Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Syrian Rebels forces children to behead civilians
  • Subject: Syrian Rebels forces children to behead civilians
Subject: Syrian Rebels forces children to behead civilians

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
This is why the United States should intervene.

By allowing the rebels to go it alone, we allow extremist groups to rise up and gain power and influence. Extremist groups that will, very easily, begin targeting us when this whole thing is over.

This fight will be very long, and very bloody. The Syrian people will be extremely bitter over the fact that we refused to help them; and there's no easier way for an extremist group to seize power than by labeling a scapegoat. In this case, that scapegoat is the USA.


No, stay out. The only thing that will work is for regular Islam to return.


You can't trust humans to make the right decisions. Especially not in times of war, when extremist groups can so easily take leadership.

  • 12.10.2012 7:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Co M4N
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Sgt Mag1

Posted by: Co M4N

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
This is why the United States should intervene.

By allowing the rebels to go it alone, we allow extremist groups to rise up and gain power and influence. Extremist groups that will, very easily, begin targeting us when this whole thing is over.

This fight will be very long, and very bloody. The Syrian people will be extremely bitter over the fact that we refused to help them; and there's no easier way for an extremist group to seize power than by labeling a scapegoat. In this case, that scapegoat is the USA.


Why waste money and men trying to help a rebel faction that will have no idea what to do when they get into power?
A reason why a country, like the US, should step in is because of the resurgence of Al-Qaeda. They're actually using this chaos to grow.

From another group:
As we all know the United States completely withdrew from Iraq, a move that was highly welcome. Just one problem...we completely withdrew, meaning we left no troops to deal with the counter-terrorism threats. A force of American SOF troops to deal with these threats would have been tasked with keeping AQI down in-country and protecting the western boarder from jihadi's wanting to use it as a safe-haven for cross-border attacks into Syria and Jordan.

As a result of this negligence, we're currently seeing a trend with this cell of AQ. It's no longer just about Iraq, the cell is making themselves a regional threat (or as they see it "regional revolutionaries"). Because of the chaos in Syria, they're able to feed off the chaos to better their goals. Al-Nusrah Front, which is soon to be labeled a terrorist organization, is pretty much Al-Qaeda in Syria. But they will never officially say that, as they've learned from past mistakes. If they were to come out and say that they pledge their allegiance to al-Zawahiri, they would stop getting aid from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see what they will do when and if this conflict spills over into Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.

It's safe to say that if the United States would have left SOF troops in country (especially Al-Anbar province) the situation might be different. But, what's done is done. However, there is one thing we could do that would definitely help the growing chaos. Our old alliances in Anbar. We should be exploiting our alliances with these anti-AQ Sunni tribes. With their help, we could cut off Anbar from being used as safe haven for the Syrian AQ cell. Sadly, this probably won't happen. But, I digress.

Furthermore, AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) has fully taken advantage of the chaos in Mali and has formed an alliance with Ansar Dine. Ansar Dine and AQIM have recently taken over literally half of Mali (Source). Now that they have a large stronghold in North Africa (their stronghold is roughly the same size as Texas), they're able to spread their jihad to Libya, which we all know what has happened there in recent months.

Another area that AQ is thriving in is the Sinai Peninsula. This group has pledged allegiance to al-Zawahiri and uses the peninsula to stage attacks on both Israel and Egypt.

We all know the AQ is very active in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan (AQ is attempting a resurgence here too), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and in the South Pacific so I'm not gonna talk about them.


tl;dr: Despite many politicians claims that al-Qaeda is beaten, or weakened, their claims are not necessarily true. While some cells of AQ are losing ground, like in Yemen or Somalia, another group is gaining ground. AQ is something that can be stopped (not even going to argue this. Yes, they can be beaten) but not without continual drone strikes, raids, funding to anti-AQ groups, etc.


Thats exactly what I thought when I heard that all countries were pulling out. There just going to re-orginize and rebuild it's just going to go back to how it was originally.

  • 12.10.2012 7:43 PM PDT

The Universe demands to be noticed, to be seen, and dutifully noted.

What use all those incredible firework dimensions if no eye fixes and reflects, no brain takes notes, no heart moves with passion at the display?

NASA answers the silent cry of the Cosmos for recognition.

NASA is the witness and we fellow witnesses to the endless deeps.


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
This is why the United States should intervene.

By allowing the rebels to go it alone, we allow extremist groups to rise up and gain power and influence. Extremist groups that will, very easily, begin targeting us when this whole thing is over.

This fight will be very long, and very bloody. The Syrian people will be extremely bitter over the fact that we refused to help them; and there's no easier way for an extremist group to seize power than by labeling a scapegoat. In this case, that scapegoat is the USA.


Exhibit A: Vietnam, Iraq - the US isn't going to be pulled into another long guerilla conflict; economically, there are more pressing matters at hand and there is no way the United States could afford to fund another war campaign without being pulled even more into debt.

  • 12.10.2012 7:43 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.

Syria has a large chemical weapons stockpile.

If we don't intervene, and an anti-USA government comes to power; guess what these extremists suddenly have? That's right, chemical weapons.

[Edited on 12.10.2012 7:43 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2012 7:43 PM PDT

Door Kickers Inc.


Posted by: Co M4N
Thats exactly what I thought when I heard that all countries were pulling out. There just going to re-orginize and rebuild it's just going to go back to how it was originally.
There are ways to stop that, but they will reorganize and they will rebuild. In fact, they are. They're taking advantage of the chaos in Syria, and now they're operating there. They're an adaptive group.

  • 12.10.2012 7:45 PM PDT


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
This is why the United States should intervene.

By allowing the rebels to go it alone, we allow extremist groups to rise up and gain power and influence. Extremist groups that will, very easily, begin targeting us when this whole thing is over.

This fight will be very long, and very bloody. The Syrian people will be extremely bitter over the fact that we refused to help them; and there's no easier way for an extremist group to seize power than by labeling a scapegoat. In this case, that scapegoat is the USA.


No, stay out. The only thing that will work is for regular Islam to return.


You can't trust humans to make the right decisions. Especially not in times of war, when extremist groups can so easily take leadership.


Do you know how much history the Middle East has? It's like the most ancient of all lands. You can't just let it die

  • 12.10.2012 7:45 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
This is why the United States should intervene.

By allowing the rebels to go it alone, we allow extremist groups to rise up and gain power and influence. Extremist groups that will, very easily, begin targeting us when this whole thing is over.

This fight will be very long, and very bloody. The Syrian people will be extremely bitter over the fact that we refused to help them; and there's no easier way for an extremist group to seize power than by labeling a scapegoat. In this case, that scapegoat is the USA.


No, stay out. The only thing that will work is for regular Islam to return.


You can't trust humans to make the right decisions. Especially not in times of war, when extremist groups can so easily take leadership.


Do you know how much history the Middle East has? It's like the most ancient of all lands. You can't just let it die


You lost me completely.

  • 12.10.2012 7:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Syria has a large chemical weapons stockpile.

If we don't intervene, and an anti-USA government comes to power; guess what these extremists suddenly have? That's right, chemical weapons.
True and we do not want that either. Right now my government (the UK) is just sending communication equipment to the rebels. But hasn't ruled out arming them. But lets be honest here. Which outcome is the most likely to be worse for the US? Assad winning and staying in power? Or an unstable Syria owned by the rebels? i don't want another Libya

  • 12.10.2012 7:47 PM PDT


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
This is why the United States should intervene.

By allowing the rebels to go it alone, we allow extremist groups to rise up and gain power and influence. Extremist groups that will, very easily, begin targeting us when this whole thing is over.

This fight will be very long, and very bloody. The Syrian people will be extremely bitter over the fact that we refused to help them; and there's no easier way for an extremist group to seize power than by labeling a scapegoat. In this case, that scapegoat is the USA.


No, stay out. The only thing that will work is for regular Islam to return.


You can't trust humans to make the right decisions. Especially not in times of war, when extremist groups can so easily take leadership.


Do you know how much history the Middle East has? It's like the most ancient of all lands. You can't just let it die


You lost me completely.


Others were saying to just nuke the whole place

  • 12.10.2012 7:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.
Thats the thing. If we support the rebels they will most likely win then we have an Unstable Syria. If we do nothing and the rebels win its even worse. If we support Assad everyone will hate us except Russia

  • 12.10.2012 7:51 PM PDT


Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.


Don't support either. He's a butcher

  • 12.10.2012 7:51 PM PDT

Door Kickers Inc.


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.
Thats the thing. If we support the rebels they will most likely win then we have an Unstable Syria. If we do nothing and the rebels win its even worse. If we support Assad everyone will hate us except Russia
You have to find the rebel group who most aligns with our values and our ideals. Once said group is found, that will be the group who receives our funding and support.

  • 12.10.2012 7:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yup.


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.
Thats the thing. If we support the rebels they will most likely win then we have an Unstable Syria. If we do nothing and the rebels win its even worse. If we support Assad everyone will hate us except Russia


Agreed. We should stay out of this. I'd rather have Assad than rebels who might do who knows what.

  • 12.10.2012 7:52 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.

Situation 1.
Al Assad maintains power. Not much happens.

Situation 2.
Al Assad is toppled. Moderate group comes to power. Not much happens.

Situation 3.
Al Assad is toppled. Rebels argue and fight for control. The chemical weapons stockpile is free for the picking for whoever wants them.

Situation 4.
Al Assad is toppled. Extremist group comes to power. Extremist group blames the West for the pain and suffering. Extremist group inherits Al Assad's chemical weapons stockpile.

------------
The USA doesn't want 3 or 4 happening. Even if the USA doesn't want to directly intervene, they need to find some way to keep the chemical weapons stockpile out of the wrong hands.

  • 12.10.2012 7:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Sgt Mag1

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.
Thats the thing. If we support the rebels they will most likely win then we have an Unstable Syria. If we do nothing and the rebels win its even worse. If we support Assad everyone will hate us except Russia
You have to find the rebel group who most aligns with our values and our ideals. Once said group is found, that will be the group who receives our funding and support.
There are coalitions but there all loosely aligned with one common goal. To free Syria i dont think the rebels are going to turn down help from anyone including extremist rebels

  • 12.10.2012 7:55 PM PDT

Door Kickers Inc.


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Situation 1.
Al Assad maintains power. Not much happens.

Situation 2.
Al Assad is toppled. Moderate group comes to power. Not much happens.

Situation 3.
Al Assad is toppled. Rebels argue and fight for control. The chemical weapons stockpile is free for the picking for whoever wants them.

Situation 4.
Al Assad is toppled. Extremist group comes to power. Extremist group blames the West for the pain and suffering. Extremist group inherits Al Assad's chemical weapons stockpile.

------------
The USA doesn't want 3 or 4 happening. Even if the USA doesn't want to directly intervene, they need to find some way to keep the chemical weapons stockpile out of the wrong hands.
Posted by: Sgt Mag1

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.
Thats the thing. If we support the rebels they will most likely win then we have an Unstable Syria. If we do nothing and the rebels win its even worse. If we support Assad everyone will hate us except Russia
You have to find the rebel group who most aligns with our values and our ideals. Once said group is found, that will be the group who receives our funding and support.

  • 12.10.2012 7:55 PM PDT

Door Kickers Inc.


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Sgt Mag1

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.
Thats the thing. If we support the rebels they will most likely win then we have an Unstable Syria. If we do nothing and the rebels win its even worse. If we support Assad everyone will hate us except Russia
You have to find the rebel group who most aligns with our values and our ideals. Once said group is found, that will be the group who receives our funding and support.
There are coalitions but there all loosely aligned with one common goal.
I know. I study this.

To free Syria i dont think the rebels are going to turn down help from anyone including extremist rebelsThere is no accepting or declining help in this conflict. It's simply people showing up and fighting. For the case of the foreign jihadists, it's all about toppling the "evil" Alawite demon, and helping fellow Sunni Muslims from oppression of said demon. Plus, AQ would LOVE to have another place to roam freely in.

EDIT: Forgot Alawite's are Shia.

[Edited on 12.10.2012 8:01 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2012 7:58 PM PDT

I am the Troll King.

Let it play out. NATO just needs to make sure no super weapons get used.

  • 12.10.2012 7:59 PM PDT

It's definitely a difficult situation.

  • 12.10.2012 8:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Sgt Mag1

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Sgt Mag1

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Modern Designer
And people called me a troll for supporting Assad.
Thats the thing. If we support the rebels they will most likely win then we have an Unstable Syria. If we do nothing and the rebels win its even worse. If we support Assad everyone will hate us except Russia
You have to find the rebel group who most aligns with our values and our ideals. Once said group is found, that will be the group who receives our funding and support.
There are coalitions but there all loosely aligned with one common goal.
I know. I study this.

To free Syria i dont think the rebels are going to turn down help from anyone including extremist rebelsThere is no accepting or declining help in this conflict. It's simply people showing up and fighting. For the case of the foreign jihadists, it's all about toppling the "evil" Alawite demon, and helping fellow Sunni/Shia (depending on the extremist) Muslims from oppression of said demon. Plus, AQ would LOVE to have another place to roam freely in.
And since these jihadists are with the rebels the only way to get rid of them is an Assad victory. With the rebels in control of the chemical weapons. it would be easy for AQ to get possession of them.

  • 12.10.2012 8:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: NinjaLord77
It's definitely a difficult situation.

Yup

Posted by: Zoomzoom97
Let it play out. NATO just needs to make sure no super weapons get used.

That is the best course of action....for now

  • 12.10.2012 8:03 PM PDT

I am the Troll King.


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: NinjaLord77
It's definitely a difficult situation.

Yup

Posted by: Zoomzoom97
Let it play out. NATO just needs to make sure no super weapons get used.

That is the best course of action....for now


Yup.

  • 12.10.2012 8:04 PM PDT

Pure Insanity
The point of war is not to die for one's clan, but it's to make the other bastard die for his
Right before you die, there is always a chance to save yourself, sieze that chance and live to fight another day
The best way to kill someone is to fight them with the same weapons they use and make them know you are better than them, not because of superior weaponry, but because of superior skill.
Hidden in the shadows, Clothed in camo, Armed to the teeth. Hunting.

The Flood always makes me smile.

And probably not in the way you would think.

  • 12.10.2012 8:05 PM PDT

Door Kickers Inc.


Posted by: lightlamp2
And since these jihadists are with the rebels the only way to get rid of them is an Assad victory. With the rebels in control of the chemical weapons. it would be easy for AQ to get possession of them.
Not really. What will likely happen if the rebels win, is another conflict for which group will have the power. More than likely, it'll be some of the higher ups in the FSA but groups like the Al-Nusra Front, for example, would be involved in the fight for power. When this happens is when we need to worry about chemical weapons. Or, rather, we worry now. They don't need a victory in the larger conflict to (possibly) obtain some chemical weapons.

  • 12.10.2012 8:05 PM PDT