- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,923
- Reaction score
- 1,738
- Location
- Staffs, England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Anyone who supports the rebels supports Al-Qaeda.
Aside from the fact they are killing each other?
Anyone who supports the rebels supports Al-Qaeda.
Assad has every right to fight and kill anyone whom is allied with Al-Qaeda. We used to have the same belief but then our politicians bowed down to Defense Contractor lobbyists.Aside from the fact they are killing each other?
Assad has every right to fight and kill anyone whom is allied with Al-Qaeda. We used to have the same belief but then our politicians bowed down to Defense Contractor lobbyists.
He also allowed foreign jihadists to pass through Syria on their way to Iraq. I believe an appreciable if not an overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda in Iraq were funneled into Iraq through Syria.He helped the USA by providing refuge for 20% of the Iraqi population during our War of Terror against Iraq.
stabilized Lebanon
He also allowed foreign jihadists to pass through Syria on their way to Iraq. I believe an appreciable if not an overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda in Iraq were funneled into Iraq through Syria.
He didn't stabilize jack **** in Lebanon. He used death squads to murder political opponents, including a Lebanese PM, and continually denied the Lebanese people their right to be a democracy rather than his own personal property.
Assad is more dangerous to US interests than Saddam was pre-invasion. Whatever else is going on with the rebellion, facilitating the removal of the Baathist dictatorship should be our number one priority in the Middle East.
Yep, the CIA was definitely funneling al-Qaeda into Iraq in order to kill Americans. That wouldn't harm support for the war at home at all, would it?It's the CIA funneling the radical Islamists into Syria, so it was probably the CIA funneling radical Islamists into Iraq. Leopards and spots, don't ya' know.
Shut off your TV and start surfing the Internet to find out what's going on. We are the bad guys in Syria. The USA, the CIA, Saudis, Israelis, etc. are all fomenting insurrection in Syria. This is not a guess or opinion, it is documented. It's about OIL and pipelines and Mediterranean ports. It is a war with a Corporate agenda. Wake up.
Yep, the CIA was definitely funneling al-Qaeda into Iraq in order to kill Americans. That wouldn't harm support for the war at home at all, would it?
I only watch TV (well, Netflix, really) for sitcoms and Doctor Who, not for news. That I do get from the Internet, but not from schizophrenic crackpots like Alex Jones. Nice try, though.
C) arming any side as soon as they begin to lose. If Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Assad want to kill each other in Syria, I am in favor of them doing that as much as and as long as possible.
I feel like it would be more in our strategic interests to make sure that the moderate rebels win, at the expense of al-Qaeda and the Assad regime
making sure that the later collapses is especially important to undermining Iran's position in the Arab World.
The FSA is far too demoralized for us to effectively deliver aid to the moderate rebels, so we should work out a new, unified military structure with the Syrian opposition.
It also seems to me that the large numbers of native Syrian rebels that serve under Islamist factions do so not because of a commitment to extremism but because they see no better option to attempt to bring down Assad. Once a powerful and credible Western-backed opposition has been established, I predict that many of the Islamists would switch over.
This should not be discouraged, but former Islamist brigades should receive no lethal aid and little non-lethal aid until their trustworthiness is confirmed.
Will I get droned if I say what I really think?Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?
Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Gov
Free Syrian Army
Islamic Front
al-Qaeda Network (im sure none of you do...hopefully)
Other (explain)
I'm sure I had a clever little retort for this, but considering recent events, it's a little late for that now, isn't it? :doh:Sure. While we're at it, it's also in our strategic interests to see Russia renounce empire and cease attempting to control its Near Abroad. When you find a way to pull that off, let me know.
The moderate rebels are still the only serious challenge to Assad's rule. Assad deliberately aided the jihadist rebels in order to divide and conquer the opposition. The Islamists seem to be content controlling Syria's northern regions rather than attempting to conquer the entire country; and even if they somehow did manage to overthrow Assad, they'd fracture amongst themselves and turn Syria into the warlordism that was Somalia and Afghanistan in the 1990s.Because the "moderate rebels" (to the extent that any exist in Syria, which is rather questionable, frankly) have about as much chance beating both ISIL and the Assad/Hezbollah/Quds triad as Putin waking up tomorrow having been visited by the Ghosts of Russia Past, Present, and Future, and delivering turkey dinners to all the Bob Cratchetts of the world.
You know that great Hitchens quote you use so often? I can hardly think of a more applicable situation than that in Syria. Obviously one of those two factions is going to win absent Western intervention, and neither one is friendly towards American interests in the region or to the human rights of the Syrian people. If Assad wins, Iran's gateway into the Arab World is preserved (I will elaborate on this below). If Saudi Arabia and Qatar get what they want, Iran's influence will wane, but Syria will become permanently destabilized (almost certainly so that the Gulf States can preserve their oil duopoly) and a potential new breeding ground for terrorists, requiring an invasion in the event of a terrorist attack.There is no plausible future (at current) in which anyone that we would want in charge of Syria wins. Meanwhile, the conflict there is dragging on Iranian and Wahhabist resources, personnel, and attention. Until the situation changes so that we can plausibly effect a positive final outcome, therefore, let's not mess this up.
Syria is how Iran delivers support to Hamas and colonizes Lebanon through Hezbollah. Remove Assad, and Iran's sphere of influence will collapse.You are certainly correct. Nothing fails like failure in the Middle East. That's going to require (at present) large-scale and persistent military intervention, of course, which isn't a political possibility for either the U.S. or the E.U.
You probably are more knowledgeable on this than I am, but the situations don't seem comparable. In Iraq, the Baathist military establishment was dismantled and the Multinational Force had to start from scratch. Afghanistan is definitely closer to Syria in this regard, but there was no significant preexisting national army, and the Northern Alliance was fragmented ethnically in a way that the FSA is not.....do you know how much money, time, training, effort, deployment of combat power, and space requirements are behind that neat little phrase?
Hint - we did this in Iraq. It took us about 6 years, and we had to deploy over a million people at one time or another. We've been trying it in Afghanistan - so far, success is..... spotty.
What we've seen is that the number of FSA rebels has decreased as that of the Islamic Front, ISIS, and al-Nusra increases. Since the latter are objectively a more formidable force, it's not far-fetched to assume that desperate FSA fighters defected over, thereby changing the balance.That is an interesting claim with a not implausible assumption - what are you basing it on?
:lol: remember the last batch of "non-lethal aid" we sent? We sent them camera's and recording equipment to document the regimes' atrocities, and they used it to tape themselves eating human hearts and threatening to commit ethnic cleansing? :lol: oh, those rascally little Syrian buggers - you just can't turn your back on em, can you? :lol:
But hey - at least they were moderate genocidal cannibals, right? :lol:
I'm sure I had a clever little retort for this, but considering recent events, it's a little late for that now, isn't it? :doh:
The moderate rebels are still the only serious challenge to Assad's rule
Assad deliberately aided the jihadist rebels in order to divide and conquer the opposition.
The Islamists seem to be content controlling Syria's northern regions rather than attempting to conquer the entire country; and even if they somehow did manage to overthrow Assad, they'd fracture amongst themselves and turn Syria into the warlordism that was Somalia and Afghanistan in the 1990s.
At the beginning, the Free Syrian Army consisted of protestors and SAA soldiers who defected to defend them.
The power vacuum that occurred as a result of a lack of Western support - unlike in Libya - was filled by al-Qaeda's affiliates, as they had superior arms and ability (no doubt as a result of support from the Gulf States).
For quite a while, the FSA consisted of anywhere from 50,000 to 80,000 troops and led the opposition militarily. al-Nusra had been the only Islamist faction with any meaningful connection to al-Qaeda, and it constituted only about 5% of the total opposition forces. Now, even though this proportion has been reversed, it demonstrates that there is no reason the Islamists must dominate the rebellion.
You know that great Hitchens quote you use so often? I can hardly think of a more applicable situation than that in Syria.
Obviously one of those two factions is going to win absent Western intervention,
and neither one is friendly towards American interests in the region or to the human rights of the Syrian people. If Assad wins, Iran's gateway into the Arab World is preserved (I will elaborate on this below). If Saudi Arabia and Qatar get what they want, Iran's influence will wane, but Syria will become permanently destabilized (almost certainly so that the Gulf States can preserve their oil duopoly) and a potential new breeding ground for terrorists, requiring an invasion in the event of a terrorist attack.
Syria is how Iran delivers support to Hamas and colonizes Lebanon through Hezbollah. Remove Assad, and Iran's sphere of influence will collapse.
You probably are more knowledgeable on this than I am, but the situations don't seem comparable. In Iraq, the Baathist military establishment was dismantled and the Multinational Force had to start from scratch.
What we've seen is that the number of FSA rebels has decreased as that of the Islamic Front, ISIS, and al-Nusra increases.
Since the latter are objectively a more formidable force, it's not far-fetched to assume that desperate FSA fighters defected over, thereby changing the balance.
Come on, you can't use isolated incidences such as these to indict a movement with at least 100,000 members
Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?
Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Gov
Free Syrian Army
Islamic Front
al-Qaeda Network (im sure none of you do...hopefully)
Other (explain)
Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?
Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Gov
Free Syrian Army
Islamic Front
al-Qaeda Network (im sure none of you do...hopefully)
Other (explain)