Why Are We Backing So Called Moderate Rebels Fsa Who Are Working With Al Nusra (aq)?

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2010
51,845
12,821
2,220
Piney
Obama seems intent on deposing Assad no matter what. FSA has been working with Al Nusra in the south and yet Obama continues to talk about arming only the so called moderate rebels.

Here's the explanation for the tag teaming.

“They offer their services and cooperate with us, they are better armed than we are, they have suicide bombers and know how to make car bombs,” an FSA fighter explained.

This is crazy. This is whacked out.


"ISTANBUL // Jabhat Al Nusra, the Sunni Islamist rebel group with links to Al Qaeda, has been quietly expanding its activities in southern Syria, working alongside western- and Arab-backed rebels in military operations aimed at ousting the regime of President Bashar Al Assad.

Al Nusra and other radical Islamist groups have dominated the anti-Assad insurgency in the north and east of Syria but until recently, they have been less numerous in Deraa and elsewhere in southern Syria.

While refraining from calling public attention to their activities, Al Nusra is now rising in the south. Its fighters have entered into secret, ad hoc and often uneasy alliances with units of the more moderate, western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA).

“They offer their services and cooperate with us, they are better armed than we are, they have suicide bombers and know how to make car bombs,” an FSA fighter explained.

Many FSA commanders and secular opponents of Mr Al Assad and his regime refused to talk about Al Nusra, saying the group was irrelevant in Deraa, a tribal area with a tradition of moderate Islam. But others admitted that Al Nusra’s role in fighting in southern Syria is far greater than publicly acknowledged.

“The FSA and Al Nusra join together for operations but they have an agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don’t want to frighten Jordan or the West,” said an activist who works with opposition groups in Deraa."

Syria s western-backed rebels get helping hand from Islamist fighters The National
 
You want to withdraw, suffer the world wide economic consequences, and shift to 100% energy independence.

You will have to convince wall street, td.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

Assad has lost that territory because we in the west stuck our nose where it didn't belong in the beginning of this bullshit called the Arab Spring and we backed faux rebels in Syria who in reality were paid mercenaries and terrorists.

Think about this. If the west invades Syria's airspace it will be duly noted that this is an act of extreme aggression.

Expect all hell to break loose.
 
Why is staying out of it not an option ?


because after decades of "being in it" our moron politicians haven't learned a damn thing about fighting third world pukes who would just as soon strap a bomb on their ass and blow themselves to hell and back as they had drink a Coke..

makes ZERO sense.
 
Assad lost it because he lost his mandate to govern - he turned on his own people brutally. I don't think who we supported would have made much of a difference unless we outright supported Assad from the start. Not all the rebels are "terrorists" v - there are a lot of different groups in there and a lot of foreign fighters.

We can not legally support Assad based on his human rights violations. At this point - Syria is a failed state and a potential terrorist refuge. So - again - what do we do? Would have been better if Congress had authorized action a year ago but they wouldn't.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.

It was a huge mistake. Saddam's Iraq was stable under Saddam and the sanctions - our invasion of Iraq precipitated the current crisis going on now. Syria, right now - is in chaos and that is threatening the entire region. I'm not sure it's comparable to Saddam.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.

It was a huge mistake. Saddam's Iraq was stable under Saddam and the sanctions - our invasion of Iraq precipitated the current crisis going on now. Syria, right now - is in chaos and that is threatening the entire region. I'm not sure it's comparable to Saddam.

So who will ultimately control Syria should Assad be deposed ? Some fanatic group of rebels ? Assad was pretty solid until certain countries decided that it was time for him to go ( including the US )
 
Assad lost it because he lost his mandate to govern - he turned on his own people brutally. I don't think who we supported would have made much of a difference unless we outright supported Assad from the start. Not all the rebels are "terrorists" v - there are a lot of different groups in there and a lot of foreign fighters.

We can not legally support Assad based on his human rights violations. At this point - Syria is a failed state and a potential terrorist refuge. So - again - what do we do? Would have been better if Congress had authorized action a year ago but they wouldn't.

A year ago everything was put on hold because Putin stepped in and agreed to mediate the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.

It was a huge mistake. Saddam's Iraq was stable under Saddam and the sanctions - our invasion of Iraq precipitated the current crisis going on now. Syria, right now - is in chaos and that is threatening the entire region. I'm not sure it's comparable to Saddam.

So who will ultimately control Syria should Assad be deposed ? Some fanatic group of rebels ? Assad was pretty solid until certain countries decided that it was time for him to go ( including the US )

Was he?

I'm not sure.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.

It was a huge mistake. Saddam's Iraq was stable under Saddam and the sanctions - our invasion of Iraq precipitated the current crisis going on now. Syria, right now - is in chaos and that is threatening the entire region. I'm not sure it's comparable to Saddam.

So who will ultimately control Syria should Assad be deposed ? Some fanatic group of rebels ? Assad was pretty solid until certain countries decided that it was time for him to go ( including the US )

Was he?

I'm not sure.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have thrown BILLIONS at him over the last few years and they were begging us to do the same. It's why McCain was so pissed at Obama ( and Hillary too ). Obama was hesitant to arm the so called good rebels. Do you envision stability if he goes and if so, which group will rule Syria ?
 
Assad lost it because he lost his mandate to govern - he turned on his own people brutally. I don't think who we supported would have made much of a difference unless we outright supported Assad from the start. Not all the rebels are "terrorists" v - there are a lot of different groups in there and a lot of foreign fighters.

We can not legally support Assad based on his human rights violations. At this point - Syria is a failed state and a potential terrorist refuge. So - again - what do we do? Would have been better if Congress had authorized action a year ago but they wouldn't.

You've got to be kidding me. Who are we to say he has lost his mandate to govern? Who are we to interfere like we did in Egypt and Libya and the Ukraine? All but Egypt have turned into FUBAR'D states because they threw out the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hell's bells the Islamic jihadists are having a pool party at the US Embassy in Tripoli as we post and are on the verge of taking over 1/5th of the world's oil.

Ukraine is in the middle of a civil war because we backed a coup overthrowing a duly elected President and his party.

AND the US has been meddling in Syria from the get go. The CIA has been working with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to smuggle weapons to faux rebels.

Oh and guess who was smuggling the weapons in to the faux moderate rebels?

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. What could possibly go wrong?

But the biggest question of all Coyote is when we know damn well that the FSA is working with Al Nusra what the hell are we doing working with groups linked to AQ?

Because we don't like Assad? Because we don't like his human rights record?

Well hells bells why did Obama have all the dictators with abhorrent human rights records from Africa to the WH ?

Why doesn't the US just go into their countries and throw those dictators out too?

Why does America take loans from China?

There could be a million why questions and no answers.

ETA: I don't expect you to give me the answers :). Just throwing out the questions.
 
Last edited:
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.

It was a huge mistake. Saddam's Iraq was stable under Saddam and the sanctions - our invasion of Iraq precipitated the current crisis going on now. Syria, right now - is in chaos and that is threatening the entire region. I'm not sure it's comparable to Saddam.

So who will ultimately control Syria should Assad be deposed ? Some fanatic group of rebels ? Assad was pretty solid until certain countries decided that it was time for him to go ( including the US )

Was he?

I'm not sure.

For true he was. I hate to put it this way, but as far as dictators go he's a champ. Assad has protected all religions in Syria. An excellent track record.

He's not your average street thug dime a dozen dictator.
 
td, lot of talk, girl, but no walk.

What's your advice? What do we, the US, do?
 
td, lot of talk, girl, but no walk.

What's your advice? What do we, the US, do?

Learn the lessons of past failures. Stop trying to depose Assad. Tell Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to back off Syria,

Let Assad handle the two terror groups.

Why on earth the US/Canada/Britain et al want to continue this charade that this is a popular uprising is bizarre.

I hope and pray they back off trying to remove Assad from power. There are no moderate rebels. Al Nusra and ISIS are the key players trying to take over the country.

Neither will stand to be ruled by this idiotic "National Coalition" in Qatar.The Coalition is a pathetic joke and will not stand a chance of leading a "democratic" state with AN or IS.
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.

It was a huge mistake. Saddam's Iraq was stable under Saddam and the sanctions - our invasion of Iraq precipitated the current crisis going on now. Syria, right now - is in chaos and that is threatening the entire region. I'm not sure it's comparable to Saddam.

So who will ultimately control Syria should Assad be deposed ? Some fanatic group of rebels ? Assad was pretty solid until certain countries decided that it was time for him to go ( including the US )

Was he?

I'm not sure.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have thrown BILLIONS at him over the last few years and they were begging us to do the same. It's why McCain was so pissed at Obama ( and Hillary too ). Obama was hesitant to arm the so called good rebels. Do you envision stability if he goes and if so, which group will rule Syria ?

I am not saying arming the rebels is necessarily a "good thing". What I'm saying is we are faced with a situation where all you have are bad choices and the option to "do nothing" is probably the worst of them.

So again - what should we do? Is it in our best interest to let Syria and Iraq become a terrorist refuge for a genocidal extremist group?
 
Who should we back?

Assad has lost control of a substantial portion of his country and is not likely to to regain it. He's brutalized his own people. Doing nothing is not an option.

The same could be said for Saddam yet now everyone claims it was a huge mistake.

It was a huge mistake. Saddam's Iraq was stable under Saddam and the sanctions - our invasion of Iraq precipitated the current crisis going on now. Syria, right now - is in chaos and that is threatening the entire region. I'm not sure it's comparable to Saddam.

So who will ultimately control Syria should Assad be deposed ? Some fanatic group of rebels ? Assad was pretty solid until certain countries decided that it was time for him to go ( including the US )

Was he?

I'm not sure.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have thrown BILLIONS at him over the last few years and they were begging us to do the same. It's why McCain was so pissed at Obama ( and Hillary too ). Obama was hesitant to arm the so called good rebels. Do you envision stability if he goes and if so, which group will rule Syria ?

I am not saying arming the rebels is necessarily a "good thing". What I'm saying is we are faced with a situation where all you have are bad choices and the option to "do nothing" is probably the worst of them.

So again - what should we do? Is it in our best interest to let Syria and Iraq become a terrorist refuge for a genocidal extremist group?

They are squatting on Syrian and Iraqi territory. Neither Syria nor Iraq want them there. We are willing to help Iraq fight them off. We are even willing to help the Kurds fight them off yet Obama feels the need to overthrow Assad in the midst of everything when Assad is actually fighting ISIS too. And in their OWN COUNTRY. Even Russia and China hinted at offering support if Obama wasn't so intent on deposing Assad.
 
You've got to be kidding me. Who are we to say he has lost his mandate to govern? Who are we to interfere like we did in Egypt and Libya and the Ukraine? All but Egypt have turned into FUBAR'D states because they threw out the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our interference was pretty minimal - however, what makes you think our interference would have made much difference in the outcome? The people, on mass, were taking a page from Iraq's playbook and had decided they had enough of a dictatorship. I think it would have happened regardless.


Hell's bells the Islamic jihadists are having a pool party at the US Embassy in Tripoli as we post and are on the verge of taking over 1/5th of the world's oil.

Ukraine is in the middle of a civil war because we backed a coup overthrowing a duly elected President and his party.

Again - our involvement was minimal - nothing beyond statements (also made by a number of other nations) - you can't draw a causal relationship there. What has happened was going to happen - Putin was determined to destabalize Ukraine, take Crimea and possibly Eastern Ukraine and nothing we said would have made any difference in his plans. Remember too - Egypt's MB was a duly elected administration. So do you pick and choose?

AND the US has been meddling in Syria from the get go. The CIA has been working with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to smuggle weapons to faux rebels.

Oh and guess who was smuggling the weapons in to the faux moderate rebels?

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. What could possibly go wrong?

But the biggest question of all Coyote is when we know damn well that the FSA is working with Al Nusra what the hell are we doing working with groups linked to AQ?

Because we don't like Assad? Because we don't like his human rights record?

At this point - I don't know and that is the dilemma with Syria. I was listening to the radio this morning. Assad needs to get back to the negotiating table but the big question is - with who? Who IS the other side? There is no other side - only a multitude of vying groups.

Again - all we have are a lot of bad choices, but with the entire region at great risk of destabilization - not just one country - I think we need to do something or it will continue to spread. Right now - with everything Assad has done to his people - backing him without some sort of compromises would be suicidal in the long run.

Well hells bells why did Obama have all the dictators with abhorrent human rights records from Africa to the WH ?

He didn't have "abhorrent human rights records from Africa" to the WH. He had a couple.

Btw, I agree - human rights issues have always been "optional" when it comes to the US dealing with foreign leaders. They pick and choose which dictators to support and which to not support and it's not just Obama. But I think that Assad has gone to far to be able to support without serious repercussions to our long term interests.

Why doesn't the US just go into their countries and throw those dictators out too?

Why does America take loans from China?

There could be a million why questions and no answers.

ETA: I don't expect you to give me the answers :). Just throwing out the questions.

:)

The answers are - it only matters to the extent it affects our strategic interests. Political realities....and no real answers :(
 

Forum List

Back
Top