"13 Syrian rebel groups defect from pro-Western coalition" Topic

Seems those "moderate" Syrian rebels Uncle Sam wants to fight ISIS see US bombing campaign as acting for Assad.

As such 13 such groups have left pro-Western Syrian National Coalition.

slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/10/01/syria_airstrikes_bashar_al_assad_is_the_u_s_losing_the_country_s_moderate.html

So to summarise:

1. West is anti-fundamentalist Syrian rebels.
2. West is anti-Assad
3. West wants "moderate" Syrian rebel groups to fight ISIS.
4. "Moderate" rebel groups want to fight Assad.
5. Western action in Syria is seen as pro-Assad and is alienating pro-Western moderate groups.
6. West is training 5,000 rebels in Saudi Arabia. Where do their allegiances belong?

Clear as mud?

What is that saying about trying to make bricks without straw? Reminds me of the Middle East.

6. West is training 5,000 rebels in Saudi Arabia.

Oh jeez, that's a good call. Might as well send folks to madrassas in Waziristan.

"Yeah, so if you plant the explosives in this fashion, you'll be sure to do maximum damage and…hey, you guys won't ever use this training against us, right? Oh."

Stop thinking about it and you'll feel better.

This was posted in to the Daily Mail and has been doing the rounds

‘Clear As Mud'

"Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle-East? Let me explain. We support the Iraqi government in its fight against Islamic State (IS/ISIL/ISIS). We don't like IS but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia whom we do like. We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

"We don't like Iran, but the Iranian government supports the Iraqi gov't against IS. So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting our other enemies, whom we don't want to lose, but we don't our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

"If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less. And, all this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went in to drive them out – do you understand now?"

Nice one Chortle.

That's the best summary I've seen yet.

Oh jeez, that's a good call. Might as well send folks to madrassas in Waziristan.

Think of the number of home grown terrorists who were indoctrinated in Saudi funded wahabi mosques (is it 100%?). We have administrations that can't, or don't want to, deal with our problematic allies. They can continue creating, or inventing, new enemies until we get new leadership. It is counter productive to fight enemies abroad until the home front is stable.

It is counter productive to fight enemies abroad until the home front is stable.

It's also counterproductive to fight enemies abroad if those enemies are being continuously created by our supposed "allies" and if we ourselves occassionally help those enemies out by providing them with anything from arms and training to air support (Libya).

West is currently directly responsible for turning Iraq, Libya and Syria into failed states full of the same types we're apparently waging a war on. The West is responsible for Mali becoming infested with Al Qaeda. The West is also responsible for terrorism at home by letting these same types emigrate to Western countries all in the name of some misguided "multiculturalism".

Such costly myopia.

Supporting both sides in a conflict isn't exactly unprecedented. During the 1980's until the Iran-Contra scandal, the US supported both Iraq and Iran in their eight-year war of attrition.

The real winner is the Military-Industrial Complex. I mean, all those bombs and missiles used in airstrikes have to be replaced, right?

The real winner is the Military-Industrial Complex. I mean, all those bombs and missiles used in airstrikes have to be replaced, right?

I'm reading a book which discusses various wars then lists the owners of related mining and industrial firms, together with those who led the war in government, the military and intelligence services. It is amazing how closely related they all are.

Chortle: would that book be "The Power Elite" by C Wright Mills?

This is "The World Order, A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism" by Eustace Mullins. I am only on p61. I will have to look up the book which you mention. Thanks.

The day a Western military unit is on the ground and helps out Assad is the day I start making sense of it all.
Almost 2 terms of appeasement and heads nodding in the wind.
If you look to the problem right there, it's the country with the green flag with writing actually stating their intentions for all to see.
Humph! {:(

Im not going to join slate just to see the article..And I don't think any rebel groups would be crowing about turning anti western Until after they had received the Billions of dollars of weapons that are coming their way so I guess the 13 groups alleged to have defected (have we ever known who's side they were on )Must have gotten the weapons already.

Chortle, that is a clear and succinct description of the situation. Also, now we have the Turks involved, who don't like IS, don't like Assad, don't like the Kurds either, and aren't often happy with the USA.

moslems joining fanatical islamists because they have more in common than with the Infidels/Crusaders … Hmmm ? And this is puzzling why ? Once again, how can one tell moslems from islamists ? Is it like the old saying from Vietnam ? A Vietnamese who runs is VC, a Vietnamese who doesn't run is a well disiplined VC …

An old saying from Vietnam? Or a line from a Stanley Kubrick film?

You choose.

And isn't an islamist a muslim and not a distinct thing?

An old saying from Vietnam? Or a line from a Stanley Kubrick film?

That may well be a line from Full Metal Jacket. However, while I was on active duty as an Infantry Officer. I heard something like that or very similar. After serving in 4 Infantry Bns worldwide. It certainly sounds like something a Grunt would say. Typical GI dark humor … You ever serve in an Infantry unit ? If you have you'd know what I'm talking about

And isn't an islamist a muslim and not a distinct thing?

I guess I should have made things clearer. It's hard to tell a "FANATICAL" islamist then just a non-jihadist non-terrorist moslem type. As normally they wear similar or the same attire. It's hard to tell which is which. And in some cases it could be too late, once you know for sure. Insurgent urban warfare is the worst of both worlds … and can get very mess …

Legion4 you do realize that Full Metal Jacket was satire??

MASH was a satire, Full Metal Jacket was a fairly accurate depiction of Grunts in combat. There may have been some moments of satire and/or GI dark gallows humor, etc. … But generally it was pretty accurate about the subject, actions and soldiers it portrays. I invite you to find anywhere it this discussion of the movie where is mentions the film was "satire" – link You never were in an Infantry unit were you ?

'Im not going to join slate just to see the article..'

You don't have to join to see the article.