START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Syria Authorities Target Children, Says UN Rights Chief


World  (tags: world, Syra, children, 'HUMANRIGHTS!', 'CIVILLIBERTIES!', government, ethics, politics, death, news, society, middle-east, humanrights, conflict )

Cal
- 750 days ago - bbc.co.uk
Syrian authorities are systematically detaining and torturing children, the United Nations' human rights chief, Navi Pillay, has told the BBC.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Rose NoFWDSPLZ (264)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 2:15 am
Makes me sick
 

Stan B. (124)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 2:18 am
Is anybody really surprised by this news? The Syrian regime is capable of just about any atrocity.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 4:19 am
sad children always suffer
 

Jennifer C. (172)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 7:07 am
Thanks for sharing.
 

Rosie Lopez (73)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 12:16 pm
unacceptable
 

Mary Donnelly (44)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 2:42 pm
Thanks Cal.
 

Allan Yorkowitz (458)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 2:44 pm
Once again, the UN "reports"....when are they ever going to become an action committee, and do what they were established to do?
 

marie tc (164)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 4:03 pm
Noted
 

Charles O. (209)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 4:10 pm
Buried in the article:

> On Tuesday, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict, said they had received claims that the rebel Free Syrian Army was using children as fighters.

Obscured by the sensationalist headline:

> Earlier, a spokesman for UN and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan said he considered the Syrian acceptance of his six-point peace plan an "important initial step" but that implementation was key.

Antiwar.com provides more information about the peace plan:

> UN Special Envoy to Syria Kofi Annan has reported today that the Assad regime has agreed to his six-point peace plan, as was endorsed recently by the UN Security Council. The deal centers around a ceasefire and peace talks.

> The deal is some progress for Annan’s initiative, but the Syrian National Council (SNC), one of the top rebel factions, followed up by again rejecting the plan, and insisting that Assad isn’t serious about the talks. SNC members have rejected the idea of talks on general principle in recent comments.

> The US, which endorsed the plan at the UN Security Council back before the Assad regime agreed, is now officially “skeptical” of the deal, saying that they don’t believe the Assad regime’s agreement will mean anything.

-- Jason Ditz, "Annan: Syrian Govt. Endorses Peace Plan", *antiwar.com*, 27 Mar 2012

Isn't that interesting! Now that Assad has accepted the peace plan, the Big Humanitarians at NATO and the Pentagon who arm the rebels and issue totally one-sided calls to "Stop the killing!" have an opportunity to do just that. All they have to do is sign their OWN PROPOSAL! And suddenly, they get "cold feet". That tells us who supports the slaughter in Syria and who doesn't. It tells us who is making a show of peace and who actually seeks peace.

This is a replay of the monitor debacle. The Arab League, dominated by Saudi Arabia and other enemies of Syria, sent monitors to Syria. The monitors failed to see what the foreign powers wanted them to see. Things were "too peaceful". There was not enough killing to satisfy the "Peaceful Protesters" and their foreign backers, so the monitors were forced out -- not by Assad but by the rebels.

A few days ago, the rebels were caught red-handed staging a battle for the tv cameras. See "Syrian Rebels Stage ‘Battle’ Background for Video".

> The Assad government’s censorship of private media has proven a boon for Syria’s rebel factions, which have released video footage directly to a western media that has eagerly gobbled up first hand accounts.

> The problem is that the rebels have an agenda to sell, and new video evidence shows that they aren’t shy about making up facts on the ground to make the videos more exciting.

> Embedded with a Syrian rebel “reporter” in Homs, one of the videos catches the reporter telling colleagues to set a tire on fire off camera so there is more smoke to simulate the “battle” he is reporting on. The smoke is real, but the battle is not, and the video pans into an alley where a tire is burning in full view.

-- Jason Ditz, Syrian Rebels Stage ‘Battle’ Background for Video, *antiwar.com*, 27 Mar 2012

This staging may help to explain why the monitors failed to show the "battles" that are shown to us Americans.

The corporate media in the countries that seek to destroy Syria all get their information from the London-based "Observatory for Human Rights". What is this organization? According to wikipedia,

> SOHR is run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry by one man using the name Rami Abdulrahman (or Rami Abdul Rahman, or Rami Abdelrahman).

-- "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights", *wikipedia*

So one man gets to control our news coverage of Syria. And the one-room organization he heads is openly biased: SOHR regards reporting on the number of Syrians killed by the "Peaceful Protesters" as "not in their interest".

What is Navi Pillay's source? What is her bias? Has she reported on the use of child soldiers by the rebels? And if the "Peaceful Protesters" are sending children into combat, maybe that explains why children have turned up dead.
 

Tal H. (8)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 9:03 pm
So sad! :(
 

Charles O. (209)
Wednesday March 28, 2012, 10:21 pm
What do we want to do?

(a) Stop the killing?
(b) Stampede people into war?

If we choose (a), then the next question is "How?".

(a) We can reconcile the rebels and the loyalists
(b) We can eliminate the rebels
(c) We can eliminate the loyalists

If we care about the children and want to stop the killing, then we have to choose one of these three approaches and act on it.

Since the rebels are divided and do not have the support of the Syrian people, option (c) requires us to kill off millions of Syrians. That's the approach favored by the U.S., Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and Care2 Humanitarians.

Option (a), reconciliation, is the approach favored by Kofi Annan and the Russians. Since Assad has accepted Annan's six-point peace plan, it's also the approach favored by Assad. It's the approach that involves the LEAST amount of killing.

We at Care2 should consider switching our support from option (c) to option (a).
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday March 29, 2012, 3:17 am
As always, Charles, thank you for your forensic analysis of the situation.
 

John S. (294)
Thursday March 29, 2012, 6:45 am
Noted.
 

Robert O. (12)
Thursday March 29, 2012, 12:18 pm
Horrifying. Thanks Cal.
 

Tom Sullivan (98)
Thursday March 29, 2012, 3:33 pm
Sick morons
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday March 29, 2012, 5:06 pm
"the Gazan Moslems use children as suicide bombers, human shields and soldiers"

A loony lie, of course.
 

Rosemary Rannes (633)
Thursday March 29, 2012, 9:48 pm
I agree with Charles but I personally want to see Hassad before the International Human Rights Commission/Tribunal and tried for war crimes against his own people !
 

Caterina L. (18)
Thursday March 29, 2012, 10:54 pm
Something must be done now. The UN must act to protect the rights of citizens especially the children. Noted and shared on fb.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 30, 2012, 1:50 am
Rosemary R.

But why? If you agree with Charles, you cannot possibly believe that al-Assad has gone from being a reformer last year to eating babies for breakfast this year!
 

Stan B. (124)
Friday March 30, 2012, 3:25 am
The Syrian regime is also using children and civilians as human shields. How low can they go?
This report from the ABC { Australia}

Syrian troops have been accused of using children as human shields and using helicopters to fire on civilians during the ongoing violence in the country.

Army tanks are out in force in flashpoint areas including Homs, Hama and Idlib, as world powers continue to push for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

President Bashar Al-Assad's regime has repeatedly blamed "armed terrorist gangs" for the worst violence, but activists and rights groups tell a different story.

A Human Rights Watch report has accused soldiers of using civilians as human shields by forcing them to walk in front of them as they advance on rebel areas.

The report says children have also been placed on army tanks, presumably to prevent soldiers from coming under fire.

 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 30, 2012, 3:34 am
"have been accused"

Do we have proof of this? Photos, videos?

"world powers continue to push for a peaceful solution to the conflict. "

What a barefaced lie. It is these "world powers" who instigated and are arming and paying for this armed insurrection.
 

Stan B. (124)
Friday March 30, 2012, 3:55 am
Here's your video John D but you'll probably deny its authenticity. You never seem to care much about children,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN5CJ2dLTBU
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 30, 2012, 4:17 am
A youtube video is your proof? That video proves nothing. The soldiers were clearly escorting citizens terrified of the armed rebels to safety. The assertions of the "activist" are just that.

Indeed, the sound was so bad, I couldn't tell if the accents were Syrian or not.
 

Charles O. (209)
Friday March 30, 2012, 7:52 am
In WW I, the British were told that "the Hun eats his own babies". Who but a Demon would eat babies? Thee British were then urged to make war on this Demon. The result: 10 million dead, and an influenza epidemic that killed another 10 million. The story about the Hun (German) eating babies was of course a lie.

I remember 1991, when we were told that Iraqis were killing Kuwaiti babies by disconnecting incubators. What kind of people would kill babies?! What sadists! What madmen! What devils!

Everyone wanted the U.S. to "act". Just "do something"! was the mantra.

So the U.S. launched "Desert Storm" and then went on to impose sanctions. A million Iraqis -- 500,000 of them children -- were killed by the sanctions.

Later, we found out that the incubator story was a lie dreamed up by Hill & Knowlton, an advertising agency hired by Kuwait.

There's more to the story. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave Iraq a "green flag" to settle differences with Kuwait. Kuwait, which was historically a province of Iraq, was demanding immediate repayment of debts run up by Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, and was also accused of using slant-drilling to steal Iraqi oil. So Iraq's attack was not wholly without justification.

When Saddam found out that he did not have a "green light" after all, he attempted to negotiate a withdrawal from Kuwait and an end to the occupation, in exchange for an end to Israel's perpetual occupation of Palestine. Bush used childish name-calling -- e.g., "So Damn Insane" -- to deflect attention away from Saddam's willingness to negotiate.

The genocidal sanctions were actually the work of Clinton. His Secretary of State defended them:

> ... we think the price is worth it.

-- Madeleine Albright, in a 1996 CBS Lesley Stahl interview, when asked whether 500,000 dead Iraqi children was too high a price to pay.

Clinton was president when the government incinerated the children at Waco, Texas (Apr 1993). Clinton's Attorney General explained why Clinton used tanks and helicopters to attack a peaceable religious commune: "It's for the children!" she said.
 

Charles O. (209)
Friday March 30, 2012, 8:18 am
Stan B. writes "world powers continue to push for a peaceful solution to the conflict".

The only world power doing that is Russia, Stan. The U.S., France, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda are all supporting the rebellion, oblivious to the interests and desires of the Syrian people as a whole.

The kind of "peaceful solution" this militaristic approach is likely to achieve can be seen in Libya, where 30,000 are now dead -- sorry, "Liberated" -- , or, even better, in Iraq, where over a million have been killed in the last nine years of "Liberation". When you pretend that this is a "Peaceful Solution", you destroy your own credibility.

The charge that Syrians are torturing and murdering Syrian children also lacks credibility. Why would the government do something that is almost calculated to alienate the population? It makes no sense. Who gains? -- only the rebels, and the government is not in the business of helping the rebels.

Our news of Syria is dominated by rebel propaganda. On several occasions, the rebels have been caught lying. Here, for example, they are caught staging a battle for the benefit of the YouTube viewers, no doubt.

Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict, has accused the rebels of using child soldiers. If some of these children are killed in combat, it would not be hard to make it seem like they were tortured to death by the regime.

Navi Pillay, the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner, has been accused of inflating casualty counts. Harvard educated, Pillay could well be biased in favor of the U.S. position -- like her colleague, Yukiya Amano, the new head of the IAEA. Pillay needs to disclose her information source. Is she relying on the London-based "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights", the one-man two-room operation that favors the rebels?
 

Stan B. (124)
Friday March 30, 2012, 10:12 pm
Charles O. The main reason there isn't more irrefutable evidence about what's happening in Syria is, unlike Israel, the regime won't allow foreign news correspondents to cover the conflict.
What do they have to hide?
 

Charles O. (209)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 2:01 am
Thanks, stan b.. It's a very reasonable question.

SOME foreign news correspondents -- Lizzie Phelan, Webster Tarpley, Thierry Meyssan, Jürgen Todenhöfer (Todenhoefer), Christoph Hörstel -- ARE covering the conflict. See my post on the subject in http://www.care2.com/news/member/145521001/3144518, or see the article I cited there:

> Viktor Reznov, "German journalist Christoph Hörstel (Horstel) in Damascus, Syria.", *Syria News*, 17 Mar 2012

Here's the difficulty: The corporate media in the Ziosphere are not free and honest. They have a pro-war agenda. They twist whatever they see. When a million Syrians rally in behalf of the government, our media tells us there were a few thousand who attended only because they are bribed and threatened. Conversely, when a few hundred people emerge from a mosque and chant "Death to Assad", the media report that Assad is killing "Peaceful Demonstrators" for no reason at all.

The alternative is to keep the pro-war media out. That gives the rebels a monopoly on the news.

Assad DOES have something to hide. ANY government engaged in suppressing a rebellion has a lot to hide. Governments over-react, and the over-reaction can be used to inflame further hostility, creating a vicious cycle.

The criticism applied to Syria can also be applied to the U.S.. Why does the U.S. embed its war reporters and feed them press releases? What does the U.S. have to hide?
 

Lydia Weissmuller Price (181)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 10:16 am
The US is guilty of massive crimes against children within our judicial system. I wish the UN would step in over here.
 

Terri Hughes (412)
Friday April 6, 2012, 2:17 pm
This is HORRIBLE and needs to STOP. Children SHOULD NOT be treated this way. SOMEBODY CAN STOP THIS HORRIBLE CRIME, against these innocent children. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!
 

Past Member (0)
Friday April 6, 2012, 2:58 pm
Terri H

Did you bother reading the thread or are you - and it seems you are - simply reacting emotionally to this propaganda piece? Please take a more measured look at the evidence posted by people here, not just the headline and come back with another comment.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.