Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

gurramok

esteve wrote: »

I really dislike this style of debating, demanding sources, and then within that only specific sources that they will accept. Its actually general knowledge that they are working together, it shouldn´t have to be refernced if we are to have a real debate about what is going on in Syria, but to keep you happy, i hope this source will suffice

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/meast/syria-terror-group-explainer

So you say whatever Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah who are involved in the conflict is the truth, pull the other one.

I asked for an unbiased source to confirm this so called "fact" of the US supplying a terrorist group, you give the CNN report, lets look at that.

The nearest I can find to your point of view is the following:

"To add insult to injury, Washington has now proscribed one of the most effective fighting forces among rebel groups. We may not share al-Nusra's worldview, but we need their organizational and battlefield experience."

Nothing new there, Al-Nusra as reported is very effective. So where is the evidence that the US are sending arms to a group that is on their terror list?

Norwesterner wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#Relationship_with_National_Coalition_for_Syrian_Revolutionary_and_opposition_forces
Above the link is also the quote from the FSA Commander describing Al Nusra as "the Revolution's elite Commando troops."and the reference to joint military operations.

Wikipedia? Oh, come on.

Norwesterner

So ,thats no RT news, no Press TV, no Tehran Times and no Wikipedia (with named quotes and sources)


Go back into your bubble, close your eyes and block your ears.

gurramok

Norwesterner wrote: »

So ,thats no RT news, no Press TV, no Tehran Times and no Wikipedia (with named quotes and sources)


Go back into your bubble, close your eyes and block your ears.

No need for that. I asked for neutral sources. All that has been presented are sources from Assad supporters like RT, Iran, Assad himself and Hezbollah.

The accusation that the US are supplying arms to a terror group in Syria on their terror list holds no ground so far.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

I really dislike this style of debating, demanding sources, and then within that only specific sources that they will accept. Its actually general knowledge that they are working together, it shouldn´t have to be refernced if we are to have a real debate about what is going on in Syria, but to keep you happy, i hope this source will suffice

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/meast/syria-terror-group-explainer

That article claims that the US and Al Nusra are not working together and also that Al Nusra and sympathisers are hostile to the US and the West.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

That article claims that the US and Al Nusra are not working together and also that Al Nusra and sympathisers are hostile to the US and the West.

What??

I was clearly focusing not on the USA, sorry to dissapoint, but on the FSA and Al Nusra. There are many more articles with clear facts showing there connections, but I cant even post them as the sources will get ridiculed and the factual content ignored!

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

What??

I just reread.

Sorry, I thought you were using that article to contradict claims the US was arming certain Islamist groups.

esteve

[QUOTE=gurramok;85124470


Nothing new there, Al-Nusra as reported is very effective. So where is the evidence that the US are sending arms to a group that is on their terror list?



[/QUOTE]

As I originally pointed out, I was focusing on the FSA and Al Nusra.

The quotes in the wikipedia article have been clearly cited. Maybe check their credibility first, as simply disregarding wikipedia makes very little sense.

As a matter of interest, what sources do you accept, just so as we know not to waste your time...?

gurramok

esteve wrote: »

As I originally pointed out, I was focusing on the FSA and Al Nusra.

The quotes in the wikipedia article have been clearly cited. Maybe check their credibility first, as simply disregarding wikipedia makes very little sense.

As a matter of interest, what sources do you accept, just so as we know not to waste your time...?

Anybody can edit Wikipedia.

Post from a neutral source, RT or the Tehran Times ain't neutral sources.

Its quite the irony that posters who claim the US is supplying an Islamic terror group can only post articles from Assad's allies who are deeply involved in the conflict.

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

Anybody can edit Wikipedia.

Post from a neutral source, RT or the Tehran Times ain't neutral sources.

Its quite the irony that posters who claim the US is supplying an Islamic terror group can only post articles from Assad's allies who are deeply involved in the conflict.

A reporter working for McClatchy Newspapers says he has seen the so-called US approved "moderate" rebels sharing weapons with militant Islamists.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/28/184493/rebel-cooperation-in-syrian-town.html

The truth of the matter is the al Qaeda affiliates and other Islamist jihadist groups dominate the oppositions forces and it is sheer fantasy to think they won't get their hands on any weapons supplied by the West.

cyberhog

A senior aide to President Morsi is reported to have said that Egypt has no intention of stopping extremists from travelling to Syria to fight alongside Sunni rebels:

On Saturday, Morsi attended a rally by hard-line clerics who have called for jihad and spoke before a cheering crowd at a Cairo stadium, mainly Islamists.

Clerics at the rally urged Morsi to back their calls for jihad to support rebels. Morsi did not address their calls and did not mention jihad. But his appearance was seen as in implicit backing of the clerics' message. It came after a senior presidential aide last week said that while Egypt was not encouraging citizens to travel to Syria to help rebels, they were free to do so and the state would take no action against them.

Under Mubarak's 29-year rule, Egypt was a major Mideast bulwark against religious militancy. Mubarak closely cooperated with the United States and other Western nations in the hunt for extremists wanted in connection with terror attacks and dismantling the financial networks for militant groups.

In the 1990s, militants who gained combat experience fighting the Russians in Afghanistan staged an anti-government insurgency that took the lives of more than 1,000 people, mostly civilians. Mubarak's security forces crushed the insurgency, and in the years that followed the groups involved renounced violence, though they maintained a hard-line ideology.

The fall of Mubarak in early 2011 and Morsi's election nearly a year ago allowed many of the former militants to come in from the cold.

A senior official at the Interior Ministry, which is in charge of police and internal security, said the names of at least 3,000 militants have in recent months been removed from the wanted list posted at the country's points of entry over the past two years.

Many of the 3,000 have since Morsi taken office returned to Egypt from exile and are now freely participating in the country's Islamist-dominated politics, said the official.

The change in Egypt's approach has not gone unnoticed in the West.

Last week, Germany's Interior Ministry issued its 2012 report on domestic security in which it noted an increase in the travel to Egypt by suspected Islamic extremists, ostensibly because they wanted to live in Muslim countries or study Arabic but in some specific cases may have been really interested in joining jihadi training camps.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-give-nod-jihadis-syria-19415822

And it seems Obama is quite happy to support Morsi:

"We look forward to working together with President-elect Morsi and the government he forms, on the basis of mutual respect, to advance the many shared interests between Egypt and the United States," press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/foreign-affairs/211983-morsi-appoints-salafist-governor-egypts-tourism-capital.html

So now in Syria we can see the shared interests between Egypt and the United States at work. Obama provides weapons and his buddy Morsi provides fighters to use them.

cyberhog

Most Americans oppose arming rebels

There is very little partisan divide in attitudes about the conflict in Syria. Majorities of independents (74%), Republicans (71%) and Democrats (66%) oppose the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/17/public-remains-opposed-to-arming-syrian-rebels/

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

A reporter working for McClatchy Newspapers says he has seen the so-called US approved "moderate" rebels sharing weapons with militant Islamists.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/28/184493/rebel-cooperation-in-syrian-town.html

The truth of the matter is the al Qaeda affiliates and other Islamist jihadist groups dominate the oppositions forces and it is sheer fantasy to think they won't get their hands on any weapons supplied by the West.

That report says there has been "sharing weapons" with a group called Sham not Al-Nusra in one particular small town(Kfar Nbouda). Is this group a designated terrorist group by the US?

The truth of the matter is that al Qaeda affiliates and other Islamist jihadist groups do not dominate the rebellion, they are a minority and obviously grab the headlines because they are hardline Islamist feeding into the scaremongering listed in this thread.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

Which groups are the US sending arms to that are on their terror list?

Please state the fact as you call it.

Instead of posting disingenuous "questions" like this and simply clogging up the forum with inane nonsense, you can do 5 minutes of research yourself and find out. In fact you can do it, in the time it would take to post what you have above.

Here's a lead. Jabhat Al Nusra. A group that the FSA has openly stated are at the "frontline" of their war against the Syrian government, who have in turn declared allegiance to Al Qaeda and have been declared as a terrorist organisation by the US.

It's not even a debate that there are terrorist groups fighting under the FSA in Syria. It isn't questioned by any honest observer of the conflict.

These, and their like, are the people that US arms will end up with. Where else would they go, if not the "frontline".

As an aside, there are currently thousands of air to surface missiles "missing" in Lybia, after the stupid intervention in that country. A country that remains in abolute chaos.

I wonder where they went.

gurramok

And to use McClatchy as the same source, we have a news article about an Assad militia, Iran's dirty hands and Iraqi(pro-Assad) involvement.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/19/183574/pro-assad-militia-now-key-to-syrian.html#.UcAJINhc2DI

A Syrian government militia that the U.S. has declared a terrorist organization is becoming increasingly important to the Syrian government’s strategy as it attempts to shore up its still-loyal but beleaguered military.

The militia, known as the National Defense Force or the People’s Army, is an extension of the shabiha, the pro-government gangs that were used to suppress demonstrations against the government of President Bashar Assad and that have been accused over the last two years of massacring civilians in rebel-held areas.

Much of the militia’s equipment is from the army, and it includes heavy weaponry such as tanks and artillery.

She said the militia was particularly strong in Houla, a city where the shabiha were accused last year of hacking to death dozens of Sunni civilians, including women and children.

She expressed ambivalence about the growth of the militia. “I don’t really know how I feel about it,” she said. “We are being controlled by those thugs, and we can’t say anything against the regime.”

And Iran's involvement

The U.S. government has identified Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that’s allied with Iran and Syria, as being involved in training the Syrian militia, along with members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Syrians familiar with the militia also say that some of its leaders have been sent to Iran for training, much the way Hezbollah fighters and Iraqi Shiite militias trained there in past years

The interview with the fighter, who used the pseudonym Dany because the group’s media department hadn’t authorized him to discuss such matters, offered a chilling window into the intractability of the Syrian war. In addition to Hezbollah fighters who are deployed in Syria, particularly on the Lebanese-Syrian border, Shiites from Iraq have volunteered to fight on Assad’s behalf, Dany said.

Iran also could use the Jaish Shabi _ Arabic for “People’s Army” _ as a proxy to pursue its political objectives in Syria, much as it uses Hezbollah to promote its interests in Lebanon.

So where is the outrage in this thread about the extreme militant groups linked to Assad and Iran??!

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

Instead of posting disingenuous "questions" like this and simply clogging up the forum with inane nonsense, you can do 5 minutes of research yourself and find out. In fact you can do it, in the time it would take to post what you have above.

Oh yes, we must never ask the awkward questions to present evidence to back up the claims, that seems to be your policy. It is right to ask questions to find concrete answers to allegations.

There is no evidence presented so far that the US are sending arms to a terror group in Syria that is on their terror list. Your original claim is false unless you find the evidence.

Tony EH wrote: »

Here's a lead. Jabhat Al Nusra. A group that the FSA has openly stated are at the "frontline" of their war against the Syrian government, who have in turn declared allegiance to Al Qaeda and have been declared as a terrorist organisation by the US.

It's not even a debate that there are terrorist groups fighting under the FSA in Syria. It isn't questioned by any honest observer of the conflict.

These, and their like, are the people that US arms will end up with. Where else would they go, if not the "frontline".

Since when do the FSA control the terrorist groups?

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

Oh yes, we must never ask the awkward questions to present evidence to back up the claims, that seems to be your policy. It is right to ask questions to find concrete answers to allegations.

It's not an "awkward" question, it's not even a genuine question. It's simply contradiction and naysaying in disguse.

gurramok wrote: »

There is no evidence presented so far that the US are sending arms to a terror group in Syria that is on their terror list. Your original claim is false unless you find the evidence.

Where do you think the arms will end up, if not at the "frontline"?

It's completely specious to expect people to believe that the weapons that the US propose to send won't end up in the hands of the Jihadist elements that are on the side of the FSA in Syria. Even leaders in the military are warning Cameron not to follow Obama's lead in this matter.

Maybe they've actually learned something from the debacle in Libya.

gurramok wrote: »

Since when do the FSA control the terrorist groups?

I don't believe anyone on this board, or anywhere else has even said such a thing.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

Where do you think the arms will end up, if not at the "frontline"?

It's completely spacious to expect people to believe that the weapons that the US propose to send won't end up in the hands of the Jihadist elements that are on the side of the FSA in Syria. Even leaders in the military are warning Cameron not to follow Obama's lead in this matter.

Maybe they've actually learned something from the debacle in Libya.

The arms will end up in the hands of the FSA, their intentional destination.

I see what you did there, you said "Jihadist elements that are on the side of the FSA " rather than "Jihadist elements that are on the side of the rebels", you are trying to drag the FSA name through the mud.

To think that they may end up in the hands of Jihadist elements is speculation.

It will need some intermediary of whatever persuasion to actually give the weapons to the Jihadists or for the Jihadists to steal them.

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't believe anyone on this board, or anywhere else has even said such a thing.

You just did in the previous post.

Tony EH wrote:

It's not even a debate that there are terrorist groups fighting under the FSA in Syria.

Tony EH

Go away lad. I'm not even taking you seriously.

Jonny7

Again, the violent crackdown by the Assad regime on largely peaceful protests in spring 2011 was condemned, pretty much universally, across the world.

This condemnation only increased as the violence increased - it's not long ago the regime was using warships and artillery to shell towns and cities day after day. Yes, even the Russians have been pushed to criticise the regime due to the excessive violence.

The uprising was supported from the beginning, by a very wide range of countries, including the Arab league.

I can link earlier boards threads, from 2 years ago, on the subject - the US and EU position has not changed since, only the details.

The arrival of jihadists last year has further complicated the conflict, but it hasn't detracted from the original support for the Syrian people over a regime which is essentially butchering them to stay in power. That hasn't changed.

Tony EH

Of course it was condemned. It was a condemnable action, taken by a pretty nasty regime. Remember, this was the regime that the US used to send rendition victims to for torture.

But it would be a mistake to believe that the people on the other side of the wire would be anything better and there's been plenty of accounts of their barbaric behaviour, both in and out of the battlezone.

The paradigm has shifted after those events of a couple of years ago and the elements on the ground are not the clear cut "good guys" that some would have you believe.

The best course of action would be for the west (ie America and Britain largely) to keep the noses out of Syria's civil war.

They have no legitimate business getting themselves involved and frankly are only going to make things worse.

gurramok

Most of the guys on the ground are still "good guys" fighting for their freedom.

If you want the US and UK to stay out of the Syrian civil war, for balance there should be a call for Russia, Iran and Hezbollah to stay out if it too. But of course there has been no recognition for balance in this thread on this issue.

Jonny7

gurramok wrote: »

Most of the guys on the ground are still "good guys" fighting for their freedom.

No this is just a myth, Western propaganda, carefully constructed over the last 2 years - as part of a cynical geo-policy to get Islamists freely elected across the Middle East and North Africa..

They already did it in Libya, on friendly terms with Gadaffi, but he wasn't Islamist enough, so they engineered the whole thing, you think that was a real election they had there?

TheSB

gurramok wrote: »

Most of the guys on the ground are still "good guys" fighting for their freedom.

Who's the good guys?? The Syrian army fighting for securlarism or the rebels fighting for a Islamic state??

gurramok

TheSB wrote: »

Who's the good guys?? The Syrian army fighting for securlarism or the rebels fighting for a Islamic state??

The FSA which consists of all Syrians regardless of their religious background are fighting a brutal murderous dictator.

Jonny7

TheSB wrote: »

Who's the good guys?? The Syrian army fighting for securlarism or the rebels fighting for a Islamic state??

In very simple terms..

The Syrian army are fighting for Assad, who wants to maintain power in the country.

The majority of the rebels have been fighting to rid the country of Assad and the ability to choose a government.

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that al Qaeda affiliates and other Islamist jihadist groups do not dominate the rebellion, they are a minority and obviously grab the headlines because they are hardline Islamist feeding into the scaremongering listed in this thread.

According to a report by Agence France Presse al-Nusra Front are indeed the dominant fighting force amongst the various factions of the rebel opposition.

Protests in Syria's northern city Aleppo against the Free Syrian Army highlight the waning influence of mainstream rebel groups and the rise of more disciplined and better-equipped radical Islamists.

Their ferocity and fighting skills have made the jihadist "al-Nusra Front the dominant force in Aleppo now," eclipsing the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Liwa al-Tawhid, once the strongest brigade in the city...

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/63440-jihadists-make-their-presence-felt-in-syria-s-aleppo

And from the Guardian:

Illustrating their plight, FSA commanders say that entire units have gone over to al-Nusra while others have lost a quarter or more of their strength to them recently.

"Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra because that means power and influence," said Abu Ahmed, a former teacher from Deir Hafer who now commands an FSA brigade in the countryside near Aleppo.

...Abu Zeid used to command the FSA's Syria Mujahideen brigade in the Damascus region and led all its 420 fighters to al-Nusra. "Since we joined I and my men are getting everything we need to keep us fighting to liberate Syria and to cover our families' expenses, though fighting with al-Nusra is governed by very strict rules issued by the operations command or foreign fighters," he said. "There is no freedom at all but you do get everything you want.

"No one should blame us for joining al-Nusra. Blame the west if Syria is going to become a haven for al-Qaida and extremists. The west left Assad's gangs to slaughter us. They never bothered to support the FSA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

And a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army told Agence France Presse:

"Al-Nusra Front has never done anything illegal or worth condemning against a foreign country. They are fighting side by side with us."

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/%07%07syria-rebel-military-commander-condemns-us-al-nusra-front-blacklisting

So there is clearly a cosy relationship between the FSA and the al Qaeda affiliates and that is why most EU countries are extremely concerned that weapons destined for the FSA could easily end up in the hands of the extremists.

Norwesterner

gurramok wrote: »

The FSA which consists of all Syrians regardless of their religious background are fighting a brutal murderous dictator.

Is that the FSA with the war cry...."Allawites to their grave, Christians to Beirut!"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8708121/die-slowly-christian-dog/

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

In very simple terms..

The Syrian army are fighting for Assad, who wants to maintain power in the country.

The majority of the rebels have been fighting to rid the country of Assad and the ability to choose a government.

The Syrian Army are defending Syria and it's diverse community.
Thats what the soldiers swore allegiance to.
Professional, patriotic soldiers.
They are not even allowed to vote in elections as the Constitution states they should be loyal to the Nation and not be party political.
Whta is your view on what should happen to the Syrian Army if the Extremists miraculously gain control.
Will they be disbanded?
Will they be forced to swear to the black banner of Wahhabism?
opposition supporters here have zero clue regarding a post Assad Syria.
The SAA will simply become the new guerrila force launching attacks on the new Emirate State.
The 9 million who voted for Assad will fight any plans to turn Syria into Libya.

Jonny7

Norwesterner wrote: »

The Syrian Army are defending Syria and it's diverse community.

Oh give it a rest, they are essentially Bashar and Maher's private army.

Thats what the soldiers swore allegiance to.

Thousands have defected or fled rather than follow orders to kill their countrymen or shell areas with civilians. There is evidence of soldiers who refuse orders being threatened, shot and even burnt. This is heavily corroborated by the floods of refugees and defected soldiers crossing the border, from privates to generals.

Professional, patriotic soldiers.

Those who serve do so for money, for fear or out of a sense of loyalty to Assad. Yes this also means the Shabiha who have been implicated in many massacres of Syrian civilians, including women and children. I can't even count how many internal security forces loyal to Assad were built up over the decades, 11?

They are not even allowed to vote in elections as the Constitution states they should be loyal to the Nation and not be party political.

Either they are loyal to Assad, they get out of Syria or they defect to the rebels.

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oh give it a rest, they are essentially Bashar and Maher's private army.



Thousands have defected or fled rather than follow orders to kill their countrymen or shell areas with civilians. There is evidence of soldiers who refuse orders being threatened, shot and even burnt. This is heavily corroborated by the floods of refugees and defected soldiers crossing the border, from privates to generals.



Those who serve do so for money, for fear or out of a sense of loyalty to Assad. Yes this also means the Shabiha who have been implicated in many massacres of Syrian civilians, including women and children. I can't even count how many internal security forces loyal to Assad were built up over the decades, 11?




Either they are loyal to Assad, they get out of Syria or they defect to the rebels.

They are majority Sunni, as are the Air Force.
So if the MSM are correct with their propaganda they'd have jumped ship years ago.
The Saudis pay better money.
Did it ever cross your mind that they don't want their children to grow up under Burkas and Sharia Law.
Even now in "free, liberated" areas of Syria women are banned from driving and teens are being executed for blasphemy.
Do you support the "rebels" in Yemen, Iraq, Mali, Chechnya, Dagestan or Pakistan by the way.
If not, please explain the difference.

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

According to a report by Agence France Presse al-Nusra Front are indeed the dominant fighting force amongst the various factions of the rebel opposition.
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/63440-jihadists-make-their-presence-felt-in-syria-s-aleppo

And from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

And a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army told Agence France Presse:

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/%07%07syria-rebel-military-commander-condemns-us-al-nusra-front-blacklisting

So there is clearly a cosy relationship between the FSA and the al Qaeda affiliates and that is why most EU countries are extremely concerned that weapons destined for the FSA could easily end up in the hands of the extremists.

Allegedly dominant in Aleppo according to one random person called Mustafa on the street quoted!
It has been well publicised in that Guardian link before about defections from FSA to Al_Nusra, no new news there. Those defecting ain't religious wackos, they defected for the better weaponry. Expect them to defect back when the FSA are properly supplied with quality arms.

gurramok

Norwesterner wrote: »

Is that the FSA with the war cry...."Allawites to their grave, Christians to Beirut!"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8708121/die-slowly-christian-dog/

That is some propaganda you spout there. There is nothing to suggest that the FSA were responsible for that Christians death. It clearly states in your link it was extreme Islamists probably foreign mercenaries, NOT the FSA.

Dr Bassam and his wife are firmly in the pro-Assad camp, and they insist that the rebels are not locals with a legitimate grievance, but mostly Islamists from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. ‘Mercenaries,’ insists the Doc’s wife.

Jonny7

Norwesterner wrote: »

They are majority Sunni, as are the Air Force.
So if the MSM are correct with their propaganda they'd have jumped ship years ago.

Erdogan in Turkey just labelled the protesters "terrorists", threatened to deploy the army and prosecute doctors who treat wounded protesters..

In March 2011 the Syrian leadership didn't just make idle threats like the above, protesters were shot by snipers, perceived opponents of Assad were attacked in hospitals, they were taken into military prisons, had their legs broken, were tortured. Teenagers as young as thirteen were photographed with body parts missing.

Thousands have disappeared in these prisons.

This has been reported by Syrians on the ground, direct witnesses including military personel, and by media organisations brave enough to send reporters in

Did it ever cross your mind that they don't want their children to grow up under Burkas and Sharia Law.

They want to choose their own government like normal human beings.

Even now in "free, liberated" areas of Syria women are banned from driving and teens are being executed for blasphemy.

Under which elected body?

Plenty of examples of honour killings, burqas and Sharia law much closer to home, does that represent the real picture? nope, only to the likes of the EDL.

Do you support the "rebels" in Yemen, Iraq, Mali, Chechnya, Dagestan or Pakistan by the way.
If not, please explain the difference.

Bizarre question

Which "rebels" in Iraq, the Shia group under Sadr? the Anbar Sunni's who were fighting the yanks but allied with them to counter foreign jihadists under Al Qaeda? the PKK in the North? the Shia who rose up against Saddam after the first Gulf War?

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

That report says there has been "sharing weapons" with a group called Sham not Al-Nusra in one particular small town(Kfar Nbouda). Is this group a designated terrorist group by the US?

If they haven't been designated, they should be.

"...Ahrar al-Sham, shares much of Nusra’s extremist ideology..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

gurramok wrote: »

Allegedly dominant in Aleppo according to one random person called Mustafa on the street quoted!

Other sources back up the AFP report, most notably, The New York Times.

CAIRO — In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

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

More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.

Nusra’s hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo, where the group has set up camp in a former children’s hospital...

In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.

“They are the strongest military force in the area,” said the commander of a rebel brigade in Hasaka reached via Skype. “We can’t deny it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

gurramok wrote: »

Those defecting ain't religious wackos, they defected for the better weaponry. Expect them to defect back when the FSA are properly supplied with quality arms.

Those defecting have probably become too radicalised to defect back.

In the past, United States officials saw the Islamist groups’ abundant resources as the main draw for recruits, said Steven Heydemann, a senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace, which works with the State Department.

“The strategy is based on the current assessment that popular appeal of these groups is transactional, not ideological, and that opportunities exist to peel people away by providing alternative support and resources,” he said.

Mr. Heydemann acknowledged, however, that the current momentum toward radicalism could be hard to reverse.

The challenge, he said, is to end the conflict before “the opportunity to create a system of governance not based on militant Islamic law is lost.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Tony EH

It's amazing how childish and stupid this idea is, that Syria will end up holding some sort of democratic election with a favourable outcome, if Assad's regime falls and blossom into some sort of freedom loving paradise after a victory by forces containing Islamist groups loyal to Al Qaeda and its philosophy.

Do the people that hold this wishful thinking believe that Al Qaeda will suddenly just accept a non-Islamic state, put down their arms and walk away, after years of fighting to establish an Islamic state?

It's clear from reports on all sides that radicalised Islamic groups are operating in Syria with great power at present, with support from the so-called FSA, after being marginalised and contained by Assad's ruling Ba'ath party, with the approval and support of the US. It's appallingly absurd to believe that there is no connection, whatsoever, between these allies, who according to the FSA are fighting "side by side", and that the extremist elements will just accept "democracy" (in whatever half-arsed form) it gets manufactured in.

If there really was a clear cut democratic revolution going on, there would inevitably be more support for it. But the fact remains that there isn't and people who aren't subject to fanciful delusions are not being swayed by the transparent propaganda and outright lies.


It's also an irony of epic proportion that Hezbollah, a group demonised by the US as a "terrorist" organisation for years, are actually fighting Al Qaeda in Syria, while the US are offering de-facto support to them.

Brown Bomber

gurramok wrote: »

The FSA which consists of all Syrians regardless of their religious background are fighting a brutal murderous dictator.

... and if anyone stands against their moral crusade to they'll eat their organs and put it on youtube. :rolleyes:

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

Erdogan in Turkey just labelled the protesters "terrorists", threatened to deploy the army and prosecute doctors who treat wounded protesters..

In March 2011 the Syrian leadership didn't just make idle threats like the above, protesters were shot by snipers, perceived opponents of Assad were attacked in hospitals, they were taken into military prisons, had their legs broken, were tortured. Teenagers as young as thirteen were photographed with body parts missing.

Thousands have disappeared in these prisons.

This has been reported by Syrians on the ground, direct witnesses including military personel, and by media organisations brave enough to send reporters in




They want to choose their own government like normal human beings.



Under which elected body?

Plenty of examples of honour killings, burqas and Sharia law much closer to home, does that represent the real picture? nope, only to the likes of the EDL.




Bizarre question

Which "rebels" in Iraq, the Shia group under Sadr? the Anbar Sunni's who were fighting the yanks but allied with them to counter foreign jihadists under Al Qaeda? the PKK in the North? the Shia who rose up against Saddam after the first Gulf War?

I noticed you mentioned every group in Iraq apart from the Al Qaeda linked group "Islamic State of Iraq" who are flitting between Syrian and Iraq carrying out atrocities in both countries.
How can you support those who fight under the black flag in Syria but not those in Iraq?
Nothing bizarre about the question. Nice dodge from you though.
I'm talking about the groups in Iraq, Chechnya, Mali, Algeria, Pakistan, Somalia who see the rebels in Syria as their comrades with the same aim.

Norwesterner

gurramok wrote: »

That is some propaganda you spout there. There is nothing to suggest that the FSA were responsible for that Christians death. It clearly states in your link it was extreme Islamists probably foreign mercenaries, NOT the FSA.

Yes, extreme Islamists fighting for the FSA.
Read paragraph 4 ffs.
To these Christians the FSA are Islamic extremists.
They don't folow the mantra of good head-hackers and bad head-hackers.

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

If they haven't been designated, they should be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Other sources back up the AFP report, most notably, 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=0

Those defecting have probably become too radicalised to defect back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

From your own link.

But most of Nusra’s fighters joined the group for the weapons, not the ideology, he said, and some left after discovering the Qaeda connection.

“Most of the youth who joined them did so to topple the regime, not because they wanted to join Al Qaeda,” he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

As I said earlier, those defectors will be back. Most of the extremists are actually foreign which means the local population are not yet radicalised.

gurramok

Norwesterner wrote: »

Yes, extreme Islamists fighting for the FSA.
Read paragraph 4 ffs.
To these Christians the FSA are Islamic extremists.
They don't folow the mantra of good head-hackers and bad head-hackers.

No, here is paragraph 4 in full. Nothing about FSA murdering a Christian or consisting of Islamic extremists. The FSA are only mentioned once in the whole article and that is below.

As we pull into al-Qaa, the minibus team grows quieter. We drive past the checkpoint and peer into no man’s land. This is the portal through which the refugees escape from Syria into Lebanon: not just Christians, also Shia, Sunni and Alawite (Syrian President Bashir al-Assad’s family are Alawites). It’s still reasonably safe on this side of the border. Syria’s war hasn’t spilled over into Lebanon yet — but it’s a very precarious peace. Hezbollah has formed a little pro-Assad gang with the Christians and have a grip of this area here. In Aarsal just a few miles away, the Sunni population supports the rebels of the Free Syrian Army. Under the cover of night, both sides steal across the border to fight.

Brown Bomber wrote:

... and if anyone stands against their moral crusade to they'll eat their organs and put it on youtube

And your proof of this yet another attempted slur on the FSA?

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

If there really was a clear cut democratic revolution going on, there would inevitably be more support for it. But the fact remains that there isn't and people who aren't subject to fanciful delusions are not being swayed by the transparent propaganda and outright lies.

Where is your proof that the revolution lacks support?

Tony EH wrote: »

It's also an irony of epic proportion that Hezbollah, a group demonised by the US as a "terrorist" organisation for years, are actually fighting Al Qaeda in Syria, while the US are offering de-facto support to them.

It is ironic that a poster who scaremongers about Islamic extremists and labels the US falsely as a supplier of arms to terror groups on its list , is defending the Party of God which is allied to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

As I said earlier, those defectors will be back.

An overly optimistic opinion given the current momentum toward radicalism.

gurramok wrote: »

Most of the extremists are actually foreign which means the local population are not yet radicalised.

The local population have been fighting alongside the extremists for two years. Where is your proof that they have not been radicalised?

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

The local population have been fighting alongside the extremists for two years. Where is your proof that they have not been radicalised?

The FSA is your proof, they consist of the vast majority of fighters, not the radical Islamists who are mostly foreign.(which it says numerous times in your links)

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

The FSA is your proof,

As was pointed out in the OP the FSA does not exist.

Here is another article that goes into more detail on the whole FSA branding exercise.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-free-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/

cyberhog

Obama has attracted scathing criticism over his decision to arm the rebels.

Marc Lynch, calls it "probably his worst foreign policy decision since taking office,"

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/16/sliding_down_the_syrian_slope

Daniel Larison describes it as "one of the two or three worst foreign policy decisions Obama has made."... "it is both unnecessary for the U.S. and almost guaranteed not to have any good effects in Syria."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/capitulating-to-the-constant-pressure-for-escalation/

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

As was pointed out in the OP the FSA does not exist.

Here is another article that goes into more detail on the whole FSA branding exercise.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-free-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/

You quote a blog by a guy(Landis) who is married to the daughter of an retired Admiral of the Syrian Navy! http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/wedding/announcement.htm

Jonny7

gurramok wrote: »

The FSA is your proof, they consist of the vast majority of fighters, not the radical Islamists who are mostly foreign.(which it says numerous times in your links)

I would agree, but the FSA has no big issues working with any of the brigades coming across the border and that means Al Nusra.

Many of their men have been switching ranks to groups like Al Nusra who are generally much better armed. In desparate circumstances - guns and ammunition matter most. Of Al Nusra they say, the men are incredibly brave, and will often pour into areas which are under heavy assault, propping up the lines. They don't necessarily agree with their extremist views - unfortunately they are fighting a common enemy.

The Syrian military is still very strong and potent, of which the troops are mostly Sunni, but the majority of the leadership are Alawite, and therefore loyal to Assad - last year most fighting age men have been banned from leaving the country, swelling numbers - they are also forming a rear guard, a huge number of badly trained men to take and hold towns and cities as they capture them.

The FSA have trouble with tanks and helicopters, the US deciding to arm the FSA will mean they can fight back, and will be better armed and trained - meaning more fighters should come from the most extreme brigades over to them.

Jonny7

Norwesterner wrote: »

I noticed you mentioned every group in Iraq

No I didn't and stop embellishing my posts thanks.

There are dozens of groups in Iraq I didn't mention - Iraq doesn't compare to Syria, it's an entirely different situation, as is Pakistan (???), Yemen and so on.

It is a bizarre statement, like you are trying to connect support for the FSA with support for Al Qaeda groups..

is that what your point is?

If so, it's an incorrect assumption.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

Where is your proof that the revolution lacks support?

As you were told before, school yourself in the basics before clogging up the forum with nonsense. Your level of posting leaves a lot to be desired.

It's clear, and a cursory glance at commenters on the issue from all persuasions, will show you that there isn't universal support for the rebels, due to the fact that there are some extremely unsavory allies fighting against Assad's regime, who are as guilty of extremities on the battlefield just like Assad's forces are accused of.

There is no clear cut cause worthy of support and that's why there is a substantial level of scepticism directed towards the rebel factions by observers of all colours. The information is available, if you can be bothered to go an research it.

People who want to induldge in some fanicful notions of "good guys" and "bad guys" are not really paying attention.

gurramok wrote: »

It is ironic that a poster who scaremongers about Islamic extremists and labels the US falsely as a supplier of arms to terror groups on its list , is defending the Party of God which is allied to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Oh dear, yet more bukum from you.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

As you were told before, school yourself in the basics before clogging up the forum with nonsense. Your level of posting leaves a lot to be desired.

It's clear, and a cursory glance at commenters on the issue from all persuasions, will show you that there isn't universal support for the rebels, due to the fact that there are some extremely unsavory allies fighting against Assad's regime, who are as guilty of extremities on the battlefield just like Assad's forces are accused of.

There is no clear cut cause worthy of support and that's why there is a substantial level of scepticism directed towards the rebel factions by observers of all colours. The information is available, if you can be bothered to go an research it.

People who want to induldge in some fanicful notions of "good guys" and "bad guys" are not really paying attention.

Oh dear, yet more bukum from you.

So you have no proof other than hearsay and conjecture, just like you had no proof to accuse the US of supplying arms to a terror group on their terror list.