Obama orders clandestine support of Syrian rebels

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Assad's brutality should be a lesson to the world that crap like this still is happening and can happen. Hopefully he will fall and the new government isn't just as bad.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

confirming our development of specific cyberweaponry, its development cycle, its mode of use etc... is, also, not opaquely a poor choice.

This is the part that bugs me with the Stuxnet admission. That, along with removing that sense from the Iranian regime of being hit with something out of nowhere and not knowing what or who hit them.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

That, along with removing that sense from the Iranian regime of being hit with something out of nowhere and not knowing what or who hit them.

Yes, I'm sure the Iranians never would have guessed the two countries most firmly opposed to their nuclear program were responsible.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Yes, I'm sure the Iranians never would have guessed the two countries most firmly opposed to their nuclear program were responsible.

Let them guess. What do we gain by the admission? And tipping our hand as to our cyberwar capabilities?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

What do we gain by the admission? And tipping our hand as to our cyberwar capabilities?

Nothing, and I'm not saying the leak is a good idea. But the concept that Iran had no idea who or what hit it is far fetched.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Nothing, and I'm not saying the leak is a good idea. But the concept that Iran had no idea who or what hit it is far fetched.

Eh, you're probably right. Even if they weren't sure its a pretty short list of suspects and they likely view at least the US and Israel as a cabal anyway.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

What matters is whether or not Syrians will be better of.

I used to think that Assad was a "regular" dictator (like say, Pinochet, as opposed to the most bloody butchers like Saddam Hussein), but what he did during this revolution has been absolutely horrific.

Actually, what Pinochet did was pretty bloody.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Nothing, and I'm not saying the leak is a good idea. But the concept that Iran had no idea who or what hit it is far fetched.

There's a difference between guessing, and having us remove all doubt. Nobody said that Iran "had no idea", but waving our hands and shouting "Hey, it was us, whatcha gonna do about it!" is not wise. Not the least of which because we should be trying to win friends among the Iranian people and using Israel as the "bad cop" in this situation could've easily been used to our advantage in leveraging Iran at the negotiating table.

That's pretty much turned to shit now, though. They also now know the location and personnel which/who conducted the development of Stuxnet. No bueno.

[YogSosoth]

Correction: Obama orders formerly clandestine support of Syrian rebels...

[BrainGlutton]

Of course, the Freeptards assume Obama is doing this for the sake of his brothers in Islam. But I notice nobody comes out and says they want Assad to win this war. It does present them with rather a cognitive-dissonance problem, I suppose, since Assad is backed by Russia.

[chappy]

I wonder how the United States would react if Russia intervened militarily in the Mexican theater in an attempt to stop the barbaric slaughter of innocent lives along the US border? Do you think they would be justified just because the US is sitting on one hand in one arena while supplying the enemy with weapons with the other?

Wouldn't they have a moral right (sic) to intervene? What do you think the neo-cons and the looney left would do about it; "Put It All On The Table" like the Mormon prophet and his minions would do with the Iran/Israel issue, or slowly pound them to pieces like Dubya or Wing Nut did and are doing are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan or perhaps how Johnson and Nixon did in Vietnam?

Perhaps if we educate ourselves first and then put reasonable, educated, straight talking people (yet to be seen) in office once more they won't kill him or her like they did Lincoln, McKinley, King, Jack Kennedy and his brother Robert.

We don't have long...

chappy

[Farmer Jane]

I vote Democrat and voted for Obama and will do it again [grudgingly]. But my VERY FIRST THOUGHT when I saw this was, "The Obama administration leaked this on purpose. Wouldn't be the first time." I'm not sure if you've noticed this about Mr. President, but he is far too savvy to do anything on accident. Gaffes are rare and drama is low. Anytime something becomes "an issue", I can't help but to think it was done on purpose.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by chappy

We don't have long...

. . . before . . . ?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by chappy

I wonder how the United States would react if Russia intervened militarily in the Mexican theater in an attempt to stop the barbaric slaughter of innocent lives along the US border? Do you think they would be justified just because the US is sitting on one hand in one arena while supplying the enemy with weapons with the other?

Wouldn't they have a moral right (sic) to intervene? What do you think the neo-cons and the looney left would do about it; "Put It All On The Table" like the Mormon prophet and his minions would do with the Iran/Israel issue, or slowly pound them to pieces like Dubya or Wing Nut did and are doing are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan or perhaps how Johnson and Nixon did in Vietnam?

Perhaps if we educate ourselves first and then put reasonable, educated, straight talking people (yet to be seen) in office once more they won't kill him or her like they did Lincoln, McKinley, King, Jack Kennedy and his brother Robert.

We don't have long...

chappy

The Jews don't engage in assassinations anymore unless you're Arab.

They simply spread malicious rumors and turn people into jokes.

Now, the Masons or the Illuminati on the other hand...well, they're a different story.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

. . . before . . . ?

December 21st.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

The Jews don't engage in assassinations anymore unless you're Arab.

Unless you're Iranian. Then it's fair game.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by chappy

I wonder how the United States would react if Russia intervened militarily in the Mexican theater in an attempt to stop the barbaric slaughter of innocent lives along the US border?

You mean, the thing that isn't actually happening in reality? How does one stop that? As for Russian putting troops on the US border, try to see how that's different from the US taking military action not on the Russian border.

Originally Posted by chappy

Perhaps if we educate ourselves first

Unsurprisingly, one of the ways we educate ourselves is by using actual citations to support claims we make instead of just spouting nonsense that's counterfactual and then demanding that people believe us.

Originally Posted by chappy

We don't have long...

Because the Jews/Jehova's Witnesses and British crown are conspiring to bring about a nuclear holocaust any day now, as you've said. Me... I'm not feeling all that rushed.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by chappy

Perhaps if we educate ourselves first and then put reasonable, educated, straight talking people (yet to be seen) in office

What do you think reasonable, educated, straight talking people would do about the uprising in Syria?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Marley23

What do you think reasonable, educated, straight talking people would do about the uprising in Syria?

Stand aside, not get involved and read about the horrifying atrocities on CNN.com a million miles away, of course.

[ralph124c]

It is interesting that all of these Treaty-of-Versailles nations are rent by civil war? The guys who craved up the old Ottoman Empire mad a lot of mistakes, in the artificial nations they created. The same happened in Europe-it gave rise to WWI.
So, is Syria really a nation? I don't think so.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The US had a Civil War, too. I guess we're not really a nation either.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Actually, what Pinochet did was pretty bloody.

I know Pinochet had many people killed and tortured. Like a lot of other dictators. But the reports I read about what happened in Syria went above and beyond (or maybe not. I was way too young in 1973 to read day by day reports of what was happening. It might be that it's more abstract for me regarding Pinochet).

Anyway, suffice to say that at some point I quit reading reports about Syria, dreading what I would find written there. And in any case, I didn't think until the revolution that Assad was such a butcher. But the apple doesn't fall long away from the tree, I guess.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The US had a Civil War, too. I guess we're not really a nation either.

The South will rise again!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

I know Pinochet had many people killed and tortured. Like a lot of other dictators. But the reports I read about what happened in Syria went above and beyond (or maybe not. I was way too young in 1973 to read day by day reports of what was happening. It might be that it's more abstract for me regarding Pinochet).

Anyway, suffice to say that at some point I quit reading reports about Syria, dreading what I would find written there. And in any case, I didn't think until the revolution that Assad was such a butcher. But the apple doesn't fall long away from the tree, I guess.

Well, I'm actually inclined to make allowances for Assad, because he's fucking terrified, gotta be -- not only for himself, but for his whole Alawite ethnic-minority, that might get bloodily ethnic-cleansed if his government falls.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, I'm actually inclined to make allowances for Assad, because he's fucking terrified, gotta be -- not only for himself, but for his whole Alawite ethnic-minority, that might get bloodily ethnic-cleansed if his government falls.

That's actually a good point. Many of these dictators are/were actually quite tolerant. Minority groups in Egypt are terrified now that the extremists are in charge, and they have good reason to be.

And I really wouldn't care to be a Berber or a (black) African in Libya these days, either.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

The South will rise again!

You just reminded me of something I've often wondered about.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

You just reminded me of something I've often wondered about.

Cool thread!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Diceman

That's actually a good point. Many of these dictators are/were actually quite tolerant. Minority groups in Egypt are terrified now that the extremists are in charge, and they have good reason to be.

The Muslim Brotherhood are (1) not quite in charge yet, really, and (2) not extremists. Perhaps you are thinking of Al-Nour. The two are not on speaking terms. The MB are more like the Islamic equivalent of Europe's Christian Democrats; not that that's a good thing to be.

Originally Posted by Diceman

And I really wouldn't care to be a Berber or a (black) African in Libya these days, either.

Nitpick: Other than the (black) Africans, who have indeed been taking it on the ear, practically all Libyans are Berbers; though the majority are Arabized culturally -- somewhat (but they'd still look damn furrin' to, e.g., a Saudi Arabian). Same with every North African country to Libya's west, it's all Barbary (a/k/a Maghreb or Tamazgha).

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The Muslim Brotherhood are (1) not quite in charge yet, really, and (2) not extremists. Perhaps you are thinking of Al-Nour. The two are not on speaking terms. The MB are more like the Islamic equivalent of Europe's Christian Democrats; not that that's a good thing to be.

I didn't realize that the Christian Democrats forbid women from being leaders, called for executing homosexuals, insisted that men should be allowed to beat their wives "so long as they break no bones and spill no blood", called for executing Christians who converted to othe religions, insisted that all Christians have the phrase "ex-Christian" stamped on their ID cards to enable discriminatio against them, and insist that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and should be slaughtered as such and declare Christians who blow schoolchildren in Sbarro's into kosher hamburger "Shahids" who will be sent to paradise where they will serviced for eternity by nubile, willing virgin girls.

Moreover, I must say, if you don't consider people like that extremists, just who do you consider extremists?

For example, I assume you don't consider Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremists.

If you do, please explain.

Thanks

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Nothing, and I'm not saying the leak is a good idea. But the concept that Iran had no idea who or what hit it is far fetched.

If they blow up one of our ambassadors, will you still feel the same?

It was a serious insult for the Obama administration to admit they were involved.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

It is interesting that all of these Treaty-of-Versailles nations are rent by civil war? The guys who craved up the old Ottoman Empire mad a lot of mistakes, in the artificial nations they created. The same happened in Europe-it gave rise to WWI.
So, is Syria really a nation? I don't think so.

You're thinking of the wrong treaty. The treaties that carved up the Ottoman Empire are the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty of Lausanne. The Treaty of Sevres was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies, but it was rejected by the Turks during the Turkish War of Independence. It was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Why blame the partitioning? Turkey is self-determined. It won its war to gain independence and it still has a problem with parts of its Kurdish population. Most of the reason why is simply authoritarian rule. Similarly, the Arab Spring countries' populations are rebelling against auhtoritarian rulers. Where the authoritarian rulers are giving ground there is no civil war or calls for the end of the regime. Where the regimes have dug in, there's been violence and civil war.

It's good that the Obama administration is supporting the rebels in the way we are doing. It's the right time to do it because the Syrian rebel forces are getting to the point where they are organized and part of a mostly uniform force both within and outside the country. Also, UN efforts have failed completely, leaving little reason not to get involved. After all, what's the downside? On the one hand, if they win they will have a favorable attitude toward the US. If they lose then it's still Assad. It can only get better for us, at minimal cost and no loss to US forces.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

You're thinking of the wrong treaty. The treaties that carved up the Ottoman Empire are the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty of Lausanne. The Treaty of Sevres was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies, but it was rejected by the Turks during the Turkish War of Independence. It was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Nitpick - while the two treaties you noted may have sealed the deal, the modern map of the Middle East was largely drawn in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement from 1916.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Nitpick - while the two treaties you noted may have sealed the deal, the modern map of the Middle East was largely drawn in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement from 1916.

Thanks for the clarification.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

After all, what's the downside?

Potential Hezbollah attacks against United States military and civilian targets.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Hezbollah's not particularly supportive of the Assad regime, is it? I thought they'd been on the outs since Papa Assad turned in his chips.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Potential Hezbollah attacks against United States military and civilian targets.

Maybe I should have said "After all, what downside should I take seriously?".

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Hezbollah's not particularly supportive of the Assad regime, is it? I thought they'd been on the outs since Papa Assad turned in his chips.

Quite the opposite - if anything, Hezb has had a lot more influence in Damascus under Baby Assad.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Potential Hezbollah attacks against United States military and civilian targets.

With Iran's approval they wouldn't dare. Hezbollah is pledged to Khamenei not the Assad crime family.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Hezbollah's not particularly supportive of the Assad regime, is it?

It is.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

With Iran's approval they wouldn't dare. Hezbollah is pledged to Khamenei not the Assad crime family.

Yes and no... the weapons pipeline to Hezbollah tends to run through Syria and there have been reports of Hezbollah trying to get some of their stockpiles out in case the regime goes belly up. Self interest can play a huge motivating role. There's also the fact that while Hezbollah tends to be an Iranian creature, there's a much higher likelihood of rogue elements within a paramilitary force than within a well regulated army.

It's also not inconceivable that Hezbollah would be taken off the leash by Iran. As I mentioned up thread, we (brilliantly ) just informed Iran that, yeah, Stuxnet was ours and Israel just offered some help along the way. The Iranians have launched Hezbollah attacks against our military forces for much less in terms of direct provocation, and military attacks against Israeli/Jewish civilian targets for similarly low thresholds of a casus belli.

It is not at all beyond the pale that publicly acting to take out Assad's regime, coming right on the heels of publicly admitting that we were the ones who created Stuxnet, could have negative repercussions for us.

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Maybe I should have said "After all, what downside should I take seriously?".

You are allowed to ignore any and all facts which you find inconvenient, for any reason or reasons, Inbred.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Moreover, I must say, if you don't consider people like that extremists, just who do you consider extremists?

Al-Nour.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

You are allowed to ignore any and all facts which you find inconvenient, for any reason or reasons, Inbred.

Then provide some facts. Provide a reasonable chain of causality, with cites, that would lead Hezbollah to attack American military and civilian targets due to civil war in Syria. Or better yet, stop trying to make this thread on Obama's policies toward the Free Syrian Army a thread about Iran, Hezbollah and Israel.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Then provide some facts.

The facts have already been mentioned. Please specify which facts you are ignorant of and require additional citations for.

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Or better yet, stop trying to make this thread on Obama's policies toward the Free Syrian Army a thread about Iran, Hezbollah and Israel.

If you don't understand why American military action against Syria involves both Iran and Hezbollah, you need significant help in order to comprehend the basic dynamics at work. It's also interesting as you're now the one trying to make this thread about Israel while you decry the (fictional) focus that I've put on it. Why, do you think, you're trying to shift the topic?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Al-Nour.

Wikipedia articles are highly unreliable particularly when discussing the Middle East.

Perhaps you can fully explain why exactly you consider Al-Nour to be more "extremist" than the Muslim Brotherhood rather than just throwing out a wiki link.

Moreover, since you made the assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood was comparable to the Christian Democrats in Europe, perhaps you can link us to examples of the following; Christian Democratic parties forbidding women from being leaders, calling for executing homosexuals, insisting that men should be allowed to beat their wives "so long as they break no bones and spill no blood", calling for the executing Christians who converted to othe religions, insisting that all Christians who convert to Islam have the phrase "ex-Christian" stamped on their ID cards to enable discriminatio against them, and insist that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and should be slaughtered as such and declare Christians who blow schoolchildren in Sbarro's into kosher hamburger "Shahids" who will be sent to paradise where they will serviced for eternity by nubile, willing virgin girls.

Finally, perhaps you can explain why groups who do the above are not, in your opinion "extremists"?

Or perhaps you might reconsider your earlier assertion about the brothers and recognize that extremists take many different forms. Al Quaeda and Hamas both despise each other and have very different ideologies but I think most people on this board would classify them both as "extremists".

I assume you do as well, but if you don't think Hamas is extremist then pleas explain.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

The facts have already been mentioned. Please specify which facts you are ignorant of and require additional citations for.



If you don't understand why American military action against Syria involves both Iran and Hezbollah, you need significant help in order to comprehend the basic dynamics at work. It's also interesting as you're now the one trying to make this thread about Israel while you decry the (fictional) focus that I've put on it. Why, do you think, you're trying to shift the topic?

Way to evade what I actually asked for. Bravo. You did do the Bush thing where the key words are included in sentences but no factual information sorrounds them. Good for you.

Here's a link to an article about actual players in the Syrian conflict. Of the Western powers involved, it looks like Turkey is taking the most dramatic military action while the US has yet to take military action.

Here's a link to what Hezbollah is doing: Keeping it's mouth shut. If anything, helping the rebels to defeat Assad will weaken Hezbollah. Again, what's the (probable) downside?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Way to evade

So are you unable or unwilling to specify which facts you are ignorant of and which you require education about?

Good link to Newsmax, though.
As for your claim that Hezbollah is "keeping its mouth shut", I can only point out that you should have not only politely asked me to clear up your ignorance, but read the thread and the cites provided, especially in posts you respond to which specifically state that Hezbollah has come out in support of Assad.

In fact, Nasrallah made a rare public appearance in December to address his followers and make clear his support for the Syrian regime.

"We support the reforms in Syria and we stand with the regime against the resistance movement," Nasrallah said at a rally in Beirut on Dec. 6. He has rarely been seen in public since Hezbollah’s war with Israel in 2006 out of fear of an Israeli assassination attempt.

His appearance was meant to reiterate not only his support for Assad’s regime – but also to diminish any sense that Hezbollah had been weakened by the ongoing conflict in Syria.

It was also meant to thwart what the Hezbollah official said is seen as a major outgrowth of the "Arab awakenings" – inviting more Western influence and interference, if not dominance, in the region. For the Arab revolutions to succeed, he believes, “Western meddling and interference in the region must be rejected and true Arab sovereignty established.”

It's clear that while you're not arguing dishonestly, you are arguing from a position of willful, militant ignorance. And as such, the result is much the same.
So, yet again, Hezbollah retaliation against the United States is a probable result of getting publicly involved in ousting Assad, especially when coupled with our public admission that we were behind the recent cyber-attack on Iranian's nuclear program. What facts do you remain ignorant of on which you would appreciate being educated? It's good that you've dropped your nonsense about any focus on Israel on my part, as I'd wager that you've realized it's an indefensible accusation for you to make, but you're still arguing from a position of ignorance. You could have your ignorance cleared up if you politely request that I help educate you, but your hostility to being educated hardly makes me want to go out of my way to bring you up to speed.

Edit: good lord, did you even read your own cite?

Hezbollah has shown no sign of abandoning Assad and Lebanese officials close to the group say it won't stand idle if the battle worsens. Some said it will fight Israel. Others said it will deploy some of its fighters to secure the border with Lebanon, from which rebels are attacking Syrian frontier posts.

They also said Hezbollah is bracing for the fighting in Syria to be long and hard.

"They cannot distance themselves. What is happening now is fateful for them," said Lebanese analyst Jihad al-Zein. "Their alliance with Syria is strategic and was formed with the Assad family."

"They do not have a choice - they are with the regime until the last minute. This is a strategic alliance between Iran and Syria and they are part of it," he added.
[...]


"Hezbollah will definitely take part in the war if Syria faces foreign intervention. It sees the whole campaign on Assad as a campaign to target resistance," a second Lebanese official said, using the label for armed groups opposed to Israel.

For now, they say Hezbollah has been watching the unrest in Syria. It banned officials and members from publicly talking about the revolt, leaving its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah as the only voice of the group, reiterating his support for Assad.

A year ago, officials close to Hezbollah denied Syrian opposition accusations that it was sending fighters to help Assad's forces. The same officials now say this might change if there is foreign intervention or Assad is weakened.

Un-freaking-real.

[clairobscur]

I too frankly don't see the Hezbollah attaking the USA, and I especially don't think it is a "probable result".


What I'm worried about is a new civil war in Lebanon. The civil war in Syria is throwing yet another bone of contention in this country, and I'm already wondering how it isn't collapsing.

[FinnAgain]

Hezbollah attacked US forces on multiple occasions with zero provocation and Jewish civilians with even less. The idea that they would retaliate if we support the overthrow of one of their allies and their munitions pipeline to boot is hardly farfetched..

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Hezbollah attacked US forces on multiple occasions with zero provocation and Jewish civilians with even less. .

Hmm. Maybe I'm not aware of all of Hezbollah's attack against the USA, but didn't they all happened when US forces were present in Lebanon? (Isreali citizens aren't what we're discussing).

Besides it seems to me that attacking the USA would be very counter-productive as a way to support Assad's regime.

[FinnAgain]

The US forces in Lebanon were noncombatants, the US forces in Saudi Arabia were there at the government's request and I was taking about Jewish civilians in Argentina, not Israelis.

[adaher]

Hezbollah has never attacked on US soil, but they have definitely created a capability to do so. They are operating here:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ist-activities