BBC Panorama - Homs - Journey into Hell

thanks, you rock!

Even more NATO crap, are people really that stupid?

in what regards? what does NATO have to do with this report? they seem to have reported it fairly as an ethnic conflict of sorts (with a minority territory of the country rebelling). and we know that Assad's forces did a "re-creation" of events as to lay blame on the rebels. clearly the people in that area would want the international community to intervene as they are getting fucked up. it does not make an outright call for NATO intervention. and they did give the rebels tunnel location away lol. please explain.

Well, I do not doubt the truthfullness of this report. But would it have been done if Nato interests were on the other side? Nato would like to see regime change in order to increase it's influence in the Middle East. This time truth serves Nato interests. I can't recall as emotional reports about rebellion and human suffering in Palestine, Iraq or Afganistan. In that sense one could call this Nato propaganda.

I lived in Syria for a number of years and while I am not supportive of the Syrian government, the Western media is certainly distorting the reality on the ground there. The Syrian government may not enjoy majority support, but neither does this armed opposition. Many Syrian friends of mine - mostly communists, atheists, secularists and religious minorities - who were generally opposed to the Syrian government find this opposition to be even worse. Most Syrians feel stuck in the middle of two mediocre options, but the Syrian government is at least a known.

Fact of the matter is, the opposition is overwhelmingly religiously conservative Sunni Muslims and they're getting their backing from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf monarchs along with Turkey in order to bring down an Iranian ally. They lost Iraq to Iran's sphere of influence and they're looking to turn the tables in Syria. The West would like to see this happen, too, but they're not as motivated as the Gulf monarchs.

Daraa, Homs, Hama and Idleb have been the focal points of the opposition and all of these places (which I have traveled in *extensively*) are very religious and conservative. It is a cultural clash with the more open, secular, and diverse regions like Damascus, Aleppo, Lattakia and Tartus. Really, Syria is not going to be better off if these people take control. It will become either a puppet of the Saudis (at best) or a sectarian killing field like Lebanon at the height of the civil war (at worst).

I am just back from Egypt and it is the same there.

The kind of people I would typically sympathise with ¨communists, atheists, secularists¨ etc. Whilst they initially were over the moon about the popular rising up, or whatever it was, they are now terrified that the next regime will be hardcore islamic. Many of the moderate muslims also feel like this apparently. It is like Edmund Burke warned when he spoke of the evils of revolution. Basically if you are going to have a revolution then you need to have a clear idea of what the next move is once you have ousted the current dictator. It is easy for people in the West such as myself to say that the fight is a just one etc and that anything is better than the current despot but it is not that simple.

I am mystified why there has been no mention of the Hama Massacre in 1982. It is believed that up to 20,000 civilians where slaughtered by Syrian army, under the instructions of President Hafez al-Assad, . The BBC Panorama program should be renamed to "Homs - Journey into Hell, Again.