^The West (USA and some other stuff) already are in Syria anyway. I doubt Saudi just sent the numerous jihadist groups there without consulting with its main partner. Chances are most of the jihadist and other such groups were even trained by the West in the first place.
Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria
- Thread starter Defiant47
- Start date
That's highly-unlikely. Most jihadists train in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan/ Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. While some of them may have received some Western training at some point - it is common knowledge, though very exaggerated, that the mujahadeen in Afghanistan received CIA training - it is far more likely that they were trained by Wahabbists in one of those countries, or are simply local recruits, possibly against their will.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
That strongly depends on the location of the depot, how the weapons are stored and how they are bombed. But your point is totally valid, bombing depots only 'works out well' in a very limited set of circumstances.
It's standard operations, really. The US quite often sends forces in the form of carrier groups, etc to regions where there are lots of hostilities going on. They do so for various reasons, sometimes to protect commercial traffic in the sea around war-zones, sometimes to send a message to the warring factions, sometimes just to do a show of force and then occasionally it's done as a prelude to actual action. In this situation, it's probably to send a message to Assad that he can't wantonly use chemical weapons without retaliation and to give the President military options if he decides to take that route. Those carrier groups don't do a lot of good if they are supposed to attack but are on the other side of the planet.
I'm really not sure what, if anything, the US will do beyond arming the rebels. Taking Al Qaeda's side in this fight is a hard bargain, but then letting Assad massacre civilians, conventionally or chemically, is also strongly undesirable. I also don't think the US can really convince the various rebel factions to reject extremism and Al Qaeda either. If we had intervened earlier on, maybe we could have, but at this point it's too late. Even if there had been an early intervention, I don't think we could've stopped Al Qaeda-types from getting involved as the major ideologies of the region strongly favors it.
They previously let in inspectors and then IIRC, stopped them from actually doing there job. I doubt that this will be any different.
Trained by the West? :crazyeyes:Kyriakos said:
You know, like those Afgan versions of the same group, and their leader mr. Goldstein-laden
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
A number of current Islamists and assorted terrorists trying to overthrow the Syrian government and others may very well have been trained by the US:
Fox News: CIA to arm, train Syrian rebels
Common Dreams: US Continues to Train Terrorists on its Own Terror List
Seymour Hersh: U.S. Trains and Facilitates MEK Terror Attacks in Iran
Iran Press TV: US trains terrorists in Kuwait camps
Fox News: CIA to arm, train Syrian rebels
Common Dreams: US Continues to Train Terrorists on its Own Terror List
Seymour Hersh: U.S. Trains and Facilitates MEK Terror Attacks in Iran
Iran Press TV: US trains terrorists in Kuwait camps
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Iran TV?
and FOX
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
The situation with the Afghani mujahideen during the Soviet occupation was more complicated than you state. As part of the 'Reagan Revolution' we ditched the strategy of 'moral imperialism'* under Carter with a flat out goal to oppose the Soviets everywhere. Although aid to the mujahideen began with Carter, the Reagan administration massively increased it. Our goals here happened to intersect with the goals of Pakistan (keep Afghanistan weak, divided, and under our control) and Saudi Arabia (trying to convince the rest of the Arab world (the Secularists and Revolutionary Islamists) that Saudi Arabia was a bunch of corrupt western lackeys). Pakistan and Saudi Arabia tended to support the religious mujahideen while America tried, with a fair amount of success, to support the tribal or moderate fighters**.You know, like those Afgan versions of the same group, and their leader mr. Goldstein-laden
Also, bin-Laden's relation with the Afghani militants and Taliban was not always the best. Bin-Laden had a decidedly international bent to his policies while the Taliban was quite provincial. While publically the Taliban supported bin-Laden, privately there was significant disagreements between the two groups.
*I can't think of a better word to describe it. Essentially it consisted of beating the Soviet Union by convincing our allies to adopt western culture and liberalism. This either didn't really work (Iran) or was flat-out ignored (South Africa).
**Remember that mujahideen is a term referring to someone on a jihad. The bulk of the militants in Afghanistan were not explicitly religious, but the mujahideen definitely had the highest profile.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Source, please.
During the 80s, the term "mujahideen" was used collectively to denote all the Muslim resistance fighters.
Even Reagan used the term collectively when he discussed support of them. But I think it is safe to say they were all "explicitly religious".
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
For the one about the relations between the Taliban and bin-Laden, I would point you to Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilization in the first chapter where he interviews bin-Laden.
For the second one about the non-religious nature of the bulk of the Afghan militants during the war with the Soviets, I would cite The Global Cold War by Odd Arne Westad. Although obviously the militants had a religious element in their resistance to the Soviets/the Afghan government, for the majority of the militants it was not their prime focus. By the time the Soviets became involved the Afghani government had utterly lost the trust of the Afghanis were disliked by pretty much everyone, with the bulk of the militant opposition coming from the tribal areas of Afghanistan.
Saudi and Pakistani aid was targeted at the religious international fighters and the few explicitly religious militants. As the war dragged on many non-religious militants realized that by joining the mujahideen or pretending to be more religious than they actually were, they would get more support from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan along with improved coordination with the other militants. It is also important to remember that this time political Islam was starting to take off, what with the Iranian Revolution. Political Islam served as a 'new' model of development in direct opposition to Capitalism, Communism, and even the nativist approach so common in the Third World.
As I said, despite mujahideen having a religious meaning, it was used to collectively describe the Afghani militants.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That bin Laden claimed he received support from the Afghan government is hardly proof that they publicly supported him. Provide some public statement by an official of the Afghan government at the time.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Wait, your objection is not to my statement that bin-Laden had a rocky relation with the Taliban, but that I need to provide support to the statement publicly they were fine with him living there?
If you absolutely need a source, because I am too lazy to go source hunting, I'll point you again to The Great War for Civilization but honestly, that statement is about as controversial as stating that Nazis aren't very nice.
How about you stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the well-being of others, regardless of their nationality or ethnicity.
Western invasion is the lesser evil. The Syrians have shown they are incapable of having a system of governance without slaughtering each other. So they don't get that right anymore. We have a coalition of nations invade and establish order.
Of course, for that you'd need people and nations to give a rat's ass about someone other than themselves.
In the meantime, Asaad and his cronies may have demonstrated themselves to not be the lesser evil, by using chemical weapons.
I have indeed considered that, but if Asaad has lost control of his troops, even a little bit, resulting in unsanctioned chemical attacks... then that's still a huge problem. We should not allow someone like that to provide dangerous weapons to his armies if he can't even control the armies. It's little better than anarchy.
Allowing the Syrian government to massacre civilians is not an option. Arming and siding with Al-Qaeda is not an option. There's the old adage of "if you want something done right...". But Obama will be restricted based on popular support. If Americans oppose intervention, he might be able to establish a no-fly zone, but boots on the ground would be too much of a stretch. I fear.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Nope. You stated that they publicly supported him instead of merely allowing him to live there because they thought he was harmless and was being persecuted by the Saudis and others. It should be quite simple to show that the government publicly supported bin Laden instead of merely condoning him and allowing him to stay there.
The Taliban were apparently even more than willing to hand over bin Laden to the US or some international court if they were given any proof at all that he was engaged in terrorist activites after 9/11. The Bush administration refused to do so. The rest is history.
When and where have you established order?
This should be serious argument in 90s maybe.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Who's refusing?
They've now accepted, but it'll be no doubt with numerous limitations that would make any auditor cry.
