The Syrian Moderates

Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
15,602
Serious question here, who knows anything about the leaders of the moderate Syrian opposition the United States is arming?

I have noticed that television coverage does not mention the names or political philosophies of the Free Syrian Army or other "moderate" rebel groups. The political organization of this moderate faction still seems quite fractured. Most articles that discuss this in the American press seem to pass over these details and focus on bombing campaigns, boots on the ground, and other martial matters.

Occasionally, additional names like Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir, Jamal Maarouf, or Abdul Jabber al-Oqaidi sneak into an online article such as this one from NBC News. The descriptions of these personalities is often vague--from that article, we know Mr. Maarouf has street cred with non-extremists, and al-Bashir is a moderate Islamist while al-Oqaidi is apparently very aggressive. CBS News introduces us to Hadi al-Bahra as the president of the Opposition Coalition. However, what does a Syria run by Maarouf, al-Bashir, al-Oqaidi, or al-Bahra look like? How does a military general with moderately Islamist policies run a country differently than Assad? Are there any bin Ladens in this group who are going to turn around and attack us once they get what they want in their homeland?

I jest a bit at the American TV media here, thankfully wiki has a more exhaustive list of the organizations and actors involved, derived from multiple sources. But there is a still a gap of understanding regarding which of these groups are getting weapons, who ultimately becomes the leader of a new Syria, and how these diverse organizations approach policy in a theoretical post-Assad, post-ISIS Syria.

So I open this RD thread as a long-term project to collect and share information specifically on the leaders of the so-called Syrian moderate opposition. News articles, thoughts, videos, whatever. We have other threads to discuss the war, ISIS, and that Assad fellow, so let's keep talk about those subjects to a minimum unless it is relevant to the moderates.
 
I'm essentially doing this as a subscription post, but I would point out that the media over here snagged pictures of Senator John McCain meeting with various rebel leaders, including the leader of ISIL, last year. I don't know how widely that information was circulated; it was only the online 'radical' blogs that paid any attention to them here, as the mainstream media was too busy pointing out the Kim Kardashian had a wardrobe malfunction and took photos of her arse. I'll post the images if I can find them again. Um, of McCain, not Kardashian.
 
A commander of the FSA asked Israel to enforce a no-fly zone along their border.
 
I know all i need to know about the "moderates" when they were offended the US bombed an Al Qaeda affiliate they were allied with.
 
I dont really believe they exist and if they do they have nothing to do with democracy.
 
The Irony in the whole situation is Assad is our best bet for Democracy in Syria. Strange concept saying that.
I am in full agreement with this. He has actually offered to step down and allow free elections, and also offered to allow elections with himself as a candidate. Both offers have been rejected, after not even being reported in any mainstream sources over here.

Here's a source on those photographs I mentioned earlier. It's not exactly an unbiased source, but it has the benefits of big pointy arrows showing who's who amongst the terroristsmoderate freedom fighters.

john-mccain-meets-with-syrian-rebels-isis-islamic-state-caliph-ibrahim-al-qaeda-islamic-state-2013.jpg
 
the moderates were kinda like the Sunni Army officers who rebelled on American guarantees that the New Turkey controlled everything and the Turkish Army would join the fight within a month if not a month and while we received a terrible bloodbath with Syrian Army designed solely to fight us they would -generally- survive and create a new kind of Syria . They are mostly dead by now ; if Damascus don't kill them in combat the Jihadists do in suicide attacks and stuff . You know , those moderates had -and have if still alive- morals and honour .
 
This is essentially a subscription post too, but judging these guys as undemocratic so prematurely is kind of shallow. The protest against an bombing Al Queada affiliated group may have been pragmatic in nature, you know, "we don't like these guys, but they do useful stuff for us". There is nothing inherently wrong with being an Islamist, but there is something wrong with being a radical Islamist. Islamists as a group aren't all about bombs. In Turkey, they participate in democratic government. In a lot of other places they provide basic health care and other services.
Here is an example of a group.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/meet-the-global-muslim-pe_b_5563494.html
 
and America pushed that democratic goverment solely to form a Sunni base of action against the likes of Iran and as the easy one , Syria . There is nothing against Muslims in politics , considering am Muslim myself .
 
Assad has already acquisced to the demands of the more moderate rebels by naming a mostly Sunni government, among other things. Those that still continue to fight have become Islamist puppets.
 
Are there any bin Ladens in this group who are going to turn around and attack us once they get what they want in their homeland?

Wasn't Osama Bin Laden just a regular guy who came from a rich family which had strong ties to the Saudi royal family and the U.S. administration and/or intelligence services?

As in, wasn't he a guy who we'd never expect would end up leading a terrorist organization against the U.S.?. .. As in, someone we wouldn't have been able to predict no matter what?

I am in full agreement with this. He has actually offered to step down and allow free elections, and also offered to allow elections with himself as a candidate. Both offers have been rejected, after not even being reported in any mainstream sources over here.

He's also committed heinous crimes against his people. If he's the best bet for democracy, then Syria is screwed.
 
When you've killed a hundred thousand of your own people, including 5,000 under torture, the whole idea of democracy becomes kind of irrelevant.
 
Wasn't Osama Bin Laden just a regular guy who came from a rich family which had strong ties to the Saudi royal family and the U.S. administration and/or intelligence services?

As in, wasn't he a guy who we'd never expect would end up leading a terrorist organization against the U.S.?. .. As in, someone we wouldn't have been able to predict no matter what?
Maybe before he began making radical Wahabbist comments and travelled to Afghanistan to fight a guerrilla war. The latter was something of a giveaway that he wasn't a pacifist.


He's also committed heinous crimes against his people. If he's the best bet for democracy, then Syria is screwed.
Most of the crimes Assad gets the blame for were committed by his father. That aside, I will never pretend that Assad is a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day. He is, indeed, a brutal dictator (though I've always suspected that the infamous poison gas attack was done by one of his generals without his permission, which explains his willingness to own up to the crime). So in a way, you're indeed correct; with Assad as the best hope for democracy, Syria is screwed, because all the alternatives right now make Assad look like John the Baptist.
 
Most of the crimes Assad gets the blame for were committed by his father. That aside, I will never pretend that Assad is a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day. He is, indeed, a brutal dictator (though I've always suspected that the infamous poison gas attack was done by one of his generals without his permission, which explains his willingness to own up to the crime). So in a way, you're indeed correct; with Assad as the best hope for democracy, Syria is screwed, because all the alternatives right now make Assad look like John the Baptist.

Or that he allowed ISIS to metastasize along the entire eastern frontier of Syria in order to win points with the civilized world.
 
Or that he allowed ISIS to metastasize along the entire eastern frontier of Syria in order to win points with the civilized world.
Eh I dont think it was that necessarily, I think it was moreso because ISIS unofficially agreed to not target the Syrian government which allowed Assad to fight a one front war in the part of the country he actually cares about and forces the rebels to fight a two front war. Isis being violent enough to get the west angry is just a bonus to that strategy IMO
 
Back
Top Bottom