Syrian Terrorists are Foreigners

faustino1

Foreign fighters are vital for the continued destruction of Syria and it's population, with full support of dupes in western nations.

Recently, a study was published which revealed so-called rebel forces came from at least 25 countries based on those reportedly killed.

"Convoy of Martyrs in the Levant", a new joint study on Sunni foreign fighters in Syria from Flashpoint Global Partners and Aaron Zelin, is now available.

The study tracks the demographics and biographies of 280 Sunni foreign fighters reportedly killed in Syria over the past 11 months. In the data sample, the dominant nationalities among Sunni foreign fighters in Syria were Libyans (21%), Saudis (16%), and Tunisians (16%).

At least a third of the 280 fighters in the data sample were reputed to be members of Al-Qaida's local franchise in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. At least 7 of the 280 dead fighters were from Western countries--including France, Denmark, Australia, the U.K., and the United States

Here's a breakdown of casualties.




Report here

Sacksian

And there are loads of foreign fighters joining the Government side too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/syria-islamic-sunni-shia-shrines-volunteers

It's basically turning into an outright Sunni-Shia conflict.

faustino1

Sacksian wrote: »

And there are loads of foreign fighters joining the Government side too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/syria-islamic-sunni-shia-shrines-volunteers

It's basically turning into an outright Sunni-Shia conflict.

Who in your opinion is funding this war and for what reasons?

Sacksian

faustino1 wrote: »

Who in your opinion is funding this war and for what reasons?

If you're talking about the FSA, there's lot of publicly declared - and practical - support for them from a lot of the gulf states including Saudi and Qatar, and then Kuwait, Turkey, France, the US and UK. I'm sure there are others too.

Given the degree of support for the rebels from neighbouring states, my main concern is the potential for the Civil War to develop into an extended Sunni-Shia conflict beyond Syrian borders - as this seems to have a been a significant factor behind the original disquiet.

Brown Bomber

Excellent thread.

All you need to know about the so called rebels is that the guy filmed eating the heart/lung of the Syrian solider was a commander for the "MODERATES". I could have told anyone who'd listen that the rebels were mercenaries two years ago.

weisses

Listening to dutch radio and they were saying that people returning to Holland from Syria are seen as hero's .. Its becoming a kind of " right of passage " . More and more ordinary young Muslims are going over there so they can brag about it when they come back.

faustino1

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Excellent thread.

All you need to know about the so called rebels is that the guy filmed eating the heart/lung of the Syrian solider was a commander for the "MODERATES". I could have told anyone who'd listen that the rebels were mercenaries two years ago.

Yes, I was trying to tell people they were mercenaries too but even now with this evidence, people refuse to believe it. I get accused by some really naive people of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist even when the evidence is there staring them in the face.

They'd rather believe the demonstrations will eventually lead to a better way of life for normal Syrians despite the complete opposite outcome in countries like Libya, Egypt and Iraq not to mention their own home countries...they seem easily forgetful about the domestic problems of their own nations.

There doesn't appear to be any objective really by these war mongering lobby groups except to bomb as many Muslim countries as possible under the pretext of liberating Muslims...which of course isn't going to happen.

Sacksian

There's a discussion about the Syrian civil war going on over here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056945906

Might be worth joining in there as it's essentially the same discussion, but with more people.

faustino1

I'm banned.

But I doubt there's really any meaningful insight into events in the middle east over in the politics forum anyway.
From what I can see, it's just various people regurgitating whatever narrative the mainstream media are feeding them.

Sacksian

faustino1 wrote: »

I'm banned.

But I doubt there's really any meaningful insight into events in the middle east over in the politics forum anyway.
From what I can see, it's just various people regurgitating whatever narrative the mainstream media are feeding them.

Worth logging out and reading if you can't read it directly.

The first posts in that thread from about two weeks ago say fairly much the same thing that you're saying in this thread about them being mercenaries.

Lots of discussion about who is supporting them. And there's mention of the heart-eating rebel too.

JustinDee

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All you need to know about the so called rebels is that the guy filmed eating the heart/lung of the Syrian solider was a commander for the "MODERATES". I could have told anyone who'd listen that the rebels were mercenaries two years ago.

Its a proxy war. Always has been, only the Syrian regime experiencing steered insurrection within its own borders for the first time in some decades as opposed to their own activities in other coups in the region.
As tangible proof of US/EU v Iran/Lebanon/Russia involvement in Middle East as we'll ever see.

Brown Bomber

faustino1 wrote: »

Yes, I was trying to tell people they were mercenaries too but even now with this evidence, people refuse to believe it. I get accused by some really naive people of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist even when the evidence is there staring them in the face.

They'd rather believe the demonstrations will eventually lead to a better way of life for normal Syrians despite the complete opposite outcome in countries like Libya, Egypt and Iraq not to mention their own home countries...they seem easily forgetful about the domestic problems of their own nations.

There doesn't appear to be any objective really by these war mongering lobby groups except to bomb as many Muslim countries as possible under the pretext of liberating Muslims...which of course isn't going to happen.

Yeah, what I find mildly depressing from this is how easy the herd are manipulated. In his now infamous speech, which Western officials and media distorted to accuse him of promising a "genocide" everyone laughed at Gadaffi when he talked of Al Qaeda (and friends) being involved in the heroic civil rights protestors movements for secularism, democracy, liberalism and blah blah blah...

Yet he was correct.

He had been battling US-empowered radical Islamists for decades. Al Qaeda and British intelligence had even come together to assassinate him in the 90s, Washington was outsourcing the torture of Islamic militants to him.

While Gaddaffi was being sodomised with a knife, while the Al Qaeda flag was flying proudly over the Benghazi courthouse, while black Libyans were being lynched, while Sufi shrines were being destroyed, while Christian refugees were fleeing for their lives from their Sunni "liberators" and while the whole of Libya turned into Mad Max ruled by warlords (except of course for the oilfields) everyone ushered by the media instantly forgot about Libya and it's people and switched the focus of their "two minutes of hate" to Assad and his regime

1984 is now and we only have ourselves to blame for allowing ourselves to be manipulated by lying media whores who serve only as a propaganda wing for imperialism.

The nature of the conflict in Syria hasn't changed since the outset. What has appeared to have changed is American policy. At some point the US has decided against all-out intervention and seems content with the slow-motion destruction of Syria. Therefore Media reportage/propaganda must follow which is why only now are permitted to see some of the negative aspects of the "rebel" movement. The narrative of the day is "we have to do something - but we must do it with caution" . This viewpoint is exactly what will be replicated by the viewers/readers, that is until the policy changes along with propaganda and the former ally Eurasia is the enemy once again and to dare to suggest otherwise, to be the one who points out the emperor has no clothes makes you a "conspiracy theorist"

Sacksian

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, what I find mildly depressing from this is how easy the herd are manipulated.

What about all the Sunni muslims fighting Assad's regime? Are they part of the herd?? What's their motivation?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

to dare to suggest otherwise, to be the one who points out the emperor has no clothes makes you a "conspiracy theorist"

To be fair, this is exactly what's being said in the politics thread, which predates this one and involves a lot more discussion. I'm not sure where the forum-specific angle is.

Brown Bomber

Sacksian wrote: »

What about all the Sunni muslims fighting Assad's regime? Are they part of the herd?? What's their motivation?

a) Salaries
b) Inflammatory Wahabbi Imams
c) A desire to replace a secular "infidel" with Shariah Law.
d) The jihad against Syria declared by Al Qaeda's Ayman al Zawahiri

Sacksian wrote: »

To be fair, this is exactly what's being said in the politics thread, which predates this one and involves a lot more discussion. I'm not sure where the forum-specific angle is.

As I've already said the nature of this fabricated civil war instigated by outside forces has been apparent to me for a long time and I've discussed this (along with others) in this forum on threads that far predate that politics thread.

JustinDee

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As I've already said the nature of this fabricated civil war instigated by outside forces has been apparent to me for a long time and I've discussed this (along with others) in this forum on threads that far predate that politics thread.

What is surprising or even original about any of it though? There has been plenty of open and fair comment on this since the first protesters hit the streets in 2011, not all would you agree with.
Unless you're on the ground in Syria or on the border yourself, what has been said is generally just as qualified as your own postings.

Opportunism is no stranger to the region, and Syria with its own allies in particular.

faustino1

JustinDee wrote: »

What is surprising or even original about any of it though? There has been plenty of open and fair comment on this since the first protesters hit the streets in 2011, not all would you agree with.
Unless you're on the ground in Syria or on the border yourself, what has been said is generally just as qualified as your own postings.

Opportunism is no stranger to the region, and Syria with its own allies in particular.

So why call foreign fighters "rebels" when they're clearly just thugs imported and paid to terrorize the country and it's people?

What is the objective in your opinion anyway? Regime change in Iran?
Is that the end game? Then what? Will the middle east suddenly transform into a paradise with roses sprouting out of the sewers?

If that's the plan, it doesn't appear to be working out too well in Libya or Iraq....but we know it isn't.

JustinDee

There is no "end game". Its all about two sides plus allies gaining the upper hand against each other. Since the mid-30s, this has been the case following the Ottomans slip of grasp. An Arab revolt toppled the Ottomans and was supported by others in a self-serving stance. The Arabs taking to war against Israel following the UN GA resolution granting Israel statehood were supported by the USSR, namely Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The British, French and US naturally stood the other side. The USSR took its sides during the Suez crisis following Britain and France's goading of Israel to blockade. Same in '67 and '73.
The sectarian side of Syria's position is as subjective and convenient as any alliance. Its only a problem when it is encouraged to be one.

Iran's Pasdaran and Hizbullah are not helping Syria out of the kindness of their dumb old hearts, the same as anyone helping and stoking the insurrection against the Assad regime there.

faustino1

What are they fighting for though?

Sorry to ask such a question but everyone has their own theories, I'm just curious as to why you believe they're fighting. Why would it be strategically beneficial to Europe or America Assad goes? At the moment, I can only see it benefiting Israel because of Syria's support for Hezbollah.

I suppose it does make sense for Europe to diversify it's sources of energy and prevent Russia having too much influence over Europe politically but who do you see as being the main benefactors of Assad going and why?

Cork boy 55

From the report

It must also begin with an acknowledgement of certain basic underlying caveats.
First, Sunni foreign fighters in Syria comprise only a minority fraction of the overall
rebel force—most generously, one could estimate 10%. Second, it should be noted too
that while foreigners have certainly come to the help of the rebels, the Assad regime has
also relied on outsiders—including fighters from recognized terrorist groups like
Hezbollah and the PFLP. It is perhaps even arguable that, at present, there are actually
more foreign nationals fighting on the side of the Assad regime than with the rebels.


Key from report points that you missed for your reasons.

(1) The highest maximum generous estimate of foreign fighters is 10%
(2) It is arguable that Assad has more foreign fighters

faustino1

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

From the report

It must also begin with an acknowledgement of certain basic underlying caveats.
First, Sunni foreign fighters in Syria comprise only a minority fraction of the overall
rebel force—most generously, one could estimate 10%. Second, it should be noted too
that while foreigners have certainly come to the help of the rebels, the Assad regime has
also relied on outsiders—including fighters from recognized terrorist groups like
Hezbollah and the PFLP. It is perhaps even arguable that, at present, there are actually
more foreign nationals fighting on the side of the Assad regime than with the rebels.


Key from report points that you missed for your reasons.

(1) The highest maximum generous estimate of foreign fighters is 10%
(2) It is arguable that Assad has more foreign fighters

Hezbollah helped secure Al-Qasair from NATO-GCC backed "rebels" on the Lebanese border but what did you expect? Sit and wait their turn?

Of course Iran is assisting Syria because they know they're next for watching their country destroyed just like Libya and Iraq. You seem to think it's outrageous a country would object to being completely overrun by Islamic militants backed by foreigners with some interest in the region.

What I would like to know is what the countries are fighting about because it certainly isn't "freedom and democracy"

So what's your theory?