How CIA-Aided Arms Shipments To Syria Keep Ending Up In Radical Hands

cyberhog

In a new report detailing how the CIA helps Arab states buy and transfer arms for Syrian rebels, C. J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt of The New York Times reveal a major flaw in the West's strategy to arm non-radical Syrian rebels.

A commander of Ahrar Al Sham — one of the largest Islamist militias in Syria — told the Times that the American intelligence officers vetting rebels to determine who should receive the weapons are doing a poor job.

“There are fake Free Syrian Army brigades claiming to be revolutionaries, and when they get the weapons they sell them in trade,” the commander told the Times.

...Hardliners receiving the lion's share of weapons isn't a new problem. As far back as October Middle East and U.S. officials told the Times that most of the weapons being sent from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Syrian rebels were going to hard-line Islamic jihadists as opposed to secular-leaning rebels.

“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” one American official familiar with the situation told the New York Times.

The CIA is currently part of Western effort to "influence which groups dominate in post-Assad Syria" by feeding select rebels actionable intelligence. But the persistent failure to funnel weapons to the "right" rebels, along with the increasing dominance of radical groups, make up the biggest hitch in that plan.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-weapons-going-to-jihadists-in-syria-2013-3


Obama's failure to funnel weapons to the right rebels has raised fears that radicals could establish a jihadist state in Syria.

[King Abdullah II] warned that radicalization of Syria, together with the deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, could ignite the entire region.

"The most worrying factors in the Syrian conflict are the issues of chemical weapons, the steady flow or sudden surge in refugees and a jihadist state emerging out of the conflict," the king said.

"Another extremely dangerous scenario is the fragmentation of Syria, which would trigger sectarian conflicts across the region for generations to come,” he said. “And also the huge risk that Syria could become a regional base for extremist and terrorist groups, which we are already see establishing firm footholds in some areas,"

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/jordanian-king-fears-jihadist-state-in-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=43348&NewsCatID=352

If a jihadist state emerges in Syria it will be in no small part due to the support radicals received from Western powers.

Mjollnir

"If a jihadist state emerges in Syria it will be in no small part due to the support radicals received from Western powers. "

No, not really. The Saudis and Gulf States are already arming the jihadis to the teeth.

Way to miss the forest for the trees.

BlaasForRafa

Mjollnir wrote: »

"If a jihadist state emerges in Syria it will be in no small part due to the support radicals received from Western powers. "

No, not really. The Saudis and Gulf States are already arming the jihadis to the teeth.

Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Yeah I recall an article recently (possibly in Haaretz) that Switzerland has halted arms shipments to Qatar because grenades found in jihadi possession in Syria were from a batch that Switzerland had sold to the Qataris back in 2003.

G Power

as far as i'm concerned most don;t give a flying fcuk who they sell to these days because they need the money and to continue this endless war on terror for up to 25 years with homeland security stocking up on 1,625,000,000 rounds of ammunition to keep it all going!!

it's only a matter of time before we all suffer due to the amount of arms doing the rounds

Jonny7

You are referring to 5 years worth of hollow-point training ammunition to supply bloated agencies in the US.

In other more mundane news, the un-elected Syrian government continues to use live rounds on it's populace in it's own staged "war on terror".

cyberhog

Mjollnir wrote: »

The Saudis and Gulf States are already arming the jihadis to the teeth.

Not according to the report. Most of the arms shipments only began after the CIA became involved.

Most of the cargo flights have occurred since November, after the presidential election in the United States and as the Turkish and Arab governments grew more frustrated by the rebels’ slow progress against Mr. Assad’s well-equipped military.

It is clear from the report that the Saudis and Gulf States only began arming the jihadis to the teeth, as you put it, after the CIA became involved.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year...

In fact, according to the report, the CIA have been instrumental in organising the military aid.

...[A] former American official said David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director until November, had been instrumental in helping to get this aviation network moving and had prodded various countries to work together on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

So there's no use denying it. If Syria becomes a jihadist state it will be in no small part due to the CIA-aided arms shipments that keep falling into the hands of radicals.

G Power

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are referring to 5 years worth of hollow-point training ammunition to supply bloated agencies in the US.

In other more mundane news, the un-elected Syrian government continues to use live rounds on it's populace in it's own staged "war on terror".

am I ya http://rt.com/usa/us-homeland-security-bullets-congress-703/

Jonny7

G Power wrote: »

am I ya http://rt.com/usa/us-homeland-security-bullets-congress-703/

It's been purchased as part of an open contract - there's no obligation to buy that amount of ammunition - in fact they can buy less, this saves money in the long run. They bid for the contract, not the ammunition.

They are using hollow-points because these are actually safer for use and training due to their lack of penetrating ability.

These rounds are for all agencies - that's over 80 agencies, including on state and county level. Virtually every US law official.

There's over 100,000 federal agents. Typically, when they train they can use 400 rounds per month. Simple maths - for example 12 months x 400 rounds x 100,000 agents x 5 years = 2.4 billion rounds - will tell you it's not an outrageous figure.

Lastly, that source you quoted is government propaganda straight from the Kremlin - not exactly a source I'd trust on issues to do with the US.

cyberhog

Obama's failed Syria policy is making The New York Times' "liberal" war hawk Thomas Friedman nervous.

I’m dubious that just arming “nice” rebels will produce the Syria we want; it could, though, drag us in in ways we might not want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/opinion/friedman-cautions-curves-ahead.html?ref=opinion&_r=0


Former Foreign Service Officer Henry Precht also doesn't like the way things are going.

...the end of the track of the Syrian war could be a conflict that will work severe damage for American interests far beyond the Middle East.

We can only hope that Obama and his team will find the vision to foresee the unintended wreck that may lie ahead.To be sure, there will be tough congressional and media criticism and active opposition against any American move to relieve the pressure on Assad and join the Russians in promoting compromise between the two sides. The Administration can argue that the overthrow of Assad will mean al Qaeda rule in Damascus, but many will reject that argument. There are no easy choices: ending Syria’s war will mean applying strong pressure on Saudi Arabia and Turkey to cease and desist. It will be messy, but a negotiated truce will slow down the killing and end the drift towards a major war.

http://www.lobelog.com/syrias-civil-war-and-its-unintended-consequences/

The West needs to change it's mantra from "Assad must go" to the "Terrorists must go" and it better do it quick if it wants to avoid getting bitten in the ass.

cyberhog

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette always supports democratic candidates but it is clearly not impressed with Obama's duplicitous course on Syria.

Although President Barack Obama insists that U.S. aid to the Syrian rebels is non-lethal and humanitarian, the CIA is helping Arab governments and Turkey buy and deliver arms to the Syrian opposition, according to The New York Times. Does his administration believe Americans can be easily lied to?

...

Now Americans have learned that the administration helped Arab states to buy arms in Croatia for the rebels and to organize the transport of those weapons through Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It may be only a matter of time before Syria strikes back at a tottering Jordanian monarchy in revenge for the part the United States helped Jordan play in Syria.

All in all, the U.S. government is taking a role in a civil war that it has not thought through or even explained to the American people. The public does not like to learn about a major contradiction in U.S. arms policy in the press. They should be told by a president who is supposed to be in charge.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/arms-contradiction-the-us-charts-a-duplicitous-course-on-syria-681115/

qaf

Too far gone at this point. They should provide air support for the rebels and just get it over with.

cyberhog

qaf wrote: »

They should provide air support for the rebels and just get it over with.

Not going to happen.

(Reuters) - NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen called for a political solution to the Syrian crisis on Wednesday, ruling out Western military intervention despite a plea for U.S. protection by a foe of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"We don't have any intention to intervene militarily in Syria," he said, speaking to Russian students in Moscow via a video link from Brussels.

"I do believe that we need a political solution in Syria and I hope the international community will send a unified and clear message to all parties in Syria that we need a political solution," Rasmussen said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-syria-crisis-nato-idUSBRE92Q0JL20130327

The trouble is... Obama and his cohorts are increasing military aid to the rebels. This does not send a clear message to the opposition or the international community that Western powers want a political solution.

Cork boy 55

cyberhog wrote: »

Obama's failure to funnel weapons to the right rebels has raised fears that radicals could establish a jihadist state in Syria.


If a jihadist state emerges in Syria it will be in no small part due to the support radicals received from Western powers.

Obama has not funneled weapons anywhere, The USA have provided no lethal Aid These ( the Croatia stream Just one of several weapons streams and the most current and prominent) are paid for by GCC and come thru Jordan
Define "Jihadist state"?
IF we define it as salafist militants with links to the Al Qaeda network Obama has stated this as worst possible outcome.
Al-Qaeda have already predicted in their on-line forums the result of their Syrian war. A alliance of every other player against them and although they seem to think they can win , They won't.

Al-Qaeda Forum wrote: »

Tenth, in sum, perhaps it will be that our brothers in Syria are exposed to extraordinary pressure, assault, forced retreat, ignominy, and many, many other things. But all of this, God permitting, will be of a piece with the greatness of the trial and the test, and the greatness of the responsibility assumed for pushing the community of one and a half billion Muslims toward salvation. And few are those, unfortunately, deserving of such credit.

http://www.jihadica.com/al-qaeda-advises-the-syrian-revolution-shumukh-al-islams-%E2%80%9Ccomprehensive-strategy%E2%80%9D-for-syria/

Define "CIA Aided" Did they make the coffee , all speculation and conjuncture, are the Turks, GCC, Jordan, Libya and others cable of gun running?
and would they be doing it anyway with or without "CIA aid"?
yes and Yes
The radicalization, brutalization and chaotic situation is a direct result
of the democide and total war strategy of a dying 50-year military-police state. Which rather than reform in a democratic manner,
Went mental and began slaughtering its population.
Assad or we burn Syria are is slogan of Assads Gangs
If whatever A "jihadist state" is, Emerges it will be Assads fault.
When you brutalize and slaughter a population in the Manner the Syrian Baath party and its armed gangs have engaged in,Radicalization and resistance is the result
The current Negligible and marginal role played By the USA is a long
way down the list of parameters that will cause this " jihadist state",Far higher up it is there failure to liquidate Assad sooner.

Cork boy 55

It is generally understood in policy circles that some arms may fall into not-so-desirable hands.
Due to that fact, the arms sent are of a make & quality which is not to most first world standards
Mostly Yugoslavian and Bulgrain Surplus and fire once and dispose ATRs.
RPG-22, PKM , RBG-6, M60 RCL, M79 Osas etc
Also, number of arms provided is another factor. With select amount in play, it's harder for some to get "Lost"
It can be logically assumed that some of these arms will fall into bad-guy's hands. However, it's about risk-mitigation.
There's a big difference between a handfull of M60s falling into Nusra hands than a bunch of Javelins.
Notice the lack of "Game-changing" weapons. There has been some level of standardization, but no dumping of 10000 say TOW-2s
Another factor w new weapons: Training/maintenance. This helps slow integration of those arms if bad guys get them.
Few assess the need for resupply when gauging use of new weapons. Ammunition is needed for most systems to operate.
If al-Nusra has 25 M79s, but no rockets because they can't get ammo--It's another mitigation of weapons system's threat
Arms supplies DO impact battles in more ways than the direct battle (Assad v. Rebels).
Due to internal divisions,when one side got more/better weapons than other,it helped spark other violent problems btw them. Another thing to consider is importance of state-backing.Trans-national threats(Nusra)have far more limited access to arms.
Illegal (indy) arms dealers in region have limited access to really powerful heavy weapons.
The biggest things which could be bought were LAWs frm Iraq. Many of these rings r watched by secret police. Small arms are another matter. Remember all the FN FALs coming into Syria? 7.62x51 wasn't extremely prevelant in area.


Report from 2013-01 on the Yugoslav weapon streams from Syria weapons blogger "brown moses"

As part of my research into the weapons in questions I've put together a number of Youtube playlists with all the videos I've come across showing these weapons in the hands of the opposition:
RBG-6 Grenade Launcher
M79 Osa Rocket Launcher
RPG-22 Rocket Launcher
M60 Recoilless Gun

http://brown-moses.blogspot.ie/2013/02/more-background-on-croatian-weapons-in.html
http://brown-moses.blogspot.ie/2013/01/evidence-of-multiple-foreign-weapon.html
http://brown-moses.blogspot.ie/2013/01/are-yugoslavian-anti-tank-weapons-being.html

Cork boy 55

The weapons are working.

An analysis of todays combat in Daraa from EA site

Today, insurgents from the Dawn of Islam Brigade captured several key checkpoints across a town named Dael (often written Da'el) in Daraa Province (map). There are reports that the fighters have control of the entire town

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/3/29/syria-analysis-international-aid-fuels-key-insurgent-victori.html
Showing how These weapon systems(the Yugoslav stream) are playing a decisive role in the routing of Assads terror Gangs from Daraa province where they have been deployed.
This is the Governate opposite Jordan where the Rising began When Assads gangs began abducting random teenagers and torturing them to death in retaliation for protests for example

Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb was a 13-year-old Syrian boy who died allegedly while in the custody of the Syrian government in Daraa during the Syrian civil war. On April 29, 2011, he was detained during a protest. On May 25, 2011, his body was delivered to his family, having been badly bruised, along with burn marks, three gunshot wounds, and severed genitals. Hamza's family distributed photos and video of his body to journalists and activists. Shocked by what those depicted, thousands of people showed their support for Hamza online and in street protests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Hamza_Ali_Al-Khateeb

Cork boy 55

Institute for study of war
MIDDLE EAST SECURITY REPORT 9
Elizabeth O’Bagy
The free Syrian army

46 page document I will quote the conclusion,

The SmC* has the potential to serve as a check
on radicalization and help to assert a moderate authority in Syria.
if the SmC can create enough incentives for moderation
it will likely be able to marginalize
the most radical elements within its structure.
To this end, the SmC has recognized the importance
of the inclusion of some of the more radical forces,
while still drawing a red line at the inclusion of
forces that seek the destruction of a Syrian state,
such as jihadist groups like Jabhat nusra.

in order to accomplish its goals the SmC will need
greater international support, whether in the form of
greater financing or provision of weapons. As the armed
opposition advances, it will be responsible for providing
services in liberated areas and distributing relief aid.
This will strain the rebels’ limited resources and cause
tension with local populations, if they are not adequately
equipped to participate in the process of rebuilding the
state. Ultimately, the SmC’s ability to serve as a viable
leadership body will rest on its ability to provide for
rebel communities.

The SmC presents both a challenge and an opportunity
for the U.S. as policymakers struggle to ensure a level
of American influence within the confines of the
administration’s noncommittal policy, working with the
SmC could enhance the U.S.’ position vis-à-vis Syria’s
armed opposition and provide a mechanism of stability
should the assad regime fall. however, fears of islamists
and a preference for counterterrorism solutions pose
significant obstacles to greater cooperation with the
SmC. The recent announcement that the U.S. will
provide non-lethal aid to the SmC, including training
assistance, is a significant step in this direction. However,
whether such limited support will be enough to empower
the SmC remains to be seen.

The goal behind U.S. support to the opposition should
be to build a force on the ground that is committed
to building a nonsectarian, stable Syria and is likely
to respect american interests. Providing greater
support to the SmC does entail the risk of unintended
consequences. Some of this support may flow to the more
radical forces within the SmC. But the current policy
of inaction carries much more risk. This policy has not
prevented extremists from acquiring arms. Instead, it
has prevented more moderate forces from acquiring
arms and consolidating their authority while allowing
the extremist forces to develop their own independent
sources of support that are less easily monitored.
The conditions needed to bring about the Syrian regime’s
demise are slowly being met, including the apparent
coalescence of the opposition’s disparate political and
military entities, along with their latest advances on
the ground in aleppo and Damascus. russian Deputy
foreign minister mikhail Bogdanov recently announced
that the assad regime may fall, while Syrian Vice
President Farouq al-Sharaa commented that the Syrian
army cannot defeat rebel forces. momentum is shifting
in favor of the opposition.

Syria’s state security apparatus will fall apart as the assad
regime finishes its transformation into a militia-like
entity. The Supreme military Command is currently
the only organization that could serve to fill the
security vacuum left by this transformation. if properly
supported, the SmC could establish a monopoly of force
in Syria and potentially serve as the next Syrian army.
Empowering a unified and accountable leadership for
the opposition, led politically by SOC President moaz
al-Khatib and militarily by SMC Chief of Staff Gen.
Salim idriss, is not only important from a command
and control perspective. This structure, if developed
properly, can create a framework for rebuilding Syria’s
security and governing institutions in order to fill the
power vacuum left by assad’s fall and help to aid in a
secure and stable Syria. To quote Gen. Salim Idriss,
“The building of the new Syrian state has already begun,
and the fSa battalions of today must be transformed
into the post-assad military of tomorrow.”



http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/The-Free-Syrian-Army-24MAR.pdf

*On December 7, 2012, rebel leaders from across Syria announced the election of a new 30-member unified command structure called the Supreme Joint Military Command Council, known as the
Supreme military Command (SmC).

cyberhog

Obama's Syria policy is in shambles.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s Syria policy was unraveling Monday after weekend developments left the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its military command in turmoil, with the status of its leader uncertain and its newly selected prime minister rejected by the group’s military wing.

The lack of opposition cohesion raises the specter of a bloody free-for-all should Assad fall, perhaps plunging Syria into anarchy with no credible body poised to take charge.

“We have a leader who resigned, an interim prime minister whose election was conducted without transparency and the formal opposition has failed. I don’t know what happens if Assad falls,” said Rafif Jouejati, a spokeswoman for the Local Coordination Committees, a network of activists with more than 80 branches throughout Syria.

“The Syrian opposition needs to look at itself in the mirror and realize it’s been a colossal failure to the Syrian people,” Jouejati lamented. “It’s time for a complete overhaul.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/25/186877/obamas-syria-policy-in-shambles.html

Obama and his cohorts have failed the Syrian people and they continue to exacerbate the situation by increasing the flow of weapons to radicals.

At this stage most Syrians just want the violence to stop, regime change is not their primary concern, but that does not matter a jot to Obama and the rebel promoters at this forum.

G Power

cyberhog wrote: »

Obama and his cohorts have failed the Syrian people and they continue to exacerbate the situation by increasing the flow of weapons to radicals.

At this stage most Syrians just want the violence to stop, regime change is not their primary concern, but that does not matter a jot to Obama and the rebel promoters at this forum.

as long as people think this doesn't effect us we are never going to be able to do anything about it, if we ended all wars and **** stirring by demonstrating people power for once and for all we might see petrol go back to reasonable prices meaning everything becomes cheaper again!!

this "war on terror" is messing up the whole world but people think it stops at these unfortunate countries borders and never effects the people of Ireland

Be like Nutella

cyberhog wrote: »

but that does not matter a jot to Obama and the rebel promoters at this forum.

haha Rebel Promoters love it.... just a tad lazy don't ya think : ) ?

Classic binary construct bullsh1t

I have no more love for Islamic Extremist Groups fighting against the Syrian army under Assad. All I know is they're fighting against him. I never once said I did but you know that of course. I simply know Bashar Assad will not stop killing, not ever, we;re way past that, and the civil war that is - ain't gona end til he's dead, legged it or stopped by NATO (i.e. the US)... there's no other option. Nobody is going to agree to anything which involves Assad staying in power - not going to happen so forget the very idea. That leaves us with 5-10 more years of endless civil war which can ONLY result in Assad losing because he has no friends to turn to! Victory by attrition is absolutely guaranteed now, as you say the US and Gulf partners are sending weapons in (right hands wrong hands whoever they're going to they're being used on Assad for now!). Assad knows all of this to be true. He's a smart dude if you've ever watched him for a few minutes in an open interview you can tell he's a logical thinking smart dude... able to think on his feet. But he's fukced now. There is no possible outcome for his life which doesn't include either jail for life, death during the war or execution after he loses (in 7 years or whatever). So what would YOU do if you knew all of that to be true?

He's 100% committed to his fate. He can slow it down but he can't escape what's coming. He's been willing to take 50,000+ with him so far and I guarantee you he's willing to kill another 100,000 easy! He was never meant to lead - he goes to sleep at night dreaming of being back in London studying to become an eye-man. If only his stupid brother didn't get in that stupid car crash!

Rebels, extremists, AQ, Islamic sects, Tribes, Ethnic groups of all sorts are getting hands on weapons and fighting Assad's despicable army, an army who ties children to tanks as shields, who rapes and carries out false flag attacks and missiles bakery queues and arrest thousands of children and locks them up, who gunships apartment complexes and levels civilian buildings and lobs scuds in random directions. The big picture is very simple - Assad has got to be beaten - eventually. It's alllll bad whichever way you do it... even IF you had any control on it which the US does not, yet. Weapons are going to groups fighting against him for the simple reason that smart men from the CIA and DoD have sat around tables many times and come up with the idea that weapons at least empower the side that ISN'T Assad no matter what type of chaos those weapons MAY cause in the future.

Now that you're leveling accusations of 'promoting the Rebels' in such a derisive manner maybe you would like to go on record and offer your opinion on what SHOULD happen? Rebels good? Rebels bad? Assad good? Assad bad? slightly more complicated than that? Go on give us you're opinion rather than simply criticisms - how do you see it.... shoot

cyberhog

The UN has made it very clear that both rebels and government forces are at fault. So I completely disagree with your spin of only blaming one side. I also find that people who only blame Assad are more likely to ignore the atrocities committed by rebels.

(CNN) -- The Syrian war has never been a simple fight between good rebels and evil government forces, and the United Nations has said so several times in the past.

But this week, U.N. investigators released a particularly detailed and horrific report that slams both sides, accusing rebels fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad of murder, rape, torture and forced disappearances.

Government forces and the rebels have violated international humanitarian law in the two-year war, said Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria.

"The war displays all the signs of a destructive stalemate," he told the U.N. Security Council this week.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/12/world/meast/syria-civil-war


I also think there are a great many Syrians who would not agree with your diatribe against Assad.


BBC News: 'People want Assad to stay'

The Telegraph: a beseiged Damascus remains loyal to Assad

Syrian Christians fear rebels more than Assad's government

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Weapons are going to groups fighting against him for the simple reason that smart men from the CIA and DoD have sat around tables many times and come up with the idea that weapons at least empower the side that ISN'T Assad no matter what type of chaos those weapons MAY cause in the future.

Yes it's easy to be blase about arms shipments ending up in the hands of radicals when you're thousands of miles away from the fighting, but I wonder if you will still be so blase when the radicals return from their CIA-assisted operations in Syria and start killing Europeans.


Dutch Raise Terror Threat Over Syria Fighters

Citizens who go abroad to fight for Islamist militant groups are returning "radicalised" and "traumatised", Dutch officials say.

The Dutch government has raised its terror threat level over fears Dutch citizens are fighting in Syria and returning radicalised.

They fear citizens who have been fighting in the war-torn Middle Eastern country will be traumatised and may be more likely to commit domestic terror acts.

The Netherlands' National Co-ordinator for Security and Counter-terrorism said in a statement: "The chance of an attack in the Netherlands or against Dutch interests abroad has risen.

"From Europe as a whole, hundreds have made the journey, many of whom are joining local armed groups.

"These Jihadist travellers can return to the Netherlands highly radicalised, traumatised and with a strong desire to commit violence, thus posing a significant threat to this country."

http://news.sky.com/story/1063988/dutch-raise-terror-threat-over-syria-fighters


European Extremists Traveling to Syria

The German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported this week it has obtained a confidential document by EU Counterterrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove that speaks of a "noteworthy number" of European extremists making their way to Syria to fight in the war. The document also reportedly warns that the number of such extremists might increase, and that "hundreds of well-trained jihadists could return to Europe and raise the risk of terrorist attacks."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-language-propaganda-video-calls-for-holy-war-in-syria-a-888394.html


Threat of attack on UK by British jihadists in Syria growing, Hague warns

The Foreign Secretary said the war torn country was now "number one" destination for British extremists and other Europeans to train in guns and explosives.

He said there was a danger that the fanatics would then return home to carry out terror attacks here and that risk was growing the longer the fighting in Syria continued.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9870619/Threat-of-UK-attack-by-British-jihadists-in-Syria-growing-Hague-warns.html


So ,on the one hand, the West is worried that the longer the fighting goes on the greater the threat of an attack on home soil will be, but, on the other hand, the West is vastly increasing the flow of weapons to the rebels and thus encouraging the fighting to carry on. Clearly, Western Powers are not acting rationally. If they had any sense they would be doing everything they can to help Assad eliminate every last radical in Syria.

cyberhog

Brahimi: More guns not solution in Syria

DAMASCUS, Syria, March 30 (UPI) -- United Nations peace envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi says arming Syrian rebels is not the way to bring an end to the civil war in Syria.

"Pouring more arms to the opposition would bring more arms to the government and that will not solve the problem," Brahimi told Channel 4 on Friday.

Brahimi said the way to end the war is to get both sides to come to an agreement, not for one side to win a military victory, The Guardian MiddleEastLive blog reported.

"What really needs to be done is to work effectively, all of us -- Syrians, the region, and the international community -- for a political solution to the conflict -- that is the only help," Brahimi said.

He said there is a need for more international aid for refugees, describing their situation as "extremely bad."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/03/30/Brahimi-More-guns-not-solution-in-Syria/UPI-88061364654317/

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
US Politics is a discussion forum, not a news dump forum. Some posters are using large, direct quotes from other sources, rather than providing their own discussion of the OP. This cannot continue on this thread or in the US Politics forum. Yes, you may use a SHORT quote to reinforce your discussion, but not act as a news or blog forwarding service per charter:

Dr Galen wrote: »

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced.

This forum is not a newsdump, blog or somewhere to post copy & pastes from other sites.

Please keep this charter guideline in mind for posting on this thread, as well as all threads in the US Politics forum in the future.

Be like Nutella

cyberhog wrote: »

Clearly, Western Powers are not acting rationally. If they had any sense they would be doing everything they can to help Assad eliminate every last radical in Syria.

It's a nice finisher but I'd say you regret it.... it's a ridiculous statement but I think I know what you mean rather than what somebody would think you mean were they to read that statement. There's a lot of radicals, AQ etc in Syria yep deffo and they're gettin some of these arms yep deffo and I'm blase about it... yep it seems so but of course I'm not really it just may seem so from a casual 2am comment on a politics forum. I know these radical dudes need beating, need stopping and need not-arming - tell that to the US in 1985 when they're sending suitcases of hundreds of millions of dollars over to Afghanistan to give directly to guys who would literally later plan 9/11.... we're supposed to be passed arming would-be terrorists right? I get it. But my overarching concern which I've stated many times is that Assad is a murderous tyrant (not initially but.... we gave him time and he didn't disappoint!) and he's directly responsible for killing 50,000+ of his own citizens? yes we all agree on this or not? I'm pretty sure those are the facts -

Assad bad
Assad responsible

His people rose up in some form or other (minoroty, majority, ethic this ethic that I don't give a fuk) they rose up in one way or another and protested on the streets of Damscus and what did he do? anyone want to remind me I'm having a twilight moment where there may actually be people here who think Assad is ok - he BLEEDING SHOT THEM - BANG BNAG DEAD SHOT THEM!!! First mistake. Then what happened - they got angry... really angry and tyey rose up in pockets outside of Damascus and went berzerk... as they should justifiably have done.... and remind me again what he did next? HE MASSACRED THEM LIKE CATTLE WITH FUKING HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS and then it all went to sh1t.... as risings and civil wars do... hell when Collins was flying round Dublin assassinating officers in hotel rooms as they slept with their wives he was considered an animal I should know one of me da's uncle was one of those kids doing the murdering and I have no pride for what he specifically did... and similarly amongst the rising groups outside of Damascus you have bad and worse and everything in-between.... animals, terrorists, rapists, torture, kidnapping, pillaging, arms amassing and every hirrible tactic of violence you can possibly think of... and they are... thinking of them. Do I like this no I do not at all. But remember the rest of the Assad lovin 'population' you allude to.... they're in Damascus and they ain't doing sh1t! They hate what they see and they suddenly think ya know what - it was crap but it was better than what's coming when the Rebels drag this out for years and eventually reach right here - in Damascus' and they're dead right to think that way. I would too. But unfortunately we're way past that. Nobody is going to 'support Assad to whatever... get rid of the so called 'radicals' as you say... forgetaboutit. This is not a Syria thing - Radicals, fundamentalists who want an ultra orthodox Islamic system? hell that's been goin on for ages... right across the middle east and north Africa. They've been fighting about that for centuries. Women sure as hell don't want it and most young people just want to get educated and live a free life with a say in their countries fate. That sure as hell isn't like any Islamic caliphate these 'Radicals' want so we know they are a minority. A minority who prey on young men to become 'soldiers' for their cause and the US is usually their target, god knows why because their own people don't want them in power either so they really have no mates whichever way you look at it. Well this problem is not just Syrian.... as I say and as you know. They pour into areas of chaos and vacuums of power and they crossed into Syria for just that reason and as King headtheball of Jordan said at Davos when asked about the AQ problem in Syria he said paraphrase 'these guys are here we know that and it will take years to beat them down no matter which way this thing swings'. So they're there fine we shouldn't arm them and I don't want to arm them but they're getting some of the arms no matter what we do. The 'smart' people over at the CIA have weighed this up and have clearly decided '**** it' we'll try our best to keepem out of it... if they get some of this sh1t we'll dela with it later... and you're right - they will. Do I believe there's a wave of terrorism on the way to Europe or wherever as a result?? No I fuking do not at all nor would I even think about humouring such fear-mongering without a few weeks research and solid Intel, figures, names etc etc... I am not falling for that shat boogey-man war on terror sh1t again without serious fine tooth combing BUT saying that I take some of your point - the bad dudes are gettin the stuff and they will do bad things with it if they get a chance - yes they will. Will that happen in Europe or whatever? I don't know you don't know and nobody feckin knows and anyone who says they do is talking C-R-A-P with a capital CRAP!

Do I think there is enough of a threat from the 'radical' groups which are poorly understood in Syria from the serious lack of quality information coming out of Syria and the serious lack of quality western news dudes within Syria to support the thesis of a) STOP arming the 'rebels' and b) instead of that let's all help Assad get these crazy Radical dudes, round em up and send them to a nice Island somewhere hmmm how's Cuba this time of year... no I do not... hence it's boll0x. But as I say I know you didn't mean it that way... but it is what ya said : )

This thing has gone to pot.... from day one it was destined to go to sh1t. There's too many different groups with different 'wants' in such a fuked up country to begin with. But... again.... for the people in the back.... Assad - the leader - is in charge (to a large extent and in any event he is anyway so whatever) and he is so far responsible for the Syrian military killing 50,000+ of its own civilians. He has nowhere to go and he can't win this thing forever. The so called 'West' doesn't do wars any more, we've decided we've had enough of that malarky altogether... but we do do 'arming' and we do do 'meddling' i.e. CIA-ing... quite wel actually so well.... for want fo a better idea that's what we;re doing - we're meddling our way towards I don't really know actually I don't know how to describe our arms-giving not helping strategy... I suppose we're basically throwing a bunch of high tech arms at a load of rising angry men to basically carry out atrocities in an effort to eventually some time down the road after enough people have died 'beat' Assad. Whatever that means. and then what? I don't know - more war? probably....

It's all fuked up... but just like the 30,000 dead a year gun debate and so many other disastrously crap things, that don't mean ya don't try! If you stand by and watch Assad do what he wants without applying ANY pressure against his actions and just let him off the leash to go crazy genocidal milosovich-stylee on their asses then you're lazy at best and responsible at worst. That's my belief. If we're not bailing in and kicking ass in the name of what's right and losing our men trying then well at least we're arming a bunch of raping terrorist to fight against Assad and drain his resources, a bit ah I'm sure there's a 'few' of these rebels who MAY just be NOT radical Fundamental Islamic Jihadist European hating arms robbing raping, pillaging anti-world minded Caliphate seeking loonjobs!

Assad BECAME evil when he decided to DO EVIL which was when his power was at risk from billboard waving singing young men with camera phones. The very next thing he chose to do at that moment has brought us to this point of chaos and argument.

Without quoting, tell me in your own words what is good about Bashar al-Assad the so called Lion - tell me how his people love him and that I have it all wrong and that he is not responsible for the 50,000 dead and the war crimes and the tanks with the children strapped to them and the flattening of the blocks of flats and the massacring gun ships and directionless Scud attacks and the barrell bombs and false-flag attacks and rounding up and jailing and torture of young kids by their thousands!!! tell me what part of that you don't have a problem with I am greatly confused with the pro-Assad counter you offer. I think again you may have overstated your position I reckon you just don't like carte blanche support of the so called FSA, hell I agree with you on that completely. And you don't like the arms-giving, either do I but I prioritize fighting and beating Assad ahead of speculations about mythical European 'Terror' attacks. As I've said I would flatten Assads airforce and coms and instigate a NFZ and all and any action one could take creatively to beat Assad with going in. I'd do it using the existing institutions if I could or very honestly and plainly state my case to form an alliance and do it... kinda like Iraq except minus the fukin bulls1t.

Anyway yeah tell me bout Assad and how he ain't as bad as I say and how I got it wrong. This ain't poisonal I actually want to hear your perspective.... I'm learning all the time.

cyberhog

Be like Nutella wrote: »

But my overarching concern which I've stated many times is that Assad is a murderous tyrant (not initially but.... we gave him time and he didn't disappoint!) and he's directly responsible for killing 50,000+ of his own citizens? yes we all agree on this or not? I'm pretty sure those are the facts -

Assad bad
Assad responsible

I think you're turning assumptions into what you want to believe is fact. The UN study does not lay all the blame on Assad for the 50,000+ casualty number. When UN spokesman Rupert Colville was asked whether 11,000+ Syrian soldiers could be included with the new casualty numbers, he replied: "It's quite possible. And how many are in these statistics, we just don’t know." The reason being Colville says is that "the study makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to separate combatants and non-combatants"

http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/the-dirty-numbers-game-in-syria/

So the details are unclear about how many non-combatants have been killed, and in what circumstances. What the UN knows for sure is that both sides are at fault, both sides have committed war crimes and probably crimes against humanity aswell.

SamHarris

cyberhog wrote: »

If a jihadist state emerges in Syria it will be in no small part due to the support radicals received from Western powers.

Considering it is a small CIA contingent advising where SAUDI and QATAR weapons will be funneled to, would you not say that it will be much, much more a case of it being the neighboring, already religiously manic, nations support that will be the far, far bigger factor than the so far non existent direct US support? But then I guess people blame who they want to.

SamHarris

Mjollnir wrote: »

"If a jihadist state emerges in Syria it will be in no small part due to the support radicals received from Western powers. "

No, not really. The Saudis and Gulf States are already arming the jihadis to the teeth.

Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Woops. Sorry missed your post and basically repeated it.

SamHarris

cyberhog wrote: »

Obama and his cohorts have failed the Syrian people and they continue to exacerbate the situation by increasing the flow of weapons to radicals.

At this stage most Syrians just want the violence to stop, regime change is not their primary concern, but that does not matter a jot to Obama and the rebel promoters at this forum.

I really shouldn't bother engaging with you because its clearly the case that you blame who you want to blame, not who is directly responsible.

If the US were doing nothing, it would be an outrage that they were standing by whilst a population was massacred.

If the Syrian government was pro-Western and the US were arming them it would be outrage over their immoral oppression of the democratic resistance in Syria.

If it were pro-Western and the US were doing nothing they would be monsters for not stepping in as they did in Libya, they would be hypocrites and, morally, I can guarantee you a lot of people of your political disposition would blame them and the American people more for the outcome than those directly responsible.

If it were sanctions, it would be the Western powers punishing the poor of the nations to force regime change for greater control (Iraq in the 90's anyone). Or merely bullying a peaceful despotic regime with no evil intent whatsoever (Iran, anyone?)

If there was direct intervention it would be another Imperialist invasion to accomplish whatever Zionist plot there is this week.

The US is doing little, so you seek to hang an aaaawful lot on reports of a handful of CIA agents advising Saudi and Qatar's governments in the region. It's a tough one, this Syrian conflict, for the Anti-American psuedo moralists, but damn it they will give it their best shot to make it look like every major negative world event is exacerbated/caused by this malignant force!

Are you even aware that there are other players in world politics? With their own goals and power, their own self interest. Is it not conceivable that there are many players in the region with far more interest in how this turns out, that don't act always under some sort of US shadow government and that will act to see their interests protected?

Increasing flow? As has been stated (twice I believe) no arms from the West has gone to either side. I have a feeling should they start arming the government a lot of people on the CT forum would have to do some soul searching on how to now support the rebels...

Your irrationality and how driven by ideology, not logic or evidence, your opinion is is portrayed beautifully in your last sentence. It's not the Saudi's or Qatar or Turkey who is to blame for the Syrian peoples suffering. It's not the oppressive regime or even the rebels. Its not even the Islamists we hear so much about, it's that damn America again and anyone who 'supports' them.

I often wonder if people of your poltical (more ideological) persuasion are even really serious about knowing the ins and outs of a particular situation to find out more about it or to find out how exactly your enemies are involved in 'this one'? I mean if I can tell the side a particular poster will choose to support in a given conflict by merely hearing of the groups involved, it tells me they already have their mind made up who is to blame and what is going on, its merely a case of finding the 'evidence' for their beliefs when they look into it further.

cyberhog

SamHarris wrote: »

Considering it is a small CIA contingent advising where SAUDI and QATAR weapons will be funneled to, would you not say that it will be much, much more a case of it being the neighboring, already religiously manic, nations support that will be the far, far bigger factor...

Neither Saudi or Qatar would be shipping arms to Syria without US blessing. Obama gave them the green light to start arming the rebels but they have being doing a piss poor job of it so the CIA stepped in to co-ordinate a massive airlift of arms to the radicals.

Jonny7

SamHarris wrote: »

Are you even aware that there are other players in world politics? With their own goals and power, their own self interest. Is it not conceivable that there are many players in the region with far more interest in how this turns out, that don't act always under some sort of US shadow government and that will act to see their interests protected?

You're arguing against a belief, not an objective viewpoint.

Trust me, I know it inside out, I used to subscribe heavily.

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

You're arguing against a belief, not an objective viewpoint.

Trust me, I know it inside out, I used to subscribe heavily.

And as belief is based on faith and ideology rather than logic and evidence the tools of argument - logic and evidence - are useless. I'm aware, I just enjoy pointing it out to people who can't seem to grasp the idea themselves.

SamHarris

cyberhog wrote: »

Neither Saudi or Qatar would be shipping arms to Syria without US blessing. Obama gave them the green light to start arming the rebels but they have being doing a piss poor job of it so the CIA stepped in to co-ordinate a massive airlift of arms to the radicals.

So yes, the US puppet theory, they are doing nothing, they have said little so the people who ARE doing something are being controled by them.

Thank you for proving my point beautifully.

Saudi and Qatar need no 'green light' or permission to look out for their own interests. No one does.

Not every government that acts in a fashion you find distasteful are doing so under orders from the Us. The sooner you realise this the sooner your politics will become a hell of a lot less juvenile.

Uh hu, so now the US is purposely arming the radicals rather than mistakenly. What a surprise, another layer in the CT and the actual reason changing from incompetence to malice. At least try make the argument consistent.

Just for the lol's lets here why the US wants to arm the radicals and create a Jihadist state in Syria.

I'm gonna go ahead and point out now you will find it much easier to argue your point on the CT forum. They to create the scenario to fit their ideology, evidence then fabricated/ taken out of context, rather than any meaningful thoughts on an issue.

Brown Bomber

-

SamHarris wrote: »

So yes, the US puppet theory, they are doing nothing, they have said little so the people who ARE doing something are being controled by them.

Thank you for proving my point beautifully.

Saudi and Qatar need no 'green light' or permission to look out for their own interests. No one does.

Not every government that acts in a fashion you find distasteful are doing so under orders from the Us. The sooner you realise this the sooner your politics will become a hell of a lot less juvenile.

Uh hu, so now the US is purposely arming the radicals rather than mistakenly. What a surprise, another layer in the CT and the actual reason changing from incompetence to malice. At least try make the argument consistent.

Just for the lol's lets here why the US wants to arm the radicals and create a Jihadist state in Syria.

I'm gonna go ahead and point out now you will find it much easier to argue your point on the CT forum. They to create the scenario to fit their ideology, evidence then fabricated/ taken out of context, rather than any meaningful thoughts on an issue.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar's "own interests" or more specifically it's ruling tyrant's is to remain in the incredible luxury dictatorship brings and is guaranteed by US military protection. That is not to say that they don't have an ideological dog in the fight and that they don't wish to expand their respective influences but they are client states that will do their masters bidding otherwise they will find themselves in the position of Gadaffi/Assad/Saddam Hussein and the subject of an "Arab Spring".

It's incredibly ignorant to scoff at the US putting some distance with themselves and their proxy cut-throat militias that they arm and train. It's not "conspiracy theory" it is fact that this has happened many times in recent history.

In fact just this week the Guardian was reporting of Obama's support of an illegitimite regime Honduras implicated in death-squads.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/30/congress-us-support-honduras-death-squad-regime

For example, in the 80's aside from using the ISI to lay the foundations of modern-day "Jihad" the US used Israel to funnel arms to to death squads it had trained in Latin America in places like Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala, whose leader of the time is currently facing genocide charges. It was also at this time that "rogue" elements of the US power structure were using Israel as a conduit to illegally funnel arms to Iran behind the backs of Congress to fund the Contras terror-campaigns.

In the 90's it was Clinton supporting the organ-trading, human-trafficking, drug-running terrorists the KLA in the Balkans who incidentally were also supported by the US's old friends from the 80's Iran and Osama bin Laden.

By 2007 Seymour Hersh was reporting that the "redirection" i.e. the alliance with militant Sunnis (Saudi, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda types etc) to roll back and defeat Shia influence in the Middle East (Hezbolla, Syria and the ultimate prize Iran).

Just last year NATO led by the US was holding hands with the same radical Sunni terrorists in Libya as are fighting in Syria (such as Ireland's own Mehdi Harati). Oddly just a few years prior they were kidnapping and handing over these same terrorists/Liberators to Gadaffi to torture. Likewise the US has sub-contracted torture to Assad.

- They desire the same result i.e. regime change as they achieved in Libya by providing air cover for terrorists and ethnic cleansers yet you still cannot somehow comprehend that as it's not good PR for President peace prize to be publically arming and training suicide-bombers and youtube throat-slitters and therefore it is sensible for him to put a little distance between himself and painfully apparent agenda in the region.

Brown Bomber

Guatemala: Rios Montt trial hears testimony on conflict-era sexual violence


+ Violence varied throughout Guatemala's 36-year conflict, but included everything from torture to forced displacement. An estimated 100,000 women were sexually assaulted during that time frame.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2013/0404/Guatemala-Rios-Montt-trial-hears-testimony-on-conflict-era-sexual-violence

cyberhog

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's incredibly ignorant to scoff at the US putting some distance with themselves and their proxy cut-throat militias that they arm and train. It's not "conspiracy theory" it is fact that this has happened many times in recent history.
-
They desire the same result i.e. regime change as they achieved in Libya by providing air cover for terrorists and ethnic cleansers yet you still cannot somehow comprehend that as it's not good PR for President peace prize to be publically arming and training suicide-bombers and youtube throat-slitters and therefore it is sensible for him to put a little distance between himself and painfully apparent agenda in the region.

Well said Brown Bomber.

Even The New York Times admits that is how the US operates.

Relying on surrogates allows the United States to keep its fingerprints off operations...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

-

Saudi Arabia and Qatar's "own interests" or more specifically it's ruling tyrant's is to remain in the incredible luxury dictatorship brings and is guaranteed by US military protection. That is not to say that they don't have an ideological dog in the fight and that they don't wish to expand their respective influences but they are client states that will do their masters bidding otherwise they will find themselves in the position of Gadaffi/Assad/Saddam Hussein and the subject of an "Arab Spring".

It's incredibly ignorant to scoff at the US putting some distance with themselves and their proxy cut-throat militias that they arm and train. It's not "conspiracy theory" it is fact that this has happened many times in recent history.

Evidence of the 'masters bidding' in this case, try not to link to anything that clearly points to their own self interest and shoot yourself in the foot.


Evidence of this case or its a CT, plain and simple. This is a politics forum, things like "I know they did it in the past!" may be a fantastic argument to you, but it means little to nothing to the case at hand.

Great, Im getting involved in a 'discussion' with these folks. Im out.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Evidence of the 'masters bidding' in this case, try not to link to anything that clearly points to their own self interest and shoot yourself in the foot.


Evidence of this case or its a CT, plain and simple. This is a politics forum, things like "I know they did it in the past!" may be a fantastic argument to you, but it means little to nothing to the case at hand.

Great, Im getting involved in a 'discussion' with these folks. Im out.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond. To be brutally honest your response lacks coherence and there is a disconnect between what you've responded to and the cul-de-sacs you then proceeded down. Nevertheless I'll try...

A - You've apparently not thought through what you are saying. For some strange reason you have neglected to consider that the agendas of both the US and The House of Saud can (and do) overlap and largely parallel in Syria - at least until "regime change" occurs.

B - The whole world and his dog knows that when it comes to foreign policy Saudi Arabia is subservient to the US. The Saudi Princes want to keep their Rolls Royces, yachts and mansions and to do this they need to maintain the status-quo which requires US protection.

C - This has nothing to do with "conspiracy theory". It is conspiracy fact or more accurately documented history.

If you are in need of a history lesson relevant to the topic I suggest you look into the current head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar "Bush" and how he was intimately involved in most if not all of the off the shelf covert operations involving the real axis of evil I'd mentioned in my previous post of:

• Saudis
• Israelis
• CIA
• Reaganites
• right-wing death squads
• The Bin Laden network -
• New-right grey eminences.

And then you may begin to notice history repeating itself...

BlaasForRafa

Brown Bomber wrote: »

• Saudis
• Israelis
• CIA
• Reaganites
• right-wing death squads
• The Bin Laden network -
• New-right grey eminences.

Don't forget the Rand Corporation and the Reverse-Vampires there skippy.

Brown Bomber

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Don't forget the Rand Corporation and the Reverse-Vampires there skippy.

It's not terribly clear whether your mealy mouthed response is either an attempt at humor or a dishonest attempt to conflate historical fact with fantasy. Either way it was a failure.

The facts are that the current head of Saudi Intelligence -- the group that are openly arming the international Wahabbi mercenaries airlifted into Turkey for American training before fighting in Syria -- acted as the middle man between the Bin Laden network in Afghanistan and the CIA in America's covert war in Afghanistan.

''Bin Laden used to come to us when America, underline, America, through the C.I.A. and Saudi Arabia, were helping our brother mujahedeen in Afghanistan, to get rid of the communist secularist Soviet Union forces,'' Prince Bandar said. ''Osama bin Laden came and said 'Thank you. Thank you for bringing the Americans to help us.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/09/world/nation-challenged-plots-saudi-arabia-also-target-attacks-us-officials-say.html
'

'

He served as the bagman for Ollie North, Elliot Abrahms and the rest of the Iran-Contra network to fund the death squads in Nicaragua. He served a similar middle-man purpose in Africa as well for the CIA.

This is part of the historical context. Of course you are free to ignore it but conflating this documented history with "reverse vampires" is either disingenuous or naive.

Brown Bomber

An unusually candid revelation from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.