West training Syrian rebels in Jordan Exclusive: UK and French instructors involved

[Jedi_Mindset]

Its a political game and its for the middle eastern resources. Atleast one of the many obvious reasons, they're demonizing muslims because they want to destroy islam.

But we muslims will be victorious, wether the non-muslims will like it or not.

Mujahideen entering syria, mainly syrian themselves:

[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ee_1362853010[/video]

 

[sister herb]

Is that so big deal? Even I have contact to Syrian "rebellions". I have sended help to Syrian civilians (food and medicines - not guns).

:nervous: And I am just as normal westener.

 

[جوري]

The Syrians have to decide whether they want to be ruled over by NATO stooges 'Free Syrian Army' or Assad

Neither options is acceptable hence the revolt and hence the black list by the west and the cluster bombs and airplanes by Asad!

You give the west way too much 'credit' for influence.

A little too late in the game to play Lenny don't you think? The west is more like a cancer, works its way to the DNA and ruins it from within.

I have sended help to Syrian civilians (food and medicines - not guns).

foods & medicines are not reaching them unfortunately- we can ask the UN forces why they go in under guise of peaceful mediators to arm Bashar forces.

 

[IslamicRevival]

NATO forces are more likely to be arming the FSA, they've already done it in Libya where they armed thugs to destabilise the entire region and ended up invading and bombing the country.

The invasion in Libya is their blueprint and they're trying to do the exact same in Syria, Allah knows best

 

[جوري]

Nothing NATO did in Libya was any more or any less bad than what the colonel did with his own hands. Including the billions squandered on bull we're not gonna touch on the genocides there either.
There's no reason to believe that Syria will run the same course in fact each place that has seen a revolt has seen a different course. I don't think anything is worse than Bashar the rafidi, Alawite pig.. The answer lies in the resolve, faith & tenacity of the free army and if :Allah::swt: accepts it from them not in what Bashar or NATO does, both their days are numbered :ia:

 

[Independent]

each place that has seen a revolt has seen a different course.

Yes, and the prime factor in that is how each different ruling regime reacted to the Arab Spring pressure. Gaddafi and Assad chose to fight to the death, whereas Mubarak stood aside reasonably quickly. If armed revolt is the only way then weapons saturate the society, revenge follows on revenge. Civil wars are often the most bloody.

In effect we are getting to see in Syria what would have happened in Libya if the west hadn't got involved - ie a much more protracted war that does more damage. In Libya, when Russia unexpectedly stood aside, the west neutralised Gaddafi's airpower. Whereas in Syria, Russia won't be fooled again so Assad rules the skies. He'll probably still lose in the end but it's a much more destructive fight.

When you remove dictators who have been in place for many decades then all the tensions that have been suppressed for so many years come to the surface at once.

 

[جوري]

There's only one reason for the west to be involved and we all know what that is. The west/spawn of Satan whether east or west is also behind most if not all the civil wars. They incite it so they can come in and say see how much we're needed.
Study history a little. See how for instance the Brits played it when they were doing their divide and conquer thing giving for instance a large triangular wedge out of Egypt to Sudan to justify their presence there in case a 'civil war' broke out... They have perfected that game and everyone is on to it. What worked 70 yrs ago and on that old debuached generation is not working on this one. We've all evolved from the days of 'Lawrence of Arabia'
People who have lived at peace with each other side by side for millenniums don't all of a sudden want to have at their neighbor for no reason.
Do read Robert Fisk's 'the world through Syrian lens'
It is too bad for you we're not all as dumb as all that so I am not sure why you keep trying!

best,

 

[Independent]

The west/spawn of Satan whether east or west is also behind most if not all the civil wars

Laughable.

Whatever did the world do for a war before you invented western devils? Must have been an amazingly peaceful place.

You'd blame the west if you spilt your coffee.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

There's only one reason for the west to be involved and we all know what that is. The west/spawn of Satan whether east or west is also behind most if not all the civil wars. They incite it so they can come in and say see how much we're needed.

Thats what i was explaining to you all the time, however due to my poor english i cant describe it better than you do. They only give the rebels a few MANPADs and guns who dont work against bashar's airforce and army. But they wont intervene.

They're trying to enflame the civil war more and more by this, but Insha'Allah their plots will fail. though, i think it should be a bit guessed that the uprising itself had some CIA involvement. NSF which started their protest against bashar has some links with the CIA.

btw:

[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=648_1362894493[/video]

 

[جوري]

Guess the poor fellow ran out of facts and is resorting to his usual tantrums!

 

[Independent]

They only give the rebels a few MANPADs and guns who dont work against bashar's airforce and army. But they wont intervene.

There are enough facts in plain sight to understand this.

We know that they aren't supplying proper weapons because...they told us!

And we know why....because Russia and China won't agree to it.

So unless you think Russia and China's UN veto is itself organised by the west, to block their own support, then you need to look at Russian/Chinese motivations, not the US.

And then you need to explain why Russia allowed support to Libyan rebels, but not Syrian ones.

You're going to get yourself horribly dizzy and none of it will make much sense. Or, you could get Occam's Razor out right now and finally give yourself a proper shave (metaphorically speaking).

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

So unless you think Russia and China's UN veto is itself organised by the west, to block their own support, then you need to look at Russian/Chinese motivations, not the US.

Did i mentioned that in my posts? Dont bring up assumptions or things to make up. US cooperates with russia regarding this with what you have said, only the media wants you to believe in divisions.

And then you need to explain why Russia allowed support to Libyan rebels, but not Syrian ones.

Libya was not really in their interests anymore and not close to their border. Infact the oil fields which are now occupied by the BP, shell will most likely benefit russia also in some way with oil dealings.

You're going to get yourself horribly dizzy and none of it will make much sense. Or, you could get Occam's Razor out right now and finally give yourself a proper shave.

No way, i dont want to look like a prettyboy.

 

[Independent]

Did i mentioned that in my posts? Dont bring up assumptions or things to make up.

You can say anything you like but, given that the reason the west don't supply proper weapons to Syria is the UN veto, then it's a waste of time looking for other mysterious motivations until you've accounted for that one.

Libya was not really in their interests anymore and not close to their border. Infact the oil fields which are now occupied by the BP, shell will most likely benefit russia also in some way with oil dealings.

i can assure you Russia strongly regrets losing their Libyan ally and they most certainly did not expect it to happen. They feel that the west used its limited permission to offer humanitarian help, protect civilians etc and turned it into major military support. Which i think is true (although they still stopped short of offering much help on the ground). The longer the war went on, and the less likely it looked the rebels would win, the more the west helped.

In fact this example shows plainly that the west is not always seeking to extend chaos or prolong wars, as is often said here. They expected the rebels to win easily, and when it didn't happen, they intervened more and more until it did.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

You can say anything you like but, given that the reason the west don't supply proper weapons to Syria is the UN veto, then it's a waste of time looking for other mysterious motivations until you've accounted for that one.

Its not that really, they want to prevent the hardcore weapons falling into the hands of the 'islamists'. So the most hardcore weapons go to the more secular wings of the FSA. They have already being supplied with M60's, m79 rocket launchers and other anti-tank weapons.

i can assure you Russia strongly regrets losing their Libyan ally and they most certainly did not expect it to happen. They feel that the west used its limited permission to offer humanitarian help, protect civilians etc and turned it into major military support. Which i think is true (although they still stopped short of offering much help on the ground). The longer the war went on, and the less likely it looked the rebels would win, the more the west helped.

NATO didnt really do it for ''humantarian'' help lol, they just wanted to have the oil. Ofcourse they expected it that Gadaffi would fall at some moment, so will Assad even if it takes a decade. Assad though has some major allies in the region like iraq and iran. Iraq has already cooperated with the syrian army to take some border posts. Plus both iran and iraq are sending militias into syria. The reason why the west does this is to undermine sino influence, just like they do it in Africa.

Russia is not really their problem, china is.

When both sides arm the conflict it will only go worse and worse. Especially russia's arm trade like fighter jets and helicopters.

 

[Independent]

NATO didnt really do it for ''humantarian'' help lol, they just wanted to have the oil

Ironically, by the time Gaddafi fell he had far better relations with the west and oil deals were opening up anyway. From a strictly oil point of view, it would have been better to have left him in power.

I think the rebellion took everyone by surprise including the west. Although they wouldn't have sought it at that point, and if anything it was counterproductive to their economic interests, the west felt obliged to support the rebels against a manifest dictator whom they had condemned for decades.

Also, I think they (correctly) calculated that his time was up, just as they have done with Mubarack and Assad.

Its not that really, they want to prevent the hardcore weapons falling into the hands of the 'islamists'.

Yes - again, they say this explicitly! For the west these are very tricky situations. If they do nothing, or if they do something, either way it could end up hurting them. It's pretty much guesswork.

The main complicating factor for the west is the extreme anti-western sentiment across so much of the Muslim world (as exhibited here also) which means that whatever course of action they take will always be condemned as the worst, even if it's what everyone was asking for beforehand.

For this reason i personally think the west should disengage entirely from the whole middle east region and do nothing for any side, except for its declared allies. More like a Chinese approach. The real divisions are within the Muslim world and the only thing that can unite them right now is hatred of the west. So, the west needs to stop being stupid enough to play that role.

China is following a wholly selfish foreign policy, doesn't care how nasty the regimes it deals with are, benefits as much from the free trade that the west fights for, yet doesn't have to get involved and never gets blamed for anything. I'd call that a very successful policy.

 

[جوري]

it would have been better to have left him in power.

he was their bed buddy- what's your point?

he was also a little unstable so when his bed buddies abandoned him toward the end he was a ticking time bomb they'd to rid of him.. that outwighs their oil needs!

the rest of the crap is just drivel although we're impressed with your points system!

best,

 

[Independent]

he was also a little unstable

I wonder if you are perhaps related?

 

[جوري]

I wonder if you are perhaps related?

We've always known you to over dramatize and concoct all sorts of bulls **** but how is this related to the topic? complete bankruptcy in your dossier of ready made 'facts' perhaps?

 

[Independent]

We've always known you

You often speak in the plural - signs of schizophrenia?

Although I think Tourette's has to play a part somewhere.

 

[جوري]

You often speak in the plural - signs of schizophrenia?

Although I think Tourette's has to play a part somewhere.

It is a 'Royal we' and if you want to read into it with all your insta dossier expert training, it is how small and nonexistent I view you!
hope they color your folder with schizoid, schizotypal, schizophreniform, schizoaffective, schizophrenia differentiation, you know for your credibility' sake =)

back to Syria or you want an all out catharsis?