Syria and the BBC standpoint

This article merely states that Russia and Syria denied government involvement. When obviously stated by human rights activists and the U.S.A., that Syria did in fact use Sarin nerve gas. Sarin is said by this site to be odorless and extremely lethal, if anybody has the time I recommend to listen to the audio sample, the sample is only just under two minutes long.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399

Al Jazeera article on the Chemical Attack

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/16/un-inspectors-submitsyriachemicalweaponsreport.html

This article came out in September when enough evidence unearthed to rule that there was indeed a chemical attack in Damascus. It also states that the weather was perfect for the most deadly effects of sarin, the chemical used. There is also insight into the views of the Syrian rebels whom aim to oust Assad. They don't support the plan entirely which aims to destroy Syria's chemical weapons by mid-2014, mostly, because it is a far away date. I understand their point, but Syria needs to start somewhere. I'm just worried that not all chemical weapons, or any substantial weapons for that matter, will be destroyed. Syria has informed the UN of all of its stockpiles, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did not want to give 100% of their weapons away.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/27/syria-meets-deadlinetodeliverplantoremovechemicalweapons.html
To build on that plan, here is one more article about the plan if you are interested. It states that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons said that there is a declaration which is part of a strict timeline that deals with destroying chemical weapons by mid-2014. This article is from October.

Civilians in Ghouta's Opinion on the Attack

This article from Institutes for War & Peace Reporting deals with the civilians thoughts on Western intervention and how to stop President Bahar Assad. The civilians were in high hopes that the United States would attack militarily because they believe that they are the only threat to Assad. The civilians in Ghouta want Assad to be weakened and pray for an end to thee deadly chemical attacks. I found it really interesting that the civilians were in full support of the United States militarily attacking there land if it meant President Assad would be weakened. I agree with the one civilian, who said he didn’t feel an internationally brokered deal, because I think it would take much more to stop Assad. While the United States should take caution and think out how they should attack militarily, I do believe it will be the best way to bring Assad down. These chemical attacks need to stop and there is a need for outside support in the area.

http://iwpr.net/report-news/syrians-divided-western-intervention

Assabeel

Assabeel the newspaper talks about the chemical attack in not much detail. Basically the site talks about how "Turkey's report on the situation through their intelligence," paraphrased. The article is merely a report itself. The Syrian weapons seem very high tech, and it seems from this article that it was a very unfair fight.  The Syrian military is not painted in a good light regardless.


http://www.assabeel.net/syria/item/3020-%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82

Vlog Brother's Take on Syria in 5 Minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exrqMPJ1Bts

I chose this source because I like media that is both informational but not too serious. I think it's a lot easier to watch a silly video than to read articles on a subject. For me, it helps the information stick. I looked this up because I wanted a little bit of background info before diving into our blog. He covers some stuff that we've already spoken of in class but I thought it was a nice little refresher. Also, when this whole chemical attack incident hit the news I had no idea why everyone cared about what Russia had to say about it. Now I know that Russia is a close ally with Syria an relies heavily on the country. Other than that, it was just a nice video to brush up on a very general idea of what happened. It's from September, so, obviously, more has happened since then. What do you guys thing? Did you like the video? Did you learn anything?

Project Outline and Timeline

In this online blog project you are being asked to search the web for information related to the chemical attack on civilians that happened in the summer of 2013 as a part of the Syrian civil war. I would like you to look at sources of media surrounding this particular instance of violence in Syria (before, during and after) to see how the country, combatants, 'the Middle East', human rights, democracy, etc were being portrayed. What can we learn about the place of Syria from this differing coverage of the attack and its outcomes? What can we learn about those who are writing about the countries from this coverage? In other words, how is media-even global media-place based? You will need to do 3 posts over 3 weeks. You can chose to structure your posts chronologically, or regionally, or just jump into whatever aspect excites you the most--this is YOUR blog. Timeline 11/14-12/05 post to the blog (original posts and responses) by 12/07 all posting and replies end 12/16 turn in write-up

The Directions

One of the themes of this course is how do we learn about other places, and particularly places in the Middle East. In this blog you will be discussing the coverage of, assumptions about, and [expected] outcomes of the chemical attack of civilians near Damascus in the summer of 2013. What can we learn about Syria? The combatants? The civilians caught in the middle? About geopolitics? Chemical weapons? And of course how our geographic imaginations of Syria are shaped by what is said about it in the wide world of media Here is what I will be looking for in your online participation: Regular participation!– I expect you to contribute your thoughts to your groups’ blog regularly throughout the 9 days of the project. Don’t just drop in once or twice and expect a good grade. You are expected at a minimum to upload 3 items (with a discussion of what you see) and respond to at least 3 posts by your groupmates. This level of participation, if done well, can earn you a B, but more is needed for that coveted A. Interesting and diverse postings—are you only looking at CNN? Not that CNN is wrong, their articles should be on the blog too, but try also looking farther afield. This could be news sources from around the world, or different types of media (cartoons, Youtube, mashups, flickr, etc) Depth of reflection and analysis– once you have found an item to share with the group, don't just state an opinion and stop, develop your ideas, show why you view the item the way you do. Don’t be afraid to share experiences where relevant, but always keep your tone and content respectful; A willingness to examine your own assumptions –the best way for YOU to get credit for examining your assumptions is if others (graciously and respectfully) point out the assumptions you are making. Thus don’t be afraid to disagree with each other. Or even if you do agree, can you find a source that wouldn’t? What are the assumptions that separate the two? Direct references to reading material when called for. Here is what to avoid: 1. Attacking another point of view or person; disagreeing is fine, but be respectful and give your reasons, simple yes or no responses; 2. Long winded responses in most cases a few well developed paragraphs should do, 3. Late responses be sure to participate in the dialogs during the time period in which the topic is up for discussion.