Just a moment...
apnews.com

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.

  • LastWish@lemmy.worldEnglish
    654·
    8 days ago

    How come Syria has to protect women, but US federal and state governments don’t?

      • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
        13·
        7 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·
          7 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
              19·
              6 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·
                6 days ago

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

                • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  17·
                  6 days ago

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

                  • zalgotext@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                    6·
                    6 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
              110·
              7 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·
                6 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·
                  6 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·
                    6 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
          28·
          7 days ago

          Unfortunately I can’t read people’s minds to figure out what their argument is.