Syria warns Israel after 'latest air raids' - Al Jazeera
how did this situation hinging on "war" emerge?
history teaches us that at least one national 'government' in an 'international' dispute is attempting to provoke a conflict. in the worst cases, chiefs of both 'governments' are complicit, and engineer a conflict in order to mutually alienate their populations and center resources into corruptable military expenses.
it's become clear that arms funding, by the U.S. and/or Israel, has occurred in the context of an insurrection that's recently occurred in Syria. examining Assad's past - a family semi-dynasty in Syria, with a claimed 1.5 billion dollar fortune - could easily provoke some people to point fingers at him as the sole aggressor - especially in combination with heavily publicized reports from the last several years of many real and imaginary attacks by the Assad administration, but a more calm approach is needed to understand the nature of the conflict. we have to look at his history of opposing U.S. 'interventionism' (invasions), opposing territorial expansions in the region by Israel (which, contrary to some people's beliefs, constitute military invasions on lands with established settlements). at the same time, we are forced to acknowledge reported human rights violations in Syria, including major surveillance and anti-protest symptoms of anti-democratic elements ruling the society.
nonetheless, the U.S. and Israel complexes are unequivocably the aggressors in the scenario, and it should be noted that the citizens of 'Syria' has had their 'territorial airspace' invaded by Israel. 'Syria' has reacted predictably, describing the attacks as part of an implicit declaration of war, and has also described the internationally-funded insurrection as an extension of the U.S./Israel alliance, which is clearly the truth.
there are human rights concerns under Assad, but they appear to be completely negligible when compared to the human rights concerns posed by the U.S. and Israeli 'governments'/complexes, both intraterritorially and extraterritorially. it is possible that Assad is somehow complicit in engineering the conflict alongside them, but that seems unlikely, especially given his refusal to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq at the time.
in light of how 'cluster bomb' attacks, and possession of 'chemical weapons', were claimed to have occurred in Syria by the U.S. and Israeli government/media complex, were not internationally corraborated, appear to have undergone major fabrication (false flag/orchestrated event), and the alleged cluster bomb attacks were even explicitly denied to have occurred by the Russian government, along with countless other facts regarding the obvious power conflict at play - in light of all that, the only smart thing to do is simply highlight the financial interests in the U.S./Israeli power complex that seek to benefit from the escalation of hostilities, and have all parties involved simply refuse to enter into any conflict, regardless of who tries to lead them into one.
of course, that's the exact same principle that applies to all unstable international pre-conflict stages such as these - support needs to never be given to any aggression. the language of self-defense simply breaks down at the group level, as the principle loses whatever meaning it has, the closer you get to the reality of populations of humans being divided into imaginary groups and made to fight each other.