Claim: US is funding al-Qaeda in Syria

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
The Claim: US is funding al-Qaeda in Syria

An Al Qaeda affiliated organization, namely Syria’s Al Nusrah, is being supported “overtly” by the US President, rather than “covertly” by the CIA.
Fighting Al Qaeda by Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria: The Obama Administration is a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” --June 2013
Content from External Source
the Pentagon is giving Al Qaeda and the Taliban funding, even though Al Qaeda and the Taliban are planning to carry out attacks on US citizens. How can this be happening? It would appear the US government is at war with their own people.
It’s Official: US Funding Al Qaeda and Taliban --Aug 2013
Content from External Source
The roots of the claim can be traced back to the very beginning of the rebellion. Syrian president Assad was the first to label the "rebels" as terrorists. By late 2013, he expanded his claim to say that up to 90% of rebels where al-Qaeda. Russian president Putin (Syria's friend and ally) characterized rebels as people that “not only kill their enemies but cut open their bodies and eat their innards before the public and cameras.”

Assad says terrorists causing Syria unrest --June 2011
Russia Says U.S. Risks Al-Qaeda Boomerang With Syria Rebels --June 2013
La mise en garde d'Assad à la France --Sept 2013


American Republicans joined in the allegations by insinuating that supporting rebel fighters was akin to being al-Qaeda's air force. Others explicitly stated that to support rebels was to support al-Qaeda. The meme got traction and flourished in social media.

U.S. Official Concerned Weapons May Go to Al-Nusra --June 2013
Senator Ted Cruz weighs in on U.S. military action in Syria --Sept 2013



The Rebels in Syria

The U.S., France, the U.K., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nations have struggled to unify and strengthen Syria’s moderate opposition, encountering setbacks involving leadership, ethnic representation and the role of expatriate Syrians.
Split Weakens U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels as Islamists Gain --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Current military situation: Rebel “operations” are limited in geographical scope, employing composite and territorial units drawn from the local area or nearby.
Syria's Military Opposition -The Military Opposition on the Ground --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Other rebel groups are maintaining an increasingly strained unity – at least while the battle against the Syrian regime continues. Most say the next battle is against the Jihadists.
Syria: how jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra is taking over Syria's revolution --Feb 2013
Content from External Source
Syrian rebels have never been unified. They are divided into factions that are best differentiated on ideological grounds. The factions will periodically shuffle themselves into new coalitions, but their individual ideologies and goals keep them largely divided. For the sake of simplicity they're ideologies can be characterized as:

Salafi Jihadists - Strict and puritanical, seeking a Caliphate, loath the west.
Islamists - Want to create a Islamic state within Syria ruled by Sharia law.
Moderates - Everyone else: those with no ideology, regular Muslims, secular lesbian feminists, etc.

From moderates to jihadists, most factions in the later part of 2012 were cooperating under the single banner of the Free Syrian Army. Within a year, violent infighting and ideological differences prompted 13 (mostly Islamist) groups to split from the FSA. On Sept 25, 2013, these breakaway factions officially rejected the legitimacy of the western backed interim government (the Syrian National Coalition) and the military authority of the Supreme Military Council.

Wikipedia --Syrian opposition
Wikipedia --List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War
Islamist rebels in Syria reject National Coalition --Sept 2013
Syria's Military Opposition -Rebel Operational Capabilities --Sept 2013


Important to note is that the influence of rebel factions is now mostly regional and sometimes even local in scale. Few if any, have influence over all of Syria. The north is controlled by the Islamists and Jihadists, and the rest by the moderate FSA. As such, the rebels make a loosely knit mosaic of alliances whose only similarities is often the immediate goal of fighting the Syrian regime.


al-Qaeda in Syria

There are three al-Qaeda affiliates within Syria, only one of which had for a short time accepted direction from the Free Syrian Army. The other two, ISIL and Al-Nusra, cooperated with the FSA only in the sense that they fought the common enemy of the Assad regime. Rebel hostility towards al-Qaeda backed groups grew throughout 2013. What had always been a rivalry grew into open hostility with limited clashes and the occasional murders of one another's commanders. In Jan 2014, all rebel factions, the moderates, Islamist and other al-Qaeda backed groups, were pushing ISIL out Syria.

The situation reached a head in Feb 2014. A foreign emissary from core al-Qaeda was dispatch to settle the bitter dispute between ISIL and Al-Nusra, the two main al-Qaeda groups. It is believed ISIL executed him shortly after he entered Syria.

Free Syrian Army threatens blood feud after senior officer killed by jihadists --July 2013
Syrian rebels launch fierce offensive against al Qaeda fighters --Jan 2014
The Battle between ISIS and Syria’s Rebel Militias --Jan 2014
European Council on Foreign Relations - Syria's uprising within an uprising --Jan 2014



Rebel funding

Meanwhile pro-democracy rebel group commanders say money from foreign governments has all but dried up because of fears over radical Islamists.
Syria: how jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra is taking over Syria's revolution --Feb 2013
Content from External Source
Jabhat al-Nusra has three main streams of funding to pay its fighters and wage its war against the Assad regime. When JN was first established with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in the summer of 2011, AQI provided seed funding to jumpstart its operations. Since then, according to Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Husseini al-Quray- shi al-Baghdadi, the emir of AQI, AQI sends half its funds to JN each month.20 Similar to other al-Qaeda branches, JN is also believed to have funding from private individuals (though not governments) in Gulf states. Some JN fighters told the McClatchy news service in December 2012 that most private funding comes from Saudis."
Syria's Military Opposition -Jabhat al-Nusra --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Sponsorship for rebel factions comes from foreign governments and individuals who wish to see their own particular ideology flourish within Syria. Saudi Arabia and Qatar often grew frustrated in the early stages of the armed rebellion. At that time, the factions were more closely cooperating, munitions destined for Islamists could find their way into the hands of moderates or jihadists; and the other way around. Partly due to Kurdish middlemen, there was little control over the flow of weapons once they entered Syria.

AIRLIFT.jpg

New York Times --March 2013

Avoiding what they considered "imperialist influence", the al-Qaeda affiliates never asked for foreign government support and criticized those rebel groups that did accept it. Al-Qaeda subsisted on captured regime weapons and their funding came from other al-Qaeda organizations and private individuals from outside the country.

Syria's Military Opposition -Profiling Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham --Sept 2013


US Involvement

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been an advocate for U.S. military aid to moderate factions, said the shift by rebel factions that had been aligned with the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, the military arm of the opposition coalition, forecloses providing them with U.S. weapons.
Split Weakens U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels as Islamists Gain --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Congressional committees held up weapons deliveries for months over fears that U.S. arms would not prove decisive in the rebels' efforts to oust President Bashar Assad and his government and could well end up in the hands of Islamist militants.
Congress secretly approves U.S. weapons flow to 'moderate' Syrian rebels --Jan 2014
Content from External Source
Because the control of arms shipments inside Syria was uncertain, the US was always hesitated providing lethal aide. Despite Saudi objections, they opposed the shipment of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and outright stopped the flow of small arms and nonlethal aide at signs of trouble. The CIA had some limited influence over logistics, but it was not enough to guarantee that gulf state sponsored guns did not end up in hands of al-Qaeda.

Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. --March 2013
Saudis and CIA agree to Arm Syrian “Moderates” with Advanced Weapons --CMES Univ. of Oklahoma



Conclusion

The current structure and interrelationships of rebel groups would make it more difficult for western arms to unintentionally reach al-Qaeda. However everyone agrees that the prospect is not impossible and may even be likely. There is no evidence that the US is knowingly and willing supplying al-Qaeda. Those claims are based on oversimplified notions that classify all Syrian rebels as al-Qaeda; More politically motivated than factually based.
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
The Claim: US is funding al-Qaeda in Syria

An Al Qaeda affiliated organization, namely Syria’s Al Nusrah, is being supported “overtly” by the US President, rather than “covertly” by the CIA.
Fighting Al Qaeda by Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria: The Obama Administration is a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” --June 2013
Content from External Source
the Pentagon is giving Al Qaeda and the Taliban funding, even though Al Qaeda and the Taliban are planning to carry out attacks on US citizens. How can this be happening? It would appear the US government is at war with their own people.
It’s Official: US Funding Al Qaeda and Taliban --Aug 2013
Content from External Source
The roots of the claim can be traced back to the very beginning of the rebellion. Syrian president Assad was the first to label the "rebels" as terrorists. By late 2013, he expanded his claim to say that up to 90% of rebels where al-Qaeda. Russian president Putin (Syria's friend and ally) characterized rebels as people that “not only kill their enemies but cut open their bodies and eat their innards before the public and cameras.”

Assad says terrorists causing Syria unrest --June 2011
Russia Says U.S. Risks Al-Qaeda Boomerang With Syria Rebels --June 2013
La mise en garde d'Assad à la France --Sept 2013


American Republicans joined in the allegations by insinuating that supporting rebel fighters was akin to being al-Qaeda's air force. Others explicitly stated that to support rebels was to support al-Qaeda. The meme got traction and flourished in social media.

U.S. Official Concerned Weapons May Go to Al-Nusra --June 2013
Senator Ted Cruz weighs in on U.S. military action in Syria --Sept 2013



The Rebels in Syria

The U.S., France, the U.K., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nations have struggled to unify and strengthen Syria’s moderate opposition, encountering setbacks involving leadership, ethnic representation and the role of expatriate Syrians.
Split Weakens U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels as Islamists Gain --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Current military situation: Rebel “operations” are limited in geographical scope, employing composite and territorial units drawn from the local area or nearby.
Syria's Military Opposition -The Military Opposition on the Ground --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Other rebel groups are maintaining an increasingly strained unity – at least while the battle against the Syrian regime continues. Most say the next battle is against the Jihadists.
Syria: how jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra is taking over Syria's revolution --Feb 2013
Content from External Source
Syrian rebels have never been unified. They are divided into factions that are best differentiated on ideological grounds. The factions will periodically shuffle themselves into new coalitions, but their individual ideologies and goals keep them largely divided. For the sake of simplicity they're ideologies can be characterized as:

Salafi Jihadists - Strict and puritanical, seeking a Caliphate, loath the west.
Islamists - Want to create a Islamic state within Syria ruled by Sharia law.
Moderates - Everyone else: those with no ideology, regular Muslims, secular lesbian feminists, etc.

From moderates to jihadists, most factions in the later part of 2012 were cooperating under the single banner of the Free Syrian Army. Within a year, violent infighting and ideological differences prompted 13 (mostly Islamist) groups to split from the FSA. On Sept 25, 2013, these breakaway factions officially rejected the legitimacy of the western backed interim government (the Syrian National Coalition) and the military authority of the Supreme Military Council.

Wikipedia --Syrian opposition
Wikipedia --List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War
Islamist rebels in Syria reject National Coalition --Sept 2013
Syria's Military Opposition -Rebel Operational Capabilities --Sept 2013


Important to note is that the influence of rebel factions is now mostly regional and sometimes even local in scale. Few if any, have influence over all of Syria. The north is controlled by the Islamists and Jihadists, and the rest by the moderate FSA. As such, the rebels make a loosely knit mosaic of alliances whose only similarities is often the immediate goal of fighting the Syrian regime.


al-Qaeda in Syria

There are three al-Qaeda affiliates within Syria, only one of which had for a short time accepted direction from the Free Syrian Army. The other two, ISIL and Al-Nusra, cooperated with the FSA only in the sense that they fought the common enemy of the Assad regime. Rebel hostility towards al-Qaeda backed groups grew throughout 2013. What had always been a rivalry grew into open hostility with limited clashes and the occasional murders of one another's commanders. In Jan 2014, all rebel factions, the moderates, Islamist and other al-Qaeda backed groups, were pushing ISIL out Syria.

The situation reached a head in Feb 2014. A foreign emissary from core al-Qaeda was dispatch to settle the bitter dispute between ISIL and Al-Nusra, the two main al-Qaeda groups. It is believed ISIL executed him shortly after he entered Syria.

Free Syrian Army threatens blood feud after senior officer killed by jihadists --July 2013
Syrian rebels launch fierce offensive against al Qaeda fighters --Jan 2014
The Battle between ISIS and Syria’s Rebel Militias --Jan 2014
European Council on Foreign Relations - Syria's uprising within an uprising --Jan 2014



Rebel funding

Meanwhile pro-democracy rebel group commanders say money from foreign governments has all but dried up because of fears over radical Islamists.
Syria: how jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra is taking over Syria's revolution --Feb 2013
Content from External Source
Jabhat al-Nusra has three main streams of funding to pay its fighters and wage its war against the Assad regime. When JN was first established with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in the summer of 2011, AQI provided seed funding to jumpstart its operations. Since then, according to Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Husseini al-Quray- shi al-Baghdadi, the emir of AQI, AQI sends half its funds to JN each month.20 Similar to other al-Qaeda branches, JN is also believed to have funding from private individuals (though not governments) in Gulf states. Some JN fighters told the McClatchy news service in December 2012 that most private funding comes from Saudis."
Syria's Military Opposition -Jabhat al-Nusra --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Sponsorship for rebel factions comes from foreign governments and individuals who wish to see their own particular ideology flourish within Syria. Saudi Arabia and Qatar often grew frustrated in the early stages of the armed rebellion. At that time, the factions were more closely cooperating, munitions destined for Islamists could find their way into the hands of moderates or jihadists; and the other way around. Partly due to Kurdish middlemen, there was little control over the flow of weapons once they entered Syria.

AIRLIFT.jpg

New York Times --March 2013

Avoiding what they considered "imperialist influence", the al-Qaeda affiliates never asked for foreign government support and criticized those rebel groups that did accept it. Al-Qaeda subsisted on captured regime weapons and their funding came from other al-Qaeda organizations and private individuals from outside the country.

Syria's Military Opposition -Profiling Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham --Sept 2013


US Involvement

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been an advocate for U.S. military aid to moderate factions, said the shift by rebel factions that had been aligned with the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, the military arm of the opposition coalition, forecloses providing them with U.S. weapons.
Split Weakens U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels as Islamists Gain --Sept 2013
Content from External Source
Congressional committees held up weapons deliveries for months over fears that U.S. arms would not prove decisive in the rebels' efforts to oust President Bashar Assad and his government and could well end up in the hands of Islamist militants.
Congress secretly approves U.S. weapons flow to 'moderate' Syrian rebels --Jan 2014
Content from External Source
Because the control of arms shipments inside Syria was uncertain, the US was always hesitated providing lethal aide. Despite Saudi objections, they opposed the shipment of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and outright stopped the flow of small arms and nonlethal aide at signs of trouble. The CIA had some limited influence over logistics, but it was not enough to guarantee that gulf state sponsored guns did not end up in hands of al-Qaeda.

Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. --March 2013
Saudis and CIA agree to Arm Syrian “Moderates” with Advanced Weapons --CMES Univ. of Oklahoma



Conclusion

The current structure and interrelationships of rebel groups would make it more difficult for western arms to unintentionally reach al-Qaeda. However everyone agrees that the prospect is not impossible and may even be likely. There is no evidence that the US is knowingly and willing supplying al-Qaeda. Those claims are based on oversimplified notions that classify all Syrian rebels as al-Qaeda; More politically motivated than factually based.
Explain how the claim is politically motivated ? Since John Mc Cain and other republicans seem to be pushing the same Agenda in Syria that destroyed Libya that Obama and Hillary supported ? Its not political to oppose war. I think the opposition came from both Democrats and Republican Citizens or we would have been involved . So Your conclusion is [not one I share]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Explain how the claim is politically motivated ? Since John Mc Cain and other republicans seem to be pushing the same Agenda in Syria that destroyed Libya that Obama and Hillary supported ? Its not political to oppose war. I think the opposition came from both Democrats and Republican Citizens or we would have been involved . So Your conclusion is Bull

your right about Mcain and repubs support for funding militants- from reading it over again it seems the main political motivation mentioned in TH's post was from Assad trying to scare the West into not supplying arms to rebels because they were "90%" AQ...that meme did get picked up here in the US by some far right and left...
 
J

Joe

Guest
your right about Mcain and repubs support for funding militants- from reading it over again it seems the main political motivation mentioned in TH's post was from Assad trying to scare the West into not supplying arms to rebels because they were "90%" AQ...that meme did get picked up here in the US by some far right and left...
Yes and now some Kid 22 from my town blows himself up in Syria . Its going to wind up like Libya . The Opposition started in the UK not to get involved then here . I made plenty of calls to my reps on both sides of the isle then .http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/syria-strike-push-hits-hurdles/
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Explain how the claim is politically motivated ?

From the OP...

The roots of the claim can be traced back to the very beginning of the rebellion. Syrian president Assad was the first to label the "rebels" as terrorists. By late 2013, he expanded his claim to say that up to 90% of rebels where al-Qaeda. Russian president Putin (Syria's friend and ally) characterized rebels as people that “not only kill their enemies but cut open their bodies and eat their innards before the public and cameras.”

Assad says terrorists causing Syria unrest --June 2011
Russia Says U.S. Risks Al-Qaeda Boomerang With Syria Rebels --June 2013
La mise en garde d'Assad à la France --Sept 2013

American Republicans joined in the allegations by insinuating that supporting rebel fighters was akin to being al-Qaeda's air force. Others explicitly stated that to support rebels was to support al-Qaeda. The meme got traction and flourished in social media.
 
J

Joe

Guest
What does that have to do with the claim that the US is funding Al-Qaeda?
We are and have been funding Al Qaeda not just in Syria But Libya as well or at least arming them with weapons that kill civilians and Americans . There are many Americans citizens there fighting alongside the rebels or Al Queda Im sure our government knows and promotes it as well . Its been quite Obviuos for some time who the rebels are http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...aeda-play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all
 

Jason

Senior Member
Conclusion
The current structure and interrelationships of rebel groups would make it more difficult for western arms to unintentionally reach al-Qaeda. However everyone agrees that the prospect is not impossible and may even be likely. There is no evidence that the US is knowingly and willing supplying al-Qaeda. Those claims are based on oversimplified notions that classify all Syrian rebels as al-Qaeda; More politically motivated than factually based.
I think your conclusion sums it up nicely. Your claim was; is the US funding Al Qaeda in Syria. The answer is most probably yes. We have no way of knowing if the arms shipments and aid we sent the rebels ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda. We also know the US or any NATO country wouldn't knowingy and willfully supply Al Qaeda with arms, but that doesn't mean weapons aren't making there way to Al Qaeda since rebel groups are uniting in Syria. And if they haven't gotten their hands on our weapons or aid, they surely will now.; http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war-isis-obama/
Other rebel groups unite
article dated 5-28-14
To combat the push by ISIS, 12 rebel battalions including al-Nusra Front, a powerful al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, formed the Mujahideen Shura Council in eastern Deir Ezzour, earlier this week.

"We found the only solution is for us to unite against ISIS. So all the battalions that were fighting them united financially, militarily and administratively and now work out of the same operation room," Jassem Alkraty, a media activist linked to anti-ISIS insurgent groups, told CNN via Skype from eastern Deir Ezzour.
Content from External Source
It's an unfortunate part of war because we likely will never get the full story of what's happening in Syria. Media shapes the news.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
We also know the US or any NATO country wouldn't knowingy and willfully supply Al Qaeda with arms, but that doesn't mean weapons aren't making there way to Al Qaeda since rebel groups are uniting in Syria.

It would be more accurate to say that two years ago, for a short time, there was some limited co-ordination between one Al-Qaeda affiliate and the Free Syrian Army. Like I said in the OP:

al-Qaeda in Syria

There are three al-Qaeda affiliates within Syria, only one of which had for a short time accepted direction from the Free Syrian Army. The other two, ISIL and Al-Nusra, cooperated with the FSA only in the sense that they fought the common enemy of the Assad regime. Rebel hostility towards al-Qaeda backed groups grew throughout 2013. What had always been a rivalry grew into open hostility with limited clashes and the occasional murders of one another's commanders. In Jan 2014, all rebel factions, the moderates, Islamist and other al-Qaeda backed groups, were pushing ISIL out Syria.

Furthermore, in the early days of the rebellion, SOME arms shipments and funds were brokered by the CIA. They made there way via gulf nations into the hands of Kurdish tribes in northern Syria. Unfortunately, some Kurds proved untrustworthy as they were willing to sell those weapons to the highest bidder... Al-Qaeda included. Once this was discovered, the supply lines were changed.

The notion that the US is supplying arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria seems to be based on the fact that some US brokered arms and supplies may have unwittingly ended up in their hands. Some Al-Qaeda might be driving Nissan trucks but is it fair to claim, therefor, that Japan is supplying Al-Qaeda in Syria?

al-qaeda-in-Syria.jpg
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
I watched Frontline last night about how the CIA is training some moderate rebels and it went into some detail regarding the vetting of those trained and the significant effort to make sure those receiving training were NOT AQ or any other extremist type. It's an interesting watch:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/


(The article On Ukraine is also very interesting as it goes inside both sides of the conflict)
 
J

Joe

Guest
How do you think the US "funding" and "supplying" arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria?
Guess you didnt read my post ? They've know for years who the bulk of the rebels are . Therefore part of your conclusion is false
There is no evidence that the US is knowingly and willing supplying al-Qaed
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
I watched Frontline last night about how the CIA is training some moderate rebels and it went into some detail regarding the vetting of those trained and the significant effort to make sure those receiving training were NOT AQ or any other extremist type. It's an interesting watch:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/


(The article On Ukraine is also very interesting as it goes inside both sides of the conflict)
How do they determine hey are not Al Qaeda ? Seems that would be quite impossible . Plus they failed in Libya so what makes them think they won't fail in Syria as well ?
 

Jason

Senior Member
How do they determine hey are not Al Qaeda ? Seems that would be quite impossible . Plus they failed in Libya so what makes them think they won't fail in Syria as well ?
And the fact that we armed Libyan rebels, and had our embassy attacked a year or so later should illustrate how weapons make it into the hands of the enemy, even if unintentionally.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
How do they determine hey are not Al Qaeda ? Seems that would be quite impossible . Plus they failed in Libya so what makes them think they won't fail in Syria as well ?

perhaps you should watch the show yourself. Why would it be "impossible" ?

The fact IS there are a wide range of "rebels" with varying background, ideologies and purposes in Syria.

As for your strawman- is Qaddafi still in power? I believe that was the goal of NATO involvement.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
And the fact that we armed Libyan rebels, and had our embassy attacked a year or so later should illustrate how weapons make it into the hands of the enemy, even if unintentionally.

Its not logical to suggest that if the US hadn't armed some Libyan rebels that the they wouldn't have had any weapons and wouldn't have attacked the US embassy. There were plenty of weapons in the country long before the US got involved.

Thats not to say us supplied arms didnt fall into extremists' possession. But I highly doubt that was the catalyst for attacking the embassy.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
Content from External Source
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/w...-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 

Jason

Senior Member
Its not logical to suggest that if the US hadn't armed some Libyan rebels that the they wouldn't have had any weapons and wouldn't have attacked the US embassy. There were plenty of weapons in the country long before the US got involved.

Thats not to say us supplied arms didnt fall into extremists' possession. But I highly doubt that was the catalyst for attacking the embassy.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
Content from External Source
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/w...-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Not the catalyst, but rebels AQ did attack our embassy. I wasn't trying to make that correlation. I was merely trying to point out that we have no way of knowing if we are arming them or if they will use these weapons against the US and our allies in the near or distant future
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I wasn't trying to make that correlation.

no offense but with this comment- it seemed like you were making that correlation- you directly equated the attacking of the embassy with the arming of the rebels:

the fact that we armed Libyan rebels, and had our embassy attacked a year or so later should illustrate how weapons make it into the hands of the enemy

but your general point is valid.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
They've know for years who the bulk of the rebels are . Therefore part of your conclusion is false
There is no evidence that the US is knowingly and willing supplying al-Qaed
Content from External Source

What are you referring to? The Reuters article or the NYtimes article? Where in either does it mention who the bulk of the rebels are?

Even if the majority of Syrian rebels are Al-Qaeda, how does that support the claim that the US is funding them?

I'll ask the question again. How do you think the US "funding" and "supplying" arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria?
 
J

Joe

Guest
perhaps you should watch the show yourself. Why would it be "impossible" ?

The fact IS there are a wide range of "rebels" with varying background, ideologies and purposes in Syria.

As for your strawman- is Qaddafi still in power? I believe that was the goal of NATO involvement.
No Gaddafi is gone and we created a mess just like we are doing in Syria . Some foreign policy ? We are not supporting freedom fighters we are supporting insurgents and terrorist . What if the Russians decided to arm the Militias In the US to overthrow our government ?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
No Gaddafi is gone and we created a mess just like we are doing in Syria . Some foreign policy ? We are not supporting freedom fighters we are supporting insurgents and terrorist . What if the Russians decided to arm the Militias In the US to overthrow our government ?

This is not a debate of the merits of arming Syrian rebels. The US did not "create" the mess but certainly can be seen as contributing. Your strawman argument based on semantics is not worth addressing.

The facts remain that not all Syrian rebels are AQ and the US is actively attempting to avoid arming AQ.
 
J

Joe

Guest
What are you referring to? The Reuters article or the NYtimes article? Where in either does it mention who the bulk of the rebels are?

Even if the majority of Syrian rebels are Al-Qaeda, how does that support the claim that the US is funding them?

I'll ask the question again. How do you think the US "funding" and "supplying" arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria?
How did we know the Contras were being armed in Nicaragua ? We didnt till after the fact . We didnt have the evidence . If even the minority of the Rebels are Al Qaeda and we are arming them and funding them and we know they are among them . How could they not know ?????????
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/28/300707/us-israel-running-alqaeda-in-syria/
This is not a debate of the merits of arming Syrian rebels. The US did not "create" the mess but certainly can be seen as contributing. Your strawman argument based on semantics is not worth addressing.

The facts remain that not all Syrian rebels are AQ and the US is actively attempting to avoid arming AQ.
Where are the facts ? Iv seen none ? They did create the Mess and are about to create another one in Syria , Gaddafi was no threat to us and neither is Assad .
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
How did we know the Contras were being armed in Nicaragua ? We didnt till after the fact . We didnt have the evidence . If even the minority of the Rebels are Al Qaeda and we are arming them and funding them and we know they are among them . How could they not know ?????????
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/28/300707/us-israel-running-alqaeda-in-syria/

Where are the facts ? Iv seen none ? They did create the Mess and are about to create another one in Syria , Gaddafi was no threat to us and neither is Assad .
Tell that to the people who were shot down in the Lockerbie bombing.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
We didnt have the evidence ... How could they not know ?????????

The point of this thread is to examine the claim that the US is supplying arms and funding to Al-Qaeda in Syria. Your answer seems to be, "Well, how could they not be?" Your rhetorical question is not evidence of anything.

When the US discovered that some supplies, early in the rebellion, might have unintentionally ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda they stopped shipments and later changed the supply routes. The US refused to send anti aircraft and anti-tank weapons precisely because they didn't want them to end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda. But I'm sure you already knew that, having read my OP. :rolleyes:

Third time's the charm... How do you think the US is "funding" and "supplying" arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria?
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
A counterproductive designation?

According to the Quilliam study, "the designation (by the U.S.) of al-Nusra as a terrorist organization has only served to reinforce jihadist support for the group.

Nada Bakos, the former CIA agent agreed, telling CNN the designation may elevate al-Nusra's status amongst Jihadists worldwide, increasing funding and recruitment for the group.

Benotman's study describes relations between al-Nusra and the FSA as mixed, with both realizing they need each other in the short term to topple al-Assad.

"Some FSA brigades threaten to work with al-Nusra if the West does not provide enough weapons while others see al-Nusra as trying to exploit the revolution for their own ends, instead of working for the good of the country. Jabhat al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army are wary of one another, as they are already vying for popularity amongst the population," Quilliam says.
Content from External Source
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/08/analysis-study-shows-rise-of-al-qaeda-affiliate-in-syria/.
On a side note; has anyone ever considered the fact that the CIA might have orchestrated this AQ in Syria, and that AQ could be getting their hands on US weapons and aide. I know AQ existed on some level in Syria, but the numbers were incredibly small at the start of the war. If you take a step back to consider whats at steak here, if intentional, was sort of brilliant on their behalf. Here's why I think so. We are keeping the fight localized (Syria) with AQ. As a result of this news making its rounds in the world, its had a positive affect on AQ and AQ affiliates with respect to having more and more terrorist flooding into Syria to help overthrow Assad and the Syrian Government. Now we have the terrorist fighting a government that US policy wants out of the picture to begin with. We are letting AQ do the dirty work, and on the flip side Assad and his government are exterminating terrorist and AQ. If we remember the Afghan war with Russia, literally thousands upon thousands of muslims came to fight the Russians, and eventually won by pushing Russia out of Afghanastan. If we can get the terrorist all in the same place, we are essentially controlling the outcome or contributing to the demise of AQ. Assad has superior means to fight the rebels if necessary. Maybe this could explain why the US never carried out air strikes, maybe they secretly want the war to continue which in turns motivates more AQ cells to make the journey to Syria. Just a thought
 
J

Joe

Guest
The point of this thread is to examine the claim that the US is supplying arms and funding to Al-Qaeda in Syria. Your answer seems to be, "Well, how could they not be?" Your rhetorical question is not evidence of anything.

When the US discovered that some supplies, early in the rebellion, might have unintentionally ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda they stopped shipments and later changed the supply routes. The US refused to send anti aircraft and anti-tank weapons precisely because they didn't want them to end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda. But I'm sure you already knew that, having read my OP. :rolleyes:

Third time's the charm... How do you think the US is "funding" and "supplying" arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria?
Does it matter how I think they are ? No but I will wait and hope the facts come out . Im still looking for the evidence that OJ was guilty of murder :)
 
J

Joe

Guest
I can't help you with that. That can only be because you haven't looked.
Neither have you because many of his links have no facts just speculation . Veterans Today ? Really ? Thats worse then Infowars
 
J

Joe

Guest
no offense but with this comment- it seemed like you were making that correlation- you directly equated the attacking of the embassy with the arming of the rebels:



but your general point is valid.
A very valid POINT
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Neither have you because many of his links have no facts just speculation . Veterans Today ? Really ? Thats worse then Infowars

try again Joe. The Frontline documentary I posted embedded a journalist with the Syrian rebels being trained by the US. You can see for yourself.

Chances are you won't watch it- just wave it away with some flippant strawman comment.
 
J

Joe

Guest
try again Joe. The Frontline documentary I posted embedded a journalist with the Syrian rebels being trained by the US. You can see for yourself.

Chances are you won't watch it- just wave it away with some flippant strawman comment.
I will watch it tonight .That doest mean we arent arming Al Qaeda maybe not intentionally but we have to know dam well they will get those weapons .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
the ironic thing is...according to the documentary...we are arming them with Russian weapons :)

Curious though...what do you think those videos you linked show? The first is just some guy in the internet giving his opinion but stating them as facts with no real substance behind them.

The second show some fighter with a tank killer- quite possibly from the US. The title states unequivocally that its "Al Queda" but nothing in the video indicates that. Can you definitively identify them as AQ in that video? otherwise its just confirmation bias. Just because they shout Allahu Akbar doesn't mean their are AQ.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Does it matter how I think they are ? No but I will wait and hope the facts come out .

You're going to wait for the facts to come out, yet you've already pronounced the government guilty... awesome.

That actually illustrates the point of this thread. People claim the US is funding Al-Qaeda but can't provide evidence, and some don't even explain themselves.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.

The title of the video "Al-Qaeda in Syria testing new American weapons" is wrong. The guys firing the bgm-71 tow are not Al-Qaeda. They are from the Hazzm Movement. Their logo is even plastered in the video.

Hazzm_Movement_Logo.jpg

Abdullah Awda, 28, heads the Harakat Hazm rebel group, which recently announced that it had received the first advanced American weaponry to be dispatched to Syria since the conflict began.

The small number of BGM-71 missiles, about two decades old and hardly better than similar Russian and French models acquired by the rebels from allies and the black market over the past year, will not change the game in the fight against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the fighters say.

--Washington Post
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
You're going to wait for the facts to come out, yet you've already pronounced the government guilty... awesome.

That actually illustrates the point of this thread. People claim the US is funding Al-Qaeda but can't provide evidence, and some don't even explain themselves.
Well our government just let 5 of the most hardened terrorist go from Club Gitmo for 1 possible deserter . So yes I declare them guilty . their track record sucks .So the one logo is proof that all are not Al Qaeda ? :rolleyes:
 
J

Joe

Guest
The weapons were not directly provided by the United States. “Friends of Syria” delivered them, he said, referring to the U.S.-backed alliance of Western powers and Persian Gulf Arab states established to support the opposition Free Syrian Army. The rebels had to promise to return the canister of each missile fired, to not resell the weapons and to protect them from theft.
Content from External Source
thats pretty funny :) I think Ambassador Stevens was trying to get the weapons back from the Libyan rebels which had no ties to Al Qaeda ??? :(http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ec84d8-0f53-4c9f-bf0a-c3395819c540_story.html Bullshit
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread seems to be getting a bit rambly. The problem being that it started with a claim, not a claim of evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top