CEJ #2

Current Event Journal #2

Finn 

2/6/13

Mourtada, Hania

nytimes.com

1/5/13

World

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/clashes-erupt-in-damascus-shattering-lull-as-prospects-for-talks-dim.html?ref=world&_r=0

A group of insurgents, people who rise with force toward lawful actions, attacked a military outpost and other places in Damascus. The attack happened a week after president Bashar al-Assad presented the idea of ending the civil war forcibly. Angered by the government refusing to respond, Sheik Ahmad Moaz al-Khatib, the opposing leader gave it a Sunday deadline. Some anti-government people brought up the resumption of trying to seize the central Damascus area as they have been trying to for the past couple of weeks. Some of the leading insurgents have claimed that 33 members of the president's security forces have surrendered and most have fled from Damascus square. In effect the government has put up roadblocks around Damascus in order to slow down or prevent rebel movements. Firas al-Horani had said that the activist groups, more heavily armed had taken over the square. He also said, “The capital, Damascus, is in a state of paralysis at the moment, and clashes are in full force in the streets.”. On BBC, a Syrian new channel, Sheik Khatib said that if the Mr. Assad's forces don't comply by Sunday with releasing the prisoners, especially women, the initiative will have been broken and they will attack. 

I agree that the government is misusing it's power greatly, something along the lines of tyranny. I also think that it's good what the anti-Assad group is doing and what it is doing it for. They are trying to take back family members and others from the tyranny that the government has been causing and making innocent people that may have some relation go to jail. I also read in the article that some people said it would be best if they just attack and not give them anytime to build up and prepare for the attack. I agree and disagree with this statement. I agree because it seems like the government isn't going to back down and maybe violence could be the best answer, but I disagree because it could mean people getting killed and many injured. To go along with the statement, I also think it would've been best to hint a deadline and not straight up because it gives them 4 days to build up their forces and prepare for the attack, giving them the upper hand. I remember last year that the U.S. was thinking of also going in there for the anti-Assad side but chose not to because we have our own problems and that they are going to do what they have to and have a civil war just like we did, but I think it would be best if we kept to ourselves while they figure it out. I may have found a bias because in one of the quotes it said that the person over exaggerated with the quote and they might not of might have. I definitely think that the activist group is going to attack, no doubt, even if the government complies because they would want a new president. I would too after what he did, I wouldn't trust him with that power and rebel again until someone else becomes the president.