The white helmets. Terrorists in disguise?

[whichphilosophy]

They're all committing atrocities where there is no good or bad guy like in the Westerns where the goodies wore the white hats.

I don't have enough to go on to suggest the 'White Hats are are much more than what they are claimed to be other than pro-rebel. However in some cases that could be bad since I doubt any of the sides has an instruction book on how to behave.

If the US had not interfered this war would not have been going on in in the first place, hence no white helmets but bad Assad

The civil war started without US involvement, and the American impact is minimal anyway. The rebels get most of their funding and weapons from Saudi Arabia and other islamists rather than the US.

Then who supplies Saudi with the weapons to launder to Syria but now admittedly from the USA??

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-defense-congress-idUSKCN11R2LU

and
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/wo...bels.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria’s embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the C.I.A. has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since then, the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles./2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

 

[Jayjay]

The civil war started without US involvement, and the American impact is minimal anyway. The rebels get most of their funding and weapons from Saudi Arabia and other islamists rather than the US.

Then who supplies Saudi with the weapons to launder to Syria but now admittedly from the USA??

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-defense-congress-idUSKCN11R2LU

and
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/wo...bels.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria’s embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the C.I.A. has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since then, the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles./2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

Who manufactured the weapons is irrelevant, if they are available on open markets anyway. It's the funding that counts. And the US involvement didn't start until the civil war was well underway... whatever "training" CIA provided probably wasn't something the rebels couldn't pick up elsewhere (unless you think America is the only country that can use AK-47 and RPGs).

Not that even supporting Saudi Arabia in any shape or form is something that US should be doing. But KSA is perfectly capable of meddling on its own, as witnessed by the way they put down the uprising in Bahrain a few years back, or how they are bombing Yemen right now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know if White Helmets are "terrorists", but what I do know for a fact is that there is a HUGE amount of propaganda against them coming from Russia, Syria, and their allies. Even the video in the OP has a fucking Hezbollah flag in the corner, is that really a reliable source to get information about Syria? Or about anything?

It's a logo of channel which published that video.
Can you judge the video by its content? I know you can, so?

The issue is cherrypicking. Even if the video is 100% true (and with Hezbollah involved that's not likely) that doesn't mean it gives an honest portrayal of the facts. When you have a source known for staged videos why in the world would you think it's one bit trustworthy?

 

[Will Wiley]

The civil war started without US involvement, .

Not so.
From 2006
Syria in Bush's Cross Hairs

From April 2011
U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition

 

[Will Wiley]

It's a logo of channel which published that video.
Can you judge the video by its content? I know you can, so?

The issue is cherrypicking. Even if the video is 100% true (and with Hezbollah involved that's not likely) that doesn't mean it gives an honest portrayal of the facts. When you have a source known for staged videos why in the world would you think it's one bit trustworthy?

you are confused about the "source". This is the source.
http://www.handsoffsyriasydney.com/

 

[whichphilosophy]

Then who supplies Saudi with the weapons to launder to Syria but now admittedly from the USA??

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-defense-congress-idUSKCN11R2LU

and
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/wo...bels.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria’s embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the C.I.A. has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since then, the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles./2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

Who manufactured the weapons is irrelevant, if they are available on open markets anyway. It's the funding that counts. And the US involvement didn't start until the civil war was well underway... whatever "training" CIA provided probably wasn't something the rebels couldn't pick up elsewhere (unless you think America is the only country that can use AK-47 and RPGs).

Not that even supporting Saudi Arabia in any shape or form is something that US should be doing. But KSA is perfectly capable of meddling on its own, as witnessed by the way they put down the uprising in Bahrain a few years back, or how they are bombing Yemen right now.

The US supplied the Rebels with food rations and pick up trucks and later training. The Saudis laundered the weapons to them. If the weapons were liquidated to cash it would be called money laundering in its truest sense (from USA to Saudi to the Rebels and Al Nursa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

So the US was involved at all points of this war but eventually joined with the UAE and others in attacking ISIS which thanks to the US had been filling the void arising out of the loss of control by Assad and the rebels.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

White helmet.

Dammit Derec, that was my first thought!

 

[Jayjay]

The issue is cherrypicking. Even if the video is 100% true (and with Hezbollah involved that's not likely) that doesn't mean it gives an honest portrayal of the facts. When you have a source known for staged videos why in the world would you think it's one bit trustworthy?

you are confused about the "source". This is the source.
http://www.handsoffsyriasydney.com/

No, that's not the "source" either. Keyboard warriors in Sydney, who are openly pro-Assad, came up with a clipshow of possible propaganda pieces from various other sources, which likely trace back to Syrian and Russian propagandists in the ground. All these layers of propagandists quoting other propagandists quoting other propagandists and adding their own embellishments and obfuscations in between like some cynical game of telephone hardly makes the message any more reliable, on the contrary.

 

[Jayjay]

Who manufactured the weapons is irrelevant, if they are available on open markets anyway. It's the funding that counts. And the US involvement didn't start until the civil war was well underway... whatever "training" CIA provided probably wasn't something the rebels couldn't pick up elsewhere (unless you think America is the only country that can use AK-47 and RPGs).

Not that even supporting Saudi Arabia in any shape or form is something that US should be doing. But KSA is perfectly capable of meddling on its own, as witnessed by the way they put down the uprising in Bahrain a few years back, or how they are bombing Yemen right now.

The US supplied the Rebels with food rations and pick up trucks and later training. The Saudis laundered the weapons to them. If the weapons were liquidated to cash it would be called money laundering in its truest sense (from USA to Saudi to the Rebels and Al Nursa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

So the US was involved at all points of this war but eventually joined with the UAE and others in attacking ISIS which thanks to the US had been filling the void arising out of the loss of control by Assad and the rebels.

The war didn's start with food rations or trucks. It started with Assad massacring civilians and Qatar and Saudis then egging on sunnis to rise up. All this was well underway before America joined in. After that it was just a matter of which devil they would support (an obvious choice given current US alliances) and how to do it exactly (which was a complete disaster).

Long before that Assad had a hand in deliberately backing Al Qaeda in Iraq and even in Syria for years just to mess with Americans, and to undermine any moderate opposition to Assad's regime. That didn't work out so well.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The US supplied the Rebels with food rations and pick up trucks and later training. The Saudis laundered the weapons to them. If the weapons were liquidated to cash it would be called money laundering in its truest sense (from USA to Saudi to the Rebels and Al Nursa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

So the US was involved at all points of this war but eventually joined with the UAE and others in attacking ISIS which thanks to the US had been filling the void arising out of the loss of control by Assad and the rebels.

The war didn's start with food rations or trucks. It started with Assad massacring civilians and Qatar and Saudis then egging on sunnis to rise up. All this was well underway before America joined in. After that it was just a matter of which devil they would support (an obvious choice given current US alliances) and how to do it exactly (which was a complete disaster).

Long before that Assad had a hand in deliberately backing Al Qaeda in Iraq and even in Syria for years just to mess with Americans, and to undermine any moderate opposition to Assad's regime. That didn't work out so well.

Where did you get this? There are of course conflicting theories and also how many years we need to go back before the war started

The government itself doesn't follow a hard line version of Islam and has protected the rights of other religions.

However without wet nursing from Saudi and the USA the FSA could not have been established an attempt at regime change. This started around 2011

 

[Jayjay]

The war didn's start with food rations or trucks. It started with Assad massacring civilians and Qatar and Saudis then egging on sunnis to rise up. All this was well underway before America joined in. After that it was just a matter of which devil they would support (an obvious choice given current US alliances) and how to do it exactly (which was a complete disaster).

Long before that Assad had a hand in deliberately backing Al Qaeda in Iraq and even in Syria for years just to mess with Americans, and to undermine any moderate opposition to Assad's regime. That didn't work out so well.

Where did you get this? There are of course conflicting theories and also how many years we need to go back before the war started

Politico:

It began, in mid-2011, with the Syrian regime’s suspicious release of hundreds of jihadis from prison—a move that served Assad’s strategy of presenting the uprising at once as a plot by Islamist extremists, agents of Israel and the West and a small number of disillusioned citizens with legitimate gripes who had fallen prey to “foreign conspirators.” It also played, unwittingly or not, into Golani’s hands.

The truth was that al Qaeda had never really been an established presence in Syria. Historically, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and its more violently sectarian offshoot, the Fighting Vanguard, were the country’s most prominent Islamist organizations. In the mid-1970s, they were at the forefront of a radical Sunni insurgency against the secular government of Bashar’s father, Hafez al-Assad. But by 1982 they had been effectively extinguished in Syria, after the February massacre of as many as 20,000 people in the central city of Hama. Membership in the Brotherhood was made a capital offense, prompting most of those who survived the purge to flee overseas. Several hundred were tossed into the notorious Sednaya military prison, some 20 miles north of the capital Damascus, and forgotten.

Syria’s main association with al Qaeda came later, when it served as a key transit route for jihadis entering Iraq to fight coalition troops after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. According to a cache of al Qaeda in Iraq personnel files captured in 2007 in the Iraqi border town of Sinjar, every single one of the 600-plus foreign fighters in the records had entered Iraq from Syria. Some, including top U.S. officials, have concluded that the Syrian government was complicit in the movement of these men through its territory, and that in so doing it achieved two objectives—domestically, it (temporarily) rid itself of potential threats from homegrown Islamists, and regionally, it would help hobble an American force that might turn its attention to Syria next.

It seems there is a lot of misinformation out there. Browsing wikipedia for e.g. Al-Nusra leader Abu al-Golani is mostly sourced by "citation needed". But fact is that most of the fighters in Iraq came from Syria and I find it plausible that this happened with Assad's approval.

The government itself doesn't follow a hard line version of Islam and has protected the rights of other religions.

However without wet nursing from Saudi and the USA the FSA could not have been established an attempt at regime change. This started around 2011

The FSA was a dud and it didn't start the uprising, it was a loose coalition of various groups that was set up to give the already-ongoing insurgency some international legitimacy. The terrorists in Al-Nusra for example would have fought the regime anyway, and they would have received their weapons regardless of whether USA gave it its blessing or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue is cherrypicking. Even if the video is 100% true (and with Hezbollah involved that's not likely) that doesn't mean it gives an honest portrayal of the facts. When you have a source known for staged videos why in the world would you think it's one bit trustworthy?

you are confused about the "source". This is the source.
http://www.handsoffsyriasydney.com/

Activists who want Assad to control Syria.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The war didn's start with food rations or trucks. It started with Assad massacring civilians and Qatar and Saudis then egging on sunnis to rise up. All this was well underway before America joined in. After that it was just a matter of which devil they would support (an obvious choice given current US alliances) and how to do it exactly (which was a complete disaster).

Long before that Assad had a hand in deliberately backing Al Qaeda in Iraq and even in Syria for years just to mess with Americans, and to undermine any moderate opposition to Assad's regime. That didn't work out so well.

Where did you get this? There are of course conflicting theories and also how many years we need to go back before the war started

The government itself doesn't follow a hard line version of Islam and has protected the rights of other religions.

However without wet nursing from Saudi and the USA the FSA could not have been established an attempt at regime change. This started around 2011

The war started well before any big powers became involved.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where did you get this? There are of course conflicting theories and also how many years we need to go back before the war started

Politico:

It began, in mid-2011, with the Syrian regime’s suspicious release of hundreds of jihadis from prison—a move that served Assad’s strategy of presenting the uprising at once as a plot by Islamist extremists, agents of Israel and the West and a small number of disillusioned citizens with legitimate gripes who had fallen prey to “foreign conspirators.” It also played, unwittingly or not, into Golani’s hands.

The truth was that al Qaeda had never really been an established presence in Syria. Historically, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and its more violently sectarian offshoot, the Fighting Vanguard, were the country’s most prominent Islamist organizations. In the mid-1970s, they were at the forefront of a radical Sunni insurgency against the secular government of Bashar’s father, Hafez al-Assad. But by 1982 they had been effectively extinguished in Syria, after the February massacre of as many as 20,000 people in the central city of Hama. Membership in the Brotherhood was made a capital offense, prompting most of those who survived the purge to flee overseas. Several hundred were tossed into the notorious Sednaya military prison, some 20 miles north of the capital Damascus, and forgotten.

Syria’s main association with al Qaeda came later, when it served as a key transit route for jihadis entering Iraq to fight coalition troops after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. According to a cache of al Qaeda in Iraq personnel files captured in 2007 in the Iraqi border town of Sinjar, every single one of the 600-plus foreign fighters in the records had entered Iraq from Syria. Some, including top U.S. officials, have concluded that the Syrian government was complicit in the movement of these men through its territory, and that in so doing it achieved two objectives—domestically, it (temporarily) rid itself of potential threats from homegrown Islamists, and regionally, it would help hobble an American force that might turn its attention to Syria next.

It seems there is a lot of misinformation out there. Browsing wikipedia for e.g. Al-Nusra leader Abu al-Golani is mostly sourced by "citation needed". But fact is that most of the fighters in Iraq came from Syria and I find it plausible that this happened with Assad's approval.

The government itself doesn't follow a hard line version of Islam and has protected the rights of other religions.

However without wet nursing from Saudi and the USA the FSA could not have been established an attempt at regime change. This started around 2011

The FSA was a dud and it didn't start the uprising, it was a loose coalition of various groups that was set up to give the already-ongoing insurgency some international legitimacy. The terrorists in Al-Nusra for example would have fought the regime anyway, and they would have received their weapons regardless of whether USA gave it its blessing or not.

Loose is the word. Al Nursa and others did receive the arms from the USA before then transformed (or revealed themselves). Assad separated church from state which was enough to excite a few extremists. I'm sure a few were even tempted to say God Bless America as the supplies reached them

This is simply a fully blown proxy war instigated by the US which like others backfired.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where did you get this? There are of course conflicting theories and also how many years we need to go back before the war started

The government itself doesn't follow a hard line version of Islam and has protected the rights of other religions.

However without wet nursing from Saudi and the USA the FSA could not have been established an attempt at regime change. This started around 2011

The war started well before any big powers became involved.

The involvement started with logistics food and medical supplies. The US didn't need to openly supply arms because the weapons were laundered through Saudi. The US was the first big power involved and rather foolishly supplied aid to Al Nursa and others of their ilk.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The war started well before any big powers became involved.

The involvement started with logistics food and medical supplies. The US didn't need to openly supply arms because the weapons were laundered through Saudi. The US was the first big power involved and rather foolishly supplied aid to Al Nursa and others of their ilk.

The war started with the Arab Spring. It just slowly escalated from protests to civil war.

 

[barbos]

The involvement started with logistics food and medical supplies. The US didn't need to openly supply arms because the weapons were laundered through Saudi. The US was the first big power involved and rather foolishly supplied aid to Al Nursa and others of their ilk.

The war started with the Arab Spring. It just slowly escalated from protests to civil war.

Funny how the only places which managed to avoid spring are US allies in ME.

 

[Axulus]

The war started with the Arab Spring. It just slowly escalated from protests to civil war.

Funny how the only places which managed to avoid spring are US allies in ME.

Egypt was and is a key US ally. That didn't stop the Arab Spring there, did it?

You need to try harder with these arguments.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The involvement started with logistics food and medical supplies. The US didn't need to openly supply arms because the weapons were laundered through Saudi. The US was the first big power involved and rather foolishly supplied aid to Al Nursa and others of their ilk.

The war started with the Arab Spring. It just slowly escalated from protests to civil war.

This escalated within weeks (20111 and 2012). It started with a loose coalition of Syrian Army defectors and Jihadis. By 2013 many of the FSA troops had defected to Al Nursa ISIS and other similar groups.

One issue (where I don't have any conclusive views is whether the FSA actually exists anymore as a major force or is it being used as a trademark by ISIS and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army#History_of_the_Free_Syrian_Army_.28FSA.29

016: Opposing narratives
'Free Syrian Army is a myth'

Al-Nusra Front members and a Free Syrian Army labeled commander in Maarrat al-Nu'man, 11 March 2016
Marc Lynch, a Professor of Political Science in the United States, is cited as describing in April 2016 the FSA as “something of a myth, with a media presence far outstripping its actual organizational capacity” and amounting to little more than “a diverse array of local defense forces, ideological trends, and self-interested warlords. It exercised little real command and control, and had little ability to formulate or implement a coherent military strategy.”[148]

Use of FSA label in Latakia
In April 2016, according to website Al-masdar News, FSA’s 1st Coastal Division together with al-Nusra Front, Ahrar ash-Sham and the Turkistan Islamic Party attacked Syrian government’s positions in northeastern Latakia Governorate, capturing village Nakshaba,[154] 50% of Jabal Qamou', and village al-Bayyada.[155]

END OF CUT AND PASTE

I did expect however that the revolution as in other states would be hijacked to some degree by Jihadees

 

[whichphilosophy]

Funny how the only places which managed to avoid spring are US allies in ME.

Egypt was and is a key US ally. That didn't stop the Arab Spring there, did it?

You need to try harder with these arguments.

Don't you mean Arab Winter? In every country the Jihadis used this for their agenda.