Syrian Army Crushes Rebels

From Bloomberg:

Syrian soldiers stormed Hama and other flashpoints of unrest, leaving at least 121 dead, an activist said, as President Bashar al-Assad’s forces sought to reassert control on the eve of Ramadan, when protests are likely to intensify.

Tanks shelled Hama, Syria’s fourth largest city, where at least 100 people were killed today, said Mahmoud Merhi, head of the Damascus-based Arab Organization for Human Rights.

Three people died near the city of Daraa, and fighting in other areas raised the toll to 121, Merhi said…

Why is the Syrian government doing this?  Because they know that the one nation on earth which can enforce decency won’t act…or, even if we did act, then under Obama we would act with sufficient speed and power to affect the outcome.  Get used to this boys and girls – because Obama has abdicated America’s leadership role, the world now belongs to whomever is willing to be the most evil.  This massacre in Hama is just a slight foretaste of what is to come.  Tyrants around the world are watching events and getting ready grab what they can and settle scores…all in the knowledge that Obama is more likely to condemn a US ally than an enemy.

The world is becoming a very dangerous place…and to help you sleep better, the word is that the Democrats want 50% of all spending cuts to come out of defense, alone.


11 thoughts on “Syrian Army Crushes Rebels

  1. neocon1 July 31, 2011 / 3:11 pm

    brought to you by the religion CULT of pieces

    • Mark Noonan July 31, 2011 / 4:11 pm

      In this case, more actually brought to us with the complicity of Obama’s Cater-like weakness.

      • Green Mountain Boy July 31, 2011 / 4:30 pm

        So Mark, what would you have the U.S. do? Get involved militarily and risk American lives? Send money or arms when our treasury is being looted to the point 14.3 trillion dollars of debt, not to mention that someday those arms may be turned against the U.S. by syrian terrorist.
        Please, exactly what should we do?

      • Mark Noonan July 31, 2011 / 5:25 pm


        Well, if Obama had done better in Libya we would probably not have this government action in Syria right now. Had Obama acted swiftly and with greater strength – including the threat of using US ground forces – against the Ghaddafi regime while that regime was reeling early in the fight, then Ghaddafi would probably have been tumbled from power. With that under our belt, even the most mild “better not” from us to the Syrian regime would have made them hold back the goons, and thus given the rebels the chance to prevail.

        You see, it doesn’t actually take the use of American power to obtain American policy ends…but it does take the conviction on the part of the enemy that we have the power, will use it and we will not quit until our aim is achieved. Bush built that up firmly for 8 years, Obama has thrown that away. The world of tyrants knows that, at worst, we might hurl a few bombs their way but we won’t do anything serious to get at them. And thus we see the Syrian government, in broad daylight, massacring the Syrian people…and we’ll see more and worse of this as long as Obama is in office.

      • bardolf July 31, 2011 / 11:07 pm


        Did Mark answer your question? No, he gave you a cliche filled response of zippo mainly to attack Obama who already wasted millions on Libya.

        Reagan had the right idea after the suicide bombing in Lebanon.

        The U.S. Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon. Their withdrawal was completed on February 26, four months after the barracks bombing; the rest of the multinational force was withdrawn by April 1984.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 1, 2011 / 7:16 am

        Bardolf, Actualy President Reagan the wrong Idea. Leaving the way we sid paved the way for future terrorist attacks. Turning tail and running is never a good idea. I would of leveled lebanon , then left.

      • bardolf August 1, 2011 / 10:55 am


        I wouldn’t have chosen sides in the Lebanese civil war which lead to the bombing. At least Reagan learned from his mistake which is more than I can say for the current group of politicians and pundits.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 1, 2011 / 2:09 pm

        Bardolf, True. Once committed though…you get my point. You show a weakness the muzzies will glom onto it. Leveling that hellhole would made a different point than the one we made.

  2. js July 31, 2011 / 5:10 pm

    this is such a shame…we have committed the forces in lybia for a fraction of whats going on in syria…and not a word comes out of our leadership about it…congress and the senate both should be all over obama for this…we didnt need to stop the tyrant in lybia…he was on his last leg anyhow…but syria…thousands have been slaughtered…and justice and liberty turn thier heads like nothing is happening…

    • Green Mountain Boy August 1, 2011 / 2:23 am

      Having served almost two years in Iraq, I can assure you there absolutely no reason to waste American Lives for these people. Encourage them to kill each other is the best policy. Muslims killing muslims…everybody else is the winner. Jaded? Yes. The truth? Again yes.

    • bardolf August 1, 2011 / 11:00 am


      before wasting American lives in Syria, could you tell me your general policy for when the US should stop country X from slaughtering its civilians?

      Millions dead from violence in Africa and not a peep from either party. Clinton goes around showing half-hearted contrition for not stopping the genocide in Rwanda. That could have been stopped with 500 troops and knocking out the radio towers telling one side to massacre the other.

Comments are closed.