I read that somewhere, and can't find the article, but when I went looking for it, I looked up the wikipedia article for what that's worth. I think the media is doing the best they can, da1. BBC and Al-Jazeera try to keep up with all the politics happening from dissident groups abroad and resistance groups in Syria fighting, but reading those is even more confusing than the wikipedia article. Part of the problem is whether groups not involved in the fighting but supporting a new government are "resistance" and if the people doing the fighting support the people who claim to be in charge. Many of these groups are abroad...it hard to say with any certainty who is and isn't the "resistance." There's some shades of Monty Python's Life of Brian: The Syrian National Coalition (based in Cairo and Istanbul) holds Syria's seat in the Arab League, which is not to be confused with the Syrian National Committee (based in Istanbul as well), which holds 22 of the 60 seats of the Syrian National Coalition. Other coalition parties include the Muslim Brotherhood, the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians, the Damascus Declaration, the Syrian Democratic People's Party, and the Supreme Council of the Syrian Revolution. The Syrian National Coalition until recently wanted a non-violent revolution, but recently agreed to support the Free Syrian Army (ex-Assad forces that defected) which is getting most of the military support from the Gulf States. It's of course, not to be confused with the Syrian Liberation Army (mostly civilians), the Syrian Liberation Front (Islamist), and the Syrian Islamic Front (also Islamist). Of course human rights organizations are concerned about the activities of the Free Syrian Army, as well as the large number of foreigners coming from as far afield as Croatia (some reportedly making $2000 a day), and the friction they have with religious militias that started conducting suicide bombings. As for the Kurds, they seem to have at least 20 different parties of their own, but they are flying the Kurdish flag and are probably more interested in their brethren in Iraq and Turkey than fighting for a new Syria. As it is, the situation is more sectarian than Iraq, and it's hard to say who is really "in charge" of the revolution, but I would probably say it's the Free Syrian Army's leader, Colonel Riad al-Asaad. I have a hard time believing Colonel al-Assad is interested in taking orders from any group that claims to be in charge (which includes many not listed, but are in the wikipedia article). But amid the atrocities, the Free Syrian Army has been permitted to raise private funds in Washington and they have reportedly rescued western journalists who have been captured. All of this doesn't change my prognosis for Syria, which is that the worst is still yet to come when the sectarian conflicts linger long after the Syrian government is toppled. It's a human catastrophe, and I think relief for the refugees should be the top priority and arming anyone would be irresponsible for the US. If the victor isn't an Islamist party (who probably stand the best chance of being the last men standing), it's still likely an autocratic one that's palatable to the leaders of the Gulf States and certainly not the multicultural, secular, democratic one anyone would hope for. I would love to be proven wrong, but this is the Mid-East, where the guns are always right.
Idiotic. This is not our war. Could care less what happens to those people. Rarely do these conflicts lie behind a genuinely noble cause. Just a power grab between radicals and fascists.
It might seem harsh but its not like the US truly cares about either side. They just pick the winning side. Sell weapons, install a puppet, and twenty years later repeat the process with a new radical group. Neo-Colonialism. Perpetuating backwardsness. If you want real peace, real change. Its not going to start from installing religious extremists into power. Real progress is made when you punt religion off into the side and keep it way the **** out of government.
Very very disappointed in Obama and the GOVT in general. Republicans -- don't get all excited. You guys suck too.
we need to quit appearing to be the world police. I believe this is not why we're there though. That's just a front to destabilize the region like they've been doing since the "arab spring" began. It's another way of stationing forces around the globe..(albeit for military, surveillance, natural resources) which in turn fuels U.S. hate due to imperialism. This is not to save the people.. if the administration was that noble.. they'd start with south Chicago.
not really, on both accounts Do you think the CIA won't try and vet who they give weapons to in Syria? The problems are shifting allegiances, lying and losing control of said guns once they are on the ground. That and the fact that there is no national registry of convicts and mental cases there.
and with this vetting.. did they take into account all the reports of Al-Nusra being aligned with the rebels? We are basically giving weapons to Al Qaeda as crazy as that sounds. So if there are no national registry of terrorists.. where are they getting their information from? NSA? heh Whoever does the vetting is not doing a very good job or are depending on who's giving the orders. Maybe the point of Libya all along was to destabilize the region and feed rebels arms from Syria.. now they can do it directly.
I wouldn't have a clue on what is being done but I'd bet it is being done. If John McCain can meet with some rebel groups, the CIA knows who they are. And if Ted Cruz gave a crap instead of just making idiots points, he could get his own CIA briefing on exactly what is being done and what assurances really exist.
And if Ted Cruz gave a crap instead of just making idiots points, he could get his own CIA briefing on exactly what is being done and what assurances really exist. Anyone know? Yeah you should, you are freaking US Senator.
This is so worth a watch: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CnJCvKA-oEU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>