This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
"The West must intervene, either directly, or indirectly." He added that Israel must get involved. These type comments suggest war draws closer. When rhetoric gets this heated, bombs away usually follows. At this point, it looks almost certain. Whether Russia and China can prevent it remains to be seen.
On May 30, a Times editorial headlined "The Massacre at Houla," saying:
Expelling Syrian diplomats stops short of tougher measures needed. Russia remains a "roadblock." Fingers pointed solely at Assad. Houla "was just the latest evidence that he never intended to" pursue peace.
The editorial suggested "shabiha, or government thugs" did "at least some of the killings by shooting people - including entire families - at close range."
The most obvious question went unanswered: Cui bono? Clearly not Assad.
Like previous hostile editorials, this one stopped short of urging war. Given its tough rhetoric, it's just a matter of time. Calls overall grow louder.
On May 29, a Washington Post editorial headlined "Time for US leadership on Syria," saying:
Body counts mount. An "illusory cease fire" exists. Houla wasn't unique. It's "just better documented than (other Assad) crimes....in towns and cities across Syria.""The Obama administration persists, too, in declining to exercise the U.S. leadership that would be required to stop the massacres. For the past two months it hid behind Mr. Annan. Now....his plan has become an embarrassment...."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
