Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

**Bill Moore** · 10-22-2014

Crowbat

Here an excellently-prepared, really 'authoritative' Complete and Growing List of Vetted Groups of Syrian insurgents that either already have, or are about to get US military aid.

Why do you believe this Marxist propaganda site is authoritative? This looks like little more than propaganda directed against English speaking nations to gain support for different resistance movements, that by the way embrace a Marxist ideology. All photos of the Syrians throughout the articles show them holding up signs in English (target audience), and holding up drawings of President Obama.

There is nothing authoritative about this site. That doesn't mean everything in it is inaccurate, or that any of it is inaccurate, but it is clearly intended as propaganda. It also tells a story that agrees with your view, so obviously you embrace it. That is a human tendency we all embrace, and have to consciously fight to get closer to objective and further from subjective.

Your authoritative site is in George Sabra's name, a noted Syrian communist who is now the head of the Syrian National Council (SNC). Clearly an a non bias source that wouldn't twist the facts to achieve a political objective.

Who are the real puppet masters in Syria? Here is one view

http://news.az/articles/region/92937

Turkey and Qatar have been vocal supporters of the Syrian opposition and have been heavily engaged in efforts to coordinate the fragmented Sunni-majority Syrian rebels. The two states contributed jointly to the formation of the Syrian opposition’s civilian wing, the Syrian National Council, and its military wing, the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Both countries have also been criticized for supporting the al-Nusra Front, the majority of whose militants later joined the ranks of ISIL.

The Qatar-Turkey line has occasionally deviated from the U.S.-Saudi approach in restructuring the opposition like the Syrian National Coalition and FSA into the Higher Military Council.

Nonetheless, the propaganda is well done. Give every organization a Facebook page, a flag, and a few photos to create the illusion of a real army in being.

War has always been propagandized with half-truths and lies, the only difference now is that it has exponentially increased with the web and social media.

**CrowBat** · 10-23-2014

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Crowbat
Why do you believe this Marxist propaganda site is authoritative?

Because ideology of the owner of that website does not matter in the case of the work by two guys that sat down and really did their homework.

Besides, what kind of problem have you got with Syrian Marxists?

If nothing else, from your standpoint the only thing that should matter here would be that Marxists certainly can't be 'Islamist extremists'...

All photos of the Syrians throughout the articles show them holding up signs in English (target audience), and holding up drawings of President Obama.

Yes, that's perfectly right. Guess, you've never seen all the similar photos from Kfarnabel at earlier times?

There is nothing authoritative about this site.

I'm not talking about the site, but the list of vetted insurgent groups posted on it. No matter whether one likes the site and its owner, or not, the list is correct (at worst, affiliations of specific groups would be better re-grouped the way I've posted them here).

That doesn't mean everything in it is inaccurate, or that any of it is inaccurate, but it is clearly intended as propaganda.

Oh, excuse me.

Then please help me understand you correctly:

- posting lists of Syrian insurgent groups the sheer existence of which is declared a 'myth', but which actually have been vetted by the CIA and either already have got TOWs or are about to get them, is 'propaganda';

- while, realizing the correct nature of the 'FSyA' title as a trademark three years too late is... exactly what?

Alternatively, you can explain me your view of what's going on here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmx48qsBQz4

It also tells a story that agrees with your view, so obviously you embrace it.

Sure: it confirms my information, which is good for me - and very bad for everybody explaining something else.

That is a human tendency we all embrace, and have to consciously fight to get closer to objective and further from subjective.

Exactly that has brought me at this standpoint.

Difference is: contrary to 12 years ago, this time I'm not going to shut up.

Your authoritative site is in George Sabra's name, a noted Syrian communist who is now the head of the Syrian National Council (SNC). Clearly an a non bias source that wouldn't twist the facts to achieve a political objective.

And the funny thing here is: more than half the groups in question can't care less about the SNC - and this precisely because they do not want to subject themselves to the control of Turkey/Qatar-supported Moslem Brotherhood.

Of course, in order to know about this one should 'consciously fight to get closer to objective and further from subjective'.

So, as you can see, we're even in agreement here.

Who are the real puppet masters in Syria? Here is one view...

I'm not surprised you're posting a source offering just the usual set of generalizations. But what never stops making me wondering about people like you is the following:

1.) Why are you throwing together groups like those listed above, which are clearly US-Saudi supported, and refusing to accept the SNC and Turkish-Qatari line - between others because the later was so far primarily providing aid to Islamist and extremist groups, like the JAN, Ahrar etc.?

2.) Why are you blaming me for 'spreading Marxist propaganda' while failing to realize that your problem is the same like all those that share your ignorance about 'details' of the Syrian insurgency?

3.) Why are you limiting yourself to reading such 'mainstream' stuff and generalizations? Why don't you check reports by the US Treasury citing specific Iranian nationals (here too) right next to Kuwaiti nationals (alternatively here, and more precisely here), and Qatari nationals instead?

These are not only clearly identifying specific persons that are providing funding and recruitment for the al-Qaida and Daesh in Syria, but also making it clear: the above-listed Syrian insurgent groups have never received any kind of funding from sources listed by the US Treasury.

And overall: why is it so hard for people like you nowadays to activate their brains, start collecting information, start thinking and connecting dots?

Nonetheless, the propaganda is well done. Give every organization a Facebook page, a flag, and a few photos to create the illusion of a real army in being.

...and still - and obviously - that's nothing in comparison to the Daesh and the Assadist regime.

Then, without the USA (and entire West) misunderstanding Daesh's videos of beheading its US and British hostages, the USA and allies wouldn't get involved against it.

And, without skilful manoeuvring and propaganda of the regime, everybody would know what's actually going on in Syria.

War has always been propagandized with half-truths and lies, the only difference now is that it has exponentially increased with the web and social media.

Very nice. Then I'll offer you the following promise: in order to distinguish propaganda from reality, henceforth I'll post every single video of TOW-use by above-listed groups I can put my hands upon.

Let's start with non-existing Harakat Hazm, which never destroyed this 2S1 Gvozdika:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d5_1413895155

...nor has it ever hit this T-55 in northern Hama province:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8yTG0VcRC0

**Bill Moore** · 10-23-2014

Crowbat

Only the blind would argue that resistance elements are not fighting bravely against Assad, whigh is all the videos demonstrate. They don't prove who is doing the fighting. As for using main stream news as sources I readily admit that is a shortfall, but it is no worse than citing resistance websites. Clearly you understand we can't post classified information on a blog? Unless you are a former member of the Obama administration. You are certainly knowledgeable on the situation. You are also a biased source of information. Nonetheless I enjoy reading your posts. You should keep in mind that America's interests will not always align with yours.

**CrowBat** · 10-23-2014

Bill,
after posting my last post above and while preparing few artworks ('colour profiles') of SyAAF MiG-21s captured by the Daesh at Tabqa AB for one of my future publications.... it dawned upon me that I failed to express my appreciation for you about one (or even 'a few') fact(s).

Namely, you are now in exclusive club of about 0,0001% of total US population that knows there is something like 'Syrian Marxists'.

It might sound silly at the first look, and it's certainly going to sound 'patronizing', although what I'm going to write as next is not meant that way: but, I think this is an important step forward.

If you wonder why: because this means you're one of very, very, very, very, VERY few Americans not considering all the Syrians either for 'crazy Islamist terrorists' or for 'fans of that lesser-evil, named Bashar'.

IMHO, this is important for the next reason you mentioned in your reply too: yup, only the blind would argue there is no resistance against Assad. This stands precisely in opposition to what the US government, most of US political establishment, large parts of the IC and especially most of the military are arguing.

That said, and because you 'still insist' that this 'doesn't prove who is doing the fighting', I guess I'll have to keep on posting videos of TOW-kills. Reason is rather simple: just to show you how many of them are used in combat, and how many Assadists are blown up by them.

Regarding sources: nope, my primary sources are no mainstream media, internet etc. And nope: at least from my standpoint I can say I'm not posting plenty of 'sensitive' stuff I do happen to know. I do not demand anybody to do something of that kind either.

But, I do happen to have contacts to people serving with (what is left of) the Syrian military, to people that joined the insurgents etc. and I also do happen to be in a position to...let's say 'monitor'... let's say 'discussions' within certain, 'quite influential' circles in the DC. Of course, all of this is completely unofficial by nature and some of stuff they say sometimes proves wrong. Therefore, nobody is obliged to 'believe' anything I say. Yet, the point is this: primary reason why I'm - sometimes - posting links to specific media/blogs or other sorts of internet websites is solely to point at sources confirming what I've heard from somewhere else.

Am I biased?

I'm staunchly against any regime that's terrorising its population. But especially against one that has caused the death of 400,000 people and forced 10 million of others to become homeless refugees, that's purposedly destroying most of Syrian cities, regularly using chemical weapons, and then depending on two major (and several minor) terrorist organizations for own survival.

If that's making me 'biased', oh my dear Sir: yes, I am.

On the contrary, the end of your post is leaving me not a little bit bamboozled: precisely what kind of 'US interests' here are then 'not align' with mine?

Would you like to say the US is now curious to ignore regimes doing all of what I listed?

***********

That all said, here one example of what you're not going to find in any kind of media: the top ranks of the Assadist military (that is: the few old farths left over from the former SyAA) are presently (and seriously) considering official re-designation of military services from 'Syrian Arab Army' to something like the 'Syrian National Army'. I.e. the droppin 'Arab' from the official designation.

Local IRGC-QF commanders were a lil' bit stunned about this (then the IRGC is eagerly Arabizing even the official Iranian history since years), but they've meanwhile joined related discussions with suggestion of something like: 'Syrian Peoples' Army'.

Should you wonder where have I got this: sorry, I can't say more than I have already said.

Whatever, I am a great fan of sarcasm, and thus cannot fail observing few things:

- That with 'Syrian People's Army' would be the gem - even more so because half the 'people' in question either do not speak Arabic with Syrian accent, or do not speak any Arabic at all.

- I'm eagerly waiting for reaction of such regime's combatants like those from the Ba'ath Party Militia, Arab National Guard (the latter are primarily Egyptians, but few Lebanese and other Arabs too), and then the Syrian Socialist Party Militia (the standpoint of which is that Arabs are better than even Nazi's Arians) - once they realize the regime for which they are fighting has decided to drop not only 'Arab', but even pan-Arabism from its agenda.

**Bill Moore** · 10-23-2014

Am I biased?

I'm staunchly against any regime that's terrorising its population. But especially against one that has caused the death of 400,000 people and forced 10 million of others to become homeless refugees, that's purposedly destroying most of Syrian cities, regularly using chemical weapons, and then depending on two major (and several minor) terrorist organizations for own survival.

If that's making me 'biased', oh my dear Sir: yes, I am.

I hear you, and this is understandable. You need to understand that America rode in on their white horse with their white hats on with the best intentions for Iraq and Afghanistan, and have little to show for our effort. In some ways we're a wounded country and hesitant to throw our hat in the ring again unless we can anticipate a better outcome for our sacrifice, and we did sacrifice.

On the contrary, the end of your post is leaving me not a little bit bamboozled: precisely what kind of 'US interests' here are then 'not align' with mine?

Crowbat, I attempt to project a possibly hidden logic in Obama's strategy. That doesn't mean that logic actually exists, but I simply offer it as an alternative view. Maybe he thinking this or that. Frankly, I have no longer have any idea what our national goals are now in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan. I hear one thing, yet the visible strategy doesn't support the what I hear, so I hope as a citizen that there is an invisible part that I don't see that makes sense. That is a real possibility, but my confidence level is much lower than it has been in the recent past.

Would you like to say the US is now curious to ignore regimes doing all of what I listed?

Based on comments above, I think the U.S. is temporarily out of the regime change game. However, if the people rise up against their oppressive government, a U.S. State Department rep will get on twitter and tell them that America supports them. Hope they don't take that too seriously and actually start a war in hopes we will actually help.

- That with 'Syrian People's Army' would be the gem - even more so because half the 'people' in question either do not speak Arabic with Syrian accent, or do not speak any Arabic at all.

No surprise, the Syrian Army now only protects the regime and the Alawite minority. I would hate to be an Alawite in Syria now, especially if I had a family, knowing the curtain will eventually close. Just like Kaddafi, Assad must rely on foreign soldiers or mercenaries. That generally indicates the end game is in sight.

Cheers

**CrowBat** · 10-25-2014

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I hear you, and this is understandable. You need to understand that America rode in on their white horse with their white hats on with the best intentions for Iraq and Afghanistan, and have little to show for our effort. In some ways we're a wounded country and hesitant to throw our hat in the ring again unless we can anticipate a better outcome for our sacrifice, and we did sacrifice.

We're turning in circles now: it has already been said that Afghanistan was justified, but only 'curing the effects of disease', while Iraq was simply stupid.

Doesn't mean that 'Syria' would be 'wrong'.

Crowbat, I attempt to project a possibly hidden logic in Obama's strategy. That doesn't mean that logic actually exists, but I simply offer it as an alternative view. Maybe he thinking this or that. Frankly, I have no longer have any idea what our national goals are now in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan. I hear one thing, yet the visible strategy doesn't support the what I hear, so I hope as a citizen that there is an invisible part that I don't see that makes sense. That is a real possibility, but my confidence level is much lower than it has been in the recent past.

One of latest statements regarding 'goals' in Syria was something like 'need to respect Iranian interests in upholding the Assad regime'.

Nobody in the DC, and especially not in the DOS cared about respecting Iranian interests - and that since 35 years. On the contrary. But now, when the regime in Syria is de-facto run by an Iranian terrorist organization (or two, if we add Hezbollah to the IRGC), there is a need to respect these?

So, if you're searching for an 'invisible' part, here one idea: either the Iranians have operational nukes - or this is simply making no sense, i.e. it's so absurd, that it's mindlessly idiotic.

Based on comments above, I think the U.S. is temporarily out of the regime change game. However, if the people rise up against their oppressive government, a U.S. State Department rep will get on twitter and tell them that America supports them. Hope they don't take that too seriously and actually start a war in hopes we will actually help.

Well, the problem is that they do (take that seriously), and thus any such action is stupid too.

No surprise, the Syrian Army now only protects the regime and the Alawite minority....

...and is looting Moarek as we're talking: the BPM's 'Tiger Force' (a 'reinforced-regiment'-sized special forces outfit led by Col Sohail Hassan) has captured this 'southern Gate to Idlib Province' yesterday.

Interestingly: Moarek resisted four months of NDF's and Hezbollah's armoured onslaughts, earlier this year (that's where Hazm has knocked out most of those 200+ MBTs and IFVs using TOWs), while this success was achieved with help of a nocturnal heliborne operation - precisely the way taught by the IRGC-QF.