Ed Morrissey notes two major developments in Syria:

1) Assad has instituted new media censorship, forcing outlets like CNN to report on the situation from Istanbul.

2) Syrians on the street have begun calls for international intervention similar to the No-Fly Zone in Libya.

The second begs a question: If Libya justified an armed international response, then why not Syria?

Gaddafi at least stopped his sponsorship of terrorism. Assad sponsors and supports international terrorism.

Gaddafi used his military to slaughter innocent Libyans. Assad is using his military to slaughter innocent Syrians.

Gaddafi was an oppressive dictator his people wanted overthrown. Assad is an oppressive dictator his people want overthrown.

Where’s the difference? If we’re justifying military action on humanitarian grounds, what’s the difference between Syria and Libya?

The difference is this: Syria has a far more powerful military and Assad could potentially receive support from allies like Iran.

Don’t misunderstand me. I opposed intervention in Libya, too. And I’m not calling for military intervention in Syria. But it’s entirely understandable for Syrians to wonder why their lives are less important than Libyan lives to the international community.

When you start basing intervention solely on humanitarian interests, where does it end? How do you tell one group of people being slaughtered by a dictator that they’re not worth the same time and resources another group of people were? It’s a slippery slope.