The Biden administration says the United States will recognize and support a new Syrian government that renounces terrorism, destroys chemical weapons stocks and protects the rights of minorities and women.

Summary

The Biden administration announced it will support a new Syrian government that renounces terrorism, protects women’s and minority rights, and dismantles chemical weapons.

This follows the ouster of Bashar al-Assad by the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization in 2018.

While the U.S. may reassess HTS’s status, ongoing concerns about ISIS resurgence and regional instability persist.

Meanwhile, Israel has seized the Golan Heights buffer zone amid condemnation, and Biden is coordinating with allies, including Israel, on the evolving situation in Syria and Gaza.

  • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
    13·
    12 days ago

    Look at the anti female healthcare laws that are being enacted across the US.

    Start with Florida and Texas as some of the more glaring examples.

    • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      25·
      12 days ago

      Could you be specific about which laws? I’m not saying you’re wrong I just want to know specifically what you are saying the government is doing that removes protections from women

        • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
          110·
          12 days ago

          The intent of those laws isn’t to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.

          • LastWish@lemmy.worldEnglish
            10·
            12 days ago

            It’s obvious you were waiting for someone to finally say abortion so you could respond with that.

            If women are dying because of laws denying them medical care that could have easily saved their lives, that is the definition of not protecting women.

            • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
              111·
              12 days ago

              I was waiting for someone to actually state their position. It is a bit weird how no one would actually say what their opinion was and instead relied on people making assumptions about their position. It’s rather terrible for communication imo.

              You are right, women are being hurt by those laws, those are not anti womens healthcare laws though. As I said those laws are about the fetus. Women being hurt and killed is an unintended externality. People talk like there is a war on women here comparable to what the Taliban is doing when the US is one of the best places in the world to be a woman. That’s not to say the US isn’t backtracking but perspective is important.

              • LastWish@lemmy.worldEnglish
                9·
                12 days ago

                It’s hard to perceive your “what do you mean?” as genuine, especially considering it wasn’t a vague reference. I think you could have asked, “Do you only mean abortion or is there something else?” and communicated your points in a less passive-aggressive “trap” framework.

                Additionally, the original point only stated US governments are not protecting women, which is true regardless of your stance on abortion, regardless of the intended target of the law and regardless if it was intentionally targeting, “a war on”, women.

                • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  16·
                  12 days ago

                  I’m unsure why people are expected to correctly interpret what they meant, yet I am required to spell out what I said. That seems like a double standard. Personally I felt what I wrote was clear enough as it was. I wanted to know what they meant by what they said, so I asked them what they meant.

        • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
          19·
          12 days ago

          The intent of those laws isn’t to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.

          • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
            5·
            12 days ago

            Given gow horribly thwy are implemented, it’s hard to accept it isn’t intentionally being cruel.

            • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
              17·
              12 days ago

              Definitely possible but I’m a fan of Hanlon’s Razor unless evidence shows otherwise.

              • zalgotext@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                6·
                11 days ago

                Here’s some evidence for you: a 10 year old rape victim in Ohio was forced to travel to Indiana for an abortion, since Ohio had a blanket ban on all abortion at the time. The doctor that performed the abortion in Indiana was investigated and fined, and still faces harassment to this day. For performing an abortion for a 10 year old rape victim.

                • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  16·
                  11 days ago

                  Firstly, that’s not evidence. You need to provide an article or something along those lines to provide evidence. That being said, I also don’t doubt what you say. However you are claiming they did it with the specific intent of hurting that 10 year old and people like her. What evidence do you have of that? All you have shown is that in the act of protecting the fetus, the would-be mother and doctor got hurt. That’s not the same thing.