I dug into the numbers for some shocking perspective: More civilians died in Syria in August than the bloodiest months for civilians in the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as the recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain.
But these numbers, as stark as they are, can’t fully illustrate the escalating war playing out on the ground. Learn more here, and please watch FRONTLINE’s two-part special, The Battle for Syria, this Tuesday.
This is horrifying.
This doesn’t mean anything. You can’t compare Syria to Egypt. Egypt, like they say, was only 18 days. While Syria is an ongoing full scale civil war, Egypt was just protests combined with violent crackdowns. Comparing it to the Iraq War also says absolutely nothing. 2006 in Iraq was a major year where Jalal Talabani began to provide a bit of stability. In 2006, the majority of the violence in Iraq came from Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers at Shi’a events. There were a lot of major assassinations (including Saddam’s execution) that drove the numbers down in that year. Comparing a year in which things became slightly more stable after three years of war to a month of a war that has been going on for only a year and a half is a terrible way to demonstrate numbers.
It would be better if this compared this by month to other Arab Spring countries, rather than Afghanistan and Iraq six years ago. This is a typical example of the imperialist propaganda that is used to convince Muslims to support American proxies such as the FSA abroad. If you compare Syria to similar timelines during the American-backed Libyan Civil War, it’s quite similar. Anti-Syrian propaganda is the equivalent of pro-American propaganda. The real problem here is that the average person can’t tell the difference between true revolutionaries and proxies of the United States. It’s the same tactic that was used in Libya: Convince everyone that “the people” are taking down the tyrant while NATO launches a four billion dollar bombing campaign and trillion dollar media campaign. The only problem for NATO is that while Gaddafi’s allies were mostly poor African countries and a few Latin American nations, Syria’s allies are much stronger like Iran, China, and Russia, meaning that a single bomb dropped would mean a massive regional war.
Pro-NATO propaganda like this is extremely easy to produce because of the fact that most people look at a chart with big pretty numbers on it and convince themselves that they’re smart.
Brilliant commentary ^
Highly relevant commentary indeed. Thanks for adding.