It almost goes without argument that sovereign states do not and cannot allow zones to be established within their territories outside of the effective physical control of the central government. There was a very good and somewhat recent illustration of this principle in the United States when the US presidency was last held by a member of the Democratic party before Barack Obama.
The Waco siege began on February 28, 1993, and ended violently 50 days later on April 19. The siege began when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), accompanied by several members of the media, attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, a property located 9 miles (14 km) east-northeast of Waco, Texas. On February 28, shortly after the attempt to serve the warrant, an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly 2 hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed. Upon the ATF's failure to execute the search warrant, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The siege ended 50 days later when a fire destroyed the compound when a second assault was launched. 76 people (24 of them British nationals) died in the fire, including more than 20 children, two pregnant women, and the sect leader David Koresh.There was never even a suspicion that Koresh's Branch Dravidian group had hostile foreign support. But for that group to control even its privately-owned compound to the potential exclusion of central security forces is intolerable for the United States no more and no less than it is for Bashar Assad's Syria. Barack Obama would handle a similar situation exactly the same way Bill Clinton did and Assad would. If hostile foreign powers were openly supporting organizations attempting to establish zones that are denied to central security forces, any sovereign leader of a dictatorship or democracy would use overwhelming force to prevent denied zones or liberated territory from being established.
9 comments:
Why were the death tolls in both Syria and at Waco so much higher than the two dead from Operation Motorman? (This was when the British Army recaptured districts of Belfast and Derry that the IRA had turned into "no-go areas"...)
I don't know much about The Troubles, or the British/English/Irish conflict, but from wikipedia:The Provisional IRA and Official IRA were not equipped to battle such a large force and did not attempt to hold their ground.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Motorman
Active fighting would have resulted in much more loss of life. Active hostile foreign support also would have made the situation worse.
"
It almost goes without argument that sovereign states do not and cannot allow zones to be established within their territories outside of the effective physical control of the central government."
However sovereign states should allow its citizens the right to protest against the government, the syrian government however lashed out violently against such a thing according to both amnesty and human rights watch.
Look arnold, the issue with assad is that his government attacks those which demonstrate against his rule, that is the problem.
You rather loathsomely have tried to defend this by suggesting that obama in the same situation would do the same thing, however evidence shows that obama does not engage in mass violence against those who wish to see him leave office.
You have had a chance to side with those who wish to see a more free syria, instead you have done the opposite, lets recall your foolishness when you claimed that you have seen no evidence that the assad government committed abuses against its people.
Quite a foolish and dishonest statement.
"I don't know much about The Troubles"
Along with other stuff (cough) middle east (cough).
Are am i to take it that you really are well informed and that it was reasonable to believe that assad did not mistreat those protesting against his rule?
According to some reports, the death toll in Syria since last year is over 9,000, many if not most of them civilians.
I don't know if that's true, but if it is, I don't see how you can compare it to Waco.
The Syrian govt. has a right to use force to protect its sovereignty, but there is such a thing as excessive force.
SOME reports. I.e. by tools of GCC. Not mentioning that so called FSA murdered a lot of civilians, now even their western backers admit it sometimes
In Waco there was not an "army", backed by foregn interests, to be dealt with.
FSA has indeed killed people, however the russian backed syrian governemnt has been resposible for the majority of abuses.
"It almost goes without argument that sovereign states do not and cannot allow zones to be established within their territories outside of the effective physical control of the central government."
It also goes without saying that governments do not have the right to attack civilians for peacefully protesting. This is what frequently happened in syria according to human rights reports. If a government continues to attack its own civilians for demanding free elections, the people actually do have the right to defend themselves.
"Barack Obama would handle a similar situation exactly the same way Bill Clinton did and Assad would."
?
The available evidence doesnt support this, assad attacked those peacefully protesting his rule, obama allows this all the time, if a bunch of protesters were attacked by the us government obama likely would condemn such an action.
Please reread the original post.
What kind of response is this?
Your original posts on the situation are very myopic and simplistic.
In no way are they a valid response to my comment, provide a valid comment or just move on and admit that you have done so.
Spare me this sort of nonsense.
Post a Comment