Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

areksnumbr1sxylady · 17 Sep 2013 at 16:04

gettothechopper said:
err since when did we do that?

err, since start of the war??

gettothechopper · 17 Sep 2013 at 16:12

Lazder said:
err, since start of the war??

nope, you made that up.

arknor said:
erm it's a fact the rebels are atleast half terrorists and islamic fanatics and the most powerful fighting force on the rebels side

what was that report someone posted the other day that confirmed this?

that also proves the opposite, that at least half are neither of those things

ubersonic said:
The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..

so now its only 10% are AQ affiliated?, seems to be going down all the time, people keep ignoring the other 90% in this thread and claiming they are all AQ

Devlish · 17 Sep 2013 at 16:16

arknor said:
erm it's a fact the rebels are atleast half terrorists and islamic fanatics and the most powerful fighting force on the rebels side

what was that report someone posted the other day that confirmed this?

Its a janes report, and actually they say that 10,000 are extremists (the lot people who skim read the daily mail call 'al-qaeda'), about 30,000 'hardliners' who to some degree share their ideology across the whole spectrum, are not interested in a caliphate but are interested only in Syria, and about 35,000 moderates and seculars.

So no, its not a fact that half are terrorists and fanatics. However the 10,000 extermists are the most effective force by far, carrying out the majority of successful attacks (and apparently atrocities). The 30,000 Jihadis and the 35,000 moderates/seculars are split up into varying degrees of effectiveness from armed neighbourhood watch, to armed criminal gangs to defector organised military units.

ubersonic · 17 Sep 2013 at 16:28

gettothechopper said:
so now its only 10% are AQ affiliated?, seems to be going down all the time, people keep ignoring the other 90% in this thread and claiming they are all AQ

Sorry I should have quoted more of that to maintain context:

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..
Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.
There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

So according to Jane's, its more like 40-45% affiliated with al-quieda, and up to 90% of the rebels actually fighting on religious grounds and not for freedom/etc.

gettothechopper · 17 Sep 2013 at 16:47

even your quote says only 10% are

why can you only find the telegraph report and a load of antiwar or conspiracy theory websites publishing this story, and none of them link to the original report as source material to back up the headlines, in fact as far as I can see the report hasnt even been published in full yet, and everyone else is just refrencing what the telegraph claims

Devlish · 17 Sep 2013 at 16:48

No, read it properly. The 10,000 jihadists are linked to Al-Qaeda by a really tenuous pledge of alleigance. The 'hardline' islamists are internally focused so basically syrian jihadis and not interested in making syria a part of a global caliphate which is the basic premise of AQ. So thats 13%.

And almost all are muslims fighting in a muslim country for muslim law to one degree or other. Why that suddenly becomes 'oooh theyre all moooslem terrorists' is essentially the main reason why the public cant be trusted to understand even the basic issues around the fighting in Syria. Trying to insist anyone who doesnt want democracy is a terrorist 'because we know whats best for them' is neo-colonialism at its worst.

arknor · 17 Sep 2013 at 18:30

tell you what devlish.

we can help the rebels/terrorists as much as you like but once the assad regime is gone you and anyone else in this thread that wants the assad regime gone has to go and live in syria for a year without converting to islam.

please leave everything to me in your will thanks.

you will likely be dead really fast but atleast you will realise syria was a better place without muslim extremists in charge

The_Baron · 17 Sep 2013 at 18:35

Probably I would. The UN dithers a lot. Needs to be compelling evidence though.

T345 · 17 Sep 2013 at 18:37

arknor said:
tell you what devlish.

we can help the rebels/terrorists as much as you like but once the assad regime is gone you and anyone else in this thread that wants the assad regime gone has to go and live in syria for a year without converting to islam.

please leave everything to me in your will thanks.

you will likely be dead really fast but atleast you will realise syria was a better place without muslim extremists in charge

This, Islamic law incharge of a country isn't the answer to anything...

arknor · 17 Sep 2013 at 23:22

seems libya is seeking international help because the government does not control the oil fields and ports lol....
http://rt.com/news/libya-appeal-political-chaos-987/

less messed up than syria and still more of a mess than when gaddafi ruled

RDM · 17 Sep 2013 at 23:46

On the plus side at leat we now know or sure Assad does have chemical weapons.

arknor · 18 Sep 2013 at 00:03

RDM said:
On the plus side at leat we now know or sure Assad does have chemical weapons.

people knew that anyway it's nukes people need to worry about and israel is more of a global threat but america is in their pocket hence all the VETO usage over the years

ubersonic · 18 Sep 2013 at 00:12

Devlish said:
No, read it properly. The 10,000 jihadists are linked to Al-Qaeda by a really tenuous pledge of alleigance. The 'hardline' islamists are internally focused so basically syrian jihadis and not interested in making syria a part of a global caliphate which is the basic premise of AQ. So thats 13%.

the 10k are jihadists pledged to AQ, the next 30-35k "hardline" types are merely affiliated with AQ (mostly the Al-Nursa offshoot), so that's 40-45k which is reportedly almost half the rebels.

Devlish said:
And almost all are muslims fighting in a muslim country for muslim law to one degree or other.

It's not currently a muslim country its currently a secular country, believe it or not in addition to many different types of islamists the are also many many christians and even jews.

Hence why you have the glorious peace loving rebels decapitating christian priests for fun, hacking up young jewish girls with hacksaws, etc.

arknor · 27 Sep 2013 at 16:16

looks like the FSA rebels are still getting any territory gains taken from them by terrorists they once worked with
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24272977

When FSA brigades and Liwa Ahfad al-Rasoul (an independent Islamist group believed to be backed by Qatar) took the northern city of Raqqa, they soon came under attack from Isis fighters, who eventually seized control.

There has also been fighting between al-Nusra Front and Isis over oilfields in the north-eastern province of Hassakeh.

Many civilians, activists and journalists have also been detained by Isis, and the group is accused of responsibility for many of the atrocities carried out by rebel forces during the conflict.

al nusra originally took the oil fiends from FSA

so
assad
FSA (rebels)
ISIS (terrorist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
al nusra (terrorist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

all fighting each other with isis seemingly now the most powerful out of the rebels/terrorists with FSA seemingly week as hell and can't stand up for it self.

It seems a good job america never striked assad as it's blatently obvious the FSA would not be able to control the country

magick · 10 Oct 2013 at 15:13

Not sure if this has been posted already in this thread but the bbc has been caught lying about chemical weapons attacks.

http://www.infowars.com/bbc-caught-staging-syria-chemical-weapons-propaganda/

doodah · 10 Oct 2013 at 15:23

Alex Jones said Russia had launched nuclear weapons on new year's eve (can't remember which year) during a live radio broadcast. This is one of many lies that comes out his mouth. I would rather trust the BBC than him/Infowars any day!

arknor · 10 Oct 2013 at 15:31

xibinim said:
Alex Jones said Russia had launched nuclear weapons on new year's eve (can't remember which year) during a live radio broadcast. This is one of many lies that comes out his mouth. I would rather trust the BBC than him/Infowars any day!

someone links to both the different videos on the bbc website in the comments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...and-then-returning-home-says-Theresa-May.html
Britons using Syria as terrorist training ground - and then returning home, says Theresa May

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...arity-cash-going-to-Syrian-terror-groups.html
People giving money to help millions of refugees from the civil war in Syria are inadvertently supporting terrorism, the charity watchdog has warned.

keep sending our donations and supplies cameron maybe those brits going to fight in syria can come back to the UK and use them against us after they have been brainwashed further than they already must be

Allnamestaken · 10 Oct 2013 at 15:37

Love the media black out on this and the quieting down of the general public that Ive seen.

Shows how influenced people are by the media pfft.

arknor · 10 Oct 2013 at 15:51

Allnamestaken said:
Love the media black out on this and the quieting down of the general public that Ive seen.

Shows how influenced people are by the media pfft.

The general public were against it anyway?

The news agencies thought they could influence the population with propaganda to get a full on war going and quickly stopped when they realised most people won't fall for it any more after they embarrassed themselves using photos of dead kids from previous wars like iraq on articles about syria.

they should get huge fines for that ****

I guess a good war sells loads of papers , gets loads of website traffic , gets loads of overtime and a lot of people really well paid work covering the war from whatever country it is happening in

Allnamestaken · 10 Oct 2013 at 15:54

arknor said:
The general public were against it anyway?

The news agencies thought they could influence the population with propaganda to get a full on war going and quickly stopped when they realised most people won't fall for it anymore.

I guess a good war sells loads of papers , gets loads of website traffic , gets loads of overtime and a lot of people really well paid work covering the war from whatever company it is happening in

I was against it too.

I am just saying all the people that were being sheepled into wanting to support action in Syria only cared when the news was being spoonfed to them by the shephards.

Now there is no coverage they dont care, all the vocal people I knew who were misinformed are the same.

I was always against it and I have been vocal for a long time about it and I still am.

Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

Yes

No

Unsure