Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
and then

Syrian Rebels Swear Fealty to AlQeada

66 posts in this topic

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4366532,00.html

I'm wondering if Britain and France will continue the direct assistance.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not openly, but most likely in secret

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ynetnews....4366532,00.html

I'm wondering if Britain and France will continue the direct assistance.

Was about to post this. Was your comment about not seeing this coming sarcastic? I've been posting about this both with Syria and Libya. We're supporting the same ilk that we're fighting.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was about to post this. Was your comment about not seeing this coming sarcastic? I've been posting about this both with Syria and Libya. We're supporting the same ilk that we're fighting.

Libya didnt have any Jihadists but lots of Islamists

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So since the Syrian rebels are pledging their allegiance to Al Qaeda wonder how much anyone should help them. Don't think I would like to see a Syria run by Al Qaeda.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libya didnt have any Jihadists but lots of Islamists

A rose and a petunia are both flowers.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libya didnt have any Jihadists but lots of Islamists

This would be incorrect, and I have posted evidence of this already. Jihadists, ex-Mujihadeen, al'Qaeda affiliated - they had them all.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be incorrect, and I have posted evidence of this already. Jihadists, ex-Mujihadeen, al'Qaeda affiliated - they had them all.

Im so confused, they are the same true, but for me Jihads fight for freedom while Al-Q fights for religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Im so confused, they are the same true, but for me Jihads fight for freedom while Al-Q fights for religion

I thought Jihad ment "holy war". This is reinforced when they call their casualties "martyrs"

Edited by Professor Buzzkill
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im so confused, they are the same true, but for me Jihads fight for freedom while Al-Q fights for religion

The definition of Jihad is holy war, so Jihadist's fight to spread thier religion. How would that really differ frim a so called Islamist? Not a bit by my estimation. Islamist is just another PC term used to avoid hurting the poor little Jihadist's feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's not a conspiracy theory now.... Kinda obvious already.

Didn't stop us supporting them in Libya.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was about to post this. Was your comment about not seeing this coming sarcastic? I've been posting about this both with Syria and Libya. We're supporting the same ilk that we're fighting.

It was. I was fully aware it was happening also but I was surprised, a bit, that they would openly declare it so soon, before the issue is settled so to speak.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more funny than sad: so aid and weapons are to be sent to Zawahri's men in Syria by the same powers which are deploying drones to bomb him and his group in Afghanistan and Yemen...the same decision makers who are enthusiastically backing Islamist control of Lybia and Egypt but are fighting a 'war against terror'? It seems I'm not the only one who is confused, some policy makers are apparently also confused!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more funny than sad: so aid and weapons are to be sent to Zawahri's men in Syria by the same powers which are deploying drones to bomb him and his group in Afghanistan and Yemen...the same decision makers who are enthusiastically backing Islamist control of Lybia and Egypt but are fighting a 'war against terror'? It seems I'm not the only one who is confused, some policy makers are apparently also confused!

When a government can not or will not even NAME it's enemy, it is impossible to defeat that enemy. Political correctness - politics in general - has finally reached a realm of insanity IMO.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When a government can not or will not even NAME it's enemy, it is impossible to defeat that enemy. Political correctness - politics in general - has finally reached a realm of insanity IMO.

Exactly! It is all "politics of the moment" trying to solve problems using near-sighted, short-term measures without any long term vision to the consequences of what they are creating on the ground, as long as it looks good and sounds 'creative' on paper! An apt French word to describe these policies is FARFELU! Too bad that many innocent people from all sides have to die for the card houses politician are busy building.

Edited by meryt-tetisheri
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more funny than sad: so aid and weapons are to be sent to Zawahri's men in Syria by the same powers which are deploying drones to bomb him and his group in Afghanistan and Yemen...the same decision makers who are enthusiastically backing Islamist control of Lybia and Egypt but are fighting a 'war against terror'? It seems I'm not the only one who is confused, some policy makers are apparently also confused!

The US is backing the MB because their "blood brothers", the Saudis, are the missing link which brings the triumvirate together. All three have a common enemy, the Iranians. It's a religious thing, Shia's (or Shiite's) against Sunni's. Assad is an Alawi which is a religious affiliation to the Shiite's.

Unfortunately (for the Copts) Christians in the ME are an insignificant nuisance that nobody cares about and "War on terror" was only a pretense for GW Bush to set foot in Iraq. It might have turned out differently for you guys if the Vatican elected that Egyptian Bishop instead of the Argentinian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is backing the MB because their "blood brothers", the Saudis, are the missing link which brings the triumvirate together. All three have a common enemy, the Iranians. It's a religious thing, Shia's (or Shiite's) against Sunni's. Assad is an Alawi which is a religious affiliation to the Shiite's.

Unfortunately (for the Copts) Christians in the ME are an insignificant nuisance that nobody cares about and "War on terror" was only a pretense for GW Bush to set foot in Iraq. It might have turned out differently for you guys if the Vatican elected that Egyptian Bishop instead of the Argentinian.

That's the 'looks good on paper' policy! In the meanwhile, arms sent to Syria might turn up in Yemen, Afghanistan, or any where else, aimed at those who sent them. If the West gets involved in the Sunni/Shiia debacle, they will have no effective long term controls on what they are birthing now; nor will the Saudi royal family. The Islamists aim to create a far flung state in the ME and apparently parts of sub-Sahara Africa and will eventually turn towards all these oil-rich states in the Gulf. It is absurd to hand the rope to those who are trying to tie a noose around one's neck. I also agree with you that the Copts and other Christians are merely a nuissance in this big scheme, but their extermination will expose the inherent hypocricy of all the "human rights" rhetoric, just like the European jews who were at one time a 'nuissance' and the world preferred to avert its eyes. When this fig leaf falls all will stand naked!

No chance of a Copt in the Papal seat :) the numbers of Roman Catolic Copts are too few!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Syrian rebels are hardly a united front. While this development is distrubing and all aid to this group should be cut off it's not like every single rebel faction has merged with al Qaeda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's the 'looks good on paper' policy! In the meanwhile, arms sent to Syria might turn up in Yemen, Afghanistan, or any where else, aimed at those who sent them. If the West gets involved in the Sunni/Shiia debacle, they will have no effective long term controls on what they are birthing now; nor will the Saudi royal family. The Islamists aim to create a far flung state in the ME and apparently parts of sub-Sahara Africa and will eventually turn towards all these oil-rich states in the Gulf. It is absurd to hand the rope to those who are trying to tie a noose around one's neck. I also agree with you that the Copts and other Christians are merely a nuissance in this big scheme, but their extermination will expose the inherent hypocricy of all the "human rights" rhetoric, just like the European jews who were at one time a 'nuissance' and the world preferred to avert its eyes. When this fig leaf falls all will stand naked!

No chance of a Copt in the Papal seat :) the numbers of Roman Catolic Copts are too few!

I don't think the West has any concerns with what any terrorist group or nation from the ME can throw at them. Their power is overwhelmingly so superior on a conventional level they could annihilate any obstacle. It's a different situation when they have to set boots on land and set up tent (as Iraq and Afghanistan teach us). Here's where the MB and Saudi's step in. The West throw money at the Saudi's who turn some of it around and pay their MB brothers who do all the hard work.

Something of a Quid Pro Quo situation. All IMO of course.

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the West has any concerns with what any terrorist group or nation from the ME can throw at them. Their power is overwhelmingly so superior on a conventional level they could annihilate any obstacle. It's a different situation when they have to set boots on land and set up tent (as Iraq and Afghanistan teach us). Here's where the MB and Saudi's step in. The West throw money at the Saudi's who turn some of it around and pay their MB brothers who do all the hard work.

Something of a Quid Pro Quo situation. All IMO of course.

In re the topic of the thread, according to an Egyptian newspaper, last week about a hundred anti-aircraft missiles were caught in Egypt. They were being smuggled in from Libya. God knows how many passed through undetected, where did they end up, in whose hands they might be, and to what objective they might be used.

The quid pro quo situation depends on so many assumptions that at the end it will be another house of cards which might look practical and ‘pretty’ in theory, but then, at best, can last for only a very short time. SA’s income from both oil and the Haj is huge. It does not need more money thrown at it by the West. What it seeks is its own (and its ideology’s) supremacy in the area; and of course the proverbial ‘head of Shiism on a silver plate’.

What are the guarantees that the present regime there will last for the next 10 or 20 years, or that it will not be replaced by a more extreme, anti-west, or ‘puritan’ regime?

What would happen if there are mass revolts in ME against the MB? Will the West bomb the people into extinction?

The MB are not exactly known for keeping their pledges or allegiance if there is a chance of increasing their gains by turning against their allies. What if they decide to cut the middleman from the equation and directly control the oil wells (recently the Emirates arrested several MB members who were plotting to create sleeping cells there). Would the West still believe that their interests are protected with a caliphate established by the mother organization of all terrorist groups? Again bomb the countries & crush civilians into dust?

As rulers, the MB are phenomenally incompetent, they managed to run Egypt to the ground in just 9 months, how deep are the West’s pockets because there will be several hundred million people in the area who will end up in extreme poverty?

Are there any guarantees that the tide of extremism will not reach the West, would an MB ultra-state shy from using it as leverage?

There are 10-15 million Copts in Egypt, almost 2 million (in the past) in Iraq, 2.5 in Syria, plus those in Lebanon and Jordan; if the West for the sake of oil regards them as a mere ‘nuisance’ which can be exterminated while the world whistles and shrugs, then the West also loses any claim on morality.

The MB, in all its variants, does not represent Islam. There are many decent moderate Muslims with whom the West can deal to protect its interests without causing unnecessary suffering to innocent people. As it is, it seems to me that now the ‘West’ is acting like a man holding a very powerful gun aimed at his foot and his finger is on the trigger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on how bad the rebels in the revolution want a free society for all people and not of a religious control. Al quada is still hyjacking the rebellions in the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Syrian rebels are hardly a united front. While this development is distrubing and all aid to this group should be cut off it's not like every single rebel faction has merged with al Qaeda.

I agree and really didn't imagine that all rebels were in the same structure. But to have any group at this point boldly proclaim their true intent shows either stupidity or a lack of concern of what the west can, or more importantly will, do. My guess is that this is just a petty way of reacting to the west's refusal to arm them sufficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.ynetnews....4366532,00.html

I'm wondering if Britain and France will continue the direct assistance.

Oh, they will. And so will Barrack Hussein. Never underestimate the sheer stupidity of our political leaders.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.