Our friends, the Syrian 'rebels'

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOqymTX_kwo[/youtube]

As the video stopped immediately after the Syrian rebel seemed to chomp down on the heart, I have to ask - did he legitimately eat the heart, or was this a matter of theatrics?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It is to a loaded question. 'And how is the fact they're an al-Qaeda aligned terrorist group not a valid reason? I'm not sure what your point is. You apologize for summary executions and even eating a man's heart and you accuse me about being a fan of Assad. Are you a fan of al-Qaeda? I do not want to go to war with Syria, I do not want to interfere in Syria, do you?

This is what the CIA always does, they go into countries and brew discontent and sectarian divisions. The point was always to overthrow the Assad regime and to install a government friendly to the interests of Israel and the Gulf states. They brew this discontent until boils over and then they send weapons to wage war. The propaganda arm of the MIC(CNN) then tells of all the atrocities and bloodshed and demands we take action. Anybody that believes these Arab Spring uprisings are spontaneous and democratic are fooling themselves.

I can say with confidence I am not a fan of Al Qaeda. Are you willing to say you're not a fan of Bashar?

Please stop running away from my questions and calling them loaded. Be honest and straightforward with me



Conspiracy thinking is a very lazy way of thinking.

I am a fan of the true rebels in Syria, however.

And I can say with confidence I am not a fan of Assad.

If you want to play that game, would your rather the Assad regime which is respectful of minorities and secular stay in power or would you rather the "rebels" take over, apply Sharia law, and wipe out all of the Alawites, Christians, and Druze of Syria?

We know that foreign powers are interfering in Syria and we know the CIA overthrows governments, it is not really that big of a leap.

I would rather the true rebels (the ones that actually disapprove of the extremist "rebels") take over. Because Bashar is a tyrant and a dictator at the end of the day and has murdered children, women, and other innocent civilians in Syria.

Plus, I have relatives in Syria and I don't want them to end up being harmed just because Bashar thinks he's god and can kill whomever he has to kill to keep himself in power.

What true rebels? The fake Western and Arab backed "government in exile" which has no presence in Syria? While foreign fighters make up a large percentage of the fighters in Syria, the internal opposition to the Assad regime has always been Islamist and sectarian in nature has it not?

YOU DIDNT ANSWER THE QUESTION BTW

I hope your family remains from safe, do you have contact with them? Are they in government control territory or rebel?

See what I mean by conspiracy thinking?



I did. I said I wanted the true rebels (which you deny the existence of) to take over. And whatever they choose to do after that, that's another story. Some want Sharia or democracy or whatever, so there is confusion, but Bashar needs to go down either way because secularism and democracy is pointless anyway in his presence.



They are safe for now. They're more near the Lebanon-Syria borders within Syria, but one of the universities that my cousin attended in another region was bombed, and now she's here in Australia as a result.

...and who might they be exactly? You seem to think that the 'rebels' are a homogenous group with no links to Al Qaeda, the Saudi's, or anyone else. Where are they getting their weapons, and other supplies, from?

'MCalavera', you can't justify atrocities committed by your friends in Syria by pointing to what the government there allegedly does. If these groups (yes, there are more than one) that oppose al-Assad are really worth supporting in the first place (I don't think they are), then they have to demonstrate to us that they are actually better, from a moral perspective, than those who currently run the country, and show to us that if they eventually win they will not use Syria as a base from which to spread Wahabism.

Wrong. It's you who seem to think they're one group all linked to Al Qaeda.

Surely you must not be thinking that the FSA for example are linked to Al Qaeda, right?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ma ... mist-group

It's a shame that FSA is losing ground in the war since they were the core of the true Syrian rebliion against Bashar and definitely more humane than the Bashar regime.

But there you go, an article that shows they're not allies as much as people like like to think. Many Syrians against Bashar are also against Al Qaeda intrusion.

Even if he did eat that dead soldier's heart, it can't be all that bad compared to the Assadian slaughters of innocents and rapes.

What conspiracy? This is not the first uprising to happen in Syria is it not? The Muslim Brotherhood caused some trouble back in the late 70s/early 80s before Hafez al-Assad brutally cracked down. Our media likes to portray the oppositions in all these Arab Spring revolts as young liberal democratic college students that hold up peace signs, wear flowers in their hair, and carry signs written in English but that isn't truly representative of the nature of these uprisings is it? This wasn't true Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya and it certainly isn't true in Syria. The conflict in Mali recently which Tuereg nationalists in the north of the country rebelled against the government and declare independence before becoming overshadowed Islamists with ties to al-Qaeda. I don't think it is any mystery what the end result in Syria would be.

No matter who nominally would head a government if Assad's rule were to end, they will not be able to stop what the opposition plans to do to the Alawites and other minorities that support Assad. The guy that ate that man's heart pretty much spells it out. I imagine when Sharia law is imposed that all those rights women have in Syria will be gone as well. Will Syrian's be better off or freer after this rebellion than they were before it?

There is no justification to interfere in Syria, material or militarily. The opposition is fragmented and dominated by a Islamists and foreign fighters who have committed as bad or worse atrocities than one's Assad is accused of. There has been a lot of talk about the red line being Assad using chemical weapons but what about the opposition? That red line appears to have already been crossed by the them. Giving support will only prolong and intensify the bloodshed, do you think Iran and Russia will abandon their ally?

The "bad" rebels may be the lesser of two evils compared to Al-Assad, but that doesn't mean they are people we should be supporting. They can fight a long, bloody war at the expense of many lives, and then in a generation (or less) will need ousting themselves, so we'll arm another "less evil" group to fight a long bloody war...

I appreciate that there are many "good" rebels who aren't committing atrocities and have Syria's best interests at heart, but it seems very difficult to only support them.

Why not? They are the first ones who need support. Jacoby seems to think the rebels should all be punished and ignored because of later intrusions by the Al Qaeda.

I remember very clearly the early days when the civil war was just arising when it was just a war between the Bashar regime and the average people of Syria backed up the FSA who had members defected from the main Syrian army.

Just because now the rebellion has been tarnished we should stop thinking about the Syrians with noble goals for Syria?

But anyway, wow, an Islamist ate a dead soldier's heart! Wow, that has to be more terrifying than the Shabbiha men impregnating Syrian women and having their husbands/fathers watch.