11 months into Syrian protest crisis, the death toll has reached an estimated 6,000. These numbers are updated in the wake of one of the most violent weekends yet to be seen.
“It is horrible. Especially today, it is horrible,” said Abu Omar, a local activist who said the Syrian army was attacking without warning. “Usually they are using mortars. They are now using rockets in the sky. We can see them in the sky.”
As Holly Yan reports in a recent CNN article, “At least 46 people were killed across Syria on Monday, including four children, the opposition Local Coordination Committees said. The deaths included 36 in Homs, four in Damascus suburbs, one in Damascus, two in Aleppo, and three in Idlib.”
These numbers are a conservative estimate of only one day of mortar and missile raids, as it is estimated by opposition groups that: “more than 300 civilians have died in Homs since Thursday.”
Meanwhile, the Syrian government exercises its control over the country’s media, with state-run TV claiming that the government is merely responding to “armed terrorist groups” who were attacking “citizens and members of law enforcement in several cities.”
The United Nations shut down a resolution this past Saturday that would have put pressure on Egypt to stop violent intervention on citizens. “The U.N. gave them the green light to inflict more violence,” another opposition activist, identified as “Danny,” said from Homs. “If it wasn’t for the U.N., they wouldn’t have did this. It gave them the OK to kill more. If the U.N. had done something about this, this regime would be a little bit scared.”
Due to a set of dual vetoes from China and Russia, the measure did not pass, leaving only fear in the hearts of those who are at the mercy of the regime. The U.S. recognized the potential for violence by withdrawing its embassy workers from the country.
In response to dissent from the majority of the U.N. Security Council, Russian and Chinese ambassadors were all for ending violence. However, both nations were against the resolution itself. As far as they’re concerned, the text itself is too confusing to serve any positive purpose in an already sensitive situation.