Reported by an "activist" from London, England.
I suppose he got his news through the "peaceful" activist pipeline?
Because the "peaceful" activists have been anything but peaceful.
They have in fact been attacking citizens in towns, government buildings, Syrian troops and now bombing pipelines.
Since "Syria's oil exports are among the main earners of foreign currency to the government" whoever bombed the pipelines is obviously trying to hit Syria and Syrians where it hurts.
Gosh who would do that?
The ante has been upped in Syria.
If the bombing of the pipeline doesn't make that clear.. note the language of the President of the "free world" and the Head of State
“He has missed opportunity after opportunity to present a genuine reform agenda. And that’s why we’ve been working at an international level to make sure we keep the pressure up.”
"Working to keep the pressure up"? Yes, you have Obama. Yes you have.
Hillary Clinton (I feel the urge to spit when I have to type, print or speak that name)-
President Assad is not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.”
Assad is not indispensable? And we (US) have nothing invested in him remaining in power?
How blatant are those two statements? Really?
We gave you the chance, and wasn't that gracious of us?
We don't need you, you mean nothing to us.
All that concern for the Syrians?
Oh and by the way, according to the NYT's, your supposed to believe this is a shifting of gears.
"Turning decisively against the Syrian leader".
This is not a shifting of gears, or a turning against, this is a progression of tactics that started some months ago.
The US has been turning the heat up, higher and higher, on Syria, it's people, it's government by fomenting terrorism and sectarian strife.
Interesting to note there are all manner of comparisons to the "decisive" action taken on Libya vs the "gingerly" response to Syria.
Coincidentally the US, after the bombing of the pipeline, is considering "sanctions on Syria’s oil and gas industry".
I guess the bombing of the pipeline was the beginning of sanctions?
Let's talk about Libya where reality, as presented by the main stream media, is about a "realistic" or related to reality as a reality TV?
Always presented as a civil war, which does not seem to be the case at all.
As this news story will make abundantly clear!
Benghazi, Libya: Children as young as 7 be trained to fight
Boys as young as seven have been pictured carrying automatic weapons and cleaning rifles in Misrata
I am going to ask a couple questions here?
Question #1: If this really was a civil war, as is always presented, why would their be any necessity to train young boys to fight wars?
Should there not be an abundance of adult males to take up arms? I would think so.
The population of Libya is well over 1 million people.
Why would their be a shortage of adult males to fight?
Unless this is not civil war and just a handful of NATO backed rebels who have no choice but to use children as soldiers?
Question # 2- Why is this news not being soundly condemned?
Doesn't the West, when it is pontificating from on high, condemn the use of child soldiers?
Why in this case, does this article read as some twisted promotion of the practice?
Is it because this suits NATO/Western interests?
Of course NATO has been killing civilians in Libya! Shhhh.... don't talk about that.
Let's get back to Hillary Clinton, there is that urge to spit again, is heading to Turkey in the next couple of days (July 15 and 16)
From what I read the US is looking to Turkey for "leadership" on Syria.
Should we assume that she is visiting Turkey to give them the orders they need to take that "leadership" role?
After the visit to Turkey will we witness Turkey making some moves on Syria, possibly creating a buffer zone? Yes, a buffer zone!
Wondering if they got that idea from their good buddies in Israel ?
Turkey to create military 'buffer zone' within Syria for refugees
Hmmmm, if they need a "buffer zone" for "refugees" why don't they make it within the Turkish borders?
Especially in light of the fact that the "refugees" are already in Turkey?
Why invade Syria to set up a so called "buffer zone" for "humanitarian" purposes.
Yes, Turkey would be invading Syria, to set up a militarized buffer zone, obviously not for humanitarian purposes.
Because humanitarianism doesn't fit anywhere into the reality of war.
Assuming you already watched the video? Assuming you are tuned in to the real world?
Clearly the purpose of a militarized buffer zone would be to launch attacks? Foment a civil war?
Train rebels ala Libya? Take your pick?
Time will tell...