Syria: U.S. Creates New Gang - Ignatius Doubles Insurgent Numbers
Purposely leaked form the Obama administration to the Washington Post:The United States and Jordan have stepped up training of Syrian opposition forces that may be used to establish a buffer zone along Syria’s southern border, according to U.S. and Jordanian officials.The leak to the Post is message to AIPAC and other hawks who are increasingly impatient with the progress in Syria. The U.S. is training its own gang for creating safe zones in Syria on behalf of Israel and Jordan who do not want the conflict to further cross their borders.
...
Jordanian security officials said a previous timetable to complete training of about 3,000 Free Syrian Army officers by the end of June has been moved up to the end of this month in light of the border victories.
...
“Buffer zones on the Syrian side of the border is the only way to keep the conflict away from Jordan,” said Mahmoud Irdaisat, head of the Amman-based Center for Strategic Studies at the King Abdullah II Defense Studies Academy
...
Rebel officials who say they have taken part in the U.S.-Jordanian training at a Jordanian military base say they are being prepared to maintain the zones using surface-to-air missiles and heavy artillery without military invention from outside forces.
...
Several senior Israeli military officials have voiced support for buffer zones.
The U.S. hopes to have vetted those gang members enough to trust them with manpads. Good luck with that. How these troops are to handle heavy artillery without a very capable logistic chain is not yet clear. Heavy artillery is notorious for using very large amount of resources for often dubious military gain.
There are of course many other gangs in Syria and the Post's David Ignatius is trying to sort them:
The biggest umbrella group is called the Jabhat al-Tahrir al-Souriya al-Islamiya. It has about 37,000 fighters ...If one adds those Ignatius numbers up there are 65,000 in three big Islamist groups, 50,000 under Idriss and 6,000 Jabhat al-Nusra Jihadists. In total an army of some 120,000 men.
...
The second-largest rebel coalition is more extreme and is dominated by hard-core Salafist Muslims. Its official name — Jabhat al-Islamiya al-Tahrir al-Souriya — is almost identical to that of the Saudi-backed group [...] Rebel sources estimate about 13,000 Salafist fighters are gathered under this second umbrella.
...
A third rebel group, known as Ahfad al-Rasoul, is funded by Qatar. It has perhaps 15,000 fighters.
...
The most dangerous group in the mix is the Jabhat al-Nusra, which is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq. By one rebel estimate, it has grown to include perhaps 6,000 fighters.Idriss and his Free Syrian Army command about 50,000 more fighters, rebel sources say.
Realistically, the best hope for U.S. policy is to press the Saudi-backed coalition and its 37,000 fighters, to work under the command of Idriss and the Free Syrian Army.
That sounds impressive but, as Aron Lund points out, is completely wrong.
Idriss does not have any troops at all. The first and second group Ignatius mentions are nominally under his command, take the money and weapons he offers but otherwise do not care what he says. The third group Ignatius mentions does not really exits. If one adds the still dubious numbers after correcting for Ignatius (willful?) errors the total is 50,000 plus the 6,000 al-Nusra Jihadists, less than half the force size Ignatius claims.
My best guestimate for the real numbers is less than half of Ignatius' corrected numbers. These are roving gangs that sometimes work together for a while to create a temporary Schwerpunkt and to attack and take this or that small military base. Another type of their action is to take some town or city block and fight from there until they get kicked out again. Rinse, repeat. There isn't that much manpower needed do those two type of action and we have seen little else. All the insurgencies "brigades" are actual the size of small companies, some 100 to 120 men. Their "battalions" are little more than platoons. Then one has to account for the insurgency's combat losses which are significant.
Without U.S. air support the new gang trained in Jordan will have problems to hold any larger area. The safe zones will be anything but safe. U.S air support will not be coming. The BRICS countries have taken a clear position and the U.S. is not willing to, again, piss off more than half of the world for little gain.
The numbers in play and movements under way still very much favor a positive outcome for the Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad.
Posted by b on April 3, 2013 at 17:48 UTC | Permalink
Well, as the US is obviously training the Muslim Brotherhood to defeat the Salafis and the Syrian army in Jordan, Israel should get worried. Jordan presumably is scared stiff.
The plan seems to be to let the Druze defend the Syrian Golan. I don't know what the Druze think about that.
Posted by: somebody | Apr 3 2013 19:19 utc | 2
The Druze are not taking sides. Never mind that BS piece in an Israeli newspaper or the bogus reports about Druze "batalions" (as b pointed out it's platoons at best) joining the fray.
Curious as to how the current lay of the land is. With Qatar and Saudi Arabia vying for control of the terrorists and both using Turkey to achieve it. (not to mention the unrest in Jordan caused by Muslim Brotherhood proxies for Qatar).
The alliance against Syria seems fracturable and I wonder if it can be broken. Turkey is walking a fine line between the 2 financial backers while the US still seems bent on pushing this proxy war forward.
For Syria Turkey is a no go because that would give NATO the reason they've been praying for. Neither is Israel. So I suspect a counterblow will/could be given through either Lebanon or Jordan.
The numbers in play and movements under way still very much favor a positive outcome for the Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad.
I tend to agree with this analysis. Though the Arab leaugue summit was viewed by most as an achievement (in discrediting Syria as a sovereign nation) the infighting in the SNC and between the funding nations and the results of this BRICS summit can only be viewed as something hopefull for Syria!
Posted by: Gehenna | Apr 3 2013 19:45 utc | 4
the idea behind the whole syrian war, is not as much destroying,or occupying syria as it is to render it unable to be a strategic asset for hezbolllah and the fighting factions in gaza and an extension of the iranian influence.
in this regard , the current crisis,might be a success for israel. i say"might be because without a benchmark , a test war with hezbollah, they have no way of assessing if the syrians still retain a strategic capability , and they have no way of assessing the degree of reaction hezbollah can have in case of an israeli attack,in the light of the new situation on the ground.
Maybe they need time to be sure of that. but the next step, could be a war in lebanon,before actualy acheiving a clear win in syria.
Posted by: Nabil | Apr 3 2013 22:40 utc | 5
Perhaps this has been noted (RL very busy lately), but I heard either BBC or NPR coverage of a meeting of Alawites in Cairo, gathering to urge Alalawites to oppose Bashir al-Assad.
The Reuters article suggests Alawites are trying to distance themselves in order to save their lives once Assad is gone.
Posted by: jawbone | Apr 3 2013 22:57 utc | 6
@jawbone#6:
A week or so ago, Angry Arab covered the "dissident Alawite" gathering. He pointed out that the MSM reporters appeared to be going out of their way to avoid noticing that the majority of the Alawites gathered were part of the retinue of Bashar's banished uncle -- the real butcher of Homs.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Apr 4 2013 2:23 utc | 7
Posted by: jawbone | Apr 3, 2013 6:57:11 PM | 6
Reuters...not even good as toilet paper
Posted by: brian | Apr 4 2013 2:40 utc | 8
This, b
"and the U.S. is not willing to, again, piss off more than half of the world for little gain."
is the point where I disagree or, more correctly, prefer a "harder" more realistic version to express it.
The usa is not willing to even more increase the risk of being recognized as a naked king.
The usa *is* way beyond its capabilities, financially, militarily and otherwise, but has managed to make the best use of the human tendency to not easily and quickly recognize major changes in ones world view.
In other words the usa is trying to find a line where it can still act as seeming super power but does not cross into an area where this game would be tested by reality.
One should, btw, not be so much angry against the usa in that regard. Actually there is reason to assume that the driving force is israel, which is knowingly risking and even "wasting" the usa for their purposes.
Howsoever, in the end one can rest assured that the usa will carefully avoid a real confrontation.
Let us not forget that roughly 10 years ago the attempt of a single oil-country (Iraq) to trade oil not in dollars anymore was a reason to go to war. Nowaday even friends and allies of the usa quite openly disregard their wishes and sanctions in that regard. BRICS even openly and directly pi**es into americas face and very openly work against the dollar. Be they praised for it!
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 4 2013 2:42 utc | 9
Ladies and gentleman
could we possibly, just for a moment, stop to completely ignore a major fact:
Assad is not done and he is not weak. Quite the contrary.
Fact is: Although pretty major powers are going against him in diverse and even blunt and dirty ways, he is still in power and he still has state forces who protect him effectively enough to be alive although Thousands of foreign sponsored terrorists are out for him.
Quite probably he has had losses, yes. But a man, being inmidst of all this turmoil and fights and surviving it for ca. 2 years is by no means weak!
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 4 2013 2:49 utc | 10
Gee, didn't Obama ever get filled in by Hillary about the activities in the "embassy in Bengazi:
Although rebel videos have shown Syrian aircraft being shot down, and opposition forces have claimed to have shoulder-launched missiles in their arsenal, it is unclear whether the weapons exist and, if so, where they came from.Obama administration officials have expressed repeated concern that some of about 20,000 of the weapons, called MANPADS, have made their way from the arsenals of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi to Syria.
The administration has acknowledged that Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, and it has helped vet the recipients. But it has repeatedly expressed concern that adding surface-to-air missiles to their arsenal would risk putting the weapons in the hands of militants and pose a threat to Israel and other nearby countries.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Apr 4 2013 3:24 utc | 11
From Penny on the 1st. Found the comments on Syria's "Four Seas Strategy" interesting. I've never heard this tact before.
Posted by: ben | Apr 4 2013 3:58 utc | 12
Don't know why the link bounces to comments, but I'll try again.
try this.
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/
Posted by: ben | Apr 4 2013 4:03 utc | 13
Great post, b, made coherent and persuasive by your knowledge of boots-on-the-ground tactics, limitations and pitfalls.
Given the accelerating torrent of fatuous claptrap focusing on Syria, North Korea and Iran, I'm now convinced that AfPak is an even more dire clusterfuck/SNAFU than I first assumed. There's very little in the MSM about Afghanistan but, fortunately, ABC (Oz) has 24hr radio AND TV "news" channels. Given the dearth of interesting news, they run non-stories about Afghanistan a few times a week and none of them is up-beat.
Lysander @ 1 makes a good point. And if the Yankees get to-oo uppity it's not beyond the realm of possibility that China & Russia will find an amusing way to 'help' America in Afghanistan in a manner reminiscent of the way the Yankees are 'helping' The Syrian People.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 4 2013 4:57 utc | 14
ben (12) and Penny
Brilliant. Thanks a lot.
That Four Seas Strategy explains a lot and helps to better understand why countries like the usa or france, who have enough trouble of their own, go so far as to bluntly ignore international law.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 4 2013 5:56 utc | 15
Thanks Ben and Mr Pragma
Since I have just put a new post up, let me make it even easier, a link right to the relevant post
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2013/04/part-3-cyprus-israel-turkey-syria-nato.html
The Four Seas Strategy that Assad had been promoting explains quite a lot about why the destabilization of Syria is taking place.
Syria was certainly set to become an economic powerhouse with this plan
Turkey was included, but the rewards weren't as bountiful as now thanks to NATO. Think Cyprus and all that energy in the Med.
Israel will now be the powerhouse beneficiary, rather then Syria as would have been the case under the strategy Assad was touting. China is again stymied.
The 3 part series explain some of the geopolitical machinations in that entire region of the Med, including, but not limited to what I see as the intentional take down of Cyprus and a nice reward via NATO to Turkey and Israel for their help in destroying Syria....
The entire post has been well received on line, some industrious individuals spread it around and it got many, many reads and some good comments.
Glad Ben and Mr Pragma enjoyed it :)
Wouldnt it be ironic these U.S. armed rebels end up overthowing the U.S. and israeli puppet in Jordan instead?
Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 4 2013 14:11 utc | 18
18) history is full of subtle irony
China, Russia and Pakistan hold meeting over Afghanistan
Pentagon to keep buying Russian helicopters - Afghanistan, too
Russia going back to Afghanistan? Kremlin confirms it could happen
Zadari for early convening of Pak Iran Afghanistan Summit
People should make a point of not killing each other for this shit.
Posted by: somebody | Apr 4 2013 16:12 utc | 19
There are other factors, but Syria is mostly about Iran which is U.S. Public Enemy #1, and Syria being Iran's closest ally this opportunity to destroy it can't be missed. US government hawks in the military, at State and in Congress, as a part of the usual military imperialism and responding to AIPAC, regularly promote Syria's downfall as a component of the anti-Iran (cold) war. It's a never-ending verbal onslaught.
The problems for the U.S. in this endeavor are the typical ones: (1) Not being able to answer the question: How does this end? (2) Losing control of events to other external players, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with Syria (3) Having to rely on secret forces and methods, such as CIA, which contribute to loss of control (4) Relying on undependable Syrian politicians to control military elements -- just a few of the problems.
It's not just one reason, it's a lot of reasons combined. Some countries only have 1 or 2 reasons, others have multiple.
The pipelineistan issue (there was an asiantimes article here and penny's post about that covered that whole point of view) is a very realistic reason for Qatar to become involved.
Qatar's pushing of the Muslim Brotherhood is another. By funding and supporting the MB it can grow to become a political tool in the entire region (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine).
Saudi Arabia and Qatar wouldn't mind destroying Iran's hold on Lebanon through Hezbollah thus ensuring the whahahahahabi FUNdamentalists hegemony. Syria is a secular country and thus it should me islamised as well.
Turkey wants to become a powerplayer in the region and gain some profits from the pipelineistan as well.
Lebanon is trying to stay out of the shadow of it's neighbour after years of being dominated. Now it's a paralysed state with forces trying to pull it in all directions at once. Usefull for both sides.
USrael just want Iran and destroying an ally of Iran is the first step towards the war or bombing of Iran's nuclear plants (which will no doubt spark a war). Added plus is a new flight path towards Iran and the neutering of Hezbollah.
Any views I may have missed?
Funny that all these countries with sometimes conflicting interests are still fumbling about and Assad is still in power.
Posted by: Gehenna | Apr 4 2013 18:34 utc | 21
@mr Pragma #10
could we possibly, just for a moment, stop to completely ignore a major fact:Assad is not done and he is not weak. Quite the contrary.
and
Quite probably he has had losses, yes. But a man, being inmidst of all this turmoil and fights and surviving it for ca. 2 years is by no means weak!
I agree that he is not weak. Most others would have fallen within weeks if not months. Yes the "uprising" is definitely not widely supported because the whole state would collapse if everyone was against the government. 2 years on and Syria is still fighting back.
What I'm worried about is the finances. If a soldier stops getting paid what will happen then? Some desert, others loot, others rpp (rape pillage plunder i.e. what the FSA has been about mostly).
I see the noose being drawn close. Trade with Turkey is down (their looting of syrian industry is way up I must add), they're losing the border regions/crossings and now Jordan is joining up. So the financial lifeline is mostly Lebanon, Russia (sea and air), Iran (air) and Iraq. And we all know how Turkey and the USUKrael are trying to choke off all streams of income.
Posted by: Gehenna | Apr 4 2013 18:47 utc | 22
Everytime the U.S. is "helping Syrians" the weakly death count increases: Terrorism has spread in Syria and so has chaos. This is reality.
Excellent article penny. However why use salafists then? Since there no one else really availible?
Cos I got the impression that many of the emirates signed up for the Syrian escapade to rid themselves of the fanatics tired of the emirs.
seems as though if you wanted to piss in Assad's soup then it would seem to me, the last people you would want to win are the salafists, looking for a home for their caliphate and who get to put Assad's plan into action
Posted by: Heath | Apr 4 2013 19:12 utc | 24
FWIW, Aron Lund has an interesting analysis of Ignasius' numbers up at Syria Comment. Even if one doesn't agree with Lund's sympathies, he does appear to have a good grasp of the make-up of the various insurgent factions:
From a self-interested US perspective, it might still be a good strategy for Washington to back the Idriss group, which unlike previous FSA incarnations has the significant advantage of existing outside of Twitter. The way to do it would be to make sure it receives abundant resources, and to help solidify the Islamist mainstream insurgency around it – i.e., the SILF, some of the SIF, and various unaffiliated strays.That would of course require a level of cold-blooded realism not currently apparent in US policy circles, which have been making shrill little cries of shock and terror about talking to Islamists for over a decade – never mind arming them. But if the US is not prepared to deal with Islamist actors in Syria because they are theocratic and anti-semitic, or whatever, it should just excuse itself from Syrian insurgent politics entirely. Islamism is now the name of the game among Syria’s armed factions, so let’s not pretend that this conflict is something it’s not.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Apr 4 2013 19:52 utc | 25
@25 RP
As b indicates, there is probably no "Indriss Group," as much as Washington wishes there might be. The "Supreme Military Council" formed last September, with General Selim Idris as Chief of Staff, from all reports is about as non-functional as is the Syrian National Coalition.
It does not make sense to claim that the rebels are only 30.000 men. Independent of their various - more or less silly - names, it can be assumed that they are at least 100.000 men, however, with varying degrees of fighting skills, experience, motivation and equipment.
It is not conceivable that a mere 30-50.000 men should be able to fight on several major fronts, put a number of cities and towns more or less under siege, take major military bases and airfields, capture many border crossings, block supply routes, encircle international airports etc. while the regular army that is supposed to be at least 250.000 men has had to abandon many places and concentrate on defending a stretch of land going from Damascus via Homs/Hama to Aleppo.
Posted by: KerKaraje | Apr 4 2013 20:27 utc | 27
"Front for Liberation of Islamic Syria" and "Islamic Front for Liberation of Syria" — these sound very good for US-backed terrorist groups. The history will repeat itself.
Posted by: Michal | Apr 4 2013 22:20 utc | 28
Gehenna (22)
"What I'm worried about is the finances. If a soldier stops getting paid what will happen then? Some desert, others loot, others rpp (rape pillage plunder i.e. what the FSA has been about mostly).I see the noose being drawn close. Trade with Turkey is down (their looting of syrian industry is way up I must add), they're losing the border regions/crossings and now Jordan is joining up. So the financial lifeline is mostly Lebanon, Russia (sea and air), Iran (air) and Iraq. And we all know how Turkey and the USUKrael are trying to choke off all streams of income."
For one there is sure enough support from Iran, China, Russia as you mention.
Secondly, those soliers are not machines nor americans, i.e. being centered around money, again money and baseless vage pride. They are citizens, too and they are members of a very old culture fighting not to keep someone on the throne but fighting for their country and their people.
That's btw. an extremely important point that the usa regularly ignore. While usa troups are payed mercenaries thier opponents are usually soldiers defending *their* country and *their* relatives and co-citizens. This is a dimensionally different basis for commanders than what drives us terrorists.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 5 2013 9:41 utc | 29
27) there is a benchmark - Iraq
IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQPrivate Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, per TheNation.com..
Journalists killed - 150, 98 by murder and 52 by acts of war
Journalists killed by US Forces - 14
Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 10,125, as of July 31, 2011
Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - On October 22, 2010, ABC News reported "a secret U.S. government tally that puts the Iraqi (civilian) death toll over 100,000," information that was included in more than 400,000 military documents released by Wikileaks.com.
A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.
Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000
Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 572 as of August 30, 2011
Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 306, including 57 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 89 status unknown.
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14
Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70
Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000
there are other guesstimates around of course - noone is really counting
Syria has 10million people less than Iraq. The US army is supposed to be much better equipped than the Syrian army.
Iraq Body Count still reports circa 10 violent civilian deaths per day.
Posted by: somebody | Apr 5 2013 9:46 utc | 30
@ mr pragma 29
Yep easy to get a bunch of kids to take up arms
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori. Wilfred Owen
Posted by: Heath | Apr 5 2013 13:39 utc | 31
I think there will be a peak in the amount of Jihadis going to Syria and then the amount will stabilize and start to drop off.
Posted by: Fernando | Apr 5 2013 16:14 utc | 32
Fernando (32)
The really funny question will be: Where will those "democracy rebells" go once they are done (this way or another) in Syria?
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 5 2013 16:17 utc | 33
Islamist clerics release Fatwas to permit the rape of Syria women & girls..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPtQhXlTLw8
also HAMAS seems to be aiding alnusra in syria
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3731407.ece
why would HAMAS aid israel? do they think Qatar can be trusted to support them?
Posted by: brian | Apr 6 2013 2:54 utc | 34
SyrianGirlpartisan 4 minutes ago
The sheikh now denies the tunisian fatwa, however thirteen tunisian girls went to Syria to participate in this supposedly rumored fatwa. What we know is there WAS a fatwa that called on Syrian girls to temporarily marry (prostitute themselves) to the 'rebels', What we do know is last weak in Sheikh Maqsoud area many christians were raped by Jabhat al Nusra, which suggests that the Fatwa is real. Zionists r exploiting it al-monitor(.)com/pulse/culture/2013/03/tunisia-girls-syria-sexual-jihad.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Qb5KccUyc&feature=youtu.be&a
Posted by: brian | Apr 6 2013 3:09 utc | 35
why salafism is popular: shout allah akbar and any act becomes halal or lawful
but it can go wrong:
That old woman that has almost reached seventy didn’t know that she would end up defying FSA on her short shopping trip.
The whole incident lasted only minutes. An old woman was shopping for groceries when an FSA car parked close-by, and an armed group left it. The terrorists headed to a nearby vehicle, a Mercedes. She heard them shouting and takeering.
“Allah Akbar, a Shabeeh’s car. It’s Halal to steal, it is ours now… Allah Akbar”
The old woman didn’t know what took over her, but she held one of the group and said Allah Akbar over him. “By God, you’re mine now” she said.
Everyone was astonished; they asked her what’s wrong. She told them to shut up, saying the man has become hers according to their logic.
The group tried to reason with the old woman, saying the car belongs to a traitor, he should be punished. The old women refused to listen saying they’re liars the car belongs to a Syrian just like her & them.
Faced with the old woman’s sound reason, the group left, leaving the woman and the car.
http://www.syrianews.cc/god-youre/
Posted by: brian | Apr 6 2013 20:45 utc | 36
why salafism is popular: shout 'allah akbar'(this is why we hear it so often) and any act becomes lawful, but it can go wrong
That old woman that has almost reached seventy didn’t know that she would end up defying FSA on her short shopping trip.
The whole incident lasted only minutes. An old woman was shopping for groceries when an FSA car parked close-by, and an armed group left it. The terrorists headed to a nearby vehicle, a Mercedes. She heard them shouting and takeering.
“Allah Akbar, a Shabeeh’s car. It’s Halal to steal, it is ours now… Allah Akbar”
The old woman didn’t know what took over her, but she held one of the group and said Allah Akbar over him. “By God, you’re mine now” she said.
Everyone was astonished; they asked her what’s wrong. She told them to shut up, saying the man has become hers according to their logic.
The group tried to reason with the old woman, saying the car belongs to a traitor, he should be punished. The old women refused to listen saying they’re liars the car belongs to a Syrian just like her & them.
Faced with the old woman’s sound reason, the group left, leaving the woman and the car.
http://www.syrianews.cc/god-youre/
Posted by: brian | Apr 6 2013 20:47 utc | 37
@ #38
Well since you're the master of lies and propaganda around here, why dont YOU tell us?
Posted by: yah . . . but | Apr 7 2013 9:04 utc | 39
37) are you sure this is not propaganda?
Posted by: somebody | Apr 6, 2013 8:03:16 PM | 38
propaganda against whom?
syrianew.CC has been a major source of info on syria...it was they who broke the Houla massacre story with the reportage of Mara Musin; and who posted the journalism of Anhar Kochneva...
so who are you 'somebody'?
Posted by: brian | Apr 7 2013 13:08 utc | 40
There have been many reports for years that israel pays people to spread propaganda on the internet.
Of course, there are also quite a lot of friends of israel as well as official and covert supporters spreading rumors, lies and bullsh*t.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 7 2013 13:18 utc | 41
"so who are you 'somebody'?"
He is the guy that spent months blaming EVERY massacre of civilians in Syria on the Syrian Gov't, long after it was obvious to all but the most deluded/dishonest that the majority of civilian massacres in Syria were carried out by the NATO mercenaries/Terrorists
He is also the guy that spent months accusing Libyan Gov't forces of massacring civilians. And this too was also long after any sane/honest person would have had to admit that the real danger to Libyan civilians was the NATO financed Mercenary/Terrorist army.
One might have thought that having been completely wrong the first time with regard to Libya, he might, were he at all interested in arcane notions such as "truth" "honesty" "fairness", have hesitated a little before falsely and repeatedly accusing the Syrian Gov't of wanton massacre of civilians, given how completely wrong he had been, in almost all cases, regarding Libyan civilian massacres . . . but one would be wrong on that score
Make of that what you will
Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 8 2013 16:29 utc | 42
The comments to this entry are closed.
"The U.S. hopes to have vetted those gang members enough to trust them with manpads."
b, I doubt they will trust actual 'rebels', but rather the best weapons will be in the hands of special forces amongst the 'rebels.' And if the US is worried about it's own SFs being captured by Syria (or killed by their own allies ala Afghanistan) then they can just use Jordanian troops for that. Entirely expendable.
Seriously, the west is never going to stop as long as they have stooges to do the heavy lifting and sucker Wahhabis to do the dying. The only way to make them stop is to impose a cost on them for doing it. Right now I'm thinking if any useful weapon captured from terrorists could somehow find it's way to Afghanistan, there would be a pressure point combined with deniability. Otherwise, there is no reason for them to stop until Syria is destroyed as a nation state.
Posted by: Lysander | Apr 3 2013 18:34 utc | 1