During Tunisian revolution that started in December 2010, others unrests took place in some Arab countries to show up some kind of disapproval about their governments. It also happened in Syria in mid-March 2011, when inhabitants of a small town took to the streets to protest the torture of students who had written anti-government graffiti on public walls.
In April 2011, President Bashar al-Assad lifted the country’s decades-old state of emergency and set off the first (that became a series) of crackdowns, sending tanks and troops to open fire on demonstrators.
Since then, violence has not stopped and even The Arab League - comprised of 22 members state - were unable to make a deal to stop the killing of innocent civilians. The only result it had is to get rid of Syria from the League.
Mr. Assad indicates he has no plan of leaving power- after all, he inherited his post from his father - and It means that he knows how to cope with ‘enemies of state’. He is also prepared to kill whoever comes up to try to oust him and has being showing that power is more important than the people he was supposed to lead (well, what to expect from a dictator?).
Looking through Western eyes, I understand why there’s no mention of giving any help to Syrians who want to overthrow Mr. Assad: Syria is an old foe of West and Israel. Why should Western countries send any help to someone who might become an enemy in the future? It’s worth leaving them killing themselves! This sort of thought may seem dreadful, but would you help someone who could turn against you in the future?
Syria has a historic of wars and terrorism and for sure, it isn’t only with the change of a government that a Nation’s mind would change. The Syrians must show that they want an thorough upheaval in their behaviour towards Israel and the West - and It doesn’t mean “westernisation” of this country. Revolution starts inside our brains and so with guns, if strictly necessary.
Let’s see what’s coming up next.