Syrian rebels seize control of Christian village, residents flee

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Sept. 11, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    C'mon people it's time to bomb the government. Obviously the "rebels" are only interested in civil rights for all.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 8:48 p.m.

    @Utah Girl
    SOME of the rebels are linked to Al-Qaida (Kerry notes there's 11 groups, the most notable of which is the al-Nusra front). The largest group of rebels however is the Free Syrian Army which would rather like to do without those foreign extremist groups except they're kinda losing and need any help they can get. The extremists are the only ones actively involved so the FSA has gotten more reliant on them over the past two years.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    Imagine how peaceful this planet would be without Radical Islam?

  • Duh west jordan, ut
    Sept. 9, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    @Utah Girl....I like your thinking.

  • Oh My Heck! Vernal, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    JWB, you make some good points regarding the already-existing chemical weapons treaty. It seems that there is already a procedure in place to deal with a country who violates that, even though, as you said, Syria did not sign the treaty, but they are members of the UN. Makes me wonder if Obama is even aware of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and if he is, why he doesn't use it to deal with Syria, along with other countries who also signed the treaty. These other countries who were signatory should also be willing to enforce the specifics of that treaty. Lobbing a few missiles into Syria will not stop the problem, but I think it will create many new ones. We cannot support an al Qaida-backed organization, which the rebels seem to be.

    I am also an Army mom, PLM, and I'm glad my son will out of the Army by the end of this year. He spent time in Afghanistan last year. One deployment is enough.

    I think our efforts have to be humanitarian, not military. The people/victims need our help...the world's help...not more attacks.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Why would the United States of America push for the Chemical Weapons specific treaty dealing with this type of situation 20 years ago and not use that treaty with the United Nations that enforces that treaty? We pay most of the costs of that treaty with inspectors from military and industrial backgrounds from 80 of the 189 nations that are signatory to that treaty. Syria isn't a signatory but is still a member of the United Nations.

    The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has experts and facilities to verify the existence of chemical weapons and procedures to deal with a country that has and uses chemical weapons. This President has avoided all discussion about this. With his Susan Rice person that does all the President's bidding was the Ambassador to the United Nations until just recently and hasn't done anything it would appear to do anything.

    The Democrat leadership is into a worse position than President Bush in pushing the military action. At least President Bush had 9/11 and chemical weapons. President Obama has chemical weapons and no direct attack. The attack in Syria was on their own citizens and the rebels don't have an international agreement.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    We all know that the Christians haven't been singled out by the way he has liked the money those Christians bring to his economy.

    The terrorists or rebels have one common goal and that isn't freedom for people, especially Christians. It has never been their goal.

    Our President and country through undermining tactics and unwritten policies have a goal to cause instability throughout the world. Leaders in many countries have found our weakness in our leadership over the past 5-10 years as we have been at war in various countries.

    Sadaam tried to lure us into war and throw us down but Sadaam went down but in the long run we have spent much of our assets for revenge after 9/11. Our Generals such as Patreaus have helped us be in a void of leadership over the years. Generals are and have been politicians in disguise and Colonels will do anything to make the rank of General. Even though the common Soldier, Airman, Marine and Seaman may have integrity, their leaders have learned from cheating and other scandals that the Academies have set an example of lack of integrity and other good characteristics.

  • Zac Ogden, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    So, one side probably (not 100%) used some chemical weapons, the other side likes to throw acid on their wives and daughters for the audacity of going to school or dating and falling in love with the wrong person. Let them handle it themselves.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    This is probably the reason Senator Lee isn't supporting an immediate intervention. Which side can the U.S. support? It looks like a lose -lose. As the mother of an American soldier, I strongly urge lawmakers to refrain from spilling one drop of American blood by sending our family members into a fight where neither side is concerned about the best interest of the Syrian people or the U.S.

  • md Cache, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 6:29 a.m.

    Syrian rebels = muslim brotherhood = Al Qaida. Stay out of it, Obama.

  • Utah Girl Vernal, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 2:58 a.m.

    As bad as Assad may be, I think the rebels could be worse, especially as they seem to be radical Muslim. Who should we help...Assad, who seems determined to eliminate half his citizens, or the rebels, who seem to be linked to al Qaida? I think we should find a way to help the people, the victims, in a humanitarian effort, and stay out of the civil war. Our military is spread thin now, and underfunded. We don't seem to have definitive proof that Assad used chemical weapons. It could be al Qaida, or some other group.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 8, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    Are these rebels, the ones Obama is siding with?