War Against ISIS

[STURM]

And what if there is absolute proof that rebels have also used chemicals? Will this have crossed Obama's 'red line' or will this inconveniant fact just be overlooked and swept under the carpet? Action and condemnation has to be taken against any side that uses chemicals not just the side that certain countries decide is the bad chap.

US offers 'military support' to Syrian rebels - Americas - Al Jazeera English

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...claims-have-a-very-familiar-ring-8591214.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/20136131049162160.html

 

[gazzzwp]

And what if there is absolute proof that rebels have also used chemicals? Will this have crossed Obama's 'red line' or will this inconveniant fact just be overlooked and swept under the carpet? Action and condemnation has to be taken against any side that uses chemicals not just the side that certain countries decide is the bad chap.

US offers 'military support' to Syrian rebels - Americas - Al Jazeera English

Syria and sarin gas: US claims have a very familiar ring - Middle East - World - The Independent

Betrayal in Syria - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Is it possible that Assad calculated this? What I mean is someone deployed chemical weapons on a limited scale that we know. The evidence points to the regime. Why use these weapons on such a limited scale to such little result?

Whoever gave the order for deployment must have reckoned on US and EU involvement surely? Does someone wish to widen the conflict and draw in the bigger players?

 

[STURM]

We have no way of knowing what really has happened for want of any detailed information. All we know is what we're told by the UN, the U.S., the rebels, the Syrian government and civilians unfortunate enough to becaught in the crossfire. What we do know for certain is that intelligence has proved to be faulty in the past and this might be the case again here; and that human testimony is far from perfect. And we do know that certain countries - frustrated that Assad is still the head of government and eager to do away with him for their own national interests - might be looking for just the right pretext to take things to a whole new level.

Syrian officials have pointed out to Western journalists, that the Syrian government has no reason to use chemicals as it has other more practical means of dealing with the rebels - what they won't say publicly is that their big worry is that use of chemicals might bring outside powers in. It is still possible however that some overzelous and desperate Syrian army units might have used them without official sanction - we can expect that some units might be out of touch with HQ for certain periods. By the same token, if 'jihadists', 'extremists' and 'Islamists' and 'Salafist' rebels get hold of chemicals, I won't be surprised if they are used on Syrian army troops. When and if this happens [I hope no one on either side gets hit by chemicals], it will be interesting to see what the reaction of Obama, Cameron, Hollande, King Abdullah and Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani will be.... Will Obama talk of his ''red line'' that has been crossed? Will the State Department spokesman condemn the rebels if hospital images of dying, half blinded and vomiting Syrian troops with blisters on their skin appear on Al Jazeera and BBC?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/2013614152849859283.html

 

[Feanor]

It's not in the interests of the Syrian regime to use WMDs. If they do use them, it would be a major mistake, while the rebels have little to lose, and definitely want international intervention.

 

[Rimasta]

It's not in the interests of the Syrian regime to use WMDs. If they do use them, it would be a major mistake, while the rebels have little to lose, and definitely want international intervention.

You finished my thought. There have been massive defections in the Syrian military and to use chemicals on such a small and ineffective scale doesn't make sense. The only way that adds up is if they-Assad's forces-were testing western resolve. What if the rebels wanted to make it look like Assad did it to force the hand of the West and thus turning the military balance in their favor? Not to mention multiple sources suggesting the rebels have used chemicals themselves. They have the means and the motive and also lack sufficient supplies/delivery systems for a massive chemical attack.

 

[surpreme]

I don't know if this is true that over 50 Generals and Colonels defected to Turkey. What I would like to know who filling in for those officers that defected. The best option for Assad is to use Hezbollah to filled the gap. Also Assad should look into getting heavy Iranian Quds Forces help. The Syrian Army is in bad shape if this is true. Assad only option is heavy assistance from Iran and Hezbollah.

 

[STURM]

I don't know if this is true that over 50 Generals and Colonels defected to Turkey. What I would like to know who filling in for those officers that defected. The best option for Assad is to use Hezbollah to filled the gap.

How on earth do you expect Hezbollah to fill the gap? Hezbollah fighters can relieve Syrian units but they can't fill in staff and command positions; and Hezbollah will keep the bulk of its fighters on home turf. You need to bear in mind is that quite a number of rebels are Sunnis from Lebanon and that Hezbollah has a number of pressing reasons to be in Syria but Hezbollah's main priority is Lebanon. The number of officials that may or may not have defected is irrelevent, the fact remains that Assad's government is still in power. When the Defence Minister defected, various commentators spoke of how weakened and vulnerable Assad was. They said that the defections were the beginning of the end of Assad, that was many months ago and Assad's government still hasn't collapsed yet. What will be the nail in his coffin is when and if the business eite, the minorities and the bulk of the army deserts him - not deserting generals and government officials - and that hasn't happened yet.

Assad only option is heavy assistance from Iran and Hezbollah.

Assad's only option is to try as win back as much territory as he possibly can, to create if possible divisions within the various rebel factions and to do all he can to avoid giving Israel and the West any pretext to enter the conflict. I'm not sure what you mean by ''heavy'' but there is only so much assistance that Hezbollah can provide. Hezbollah - by dispatching fighters to Syria - has already helped Assad in a big way as it shows solidarity and shows that Assad is not alone. Hezbollah can't do much more. As for Iran, we have to wait and see. The 2 main things to watch for - which in turn might have bearing on Iran's assistance to Syria - is the new Iranian leadership and talks with the West over the nuclear issue. There are a lot of things at play here and many factors to consider.

Guns for 'nice' guys - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-just-guns-they-are-about-money-8659784.html

 

[Beastmode]

You finished my thought. There have been massive defections in the Syrian military and to use chemicals on such a small and ineffective scale doesn't make sense. The only way that adds up is if they-Assad's forces-were testing western resolve. What if the rebels wanted to make it look like Assad did it to force the hand of the West and thus turning the military balance in their favor? Not to mention multiple sources suggesting the rebels have used chemicals themselves. They have the means and the motive and also lack sufficient supplies/delivery systems for a massive chemical attack.

I completely agree with this thought. After the Syrians shot down the Turkish recon jet they apoligized, they don't want none of Turkey and they sure as hell don't want any of NATO who Turkey is a member of. I suspected the rounds that were lobbed and the bombings in Turkey were perpetrated by the rebels.

How on earth do you expect Hezbollah to fill the gap? Hezbollah fighters can relieve Syrian units but they can't fill in staff and command positions; and Hezbollah will keep the bulk of its fighters on home turf. You need to bear in mind is that quite a number of rebels are Sunnis from Lebanon and that Hezbollah has a number of pressing reasons to be in Syria but Hezbollah's main priority is Lebanon. The number of officials that may or may not have defected is irrelevent, the fact remains that Assad's government is still in power. When the Defence Minister defected, various commentators spoke of how weakened and vulnerable Assad was. They said that the defections were the beginning of the end of Assad, that was many months ago and Assad's government still hasn't collapsed yet. What will be the nail in his coffin is when and if the business eite, the minorities and the bulk of the army deserts him - not deserting generals and government officials - and that hasn't happened yet.

You know Iran owns Hezbollah right?

Your first sentence sums it up, "how would Hezbollah plug the gap?" They wouldn't, its a militia. It's an Iranian tool to use against Israel. The cool thing about proxy forces [Hezbollah] is you can put your own people in there with a certian amount of deniability. Do the math, Syrian opponents locked in a stalemate, a militia comes along and upsets the balance of power? Iran needs Syria as a token self-esteem chip. It helps prop up their establishment.

The West has launched crippling sanctions against Iran. The West also supports the rebels.... See where this is going? This is Iranian masturbation to snub their noses at the West and to keep one of the only allies they actually have.... The Russians are involved for mainly the same reason. KGB ocifer...President Putin, 3rd termer, still has dreams of being a superpower. Nobody in the mid-east cares about Russia anymore, Syria is all they have left.

 

[Alex_David]

I believe some of you are underestimating the Syrian army in the conflict. They aren't a bunch of mercs with a crappy leadership and bad equipment, they're one of the most powerful armies in the Middle East. But then again, in guerrilla warfare, it doesn't matter how many tanks you have.

And that's exactly where the Syrian Army proved it's worthiness. If you all would look up rebel vids on Youtube, you'd see dozens of Syrian tanks destroyed. But that's up until 2012, after that, the conflict took a whole new turn. Instead of using classic regular army tactics against the rebels in an urban environment, which have proven their ineffectiveness like when the Russians stormed Grozny, the Syrian commanders adapted the 'gang wars' tactics, used by the rebels. This gave them a clear edge on the battlefield, as they had better training and better equipment. This can be seen in the number of destroyed or captured rebel strongholds and cities that were once claimed to be impenetrable fortresses.

The Syrians do have the power to end the conflict quickly, but one thing that folks like us who sit behind computer screens should realize, is that the conflict is no longer a domestic matter. Several world powers have stakes in Syria and interests that must be secured; the Russians and their naval base, the Europeans and gulf energy pipelines that could only be delivered through Syria, and the Americans and the interests of their bases in the M.E as well as Israel. It's a fight that can't be simply put to an end.

Hezbollah's intervention in Syria is limited to a few hundred men and maybe sharing of experiences from the 2006 war, but that's it. Hezbollah can't substitute for a highly-trained special forces division, but they might be able to relieve Syrian units.

 

[STURM]

Your first sentence sums it up, "how would Hezbollah plug the gap?"

Hezbollah emerged as a resistance force against Israel during Israel's presence in South Lebanon. Iran came into the picture a bit later. Saying that Hezbollah is a tool of Iran is a wee bit oversimplistic. Hezbollah enjoys Iranian help and support but has a grievance against Israel, over the Sheba Farms, yet Iran - despite having a tremendous amount of influence - does not dicate everything Hezbollah does.

Do the math, Syrian opponents locked in a stalemate, a militia comes along and upsets the balance of power? Iran needs Syria as a token self-esteem chip. It helps prop up their establishment.

I don't need to do the maths as I had earlier explained that the main benefit for Syria - with regards to the presence of Hezbollah fighters in Syria - is political ........... It demonstrates solidarity. It was Supreme who suggested that the presence of Hezbollah might enable Syria to finally defeat the rebels - which is something I disagree with. You need to bear in mind that Hezbollah also has its own reasons to be in Syria , e.g. quite a few of the rebels are actually Lebanese Sunnis.

Iran needs Syria as a token self-esteem chip. It helps prop up their establishment.

Actually, it's the other way around..... Iran's relationship with Syria goes back for decades and has to do with geo-politics, not as a ''self-esteem chip to prop up their establishment'' as you stated. Before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Shah's Savak already had a presence in Lebanon which goes to show that Lebanon was an important factor for Iran decades ago.

The West has launched crippling sanctions against Iran. The West also supports the rebels.... See where this is going? This is Iranian masturbation to snub their noses at the West and to keep one of the only allies they actually have.... The Russians are involved for mainly the same reason. KGB ocifer...President Putin, 3rd termer, still has dreams of being a superpower. Nobody in the mid-east cares about Russia anymore, Syria is all they have left.

You gave your take explaining the reasoning behind Russia's support for Syria but conveniantly neglected to explain why the ''West'' and its Sunni Arab ''allies'' are so keen on seeing Assad go. At the end of the day, democracy and human rights has nothing to do with it and the ''West'' and the Sunni Arab states have slightly different reasons for wanting Assad gone.

Syria was the only Arab state which supported Iran, during Saddam's war - an invasion that was launched and later supported by the ''West'' and the Arab Gulf states - [remember the pic of a similing Rumsfeld with Saddam?] thus Iran has a number of geo-political reasons [she sees herself as the defender of Shiites everywhere] to support Syria. Saying that this ''is Iranian masturbation to snub their noses at the West is not only being simplistic but ignores the history behind the 2 countries and the need for Iran [like every country] to support its vital interests wherever that may be.

 

[My2Cents]

I believe some of you are underestimating the Syrian army in the conflict. They aren't a bunch of mercs with a crappy leadership and bad equipment, they're one of the most powerful armies in the Middle East. But then again, in guerrilla warfare, it doesn't matter how many tanks you have.

And that's exactly where the Syrian Army proved it's worthiness. If you all would look up rebel vids on Youtube, you'd see dozens of Syrian tanks destroyed. But that's up until 2012, after that, the conflict took a whole new turn. Instead of using classic regular army tactics against the rebels in an urban environment, which have proven their ineffectiveness like when the Russians stormed Grozny, the Syrian commanders adapted the 'gang wars' tactics, used by the rebels. This gave them a clear edge on the battlefield, as they had better training and better equipment. This can be seen in the number of destroyed or captured rebel strongholds and cities that were once claimed to be impenetrable fortresses.

The Syrian army is quite familiar with fighting guerillas, that is most of what they have been doing since the 1973 war with Israel.

The problem is that the majority of the troops are Sunni Arab with Alawite (Shia) officers. As a result very few of the units are trusted in the current conflict. Most of the fighting is being done with non-Sunni units and Alawite militia. Moral is poor and dropping, estimated on defections to the rebel cause run as high as 60,000.

The Syrians do have the power to end the conflict quickly, but one thing that folks like us who sit behind computer screens should realize, is that the conflict is no longer a domestic matter. Several world powers have stakes in Syria and interests that must be secured; the Russians and their naval base, the Europeans and gulf energy pipelines that could only be delivered through Syria, and the Americans and the interests of their bases in the M.E as well as Israel. It's a fight that can't be simply put to an end.

If Assad had the power to end the conflict quickly he would have done so. Up until recently the great powers would not have been able to intervene in time to stop it, and would probably accept it as a fait accompli. No point in invading if the people you would be try to save are already dead.

A point you also need to consider here is that the revolutionaries see this as a do-or-die conflict. If their side loses Assad will kill not only them but their families and relatives as well. Look up the Hama massacres of 1981 and 1982. That is SOP for the Assads.

Hezbollah's intervention in Syria is limited to a few hundred men and maybe sharing of experiences from the 2006 war, but that's it. Hezbollah can't substitute for a highly-trained special forces division, but they might be able to relieve Syrian units.

The low estimate Hezbollah troops in Syria is now over 2000, with some estimtes over 6000, and they are deployed as combat units, not advisors or trainers. Hezbollah spearheaded the recent operations. Iran is rumored to be preparing to send up to 4000 al-Qud troops.

 

[STURM]

A point you also need to consider here is that the revolutionaries see this as a do-or-die conflict. If their side loses Assad will kill not only them but their families and relatives as well.

The same can be said for the minorities and troops who continue to fight for Assad. Alawites haven't forgotten the hard time they had under the Sunnis - who viewed them as backward heretics - until the Bathists came to power. Many Syrian troops believe they are fighting against ''terrorists'' out to destroy Syria and create a non-secular Islamic state. Recent atrocities done by the rebels have only reinforced their opinion.

They may be fighting for Syria, not Assad. They may also be winning: Robert Fisk reports from inside Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent

Look up the Hama massacres of 1981 and 1982. That is SOP for the Assads.

True but we need to put things in proper perspective and be objective. The Muslim Brotherhood declared war on Assad and committed its share of atrocities against Alawite soldiers and civillians in Hama - this led to Assad's brother razing Hama to the ground. Not following the rules and the Geneva Convention are SOP for all sides and actors in the Middle East ....

Iran is rumored to be preparing to send up to 4000 al-Qud troops.

It will be interesting to see if Iran's new leadership adopts any changes to its policy over Syria. It seems the decision to commit fighters to Syria was taken before the elections.

Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent

Who knows how all this will end. Two thing's are for sure, the people actually doing the suffering are the ones living in the war zone and trying to survive, - like people in this video [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUKBaFetJY"]FRONTLINE | The Bombing of al-Bara | PBS - YouTube[/nomedia] - as opposed to conniving politicians sitting in their comfortable offices; and the Middle East which is already unstable, will become even more unstable.

As the US wants to arm 'nice Syrian rebels' we must remind ourselves that weapons are not just guns. They are about money - Comment - Voices - The Independent

As I mentioned previously, there has been so much talk about Syria'a alleged use of chemicals. If the day comes when then the rebels use chemicals and images of dying, half blinded and vomiting Syrian troops with blisters on their skin appear on Al Jazeera and BBC, will Obama talk of his ''red line'' that has been crossed and condemn the rebels? Or do the rules only apply to one side, the side that the 'West'' and the Gulf States has chosen to support?

 

[Alex_David]

The Syrian army is quite familiar with fighting guerillas, that is most of what they have been doing since the 1973 war with Israel.

The problem is that the majority of the troops are Sunni Arab with Alawite (Shia) officers. As a result very few of the units are trusted in the current conflict. Most of the fighting is being done with non-Sunni units and Alawite militia. Moral is poor and dropping, estimated on defections to the rebel cause run as high as 60,000.

If Assad had the power to end the conflict quickly he would have done so. Up until recently the great powers would not have been able to intervene in time to stop it, and would probably accept it as a fait accompli. No point in invading if the people you would be try to save are already dead.

A point you also need to consider here is that the revolutionaries see this as a do-or-die conflict. If their side loses Assad will kill not only them but their families and relatives as well. Look up the Hama massacres of 1981 and 1982. That is SOP for the Assads.

The low estimate Hezbollah troops in Syria is now over 2000, with some estimtes over 6000, and they are deployed as combat units, not advisors or trainers. Hezbollah spearheaded the recent operations. Iran is rumored to be preparing to send up to 4000 al-Qud troops.

"The problem is that the majority of the troops are Sunni Arab with Alawite (Shia) officers. As a result very few of the units are trusted in the current conflict. Most of the fighting is being done with non-Sunni units and Alawite militia. Moral is poor and dropping, estimated on defections to the rebel cause run as high as 60,000."

I agree with your first point. But still, their morale is quite high. Take it from the perspective of a soldier fighting for his loved ones and his family. Besides, the Syrian army is fighting not only in Aleppo and Homs, but in numerous rebel-controlled areas all over Syria. Not all suni units are expected to defect.

"If Assad had the power to end the conflict quickly he would have done so. Up until recently the great powers would not have been able to intervene in time to stop it, and would probably accept it as a fait accompli. No point in invading if the people you would be try to save are already dead."

I disagree there. He had the power to end the conflict, and still has, but the main problem is Russia's stake in Syria. Syria is just another nation under Russian influence, and the Syrian civil war can be somewhat compared to a proxy war between the Ruskies and the Yanks. Assad can't take an independent decision to end the conflict without consulting the Russians, lest lose Russian support. It is evident, in the cases of the city of Al Qusayr and the Baba Amr neighborhood, that the Syrian army can wrap things up quickly. Al Qusayr, which had 10-20,000 rebels holed up over there for 2 years, was decimated in a week by the Syrian army. Baba Amr suffered the same fate.

"The low estimate Hezbollah troops in Syria is now over 2000, with some estimtes over 6000, and they are deployed as combat units, not advisors or trainers. Hezbollah spearheaded the recent operations. Iran is rumored to be preparing to send up to 4000 al-Qud troops."

I disagree there. These estimates on the media come from suni activists, and it is only logical that they want to exaggerate Hezbollah numbers so as to start a sectarian war and rally more support for their cause. Even so, Hezbollah units are nowhere near the experience of the Syrian spec ops units which were fighting in Al Qusayr. They can't substitute for the Syrian soldiers. The only reason Hezbollah intervened is because Al Qusayr happens to be near Hezbollah weapons storages and if these are compromised they're screwed. And concerning Iran, it's quite likely they might send soldiers, but this will be faced by a severe response from the West, which will most likely be in the form of sanctions.

"A point you also need to consider here is that the revolutionaries see this as a do-or-die conflict. If their side loses Assad will kill not only them but their families and relatives as well. Look up the Hama massacres of 1981 and 1982. That is SOP for the Assads."

The revolutionaries don't care about it. The number of actual Syrians on the side of rebels has become negligible compared to the number of jihadists and mercenaries.

 

[STURM]

Syria is just another nation under Russian influence, and the Syrian civil war can be somewhat compared to a proxy war between the Ruskies and the Yanks.

It's more than that, it's part of the Cold War being fought between Saudi Arabia and Iran for influence as part of the centuries long rivalry over the Shiite/Sunni schism. The West and Saudi have slightly different reasons for wanting to see Assad go. I'm sure you've noticed that Sunni majority Iraq has been very quiet over Syria and hasn't publicly condemed Assad. The Iranian's are extremely thankful to Bush Junior and Blair for invading Iraq, as Iraq/Iran relations are at an all time high as is to be expected given that both countries are majority Shiite.

The number of actual Syrians on the side of rebels has become negligible compared to the number of jihadists and mercenaries.

We can't say that for sure as we don't have the exact numbers. Despite the number of Lenabese Sunnis and Sunnis from other countries [many of whom fought in Iraq] I find it hard to believe that the majority of the rebels are non - Syrian.

There is a body here which is supposedly Iranian.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjbuIjzCllw"]Syria's battle for Aleppo rages - YouTube[/nomedia]


An interesting documentary on Lebanon and Syria.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0OkYSSwCA"]Al Jazeera World - Lebanon: Sibling of Syria - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Alex_David]

It's more than that, it's part of the Cold War being fought between Saudi Arabia and Iran for influence as part of the centuries long rivalry over the Shiite/Sunni schism. The West and Saudi have slightly different reasons for wanting to see Assad go. I'm sure you've noticed that Sunni majority Iraq has been very quiet over Syria and hasn't publicly condemed Assad. The Iranian's are extremely thankful to Bush Junior and Blair for invading Iraq, as Iraq/Iran relations are at an all time high as is to be expected given that both countries are majority Shiite.



We can't say that for sure as we don't have the exact numbers. Despite the number of Lenabese Sunnis and Sunnis from other countries [many of whom fought in Iraq] I find it hard to believe that the majority of the rebels are non - Syrian.

There is a body here which is supposedly Iranian.



An interesting documentary on Lebanon and Syria.

I agree.


Well I tend to believe these figures. I have a friend who lives in the M.E and works there, and the Jihadist propaganda there is staggering. Besides, there are thousands of Chechens and Al Qaeda fighters and these alone outnumber the Syrians in the rebel factions. We all know that the Al Qaeda faction in Syria has more members than any other rebel faction.


Concerning Al Jazeera, I don't believe any of the stuff they blabber about, whether it be evolutionary biology or politics. They're impartial and the things they say are aimed at certain sects in Syria. Moreoever, they encourage Jihad. So that's why I don't believe them.

 

[STURM]

We all know that the Al Qaeda faction in Syria has more members than any other rebel faction.

Until I can see firm proof as opposed to just testimonies from other people and supposedly accurate reports, I don't know whether AQ has more fighters than other rebel factions. I've actually met Syrians - [they are quite a number of Syrian students here where I live] from both sides of the divide - who were involved in the fighting or have friends or family who were. None of them - even the pro-Assad ones - claimed that they were more QA fighters. Anyway, what is your definition of an AQ faction? Just because a rebel is foreign, is anti-Western and is also against Assad and other secular Arab regimes, doesn't automatically make him AQ.....

the Jihadist propaganda there is staggering.

The anti-Assad propoganda, the ones that give the impression that the rebels are nice guys who never do atrocities [only the evil Alawites, we are led to believe, do nasty things ] and that outside powers want Assad gone mainly for democratic reasons and concerns for the long suffering Syrian people [read the ones who don't support Assad], is also ''staggering.''..............

Concerning Al Jazeera, I don't believe any of the stuff they blabber about, whether it be evolutionary biology or politics. They're impartial and the things they say are aimed at certain sects in Syria. Moreoever, they encourage Jihad. So that's why I don't believe them.

Well that's your oponion and you're entitled to it. When it comes to the Middle East I don't rely too much on CNN and BBC, and lets not even mention folks like Fox News and NBC. On CNN and Fox News especially, some of the reporting they do appears that it was written for them by a spokesman from the State Department or the Pentagon - they only give half of the narrative and a subdued one sided one at that. For me, Al Jazeera English] offers a more balance account. Years ago when it strated out, Al Jazeera reported the Middle East in a way that other news networks didn't, they gave out both sides of the story in a way that CNN and BBC didn't bother doing. And I beg to differ, Al Jazeera doesn't encourage armed Jihad... Btw, Jihad can mean several things. Most people are under the impression that the term 'jihad' signifies armed action or struggle, which is not the case at all.

I don't see any calls for armed ''Jihad'' in this article. And its not aimed at certain sects. In fact, the writer [anti-Assad] makes a lot of sense and is factual. The premise of his article is that a lot of what is happening is also dependent on foreign players, that things will get worse and that there's no end in sight - which is very true.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/20136131049162160.html

 

[Alex_David]

Until I can see firm proof as opposed to just testimonies from other people and supposedly accurate reports, I don't know whether AQ has more fighters than other rebel factions. I've actually met Syrians - [they are quite a number of Syrian students here where I live] from both sides of the divide - who were involved in the fighting or have friends or family who have. None of them - even the pro Assad ones - claimed that they were more QA fighters. Anyway, what is your defination of an AQ faction? Just because a rebel is foreign, is anti-Wstern and is also against Assad and other secular Arab regimes, doesn't automatically make him AQ.....



The anti-Assad propoganda, the one that give the impression that the rebels are nice guys who never do atrocities [only the evil Alawites, we are led to believe, do nasty things ] and that outside powers want Assad gone mainly for democratic reasons and concerns for the long suffering Syrian people [read the ones who don't support Assad], is also ''staggering.''..............



Well that's your oponion and you're entitled to it. When it comes to the Middle East I don't rely too much on CNN and BBC, and lets not even mention folks like Fox News and NBC. On CNN and Fox News especially, some of the reporting they do appears that it was written for them by a spokesman from the State Department or the Pentagon - they only give half of the narrative and a subdued one sided one at that. For me, Al Jazeera English] offers a more balance account. Years ago when it strated out, Al Jazeera reported the Middle East in a way that other news networks didn't, they gave out both sides of the story in a way that CNN and BBC didn't bother doing. And I beg to differ, Al Jazeera doesn't encourage armed Jihad... Btw, Jihad can mean several things. Most people are under the impression that the term 'jihad' signifies armed action or struggle, which is not the case at all.

Concerning your first statement;

I agree. I made a mistake not clarifying my POV properly. What I meant was that the Mujahideen among the rebels are the best fighting units with much experience from Iraq and elsewhere. Other rebel units aren't as effective as the AQ ones.

Concerning your second statement;

I agree.

"
Well that's your oponion and you're entitled to it. When it comes to the Middle East I don't rely too much on CNN and BBC, and lets not even mention folks like Fox News and NBC. On CNN and Fox News especially, some of the reporting they do appears that it was written for them by a spokesman from the State Department or the Pentagon - they only give half of the narrative and a subdued one sided one at that. For me, Al Jazeera English] offers a more balance account. Years ago when it strated out, Al Jazeera reported the Middle East in a way that other news networks didn't, they gave out both sides of the story in a way that CNN and BBC didn't bother doing. And I beg to differ, Al Jazeera doesn't encourage armed Jihad... Btw, Jihad can mean several things. Most people are under the impression that the term 'jihad' signifies armed action or struggle, which is not the case at all.[/QUOTE]"

Oh, you meant AJ English! I was thinking you were speaking of the arab one. For me, I learned how to read and understand Arabic in an institute, part of my interest in global geopolitical issues, and so I've noticed how AJ in arabic is supportive of the jihadists and rebels and indirectly, al Qaeda. I'm afraid I can't link videos here, being a new member, so search on youtube for a video called "Al Jazeera journalists quit channel citing bias on Syria coverage" and "Former Al Jazeera Reporter on Libyan Coverage". Al Jazeera's coverage isn't directly supportive of Al Qaeda, but it doesn't condemn their actions and they're openly supportive of the rebels. Even if it doesn't encourage Jihad, it does encourage rebellion and revolts.

There are no more neutral sources of media in the world. And if there are any, like the case of AJ, they start out neutral to lure more people and finally achieve the purpose they were created for. AJ was built to change people's opinions for the revolts in the Arab Spring, and that's what it did. This kind of journalism began when the Americans realized that internal issues caused by media coverage of the Vietnam war limited their options, thus creating a 4th sphere of control, media.

I agree on your last statement. Jihad is misperceived by most to be armed struggle. In Islam, it's stated that Jihad can be in more than one form, intellectual Jihad, and the like.

 

[STURM]

Other rebel units aren't as effective as the AQ ones.

In recent times I can't think of any other rebel group that was more effective than Hezbollah. Their actions over a certain period led to Israel withdrawing from south Lebanon and in 2006 - yes they made lots of mistakes and had huge losses - they prevented the Israeli's from gaining their objectives. Hezbollah didn't win in 2006 but neither did Israel. When and how were AQ rebels effective? OBL did not acomplish his goal - that of forming a strictly Islamic state - in a single country and the Arab Spring showed that the Arab masses wanted something totally different to what OBL wanted them to have.

 

[Alex_David]

In recent times I can't think of any other rebel group that was more effective than Hezbollah. Their actions over a certain period led to Israel withdrawing from south Lebanon and in 2006 - yes they made lots of mistakes and had huge losses - they prevented the Israeli's from gaining their objectives. Hezbollah didn't win in 2006 but neither did Israel. When and how were AQ rebels effective? OBL did not acomplish his goal - that of forming a strictly Islamic state - in a single country and the Arab Spring showed that the Arab masses wanted something totally different to what OBL wanted them to have.

I said best fighters in all the rebel factions, not superior to their opponents.

 

[STURM]

I said best fighters in all the rebel factions, not superior to their opponents.

The only people who can actually say that with any certainty are the people fighting them. Reports have indicated that they are more ruthless than other factions and are far less likely to abandon positions even when outgunned and surounded; but that hardly makes them better in the strictest sense does it?

And I got what you meant, I didn't say that Hezbollah were ''better'' than the IDF but more effective than other organisations. Wit regards to Syria, I would hesitate to make any statements or pass judgements as to how effective certain groups are in relation to other, for the simple reason that we do not have sufficient proof or evidence.