Tuesday, August 6, 2013

War in Syria: Are cities Safer?

 Just a quick note. Hope all is well over in Ireland. Wish I was there with you.
I wrote before that my wife's father is from Damascus. He just gave me a little update the other day. All of his relatives who lived in the suburbs have been displaced to live with their relatives in Damascus.  It sounds like the closer to the center of the capital city, the better. So it sounds like you are right that the city would be better than the countryside based on their first-hand experience.
Just thought you might be interested.
- Jason 

Hi Jason,
 Thanks for the update. I’m glad to hear that your relatives found a safer place.
A case like this is complicated. When there’s full on war there’s hardly a safe place no matter where you are unless you escape the conflict region entirely. I would have left long ago, and those that had the means apparently did too.

That being said and as you note, some of the bigger metropolis with more eyes, more media, more general exposure, (and of course more wealth) are less appealing places for committing acts of savagery that would have a negative repercussion against the side perpetrating it. In the Bosnian war it was generally in the country and smaller town were mass rape and genocide took place, while Sarajevo was sieged (though it did get shelled a lot to, as well as sniper fire)

At the same time, major cities are favorite targets for terrorists and may be targets of bombings and major offensive maneuvers. This has been going on in Syiria, with car bombings in Damascus claiming numerous lives.

Given the current situation in Syria I see how some parts of Damascus are still pretty safe. This is not a foreign force seeking to destroy the country entirely or level cities, rather an internal power struggle, looking to destroy the enemy within (whatever side that may be).

Thus, parts of the capital and the bigger cities, along with the wealthiest sector of society are doing ok.
This article confirms this, that at least in some parts life does go on rather well, at least for now, in spite of the circumstances.

Did you catch this part of the article?:

At a jewellery shop in the al-Hamidiyeh bazaar, Anas Hallawi, 25, sat looking bored: "People are selling their gold not buying these days," he said. "Our business thrived on foreign tourists and Syrians buying gold for their brides.

Kidnapping has also become a huge problem. Many groups are “financing” themselves through kidnap.

Take care folks,



Kuba said...

Actually, this is a foreign force. Maybe not trying to level whole cities but surely destroying the Syrian nation as such by imposing Sharia law on them and struggling to purge the population of Christians, Alawis, Shiites and non-compliant Sunnis, all of which are being viciously murdered by the militants. Already in Autumn last year the German BND reported that 80% of those 'freedom fighters' are foreign. They are directed and sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, backed heavily by the US, Israel and the UK, with significant backing from Turkey and France as well. Most of them are Wahhabis and Wahhabism is alien to Syria. As it seems, most Syrians who used to be against Assad have now turned sides, seeing what madness the foreign sponsored Wahhabis unleash upon the civilian population (e.g. the mass murder of 450 Kurdish civilians two days ago, most of them women and children). It's a proxy war, fought by the archcriminal Obama and his minions.

Anonymous said...

Cities also have the characteristic of dense populations. Not good for disease spread but what area will a politician take care of first?

More voters in cities and don't kid yourself, after a SHTF situation we will all want order from chaos. Thus we will want social and political stability . . . . .more voters in cities, they'll get the meds, water and food first.

Anonymous said...

Lets bump this post to the top and revisit the former opinions about city safety.