|
Post by Wyatt Heyl on Apr 30, 2018 3:25:41 GMT
Syrian Death Tolls
|
|
|
Post by Wyatt Heyl on Apr 30, 2018 3:27:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on May 2, 2018 12:25:01 GMT
The civil war occurring in Syria is not an act of genocide. A genocide is when a specific group of people, oftentimes religious peoples, are being killed or injured. In Syria's case it is against the government which is made up of many different types of people. The Syria issue is not a genocide, there is no perceivable way that it could be labelled as such. This does not mean other countries should not take action, though. There are mass killings happening, with some estimates of over 500,000 people dead, attackers and civilians alike. While there are numerous groups calculating the death tolls, and none of them match exactly, there is not much anyone can do until there is a set amount. Mentioned in the NY Times article, ““This work, what we are doing, we are doing this mainly for our people, for our community, for history itself,” Mr. Ghany said. “So we are recording these reports in order to say, on this day, in 2018, these people have been killed and because of this, and in this area”” (NY Times). Without the who, what, when, where, and why countries do not have the necessary information to take action without facing major consequences. Not to mention that some countries just do not seem to care, the Syrians are struggling ““Because no one is listening to what we are doing”” (NY Times). The blame is on the Syrian government for everything that is occurring in Syria, which makes the who a little bit easier. Due to the fact that no death counts are accurate, there is not going to be any aid coming than what they already have. Besides some of the bombings and intervention, it has not done anything. Nothing will happen until there are foreign boots on the ground. The U.S. should focus on keeping Israel safe, because they mean so much to the U.S. and not put the troops in direct combat at this time.
My question is: how does it seem that the countries surrounding Syria are not getting that much backlash from the fighting? Or is it just being kept under wrap?
|
|
|
Post by Makayla Rieder on May 3, 2018 14:29:49 GMT
Syria has been in a civil war since 2011, and it’s so chaotic that it’s hard to even know the number of casualties that have come out of this disaster. There are so many factors that have made it hard to document deaths, and made it hard to understand the war in general. The Syrian government won’t negotiate, and neither will the rebels. There are also terrorist groups and other things to take into consideration when estimating how many people have been killed. Both sides of the war are being backed by powers who can provide them with a lot of support. The Syrian government has Russia backing it and making it no secret that they will support them through pretty much anything. The rebels are backed by a few big powers such as the United States, The UK, and France. Neither are backing down anytime soon and the death toll will just keep rising. I don’t think that analysts will ever label this as a genocide because each side has a lot of backing and manpower behind them. Neither of the sides is helpless, and genocide is usually when a powerful group kills a ton of another group that can’t fight back. If it was ever labeled a genocide, which is unlikely, they would most likely be in favor of the government being the perpetrators just because it’s easy to identify and blame a government because its more organized and out in the open. I don’t think that there will be any real consequences for analysts because they stopped counting deaths. They will most likely just have to inform people at the end of the war that their death count is estimated and not a real death count, but they have said that they really couldn’t keep track so I don’t think it’ll be penalized.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on May 4, 2018 0:37:56 GMT
"Even before the conflict began, many Syrians were complaining about high unemployment, corruption and a lack of political freedom under President Bashar al-Assad, who succeeded his late father Hafez in 2000"(BBC). The Syrian war was one that started as a result of unhappy and politically unfree people.Throughout the years the Syrian War has killed thousands of people, however it is extremely hard to determine the exact amount. This "unknown" death tole came about as result of the fifth anniversary to the start of the war. As stated in the New York Times "Rupert Colville, a spokesman for the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) who had been releasing the numbers, told reporters that the organization could not offer a reliable figure for the death toll, and that due to doubts about the accuracy of the information they were presenting, the U.N"(New York Times). This inaccuracy of the death tole makes it extremely hard to determine as to how much this war has effected Syria. I however do not believe that this was an act of genocide. As Olivia said, for this to be a genocide,"a specific group of people, oftentimes religious peoples, would have to been killed or injured." This is in no way shape or form a genocide, and will never be labeled as one. The death tole however not being counted accurately may result in some serious consequences. With the U.N. stating that they were unable to give an accurate number, then later reversing their decision, is a little sketchy. Other countries may start to question the U.N's credibility and begin to question them on future death toles and decisions that they may make. If they just stayed with what they had said and not gone back on their word there would most likely not be any consequences to not keeping an accurate number of deaths.
|
|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on May 4, 2018 2:50:52 GMT
The conflict in Syria has had mounting death tolls since its precipice, both military and civilian alike. The total deaths are approximated at 353,900 people, however, critics say that this estimate is not accurate (BBC). A genocide is categorized by “Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”(http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html). It does not seem as this will be categorized as genocide because it is not against a particular group of people, just all Syrians that oppose the ruling Bashar al-Assad. This amount of carnage is devastating and deserves a label, but the label of genocide does not quite apply to the situation. If this situation was somehow labeled a genocide, it would most likely be blamed on the Bashar al-Assad regime. This regime is punishing anyone who tries to take away their power and authority. The mass amount of carnage would be linked to the dominating force of the corrupt Syrian government, and not the murdered dissenters. The indifference of the analysts towards accurately tracking the deaths in this conflict could lead to further neglect. It is very common for the United Nations to step in once a conflict reaches a certain amplitude, and without an accurate record of the effects of this conflict, it is very unlikely that the U.N. could get involved. This negligence could also create a president of negligence towards non-Western countries, if the analysts stop caring about a hot-bed area like Syria, what is to stop them from neglecting smaller, less influential countries.
My question: How long do you think this conflict can last before either group kills one another off? Do you think the involvement of terror groups has escalated the situation, and in what ways?
|
|
|
Post by Maya Borland on May 4, 2018 2:59:19 GMT
For the past few years Sarah has been in a dramatic Civil War. This war does not target any specific race or religious group, but it is fixed on dismantling the government. Some people are saying that this war on the the brink of becoming a genocide. With the death toll being so high I can see that this is a devastating loss for the Syrian country. However this war is not a genocide. For it to be a genocide the deaths would have to be of a certain race of religious group. The biggest problem that is also occurring in Syria is that not all the deaths have been properly recorded. More than 40,000 people have died so far but, that is only the number of people that have been recorded. Many more people have be reported missing. No one really knows if they are dead or alive. With the loss of all these people many different cultures will be lost to the world. So many Syrians have fled the country in order to save their lives and their family but, they are leaving so much behind. Almost 1.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. Many of them have fled to surrounding countries and, people are losing their home, culture, and sometimes their family that have died. So many countries have need so over run that they can not with stand that large amount of people. This civil war is slowly overflowing into other countries. A whole country will be changed from this experience and it will never be the same again.
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on May 4, 2018 3:17:57 GMT
Coming from the side of the government, it could almost be considered genocide, although throwing the word around loosely loses its meaning and significance to definite genocides in the past. Since the government is directly targeting different rebel groups, while haphazardly killing innocent civilians as well, it would lean more towards a massacre instead. Not all of the people being killed have things exactly in common, except for the fact that they’re Syrian. If it even were to be deemed a genocide by others, blame would lean more towards the government for prompting the violent acts in the first place, “These protests did not go over well with the government, which responded with extreme measures including the kidnapping, torture and killing of protesters. Government troops began opening fire on civilians, who fired back in response,” which served only as a form of retaliation (abcnews). Had they focused more on the actual problems at hand prior, like fighting high unemployment rates, instead of instantly lashing out, it likely would have not escalated as easily in 2011. The repercussions that have come from this are apparent on both sides, but according to NY Times, “Even the United Nations, which released regular reports on the death toll during the first years of the war, gave its last estimate in 2016”. The U.N. is relied on the most for international aid in times of dire need like this and they prove to be incapable of delivering such aid if they aren’t even sure how much is necessary or whether they THINK it is necessary or not. By stating that they’ll stop counting, it means they stop caring which hurts the victims even more, leaving them with no options for the future. War ending depends on which side is stronger and has better aid since neither will probably decide to step down from their agenda anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Chloe Fetter on May 4, 2018 3:51:35 GMT
The humanitarian crisis currently happening in Syria is an extremely atrocious form of genocide. Labels as such do not need to be designated in order to see the event for what it is, the ruthless killings of many innocent men and women alike. The worst thing about this situation is the fact that there is an absence of an official death toll. There will be dire consequences for this aspect because "without a clear tally of the deaths, advocates worry that the conflict will simply grind on indefinitely, without a concerted international effort to end it" (New York Times). Many operations, for example, the UN are unable to record the exact amount of casualties and for this reason, many deaths will go unnoticed without restitution or justice on their, or their families, behalf. However, the seven year war has not gone without recognition as This statement by BBC made me wonder if the involvement of outside forces or alleviates or worsens the conditions of countries that are experiencing internal turmoil. Is it up to them to fix their own problem or should others be obligated to ease the conflict? Although, the history of Syria has been ridden with disputes "following its independence from France in 1946, Syria quickly fell into a pattern of political instability and military coups for the first few decades of its existence" (ABC News). Therefore,it is outrageously biased to state for sure what this eternal war will do to further the damage already imposed on the country's structure. The architecture of Syria has already been destroyed with almost 90% of infrastructure being damaged in some way shape or form. In response to your question about who is to blame for this disaster, the Syrian government should have taken into account that the majority of citizens were unhappy with the way things were going but instead they “responded with extreme measures including the kidnapping, torture and killing of protesters. Government troops began opening fire on civilians, who fired back in response” (ABC News). It’s not fair to say the citizens are in the wrong because it's hard to sit around while you’re being shot at by your own leaders without taking any action. Many people have been forced to leave due to the immense damage done to their homeland as the Syrian civil war has led us down a pathway to one of the largest refugee influxes in recent history.
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on May 4, 2018 3:56:19 GMT
The conflict in Syria is one of an unfortunate series of events. The people of Syria were discontent with the unfair ruling of President Bashar al-Assad. Syrians were allowed very few freedoms under his reign and considered him to be corrupt. The uprising began with peaceful protests inspired by the other successfully overthrown governments of the Arab Spring. Unfortunately the Syrian government did not respond to peace with peace. BBC explains how the protests turned to violence, “the unrest spread and the crackdown intensified. Opposition supporters took up arms, first to defend themselves and later to rid their areas of security forces. Mr Assad vowed to crush what he called ‘foreign-backed terrorism’”. Since then, the violence has continued and for years the death toll has risen. It was an interesting question to pose about whether or not to consider the conflict to be a genocide. Generally a genocide is a mass act of violence against a certain race or religion of people but it is understandable how this could be likened to a genocide of sorts. It all comes down to definition and terminology. The Washington Post stated, “the most widely cited of those estimates come from the United Nations, who last summer suggested that more than 250,000 people had been left dead by the war.” Here, they use the term “war”, which is a common way to refer to this conflict. Because there is no set number of deaths that must be exceeded to be considered a “genocide” the death toll does not do much to help define it. Most articles refer to the conflict as a “civil war” which, when defined, means “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country” (1). This definition does not match the conflict between President Bashar al-Assad’s government and the Syrian people. The conflict fits better into the definition of a revolution, which is as follows, “A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”. (2) Neither the term questioned in the discussion nor the term used by the media correctly defines the conflict in Syria, it is more of a revolution that has reached an unfortunate stalemate. 1: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20war2: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolution
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on May 7, 2018 1:00:15 GMT
@meghan, In response to your question, I do not believe that one group will overpower the other. President Bashar al-Assad and those under him have too much power and aggression to allow the Syrian people to reach their goals and the Syrian people are stubborn in their beliefs to give up. The Arab Spring proved to them that it is possible to overthrow such a crude government and that inspiration keeps fueling their fire. This stalemate will continue until there is a shift to provide an advantage to one side or the other. If a shift were to occur, it is best to assume that the government will find themselves at the advantage. As death tolls rise, it is likely the Syrian's faith in their cause will waver and the government will continue to weaken them.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on May 7, 2018 1:50:24 GMT
@meghan I think that this conflict can go on for decades to come before one kills the other off. This has been going on for a long time already, which makes it less likely that they will kill eachother off. Although the death tolls have not been very accurate, these killings have progressed throughout the years, but will most likely not result in one killing the other off.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on May 7, 2018 1:57:58 GMT
@olivia To answer your question as to why the surrounding countries are not getting much backlash from the fighting going on in Syria, my answer would be because they are not getting involved. These other countries are minding their own business, and Syria is trying to keep the fighting within their country. They don’t want to involve anyone else in this conflict. The neighboring countries have nothing to do with the fighting so therefore they are not getting any backlash from it.
|
|
|
Post by Laura Gutauskas on May 7, 2018 3:13:39 GMT
@meghan I worry that without the correct foreign intervention, which is subjective to measure, a point will be reached where a side is actually “killed off”. At this point in the fight, hundreds of thousands of rebels, as well as innocent civilians, are dying while President Bashar al-Assad’s side is not as affected and continues to be supported by stronger, more armed countries. This makes it likely to only last a few more years potentially. Terror groups have only brought upon more attention to the situation which inevitably will and have made tensions worse.
|
|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on May 7, 2018 3:24:31 GMT
@olivia In regards to your question " how does it seem that the countries surrounding Syria are not getting that much backlash from the fighting? Or is it just being kept under wrap?", it seems as though the surrounding countries are just keeping quiet about the impact. In Lebenon, they have had a large influx of refugees and have started to create laws limiting their rights www.nbcnews.com/news/world/syrians-fleeing-civil-war-face-backlash-tiny-neighbor-lebanon-flna6C10664228. In Jordan, another neighboring country to Syria, the influx of refugees has created wide strain and discomfort and has "exacerbates challenges Jordan has faced for many years" (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2017)599258). The other country bordering Syria is Jerusalem, which has its own issues to deal with. The problems the surrounding countries have had to deal with are not with conflict but with the people fleeing the conflict.
|
|