I was about to mock you for suggesting an operational link between Al Qaeda in Pakistan and the Islamist rebel groups in Syria, but then I noticed you were responding in earnest to someone citing fecking Infowars. Good luck to anyone trying to cope with the Assad/Putin groupies in this thread, but I realise now it was insane to even attempt it.
Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
I bet you somewhere in the region of all the money I'll ever have that before you latched on to the "Al Qaeda in Syria!!11!!!!1!" thing you were one of those who claimed that Al Qaeda doesn't even exist.* To suggest any meaningful connection between those 'Al Qaeda-affiliated' groups operating in Syria to Ayman al-Zawahiri's beleaguered gang skulking in the FATA is daft, and to link them to statements made by a man who died several years ago in some bizarre effort to white knight for Assad is ample evidence that you're a fruitloop.
*It exists in much the same way it ever did, as a core group now largely defeated, and as any other group of Islamist chucklefecks who fancy embracing the branding. AQAP is the only one that seems to have any real connection with the original, and even that's pretty tenuous.
*It exists in much the same way it ever did, as a core group now largely defeated, and as any other group of Islamist chucklefecks who fancy embracing the branding. AQAP is the only one that seems to have any real connection with the original, and even that's pretty tenuous.
What?
Are you serious?!
Excessive use of green smileys just makes you seem desperate. Just sayin'.
So, do we think the Iranian regime is crazy enough to attack Israel if the West decides to intervene in Syria? Personally I don't think so. I also find it a bit hard to believe that Assad would be crazy enough to use chemical weapons at this point, and I also don't see what the West could possibly gain from joining forces with the jihadist rebels. They might be able to save lives in the short term, but the long-term consequences might not be worth it. Still, if Assad has indeed used chemical weapons, I think it's difficult to argue against some form of intervention. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and allowing the use of WMD's without consequences sets a dangerous precedent, especially since the US and others have already made it abundantly clear that they would intervene if such weapons were used.
It's difficult to see what the best course of action is at this point.
The clue is in your post. May be somebody who doesn't have a clue shouldn't intervene..
It was a stupid remark by the way by Obama (that "red line"), and probably that may actually have been the most important reason why the chemical weapons were used.. Who knows, may be if he didn't intervene with that remark there wouldn't have been any chemical attacks in the first place..
What? Why wouldn't there have been chemical weapons used if Obama hadn't said "don't use chemical weapons"? I don't get your line of reasoning here.
when the dust has settled, Syria will be fractured into many little states. Just don't see how all these different groups will be able to pull together.
That's because there is a blind spot in your analysis. You're refusing to consider the possibility that it was the rebels actually who used the chemical weapons, to trigger a reaction from the West to help them out, which actually makes much more sense than Assad himself using it in an area 5 km away from the hotel of the UN inspectors he let in only a couple of days earlier, at a time when it looks like he's winning on the battlefield, without the need to resort to any kind of chemical attacks.
It might have been Obama's comments about the red line that encouraged the rebels to use it as a resource to try and tip the balance back in their favor at a time when they're actually losing and probably on the verge of collapse in crucial areas, by getting the West involved in the conflict, on their side..
No I'm not.
If that's the case, then Obama's red line might probably have been what encouraged them to do so, because they know it would put Obama in an awkward position after that comment if he doesn't intervene..
I really doubt that the rebels would've hesitated to use chemical weapons if they got their hands on them either way.
The CNN article I talked about on the last page might help us understand this point:
I think they realize that the damage they can do by using this weapon smartly is much more than if they used it in a rash and stupid way, and I think Obama's statement provided them with the perfect chance to utilize it in a smart way.
Besides, earlier in the conflict everything was going according to plan for them, and they were winning, so they didn't need to resort to large scale use of chemical weapons, which could disrupt the momentum of the fight..
'The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago.'
He can't be serious?
He's right.
Good read.. Sigh.
It's a bit too conspiratorial for me. I've no doubt that they would've used chemical weapons either way. To somehow lay the blame for any of this at Obama's feet seems a bit desperate. It wasn't a stupid remark, it was a sensible remark. And how do you know that if he hadn't made that remark then Assad wouldn't have used chemical weapons much earlier? We can play these games all night, but it seems a bit pointless.
I wasn't laying a blame, I was discussing it in the frame of "Who knows?!" At no point did I suggest that that was my biggest problem with Obama's decisions in the conflict, I was just saying that the situation is so unpredictable and messed up, that even a small remark like that might have some serious consequences that we can't predict.
You know full well there is no single organisation of AQ -- with a central command structure -- that has existed in continuity since the planning and execution of 9/11. The links between any groups in Syria who fight under the flag of AQ and those who carried out the 9/11 attacks are non-existent beyond a shared commitment to an ideology and the brand of AQ. They are hardly the 'same men'.
Nobody is denying that these people are nasty pieces of work and that their kind of politics should have no future role in the Syrian state, and that the West needs to be very cautious about allowing more arms to come into their hands. But they are a small minority in what is a popular uprising against a dictator. Their partial hijacking of the rebellion should not mean the West should not support it. It just means it has to be more careful.
Al-Qaeda is not a "country".. And Osama bin Laden didn't personally plan and attack the towers either..
If you think there is no connection between the different branches of Al-Qaeda across the globe you're mistaken.. Did you see how quick the weapons that Al-Qaeda got in Libya appeared in Mali?
However, being there a connection doesn't necessarily mean that it's the same fighters jumping here and there (even though they do jump sometimes!). That's nonsense. Of course in each country there are separate cells, but they all collaborate with each other when they need to.
Just look how many foreign fighters got into Syria during the conflict..
And to be honest, the way you're trying to say: "This Al-Qaeda is not exactly the Al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. It's not the same men..." That's nonsense to be honest, because the men that attacked the US on 9/11 already died in those planes, and it sounds extremely apologetic on your part in trying to find excuses for the awkward situation the US (and some European countries) finds itself in..
Stop fooling yourself, they're not only sharing the same ideology, they're just different branches of the same organization, be it in Syria, in Libya, in Yemen, in Mali, ...etc. And by the way, they definitely share the same targets as well, and that's why the West is worried that those American and European citizens who are fighting now in Syria will go back to Europe and the US and they might execute terrorist attacks for Al-Qaeda in Europe or the US in the future!
Also you're dead wrong about them being a minority in Syria (in term of military strength).. You're talking about what you hope for, not what's actually happening on the ground unfortunately..
And by the way, I'm surprised you're arguing about things like those, because those are things even the US administration admit now.
the majority are secular surely?
Danny, do you actually know anything about international terrorism, at all? You completely refused to engage with my points and have just blathered unsupported nonsense in response to Rednev's well-informed analysis. 9/11 was planned and carried about by a specific organisation, which has the square root of feck all to do with the Al-Nusra front, and very little to do with ISIS. At very best they're tribute bands, who recieved the blessing of al-Zawahri (up to a point, his reaction to the supposed merger was fascinating), and like to throw the name and the flag around because they know it's what it attracts the wealthy Saudi gobshites who invariably fund Islamist terror groups.
Claiming the opposition to Assad's rule is 'Al Qaeda' is an absurd simplification which helps nobody anywhere become more informed about the hideously complex situation in Syria. It's roughly comparable with the people who insist the CIA trained Bin Laden.
Claiming the opposition to Assad's rule is 'Al Qaeda' is an absurd simplification which helps nobody anywhere become more informed about the hideously complex situation in Syria. It's roughly comparable with the people who insist the CIA trained Bin Laden.
Probably a very naive question coming up from me but why did it take the chemical attack for the fecking international "community" to really wanna do something serious ? It was ok when Assad and his people were using more conventional methods ? The UN are clowns and the USA and their dogs (UK, France etc etc ...) are hypocrites.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Because it's about as against International Law as anything you can think of.
At least that's the official line. The real reason is the hideously byzantine politics and competing ideologies in American government, and how yet again Obama is being dragged kicking and screaming into doing something he clearly doesn't want to by the hawks and the liberal interventionists. Hence the action, when it comes, being largely symbolic. Let's just pray Assad (or whoever actually authorised the attack) isn't dumb enough to do it again.
The majority of what? Fighters? Nope. People? Not really clear so far. The problem is that the people in Syria don't have much say in the outcome now, and their voices aren't even loud enough to be heard, so can't speculate about that now..
people is what I was thinking. But I think Syria as we know it is gone.
Thanks for an element of an answer Chabon.
With the possible exception of some rebels presently receiving training in Jordan, the Islamists do indeed represent the most capable fighters among the opposition and in numbers put at 10,000s [i was not aware this that this was something to be questioned].
This ongoing argument of al-Qaeda's internal relationships is at best a red herring, the point is that they are not people we or the local population would want at the centre of power in Syria. This is a real danger [already forced on villages in the country] and one which rarely seems to be reflected in the words of Cameron or Hague.
This ongoing argument of al-Qaeda's internal relationships is at best a red herring, the point is that they are not people we or the local population would want at the centre of power in Syria. This is a real danger [already forced on villages in the country] and one which rarely seems to be reflected in the words of Cameron or Hague.
1- If you don't present any evidence, then you can't claim that you have a point.
2- How can it be more stupid than suggesting that bombing a country for three days is not an act of war, but rather just an "interference".. If a country bombs the United States for three straight days will you consider it "just interference" and not an act of war?! And you wonder why I don't respond to your bullsh*t.
3- A specific organization ha? So that's why the US occupied two countries for 10 years, just to combat a little specific organization? Do you really believe what you're saying? You sound as stupid as McCain when he was adamant that he knew who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and confirmed it by going to Syria, and meeting with two recognized terrorists, and even taking pictures with them! And when he was asked about it, he said "Well, I didn't know, they didn't tell me that was their real names!". Al-Nusra even pledged allegiance publicly to Al-Qaeda, and now you're arguing they're not the same people who blew the towers?! Amazing.
4- It's undeniable now that easily more than 10,000 foreign fighters are now in Syria (the number is actually much bigger, but I'll settle for this for now to avoid unnecessary arguments).. How do you explain it, and under which flag do you think they're fighting? No relation with Al-Qaeda my a**.
5- Can you tell me what happened in Raqqa?
6- Do you know that Al-Nusra Front is not the only rebels fraction that's associated with Al-Qaeda? Have you heard for example about the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (among others)?
The only thing that you recognized correctly is the real country that's funding Al-Qaeda, which makes it quite clear that by occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, and bombing Libya and Syria, the US has, in the middle of all that mess, successfully recognized the root of the problem, and is really trying to solve it.
The problem is that those secular rebels that you're thinking about supporting are just an illusion (they may exist, but they're insignificant).. Look at Iraq. Al-Qaeda wasn't as strong there when Saddam fell as it is now in Syria if Assad now falls. Then you got the US army continuing to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq for 8 full years, and using those 8 years to build the Iraqi army to a degree that it can hopefully defend the country against the threats of Al-Qaeda effectively, and after all that, you still see them now in Iraq struggle against Al-Qaeda which is gradually growing again after the US left, despite 10 years of hard work..
And now you expect Assad to fall, and then secular people replacing him just like that?! I know that's what you want to see, believe me, that's what everybody wants to see, but there is in reality exactly 0 chance of that happening.
The last thing I want to see now is Syria turning into another Afghanistan..
You're right to point out that there are strong links between groups in Syria fighting under the name Al Qaeda and AQ groups across the Maghreb and other areas of North Africa. But what does this have to do with 9/11? To suggest that the West would be fighting alongside those responsible for 9/11 is a longshot and deliberately provocative. The implication is that the organisation and individuals who planned 9/11 are somehow involved in Syria, and this is untrue. It's an unnecessary link, as well, because everybody knows how dangerous and unfriendly to the West the AQ fighters in North Africa and Syria are. To use 9/11 as an example is simply an attempt to play on people's emotions. The link doesn't stand up, I'm afraid.
The West should support the campaign to remove Assad in a general sense. Because Assad being defeated is the only way this conflict will end.
Let's agree to strongly disagree here.
By the way, aren't you worried that the American citizens that are fighting in Syria now might be dangerous for the US when they comeback, i.e. might plan and execute terrorist attacks like 9/11?
There should be some level of worry by Western governments that so called mujahideen who return to Western countries could pose a threat. But I think anyone who supports in principle the concept of violent Jihad is a threat anyway, whether they've traveled out to Syria or not. The number of people who have traveled to take part in the conflict from Western countries is probably, in my view, vastly overestimated, just as the foreign mujaheddin presence in the Balkans was. Those who have traveled will, I hope, be picked up on our intelligence agencies radars and will be the subject of heavy scrutiny if they return.
In a general sense? Isn't that the worst answer you could possibly give? Basically, even if it's the organ-eating Al Nusra nutcases that the West should support, then so be it, as long as Assad is gone. I thought the whole point of this exercise is to make things better in the future, not just replace one dictatorship with another
I know this debate dragged probably for too long, but it's those people whom you're siding with in Syria.. You admit that they should be heavily scrutinized when they're inside the US, but inside Syria, apparently we have to support them now, and hope that they suddenly disappear when Assad falls..
IMO, you're dangerously misjudging the situation, and frankly it already looks familiar.
Pakistan Taliban arrive in Syria, and more are to come, CNN told
Peshawar (CNN) -- Taliban fighters from Pakistan say they have united with al Qaeda forces in Syria to fight the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The commander of the Pakistan Taliban, Abdul Rashid Abbasi, has told CNN that the first batch of fighters has arrived in Syria and established a command and control center to launch operational activities alongside Syrian rebel fighters. Abbasi, a close associate of Pakistan Taliban head Hakeemullah Mehsud, told CNN that 120 fighters are already in Syria.
The Taliban commander went on to say that another batch of fighters made up of 150 men will arrive in Syria this week.
"We shall be sending more volunteers, but cannot give exact numbers at this moment, but we will provide whatever support is needed by our Syrian brothers," Abbasi told CNN.
CNN is unable to independently confirm that members of the Pakistan Taliban are inside Syria. CNN journalists have previously been inside Syria and seen foreign fighters participate in the country's civil war, which sprang from unrest sparked in the spring of 2011.
Abbasi said the fighters were sent after the Pakistan Taliban received a request from the al Qaeda operational commander in Syria, Abu Omar Baghdadi. Pakistan Taliban fighters will be under the command and control structure of al Qaeda in Syria, as it is leading the operation, he said. The Pakistan Taliban said it has also asked its local chapters in the Mohmand, Bajaur, Khyber, Orakzai and Waziristan agencies to recruit fresh fighters who are willing to go on their mission in Syria. The Pakistan Taliban says many young men are registering to go on their first foreign mission.
But the Pakistan Taliban said it will remain based in Pakistan. "We have lots of fighters here and our central command will be operating from here, so there is no reason to stop operations in Pakistan," Abbasi said. "They will go on as usual."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/15/world/taliban-joining-syrian-fighters