Who Are the Syrian Rebels?

[Ransom]

Western governments as a whole employed a half hearted opposition to the Islamic State as well. Until the Paris attacks.

[Ethereal]

I know I've been a tad harsh on you lately and you're sore and angry. But, it's necessary due to continued error and poor morale.

Donttread....and probably you as well...believe that our purpose in getting involved in Syria.....is to "create instability." No, I'm not f'n kidding. In the face of utter chaos, murder, torture, our late to the table purpose in some observer's opinion..........now this is with the Russians, Turks, Syrians, and Iranians already there. Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State already f'n there.......our purpose and policy was to "create" instability? Uhhh....yeah.

I don't care what you're drinking or how many, Ethereal. That's the most asinine statement I've seen from donttread in some time so I thought I'd point it out. The assertion....is patently f'n ridiculous. "Create" instability....in Syria.....was our purpose for getting involved? I mean.......you can't make this shiit up, Ethereal.

I've never seen someone get so beat up, yet be so oblivious the fact. This must be a neocon trait.

[Ethereal]

Obama $#@!ed up by employing a half hearted approach to opposing Assad.

He effed up by getting involved at all. If the US and the west had simply stayed out of it, the rebellion would have fizzled out in weeks. Hell, it probably wouldn't have started in the first place. Add Syria to the list of Middle Eastern countries the US has destroyed by interfering in its internal affairs. How many is that so far? Three? Four?

If the Obama admin had fully supported the FSA and ensured structure and accountability, the Islamist groups wouldn't have flowed into the vacuum.

Tell you what... the next time there is a civil war in a Middle Eastern country, maybe Canada can send billions of its dollars down a black hole in an attempt to prop up amorphous rebel groups. What do you think?

By the way, the only reason a vacuum even existed in Syria is BECAUSE of the rebellion that destabilized the country, a rebellion which the US government actively fomented and supported for years.

The rebels today are a mishmash of groups. Many Islamist and many secular.

Oh? Please name some of these "secular" rebel groups.

[Ethereal]

Western governments as a whole employed a half hearted opposition to the Islamic State as well. Until the Paris attacks.

Western governments created ISIS by following neocon policies in Iraq. You and your ilk are responsible for ISIS. And I won't let you forget it.

[Common Sense]

He effed up by getting involved at all. If the US and the west had simply stayed out of it, the rebellion would have fizzled out in weeks. Hell, it probably wouldn't have started in the first place. Add Syria to the list of Middle Eastern countries the US has destroyed by interfering in its internal affairs. How many is that so far? Three? Four?



Tell you what... the next time there is a civil war in a Middle Eastern country, maybe Canada can send billions of its dollars down a black hole in an attempt to prop up amorphous rebel groups. What do you think?

By the way, the only reason a vacuum even existed in Syria is BECAUSE of the rebellion that destabilized the country, a rebellion which the US government actively fomented and supported for years.



Oh? Please name some of these "secular" rebel groups.

Always with the Canada, huh?

The FSA was a secular group. As is the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians and SNDC.

[Ethereal]

Always with the Canada, huh?

You know I have no problem with Canada. But it's a fair question to ask: Why is it always Americans who have to spend mountains of money on trying to fix foreign quagmires? Why not your country?

The FSA was a secular group.

Debatable. But let's assume you're right, they're no longer relevant. The only groups of any military consequence left are Islamist groups like ISIS and AQ's Syrian affiliates.

As is the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians and SNDC.

And how many fighters does this group have under its command?

[Common Sense]

You know I have no problem with Canada. But it's a fair question to ask: Why is it always Americans who have to spend mountains of money on trying to fix foreign quagmires? Why not your country?



Debatable. But let's assume you're right, they're no longer relevant. The only groups of any military consequence left are Islamist groups like ISIS and AQ's Syrian affiliates.



And how many fighters does this group have under its command?

It's a fair question, but it's not fair if it's simply an attempt to shift focus to Canada. I'm not the topic anymore than what city or state you live in is the topic.

Why the US involves itself more than most nations is another topic. If you want to know why, that too is a broader question.

I'm not sure of the numbers of any of the belligerents in the conflict. I doubt anyone has an accurate count. It's a complex conflict with a number of actors.

[Ethereal]

It's a fair question, but it's not fair if it's simply an attempt to shift focus to Canada. I'm not the topic anymore than what city or state you live in is the topic.

It's an attempt to ascertain why my country is always expected by other countries to pay billions of dollars trying to sort out foreign quagmires. I can understand if you want to avoid having that discussion.

Why the US involves itself more than most nations is another topic. If you want to know why, that too is a broader question.

Oh, I know why. What I want to know is why other countries don't take on more of the responsibility themselves, especially when they're the ones demanding that something be done. Is there some reason why they can't just do it themselves? Do they need America to hold their hands through everything?

I'm not sure of the numbers of any of the belligerents in the conflict. I doubt anyone has an accurate count. It's a complex conflict with a number of actors.

Your earlier assertion about secular rebel groups appears tenuous at best.

[Common Sense]

It's an attempt to ascertain why my country is always expected by other countries to pay billions of dollars trying to sort out foreign quagmires. I can understand if you want to avoid having that discussion.



Oh, I know why. What I want to know is why other countries don't take on more of the responsibility themselves, especially when they're the ones demanding that something be done. Is there some reason why they can't just do it themselves? Do they need America to hold their hands through everything?



Your earlier assertion about secular rebel groups appears tenuous at best.

...but it is about me. You're only asking the question because of my nationality.

The US makes its own choices. You should take that up with your elected representatives.

[Common Sense]

This is the J Posts attempt at a breakdown of who is who..It's complex.

http://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Syria...actions-543373