View Full Version : AQ aiding Syrian rebels?
krashkart
07-31-12, 06:20 AM
If the article is to be believed, it looks like the West has missed an opportune moment to lend some assistance to the Syrian uprising and put at least a temporary stopper in the spread of jihad. Some FSA are reportedly breaking away from the root movement and joining Al-Qaida. Why? According to some fighters the FSA doesn't know how to fight and win. AQ on the other hand has plenty of experience in fighting (and winning), and that is quite attractive to many who would prefer to win a battle rather than just waste ammunition.
While the AQ has just begun to operate in the open, there are still many Syrians who feel uneasy with their presence. They fear that AQ is stealing their revolution away from them. They could very well be right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
.
Edit: If the article is accurate, rather.
According to some fighters the FSA doesn't know how to fight and win. AQ on the other hand has plenty of experience in fighting (and winning), and that is quite attractive to many who would prefer to win a battle rather than just waste ammunition.
What battle has AQ ever won? Sure they're good a car bombs but fighting a battle against real troops? They've gotten their hats handed to them every time.
Skybird
07-31-12, 07:37 AM
I frown. Because I cannot believe that there were people at the Guardian or in the world who seriously believed that AQ has not engaged in what is an inviting opportunity to them. The rebels in Syria are a wide conglomerate of different factions anyway, and my impression is most of them have an outspoken "fundamentalist" agenda.
That's why I am against the West getting enaged on their behalf with bombers, troops, and the like, and also not to deliver them Western hightech weapons. Major monetarian supply seems to be coming from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states anyway, the money being used for buying weapons of Russian production on the black market. Turkey has engaged heavily in coordinating this. Rebels are even allowed to maintain a training base and a headquarter in Turkey. It seems Erdoghan I. and Assad are no longer in love with each other. Turkey also worries about Kurdish sovereignity given to Syrian Kurds.
Then there is the massive ethnic tension. Assad belongs to a minority group that thinks it is fighting for its very own survival as well. They have control of most of the armed forces, and key posts in business and finances.
It will be a mess over there for years to come. It is a proxy war of the old Sunni-Shia confrontation (and Saudi Arabia versus Iran). So it is last but not least a religious war, and I think it is this more than anything else. I agree with those seeing this as a new Lebanon.
If some people in the media and politics still think this is just a revolt against a dictator and it is just about removing this dictator and gaining freedom and democracy, then I really cannot help it.
krashkart
07-31-12, 07:38 AM
What battle has AQ ever won? Sure they're good a car bombs but fighting a battle against real troops? They've gotten their hats handed to them every time.
Good point. According to the article, AQ is much better at getting things done than the FSA is. That's what I meant to convey.
Skybird
07-31-12, 08:10 AM
AQ is no field army, and thus should not be measured by performance in field battles. It is a mix of guerilla and terror, political, social and religious involvement. They amkew the West investing horren dious sums of money worldwide to boost security anbd engage in miliutary actions. That means they are very well potent enough to make us sacrificing a solid ammount of our economic and financial ressources for the military, because of them.
Same could be said about the Taliban, who also seem to suffer defeats in open field battles - still are short of becoming the unconditional victor in the Afghanistan war.
In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.
Winning battles is one thing, and not even the most important one. Winning the one battle that decides the war - that is the only battle that counts. Winning the war in the end, by battle or by other means. To evade making the deciding mistake, the last error in the war.
One can win battles, and still lose a war. AQ's triumph is that in it'S wake a massive surge of radicalisation and fundamentalisation swept through the Islmaic world, giving us headaches whereever Islam is present. That they have almost seized to exist as an organisaiton, means nothing, since they always were more a thinking school, and ideology anyway. AQ is no organsiation, it is an idea. That is what makes it so dangerous, so hard to combat, so terroristic and so motivating for others who are not AQ at all. Many attemtped or carried out terror strikes of the past ten years were motivated by AQ, but the attackers having had no formal link to anything called AQ.
AQ is no field army that parades on the meadow and waits to get shot into pieces. This is no symmetric war.
In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.
Actually the North Vietnamese Army and the Chinese won the war. The Vietcong were destroyed during the Tet offensive and replaced by regular NVA units and leaders.
Skybird
07-31-12, 08:37 AM
Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost".
Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost".
Don't dance for joy when you say that.
The truth is that the Vietcong won like the Iranian communists won after the 79 revolution. They were used as cannon fodder then stabbed in the back. If you want to believe they "won the war" then that's your business but it doesn't make it accurate.
TLAM Strike
07-31-12, 09:55 AM
What battle has AQ ever won? Sure they're good a car bombs but fighting a battle against real troops? They've gotten their hats handed to them every time.
Well AQIM and Ansar Dine took three key cities in Mali a few months ago then kicked their former Tuareg allied out of them.
Well AQIM and Ansar Dine took three key cities in Mali a few months ago then kicked their former Tuareg allied out of them.
I stand corrected then.
Skybird
08-02-12, 06:05 AM
Don't dance for joy when you say that.
I don'T, I just precisely call the outcome by its name. Your side lost, the enemy's side won. Reasons leading to the result are not important. The final scoring is what decides it. Ideas, motivations, hopes, and the like - do not change the final standing. They won, America lost. They took the prize, America fled from the stage in disarray.
That is no triumphing by me. It's just the historical reality.
History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.
Skybird
08-02-12, 06:59 AM
History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.
In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.
In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.
Who cares what the final standing was? That's not the issue. The issue was whether the Viet Cong were the ones who won the war. They were not. That was the North Vietnamese Army backed by the Red Chinese. The VC were finished as a fighting and political force after Tet as was I expect the NVA's plan from the start.
Hottentot
08-02-12, 07:33 AM
History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.
I don't know. Last I checked, history was written by historians, and as far as jobs go, those guys are definitely on the losing side. :O:
Sailor Steve
08-02-12, 09:30 AM
The issue was whether the Viet Cong were the ones who won the war. They were not. That was the North Vietnamese Army backed by the Red Chinese. The VC were finished as a fighting and political force after Tet as was I expect the NVA's plan from the start.
No, the original issue raised was that North Vietnam one and the United States lost. You chose to nitpick the names of the winners to suit your own agenda, and then tried to change the nature of the "issue".
Hottentot
08-02-12, 09:38 AM
You chose to nitpick the names of the winners to suit your own agenda, and then tried to change the nature of the "issue".
Um, he did not as far as I can tell. This started from a specific comparison between AQ and the Viet Cong. I'm no expert on Vietnam war, but in this case it seems to me that August has a valid point. It makes sense to make a difference between a traditional army and a mostly guerilla force.
In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.
Oh indeed, but there is still many in the US who believe that if operations such as Linebacker had continued, instead of being stopped every time the DRV wanted to talk (aka wanted a break to rebuild and rearm) then the war might have had a different outcome. Or if the US had actually gone into North Vietnam in force, perhaps through an amphibious assault to bypass the heavily fortified border.
What ifs and maybes, just as there are after every war, but certainly the goals that the US set out to achieve were not met as the ROV ceased to exist.
Sailor Steve
08-02-12, 09:59 AM
Um, he did not as far as I can tell. This started from a specific comparison between AQ and the Viet Cong. I'm no expert on Vietnam war, but in this case it seems to me that August has a valid point. It makes sense to make a difference between a traditional army and a mostly guerilla force.
Skybird's original point:
In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.
was correct, and he reiterated it later. His point was that the Vietnamese won and the Americans lost. While he was technically in error as to the proper names of the victors his point is still correct. August used that error to "prove" Skybird "wrong", but also changed the point of Sky's original argument to suit his own ends, and changed the subject of that argument. He then claimed that his point was the original one, which is not true. This is a classic example of the 'Red Herring' debate tactic.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
Takeda Shingen
08-02-12, 10:06 AM
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
That's a really good fallacy synopsis. Should be required reading for posting around here. :up:
Hottentot
08-02-12, 10:08 AM
Skybird's original point: [snip]
was correct, and he reiterated it later. His point was that the Vietnamese won and the Americans lost.
I've read that a few times now, but still just see it the other way. As I see it, the question specifically is if the Viet Cong won the war or not. That is, would the NVA have won without the VC anyway. It would be different if August had started by claiming the North Vietnamese didn't win in the first place, but he says no such thing.
To first say "The Viet Cong [as in political guerilla force like the AQ] won the war" is quite different from saying: "The North Vietnamese [as in including also NVA, a traditional army armed with the traditional army stuff and fighting like a traditional army] won the war".
But maybe I'll stop here trying to interprete them too much and let them continue. I feel like the Devil reading the Bible here. :)
I've read that a few times now, but still just see it the other way. As I see it, the question specifically is if the Viet Cong won the war or not. That is, would the NVA have won without the VC anyway. It would be different if August had started by claiming the North Vietnamese didn't win in the first place, but he says no such thing.
To first say "The Viet Cong [as in political guerilla force like the AQ] won the war" is quite different from saying: "The North Vietnamese [as in including also NVA, a traditional army armed with the traditional army stuff and fighting like a traditional army] won the war".
But maybe I'll stop here trying to interprete them too much and let them continue. I feel like the Devil reading the Bible here. :)
Thanks Hottentot. You pretty much spell out my position on the subject.
Sailor Steve
08-02-12, 10:21 AM
Skybird restated his original intent very clearly when he posted
Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost".
His original point was unmistable: Vietnam won, America lost. August never addressed that point, but created a new one, then claimed that it was Sky's original point.
Who cares what the final standing was? That's not the issue.
This is changing the subject to suit your own ends at its finest.
Sailor Steve
08-02-12, 10:22 AM
That's a really good fallacy synopsis. Should be required reading for posting around here. :up:
Here is another one, even better but harder to follow:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Hottentot
08-02-12, 10:34 AM
His original point was unmistable: Vietnam won, America lost.
His original three paragraphs were:
AQ is no field army, and thus should not be measured by performance in field battles. It is a mix of guerilla and terror, political, social and religious involvement. They amkew the West investing horren dious sums of money worldwide to boost security anbd engage in miliutary actions. That means they are very well potent enough to make us sacrificing a solid ammount of our economic and financial ressources for the military, because of them.
Same could be said about the Taliban, who also seem to suffer defeats in open field battles - still are short of becoming the unconditional victor in the Afghanistan war.
In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.This is a direct comparison between the AQ and the Viet Cong, and therefore in my opinion a statement that the VC won the war with their tactics, similar to those of AQ (or the other way around, the AQ is winning with the same tactics as the VC).
Only in the second post, after the difference was made between the NVA and the VC, did it become "your enemy" instead of the VC. Again, as I see it, the question is not if America lost or not, because no one has said it didn't. It is if the guerilla tactics caused that loss or not.
Skybird restated his original intent very clearly when he posted
His original point was unmistable: Vietnam won, America lost. August never addressed that point, but created a new one, then claimed that it was Sky's original point.
This is changing the subject to suit your own ends at its finest.
This is why I keep you on ignore Steve. I never addressed that point? Well bullcrap. Try looking at post number 6 of this thread and again in post 14 where I very clearly say that the NVA (and Chinese) won the war.
Skybird said VietCONG, not "VietNAMESE" and even that argument is highly debatable since the South Vietnamese were Viets too and they certainly ended up loosing, not only the war, but their country as well.
Penguin
08-02-12, 11:22 AM
What if we look a decade earlier? The Viet Minh, as a non-regular force had some success in conventional battles, with Diem Bien Phu being the most famous. If they won the war is debatable, at least they won the North, which was a success to them.
There is also the question how much NVA's tactics have been conventional, certainly at Khe Sanh, however they had many aspects of guerilla warfare, for example the transportation of equipment via the Ho Chi minh trail.
As I see it, the question specifically is if the Viet Cong won the war or not. That is, would the NVA have won without the VC anyway.
Yup, that's the question. Certainly the Vietcong prepared the grounds for the NVA, I would imagine a conventional war among the DMZ as the frontline would have been a totally different war.
I don't know however how many VC went into the NVA after Tet, how much those forces more or less grew together in the early 70s.
I don't mean to get off topic, but from what few articles that I have read, it doesn't sound like AQ has much of a followinhg in Syria at the moment. The goals of AQ and the FSA are quite different, and don't believe the Syrians want AQ dictating anything to them.
That's a really good fallacy synopsis. Should be required reading for posting around here. :up:
Fully and wholeheartedly agreed. :yep:
Skybird
08-02-12, 01:56 PM
Oh indeed, but there is still many in the US who believe that if operations such as Linebacker had continued, instead of being stopped every time the DRV wanted to talk (aka wanted a break to rebuild and rearm) then the war might have had a different outcome. Or if the US had actually gone into North Vietnam in force, perhaps through an amphibious assault to bypass the heavily fortified border.
What ifs and maybes, just as there are after every war, but certainly the goals that the US set out to achieve were not met as the ROV ceased to exist.
I even agree that American (naive) politicians and self-restrictions have hampered the war effort. Oh those precious Paris talks and all that Hanoi area protection argument and not to draw China into the war while it already was. The war would have gone differently witholut all that. Whether it would hjave been won, we will never know.
But for now we know how it ended because team America - all players that formed it up - played the way it did. And it did play bad, by final results.
-----
Oh my, what's the noise about here. Vietnam, Vietcong, China, and now even throwing South and North Vietnamese into the same camp. August tries to bypass the essence of what I said by distracting attention from it via rethoric tricks, or discussing semantics. But the point still is and will always be: Vietnam was a lost war, while the other side (no matter how you call it en detail avec haute precision) has won it.
I canot believe that this even is being discussed here anymore. Or is this turning into the attempt to rewrite history?
-----
And now: Syria. Al Quaeda. USA. Britain. Continue when ready.
OAugust tries to bypass the essence of what I said by distracting attention from it via rethoric tricks, or discussing semantics.
I could say the same thing about you Buddy. Why don't you tell us again how AQ is like the VietCong... :roll:
Skybird
08-02-12, 02:08 PM
His original three paragraphs were:
This is a direct comparison between the AQ and the Viet Cong, and therefore in my opinion a statement that the VC won the war with their tactics, similar to those of AQ (or the other way around, the AQ is winning with the same tactics as the VC).
Only in the second post, after the difference was made between the NVA and the VC, did it become "your enemy" instead of the VC. Again, as I see it, the question is not if America lost or not, because no one has said it didn't. It is if the guerilla tactics caused that loss or not.
You can still lose a war while staying undefeated in battles, or having won many battles, but not the decisive ones.
This is what I wanted - and think I have - said and exporessed and made clear. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing different. Just this: you can still lose a war although you stay victorious in a battle. And this limits also my "comparison" between Vietcong - which I indeed used as a term to identify the enemy in Vietnam altogether - and Al Quaeda or Taliban. They all lose and have lost in field battles. But still win and have won the greater conflict.
Skybird
08-02-12, 02:10 PM
I could say the same thing about you Buddy. Why don't you tell us again how AQ is like the VietCong... :roll:
Play with yourself. Your trick has been called by its name by several people .
And I did not say, nowhere, AQ is like the VC. The reference and comparison I made was a different one.
The decisive battle could never happen in Vietnam more due to political configuration than any thing else.
Play with yourself. Your trick has been called by its name by several people.
So what? Several people take my side too.
And I did not say, nowhere, AQ is like the VC. The reference and comparison I made was a different one.
No, it was quite clear. You said the VietCONG won the Vietnam war.
I just disagreed with that assertion and showed that credit rightfully belongs to the North Vietnamese and their red Chinese backers. But like whenever someone disagrees with any tiny thing in your rants you went off the deep end accusing me of claiming that America didn't loose. We'll that's not what I said and you are still wrong. The only thing the VietCONG won was death and marginalization in the new Vietnam order.
When most people think of the Vietnam war they automatically think of the Vietcong or Charlie, and not the NVA. August is right though, the Vietcong smashed themselves into a brick wall during the Tet offensive and played a fairly minor part throughout the rest of the war, if any.
Their effect was more psychological than it was strategic, but it worked, and then once the Paris accords went into place and the US withdraw the NVA were able to mop up.
The thing is, Vietnam was a war that, like Afghanistan and Iraq, was not winnable with the SOP that was in place, and was not a war that was winnable swiftly and bloodlessly. Therefore war weariness set in, public opinion swung against it, and the US was unable to continue it. This happens in all kinds of governments, not just democracies, the Soviet Union had a similar problem in Afghanistan, only public opinion on the war was suppressed and controlled in true Soviet style. The PRC has had the same problem in Tibet over the past three decades, which they are only solving through forced migration and population change. I couldn't say how long a war needs to continue before war weariness sets in, although I think the communications involved in the era may play a part or perhaps the style of war, for example if a enemy is bombing you via aircraft then it may alleviate war weariness through determination to see it through to the end, it's a society emotional based thing and therefore almost impossible to predict.
Still, TLDR, Al'Qaeda has won battles, Vietcong won some battles, but both have yet to win a war solely.
Tribesman
08-04-12, 05:27 AM
No, it was quite clear. You said the VietCONG won the Vietnam war.
But they did even if he didn't say it, Just like France won the second world war.
The nazis might have kicked their arses in a campaign but France still get a mention as winners against germany, just like the VC get a mention as the winners in the end against others like thailand australia S korea S vietnam and the USA who all lost the war.
Looks like AQ is making inroads with the Rebels now, while we sit around and do nothing. How we deal with this, I don't really know. Don't need to get into another war, but this could be a big problem down the road.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13256145-will-world-inaction-help-al-qaida-gain-foothold-in-syria?lite&__utma=238145375.98762373.1344755030.1344884089.13 44885556.10&__utmb=238145375.4.10.1344885556&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1344884089.9.8.utmcsr=msn.com|utm ccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cworld%20ne ws=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hos tname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20C ontent=Internal%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=262244815
Tribesman
08-13-12, 03:54 PM
How we deal with this, I don't really know.
Stop the money from Saudi, Qatar and Kuwait flooding to the salafist groups.
After all those nations are supposedly your friends so you coud ask them very nicely.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.