• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports.....

Grant said:
You said "Well, this has been going on for decades. If there was a problem with this policy in regards to the goals of the political class, our regional policy would have changed. Thus, we can conclude that the policy of destabilization is most likely deliberate". Since you mentioned 'destabilization" I assumed there must have been a time when it was 'stable'.
Click to expand...

Well, given the history of outside involvement, not just from the US but from other powers as well, the region has never really been given a chance to see if it could actually stabilize.
 
PoS said:
What you dont seem to get is that Al Qaeda is not a monolithic entity that constantly sends terror teams to attack us, they mutate constantly everytime we try to take them down and in fact their biggest threat is not a direct attack (they've done less than half a dozen in a decade) but rather their ability to influence other groups or individuals to attack America. Iraq, Libya and Syria has been destabilized thanks to our meddling and now even more extreme terror groups that have the same agenda as Al Qaeda will now be poised to attack us, lets not even include American and British citizens who have been radicalized by what we've done and can strike us directly in our own borders...

So no, AQ's influence has grown and youre too blind to see it.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about "influence," I'm talking about ability to harm us directlly. Where are the terrorist training camps? What happened to the symbolic leader of al-Qaeda? How come al-Qaeda's current leadership can only operate in Pakistan and has little control over what other jihadi groups do across the world?

It's impossible to stop individual terror attacks. Those occur as a result of psychological issues or perceived social injustices against the individual, not normally as a result of foreign policy. On that note, domestic terrorism is likely the greatest threat to the US no matter what we do overseas - we have home-grown extremists such as the militia movement within our own borders.
We were meddling in Afghanistan- you didnt know about the CIA supporting the Afghan warlords when the Soviets attempted an occupation?
Click to expand...
And we couldn't care less about Afghanistan after the Soviets left. America was pretty much hands-off until al-Qaeda had attacked the US multiple times and were the guests of the Taliban.

Name me some non-interventionist countries that experienced terror attacks then.
Click to expand...
I don't recall that Yemen or Afghanistan had been particularly keen to intervene in the affairs of sovereign countries. Israel usually stays out of the internal politics of other countries, yet has experienced terrorist attacks from Lebanon and Sinai.

And there's this attack against the kingpin of non-interventionist countries: El Al Flight 432 attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
MMC said:
Mornin' Moot.
hat.gif
You don't actually think BO and his team will agree, knowing they will take out any of the MB backed Syrian Rebels, do you?
Click to expand...

Hi MMC. :)

It's difficult to say whose side anyone is on in the ME. Alliances seem to change with the wind.
 
Moot said:
Hi MMC. :)

It's difficult to say whose side anyone is on in the ME. Alliances seem to change with the wind.
Click to expand...


Yeah that's true.....but with Iran being Shia. They won't pass over any MB backed Syrian Rebels without killing them. Especially knowing they are Sunni.

I am not against.....wiping out all of the MB backed Sunni Rebels. They are pieces of **** anyways and are not concerned about the people of Syria. Other than their own Sunni Tribe.
 
Grant said:
Barrack Obama pulled the troops from a stable Iraq and, as George Bush foresaw, chaos happened. Why would any countries join Obama when they know he is ill equipped to lead and will follow the whims of the polls? Obama is a fool, and they all know it.
Click to expand...

And you're a right wing partisan hack, that's well known as well. Which is why you can't see that US policy under Bush and Obama is hurting us.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well, given the history of outside involvement, not just from the US but from other powers as well, the region has never really been given a chance to see if it could actually stabilize
Click to expand...
Not true at all. The habit is to always blame the west first as a rather east catchall for any problems which arise. It is easy, but also lazy. We should blame those who are responsible when each issue arises.
 
Montecresto said:
And you're a right wing partisan hack, that's well known as well. Which is why you can't see that US policy under Bush and Obama is hurting us.
Click to expand...
Bush us not the President, Barrack Obama is. There was a stable Iraq under Bush and a very unstable Iraq under Obama, Can you sincerely not see this???
 
MMC said:
It appears we now have a major problem with BO's plans for a coalition, and in giving arms and training to the MB Sunni back Rebels. How do you think this affects what BO and Kerry were stating with regards to Syria? This alliance show Team BO and BO cannot trust who is on the ground in Syria. Which doesn't take into account how they want Assad gone as well. What will others in the newly formed Coalition say now? Will there be commitment? Can this be ignored and with Assad and Russia now knowing this bit of information? What say ye?



According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS. The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.

Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, cited a report from the anti-regime Orient Net website to suggest on Twitter that the signatories of the ceasefire include a U.S.-backed coalition called the Syrian Revolutionary Front. According to the U.K.-based outlet Middle East Eye, that same Orient Net report says the ceasefire between groups described in the U.S. as "moderate rebels" and the Islamic State was mediated by the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria."This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted. If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.....snip~

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports
Click to expand...
Even without this agreement it is still insane to arm and train these people.
 
jamesrage said:
Even without this agreement it is still insane to arm and train these people.
Click to expand...

Well.....I agree with you there JR. :2wave: I don't think we should share our tech anymore. Not going into the future.

Moreover it didn't help with BO giving Lebanon Hellfire Missiles. Now Iran will get one and reverse engineer it. Which don't count Hezbollah picking up some.
 
MMC said:
It appears we now have a major problem with BO's plans for a coalition, and in giving arms and training to the MB Sunni back Rebels. How do you think this affects what BO and Kerry were stating with regards to Syria? This alliance show Team BO and BO cannot trust who is on the ground in Syria. Which doesn't take into account how they want Assad gone as well. What will others in the newly formed Coalition say now? Will there be commitment? Can this be ignored and with Assad and Russia now knowing this bit of information? What say ye?



According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS. The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.

Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, cited a report from the anti-regime Orient Net website to suggest on Twitter that the signatories of the ceasefire include a U.S.-backed coalition called the Syrian Revolutionary Front. According to the U.K.-based outlet Middle East Eye, that same Orient Net report says the ceasefire between groups described in the U.S. as "moderate rebels" and the Islamic State was mediated by the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria."This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted. If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.....snip~

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports
Click to expand...

This is why I said stay out of it in the first place. Whoever wins, we lose.
 
Montecresto said:
And you're a right wing partisan hack, that's well known as well. Which is why you can't see that US policy under Bush and Obama is hurting us.
Click to expand...
How is the Bush policy hurting? Iraq was a stable democracy, Obama and Biden both said so, and now it's a mess. How is that the fault of George Bush?
 
Apparently, the Syrian rebels deny that this ceasefire has occurred.

The Daily Beast said:
Critics of President Obama’s latest pledge to arm the moderate Syrian rebels are trumpeting a report of a supposed deal between the opposition forces and ISIS, but Syrian opposition leaders are fighting back with what they say is overwhelming evidence that no truce exists.

The September 12 Agence France-Presse report stating that that moderate and Islamic rebel brigades in the southern Damascus suburbs had signed a “non-aggression” pact to focus efforts on fighting the Assad regime are not only false but are easily disproved by evidence that ISIS and the moderate rebels are still fighting each other in that region, according to rebel commanders on the ground and activists supporting the Syrian opposition.

“The only report we have received on anything resembling a ceasefire was that ISIS and Sons of Golan, an FSA brigade outside Damascus, halted fighting for 24 hours to collect bodies before hostilities resumed. However, this report also confirms that there is substantial fighting between the two groups that is leading to fatalities,” said Mohammed Alaa Ghanem, director of government relations for the Syrian American Council, a Washington NGO that works with the Syrian opposition and the FSA. “It is fantastical to think that rebels outside Damascus would expend lives and resources to rout ISIS from the Damascus suburbs; besiege the group for over a month; wait until two days after Obama announces he will aid the rebels to fights ISIS; and then sign a deal with ISIS (the first ever) while the group was besieged in its last holdout.”

The Syrian American Council collected public statements from several of the rebel commanders on the ground near Hajar al-Aswad, the town where the supposed ceasefire was reported to take place. All of the rebel leaders on the ground issued statements to deny the report, according to the group.

“The threat of ISIS is omnipresent across Northern Idlib and is a threat to the Syrian people, the region, and the international community at large,” said Jamal Maarouf, the head of the FSA-linked Syrian Revolutionaries’ Front, in a statement. “SRF remains committed to combating the terrorist threat of ISIS wherever it may be found in order to liberate the Syrian people from all threats, whether foreign or domestic.”
Click to expand...

Syrian Opposition Blasts Reports It Signed a Truce With ISIS - The Daily Beast
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Of course they are going to deny it. They still want access to US weaponry.
Click to expand...

Lying won't help. They won't get that weaponry if they're not using it to fight ISIS. And since the ISIS-rebel conflict started when ISIS started to fight other rebel groups, I doubt the rebels trust ISIS enough to form a long-term ceasefire.
 
MadLib said:
Lying won't help. They won't get that weaponry if they're not using it to fight ISIS. And since the ISIS-rebel conflict started when ISIS started to fight other rebel groups, I doubt the rebels trust ISIS enough to form a long-term ceasefire.
Click to expand...

In this situation it would be best not to trust anyone.
 
Grant said:
How is the Bush policy hurting? Iraq was a stable democracy, Obama and Biden both said so, and now it's a mess. How is that the fault of George Bush?
Click to expand...

Iraq has never in its history been a democracy, that's rubbish, and since when does anything Obama and Biden say get used by you as affirmation of anything?
 
Montecresto said:
Iraq has never in its history been a democracy, that's rubbish, and since when does anything Obama and Biden say get used by you as affirmation of anything?
Click to expand...

Jan 30, 2005 Iraq's 1st Election

Iraq election: Four killed in first parliamentary elections since US withdrawal in 2011 - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

It was affirmed by more than Biden and Obama and references were often made how fewer people were getting killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in Chicago.

But, just out of curiosity, do you base any of your opinions on facts or do you just go with your gut feelings??
 
Grant said:
Jan 30, 2005 Iraq's 1st Election

Iraq election: Four killed in first parliamentary elections since US withdrawal in 2011 - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

It was affirmed by more than Biden and Obama and references were often made how fewer people were getting killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in Chicago.

But, just out of curiosity, do you base any of your opinions on facts or do you just go with your gut feelings??
Click to expand...

What a complete load of horse crap. An election or three does not equate a **** hole like Iraq with democracy, what a pathetic reach there. And typical arrogance of a Westerner thinking they can kick a little ass, call an election, and bingo, a democracy is born, lol, :lamo:lamo
 
Montecresto said:
What a complete load of horse crap. An election or three does not equate a **** hole like Iraq with democracy, what a pathetic reach there.
Click to expand...
So despite the photos of people voting it is still not a democracy.
And typical arrogance of a Westerner thinking they can kick a little ass, call an election, and bingo, a democracy is born, lol, :lamo:lamo
Click to expand...
A democracy was born, you seem to have missed that, but because (during the Bush Administration) it was the first election ever held in the country's history, it was a very fragile democracy. That is why it had to be protected and why the troops should have stayed in order to do that, as well as to protect the lost lives and the billions of dollars invested there.

When actual photos of people voting can't convince you of what is going on then perhaps you might want to have a closer personal evaluation of yourself..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom