US on brink of launching war against Syria based on lies

[Sherman123]

Care to provide your source for that information?

Cheers,
Fallen.

Sure: The Structure and Organization of the Syrian Opposition | Center for American Progress It is a few months out of date but the numbers remain relatively accurate for the present.

 

[Fallenangel]

Sure: The Structure and Organization of the Syrian Opposition | Center for American Progress It is a few months out of date but the numbers remain relatively accurate for the present.

I'm familiar with this assessment, unfortunately it hardly supports what you said i.e "The FSA remains the single largest opposition force".
Because this quote from the report;
"The Free Syrian Army, or FSA, is the largest group within the Syrian armed opposition.
Continues with this one;
"It is an umbrella group comprising small, ideologically moderate, and uncoordinated militias and battalions operating at local levels."

i.e the various field commanders do operate under the name of FSA, however the leadership of the FSA has no direct control over them.
"Commanders of FSA-affiliated brigades and battalions do not receive strategic or tactical orders from FSA and SMC leaders such as Gen. Idriss but instead operate unilaterally in the control of their forces. The FSA leadership’s primary responsibility is to facilitate coordination between battalions. Gen. Idriss is officially the commander of the FSA but serves as more of a political leader than as a field commander."

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[MadLib]

Secular.... rebel... victory? :shock:

You're calling a country of fundamentalist rebels with close ties to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim brotherhood a secular rebel group?

O M G. Certainly you don't think we're dealing with secularists over there. That's like believing that the Muslim Brotherhood would be an improvement over what Egypt had before.

I've established before that not even 6% of all rebel troops are so much as affiliated with al-Qaeda. This infographic should help; I took the percentage of rebels who are al-Nusra members (as they are the only group that I know about who ally with al-Qaeda) and got about 5.5%

If I'm not mistaken, the secular rebels have even begun clashing with the Islamists.

That being said, the Islamist groups are gaining more power. This is not an indictment of the Syrian people, but of the fact that the secular group that comprises the bulk of Syrian rebel forces (the Free Syrian Army) is under-equipped and poorly trained. The fundamentalist groups are not. Naturally, without any other recourse, the secularists will turn to the Islamists out of necessity. The actions which I support in Syria and which I will outline later should solve this problem

Our enemies are fighting our enemies, which means we should not get involved. The power vacuum created will positively be filled with one of these fundamentalist groups. The country is honestly ****ed either way.

As Bosnia revealed, sitting around and doing nothing does not make things better. What happens in Syria will still affect us, the global oil market, and our allies, even if we pretend that Syria is not a real country.

Americans are sick of war, and this is not our business to be involved.

Au contraire, we can eliminate the Arab world's sole Iranian proxy regime (thereby weakening both Tehran and Hezbollah), prevent an al-Qaeda takeover or access to chemical weapons, and help establish a government that is friendly to Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, our allies in the region.

We elect politicians to represent the desires of the American people. If they're not doing that, they need to be removed. Obama has shown over and over again that he doesn't give a flying rat's ass about what America thinks, he's going to do what he wants to do. He actually reminds me a whole lot of Bush.

Yes, but after we elect them it is up to them to determine what happens best. The Framers had no intention of establishing a government that directly acted upon every whim of the public. They thought that most people are idiots. While I do wish to make the US more democratic (by getting rid of the EC), our representatives in Washington have the ability to make their own decisions within the restriction of the Constitution.

Did you happen to catch the video of a Syrian rebel taking a bite out of the heart of a Syrian soldier whom he had killed? That's what we are supporting. Savages.

Does an isolated incident speak for the goals and character of 23 million people? :rofl

************

Now here are my goals for Syria:

1. We destroy all chemical weapons facilities, regardless of who operates them. If they belong to the FSA or moderate groups, we could strike a bargain to deliver arms in exchange for the handing over of the chems.
2. We establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Assad's strength lies in his ability to bomb populated areas. If we remove that ability, then we give all rebels a huge advantage.
3. We give arms to and train the FSA. First, they'd have to lose all ties with jihadist groups and to drop their shady brigades (like the one named after bin Laden). With our assistance, they will be powerful enough to no longer need elite Islamist troops to help them overthrow the Assad regime.

 

[Sherman123]

I'm familiar with this assessment, unfortunately it hardly supports what you said i.e "The FSA remains the single largest opposition force".
Because this quote from the report;
"The Free Syrian Army, or FSA, is the largest group within the Syrian armed opposition.
Continues with this one;
"It is an umbrella group comprising small, ideologically moderate, and uncoordinated militias and battalions operating at local levels."

i.e the various field commanders do operate under the name of FSA, however the leadership of the FSA has no direct control over them.
"Commanders of FSA-affiliated brigades and battalions do not receive strategic or tactical orders from FSA and SMC leaders such as Gen. Idriss but instead operate unilaterally in the control of their forces. The FSA leadership’s primary responsibility is to facilitate coordination between battalions. Gen. Idriss is officially the commander of the FSA but serves as more of a political leader than as a field commander."

Cheers,
Fallen.

In your quote the preceding line is 'ideologically moderate' which for the most part describes the FSA. I would never deny that their cohesiveness leaves much to be desired but this is why foreign support is so crucial so that this moderate amalgamation can become a true Syrian opposition military capable not only of defeating Assad but suppressing the Islamists.

 

[MadLib]

Bottom line, it's not a threat to our national security

Does al-Qaeda or Hezbollah with chemical weapons pose a threat to our national security?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I've established before that not even 6% of all rebel troops are so much as affiliated with al-Qaeda. This infographic should help; I took the percentage of rebels who are al-Nusra members (as they are the only group that I know about who ally with al-Qaeda) and got about 5.5%

If I'm not mistaken, the secular rebels have even begun clashing with the Islamists.

That being said, the Islamist groups are gaining more power. This is not an indictment of the Syrian people, but of the fact that the secular group that comprises the bulk of Syrian rebel forces (the Free Syrian Army) is under-equipped and poorly trained. The fundamentalist groups are not. Naturally, without any other recourse, the secularists will turn to the Islamists out of necessity. The actions which I support in Syria and which I will outline later should solve this problem

As Bosnia revealed, sitting around and doing nothing does not make things better. What happens in Syria will still affect us, the global oil market, and our allies, even if we pretend that Syria is not a real country.

Au contraire, we can eliminate the Arab world's sole Iranian proxy regime (thereby weakening both Tehran and Hezbollah), prevent an al-Qaeda takeover or access to chemical weapons, and help establish a government that is friendly to Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, our allies in the region.

Yes, but after we elect them it is up to them to determine what happens best. The Framers had no intention of establishing a government that directly acted upon every whim of the public. They thought that most people are idiots. While I do wish to make the US more democratic (by getting rid of the EC), our representatives in Washington have the ability to make their own decisions within the restriction of the Constitution.




Does an isolated incident speak for the goals and character of 23 million people? :rofl

************

Now here are my goals for Syria:

1. We destroy all chemical weapons facilities, regardless of who operates them. If they belong to the FSA or moderate groups, we could strike a bargain to deliver arms in exchange for the handing over of the chems.
2. We establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Assad's strength lies in his ability to bomb populated areas. If we remove that ability, then we give all rebels a huge advantage.
3. We give arms to and train the FSA. First, they'd have to lose all ties with jihadist groups and to drop their shady brigades (like the one named after bin Laden). With our assistance, they will be powerful enough to no longer need elite Islamist troops to help them overthrow the Assad regime.

Although it's refreshing to hear some well reasoned and logical counter arguments around here, I simply can't agree, because none of that will work out like you say. Our history of picking sides in middle east sub-conflicts has never really played out as cleanly as you imagine.

The absolute most I would support would be an extremely surgical air strike on very specific Syrian military targets, but even that I'm quite wary of. It always seems to balloon into much more than that, and the people we want to win are either not the people we thought they were, or will be someone else altogether. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that a secular group will ever take control of the government of a country like Syria.

 

[Fallenangel]

In your quote the preceding line is 'ideologically moderate' which for the most part describes the FSA. I would never deny that their cohesiveness leaves much to be desired but this is why foreign support is so crucial so that this moderate amalgamation can become a true Syrian opposition military capable not only of defeating Assad but suppressing the Islamists.

I understand that, however in order to support somebody (military, financially, etc.. wise) one needs to know who to support or what to support - an uncontrolled array of disconnected and uncontrolled groups of field commanders is not a good candidate simply because one would not be able to control them if/when needed.

Hence, there is no one to support - unless of course US wants to establish, support with arms & finances, etc... a set of field brigades that would fight under the direct control of US's intelligence or/and military.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Does al-Qaeda or Hezbollah with chemical weapons pose a threat to our national security?

I don't know. I would like to see what the intelligence report is before I jump to conclusions.

Do you wonder why so many in Congress have uttered opposition to the U.S. taking action in Syria and why our strongest allies are staying out of it?

 

[Jerry]

Someone going to tell me that WSWS is full of BS? US on brink of launching war against Syria based on lies - World Socialist Web Site

Well, I didn't vote for that military grade assault-President with high-capacity spending at the ready, so....

 

[Fallenangel]

I've established before that not even 6% of all rebel troops are so much as affiliated with al-Qaeda. This infographic should help; I took the percentage of rebels who are al-Nusra members (as they are the only group that I know about who ally with al-Qaeda) and got about 5.5%

If I'm not mistaken, the secular rebels have even begun clashing with the Islamists.

That being said, the Islamist groups are gaining more power. This is not an indictment of the Syrian people, but of the fact that the secular group that comprises the bulk of Syrian rebel forces (the Free Syrian Army) is under-equipped and poorly trained. The fundamentalist groups are not. Naturally, without any other recourse, the secularists will turn to the Islamists out of necessity. The actions which I support in Syria and which I will outline later should solve this problem

As Bosnia revealed, sitting around and doing nothing does not make things better. What happens in Syria will still affect us, the global oil market, and our allies, even if we pretend that Syria is not a real country.

Au contraire, we can eliminate the Arab world's sole Iranian proxy regime (thereby weakening both Tehran and Hezbollah), prevent an al-Qaeda takeover or access to chemical weapons, and help establish a government that is friendly to Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, our allies in the region.

Yes, but after we elect them it is up to them to determine what happens best. The Framers had no intention of establishing a government that directly acted upon every whim of the public. They thought that most people are idiots. While I do wish to make the US more democratic (by getting rid of the EC), our representatives in Washington have the ability to make their own decisions within the restriction of the Constitution.




Does an isolated incident speak for the goals and character of 23 million people? :rofl

************

Now here are my goals for Syria:

1. We destroy all chemical weapons facilities, regardless of who operates them. If they belong to the FSA or moderate groups, we could strike a bargain to deliver arms in exchange for the handing over of the chems.
2. We establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Assad's strength lies in his ability to bomb populated areas. If we remove that ability, then we give all rebels a huge advantage.
3. We give arms to and train the FSA. First, they'd have to lose all ties with jihadist groups and to drop their shady brigades (like the one named after bin Laden). With our assistance, they will be powerful enough to no longer need elite Islamist troops to help them overthrow the Assad regime.

Hey,

a. Where/when did you establish the 6% figure from? Didn't we agree already that it might be 6, 10 or even 16%?! If you've got some new info I would be glad to see it.

b. Contrary to what is being promoted all over the place the Al-Qaeda affiliated groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are not the problem - the main problem is the huge array of various extreme Sunnah groups that operate in the Syria, and the huge numbers of the so called "conservative Salafists" and "moderate Islamists" which are for some reason regarded "ok" simply because they do not affiliate themselves with Al-Qaeda.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[shrubnose]

Someone going to tell me that WSWS is full of BS?

US on brink of launching war against Syria based on lies - World Socialist Web Site

Why am I not surprised that the Commies are on Putin's side in the Syria kerfuffle?

Any ideas on that?

 

[MMC]

I've established before that not even 6% of all rebel troops are so much as affiliated with al-Qaeda. This infographic should help; I took the percentage of rebels who are al-Nusra members (as they are the only group that I know about who ally with al-Qaeda) and got about 5.5%

If I'm not mistaken, the secular rebels have even begun clashing with the Islamists.

That being said, the Islamist groups are gaining more power. This is not an indictment of the Syrian people, but of the fact that the secular group that comprises the bulk of Syrian rebel forces (the Free Syrian Army) is under-equipped and poorly trained. The fundamentalist groups are not. Naturally, without any other recourse, the secularists will turn to the Islamists out of necessity. The actions which I support in Syria and which I will outline later should solve this problem

As Bosnia revealed, sitting around and doing nothing does not make things better. What happens in Syria will still affect us, the global oil market, and our allies, even if we pretend that Syria is not a real country.

Au contraire, we can eliminate the Arab world's sole Iranian proxy regime (thereby weakening both Tehran and Hezbollah), prevent an al-Qaeda takeover or access to chemical weapons, and help establish a government that is friendly to Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, our allies in the region.

Yes, but after we elect them it is up to them to determine what happens best. The Framers had no intention of establishing a government that directly acted upon every whim of the public. They thought that most people are idiots. While I do wish to make the US more democratic (by getting rid of the EC), our representatives in Washington have the ability to make their own decisions within the restriction of the Constitution.




Does an isolated incident speak for the goals and character of 23 million people? :rofl

************

Now here are my goals for Syria:

1. We destroy all chemical weapons facilities, regardless of who operates them. If they belong to the FSA or moderate groups, we could strike a bargain to deliver arms in exchange for the handing over of the chems.
2. We establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Assad's strength lies in his ability to bomb populated areas. If we remove that ability, then we give all rebels a huge advantage.
3. We give arms to and train the FSA. First, they'd have to lose all ties with jihadist groups and to drop their shady brigades (like the one named after bin Laden). With our assistance, they will be powerful enough to no longer need elite Islamist troops to help them overthrow the Assad regime.

Well except that doesn't count the MB, Salafists, AQ, and all those Opposition Groups that have decided to back Al Nusra. Nor all those Civilian Commitees.

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group
Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.

A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting "brigades" and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The petition is promoting the slogan "No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra" and urges supporters to "raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag" as a "thank you".

"These are the men for the people of Syria, these are the heroes who belong to us in religion, in blood and in revolution," read a statement widely circulated on Syrian opposition Facebook pages.

Although Jabhat al-Nusra remains separate from the Free Syrian Army, many FSA leaders now recognise its strength and order their forces to cooperate with it.

Even mainstream opposition activists expressed anger at what they claimed was America's last-minute attempt to "muscle in on their revolution".

EU leaders including William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, met the heads of the coalition in Brussels yesterday, having already recognised it as "the legitimate representative of the aspirations of the Syrian people".

Opposition fighters inside Syria told The Daily Telegraph that the US announcement was too little too late, and that any attempts by the West to intervene in Syria would be rejected. "We don't support the new FSA military command," said Ous al-Arabi, a spokesman of the Deir al-Zour Revolutionary council.....snip~

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group - Telegraph

Which doesn't count the New Brigade that the MB is releasing into Syria either.

 

[MMC]

Heres the Piece on the MB.

Syria's Muslim Brotherhood faces uphill battle.....

For Syria's banned Muslim Brotherhood, the uprising against President Bashar Assad that erupted amid Arab Spring revolts in 2011 provided a long-sought opportunity to stage a comeback after decades spent in exile.

Thirty years earlier, the group's own violent uprising against Assad's father, the late Hafez Assad, was brutally crushed, culminating in an infamous massacre in the city of Hama that ended with the group's leadership killed, imprisoned or exiled.

Amid the chaos of the current revolt, the group quickly emerged as the best organized of Assad's political opponents, and is playing an increasingly active role on the ground by providing assistance to military brigades it supports.

The downfall of the Brotherhood in Egypt has shaken its Syrian counterpart and deepened distrust of the secretive movement by other Syrians who are suspicious of its religious agenda.

Inside Syria, the group faces an uphill battle trying to rebuild its base with the young revolutionaries of today, many of whom view its leadership as aging and out of touch after years away from the country. Moreover, the self-described moderate Islamic group faces fierce competition from better equipped hard-line Salafi fighters and al-Qaida extremists who have emerged as a major force among the ranks of the rebels.

"Despite its rich history of involvement in Syrian politics, for some, the Brotherhood continues to be viewed as a foreign entity merely representing a local branch of the Egyptian movement," said Raphael Lefevre, a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center and author of the book "Ashes of Hama: The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria."

Leaders of the Syrian Brotherhood and activists inside Syria say the group has been actively working in that direction. In addition to its pivotal role in shaping and influencing the opposition abroad, it has stepped up relief assistance to rebel-held areas inside the country and its leaders have made several trips to opposition areas in the north in an attempt to reconnect with residents in Idlib and Aleppo provinces, once considered strongholds of the group.

In February, the group launched al-Ahed, a newspaper which now distributes 10,000 copies bi-weekly in opposition territory. Sheik Hatem al-Tabshi, head of the Brotherhood's Shura Council, preaches in the city of Maarat al-Numan and is seen in videos holding meetings with fighters in the area.

Most significantly, an umbrella group of brigades known as the "Shields of the Revolution" has emerged as a military force closely affiliated with the group, although Brotherhood officials deny any formal ties. Activists, however, say the group is preparing to formally launch its military branch in the country.

Tensions within the opposition peaked in March, with critics claiming the Brotherhood orchestrated the election of Ghassan Hitto, a little-known figure, as interim prime minister for the opposition.

About a dozen members of the Coalition suspended their membership a day after Hitto was elected, prompting the Brotherhood's general leader, Mohammad Riad al-Shaqfa, to hold a rare press conference in which he denied the accusations. Since then, the Coalition has been expanded to dilute the influence of the Brotherhood and Hitto has stepped down. Qatar, a main supporter of the group, has taken a back seat in favor of Saudi Arabia in dealing with the Syrian opposition.....snip~

 

[BMCM]

Something needs to be done about our government. 90+% of Americans don't want to get involved in Syria, yet emperor Obama has decreed he doesn't give a ****.

When a government no longer represents its constituents, it should be abolished and replaced.

Now, I think I just ended up on an NSA watchlist.

What he has done is turn over the decision to Congress. It's now their call.

 

[MadLib]

Although it's refreshing to hear some well reasoned and logical counter arguments around here, I simply can't agree, because none of that will work out like you say. Our history of picking sides in middle east sub-conflicts has never really played out as cleanly as you imagine.

That was because we, for the most part, relied on Kissinger's selfish and ruthless foreign policy. We didn't really care who got the guns in Afghanistan, this time we know better.

Also, Syria isn't Afghanistan. It's not a country dominated by clans and shiekhs, so any efforts made to establish a friendly central government should be more fruitful

The absolute most I would support would be an extremely surgical air strike on very specific Syrian military targets, but even that I'm quite wary of.

I agree with surgical strikes, I don't want to go full-scale war. I also don't want to ease into it like in Vietnam. I'd throw in carefully arranged and tracked arms deals, along with a no-fly zone over populated areas.

It always seems to balloon into much more than that, and the people we want to win are either not the people we thought they were, or will be someone else altogether.

There's always a risk factor involved in foreign policy. But whether we do anything or not there will be consequences and we will have to face them.

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that a secular group will ever take control of the government of a country like Syria.

It worked in Libya. Even if the rebels that take over are moderately Islamist, they'd still be better than al-Nusra or an Iranian proxy regime.

 

[MadLib]

Hey,

I haven't seen you around that much. How have you been?

a. Where/when did you establish the 6% figure from? Didn't we agree already that it might be 6, 10 or even 16%?! If you've got some new info I would be glad to see it.

I remember calculating it months and months ago. We had a discussion on how accurate that was, but I don't remember the thread or details. I believe you said that because of the fracturing amongst the different factions that the number of al-Qaeda supporters amongst the rebels might be higher than 6%. However, unless you can show me some solid evidence that any faction other than al-Nusra is al-Qaeda affiliated, I'm not going to assume that's the case.

b. Contrary to what is being promoted all over the place the Al-Qaeda affiliated groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are not the problem - the main problem is the huge array of various extreme Sunnah groups that operate in the Syria, and the huge numbers of the so called "conservative Salafists" and "moderate Islamists" which are for some reason regarded "ok" simply because they do not affiliate themselves with Al-Qaeda.

I agree. I only am making that point to counter claims that the entire Syrian rebellion is in effect an offshoot of al-Qaeda.

 

[Serenity]

It tells you what type of people you're dealing with, that even one of them is willing to do this.

Think about what you are saying here. How would you feel Lizzie if the rest of the world judged you and your Country solely on the actions of Robert Bales, the maniac who stomped on kids heads and slaughtered 16 Afghan villagers?

 

[gunner]

Think about what you are saying here. How would you feel Lizzie if the rest of the world judged you and your Country solely on the actions of Robert Bales, the maniac who stomped on kids heads and slaughtered 16 Afghan villagers?

I agree. But to be fair to Lizzie so much coverage is about the most brutal radical elements, and they are a sizeable minority. Add to that the reports suggesting rebel held areas are already looking to install Sharia practices Islamist Rebels In Syria Ban 'Immodest Dress' And Makeup For Women In Aleppo As the article states many locals are not happy with this.

I watched a series of news pieces on CH4 (UK) which covered the 'migrant brigade' SYRIA: Conflict: 'The British Jihad': British muslims react to Channel 4 News film it did not fill me with optimism. For me, this is why I'm very pleased the UK is not entering into some kind of Military adventure. I really feel the rebels are a mixed disparate group, and this is my reasoning for caution. As Iraq proved (some parallels are helpful and consistent) and the lack of any credible alternative is reason enough to be cautious.

Paul

 

[DDD]

I've established before that not even 6% of all rebel troops are so much as affiliated with al-Qaeda. This infographic should help; I took the percentage of rebels who are al-Nusra members (as they are the only group that I know about who ally with al-Qaeda) and got about 5.5%

If I'm not mistaken, the secular rebels have even begun clashing with the Islamists.

That being said, the Islamist groups are gaining more power. This is not an indictment of the Syrian people, but of the fact that the secular group that comprises the bulk of Syrian rebel forces (the Free Syrian Army) is under-equipped and poorly trained. The fundamentalist groups are not. Naturally, without any other recourse, the secularists will turn to the Islamists out of necessity. The actions which I support in Syria and which I will outline later should solve this problem

As Bosnia revealed, sitting around and doing nothing does not make things better. What happens in Syria will still affect us, the global oil market, and our allies, even if we pretend that Syria is not a real country.

Au contraire, we can eliminate the Arab world's sole Iranian proxy regime (thereby weakening both Tehran and Hezbollah), prevent an al-Qaeda takeover or access to chemical weapons, and help establish a government that is friendly to Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, our allies in the region.

Yes, but after we elect them it is up to them to determine what happens best. The Framers had no intention of establishing a government that directly acted upon every whim of the public. They thought that most people are idiots. While I do wish to make the US more democratic (by getting rid of the EC), our representatives in Washington have the ability to make their own decisions within the restriction of the Constitution.




Does an isolated incident speak for the goals and character of 23 million people? :rofl

************

Now here are my goals for Syria:

1. We destroy all chemical weapons facilities, regardless of who operates them. If they belong to the FSA or moderate groups, we could strike a bargain to deliver arms in exchange for the handing over of the chems.
2. We establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Assad's strength lies in his ability to bomb populated areas. If we remove that ability, then we give all rebels a huge advantage.
3. We give arms to and train the FSA. First, they'd have to lose all ties with jihadist groups and to drop their shady brigades (like the one named after bin Laden). With our assistance, they will be powerful enough to no longer need elite Islamist troops to help them overthrow the Assad regime.

Yes it sounds good. But what of Russia and Iran?

 

[shrubnose]

Someone going to tell me that WSWS is full of BS?

US on brink of launching war against Syria based on lies - World Socialist Web Site

Not me.

But I will ask: Is anyone surprised that the Commies on this planet are supporting Russia and China on this issue?

 

[Fallenangel]

I haven't seen you around that much. How have you been?

Yeah, I had some real life issues to deal with, and tried to draw & paint a bit more.

I remember calculating it months and months ago. We had a discussion on how accurate that was, but I don't remember the thread or details. I believe you said that because of the fracturing amongst the different factions that the number of al-Qaeda supporters amongst the rebels might be higher than 6%. However, unless you can show me some solid evidence that any faction other than al-Nusra is al-Qaeda affiliated, I'm not going to assume that's the case.

I think you've already seen this post.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/162665-shame-our-inaction-syria-w-253-w-498-864-a-33.html#post1061928886

First of all, there are number of "groups" that are closely connected to Al-Qaeda, like Ahrar al-Sham, and there are "groups" which simply represent other branches or sub-cells of Al-Qaeda like; Muhajireen Brigade (Abu Omar al-Chechen), Abdullah Azzam Brigades, etc...

The total numbers of these groups exceed the 5000-6000.

Secondly, the numbers are often exaggerated by all parties FSA, Islamists and al-Assad - from what I personally know, I find it hard to believe that the FSA has 50000-80000 fighters on the ground.

Lastly as I already said, Al-Qaeda (and now Jabhat al Nusra) is just a "slogan" that is being repeated by the western media to describe what they often don't understand or don't want to understand. Jabhat al Nusra is not the problem, the problem is the "Salafisation" and "Islamisation" of Syria, that is being promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

I agree. I only am making that point to counter claims that the entire Syrian rebellion is in effect an offshoot of al-Qaeda.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[Viv]

Whatever the people here think about Syria, it appears UK Labour Party used this to distance themselves from Tony Blair's mistake of taking UK into Iraq without reliable intelligence. I hope this is not self-centred Party politics at the cost of innocent lives.

I find it hard to believe that with all the technological surveillance capacity UN countries have, there is no ability to discern, never mind evidence, who is doing what to whom in Syria. What are these people being paid for, if they can't produce such evidence and corroborate it?

They are useless. Obama should get them by the neck and shake them. How is he to make a decision with inadequate information?

 

[MMC]

Yeah, I had some real life issues to deal with, and tried to draw & paint a bit more.



I think you've already seen this post.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/162665-shame-our-inaction-syria-w-253-w-498-864-a-33.html#post1061928886

First of all, there are number of "groups" that are closely connected to Al-Qaeda, like Ahrar al-Sham, and there are "groups" which simply represent other branches or sub-cells of Al-Qaeda like; Muhajireen Brigade (Abu Omar al-Chechen), Abdullah Azzam Brigades, etc...

The total numbers of these groups exceed the 5000-6000.

Secondly, the numbers are often exaggerated by all parties FSA, Islamists and al-Assad - from what I personally know, I find it hard to believe that the FSA has 50000-80000 fighters on the ground.

Lastly as I already said, Al-Qaeda (and now Jabhat al Nusra) is just a "slogan" that is being repeated by the western media to describe what they often don't understand or don't want to understand. Jabhat al Nusra is not the problem, the problem is the "Salafisation" and "Islamisation" of Syria, that is being promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.





Cheers,
Fallen.

Bon Dio FA. :2wave: Glad to see ya back around here too.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I don't particularly care whether or not the American public is in favor of intervention in Syria or not. Assad is slaughtering his own people, and appears to be using chemical weapons to do so; and even without that fact, we still have diplomatic interests which can be advanced by a secular rebel victory. If Americans are too ignorant or selfish to care, that's nobody's problem but their own.

Wow! The arrogance here is astounding! You want to use taxpayer money to 'intervene' in a country, but don't care what those people think about the intervention. If you are so concerned about the Syrian people as you claim to be, start organizing and go in your damn self. Others from Britan and France have done it.


Commentary: A Lincoln Brigade for Syria | The National Interest

 

[Serenity]

I agree. But to be fair to Lizzie so much coverage is about the most brutal radical elements, and they are a sizeable minority. Add to that the reports suggesting rebel held areas are already looking to install Sharia practices Islamist Rebels In Syria Ban 'Immodest Dress' And Makeup For Women In Aleppo As the article states many locals are not happy with this.

I watched a series of news pieces on CH4 (UK) which covered the 'migrant brigade' SYRIA: Conflict: 'The British Jihad': British muslims react to Channel 4 News film it did not fill me with optimism. For me, this is why I'm very pleased the UK is not entering into some kind of Military adventure. I really feel the rebels are a mixed disparate group, and this is my reasoning for caution. As Iraq proved (some parallels are helpful and consistent) and the lack of any credible alternative is reason enough to be cautious.

Paul

Hi Gunner,

I have been following the Syrian Crisis for 2 1/2 years, since the beginning - right back to day to day one when Assads security forces started things off by gunning down anti government protestors.
Now whilst I get that a youtube video of a Syrian Rebel cutting out a dead persons heart and eating it is pretty revolting, perhaps someone explain to me how that is any more disgusting than than 100,000 dead and hundreds of thousands displaced? Is it more disgusting than the Houla massacre near Homs? That alone should guarantee Assad should face charges for war crimes against the Syrian people.

We shouldn't ignore that there is already plenty of evidence of the Assad regime perpetrating crimes against humanity. I've seen some good arguments from some of our posters explaining their reasoning behind being against intervention. Watching a youtube video isn't one of them.

What i do know is it's already been 2 1/2 years since the crisis started and one day there just might not be anyone left to kill.