At an after-care center near Turkey’s border with Syria, civilians and combatants recover from life-altering injuries. The Times’s Mac William Bishop speaks to casualties of Syria’s brutal civil war.
An entire generation is being killed, maimed, and traumatized. However the conflict turns out, this can’t bode well for the country’s future.
Union soldier of the American Civil War, in a note pinned to the inside of his jacket.
Many Union soldiers knew that their assault in the Battle of Cold Harbor (June 3rd, 1864) would be a massacre, and therefore placed final notes or love letters inside their jackets prior to leaving their entrenchments. It is remembered as one of American history’s bloodiest, most lopsided battles, and one that leading commander Ulysses S. Grant regretted for the rest of his life.
Every soldier anticipates the very real likelihood that they will die during their service. But I can’t imagine knowingly running headlong into certain death like this. What was it like to accept such a fate? What were their final thoughts?
This 260 page tome is about one of the most decisive but understated military battles in the history of Europe, pitting the ascendent Ottoman Empire against the Knights of St. John, some of Europe’s finest warriors.
At stake was a tiny island that not only allowed control over much of the trade-rich Mediterranean, but could be used to invade Italy and possibly Europe. So far it’s been an informative, balanced, and gripping read, and will likely appeal to those who particularly enjoy military and Medieval history.
Ms. Pillay said the killings of “at least 6,561 minors, including at least 1,729 children under 10 years old” were documented, and that there were “well-documented cases of individual children being tortured and executed, and entire families, including babies, being massacred — which, along with this devastatingly high death toll, is a terrible reminder of just how vicious this conflict has become.”
And to think that sources suggest these figures are probably understated.
United Nations investigators said chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing had been used and urged world powers to cut off weapons supplies.
Has there ever been a Middle Eastern war of such hypocrisy? A war of such cowardice and such mean morality, of such false rhetoric and such public humiliation? I’m not talking about the physical victims of the Syrian tragedy. I’m referring to the utter lies and mendacity of our masters and our own public opinion, eastern as well as western, in response to the slaughter, a vicious pantomime more worthy of Swiftian satire than Tolstoy or Shakespeare.
Aleppo has been under siege for over nine months — ever since the Free Syrian Army (FSA) stormed the city limits in mid-July. More than 94,000have died throughout Syria, and close to 11,000 have died in Aleppo alone. While the international community dawdles and deliberates, while each side fights for the survival of its reality, civilians here must grapple with the fact that their old lives are gone and their future lives are unknown, and that life must somehow go on between now and then.
So people adapt and cope. The blasts of mortars and artillery fire blend into the background, the threat of snipers becomes a reality to grit your teeth through as you walk home, and dark humor seeps into the daily milieu, calming nerves with a white-knuckled laughter that holds tears at bay. Groceries must be bought, money must be made, bellies must be filled, and days must have some sort of meaning.
The reality of a civilian in war is that life must be risked in order to live. Day-to-day acts can become small feats of rebellion. Risking sniper fire on the walk to work becomes not only a testament to human resilience and our ability to adapt, but sometimes a statement: You can take my life, but you can’t take my choice to live it.
The United States may be finished dropping bombs on Iraq, but Iraqi bodies will be dealing with the consequences for generations to come in the form of birth defects…
Besides serving as the Mexican equivalent to St. Patrick’s Day (at least in the US), Cinco de Mayo commemorates Mexico’s resounding victory against the French in the Battle of Puebla, which took place on May 5th, 1862.
France invaded and occupied Mexico because it refused to pay interest to its foreign debt, and because Napoleon III had imperial ambitions (much like his more famous uncle). France was one of the most powerful countries at the time, while Mexico was weakened by instability and poverty. Mexico’s forces had been under-equipped and outnumbered (about 4,000 versus 8,000), but managed to hold their own and win through tactical superiority and greater morale. The nonetheless unlikely victory is why the battle remains celebrated to this day.
Well, sort of: Cinco De Mayo is actually not a major holiday in Mexico itself (except in the Puebla region where the battle was fought). It’s far more popular in the US, where it is often mistaken as Mexico’s independence day (which is actually on September 16). Apparently, the holiday began in California to protest the French occupation of Mexico. Afterward, it clearly caught on and evolved into a celebration of Mexican heritage and culture (any excuse to get sloshed right? :P)
In any case, I hope you all have a happy – AND SAFE! – Cinco De Mayo.
[Note that despite losing the battle, the French did actually go on to win the war, occupying Mexico until around 1867, when Maximilian I, who had been installed by the French as a monarch, was overthrown and executed by Mexican revolutionaries. So despite losing the bigger battle, Mexico remained proud that it was able to hold it’s own and eventually win it’s freedom.]
In a recent report for International Studies Quarterly, political scientists Paul Midford and Indra de Soysa looked at U.S. and Chinese arms transfers to Africa from 1989 to 2006, using data collected by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. They found no statistical correlation between China and the types of regimes it supplied with weapons, while U.S. arms shipments were slightly negatively correlated with democracy. In plain English, China actually turned out to be less likely to sell weapons to dictators than America was.
“It isn’t that China is there to do good; they’re pursuing their national interest,” Midford says. “But we didn’t find any evidence that they’re trying to spread a ‘Beijing consensus’ or promote regimes that are specifically autocratic.”
The report focuses on Africa, but similar human rights concerns have been raised about U.S. weapons transfers to Persian Gulf autocracies such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, which collectively helped drive a more than 300 percent jump in U.S. arms sales in 2011 amid rising tensions with Iran.
Midford emphasizes that the report is not meant to suggest the United States prefers to sell weapons to dictators. “The U.S. is choosing to support autocrats based on a geopolitical rationale,” Midford says, “as is China.”
The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.
The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a “targeted, focused effort” that “has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”… .
A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.
Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.
There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days.