An inconvenient question about Syria

These attacks by the government:

Heavy shelling and gunfire has rocked the Syrian town of Jisr al-Shughour, two days into a military assault that has caused more than 5,000 refugees to flee into neighbouring Turkey.
The continued assault suggests some groups in the town are resisting the armed forces as the regime tries to crush a sustained challenge to President Bashar al-Assad.

Now yes, it’s not a democracy, Assad is a dictator, the regime is a shitty and oppressive one.
However, it’s very difficult to see that they’re doing anything wrong in law.

They are the de facto and de jure government of the country. One of the rights that such a government has is the putting down of armed rebellion.

As we did in 1916 in Dublin for example, or Weimar did with Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch, Kerensky’s Government could have (should have!) shot every Bolshevik with a gun in their hands.

If you win you’re freedom fighters of course. And we might well decide that we prefer those would be freedom fighters to the thugs who currently rule the place and thus support them. For example, Ghadaffi…we support those who would overthrow him but it’s difficult to see that he’s illegally putting down an armed rebellion: it’s the most basic “right” that a de jure government has, to defend itself against armed overthrow.
So the inconvenient question is: just what is the Syrian Government doing that is wrong in law?

BY Tim Worstall

Two Afghans encounter death over modifying the Quran

No one knows who brought the book to the mosque, or at least no one dares say.

The pocket-size translation of the Quran has already landed six men in prison in Afghanistan and left two of them begging judges to spare their lives. They're accused of modifying the Quran and their fate could be decided Sunday in court. The trial illustrates what critics call the undue influence of hardline clerics in Afghanistan, a major hurdle as the country tries to establish a lawful society amid war and militant violence.

The book appeared among gifts left for the cleric at a major Kabul mosque after Friday prayers in September 2007. It was a translation of the Quran into one of Afghanistan's languages, with a note giving permission to reprint the text as long as it was distributed for free.

Some of the men of the mosque said the book would be useful to Afghans who didn't know Arabic, so they took up a collection for printing. The mosque's cleric asked Ahmad Ghaws Zalmai, a longtime friend, to get the books printed.

But as some of the 1,000 copies made their way to conservative Muslim clerics in Kabul, whispers began, then an outcry.

Many clerics rejected the book because it did not include the original Arabic verses alongside the translation. It's a particularly sensitive detail for Muslims, who regard the Arabic Quran as words given directly by God. A translation is not considered a Quran itself, and a mistranslation could warp God's word.

Pretty odd things going around with particular religions these days.

Source:AP-Kabul