The Assad situation.

Does it fall into the grounds of warcrimes or crimes against humanity?

Its still "unconfirmed" whether the shelling of civilians however refusing humanitarian aid (the red cross are waiting with supplies both meds and foodstuffs) could be considered crimes against humanity.

PLEASE TO NOT FALL INTO CHAOS

But what do you think of the situation.

I could say more, but to put it simply: Assad needs to be put on trial, found guilty and dragged out back and shot like a rabid dog.

I know there is probably another side to this story that we're not seeing. But that doesn't change the above sentiment in the slightest. This is a leader who has seen what has happened elsewhere in the Arab world and is now desperate to stop it happening to him. The only solution lies in his removal from power.

This is a good time to pimp out the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLoj4zyCt9E]podcast ever that dicusses Syria.

To answer your question, I think it's a crime against humanity and it has been for weeks, if not months. Some of the pictures the news likes to plaster on News 24 are the ones like 5 year olds hit in the head by snipers (or the one with the dead boy on the car bonnet). I think the only real question is how widespread are these killings. And even then, the question is really if the killings are really bad or fucking deplorable.

Is there a question to answer here? Obviously it's a crime against humanity. He is simply following in his father's footsteps - authority through fear and violence.

But who is the worse in this situation, Assad or the Russian and Chinese governments supporting him?

I mean, we don't expect any more from Assad, he's just another middle eastern dictator. But these nations have veto power, and a permanent security council seat because they are supposed to have a sense of responsibility in the problems that only "united nations" can hope to solve.

The sad part is, nobody cares if Assad is killing his own people. The Arab League and the UN can't do anything for fear of antagonizing Iran. Oh man, when will it stop?

You can't really just scream at the governments supporting this douche bag without indicting all the governments that support assholes like this. The US definitely fits the bill, just not in this case. I don't know where Australia sits, but most first world governments have backed people this evil.

I remain in ignorance... since the advent of the net I ceased watching TV and I don't buy a newspaper.. and I certainly don't trawl web news services.

There could be a nuclear war going on atm and I wouldn't know about it unless it was forum fodder. The world can go piss itself down the drain for all I care.. and already has done for all I (care to) know. I don't involve myself in current affairs unless it directly affects me.

The world is a shithole and that hasn't changed in decades...

The music changes but the words stay the same.

As with Libya, there is currently no compelling evidence that the rebels are any better or more interested in western style democracy than the dictator they are trying to overthrow.

Yes, Assad is a pretty evil guy, but we have no idea whether he's more or less evil than the people who are trying to replace him.

I think people saying that no one cares are simply misinformed. I think western governments have taken note that the rebels they've supported in Egypt and Libya have turned out to be hardcore religious extremists who are more interested in implementing Sharia Law than western style democracy, and they want to tread more carefully this time.

It falls into the grounds of.... I do not give a fuck

What puzzles me more is people wasting time stressing and devoting their energies to talking about political things that they personally cannot change, or even influence.

VIDEO GAMES

That's a valid point. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to keep them accountable. In this situation its clear these governemnts are at some fault, if the US and/or Australia do the same thing, we should complain then too.

MonstaMunch raises a good point too. Its usually not as simple as "kick out assad and all the troubles are over", just look at libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Irag etc. etc. However, the current killing and largely one-sided violence has too stop. And at present there just seems to be no end in sight.

Err, this is going on for a year now. And in the whole "middle east contest" it still is one of the tamer mass slaughters.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about this, and a year ago I already was in the "shoot asad" fan club, but why the current interest?

It's funny that in the US I always hear about how we need to stop being the world's police and how the world hates us for it. Then I go to Georgia as a volunteer and everyone here loves the US stepping in and wants them to help smaller countries and set an example. I guess it depends on where you go.

Anyway, targeting civilians means you need to be put down, and if we're the only ones that can do it then let's do it.

shouldn't the Assads have been "removed" from power in Syria long ago anyway? it's essentially a dynasty of dictators. but i suppose since there's nothing of worth in Syria the international community can't be bothered to do anything about it.

sounds cynical, but that's just the reality of it. nobody's gonna put their own lives at stake for somebody else for nothing in return. the US tried that once (Somalia 1992-93) and look what that got them. the only country that COULD realistically intervene in Syria is the US (the EU never gets anything done on its own), but ever since Somalia, Americans can't be bothered unless they can get something out of it for themselves. and i don't blame them in the least.

Georgia is a special case as it is very, very pro US. You won't find much love for the US in many countries. I personally was a great fan of Cintons "world police" approach, but Mogadischu put an ugly end to that.

Since then, it has always been the general perception of the world that the US is only pursuing their own interests, not the "greater good". Obama is mending a lot of the damage the Bush years did (the US involvement in Libya was just about right in terms of involvement and restrained).

Any military action in Syria must be done by the Arab League. Forgein involvement must be restricted to countries with no colonial history in the middle east (which doesn't leave much) or to pure support roles. And I'm still not sure if an end of the Assad regime would make the whole Iran situation better or worse. It will weaken Iran, but will that make them more aggressive or more reasonable?