Livestream out of Syria

^ On the whole it probably is, America or the West aren't about to involve themselves with a force solely of that size and construction.There would need to be rumours concerning vastly more air and naval units.
 
5000 is a tad bit overkill though for a 'defense exercise' wouldn't you think? They also just happen to conveniently carrying them out in Jordan, bordering the concerning events in Syria.
 
The conflict has been ongoing for more than two years, military cooperation/exercises can't just avoid the area over an extended period of time. Now this doesn't preclude their being some practical benefit to the personnel in the region were a specific event to occur however i don't see it as a precursor to anything. For an armed forces the size of the US 5,000 needn't be OTT for what is claimed to be taking place.

JMO though, those who have served in the forces or know someone who does could perhaps shed more light on the story.
 
Mali manual suggests al-Qaida has feared weapon

TIMBUKTU, Mali (AP) — The photocopies of the manual lay in heaps on the floor, in stacks that scaled one wall, like Xeroxed, stapled handouts for a class.

Except that the students in this case were al-Qaida fighters in Mali. And the manual was a detailed guide, with diagrams and photographs, on how to use a weapon that particularly concerns the United States: A surface-to-air missile capable of taking down a commercial airplane.

The 26-page document in Arabic, recovered by The Associated Press in a building that had been occupied by al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb in Timbuktu, strongly suggests the group now possesses the SA-7 surface-to-air missile, known to the Pentagon as the Grail, according to terrorism specialists. And it confirms that the al-Qaida cell is actively training its fighters to use these weapons, also called man-portable air-defense systems, or MANPADS, which likely came from the arms depots of ex-Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be a serious worry now that Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons can fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda if they win in Syria?

Source
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-says-Assad-regime-used-chemical-weapons.html

Well that should put Assad on notice so far as the likely future intentions of the Americans i'd say.

We had all the rumours of this new offensive against Aleppo being imminent, time is not on the government's side if the US cold soon be announce a change in policy.

However with the the head of the British army all over the front page of today's Telegraph attempting to warn the Chancellor away from further spending cuts and Tory figures wary of groups like Al-Nusra, i don't see British sentiment altering in the near term even with this announcement.
 
US: After review France's and Britain's evidences on chemical weapons use in Syria not enough.
...
Qusayr falls in hands of Assad.
Balance tips in Assad's favor.
Assad is winning...
...
(1 week after first announcement)
US: US now has evidence Assad used chemical weapons.

:rolleyes:
 
It was always going to be as much a political decision as scientific, to confirm it shifts mindsets and is also a diplomatic card. It could well have been confirmed for weeks.

It will be interesting to see what form any enhanced support to the rebels will take.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
It was always going to be as much a political decision as scientific, to confirm it shifts mindsets and is also a diplomatic card. It could well have been confirmed for weeks.

It will be interesting to see what form any enhanced support to the rebels will take.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the support will be significant. The fact that chemical weapons are in play by either side should be a red line for international community.
 
Danny1982 said:
US: After review France's and Britain's evidences on chemical weapons use in Syria not enough.
...
Qusayr falls in hands of Assad.
Balance tips in Assad's favor.
Assad is winning...
...
(1 week after first announcement)
US: US now has evidence Assad used chemical weapons.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Russians' presence on the ground in Syria is for all the right reasons. :rolleyes: Come on, international intervention on either side has nothing to do with the interests or security of the Syrian people.
 
holyland red said:
I'm sure the Russians' presence on the ground in Syria is for all the right reasons. :rolleyes: Come on, international intervention on either side has nothing to do with the interests or security of the Syrian people.
Click to expand...


Exactly, this is unfortunately an International tug of war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on side and the Gulf States, the USA & EU (and Turkey I guess) on the other.

None of these groups care about the Syrian people and I doubt many of them care too much about what happens after the war. What an appalling war.
 
Raoul said:
I'd imagine the support will be significant. The fact that chemical weapons are in play by either side should be a red line for international community.
Click to expand...

I think the international community might have learnt a lesson or two as to what happens whenever the US makes claims of "chemical weapons/WMDs"
 
holyland red said:
I'm sure the Russians' presence on the ground in Syria is for all the right reasons. :rolleyes: Come on, international intervention on either side has nothing to do with the interests or security of the Syrian people.
Click to expand...
africanspur said:
Exactly, this is unfortunately an International tug of war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on side and the Gulf States, the USA & EU (and Turkey I guess) on the other.

None of these groups care about the Syrian people and I doubt many of them care too much about what happens after the war. What an appalling war.
Click to expand...
The two main things are:

1- The US is lying about the chemical weapons, again, to justify their actions. (which is the point I made in my previous post)

2- The US are supporting what they admit to be terrorist organizations.

Personally, as things stand, I think this decision will hurt them politically more than it will benefit them on the ground. And the fact that they're involved now may force them to go all in later if these measures fail, which can further damage the US reputation, if not more.

By the way, Russia is dealing with a recognized government of a country, which is actually like the US supporting Saudia Arabia, Jordan, ...etc., and it's not comparable to arming militias on the grounds of another country to topple the regime militarily..
 
Kaos said:
I think the international community might have learnt a lesson or two as to what happens whenever the US makes claims of "chemical weapons/WMDs"
Click to expand...

Or conversely they may have learned to scrutinize the evidence more intensely before acting.
 
Raoul said:
Or conversely they may have learned to scrutinize the evidence more intensely before acting.
Click to expand...

What about evidence that the rebels have used chemical weapons? Will there be any attempts to scrutinse those claims made from impartial parties? Or has the "red line been crossed" only as Obama so candidly put it when its the regime thats been accused of using them. That's assuming there's any meat to these allegations, and lets be honest a cynic ought to be forgiven for remaining skeptical towards such allegations if historical precedence is anything to go by.
 
Kaos said:
What about evidence that the rebels have used chemical weapons? Will there be any attempts to scrutinse those claims made from impartial parties? Or has the "red line been crossed" only as Obama so candidly put it when its the regime thats been accused of using them. That's assuming there's any meat to these allegations, and lets be honest a cynic ought to be forgiven for remaining skeptical towards such allegations if historical precedence is anything to go by.
Click to expand...


Whoever is using them, the bottom line is that they are being used.
 
Raoul said:
I'd imagine the support will be significant. The fact that chemical weapons are in play by either side should be a red line for international community.
Click to expand...



I can't see a no-fly zone being created at this point, with the risk of casualties to both Western and Russian personnel that is step beyond the simple supply of weapons.

Speaking of which, you often hear the rebels bemoan Assad's attack helicopters yet it would be highly controversial were the US to start sending stingers or the the like into Syria. We might hear word of drones [i prefer UAV myself] being used in offensive operations i suppose, for i'm assuming that they have likely been used to gather intel before now.

If Obama is contemplating more than merely dip his toe in the water here then Washington need a proper succession strategy in place, one which learns from recent conflicts [Iraq and Libya] and recognises the danger of the country communities minorities being the ongoing target for reprisals and persecution. This is a weak to non-existent policy area right now.

The Russians will respond in kind of course.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:


I can't see a no-fly zone being created at this point, with the risk of casualties to both Western and Russian personnel that is step beyond the simple supply of weapons.

Speaking of which, you often hear the rebels bemoan Assad's attack helicopters yet it would be highly controversial were the US to start sending stingers or the the like into Syria. We might hear word of drones [i prefer UAV myself] being used in offensive operations i suppose, for i'm assuming that they have likely been used to gather intel before now.

If Obama is contemplating more than merely dip his toe in the water here then Washington need a proper succession strategy in place, one which learns from recent conflicts [Iraq and Libya] and recognises the danger of the country communities minorities being the ongoing target for reprisals and persecution. This is a weak to non-existent policy area right now.

The Russians will respond in kind of course.
Click to expand...


It all depends on the amount of pressure Obama is under to act - the Sarin gas story was obviously a tipping point. If the violence inside Syria continues at current levels with chemical weapons in play, the chances of a military intervention will rise significantly irrespective of whether Russia objects or not.
 
Raoul said:
It all depends on the amount of pressure Obama is under to act - the Sarin gas story was obviously a tipping point. If the violence inside Syria continues at current levels with chemical weapons in play, the chances of a military intervention will rise significantly irrespective of whether Russia objects or not.
Click to expand...

How do you think US public opinion would react were there to be American wounded or worse? With senate elections just under a year and half away there is pressure from both domestic and foreign sources at play, Obama would just rather have had the withdrawals from Afghanistan in the foreign policy headlines but life is no so simple.

And is there not said to be Russian military support actually in Syria though?
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
How do you think US public opinion would react were there to be American wounded or worse? With senate elections just under a year and half away there is pressure from both domestic and foreign sources at play, Obama would just rather have had the withdrawals from Afghanistan in the foreign policy headlines but life is no so simple.

And is there not said to be Russian military support actually in Syria though?
Click to expand...


Public opinion will hinge on the perception of how dire the situation in Syria is. If chemical weapons are at play, opinion will shift towards intervention. Afghanistan won't weigh into the calculus as its effectively been forgotten in the US.
 
Danny1982 said:
Syrie : 270 djihadistes français avec les rebelles
Click to expand...


:confused: There were lots of non-Spaniards fighting in the Spanish Civil war, including Ernest Hemingway and George Orwell. The Russian Civil War was the same. The presence of foreign "volunteers" isn't necessarily an indication of terrorists. That's not to say they aren't but it's not enough to imply that they are there for sinister reasons.
 
Sir Matt said:
:confused: There were lots of non-Spaniards fighting in the Spanish Civil war, including Ernest Hemingway and George Orwell. The Russian Civil War was the same. The presence of foreign "volunteers" isn't necessarily an indication of terrorists. That's not to say they aren't but it's not enough to imply that they are there for sinister reasons.
Click to expand...
I'm proving that the claim that only "HUNDREDS" of foreign fighters are fighting inside Syria is just a myth. That's only from France and Europe! Imagine how many are there from Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, ...etc.

Oh, and by the way, I don't need to prove that terrorists are fighting against Assad, and that they are the main military force against him on the ground. Everybody knows that now, and even the US admitted it.

Also, I think you should direct this "stay calm, they're not terrorists" thing towards the French government, but they seem to be the ones who are really worried about it.
 
I feel it might be helpful at this point to re-post an article Kaos linked to a couple of months ago.

Sorting out David Ignatius

Posted by Aron Lund on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013

by Aron Lund for Syria Comment
David Ignatius has written an article in the Washington Post called “Sorting out the Syrian opposition”, where he provides names and manpower figures for the Syrian insurgency. He’s basing his argument on reports from a Syrian opposition group. I happen to know which one, but I haven’t seen the actual report, so I won’t comment on that.
The Ignatius article itself is, however, rather confused, and readers should beware. Let’s pick it apart.

THE SYRIAN ISLAMIC LIBERATION FRONT
— Excerpt: ”The biggest umbrella group is called the Jabhat al-Tahrir al-Souriya al-Islamiya. It has about 37,000 fighters, drawn from four main subgroups based in different parts of the country. These Saudi-backed groups are not hard-core Islamists but …” etc.
The group he’s referring to is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF, until recently known as SLF, without the ”Islamic”). It was formed in mid-2012, and incorporates the biggest mainstream Islamist groups of the insurgency. The SILF includes the Farouq Battalions (mainly Homs + Turkish border), the Tawhid Brigade (Aleppo), the Suqour el-Sham Brigades (Idleb), the Islam Brigade (Damascus), and a bunch of others.
Some of these groups were originally created in the name of the FSA but ”salafized” as the war went on, reflecting the new mood in the rebel movement and foreign funding requirements. It’s a basically mixed bag of opportunistic and principled Islamists, ranging from ideologically fuzzy big-tent movements (Tawhid Brigade) to rather grim-looking salafis (Islam Brigade).
They’re not simply ”Saudi-backed”, although they may be that as well (whatever it means, with all these princes doing their own thing). The northern wing of Farouq, for example, is well known to enjoy Turkish patronage. It’s been attacking Syrian army positions through Turkish territory, and it’s no coincidence that the main northern border crossings (outside Kurdish territory) are now controlled by Farouq. Several groups in the SILF also enjoy sponsorship from a donations network set up by Mohammed Surour Zeinelabidin, an influential Syrian salafi theologian whose relations with the government of Saudi Arabia are not good at all.

THE SYRIAN ISLAMIC FRONT
— Excerpt: ”The second-largest rebel coalition is more extreme and is dominated by hard-core Salafist Muslims. Its official name — Jabhat al-Islamiya al-Tahrir al-Souriya — is almost identical to that of the Saudi-backed group. Rebel sources count 11 different brigades from around the country that have merged to form this second coalition. Financing comes from wealthy Saudi, Kuwaiti and other Gulf Arab individuals. Rebel sources estimate about 13,000 Salafist fighters are gathered under this second umbrella.”
The names seem so similar because one of them is wrong, which should be obvious from the bungled Arabic grammar. The real name of this group is ”al-Jabha al-Islamiya al-Souriya”, or the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF).
The rest of the info seems correct, although the group itself claims to have about 25,000 fighters. Of course, only a minority of fighters are hardcore Islamists — most are simply religiously-minded Sunni men recruited off the street — but the central leadership holds to a strict salafi line. Some member factions seem a little less committed, but as an alliance, the SIF is dominated by a group called Ahrar al-Sham, and they’ve been salafi from day one. (As it happens, I just wrote a long report about the SIF and its member factions, which you can download here.)
WHO?
— Excerpt: ”A third rebel group, known as Ahfad al-Rasoul, is funded by Qatar. It has perhaps 15,000 fighters.”
Well, maybe. There’s about a million different local groups in Syria called Ahfad al-Rasoul (”Descendants of the Prophet”), including some which are part of the SIF and the SILF and the FSA.
If there’s also an overarching Qatari-sponsored country-wide alliance of such factions, I haven’t heard of it, but I guess it could still exist. Judging by media reports and rebel statements on who conquers what in Syria, they’re not the dominant force anywhere in the country. Or maybe they’re just quietly playing sheish-beish and smoking argileh on Sheikh Hamad’s expense, because unlike a fighting army of 15,000, that could fly under the radar.

JABHAT AL-NOSRA
— Excerpt: ”The most dangerous group in the mix is the Jabhat al-Nusra, which is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq. By one rebel estimate, it has grown to include perhaps 6,000 fighters. But this group, perhaps fearing that it will be targeted by Western counterterrorism forces, is said to be keeping its head down — and perhaps commingling with the Salafist umbrella group.”
If by ”keeping its head down” you mean roaring full throttle into every battle in Syria, I suppose you could have a point. And they do in fact have something to say on the subject of heads, but not their own.
Whether Jabhat al-Nosra is ”the most dangerous group” depends on your point of view. For Assad? Possibly. For the USA? Very likely — perhaps not in the form of Jabhat el-Nosra itself, but they suck a lot of people into Qaeda-style salafi-jihadism, which is bad news for US security in the long term. For Syrian Sunni civilians? Not at all. For Syrian non-Sunni civilians? Maybe, maybe not. They’re ideologically extreme Alawite-baiters, and do not hesitate to kill civilian opponents or murder POWs, but they seem to have maintained a certain level of discipline in conquered areas so far. This is unlike some non-Islamist factions who randomly loot their way through civilian neighborhoods, and who sometimes express themselves in more sectarian and genocidal terms than any salafi. (Yeah, looking at you, Salaheddin Brigades of the Hama FSA.)
Click to expand...

Continued in next post.
 

FREE SYRIAN ARMY, IDRISS EDITION
Click to expand...
— Excerpt: ”Idriss and his Free Syrian Army command about 50,000 more fighters, rebel sources say.”
Rebel sources being Idriss and his Free Syrian Army command, I imagine. But OK. There’s a lot of people who claim to be part of that alliance, although it’s not true that the leaders ”command” most of them in any way at all (which I discussed with Koert Debeuf here; for context, first see here). Brig. Gen. Salim Idriss seems to be a nice guy, and he currently also seems to enjoys a degree of moral authority over parts of the revolutionary movement. But as far as I can tell, he has yet to issue a direct order to armed groups that will be obeyed out of earshot.
In fact, can anyone recall when rebels last captured anything inside Syria, and gave credit to Idriss and the FSA? Meanwhile, the SILF, SIF and Jabhat al-Nosra have been racking up garrison kills and village captures by the dozens every month since late 2012. That lack of raw power on the ground doesn’t make Idriss an unimportant figure, since he sits at the top of a major trickle-down mechanism for international sponsorship and now also enjoys a measure of political recognition, but lets keep things in perspective.
For those interested in this faction, Elizabeth O’Bagy just published a very interesting report. I think it’s maybe a bit on the optimistic side, but it’s still a must-read.

DON’T DO THIS
— Excerpt: ”Realistically, the best hope for U.S. policy is to press the Saudi-backed coalition and its 37,000 fighters, to work under the command of Idriss and the Free Syrian Army. That would bring a measure of order and would open the way for Idriss to negotiate a military transition government that would include reconcilable elements of Assad’s army.”
Here’s where it gets really weird. See, most of the ”Saudi-backed coalition” (SILF) is already part of Idriss’s (rather nominal) FSA command structure. All their main leaders are there. Abdulqader Saleh of the Tawhid Brigade and Osama el-Joneidi of the Farouq Battalions are members of the ”General Staff Advisory Council” under Idriss, Ahmed Eissa of Suqour el-Sham is part of the ”Northern Front Command”, and Zahran Alloush of the Islam Brigade sits on the ”Southern Front Command”. So, to indulge Mr. Ignatius by presuming that such an FSA structure actually operates on the ground, these two groups already overlap. Idriss does the talking, but out of the 50,000 FSA fighters, a full 37,000 come from the Islamist militias of the SILF. (No, I have no idea whether these numbers are accurate, but let’s accept them for the sake of discussion.)
To add to the confusion, at least one SIF faction (the Haqq Brigade of Homs) is also part of Idriss’s FSA command structure. It’s military commander, Abderrahman el-Soweiss – an ex-Hezb al-Tahrir prisoner who now runs a sizeable chunk of the Homs insurgency – has been named by Idriss as one of five commanders on the Homs front. That brings the number of Islamist fighters in the “secular” FSA to about 40,000 out of 50,000, and I’m still curious about who exactly makes up the remaining 20 percent.
Bottom line, Ignatius’s proposed strategy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of these groups. The Idriss network, pace Debeuf, is not so much a functioning command hierarchy as it is a symbolic ”flag” to rally rebels amenable to Western and GCC support, and a distribution channel for guns, ammo and money from Saudi and other sources.
Many of the other groups mentioned here work in a similar fashion. They are not cohesive alliances, they are political planks and coordinating bodies for largely autonomous rebel factions, who have banded together to increase their military weight, acquire political representation, and gain access to foreign funds (state and non-state). The main exceptions are Jabhat el-Nosra and maybe the SIF, which seem to be reasonably cohesive and well delineated from the others.

BUT THEN AGAIN
From a self-interested US perspective, it might still be a good strategy for Washington to back the Idriss group, which unlike previous FSA incarnations has the significant advantage of existing outside of Twitter. The way to do it would be to make sure it receives abundant resources, and to help solidify the Islamist mainstream insurgency around it – i.e., the SILF, some of the SIF, and various unaffiliated strays.
That would of course require a level of cold-blooded realism not currently apparent in US policy circles, which have been making shrill little cries of shock and terror about talking to Islamists for over a decade – never mind arming them. But if the US is not prepared to deal with Islamist actors in Syria because they are theocratic and anti-semitic, or whatever, it should just excuse itself from Syrian insurgent politics entirely. Islamism is now the name of the game among Syria’s armed factions, so let’s not pretend that this conflict is something it’s not.
Anyway, political sensitivites aside, the American deep state already seems to be on the case. And I imagine that the purpose of the US backing such an armed coalition is to make it the platform on which a not-too-wobbly political leadership (of the Ghassan Hitto/Ahmed Moadh al-Khatib variety) could stand, and from there negotiate along the Geneva parameters with what’s left of the Assad regime. Or if that doesn’t work, the US & its allies will at least have built up a powerful client militia for future use. You can imagine it as kind of a Syrian Sahwa, like the one in Anbar, except this plays out while the Baath regime is still crumbling and with no US forces nearby. Or, with a little less optimism, think of it as the next TFG.
It does have a whiff of Dr. Strangelove to it, and the results won’t be a pretty sight, whatever happens, but I guess that’s just politics: you always work with all you got, and you never get all you want.

— Aron Lund
Correction, April 8, 2012: Thomas Pierret kindly pointed out that I’d mistakenly included Shuhada Souriya in my list of SILF members. That’s wrong, and I’ve now removed it from the text. It’s leader Jamal Maarouf is a member of the “Northern Region Command” in Salim Idriss’s FSA network, but they’re not in the SILF. Not that it would necessarily be a bad fit ideologically – the reason is more likely that the SILF was co-founded by Maarouf’s local rival in the Jebel Zawiya region, Ahmed Eissa of Suqour el-Sham.
Click to expand...
 
Danny1982 said:
The two main things are:

1- The US is lying about the chemical weapons, again, to justify their actions. (which is the point I made in my previous post)

2- The US are supporting what they admit to be terrorist organizations.

Personally, as things stand, I think this decision will hurt them politically more than it will benefit them on the ground. And the fact that they're involved now may force them to go all in later if these measures fail, which can further damage the US reputation, if not more.

By the way, Russia is dealing with a recognized government of a country, which is actually like the US supporting Saudia Arabia, Jordan, ...etc., and it's not comparable to arming militias on the grounds of another country to topple the regime militarily..
Click to expand...

The Russians support Hizballah and Iran's revolutionary guards. Those aren't UN peace-meeping forces either. As for WMD, the side supported by the Russians was involved in developing nukes with the aid of N Korea. Is that enough to undermine an argument against the US' choice of buddies in Syria?
 
The problem is that whilst "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can apply conveniently to a battlefield in Syria right now, the same isnt' necessarily the case in terms of government or future battles globally.

If the rebels won tomorrow it would end being a weak government whose acceptable military arm is only strong enough to enforce its will over a small area, leaving the remainder to at best mercenary militia and at worst local Islamist rule like we see in parts of Somalia probably. Which is before you get to the ethnic and religious reprisals.

We'd need a Russian force donning blue caps before we got anywhere.
 
Sir Matt said:
:confused: There were lots of non-Spaniards fighting in the Spanish Civil war, including Ernest Hemingway and George Orwell. The Russian Civil War was the same. The presence of foreign "volunteers" isn't necessarily an indication of terrorists. That's not to say they aren't but it's not enough to imply that they are there for sinister reasons.
Click to expand...


The vast majority of foreign rebels belong to Al Nusra or are AQ-affiliated militants. I'd say its pretty safe to assume they are terrorists.

The Spanish and Russian civil wars were not sectarian either.
 
holyland red said:
The Russians support Hizballah and Iran's revolutionary guards. Those aren't UN peace-meeping forces either. As for WMD, the side supported by the Russians was involved in developing nukes with the aid of N Korea. Is that enough to undermine an argument against the US' choice of buddies in Syria?
Click to expand...
I thought I made my point clear. Russia didn't call Hezbollah or Iran a terrorist organization and then supported it, which is what the US did.

I'm not sure what's the point your making about WMDs, but when it comes to credibility (or lack thereof) I don't think anybody can beat the US in that regard after the infamous Iraq war.
 
Kaos said:
The vast majority of foreign rebels belong to Al Nusra or are AQ-affiliated militants. I'd say its pretty safe to assume they are terrorists.

The Spanish and Russian civil wars were not sectarian either.
Click to expand...


Do the French and Europeans(excluding the Balkans, which is likely where a large number are from) belong to those groups? If so, it would help expose their links in Europe to terrorist groups and could be a benefit to governments trying to root them out. I assume that nearly all Middle-Eastern/African foreign fighters are associated with AQ and Al Nusra.

Arming them can't end well. Assad's regime has some momentum at the moment and the rebels have none. Eventually, the arms will end up being used against Israel, the West, or other allies. I don't see how a liberal democratic government could grow in Syria, or most of the Middle East for that matter. It will do little good to anyone for another theocratic, mob rule government(as in Egypt) to pop up. That's not to say Assad is good, but either outcome is going to be bad for the people of Syria. A government that is adversarial to Iran will still be adversarial to the US and the West. Assad staying in power will be worse, but another nutter government won't do anything but remove an Iranian ally. The period of time with a positive outcome for the US has passed. Waiting allowed foreign groups to become ingrained in the conflict and to some extent to hijack it. At the very least, they will be more organized than a disparate population. That's effectively how the Muslim Brotherhood was able to take power in Egypt. Even if a majority of the FSA fighters are non-extremist, they won't be organized enough to form a government. There aren't the institutions or traditions of democracy in the region or culture to lean on.

It's a human rights disaster that no one really cares enough about to solve.
 
You might take Aleppo as a microcosm of that side to the rebels. The FSA in significant numbers took to acts of criminality [looting, kidnappings e.t..] but following that Al-Nusra stepped up as a source of security, of course once the latter have their feet under the table Al-Nusra's ideology comes to bear with examples like the execution of that teenager on grounds of blasphemy. The Taliban did much the same thing when they rose to power in Afghanistan, offering a needed security at the time but evolving into a lasting oppression down the road.
 
Danny1982 said:
I'm not sure what's the point your making about WMDs, but when it comes to credibility (or lack thereof) I don't think anybody can beat the US in that regard after the infamous Iraq war.
Click to expand...

On this specific point there is are some key difference between what was theorised about Iraq prior to 2003 and what is widely believed about Syria's capability in terms of chemical weapons.

David Cameron in his statement today did highlight that the rebels have attempted to acquire their own chemical arsenal and would have the intention of using WMD if they possessed it.
 
Sunni Cleric In Mecca Urges Support Of Syrian Rebels; Sheikh Saoud al-Shuraym Calls Assad 'Tyrant'
Click to expand...
​
Reuters | Posted: 06/14/2013 11:01 am EDT​
​
​
r-SUNNI-REBELS-SYRIA-large570.jpg

1​
6​
0​
24​
GET RELIGION ALERTS:
​
SIGN UP​
FOLLOW:​
Islam, Syria, Sunni-Shia Divide, Mecca, Reuters, Saudi Arabia Syria, Sunni, Religion News


By Sami Aboudi

DUBAI, June 14 (Reuters) - A senior cleric in Islam's holy city Mecca exhorted followers on Friday to support Syrian rebels by "all means", the latest in a series of rhetorical attacks on President Bashar al-Assad reflecting rising sectarian tension across the Middle East.

His appeal came at a time when momentum on the battlefield has been shifting in Assad's favour, just a few months after analysts wrote him off, making the prospect of his swift removal and an end to Syria's civil war look remote in the near future.

The Sunni Muslim-led revolt against Iranian-backed Assad, whose Alawite minority is a branch of Shi'ite Islam, has taken on sectarian overtones since the open intervention last month of Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah guerrillas on Assad's side.

In a sermon to worshippers at Saudi Arabia's Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sunni Sheikh Saoud al-Shuraym denounced Assad as a tyrant whose troops he said had raped women, killed children and destroyed homes over the past two years.

"All of that puts on the shoulder of each one of us a share of responsibility before God, on leaders, rulers, scholars, reformers, thinkers and people to take a unified and conscious stand against the mad (crackdown) on our brothers in Syria," Shuraym said in a sermon broadcast on Saudi state television.

"By God..., our brothers need more efforts and determination to be exerted to remove the merciless injustice and aggression through all means and with no exceptions," he told followers. "We tell our brothers in the Levant to be patient."

Saudi Arabia, the Sunni-ruled birthplace of Islam and a pivotal regional ally of the United States against Iran, has been a major financial patron of rebels fighting to oust Assad.

After crack Hezbollah fighters helped Assad's forces retake the border town of Qusair this month from rebels, the influential Qatar-based Sunni cleric Youssef al-Qaradawi announced he had stopped advocating Sunni-Shi'ite reconciliation and was now calling for jihad (Muslim holy war) in Syria.

His call was endorsed by a congress of leading Sunni clerics who met in Cairo on Thursday to discuss the situation in Syria.

Qaradawi's International Association of Muslim Scholars called for a "day of rage" in support of Syria on Friday. But there were no signs of any gatherings around the Gulf region, where street protests are generally banned in most countries.

Shuraym's comments contrasted with the normally apolitical stance taken in sermons by Saudi preachers, who usually reflect the government line in their public utterances.

Last week, for example, Saudi preachers focused on social issues, limiting references to Syria to the usual appeals to God to help those suffering in dire conditions.

In his sermon on Friday, Shuraym did not specify what help Muslims should extend to Syrians. But the kingdom has previously called for providing the outgunned rebels with weapons.

Riyadh, the world's top oil exporter, has been campaigning for international arming of the Syrian rebels, fearing a victory by Assad in the civil war will increase Iranian influence in the Levantine region.

(Reporting by Sami Aboudi and Sylvia Westall, Editing by William Maclean and Mark Heinrich)​
Click to expand...


maybe he'll call for help to oust the tyrants that run his own country some day soon....No I didn't so either :lol:​
 
Saudi Sunni clerics..hehehe.

Maybe they should listen to the most revered Sunni cleric in Syria - the Grand Mufti:
 
Sir Matt said:
Do the French and Europeans(excluding the Balkans, which is likely where a large number are from) belong to those groups? If so, it would help expose their links in Europe to terrorist groups and could be a benefit to governments trying to root them out. I assume that nearly all Middle-Eastern/African foreign fighters are associated with AQ and Al Nusra.
Click to expand...


The French and European jihadists don't necessarily have links to terrorist groups. For the most part they have a clean history but have only taken up this jihadist mission because they see it as an obligation to help their Sunni brethren. I know two Libyans I went to university with who've made their way to Syria to join the rebels - both British citizens too, neither have any links (from what I understand) to terrorist cells. Though it must be said that a lot of them having been integrated within terrorist elements.

Sir Matt said:
Arming them can't end well. Assad's regime has some momentum at the moment and the rebels have none. Eventually, the arms will end up being used against Israel, the West, or other allies. I don't see how a liberal democratic government could grow in Syria, or most of the Middle East for that matter. It will do little good to anyone for another theocratic, mob rule government(as in Egypt) to pop up. That's not to say Assad is good, but either outcome is going to be bad for the people of Syria. A government that is adversarial to Iran will still be adversarial to the US and the West. Assad staying in power will be worse, but another nutter government won't do anything but remove an Iranian ally. The period of time with a positive outcome for the US has passed. Waiting allowed foreign groups to become ingrained in the conflict and to some extent to hijack it. At the very least, they will be more organized than a disparate population. That's effectively how the Muslim Brotherhood was able to take power in Egypt. Even if a majority of the FSA fighters are non-extremist, they won't be organized enough to form a government. There aren't the institutions or traditions of democracy in the region or culture to lean on.

It's a human rights disaster that no one really cares enough about to solve.
Click to expand...

Lets be honest, the US has itself to blame for creating adversaries in Iran and Syria. Thats no excuse though to dispose Assad with any means possible. There's no easy solution to this but I believe the only outcome is to let it ride out - if the rebels truly have a majority support (which I'm sure they don't, backed up by a plethora of studies) then this revolution will inevitably succeed. But considering the majority of Syrians prefer Assad to the FSA, then I believe Assad will win this war providing the US and her allies don't intervene militarily. It makes no sense to intervene against the wishes of the Syrian people and both the British and American public (the majority of whom oppose intervention if polls are anything to go by).
 
Raoul said:
He's correct though - its no longer a civil war. It's becoming a wider conflict, and now with chemical weapons in play. A No Fly Zone may be the best option here.
Click to expand...

A no fly zone which will solely target the Syrian regime forces, despite the most compelling evidence implicating the Rebels as having used chemical weapons. Its also amusing how he mentions the pressing need to arm these rebels to "prevent a catastrophe" and how its so awful that Iran are intervening - obviously remaining ignorant to the fact there are 9001 nations currently training, funding and arming the rebels to the teeth.

Also, and perhaps the most important reason - its Tony Blair. Any one who thinks theres an ounce of integrity or sincerity in the man needs a reality check. The cretin ought to be at the Hague, not consulting with his parodic role of being "peace" envoy to the region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.