Syria: US 'to arm rebels'

[snaapz]

Barack Obama's White House has announced the US plans to supply military support to Syria's rebels after confirming evidence of chemical weapons, as Assad forces launch assault on Aleppo - follow latest updates.

My problem with this statement is this...

Canada & USA have used chemicals against protesters too.

Tear gas is literally a chemical weapon.

Tear gas works by irritating mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, mouth and lungs, and causes crying, sneezing, coughing, difficulty breathing, pain in the eyes, temporary blindness, etc. Exposure on skin may cause chemical burns...

Stephen Harper quotes sarin as being a nerve agent... well Tear Gas is 100% a nerve agent too. USA & Canada have and will continue to deploy Tear Gas against citizens...

Can Russia arm us?

[mfte]

Anything to take the attention of all the recent scandal I would guess.

[DigitalChaos]

Wait, I thought weapons were of no use against the government if things turn bad?

so...
1 - Disarm US Citizens
2 - Arm people in countries who belong to Al-Qaeda (WTF?!?)
3 - The enemy in the war on terror grows stronger so the US needs to spend more money on "security"
4 - Government control and involvement in our life grows stronger
5 - We further grow our financial problems and have less money to spend on the problems our own people are having.

Anyone who supports arming Syria is a fucking tool right alongside McCain. Fuck you and your world wide military intervention.

[Elke]

2 - Arm people in countries who belong to Al-Qaeda (WTF?!?)

Uhm... què?

Look, it's bad enough that your opening post equates the rather sad but standard practice of controlled tear gas use in dispersing crowds, with the use of sarin gas. Tear gas does indeed work on the tear ducts by irritating the tear glands, which can indeed lead to temporary blindness.
Sarin gas on the other hand disables communication from the brain to the muscles, and works as a very fast and efficient paralyzing agent, not only disabling the victim but also disabling all communication to that one muscle we need slightly more than the tear duct: our hearts.

But stupid shit like that first post lead me to believe that you might possibly even mean Syria is owned by Al-Qaeda. I mean, I wouldn't put it past you to believe that.

So, just so we're all on the same page here: the current conflict in Syria is one between an Alawite minority, to which Assad belongs, and a seemingly united band of several types of Sunni militias. The most famous one is the FSA, who claim to not be exclusively Sunni, and there are reports stating that they have some of the other Syrian minorities (including Kurds en Druze) in their ranks. The FSA considers itself to be secular, and states it only wants to kick out Assad. We'll see.
Alongside the FSA, there are various paramilitary and jihadist groups. Some of them are welcomed by the FSA, mostly (former) members of Fatah al-Islam, and others have been denounced (like Jabhat al-Nusra) for being too religious, islamist (in the case of Ahrar al-Sham al Islam), violent (the FSA official denounces suice bombings) or tied to al-Qaeda (like the aforementioned Jabhat al-Nusra).

And then there's riff raff coming in to fight because JIHAD and UMMA and ALLAH and all that. They're as misguided as your average Joe the Plumber brandishing a weapong because OH YEAH WE HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT, and they're usually persuaded to go fight the jihadist battle over in bushnut hell by local imams and preachers, often with ties to the Saudi salafist movement and/or local nutcases like Sharia4Belgium leader Fouad Belkacem.
Fun fact: one of those kids seen decapitating someone in a video I will not link to that has gone viral, is an ex-student of my sister's. Kid had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, he just ran into the wrong imam.

So that's the actual militias, as in: the guys who are just in for the fight. We haven't even touched on politics yet.

If you're going to play a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon in the Middle East, you're going to end up near al-Qaeda, simply because the Saudis have a hand in everything.

So get pissed off about that: about the U.S. goverment still considering a corrupt theocracy that has absolutely no regard for human rights and sponsors almost every jihadist organisation in the world while pumping out hours upon hours of government sanctioned salafist propaganda via various satellitle broadcasting networks, a valuable ally in the region.
That is disgusting.

That, and comparing tear gas to sarin.

[Jinsai]

Anything to take the attention of all the recent scandal I would guess.

Are you seriously implying that the government is creating a new controversy for people to criticize them for in order to draw negative attention away from other controversies? THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS

And are people in here seriously comparing tear gas to poisonous deadly gas?

[DigitalChaos]

Uhm... què?
<tear gas>

HUH? I said nothing about tear gas or sarin. I am not @snaapz.

As for the Al-Qaeda connection, it's all over the news. Tons of Iraqi Al-Qaeda has crossed over from the border to help the rebels. You are not actually denying this are you? Giving weapons to the Syrian rebels is *literally* giving weapons to Al-Qaeda.

[SM Rollinger]

This is going to end up like how Afghanistan did in the 80s (and now today), with everyone pumping arms and cash into all sides. Eventually some super power, weather its the US, Russia or China, is going to HAVE to send in troops. Its going to be another generational war.

People forget that before they were Al Qaeda, they were the Mujahideen, and they were our (the west) allies. The US and China was sending the millions of dollars, Stinger rocket launchers, and AK47s to fight off the Soviet invasion of their country.

Same thing is going to happen here, after the Islamic fundamentalists oust the Assads, their going to turn on the west too, and then ANOTHER invasion is going to be required to "pacify" the country (ala IRAQ)

This is a horrible, terrible idea.

[thevoid99]

I don't like the idea either. I'm afraid that if we help them. It would be a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan. Isn't it bad enough that the U.S. has already been involved in other wars in other countries? Can't we just focus on ourselves?

[Satyr]

I don't like the idea either. I'm afraid that if we help them. It would be a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan. Isn't it bad enough that the U.S. has already been involved in other wars in other countries? Can't we just focus on ourselves?

You some kinda Ron Paul freak? We are the world police. Never mind the fact that we can't even police our own streets effectively.

[thevoid99]

No, I'm just indifferent politically while I know the fact that we have a tendency to fuck things up. Didn't anyone see Charlie Wilson's War? There's a great scene where Philip Seymour Hoffman's character tells Tom Hanks about what to do after Afghanistan kicked the crap out of the Soviets where Hanks as Wilson tried to get money to build a school in Afghanistan but nothing happened.

I don't think it's a good idea. Sure, we get rid of some bad guys but then what? We put a puppet to run Syria like we did with Cuba or Iran?

[snaapz]

My point of mentioning the use of tear gas against Canadians/Americans was to point out that even N. American gov's use chemicals against their people. With that said this is enough evidence for Russia or China to say "that's it, we will arm the FCA (Free Canadian Army) because the gov is fighting dirty".

Russia said this will turn into another Iraq. I've watched MORE than enough videos on liveleak to know it's fucking really bad in Syria. Arming FSA is NO FUCKING HELP TO ANYONE.

There are other ways to settle this... but obviously the CAN & US gov's have another plan.

[Elke]

My point of mentioning the use of tear gas against Canadians/Americans was to point out that even N. American gov's use chemicals against their people. With that said this is enough evidence for Russia or China to say "that's it, we will arm the FCA (Free Canadian Army) because the gov is fighting dirty".

No they don't... there are international agreements about this sort of thing. Did you really think there weren't, and it was just up to any country to decide whatever they wanted to do in whatever situation? It's one of the reasons Belgium and France refused to partake in the Iraq war, because it's thoroughly illegitimate.

HUH? I said nothing about tear gas or sarin. I am not @snaapz.

As for the Al-Qaeda connection, it's all over the news. Tons of Iraqi Al-Qaeda has crossed over from the border to help the rebels. You are not actually denying this are you? Giving weapons to the Syrian rebels is *literally* giving weapons to Al-Qaeda.

My apologies, it was late and I mixed it up.

As for the al-Qaeda connection, did you read my post past the sarin thing? I think I mentioned al-Qaeda. I think I also mentioned that the FSA denounces al-Qaeda, because it portrays itself as a secular movement.
al-Qaeda isn't a structured terorist movement anymore (if it ever was). Most of the so-called cells are not in contact with eachother or - and this is rather important - any form of central command. I can wake up one morning and form an al-Qaeda cell, and no one can tell me I'm not one. When I mentioned Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the problems for the FSA there is that the leader of the al-Nusra Front is probably a former member of a self-appointed al-Qaeda cell, and definitely has ties with some higher-up al-Qaeda members. [And with higher-up, I mean people in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region of the world.]

Also, when it comes to the Middle East, you might not want to believe 'the news'. Go for independent sources and newspapers, and HRW or AI. They're usually there, and they usually have a rather clear view of what's happening. The only mainstream-y kind of thing I found recently that bothered to do the situation justice, was that Fareed Zakariah interview in TDS.

I never denied there are people with ties to al-Qaeda in this conflict. It's just not as simple as that. It would be like saying: We're not going to arm the Belgians in their uprising against their evil socialist gay Italian dictator, because there are members of neo-nazi movements amongst them.
We don't make that distinction with non-muslim countries, because it would be really fucking stupid. But with muslim countries, nobody bothers to do some research and everyones buzzing with al-Qaeda and terrorism - two things that aren't a reason for not supplying weapons here. Everything else, is.

People forget that before they were Al Qaeda, they were the Mujahideen, and they were our (the west) allies.
Same thing is going to happen here, after the Islamic fundamentalists oust the Assads, their going to turn on the west too, and then ANOTHER invasion is going to be required to "pacify" the country (ala IRAQ)

Before they were al-Qaeda, they were Saudi rich kids living the life, and Muslim Brotherhood scholars. You mean the Taliban, who are not terrorists, just assholes.

And I agree, this is going to lead to civil war, whether we interfere or not. Just like Iraq, btw, which didn't need pacification at all (a dictator will pacify almost anything): it's the US intervention in Iraq that caused the subsequent ten year civil war. And it's not over yet. And it's not mere about islamism either: it also about sovereignty, ethnicity, how you view government and - lest we forget them - the Kurds.

[Deepvoid]

My point of mentioning the use of tear gas against Canadians/Americans was to point out that even N. American gov's use chemicals against their people. With that said this is enough evidence for Russia or China to say "that's it, we will arm the FCA (Free Canadian Army) because the gov is fighting dirty".

Russia said this will turn into another Iraq. I've watched MORE than enough videos on liveleak to know it's fucking really bad in Syria. Arming FSA is NO FUCKING HELP TO ANYONE.

There are other ways to settle this... but obviously the CAN & US gov's have another plan.

Why are you involving Canada in this?

Harper won't follow US in arming Syrian rebels

[Deepvoid]

I tried editing my previous post to add the following link but that proved to be a pain in the ... so

Iran to send 4,000 troops to defend Assad's regime.

I have no clue how reliable is this news source so don't shoot the messenger.

[mfte]

Are you seriously implying that the government is creating a new controversy for people to criticize them for in order to draw negative attention away from other controversies? THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS

And are people in here seriously comparing tear gas to poisonous deadly gas?

Im not implying that they are creating a new contreversy BUT as the old quote goes.|

You should never let a good crisis go to waste.

[Sutekh]

Yes there is no actual "al-qaeda" in the way there is an NSA, but "funding syrian rebels is giving weapons to al qaeda" is not necessarily a total batshit from mars thing to say - we would be giving weapons to militants, and let's face it, do they strike you as cheerleaders for the west? There's room for some plurality but let's consider the baseline political currencies in that region before we reject the notion of characterising the FSA completely

Also meddling further turns The world against us... Our leaders are mostly rich kids raised with romantic notions of yalta and powerul men drawing lines on maps, but the world has changed an awful lot since the orthodoxy they preach was devised. If it doesn't seem to make sense that we are considering arming these groups when our states are short of cash and we have seemingly nothing to gain - it's actually because it doesn't make sense, our policy has lost touch with reality

NK, Iran all show the total failure of the neo-con "big stick" approach to IR theory (and unfortunately, foreign policy in practice). Iraq and Vietnam showed that Japan was not necessarily an easily repeated process - the whole straussian rulebook is out of date and needs to go

[DigitalChaos]

Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced legislation that would block military funds from going to Syria.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/20/rand-paul-one-of-four-senators-to-introd

[Stateira]

No they don't... there are international agreements about this sort of thing. Did you really think there weren't, and it was just up to any country to decide whatever they wanted to do in whatever situation? It's one of the reasons Belgium and France refused to partake in the Iraq war, because it's thoroughly illegitimate.



My apologies, it was late and I mixed it up.

As for the al-Qaeda connection, did you read my post past the sarin thing? I think I mentioned al-Qaeda. I think I also mentioned that the FSA denounces al-Qaeda, because it portrays itself as a secular movement.
al-Qaeda isn't a structured terorist movement anymore (if it ever was). Most of the so-called cells are not in contact with eachother or - and this is rather important - any form of central command. I can wake up one morning and form an al-Qaeda cell, and no one can tell me I'm not one. When I mentioned Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the problems for the FSA there is that the leader of the al-Nusra Front is probably a former member of a self-appointed al-Qaeda cell, and definitely has ties with some higher-up al-Qaeda members. [And with higher-up, I mean people in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region of the world.]

Also, when it comes to the Middle East, you might not want to believe 'the news'. Go for independent sources and newspapers, and HRW or AI. They're usually there, and they usually have a rather clear view of what's happening. The only mainstream-y kind of thing I found recently that bothered to do the situation justice, was that Fareed Zakariah interview in TDS.

I never denied there are people with ties to al-Qaeda in this conflict. It's just not as simple as that. It would be like saying: We're not going to arm the Belgians in their uprising against their evil socialist gay Italian dictator, because there are members of neo-nazi movements amongst them.
We don't make that distinction with non-muslim countries, because it would be really fucking stupid. But with muslim countries, nobody bothers to do some research and everyones buzzing with al-Qaeda and terrorism - two things that aren't a reason for not supplying weapons here. Everything else, is.




Before they were al-Qaeda, they were Saudi rich kids living the life, and Muslim Brotherhood scholars. You mean the Taliban, who are not terrorists, just assholes.

And I agree, this is going to lead to civil war, whether we interfere or not. Just like Iraq, btw, which didn't need pacification at all (a dictator will pacify almost anything): it's the US intervention in Iraq that caused the subsequent ten year civil war. And it's not over yet. And it's not mere about islamism either: it also about sovereignty, ethnicity, how you view government and - lest we forget them - the Kurds.

More or less. Osama bin Laden didn't really develop special loathing for the United States until the Gulf War when the Al-Sauds allowed the United States army to station troops in Saudi Arabia. He ended up running to Afghanistan after getting kicked out of Saudi Arabia and Sudan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were sometimes close, but they weren't the same entity at all.