c.f., http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4658190.html
For those who have researched this question carefully, they would know that the author's opinion is generally correct.
Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens against mass atrocities, war crimes, genocide, etc. That is part of international law. Where governments cannot, or will not, satisfy this responsibility, the international community must protect the lives of human beings.
This is certainly the case in Syria. I have carefully reviewed the casualty lists, correpsonded with people in that country etc. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the government there is the cause of the lethal violence against civilians. Yes, there are rebel atrocities too. But atrocities with small arms versus atrocities with air strikes and heavy weapons? Well, you should be able to calculate the difference.
That however is not the point. Like in Timor Leste, the primary need for international intervention is to protect the lives of flesh-and-blood human beings like ourselves.
Regrettably the United States is dragging its feet, and Russia is opposed in case they lose their ally. It's a case of geopolitical games versus human rights.
Meanwhile the Syrians suffer.
The international community "must" do no such thing, Lev. There is no requirement in International law that countries intervene in the internal disputes of other countries. In fact without clear and internationally recognised Casus belli, in this case the specific consent of the Security Council, any such action becomes legally suspect. This is the basis of the accusations against Howard, Blair and Bush regarding the Iraq invasion in 2003. Without the consent of the Security Council or an attack on another country we should all just stay out. It is not an obligation nor is it prudent to send our men and women in uniform off to fight in someone else's conflict on the other side of the planet.
Actually Reaver, I suggest you double check your knowledge of international law. The legal norm of RtP is well-established in a number of international treaties.
You can find an excellent summary at the following Master's thesis:
http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/2279/JudsonAnneMari...
If you get the opportunity you should also read Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect (Cunliffe, 2011) and chapter 7 of The Ashgate research companion to modern warfare (Kassimeris, Buckley, 2010)
In any case it is the moral question that is more important. If you believe that human lives are worthy of protecting, then international protection is absolutely legitimate when governments cannot, or will not, act to protect lives (or, are actually the perpetrators of attacks on civilian populations).
Moral disengagement is not really a human option in these circumstances, any more than it has been in other situations where atrocities have been committed. State sovereignty is never an excuse for the abuse of universal human rights.
"Name one Christian fighting until or Alawite fighting unit that is part of the Fake Syrian Army?"
OK, for starters the Ansarullah battalion of Damascus is Christian and is part of the FSA and the Bakkour Battalion has a large Alawite membership. There is also an FSA Alawite battalion in Rastan.
If you really want to chew on it for a while, a Syrian female army general, Zubaida al-Meeki. who is an Alawite is in charge of training the Jond Allah battalion.
Like to know more?
Name one Chinese weapon system Assad operates?
The following are some Chinese weapons used by the Syrian armed forces
Type 63 Multiple Launch rocket systems
Khaibar Multiple Launch rocket systems
FN-6 Man-Portable Air Defense Systems
ZPU 14.55 mm towed anti-aircraft guns
Type 56 assault rifles
Norinco CQ assault rifles
Type 85 submachine guns
I am beginning to think that perhaps you are trolling in favour of the anti-government forces by asking such questions...