Support NeoGAF

[Ether_Snake]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...el-forces-threatening-to-pursue-own-chemical/ (yes Foxnews, so who knows...)

The tape was reviewed by multiple analysts who said at the very least the rebels appeared to be issuing an ultimatum – if there was no military response to the attack by the West, they threatened to pursue their own chemical weapons.

Last year, President Obama described any use of chemical weapons in Syria as a “red line” that would warrant a response.

The four and a half minute video posted two days after the Aug. 21 Damascus attack features rebel commanders speaking while a black and white Islamist flag flies in the background.

"A big part of the problem here is the extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, basically have the best fighters, the best trainers, the best leaders for this type of jihad,” he said. “So even groups that are not extremist in nature tend to defer to them in the fighting because they're the most efficient.

"What we're seeing inside Syria right now is very much a replay of what happened in Iraq. In Iraq, we underestimated Al Qaeda's designs on the country and what they were trying to do."

Oh and another great article (two in fact):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...a-g20-showdown#block-5228ba7be4b0716040115ccf

The men were openly disdainful of the Free Syrian Army units, saying they were engaged in “tourism” well behind the front, and were also openly hostile to the Alawites, or Nusayris, as they called them. “Even the Shiites have declared them kuffar [nonbelievers],” said one. “They are all the same. They view us Sunnis as the enemy; they are all involved in the war against us,” said another. “They won’t want to stay here after this,” said a third, meaning after they’d swept through the villages. The men also mocked the Muslim Brotherhood as inadequately committed to its faith.

“We call the Muslim Brotherhood ‘whatever the audience wants,’ ” said Mohammad, the Syrian Islamist fighter. He wore green military camouflage pants and a black T-shirt bearing the Islamic shahada in white script. “If the people say they want Sharia, they say they want it. If the people say they want democracy, they say they want it. They just want power.”

The very concept of moderate Islam was false, Omar claimed. “There’s no such thing—it is a modern expression,” he said. “A moderate Islamist means an Islamist who walks with them, who agrees with them, with the Americans, the Europeans, and Iran.”

And the same journalist has another article also linked in that Guardian post:

Rania points to a follow-up read, a piece she wrote about a father from the region called Talal, an Alawite, whose village was attacked by rebels and then shelled by the army. Women and children were taken hostage. The hostages have appeared on video with a masked captor.

It wasn't until five or six days later that Talal learned his children were still alive, when his eldest child, a 13-year-old daughter, called him. He still isn't sure about his wife. His daughter told him she was fine and that her mother, two sisters and her brother were with her. But then, one of her captors took the phone and said Talal's wife was dead. Talal knows his children are alive because he saw his three youngest on a video uploaded to YouTube on Aug. 12. The 3 minute, 11 second clip shows the Alawite prisoners sitting along the perimeter of a roofed outdoor area. Talal did not see his eldest daughter or his wife among them.

edit: Another good article, which also comments on the same video: Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

While the jihadis claim to be superior fighters, and have collaborated with secular Syrian rebels, some analysts and diplomats also note that they can appear less focused on toppling President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, they said, they focus more on establishing a zone of influence spanning Iraq’s Anbar Province and the desert eastern areas of Syria, and eventually establishing an Islamic territory under their administration.

 

[zero shift]

More reason for us to get involved. Its apparent that both sides have no idea, let alone empathy, in how to progress this war. As usual we have to step in and show the world how its done.

 

[Emwitus]

I know this is a disdained opinion. But I still feel like AQ or some fringe unit inside the Syrian army was used to deploy the chemical weapons. Not to say Assad couldn't do it but only that it would be a strategically stupid move for him to do so. The comment on the red line might have had far wider implications than thought if you ask me.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I know this is a disdained opinion. But I still feel like AQ or some fringe unit inside the Syrian army was used to deploy the chemical weapons. Not to say Assad couldn't do it but only that it would be a strategically stupid move for him to do so. The comment on the red line might have had far wider implications than thought if you ask me.

Emwitus
false flags....
false flags everywhere
(Today, 04:06 PM)

There are a lot of people, even on GAF, who jumped to that conclusion as soon as the news of the attack broke. Just don't go off the deep end like Hym.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

More reason for us to get involved. Its apparent that both sides have no idea, let alone empathy, in how to progress this war. As usual we have to step in and show the world how its done.

Well this is convenient. The West has its hands tied narrative is hilarious.

 

[spineduke]

Well this is convenient. The West has its hands tied narrative is hilarious.

These chemical weapons have become a huge liability. What happens when Bashar can no longer secure them? Who knows where they'll end up, or where they'll be used.

 

[DiscoShark]

Fuck it. Freedom Missiles for everyone.

More reason for us to get involved. Its apparent that both sides have no idea, let alone empathy, in how to progress this war. As usual we have to step in and show the world how its done.

But it leaves a bad taste in your mouth doesn't it? Our justification for getting involved is to discourage the use of chemical weapons, chemical weapons that the rebel forces are now saying they themselves will potentially pursue if we don't make any sort of "military response". What happens when our response ultimately leaves us with Assad still securely in his spot as head of the country and the rebels are continuing to be slaughtered by more conventional means?

I fear that propping up people that are just as willing to obtain and use the weapons that Assad himself used will ultimately leave us with having accomplished nothing. But then I guess that's the whole tune of this entire song isn't it?

 

[Big Baybee]

I don't understand people who think the rebels did this. You can admit their government did it and still be against strikes in Syria.

 

[antonz]

These chemical weapons have become a huge liability. What happens when Bashar can no longer secure them? Who knows where they'll end up, or where they'll be used.

Which is why the whole thing is bullshit. If Assads regime falls boots have to hit the ground to ensure stockpiles aren't suddenly passed around to every extremist group in the region.

There is no winning in this situation. Kerry openly commented on the fact the Arab World has volunteered to pay for the entire invasion if the US will send forces in and overthrow Assad.

The US Military is becoming a mercenary for hire force.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Well this is convenient. The West has its hands tied narrative is hilarious.

It's hard to see how America gains anything by getting involved. It's easy to see why the rebel groups would want intervention on their side, but it's not so easy to see why Washington would want it, in light of how extremely unpopular it is at home and abroad, how likely it is that the new government will be just as unfriendly as the old one as well as the tough financial times. I don't think Obama wanted to get involved when he set the "red line", at least not openly.

 

[crozier]

Alan Grayson (D) came out and said that the intelligence Congess was provided had been manipulated in favor of military action. That coupled with Russia's 100-page report should give anyone pause right now.

The parallels to the build-up of Iraq are astounding (intelligence wise).

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...5/alan-grayson-syria-intelligence-manipulated

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

It's hard to see how America gains anything by getting involved. It's easy to see why the rebel groups would want intervention on their side, but it's not so easy to see why Washington would want it, in light of how extremely unpopular it is at home and abroad, how likely it is that the new government will be just as unfriendly as the old one as well as the tough financial times. I don't think Obama wanted to get involved when he set the "red line", at least not openly.

America has nothing to gain by intervening. This whole intervention smells of an incompetent President trying to show backbone because he prematurely drew a redline, forcing him into a situation that his opposition can't oppose because of the ridiculous popularity of the war mongering environment in America.

America can go ahead and take out the alleged chemical weapons being used. The war will continue, countless men, women and children will be slaughtered on both sides, and the stronger force, certainly not the moral one, will win.

 

[SRG01]

Alan Grayson (D) came out and said that the intelligence Congess was provided had been manipulated in favor of military action. That coupled with Russia's 100-page report should give anyone pause right now.

The parallels to the build-up of Iraq are astounding (intelligence wise).

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...5/alan-grayson-syria-intelligence-manipulated

There's not much he's saying outside of the usual talking points, aside from the fact that he's an anti-war politician... Also, I don't see any parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

 

[spineduke]

Most of the pressure to strike is coming from the arab states in the region - it truly disgusts me how little backbone there is in this region. Everything by proxy, that's how it's done here.

 

[antonz]

Most of the pressure to strike is coming from the arab states in the region - it truly disgusts me how little backbone there is in this region. Everything by proxy, that's how it's done here.

It's all Saudi Arabia. I cannot wait until that region of the world runs dry on oil so it can become irrelevant.

Been Articles of the Saudi's trying to play hardball with the Russians even suggesting Sochi Olympics might be in danger if the Russians don't play ball. Militant Fighters in Syria have nothing but Praise for Saudi's Intel Chief who has been linked to the threats to Russia and the weapon deliveries.

 

[Vagabundo]

America has nothing to gain by intervening. This whole intervention smells of an incompetent President trying to show backbone because he prematurely drew a redline, forcing him into a situation that his opposition can't oppose because of the ridiculous popularity of the war mongering environment in America.

America can go ahead and take out the alleged chemical weapons being used. The war will continue, countless men, women and children will be slaughtered on both sides, and the stronger force, certainly not the moral one, will win.

To be fair, who thought they would be stupid enough to use chemical weapons.

 

[spineduke]

It's all Saudi Arabia. I cannot wait until that region of the world runs dry on oil so it can become irrelevant.

Been Articles of the Saudi's trying to play hardball with the Russians even suggesting Sochi Olympics might be in danger if the Russians don't play ball. Militant Fighters in Syria have nothing but Praise for Saudi's Intel Chief who has been linked to the threats to Russia and the weapon deliveries.

I don't think its just Saudi, just take a look at the Arab League, it's a reflection of the politics at play in the region here. The majority of the financial backing is coming from there(Saudi), but there is a unified vested interest to counteract the Iranian's sphere of influence.

As much as you wish so, the idea of an Iran to have free reign in the region also terrifies me. The middle east is damned either way.

 

[xbhaskarx]

The very concept of moderate Islam was false, Omar claimed. “There’s no such thing—it is a modern expression,” he said. “A moderate Islamist means an Islamist who walks with them, who agrees with them, with the Americans, the Europeans, and Iran.”

These guys sound like real pleasant characters...
If chemical weapons are the red line, maybe we should wait until the rebels use them also, and then bomb the shit out of both sides.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I have no idea what I think about this anymore. It's one of those stupid "whoever wins, we lose" situations, isn't it? You'll have continued atrocities, no matter how this ends. Sucks.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There's not much he's saying outside of the usual talking points, aside from the fact that he's an anti-war politician... Also, I don't see any parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Iraq is everything, everything is Iraq.

 

[Ether_Snake]

It's hard to see how America gains anything by getting involved. It's easy to see why the rebel groups would want intervention on their side, but it's not so easy to see why Washington would want it, in light of how extremely unpopular it is at home and abroad, how likely it is that the new government will be just as unfriendly as the old one as well as the tough financial times. I don't think Obama wanted to get involved when he set the "red line", at least not openly.

US and SA have been employing the same tactic the US used against the USSR in the 80s. It's exactly the same. So it is obvious why the US wants to get involved; "rebels" are agents of change which can be used to weaken adversaries in the ME, ultimately weakening the region in case of an all out war (be it against Iran or whoever). SA have the role the Vatican had in 15th century Europe, not religiously but politically and diplomatically. The religion is just the tool.

But again there will be blowback. Makes you wonder, in a few years or decades, where those "rebels" will turn their attention to. My bet is against Saudi Arabia's royals and Israel.

Nothing has changed, it's the same situation that came out of Afghanistant post-Soviet era. Short-term thinking, more problems shoved to later.

 

[TCRS]

This is a ugly Sunni vs. Shia war with radical elements on both sides. I'm glad the House of Commons voted against a strike, there is nothing to be gained here. Just yesterday I saw in the news how rebels had executed captured Assad soldiers and threw their bodies into a well. The same if not worse probably happens on the other side. Ugly stuff.

 

[Liberty4all]

Emwitus
false flags....
false flags everywhere
(Today, 04:06 PM)

There are a lot of people, even on GAF, who jumped to that conclusion as soon as the news of the attack broke. Just don't go off the deep end like Hym.

Hym's still around or did he finally go too far?

=*(

 

[Advance_Alarm]

Skipping over the bombing and conclusion of the civil war, does anyone know what kind of political settlement and post-war government would be in store? I know for Lebanon the president, prime minister, and speaker have to be from different groups and the parliament has set representation for each group/religion/ethnicity.

 

[Giygas AF]

Since this is a no win situation. I will go with the side that doesn't spend US funds and put US troops in harms way.

 

[BowieZ]

Best not to get involved. Let Syria be fucking Syria and sort itself out.

Chemical weapons by either side is tragic, but there's not much that can actually be done about it.

 

[Ovid]

Ether you're right, it's Fox News. They're against any military action in Syria.

 

[andycapps]

Getting involved with a civil war has always gone really well for the US... The most I'd ever want us to do is launch a few missiles to destroy whatever chemical weapons they have and then that's it. No boots on the ground, no longterm conflict that we're embroiled in, etc.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Getting involved with a civil war has always gone really well for the US... The most I'd ever want us to do is launch a few missiles to destroy whatever chemical weapons they have and then that's it. No boots on the ground, no longterm conflict that we're embroiled in, etc.

This is pretty much what's being debated but people keep turning the argument into something bigger. Talking about "what ifs" instead of what's actually being proposed.

 

[Enron]

Alex Jones added to FoxNews lineup?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Someone needs to do something.

Too bad nobody in the region neighboring that nation will. Ridiculous, really.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Good luck for that Parliament vote, Obama

 

[Giygas AF]

Getting involved with a civil war has always gone really well for the US... The most I'd ever want us to do is launch a few missiles to destroy whatever chemical weapons they have and then that's it. No boots on the ground, no longterm conflict that we're embroiled in, etc.

The thing is is that Russia already has said that it will replace any military assets destroyed in targeted strikes. So, basically we will waste money on strikes that will only strengthen Syrian-Russian relations and inflame US-Russian relations.

 

[King_Moc]

This is pretty much what's being debated but people keep turning the argument into something bigger. Talking about "what ifs" instead of what's actually being proposed.

It's not particularly strange that people would have doubts about the USA's motives considering what their initial excuses for Iraq and Afghanistan were.

 

[Ether_Snake]

This is pretty much what's being debated but people keep turning the argument into something bigger. Talking about "what ifs" instead of what's actually being proposed.

So by omitting what happens following the attacks, it makes it a more acceptable plan?

Fact is rebels will commit massacres in villages. Christians will be hunted down along with other minorities.

This is all stupid. Look at how and why it all started to begin with.

 

[turbosnail]

It's hard to see how America gains anything by getting involved.

Russia/Iran lose an ally.

We gain an ally.

Politics.

 

[andycapps]

This is pretty much what's being debated but people keep turning the argument into something bigger. Talking about "what ifs" instead of what's actually being proposed.

Gotcha, I haven't followed it as closely as most here seem to have. I just don't want to see us getting involved in another war that we have no business being in.

The thing is is that Russia already has said that it will replace any military assets destroyed in targeted strikes. So, basically we will waste money on strikes that will only strengthen Syrian-Russian relations and inflame US-Russian relations.

I'm kind of apathetic as far as what we should do here, but basing our decision on what Russia may or may not do afterwards doesn't seem smart to me. As far as US/Russian relations, I'd be more concerned with them selling chemical weapons to a country that is known to have used them against it's citizens than caring about our current diplomatic relationship with Russia.

 

[Giygas AF]

Gotcha, I haven't followed it as closely as most here seem to have. I just don't want to see us getting involved in another war that we have no business being in.



I'm kind of apathetic as far as what we should do here, but basing our decision on what Russia may or may not do afterwards doesn't seem smart to me. As far as US/Russian relations, I'd be more concerned with them selling chemical weapons to a country that is known to have used them against it's citizens than caring about our current diplomatic relationship with Russia.

What can we do if they are selling them? They have already been helping Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons research in the past. It would be impossible to put sanctions on Russia due to their position on the UN security council, and it would only start a massive war if anything. I don't agree with what is going on in Syria, but our relationship to Russia is much more important to US national security, than assisting rebels.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Everyone is loving talking about Russia only right now. No one has the balls to speak of the Chinese position.

 

[Ingueferroque]

I know this is a disdained opinion. But I still feel like AQ or some fringe unit inside the Syrian army was used to deploy the chemical weapons. Not to say Assad couldn't do it but only that it would be a strategically stupid move for him to do so. The comment on the red line might have had far wider implications than thought if you ask me.

The timing of everything is just too perfect.

 

[Enron]

Everyone is loving talking about Russia only right now. No one has the balls to speak of the Chinese position.

Because Russia has been more vocal and has been sticking their finger in our eye a LOT recently.

 

[Marleyman]

Everyone is loving talking about Russia only right now. No one has the balls to speak of the Chinese position.

China hasn't come out as openly as Russia has though.

 

[andycapps]

What can we do if they are selling them? They have already been helping Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons research in the past. It would be impossible to put sanctions on Russia due to their position on the UN security council, and it would only start a massive war if anything. I don't agree with what is going on in Syria, but our relationship to Russia is much more important to US national security, than assisting rebels.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but letting countries get away with something because of Russia or China sets bad precedent, IMO. This is one of those times I'm glad I'm not the one in charge of making these kinds of decisions.

 

[Ty4on]

So by omitting what happens following the attacks, it makes it a more acceptable plan?

Fact is rebels will commit massacres in villages. Christians will be hunted down along with other minorities.

This is all stupid. Look at how and why it all started to begin with.

That's what is really worrying me.

I've asked myself what the effect of not doing anything will be though. I'm not in favor of attacking, but not doing anything doesn't seem much better at the moment. Fucking racism ruining lives everywhere.

 

[Sanky Panky]

I've asked myself what the effect of not doing anything will be though. I'm not in favor of attacking, but not doing anything doesn't seem much better at the moment. Fucking racism ruining lives everywhere.

The effects of not doing anything is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar don't get their gas deal done, so we will have yet another attack to try to rile support for intervension.

EDIT: Welp, that didn't take long. Bloomberg headline:

•SYRIA GOVT FORCES SHELL QABUN, DAMASCUS WITH GAS: AL-ARABIYA
•AL-ARABIYA CITES UNIDENTIFIED ACTIVISTS

Owned by Saudi Arabia of course.

The article in the OP just shows that the rebels are petulent children that were banking on this latest attack to involve the US. The plan is not going through as intended, so they are getting frustrated.

Saudi Arabia is probably fuming that we are not fighting their fight for them right now.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Because Russia has been more vocal and has been sticking their finger in our eye a LOT recently.

I really wish we could switch that back for once.

 

[kobashi100]

The effects of not doing anything is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar don't get their gas deal done, so we will have yet another attack to try to rile support for intervension.

EDIT: Welp, that didn't take long. Bloomberg headline:



Owned by Saudi Arabia of course.

The article in the OP just shows that the rebels are petulent children that were banking on this latest attack to involve the US. The plan is not going through as intended, so they are getting frustrated.

Saudi Arabia is probably fuming that we are not fighting their fight for them right now.

Think you will find that many rebel groups/battalions do not want America to get involved. They are not stupid and know America will use strikes on there positions.

These strikes proposed by the USA are not to remove Assad.. They dont want him using chemical weapons yes, but they have no problem with him remaining in power. They have failed to find a viable alternative and know fall well what is coming once Assad does go.

The pathetic SNC and Arab League want America to get involved!

 

[RoH]

Think you will find that many rebel groups/battalions do not want America to get involved. They are not stupid and know America will use strikes on there positions.

These strikes proposed by the USA are not to remove Assad.. They dont want him using chemical weapons yes, but they have no problem with him remaining in power. They have failed to find a viable alternative and know for well what is coming once Assad does go.

The pathetic SNC and Arab League want America to get involved!

I have a problem with what you said. They have openly stated that they do not was Assad in power and this will help the rebels.

 

[remist]

I have a problem with what you said. They have openly stated that they do not was Assad in power and this will help the rebels.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579051280341316034

Pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive Mr. Assad from power: "The big concern is the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of it," a senior military officer said.

The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn't want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn't want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides.

Some congressional officials said they were concerned the administration was edging closer to an approach privately advocated by Israel. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts they would be happy to see its enemies Iran, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and al Qaeda militants fight until they are weakened, giving moderate rebel forces a chance to play a bigger role in Syria's future.

 

[RoH]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579051280341316034

I stand corrected. Thanks

The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn't want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn't want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides.

This makes no sense those.

America to rebels: I want to make you stronger! but I don't want to help you win...
America to Assad: I want to make you weaker! but I don't want to help you lose...

Something's not right about that...