October 14th, 2011
08:46 AM ET

U.N. urges 'immediate' world 'measures' to protect Syrians

A top U.N. official deplored the "devastatingly remorseless toll of human lives" in Syria on Friday and exhorted the world community "to take immediate measures" to protect citizens.

"The onus is on all members of the international community to take protective action in a collective and decisive manner, before the continual ruthless repression and killings drive the country into a full-blown civil war," said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, who issued the statement describing a dire human rights situation in Syria.

Her remarks come as protesters took to the streets on Friday in different cities, a nationwide outpouring supporting the "free army," a reference to personnel who have defected from President Bashar al-Assad's military and the recently-formed Syrian Free Army.

FULL STORY
Post by:
Filed under: Syria
soundoff (12 Responses)
  1. leeintulsa

    We had a civil war, england had a civil war.. Why are we so obsessed with preventing civil wars elsewhere?

    Many would say our civil war was an essential part of our growth as a nation. Horrible, yes, but necessary. Some call it the last battle of the american revolution.

    Let em work it out. Go free syrian army 🙂

    October 14, 2011 at 10:20 am | Report abuse |
  2. OWS

    This world would be a much better place if both the neo-fascist, terrorist sponsoring governments of Damascus, Syria and Tehran, Iran were WIPED OFF THE MAP !!!! And for those of you that DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ – NO – I am NOT suggesting we wipe Syria and Iran completely off the map, rather – SOLELY THE SYRIAN AND IRANIAN RADICAL ISLAMIC GOVERNMENTS !!!! (I know, I know, there are a lot of innocent people in those nations that do not support their radical Islamic governments beliefs...Blah !! Blah !! Blah !!...SSDD...)

    October 14, 2011 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
  3. Bimbo the Birthday Clown

    This is indeed a historic day. Someone connected with UNHCR has actually accused an Arab League dictator of killing his own people. This is the first time since.... ever.

    Does this mean they will end their obsession with Israel? NAAAAHHHHH !

    October 14, 2011 at 10:46 am | Report abuse |
  4. Bimbo the Birthday Clown

    Upon further review of her comments, she may be criticizing the free army, not Assad. I hope that's not the case. Either way, why did she not make these comments months ago?

    October 14, 2011 at 11:05 am | Report abuse |
  5. bobcat2u.

    Come one, Come all. Be the first in your neighborhood to pick the winning team. The UN has proclaimed the need for the world to get involved in Syria. Don't be the last to proclaim your support for your favorite team in what promises to be the lastest and greatest of all proxy wars. In this corner we have the NATO countries that espouse truth and justice. And in the other corner we have the Islamic states of the Mid East who claim the only true religion. This promises to be a battle royale. So don"t hesitate. Get your front row seats now before it's too late.

    October 14, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
  6. jordan scene©

    I just want to know why the international community was so quick and adament about stickin it to Ghadafi in Libya but now we just twiddle our thumbs over Syria. We can sanction them till we are blue in the face but even then we aren't stopping or even hurting their regime. Until some serious ultimatums are laid down and backed up this will undoubtedly continue.

    October 14, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bimbo the Birthday Clown

      A lot of people will sy "oil". But there are 2 other reasons. Up until now there was no rebel group on the ground to assist with airstrikes in Syria. Short of a ground invasion, there was no way to help peaceful protesters. But more importantly, the Arab League turned their backs on Ghadafi and gave the green light to international action, but have not done the same (yet) to Assad.. My guess is that NATO believes things went rather well in Libya, so would probably do the same thing in Syria if the green light was given.

      October 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
  7. bobcat2u.

    OK, I got the sarcasm out on my last statement.
    Now what I would really like to know is this. This side of direct military intervention, what exactly is world involvement going to do ? We tried chatising them. Big deal. We've tried sanctions. Big deal. That's what I was reffering to above. Are we going to arm the people, while Iran, Russia, China and whoever else arms the govenment ? No matter how you look at this, it's going to be a really messed up deal.

    October 14, 2011 at 12:44 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Mad Granny

    Let's get ready to RRRUUUMMMBBBLLLEEE!

    October 14, 2011 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Justice

    Syria is now, but we have for a long time Yemen againts its people, Israel againts the Palestinian, Bahrain againts its people, and more, what about them? these people also have a supreme right to be free of oppression and killings, but always but, there is a different insterest in each case and at the moment is Syria... who is next, ok, it is clear: Iran.

    October 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
  10. jordan scene©

    Oh yes that's right. Thanks for bringing that up bimbo I forget we went to libya with the Arab league's blessings. Well either way, whether NATO gets involved or not, tons of people are going to die unless there can be a more diplomatic approach. Too bad diplomacy doesn't often work in these types of situations. Like my favorite saying "if you want peace, prepare for war"

    October 14, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  11. tif31

    Just nuke em all and be done with it.

    October 14, 2011 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |