News24

Syrian troops shell Homs

2012-03-03 12:00

Beirut - Syrian activists say troops are shelling several districts in the rebellious central city of Homs where the government is keeping a Red Cross convoy blocked from reaching thousands stranded in the area.

Abu Hassan al-Homsi, a doctor at a makeshift clinic in Khaldiyeh district of Homs says he has treated a dozen wounded.

The Local Co-ordination Committees activist network says mortars have slammed into Khaldiyeh, Bab Sbaa and Khader districts of the city early on Saturday.

The shelling comes amid a standoff between the government and the Red Cross, which says authorities have prevented it's a convoy from delivering badly needed food, medical supplies and blankets to thousands of people still stranded in Baba Amr, the rebel-held district of Homs that was overran by troops on Thursday.

Comments
  • Garth - 2012-03-03 12:30

    Agh, this is not real. According to Merdes and Fido this is all western propaganda. The forces of the legitimate, democratically elected Assad are not really killing Syrians in Syria - only foreign agents: Jews, American-funded Al Qaeda, Israeli-funded Iranian dissidents, etc.

      Fidel - 2012-03-03 13:09

      When one is rigidly only upholding one view it opens you up to be very easily manipulated and brainwashed by unscrupulous agents who have their own dishonest agendas (mostly politicians). Unemotional discernment by not being wholly identified with one group is a great eye opener.

      Fred - 2012-03-03 16:06

      Speaking to yourself again Fidel

  • phathuchicos - 2012-03-03 16:32

    The most powerful weapons in a war are peoples' voices...mortar and grenades will run-out but the will of the people to be freed from people who run countries like its their property won't be defeated easily...Why can't we just f##k UN and do what the majority desires. One day in future people of Syria will look at the world and ask themselves...why didn't they get help from the world just like in Libya?

      Fred - 2012-03-03 17:39

      Couldn't agree more with your first sentence, and I share your frustration in your second and third.

      Fred - 2012-03-03 19:36

      Well at least you're admitting your confusion. You should be starting your messages with this position, that of uncertainty. It would make your messages more credible. Like the second part, in which you state "Libya never asked for assistance from Nato". Everyone with a clear minds knows it did. Gaddafi's cronies didn't ask of course, or those that had allowed themselves to be kept in an infantile position. The latter couldn't see that far. As for Nato destroying Libya, that's the same misinformation you've been trying to ply here across threads. Nato was charged by the international community to remove Gaddafi's ability to kill Libyans who wanted nothing more than the right to vote. It surgically targeted military installations, and it did this with aplomb. It did not target ANY civilian infrastructure of people. Again, you should reveal your uncertainty. This is nothing to be ashamed of. It would make you more credible and respectable. And most importantly, it would lead you to a truer understanding of events.

      Fred - 2012-03-04 09:07

      Well at least you're admitting your confusion. You should be starting your messages with this position, that of uncertainty. It would make them more credible. Regarding the second part, in which you state "Libya never asked for assistance from Nato", everyone with a clear minds knows it did. Gaddafi's cronies didn't ask of course, or those that had allowed themselves to be kept in an infantile position. The latter couldn't see that far. As for Nato destroying Libya, that's the same misinformation you've been trying to ply here across threads. Nato was charged by the international community to remove Gaddafi's ability to kill Libyans who wanted nothing more than the right to vote. It surgically targeted military installations, and it did this with aplomb. It did not target ANY civilian infrastructure or people. Again, you should reveal your uncertainty. This is nothing to be ashamed of. It would make you more credible and respectable. And most importantly, it would lead you to a truer understanding of events.

  • pages:
  • 1