Skip to main content

View Diary: Regarding the Syrian Rebels III (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unlike a Cream Puff, I am not so (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Euroliberal, mosesfreeman

    easily sold on the "legitimacy"  of your definitions of these groups. You see, your definitions "mirror" our governments "official" descriptions of these so-called Rebels and Freedom Fighters.  What the writer of this does not tell you is that this whole Syrian rebellion  is being bankrolled by Saudi Arabia (you know the guys who gave us 15 of the 19  9/11 hijackers) and sold to the American public via an army of PR firms and Corporate Media propaganda. The road to Iran is through Syria; pay attention people.

    •  I stay with clear information. (26+ / 0-)

      If you read some of my comments you'll see that I mention Saudi involvement.

      For example:

      And if you read SoS Kerry's past statements you will see that he always puts a very positive spin on the opposition.

      I write what I know.

      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 09:21:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you're paying better attention (9+ / 0-)

      you should share the sources of your information, of which you feel so proud of yourself for having obtained.

    •  So let me see if I get this right (15+ / 0-)

      The diverse organizations and individuals who make up the Syrian opposition are (a) all on the payroll of the Saudis and (b) incapable of thinking or acting independently of their Saudi masters.

      And you know this because you read it somewhere.

      Some of the groups backed by the Saudis are stronger than others because they get more funding. Also the Saudis tend to fund groups who are closer to Saudi religious leaders and who have previous connections in Saudi Arabia. But that's not the entire opposition. In fact some if the Saudi- backed militias have executed some if the more moderate opposition members. The problem is not that the Syrian opposition are all Saudi tools, but that the Saudis, for their own reasons, are backing some of the worst elements of the opposition.

      Now you may feel that the US should not back more moderate groups. Fine, that's a legitimate position to take. But it seems a bit reductionist to come into a diary that talks about the diversity of the opposition and claim that this is all a big conspiracy to start a war with Iran. You're writing about the US, not Syria, and it's probably a mistake to presume that everyone in Syria is a naive tool of some bigger power.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure there's all sorts of intrigue involving (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Texas Lefty, highacidity

      the Sauds and al Qaeda and other Islamists, as well as Turkey, the Kurds, Israel, etc.

      However, the fact is that tens of thousands of peaceful protestors were out in the streets.
      That's what started this. Then in reaction to the violence against the people, regime officials and military officers began defecting in droves.

      I find it very hard to believe that the Saudis could effectively bankroll enough agents provocateur to create these massive peaceful demonstrations in spite of Syrian army machine guns and tanks.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 01:32:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There were protest marches both for and against (0+ / 0-)

        the Assad regime. The reasons for the demonstrations had more to do with the current economic conditions and the three year drought that forced 800,000 from the rural areas into the cities in search of work. Unemployment was running higher than 50% for the youth.

        The drought did not affect the city dwellers as much as the rural poor, especially around Homs. That is why you saw massive protest for Assad in the larger cities and protests against in the smaller towns and more rural areas. The Western media focused mainly on the smaller protests against.

        The peaceful demonstrations did not remain that way for long. Within several weeks, there were killings on both sides - the protesters AND the police. The army moved in when a number of police buildings were raided and burned down.

        It escalated on a tit-for-tat basis exacerbated by the heavy response from the government forces.

        Reporters from al Jazeera filmed heavily armed fighters crossing the border with Lebanon within weeks of the first protest but the footage and story was silenced by Qatari owners and never aired. They resigned in protest.

        The Saudis has also supplied a mosque  with hundreds of weapons within weeks of the protests and these were given out to protestors.

        In addition, there were reliable reports of CIA and Saudi involvement in funneling arms along the Turkish border within months of the beginning of protests.

        It is very easy for agents provocateur to incite violence in any demonstration. The Saudis and Qataris have very deep pockets. They have spent billions arming their respective groups within Syria. According to Kerry, the Saudis have offered to pay the entire bill if the US went in like Iraq. Kerry said no. One of the reasons the Gulf oil producers can afford to do this is because every dollar increase in oil gives them hundreds of millions of dollars more per day. If the US attacks Syria just like they did Iraq, the price of oil would jump at least $20. At this rate, the Gulf oil kingdoms could fund the war 4 times over.

        The US took advantage of the situation to depose the Assad regime. They miscalculated events badly. Now they will pay.

        Here's the basic game plan.

        Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects, and Implications for the US Army

        Divide and Rule

        Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces. Divide and Rule would be the obvious strategy choice for the “Narrowing of Threat” trajectory as the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace.
        Narrowing of Threat

        Because of the nature of the nationalist terrorist groups, any assistance would be mainly covert and would imply advanced IO capabilities so that it could aid other government agencies and host nations in the effort to promote cleavages within the jihadist movement. Much of this work would not necessarily be done by the Army.

    •  Saying that the whole thing is the Saudis is wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity, InAntalya

      There are a lot of different groups and while the Saudis have a role with some of them there are plenty of other groups that are not Saudi. Not to mention the fact that not all of the groups funded by the Saudis are necessarily bad. The US has done some horrible things, should every group the US fund be considered bad? This sort of false dichotomy is nonsense. There are plenty of real revolutionary groups in Syria that have legitimate grievances, you're trying to paint them as being some sort of pro-Saudi terrorist riff-raff, and that's flat out wrong.

      Here's a Syrian talking about this false dichotomy about rebels.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site