GD or Good Reads...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Original post)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:13 PM

13. Most of the refugees are women and children.




When they get to the refugee camps many wish they had died instead.

Link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/un-world-food-program-turning-aid-1-7-million-syrian-refugees/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Original post)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 06:39 PM

24. All so one guy can be a dictator.

Whatever the consequences, however messy the resulting situation, Assad must lose.

Humanity cannot tolerate ancient politics in the modern world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 07:39 PM

26. I might have agreed with you in the past,

 

but seeing ISIS take over causes me to worry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhinodawg (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 07:53 PM

27. Assad's tyranny caused ISIS. Without him, there aren't the same dynamics at play.

An orderly force can coalesce that isn't a tyrannical monster, so people would have a real choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread