• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

East Lake

Member
Making Sense of the Syrian Rebels' Order of Battle

That's partially because of the multitude of smaller rebel groups, both within and outside the SMC's authority. The largest organization under the SMC banner is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF). "The [SILF] is the much more moderate alliance in Syria,"O'Bagy explains. "They have had to sign a code of conduct" and answer to the SMC's leadership.

Or at least they do most of the time. On August 22, four of the five commanders of the SMC's regional commands threatened to resign if they did not receive additional weapons and were not given greater license to work with more radical Islamist groups outside the SMC umbrella, something that has been practiced informally already.

Some of those groups comprise the Syrian Islamist Front. (That's the SIF, not to be confused with the SILF; you can see why the satirists at the Pan-Arabia Enquirer were reminded of the People's Front of Judea from Life of Brian.) The SIF is a more radical coalition that "has not formally joined the SMC," O'Bagy told FP. But, she noted, "there are a few battalions that associate with both. They'll say their part of both the SMC and the SIF."

...

The number of Syrian rebels is contested, but many experts agree their strength is their numbers. Or as Kenneth Pollack, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, wrote last month, "One way to understand the military dynamics of the Syrian civil war is to think of Jim Morrison and The Doors: 'They got the guns, but we got the numbers.'" O'Bagy says that, although the "identities [of rebel groups] are very fluid," she estimates there are approximately 80-100,000 rebels participating in offensive operations and protecting neighborhoods and towns, and that "the majority of those forces align with the SMC directly."

Approximately 10-15,000 rebels place themselves in the SIF camp. Estimates of the size of the al-Qaeda affiliated groups are also vague: Aaron Zelin, Richard Borow Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, estimates that 5-10,000 foreign jihadists have arrived in Syria, not to mention domestic recruits, while O'Bagy estimates that Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS supporters probably number in the 5-7,000 range.
Click to expand...

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/06/making_sense_of_the_syrian_rebels_order_of_battle

Helps distinguish beyond "rebels or terrorists".
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Btw, this interview was in the related videos section. It has Nick Hanauer debating libertardian, Peter Schiff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jk3fRC8kqs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ik_olERhOU

If you want a good laugh, check it out. Some real gems in there, like Nick's response to why Schiff can't buy a rocket that travels faster than light, or where Schiff claims he'll move to if we keep going down the path of soshulism.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Oblivion said:
Everyone should check this out when they get the chance. The Rise of the new global super-rich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6NKdnZvdoo
Click to expand...

Well, I think she's wrong in identifying globalization and technology as the reason for soaring income inequality. Business lobbying (unregulated campaign finance) is the main culprit. Flowing from that are changes in the tax code (huge reductions in tax rates on high incomes) and deregulation of the financial industry. Most of the top 1% are not brilliant entrepreneurs who capitalize on technology, as seems to be her premise. The majority are corporate executives and people in the financial industry.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
So apparently....only 7 percent of Republicans agree with the strategy of defunding the government as a way to get rid of Obamacare..

I...

Just...wow.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
empty vessel said:
Most of the top 1% are not brilliant entrepreneurs who capitalize on technology, as seems to be her premise.
Click to expand...

Really? I didn't get that impression.

So apparently....only 7 percent of Republicans agree with the strategy of defunding the government as a way to get rid of Obamacare..

I...

Just...wow.
Click to expand...

Got a link?

There was a poll a week or two ago by Kaiser, I think, that had that number around 30%, which was way lower than I thought it would be.
 
E

East Lake

Member
Something GAFers and jihadists can agree on.

"America is going to strike empty bases that are useless to the regime and this cosmetic strike will then be used as a front to go after us," said Suhaib, a 30-year-old fighter with the al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, in a Skype interview. "The Americans decided to destroy airports, arms and munitions factories, and scientific research centers when they realized that the honorable revolutionaries of the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists of the Islamist factions are on the verge of seizing them."

If there is one thing that Syria's diverse armed factions converge around, it's the nagging feeling that the United States wants to pull a fast one on them.

In extensive interviews, several rank-and-file fighters and high-ranking commanders expressed the fear that U.S. forces will sweep in at the very last moment, "stealing" the hard-fought Syrian revolution from them after all sides are sufficiently weakened and installing a pliable, hand-picked leadership in Damascus.

"There was never a single day in my entire life where I ever felt like I could trust the Americans or the West in general," said Abu Obaida, who leads a small battalion within the Ahrar al-Sham movement, a countrywide jihadist group that nevertheless maintains close ties to mainstream rebel groups. "This complete lack of trust comes from the strike on Iraq ... American forces seized the oil, brainwashed people's minds, took over state institutions, and they went in based on a pretext."

He scoffs at Obama's humanitarian arguments for embroiling the United States in the Syria conflict. With hundreds of people dying every day, he finds it odd that America would be moved to act by a single chemical weapons attack. It is merely an affectation, he believes, to dampen Americans' outrage about embroiling them in yet another military campaign in the Middle East.

"They left us to die for two years," he says. "So can I ask: What difference is there if there's blood or not? It is not a moral imperative for them. We all know that."

...

Even some of the rebel groups who were on the front lines of the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack, which the United States says killed over 1,400 people, are ambivalent about U.S. military intervention. Liwa al-Islam, a Salafist group that operates in the eastern Damascus suburbs, released a statement that warned darkly of the true American intentions behind intervening in Syria.

"What matters to us is the question of: Who will America target its strike against? And why choose this particular time?" the statement asked. "The Assad regime has used chemical weapons dozens of times and the U.S. did not move a finger. Have they experienced a sudden awakening of conscience or do they feel that the jihadists are on the cusp of achieving a final victory, which will allow them to seize control over the country? This has driven the U.S. to act in the last 15 minutes to deliver the final blow to this tottering regime so it can present itself as a key player and impose its crew which it has been preparing for months to govern Syria."

...

Jamal Maarouf, the leader of the Syrian Martyrs' Brigade, is considered one of the most prominent strongmen in the northern Idlib province. Maarouf's brigade includes more than 30,000 fighters, he says, which are now spread across most of Syria's provinces. In describing the U.S. motivation for intervention, he explains that the United States can invade a country in two ways -- by deploying its ground troops, or building up a local autocrat who it can control. In Syria, Maarouf says, Washington has opted for the latter option.

"The U.S. wants a pliant leadership that it can control remotely," he explains. "But who is capable of ruling this mess of a country when there are more than 200 armed factions currently fighting on the ground? That's why the U.S. did everything it could to prolong the conflict."

Maarouf believes the Americans are more than content to see droves of Islamists from Afghanistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Iraq flock to Syria, where they can all be conveniently eradicated at once.

"Here's what I think will happen: The U.S. strike will target the military airports, where the regime keeps its anti-aircraft missiles," he says. "Once that's taken care of, the Americans can send their drones, at will, to collect intelligence on the Islamist factions they want to get rid of. No one will notice as the war continues to rage on and the humanitarian crisis escalates. They think they are fooling us. No one has ever fooled us. But, unfortunately, what can we do about it?"

Such huge distrust of the United States, one might suspect, would make Maarouf hostile to the prospect of American "help" in his struggle against Assad. After all, he notes, none of the weapons promised to them months ago have arrived yet. But when asked if he supports the U.S. strike, Maarouf answers quickly.

"Definitely," he says. "I don't trust their intentions but, against my better instincts, I welcome this strike because they might at least damage the regime's military airports and, let's face it, the enemy of your enemy is your friend."

...

But despite the many potential downsides of American military action, many commanders see no other way to break the bloody military stalemate that currently grips the country. Col. Qassim Saad al-Din, a spokesperson for the FSA's military command who heads military operations in Homs province, doesn't share Maarouf's suspicions that Islamists are the real target of any upcoming U.S. strike.

"I am a 100 percent with the strike," he says. "We instructed all our commanders to be alert and ready to attack regime positions, security forces, and checkpoints. The strike is going to be limited but we will try to take advantage of it anyway."

Al-Din contends that all FSA battalions are coordinating with each other on how to exploit the aftermath of the strike, but they are not necessarily coordinating with Islamist factions. However, he is quick to add, "there is no tension between the FSA and Islamists either."

...

But the jihadists' belief that increased American involvement may isolate them from more moderate rebel factions no doubt weighs heavily on their minds -- and may inform their opposition to a U.S. strike. Abu Obaida, as a member of the Ahrar al-Sham movement, is aware that the Americans would likely never consider him a respectable interlocutor.

"We are tired of being referred to by terms pinned down by the West such as 'radicals, militants, extremists and fanatics,'" he complains. "We have given our organizations clear names. Why can't they at least use them?"
Click to expand...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...e_tomahawks_syrian_rebels_us_strikes?page=0,0
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
Really? I didn't get that impression.



Got a link?

There was a poll a week or two ago by Kaiser, I think, that had that number around 30%, which was way lower than I thought it would be.
Click to expand...

The republicans I speak to daily aren't very radical in that department. They don't like it but are just looking to repeal it, there isn't much appitite for having this apocalyptic battle about it. I'm not in the republican heartland though.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
In extensive interviews, several rank-and-file fighters and high-ranking commanders expressed the fear that U.S. forces will sweep in at the very last moment, "stealing" the hard-fought Syrian revolution from them after all sides are sufficiently weakened and installing a pliable, hand-picked leadership in Damascus.
Click to expand...

Installing pliable leadership is definitely the US end game. In Syria and anywhere else of any geopolitical importance that the opportunity arises.
 
R

remist

Member
APKmetsfan said:
WTF is this? This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8glEKH30M#t=70

Steve King, Bachman and Gohmert praising the Egyptian military government.

Gohmert compares General Sisi to George Washington :-/
Click to expand...

This is amazing. They are really laying it on thick.

Bachman
"We want to make sure you have the apache helicopters, the F16s, the equipment that you have so bravely used to capture terrorists and to take care of this menace that is on your border"-in reference to the Egyptian people.

"we remember who caused nine one one in America"-in reference to the Muslim Brotherhood

Gohmert
"We met in General Sisi, a man who is leader of the military, who might have a shot at being elected president, but is more concerned about giving his life to help his country, Egypt"-comparing Sisi to Washington

He goes on to quote Paine and Jefferson and compare the coup with the American revolution.

Steve King is the only one who even mentions, and only in passing, a new constitution or elections. The rest is just praise for Sisi and the Egyptian military and equating the previous government with terrorism.
 
S

Samk

Member
I feel like the Intervention in Syria is a nessisary deterance against the use of chemical weapons. Syrian rebels have already said they would pursue chemical weapons if there wasn't a response from the west. In the same way that a tit-for-tat feud between the McCoys and hatfields escalates into a generational conflict, a CW arms race is the logical conclusion to what happened in Syria. Hence the international norms against such weapons.

So yes, the McCoys and hatfields can continue feuding, but you can't use mortors and tanks.

Or at least this is how I see it.
 
R

remist

Member
Samk said:
I feel like the Intervention in Syria is a nessisary deterance against the use of chemical weapons. Syrian rebels have already said they would pursue chemical weapons if there wasn't a response from the west. In the same way that a tit-for-tat feud between the McCoys and hatfields escalates into a generational conflict, a CW arms race is the logical conclusion to what happened in Syria. Hence the international norms against such weapons.

So yes, the McCoys and hatfields can continue feuding, but you can't use mortors and tanks.

Or at least this is how I see it.
Click to expand...

Basing our policy in Syria on trying to appease the rebels who threaten to pursue chemical weapons is useless. If they are able to obtain and use CW, they are going to do so regardless of our policy. That is unless we want to put troops on the ground. And no one wants that.
 
S

Samk

Member
remist said:
Basing our policy in Syria on trying to appease the rebels who threaten to pursue chemical weapons is useless. If they are able to obtain and use CW, they are going to do so regardless of our policy. That is unless we want to put troops on the ground. And no one wants that.
Click to expand...

This is a classic realist/liberal distinction. "Do you want to live in a world where CW are used?" asks the liberal. "If it doesn't threaten my realitive power, who cares," answers the realist.

Also- what incentive would there be for the rebels to use CW if the west intervened?
 
R

remist

Member
Samk said:
This is a classic realist/liberal distinction. "Do you want to live in a world where CW are used?" asks the liberal. "If it doesn't threaten my realitive power, who cares," answers the realist.

Also- what incentive would there be for the rebels to use CW if the west intervened?
Click to expand...

Any western intervention is going to be so limited as to not seriously change the situation on the ground and just as likely to get Iran/Russia to send more support and up their stake in the game.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Samk said:
Syrian rebels have already said they would pursue chemical weapons if there wasn't a response from the west.
Click to expand...

I thought the smoking gun for knowing Assad did it was the fact that Assad was the only one capable.
 
S

Samk

Member
remist said:
Any western intervention is going to be so limited as to not seriously change the situation on the ground and just as likely to get Iran/Russia to send more support and up their stake in the game.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt this will go full Vietnam on us. Russia and China are too dependent on the dollar to intentionally tank the economy.

Again, very specifically the rational for intervention is the "punishing" of the use of chemical weapons. We're calling a foul on the play. If Assad does it again, it'll be even easier to form a,erm, "collation of the willing" to depose him.

I mean, we can argue if the US is a true economic hegemon, but it's the closest thing we have right now.
 
R

remist

Member
Samk said:
I highly doubt this will go full Vietnam on us. Russia and China are too dependent on the dollar to intentionally tank the economy.

Again, very specifically the rational for intervention is the "punishing" of the use of chemical weapons. We're calling a foul on the play. If Assad does it again, it'll be even easier to form a,erm, "collation of the willing" to depose him.

I mean, we can argue if the US is a true economic hegemon, but it's the closest thing we have right now.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what Russia does, the current proposal isn't going to tip the balance of this conflict. I don't trust the word of a few Islamist rebels that our limited strike is the only thing that is going to stop them from pursuing chemical weapons and starting an arms race.
 
S

Samk

Member
remist said:
Regardless of what Russia does, the current proposal isn't going to tip the balance of this conflict. I don't trust the word of a few Islamist rebels that our limited strike is the only thing that is going to stop them from pursuing chemical weapons and starting an arms race.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess you could argue that's an unknown. Agree to disagree: I don't see their incentive to go back on their word.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Jimothy said:
Question for Cheezmo, do you believe that US intervention will save lives or improve the situation in anyway?
Click to expand...

The unknown nature, scale, and specifics of any potential Western intervention means I can't really say. It all depends on what the answer to those three questions are (and more, most likely). Very complicated.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Random thought: Have you ever had those moments where you see something that's OBVIOUSLY bullshit, but you have people who do mental gymnastics and don't have common sense yet believe it anyhow?

Republican criticism of Obama is just...WTF. The list of things you could LEGITIMATELY critique him on are endless and yet they focus on the DUMBEST shit.


Or is it all just dog whistling which is why they ignore the main faults.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
Random thought: Have you ever had those moments where you see something that's OBVIOUSLY bullshit, but you have people who do mental gymnastics and don't have common sense yet believe it anyhow?

Republican criticism of Obama is just...WTF. The list of things you could LEGITIMATELY critique him on are endless and yet they focus on the DUMBEST shit.

Or is it all just dog whistling which is why they ignore the main faults.
Click to expand...
That's because a lot of the biggies are things they're implicitly (or explicitly) okay with, and unless a lot of America elects to get off the merry-go-round and vote third party, they can operate with certainty that sooner or later that chair of utmost privilege will fall to them again. Why repeal the big, dangerous bazooka when you're guaranteed playtime with it?
 
O

Owzers

Member
Cruz's Syria plan: Sell fighter planes to Taiwan to get back at China for not voting through action in the UN Security Council, do nothing in Syria.

And brings up Benghazi.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
It seems like Obama has never been so strong/defiant on something in his whole presidency. They're rolling out the red carpet for all interviews, state of the union etc. The amount of lobbying and attempting to convince the public over something so dumb.

Imagine Obama doing all this for single payer healthcare or free college education like he would if he was a progressive, lol priorities.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Angry Fork said:
It seems like Obama has never been so strong/defiant on something in his whole presidency. They're rolling out the red carpet for all interviews, state of the union etc. The amount of lobbying and attempting to convince the public over something so dumb.

Imagine Obama doing all this for single payer healthcare or free college education like he would if he was a progressive, lol priorities.
Click to expand...

You must not have been around for the Healthcare Debate....or his Jobs plan....or the Stimulus....or his first 100 Days...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
You must not have been around for the Healthcare Debate....or his Jobs plan....or the Stimulus....or his first 100 Days...
Click to expand...
You mean the healthcare debate where he sat back and didn't do anything for weeks as the far right went insane during that first September/August, and by the time he decided to address the public it was too late? Bungled to the point where even in 2013 most people don't know how it works? By the guy who has Hollywood on speed dial yet never thought "hey why don't we get some writers and producers to create viral videos to help sell/explain this thing."
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
gutter_trash said:
http://globalnews.ca/news/826316/al...w-control-syrian-christian-village-activists/


These rebel groups linked to terrorists are the reasons why I am OPPOSED to US intervention in Syria.

Yeah yeah yeah, I heard Kerry say ''no boots on the ground'' but isn't Al-Qaida enemy #1? Why aid them?
Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone assumes any Western action will target the Jihadis. Even they themselves think it's all just to go after them (which isn't as nutty as you might think). It just winds me up when people go AMERIKKKA HELPING AL QAEDA!!. Someone should tell them that. It's stupid, unless you think the US wants late-90s Afghanistan on Europe's border.

As an aside, the people involved in the operation on the town expicitly made statements that they would not target minorities. Plus, after they took the town they mostly withdrew (because the town itself isn't useful, the area around it is) and the Syrian government then flung some artillery and air sorties that way. So keep that in mind if a few weeks down the line people are spreading images of damaged churches or something.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
PhoenixPause said:
You mean the healthcare debate where he sat back and didn't do anything for weeks as the far right went insane during that first September/August, and by the time he decided to address the public it was too late? Bungled to the point where even in 2013 most people don't know how it works? By the guy who has Hollywood on speed dial yet never thought "hey why don't we get some writers and producers to create viral videos to help sell/explain this thing."
Click to expand...

At what point in time do you think him voicing whatever he was going to say would've changed the outcome? What we got was doomed to happened regardless. The power of hindsight and all that.

He had to get his party on board (which need I remind you, aren't even close to being half-way as hiveminded as the GOP) AND deal with the stupidity of the right. Yet shit still got passed. Is it SP? Not even fucking close. But is it a step in the right direction that can be improved with subsequent Democratic administrations? You'd have to make extreme mental gymnastics to not think so.
 
S

Samk

Member
Ceylon said:
Don't you see that a response from the West would be the single best way to ensure the rebels pursue a campaign of chemical attacks?
Click to expand...

Playground metaphor: Two kids get into an argument. They're both shitty kids, but one decides to use a spitball. The other quickly informs the teacher, who takes away the said spitball device. What would be the incentive for the kid who tattled to then use a spitball? Especially since he just buddied up with the teacher.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I found this article very interesting.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...vote-early-vote-often-in-recall-ele/?page=all

I live in Denver and, according to the article, could make the hour drive to vote in these elections if I wanted to even if I don't live in Colorado Springs or Pueblo.

But seriously am I really going to believe a bunch of voter ID hungry republicans and biased sites like Washington Times, and risk breaking the law? I'm not going to risk going to jail over a single vote.

Now if I were a conservative that completely believes anything that those types bring up, might I go out and commit voter fraud? I think I probably would. Makes me think if there really was a lot of voter fraud going on, most of it would be republicans.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
thepotatoman said:
I found this article very interesting.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...vote-early-vote-often-in-recall-ele/?page=all

I live in Denver and, according to the article, could make the hour drive to vote in these elections if I wanted to even if I don't live in Colorado Springs or Pueblo.

But seriously am I really going to believe a bunch of voter ID hungry republicans and biased sites like Washington Times, and risk breaking the law? I'm not going to risk going to jail over a single vote.

Now if I were a conservative that completely believes anything that those types bring up, might I go out and commit voter fraud? I think I probably would. Makes me think if there really was a lot of voter fraud going on, most of it would be republicans.
Click to expand...
Republicans know so much about voting fraud because they're the ones doing much of it
Just saw this the other day:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/sebastian-bradley-votes_n_3880965.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X (twitter) is now worth 9.4 billion
Business 2
96
4K
Trogdor1123 replied
Jensen Huang's net worth passes Intel's market cap
Business
34
1K
Hawking Radiation replied
Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
675
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
535
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Top Bottom