Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Alqaeda Jabhat Al Nusra rebels burn down evacuation buses in aleppo

Scroll to see replies

I've given my source, if you have evidence to dispute he is who he says he is feel free to present it my Salafi friend. :smile:

As I said tinfoil hats aint good.
''America had influence on Isis, Isis command is made up of CIA operatives''
With that kind of source bro you trump everyone's hand.
You win.

Reply 21

username2950448

Original post by Al-farhan

You win.

Thank you, Salafi brother. :smile:

If you present your evidence you still have a chance to reverse this loss, do not be disheartened. However, Aleppo is lost and Raqqa and Mosul will soon follow, I am sad to say. :frown:

Reply 22

Aj12

Original post by Palmyra

Right, but there's a difference in that here the U.S. backs the countries that do supply these weapons, with full complicity.

Even an al Nusra commander has stated the U.S. supports them, just indirectly.

So the US is responsible for buyers passing on weapons to third, and in many cases fourth parties, but Russia is not. Makes sense.

Either you accept that in most cases a state has little say over what a partner does with its arms or you stick with your logic and admit that Russia supports the majority of the world's terrorist and militia groups.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 23

username358506

Original post by Aj12

The US has never supported the Nursa Front. Unfortunately it does it have control over what the likes of Turkey and Qatar does.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The US isn't doing anything about Nusra, though.

Strange considering the fact that Nusra is al-Qaeda's branch in Syria - and we all know what happened 15 years ago. Yet not strange at all when one analyses America's policy in Syria.

Reply 24

Aj12

Original post by Stalin

I wouldt really call it that strange. They are like the taliban, nasty ideology but not one that is focused on the "far enemy". When isis is still in a position to take territory and support terror attacks abroad why focus on groups that don't pose as much of a threat? Shortsighted maybe, but that's just US foreign policy in a nut shell

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 25

username358506

Original post by Aj12

I think the US is considerably more devious than that insofar as they realise that the longer Nusra and ISIS are in the game, so to speak, the longer Assad and Russia are bogged down in this mess.

Reply 26

Tawheed

Original post by Al-farhan

Equally unfortunate is to try and prop up a murderous regime in a country for geopolitical agendas, definitely the welfare of the Syrian people is last on the minds of such people.

x

This thread has nothing to do with Hezbollah et al. I have not verified what you have posted but it looks extremely suspect, neither the source verified nor what is actually going on [but that isn't the purpose of the thread]. All i am trying to do here is ensure that a balanced narrative of Syria is painted.

Brother, the group in question in my OP are actually jabhat al nusra, an official alqaeda affilaited group, whose hierarchy has strong ties to alqaeda. What i want to know is, why do you always go on the defensive? Why not accept, atrocities are being committed on all sides [for sake of argument] at the very least?

This is what upsets me brother. Why can't you accept that i am not trying to 'prop' up any regime here? If i call out Jabhat Al Nusra [alqaeda] to ensure people recognise evil on all sides, and to voice my opposition against Al Nusra, why must you berate me for it ? I have stated a number of times, i believe Assad must go, i believe the syrian people must choose this themselves, via a vote conducted and monitored by the United Nations and member states. But i know for sure that will not happen if Al Nusra and like-minded groups gain power, they want to form their own shariah shurah caliphate.

Do you think giving more weapons to Jabhat Al Nusra, liwa al quds, ahrar asham, groups founded by alqaeda or affiliated to them, who want a shariah shurah caliphate, who have no interest in an election or political dialogue, is going to help end this conflict ? Will result in the ultimate voice and vote of the consensus of the syrian people?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 27

Tawheed

Original post by Aj12

The US has never supported the Nursa Front. Unfortunately it does it have control over what the likes of Turkey and Qatar does.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Many of the weapons given to 'moderate' rebel groups through gulf-states by the United States have fallen into the hands of groups like al Nusra.

You see, in Aleppo, groups like the Zinki [whose fighters infamously beheaded a 11 year old child], Ahrar Asham [committed many atrocities and who were founded by an alqaeda member[s], Jaysh Al Islam [mostly in damuscus suburbs rather than Aleppo, but still, have fought with Al Nusra, and whose leader considered al nusra his brothers, praised 'shayk osama bin laden may Allah be pleased with him' and put civilians in cages, and have used civilians as human shields. All of these groups often merge, often work together as one, and often share and or sell weapons.

Reply 28

Tawheed

Original post by Dodgypirate

And these are the rebels being supported and funded by the US and its allies?!

What a great job we've all done in Syria, I bet the innocent civilians caught up in all this mess are incredibly grateful!

Here was a 'moderate rebel leader commander' of Jaysh al Islam, who was killed a few years back. His name is Zahran Alloush. Now, i don't support Assad or think he should remain [thats up to the syrian people], but is it right for people to say i sympathize with murder and want to prop up his regime, if the only crime i have is speaking out against a man who asked Allah[God] to 'have mercy on 'Shayk' Osama Bin Laden'?:

Do you want me, to support a group whose leader said:
""We saw sheikh Usama Bin Laden - may Allah have mercy on him " [ from 2.15 onwards on the video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcvz-sgyuu0

Do you want me, to support a group whose leader pledged allegiance to the official alqaed affiliate jabhat al nusra?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zajo2GeKyV4

Who put alawite women into cages?
[video="youtube;k_R3Wmjl8e8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_R3Wmjl8e8[/video]

Seriously, is the only manny and way in which someone can respond to the absolute inditement the above relays on such 'rebel' groups by accusing anyone who disagree's with even open acts worthy of condemnation by saying 'you love Assad you want to prop up barrel bombing regime' ? Can there not be a more nuanced perspective one takes on Syria, while they recognise Assad has blood on his hands, but he solution is not a caliphate run by radical extremists?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 29

Al-farhan

Original post by Tawheed

I do not berate you for speaking against al nusra.
I criticise you for your hypocrisy which is as clear as day light.
I criticise you for crying crocodile tears for the actions of al nusra against civilians yet getting your knickers in a twist whenever the clear atrocities of the Hezb and the zealous militiamen are presented to you.
And I'm not the only one to notice that you shill for the iranian agenda, a number of others have exposed you including non muslims.
I also criticise you for your methods of accepting reliability of sources which is whatever suits your agendas is solid reliable (including random youtube videos)
But when the same sources are used to expose those whom you share agendas with we get your cookie cutter reply: ''I have not verified what you have posted but it looks extremely suspect''

*Also how comes you do not speak out against and oppose ''wilayat al-faqih'' which is basically shia version of shari'a caliph as much as you bring about and use shariah as fear mongering smear tactic.

*TLDR: can we not universally condemn and expose sectarian terrorists regardless of who they are (AQ, Hashd shabi'i, Hezeb..etc) and those who clearly do not have the best interests of Syrian people.
Or is it ok for some and not ok for others.
I oppose your hypocrisy more than anything else.

Reply 30

Zamestaneh

Original post by Tawheed

Seriously, is the only manny and way in which someone can respond to the absolute inditement the above relays on such 'rebel' groups by accusing anyone who disagree's with even open acts worthy of condemnation by saying 'you love Assad you want to prop up barrel bombing regime' ? Can there not be a more nuanced perspective one takes on Syria, while they recognise Assad has blood on his hands, but he solution is not a caliphate run by radical extremists?

As I mentiond in the old ISOC thread: the deaths and Fitnah arrising from a rebel victory would be less than the number of deaths and oppression resulting from an Assad victory. The lesser of two evils is a win for the rebels. To constantly disregard them with loaded labels like 'Takfiri extremists' all the time only relies upon emotion rather than logic; one cannot deny harsh undertones of some groups, but again using logic, it's not like they are going to commit mass genocide against those they dislike or initiate terror attacks as they know it would be literal suicide and political. On the other hand, Assad's victory would result in a collective punishment of the Syrian people and tightening of his oppressive grip.

Secondly, a rebel victory over ISIS would be better for post-war reintegration of the previously hostile territories controlled by them, as at least they channel their zeal into less extreme forms of Islamic belief, which makes a long term difference as an Assad victory would leave the people embittered and prone to instigating bloodshed and terrorism. What can be seen instead is a blasting of the rebels on one hand, and on the other hand a blind eye turned to the Iranian funded Shia militias comprising Iraqi, Iranian, Hazara and Pakistani volunteers committing the crimes which one would expect from 'Takfiri extremists'.

Undoubtedly supporting the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just another way of avoiding admission that one will support any cause which doesn't undermine the position of Shia in the region, even if it's at the expense of tens or hundreds of thousands of lives; but at least those mean old rebels aren't in control, ay.

Adding to what Al-Farhan said here, I find it somewhat unfortunate that when I trawl through random threads on ShiaChat, some of your posts I come across do not cease to surprise me - from saying you identify hypocrites by their hatred of Iran (even within context this is rather telling of your views), to openly admitting a rebel victory would be a blow to the Shia position in the region, and it does only confirm to me your overwhelmingly biased 'unbiased' approach.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 31

username2950448

Original post by Zamestaneh

The lesser of two evils is a win for the rebels. To constantly disregard them with loaded labels like 'Takfiri extremists' all the time only relies upon emotion rather than logic; one cannot deny harsh undertones of some groups, but again using logic, it's not like they are going to commit mass genocide against those they dislike or instiate terror attacks as they know it would be literal suicide and political.
Out of interest, of all the "rebel" groups currently operating in Syria, which of these do you see as (i) being a better option than Assad, and (ii) capable of ruling Syria?

Reply 32

Zamestaneh

Original post by Palmyra

Out of interest, of all the "rebel" groups currently operating in Syria, which of these do you see as (i) being a better option than Assad, and (ii) capable of ruling Syria?

I am not versed in the aims of all the groups, so I cannot honestly say, but just for the sake of discussion, even a Jabhat Fateh Ash Sham Syria is better than a post-war Assad Syria, presuming Iran doesn't continue to try to instigate conflict in the region with its pawn movements like Hezbollah, the militia etc. Looking at substance over form, JFS has harsh rhetoric but is not nearly as brutal as Assad, so essentially scaremongering against them is useless.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 33

username2950448

Original post by Zamestaneh

I am not versed in the aims of all the groups, so I cannot honestly say, but just for the sake of discussion, even a Jabhat Fateh Ash Sham Syria is better than a post-war Assad Syria