[quote]and that Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll.[/quote]No, he wasn't. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html]Source[/url]. Don't find that credible? [url=http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2009/05/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#axzz2cjRXMPbV]Here's this, taken from the US State Department, which also directly quotes Ayman al-Zawahiri.[/url]. [url=http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/0143034669]This scholarly book would also dispute you[/url]. [quote]he US is funding extremists in Syria, even going as far as providing them with chemical weapons[/quote]You're gonna need a source for such a claim.

I'll certainly look into that, thank you for posting those sources. Also, I really can't be bothered to trawl the internet. But it's no secret that America is funding extremists in Syria, and it is also logical that they are doing it simply because Iran threatens the dollar. Also, I remember reading somewhere that the UK and Qatar were involved in supplying the Syrians with chemical weapons.

[quote]But it's no secret that America is funding extremists in Syria, and it is also logical that they are doing it simply because Iran threatens the dollar.[/quote]We're probably not arming the rebels, in all honesty. If you want to think logically, then think about this: If we were arming the rebels, wouldn't they be making more gains than what they are? You're right about how the West and the Persian Gulf wants to counter Iran's influence--which is something I agree with--but I doubt it's about the petrodollar. I'm not going to debate this with you, as that's your opinion. However, I would like to present objective statements; in which, the [i]main[/i] reason for support for opposition comes from countering influence. [quote]Also, I remember reading somewhere that the UK and Qatar were involved in supplying the Syrians with chemical weapons.[/quote]Believe me, as someone who somewhat closely follows the war, I've never seen this report from a credible source. Again, to think logically it wouldn't make sense for either the UK or Qatar to supply chemical arms. Now, Qatar does supply conventional arms to the rebels but not chemical weapons (of course, I must point out that this statement only applies for what the public knows, but I have no reason to believe otherwise).

America is arming the rebels in Syria. There's no secret behind this, they openly said it. Also, the reason they aren't making gains is because Syrian Army, IRG and Hezbollah > Al Qaeda and untrained men with guns. As for chemical weapons, they've armed the rebels with such weapons to justify toppling Al Assad.

If were providing arms to the rebels, wouldn't you think they'd be more sophisticated than what the Syrian Army, IRG, or Hezbollah is using? Being that we would only give arms to moderate groups or other groups who otherwise fit our interests, wouldn't they be at the same level or better than al-Qaeda in Syria? If we were giving these weapons to these kinds of groups, wouldn't they also be able to fight back at AQS? Do you not think that with enough weapons, ammo, and support the regime forces and backers wouldn't have made such a tremendous turn around? [quote]As for chemical weapons, they've armed the rebels with such weapons to justify toppling Al Assad.[/quote]What do you guys not understand about providing sources for your claims?

[quote][url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/world/meast/syria-civil-war]The United States plans to send small arms, ammunition and potentially anti-tank weapons to Syria's rebels, two officials familiar with the matter told CNN on Friday.[/url][/quote] So there goes your argument that we haven't armed them yet. That was reported 2 months ago.

On mobile, but this was reported 6 days ago. So, nice try.

[quote]If were providing arms to the rebels, wouldn't you think they'd be more sophisticated than what the Syrian Army, IRG, or Hezbollah is using?[/quote] IRG and Hezbollah are well trained and have highly sophisticated weaponry, Al Qaeda doesn't even come close. These are Iranians and Lebanese we're talking about (Aryans), not Arab militants. [quote]Being that we would only give arms to moderate groups or other groups who otherwise fit our interests, wouldn't they be at the same level or better than al-Qaeda in Syria?[/quote] Why would they be better off than Al Qaeda? They have no training, they just know how use a gun in a mediocre fashion. [quote]Do you not think that with enough weapons, ammo, and support the regime forces and backers wouldn't have made such a tremendous turn around? [/quote] As you you can clearly see by looking at the news, that hasn't happened.

[quote]IRG and Hezbollah are well trained and have highly sophisticated weaponry, Al Qaeda doesn't even come close.[/quote]No, but al-Qaeda are masters at asymmetrical warfare (ironically, some of their strategies come out of Hezbollah's playbook). However, I wouldn't say AQ doesn't have sophisticated weaponry since [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/world/middleeast/sending-missiles-to-syrian-rebels-qatar-muscles-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]Qatar is allegedly supplying al-Nusra[/url]. [quote]These are Iranians and Lebanese we're talking about (Aryans), not Arab militants.[/quote]Al-Qaeda has many more ethnicities within their ranks. [quote]Why would they be better off than Al Qaeda?[/quote][url=http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/how-syrias-jihadists-win-friends-and-influence-people/]al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) is popular among civilians because they provide humanitarian support, because they have the manpower, the bankroll, and the ability to do so.[/url]. If we were providing arms to moderate groups, then they would also be able to sway public opinion in their favor by doing the same things; but, they can't because they don't have the means to do so. Moderate groups, who are often small, get overran by al-Nusra or other jihadists because they do not have either the manpower or enough ammunition to hold them off. [quote]As you you can clearly see by looking at the news, that hasn't happened.[/quote][url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-18/dempsey-says-assad-gain-in-syria-as-mccain-demands-views.html]EL[/url] [url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/activists-troops-attack-convoy-key-syrian-town]OH[/url] [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/13/six-ways-assad-has-turned-the-tide-in-syria/]EL[/url]. The Assad regime has almost certainly turned the tide in their favor. If we were providing opposition forces with enough ammo, anti-tank weapons, and supplies, don't you think their gains wouldn't have happened so quickly? I want to bring this up again, in relation to the last paragraph: [quote]IRG and Hezbollah are well trained and have highly sophisticated weaponry,[/quote]American weapons are more highly sophisticated than Iranian arms.

[quote]No, but al-Qaeda are masters at asymmetrical warfare (ironically, some of their strategies come out of Hezbollah's playbook). However, I wouldn't say AQ doesn't have sophisticated weaponry since Qatar is allegedly supplying al-Nusra.[/quote] Hezbollah invented car bombing and civilian blending, as well as almost all types of strategies used by Muslim Arab militants. Guess who's supplying Qatar? [spoiler]America.[/spoiler] [quote]Al-Qaeda has many more ethnicities within their ranks.[/quote] You're not understanding. These guys can't even compare to Hezbollah in the 80s. They don't have the sophistication or the training. They're just a bunch of angry 15 to 30 year olds with AKs. [quote]al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) is popular among civilians because they provide humanitarian support, because they have the manpower, the bankroll, and the ability to do so.. If we were providing arms to moderate groups, then they would also be able to sway public opinion in their favor by doing the same things; but, they can't because they don't have the means to do so. Moderate groups, who are often small, get overran by al-Nusra or other jihadists because they do not have either the manpower or enough ammunition to hold them off. [/quote] Again, thank you for the article. But it's beside the point. Unless the CIA goes over there to train them (which they're probably doing), they're not going to win. [quote]EL OH EL. The Assad regime has almost certainly turned the tide in their favor. If we were providing opposition forces with enough ammo, anti-tank weapons, and supplies, don't you think their gains wouldn't have happened so quickly?[/quote] Wait, what? I meant the Sunni rebels haven't turned the tide in their favor, not Assad's forces. You misunderstood me. And again, no they (the rebels) can not beat Assad, Hezbollah and Iran. [quote]American weapons are more highly sophisticated than Iranian arms.[/quote] Except the rebels have neither. Hezbollah and Syria have Iranian, Chinese, Russian, Israeli and American guns and equipment. The rebels have the shitty Chinese AK and some grenades, pistols and machine gun turrets which they have attatched to ordinary cars.

[quote]Hezbollah invented car bombing and civilian blending, as well as almost all types of strategies used by Muslim Arab militants.[/quote]I know this lol. Quite well, for the record. [quote]Guess who's supplying Qatar?[/quote]Qatar uses a large variety of sources to get their weapons to Syria and I assume you didn't read the article. If you did, you'd understand that they're using the black market to buy and then ship weapons to the Syrian rebels. But, I understand your point. However, any weapons that we have sent Qatar in any arms deals in the past becomes Qatari property; free to use them, or ship them, as they please. One must understand that if we send weapons to one country, who then ships them to another or a non-state entity, the origin state is not at fault; especially if the origin state has no say where those weapons go after the initial transaction is made. One must also understand our relationship with Qatar and Qatar's foreign policy: We don't always agree with them. Indeed, them arming jihadist factions is something we do not support, so I pose this question: If we've been adamant about not sending weapons because of the fear that AQ may get their hands them, why would we send Qatar weapons to send weapons to the groups we do not want having our weapons? [quote]You're not understanding. These guys can't even compare to Hezbollah in the 80s. They don't have the sophistication or the training. They're just a bunch of angry 15 to 30 year olds with AKs.[/quote]You're also not understanding and you seem to not be realizing the potency that al-Qaeda carries. While Hezbollah was once the main terrorist organization we were worrying about (they actually have the most American blood on their hands other than AQ), the same cannot be said for today. See, AQ has surpassed 1980's Hezbollah and surpassed them by a long shot. The last I recall, Hezbollah doesn't have the extensive terrorist network that AQ maintains. They also don't have the numbers that AQ has. But all the majority of that is irrelevant, what you need to focus on is the differences in ideology and motivation between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. When you do that, then you'll understand that saying "80's Hezbollah > AQ" is irrelevant. See, Hezbollah, as you may or may not "know", was started by Iran to offer resistance to Israel for the Lebanese Shi'ite population. They are an Iranian proxy, and therefore also hold true to the rules of the Ayatollah and follow his ideology. This ideology, of course, is Wilayat al-Faqih, which essentially says that an Islamic jurist (faqih) should rule the country; as well as the entirety of Shi'ites ([url=http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/hezbollah-is-being-elusive-on-wilayat-al-faqih/]source[/url]). Being that they subscribe to this ideology, they obviously follow the Ayatollah wholeheartedly and his orders and his beliefs. This, obviously, is in reference to the idea of the destruction of Israel. I will provide for you a segment from the Hezbollah profile in a well-known terrorist information database: [url=http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=3101]UMD[/url] [quote]Hezbollah's stated objectives include the establishment of a Shiite theocracy in Lebanon, the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of Western influences from the Middle East. Over the last 20 plus years, Hezbollah has not only professionalized its military capabilities but also joined Lebanon's political process and enmeshed itself into the social fabric of Lebanese society.[/quote] Also, here's Hezbollah charter (you may need to scroll down to page 427): [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iVJR9UZnTVAC&pg=PA423&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false]charter[/url]. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, has a much different strategy. See, they don't want to impose a theocracy just in Lebanon, rather they want to create a world-wide Caliphate. This is the reason they have established ties with like-minded individuals and groups throughout the world: this is also the reason why they lead the "global jihad". Al-Qaeda are similar to Hezbollah in that they are adaptive and have transformed themselves into a political entity or entities (Ansar al-Sharia's for AQ). However, al-Qaeda's scope goes way beyond Hezbollah ever dreamed of (but they never dreamed of it to be begin with as they didn't need to. In fact, it's like comparing apples to oranges here, but you need to understand why al-Qaeda in Syria shouldn't be laughed at). Al-Qaeda follows a salafist jihadist ideology, which is essentially a hardline conservative movement that emphasizes tawhid and the concept of takfir. Throw in some Qutbism (offensive jihad) and you got yourself a very dangerous organization. Al-Qaeda sees Syria as a chance to weaken the Shia apostates grip in the Middle East and to undermine Iran and Hezbollah. They want to make this war long and drawn out in order to strain Hezbollah and Iran's commitment and their resources--which is similar to a Western strategy. They're in this for the long haul and they're investing a lot into this, just like Hezbollah. I mean, when you have two affiliates operating within Syria (al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), various allies already there (Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar, and Fatah al-Islam) and with allies actually setting up a base in Syria ([url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23285245]Pakistani Taliban[/url]) one has a serious argument that they're investing a lot into this war. They may not have the IRG training or Iranian arms, but don't cast out al-Qaeda because they aren't "80's Hezbollah". No, they provide a real concern for post-war Syria, whether the rebels win or not. [quote]Wait, what? I meant the Sunni rebels haven't turned the tide in their favor, not Assad's forces. You misunderstood me.[/quote]This originated from your misunderstanding me. I was talking about Assad forces gaining ground from the get-go. [quote]And again, no they (the rebels) can not beat Assad, Hezbollah and Iran[/quote]To add on to what I was discussing above: AQ's goal is to draw out this war for Hezbollah and their Iranian masters. To them, this is the next step in the global jihad and wiping out the Shia "apostates" in order to establish their Sunni Caliphate. I want to provide you with this link, because I feel like you're not gonna believe me when I talk about AQ's motivations: [url=http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/why-they-fight/]Good read[/url]. [quote]The rebels have the shitty Chinese AK and some grenades, pistols and machine gun turrets which they have attatched to ordinary cars.[/quote]Over generalization.

[quote]I know this lol. Quite well, for the record.[/quote] Good. [quote]Qatar uses a large variety of sources to get their weapons to Syria and I assume you didn't read the article. If you did, you'd understand that they're using the black market to buy and then ship weapons to the Syrian rebels. But, I understand your point. [u]However, any weapons that we have sent Qatar in any arms deals in the past becomes Qatari property; free to use them, or ship them, as they please. One must understand that if we send weapons to one country, who then ships them to another or a non-state entity, the origin state is not at fault; especially if the origin state has no say where those weapons go after the initial transaction is made. One must also understand our relationship with Qatar and Qatar's foreign policy: We don't always agree with them. Indeed, them arming jihadist factions is something we do not support, so I pose this question: If we've been adamant about not sending weapons because of the fear that AQ may get their hands them, why would we send Qatar weapons to send weapons to the groups we do not want having our weapons?[/u] [b][i]Exactly. This is because America want this to happen.[/i][/b] [/quote] The state of origin is completely at fault, as America knows what will happen to those weapons. Not to mention America is arming Sunni extremists to combat Iran and Hezbollah, this is why America ships the weapons in the first place. Everything is done for a reason, there are no "unforseen" results when it comes to America. I don't believe the US to be that incompetent, and they have shown that they are not. [quote]You're also not understanding and you seem to not be realizing the potency that al-Qaeda carries. While Hezbollah was once the main terrorist organization we were worrying about (they actually have the most American blood on their hands other than AQ), the same cannot be said for today. See, AQ has surpassed 1980's Hezbollah and surpassed them by a long shot. The last I recall, Hezbollah doesn't have the extensive terrorist network that AQ maintains. They also don't have the numbers that AQ has. But all the majority of that is irrelevant, what you need to focus on is the differences in ideology and motivation between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. When you do that, then you'll understand that saying "80's Hezbollah > AQ" is irrelevant. See, Hezbollah, as you may or may not "know", was started by Iran to offer resistance to Israel for the Lebanese Shi'ite population. They are an Iranian proxy, and therefore also hold true to the rules of the Ayatollah and follow his ideology. This ideology, of course, is Wilayat al-Faqih, which essentially says that an Islamic jurist (faqih) should rule the country; as well as the entirety of Shi'ites (source). Being that they subscribe to this ideology, they obviously follow the Ayatollah wholeheartedly and his orders and his beliefs. This, obviously, is in reference to the idea of the destruction of Israel. I will provide for you a segment from the Hezbollah profile in a well-known terrorist information database: UMD [/quote] You're letting your fear of Al Qaeda's ideology cloud your judgement. Commitment does not ensure victory. A toddler can be more committed than the adult to get the toy, but the adult will be able to get the toy first. Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel, and establish Shiite governments. (Their numbers are in the high thousands.) Al Qaeda, and its partners, want a global caliphate. They have not even been able to establsh one single caliphate in the ENTIRE Middle East. And that's with them being connected with all the other Sunni extremist groups. How can you take these people seriously when they struggle to kill a little girl who openly defies them? They haven't even able to attack the US in a serious manner again. (Fortunately. Please don't think I support either of thse groups, I'm just discussing which is "better".) Hezbollah, on the other hand, seriously harmed Israel in the 2006 conflict. Not only that, they have a large stock of missiles and weaponry that Al Qaeda can't even come close to. Now think rationally, and look at the goals Al Qaeda has accomplished (practically none), and then look at the goals Hezbollah has accomplished. (Damaging Israel, taking over Lebanon, stopping the rebel uprising in Syria, just to name the ones that come to my head.) [quote]Also, here's Hezbollah charter (you may need to scroll down to page 427): charter. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, has a much different strategy. See, they don't want to impose a theocracy just in Lebanon, rather they want to create a world-wide Caliphate. This is the reason they have established ties with like-minded individuals and groups throughout the world: this is also the reason why they lead the "global jihad". Al-Qaeda are similar to Hezbollah in that they are adaptive and have transformed themselves into a political entity or entities (Ansar al-Sharia's for AQ). However, al-Qaeda's scope goes way beyond Hezbollah ever dreamed of (but they never dreamed of it to be begin with as they didn't need to. In fact, it's like comparing apples to oranges here, but you need to understand why al-Qaeda in Syria shouldn't be laughed at). Al-Qaeda follows a salafist jihadist ideology, which is essentially a hardline conservative movement that emphasizes tawhid and the concept of takfir. Throw in some Qutbism (offensive jihad) and you got yourself a very dangerous organization. Al-Qaeda sees Syria as a chance to weaken the Shia apostates grip in the Middle East and to undermine Iran and Hezbollah. They want to make this war long and drawn out in order to strain Hezbollah and Iran's commitment and their resources--which is similar to a Western strategy. They're in this for the long haul and they're investing a lot into this, just like Hezbollah. I mean, when you have two affiliates operating within Syria (al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), various allies already there (Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar, and Fatah al-Islam) and with allies actually setting up a base in Syria (Pakistani Taliban) one has a serious argument that they're investing a lot into this war. They may not have the IRG training or Iranian arms, but don't cast out al-Qaeda because they aren't "80's Hezbollah". No, they provide a real concern for post-war Syria, whether the rebels win or not.[/quote] Like I just said, they're a real threat, but they're not a group of people who can or will drastically change anything. Hezbollah might actually be able to destroy entire Israeli cities. This is serious. I may not like Israel, but I will condemn anybody who puts innocent civilians in the middle of a conflict that they have with a government. Al Qaeda fails to even accomplish the simplest of goals with out losing many of their members. Not to mention they don't have hundreds, maybe even thousands of missiles, landmines and all sorts of other explosives. [quote]This originated from your misunderstanding me. I was talking about Assad forces gaining ground from the get-go.[/quote] Oh, sorry. [quote]To add on to what I was discussing above: AQ's goal is to draw out this war for Hezbollah and their Iranian masters. To them, this is the next step in the global jihad and wiping out the Shia "apostates" in order to establish their Sunni Caliphate. I want to provide you with this link, because I feel like you're not gonna believe me when I talk about AQ's motivations: Good read. [/quote] Oh, don't worry brother. I believe you 100% that AQ is highly motivated and that it poses a threat. I knew this already, so if you thought I was doubting you, I apologize. It's just not a serious threat that can drastically alter the politics in the Middle East, or ever establish a Caliphate. This is why I don't take them seriously. [quote]Over generalization.[/quote] It may not 100% accurate, but it's pretty dead on when it comes to the rebels' weaponry.

[quote]The state of origin is completely at fault, as America knows what will happen to those weapons. Not to mention America is arming Sunni extremists to combat Iran and Hezbollah, this is why America ships the weapons in the first place.[/quote]We seriously need to stop having misunderstandings (unless this isn't one). Anyway, when I said that I was talking about past arms deals; the arms deals where we sent weapons for their military. [quote]Everything is done for a reason, there are no "unforseen" results when it comes to America. I don't believe the US to be that incompetent, and they have shown that they are not.[/quote]You didn't answer my question. Why would we send weapons to Qatar for them to send them to groups that we do not want having our weapons? [quote]You're letting your fear of Al Qaeda's ideology cloud your judgement. [/quote]No, I'm just not underplaying the threat that al-Qaeda carries. I will elaborate later on. [quote]Al Qaeda, and its partners, want a global caliphate. [/quote]Didn't I just say this? [quote]They have not even been able to establsh one single caliphate in the ENTIRE Middle East. And that's with them being connected with all the other Sunni extremist groups. How can you take these people seriously when they struggle to kill a little girl who openly defies them? [/quote]I don't understand what any of this has to do with their potency. If you knew anything about their strategy, you would know that it involves the crashing of the world economy in order to establish this Caliphate ([url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ypICzykNXiAC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=makkawi+strategy+2020&source=bl&ots=1iFik9U91G&sig=vF2xfwHZ76rhNWD74T2nSmonrdc&hl=en&ei=GJo7TOLyJYH88AbAu4GPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=makkawi%20strategy%202020&f=false]source[/url]). [quote]They haven't even able to attack the US in a serious manner again.[/quote]This is to assume that their main preoccupation is with attacking the US. It's not. While that is a part of it, a larger part is attacking the "near enemy". The "near enemy" is, of course, the governments and the people they consider to not be "true believers". Indeed, since their conception, al-Qaeda has always been involved in inciting local resistances, or otherwise bolstering them. They were involved in fighting in Algeria, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Bosnia and Afghanistan throughout the 90's and have since started operations in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Gaza, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, and have made partnerships with groups in areas like Nigeria, Tanzania, Chad, Cameroon, and many other places. Al-Qaeda is a world-wide organization that has destabilized many countries and taken over large parts of countries all in the name of fighting the "near enemy". However, that's not to say they don't allocate some fighters and resources to attacking the West, because they do. The point I'm trying to make, is that assuming the entirety of their operations is based on attacking the West, is false. That is why they remain a viable threat to many different countries and regions. [quote](Fortunately. Please don't think I support either of thse groups, I'm just discussing which is "better".)[/quote]Not to worry. I didn't think you were being supportive. [quote]Hezbollah, on the other hand, seriously harmed Israel in the 2006 conflict.[/quote]Not really. [quote]Not only that, they have a large stock of missiles and weaponry that Al Qaeda can't even come close to[/quote]I'll give you that they don't have the missiles like Hezbollah, but then again, they aren't being funded by Iran. [quote]Now think rationally, and look at the goals Al Qaeda has accomplished (practically none), and then look at the goals Hezbollah has accomplished. (Damaging Israel, taking over Lebanon, stopping the rebel uprising in Syria, just to name the ones that come to my head.)[/quote]In the link above, I provided you with their goals. Of which, inciting local resistances, making the US invade a Muslim country, expanding the scope of the conflict, and being able to use their ideology to radicalize people in many different countries are all goals that they have accomplished. I can't believe I'm quoting this paragraph again, but here it goes: From UMD [quote]Hezbollah's stated objectives include the establishment of a Shiite theocracy in Lebanon, the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of Western influences from the Middle East. Over the last 20 plus years, Hezbollah has not only professionalized its military capabilities but also joined Lebanon's political process and enmeshed itself into the social fabric of Lebanese society.[/quote]Besides becoming a part of the political process (which, they do have veto power in Lebanon--I'll also give you that), their other goals and objectives has not been reached. [quote]Like I just said, they're a real threat, but they're not a group of people who can or will drastically change anything.[/quote]No where in your post did you call al-Qaeda a "real threat" nor did you even imply it. But [url=http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/07/global_al_qaeda_affi.php]as outlined here[/url], they have and they can "drastically change" a lot. Not just in Syria, but in many other places in the world. I don't even know why we're arguing this. Hezbollah is really only a threat to Israeli security and the overall Levant region; whereas al-Qaeda is a global threat. But I just want to reiterate something: Al-Qaeda in Syria is not something to laugh at. They are just as much of a threat in Syria as Hezbollah. See, Hezbollah just wants to keep Assad in power because that's tantamount to theirs and Iran's plan regarding Israel. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, has more sectarian issues to cover--[url=http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/analysis-al-qaedas-iraqi-syrian-affiliates-jointly-battle-kurds/]Article about them battling Kurds[/url]. Like I said, AQ wants this war to drag on because it will drain the economy of Syria, Hezbollah and Iran. The point I was trying to make in my last post about "investing a lot into this war" is that al-Qaeda is putting a lot of resources into this fight so they will not be defeated easily so they can drag this war out. It doesn't matter which terrorist organization has more "missiles" or whatever, what matters is the differences in ideology and motives for fighting in Syria. Let's take ar-Raqqah, for example. [url=http://www.longwarjournal.org/videos/2013/05/the_black_flag_flies_in_raqqah.php]The city is controlled by al-Nusra[/url] and it is just one city, of many, being controlled by jihadist factions. To be to the point here: By taking over entire cities, al-Qaeda is making sure some aspects of the war will result in a stalemate--which I'm referring to their goal of dragging the war out and their intent on investing a lot of resources into this war. [quote]It's just not a serious threat that can drastically alter the politics in the Middle East, or ever establish a Caliphate. This is why I don't take them seriously.[/quote]I don't believe the Caliphate will happen either, but I'm not going to discredit the threat that they carry. I've already offered you a link as to why their threat in the Middle East is very much real. Not taking their threat seriously is a very naive thing to do. I mean, if their threat wasn't credible, we wouldn't have shut down 20+ embassies throughout the Muslim world a few weeks back. [quote]It may not 100% accurate, but it's pretty dead on when it comes to the rebels' weaponry.[/quote]No, it's still an over generalization. You're assuming the entirety of the rebels don't know shit when it comes to fighting or that they even have sufficient arms. However, you seem to be forgetting that the majority of the Free Syrian Army are Syrian Military defectors, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqeHBOgzT0]take munitions with them[/url]. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/01/29/world/middleeast/20120129Syria-5.html?_r=0]Apparently some defectors brought three tanks with them[/url]. Or, [url=http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2013_defense_industry_military_army_news_uk/syrian_rebels_captured_ammunition_depot_with_milan_konkurs_anti-tank_missiles_and_rockets_0508132.html]They seize weapons in raids[/url].

[quote]We seriously need to stop having misunderstandings (unless this isn't one). Anyway, when I said that I was talking about past arms deals; the arms deals where we sent weapons for their military.[/quote] There are current arms deal which are going directly to Sunni extremists through the use of countries like Qatar. [quote]You didn't answer my question. Why would we send weapons to Qatar for them to send them to groups that we do not want having our weapons?[/quote] "Not to mention America is arming Sunni extremists to combat Iran and Hezbollah, this is why America ships the weapons in the first place." [quote]I don't understand what any of this has to do with their potency. If you knew anything about their strategy, you would know that it involves the crashing of the world economy in order to establish this Caliphate (source).[/quote] They aren't crashing the global economy. Bankers and corrupt politicians did that. All they can ever do is ruin tourism on a large scale. [quote]This is to assume that their main preoccupation is with attacking the US. It's not. While that is a part of it, a larger part is attacking the "near enemy". The "near enemy" is, of course, the governments and the people they consider to not be "true believers". Indeed, since their conception, al-Qaeda has always been involved in inciting local resistances, or otherwise bolstering them. They were involved in fighting in Algeria, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Bosnia and Afghanistan throughout the 90's and have since started operations in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Gaza, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, and have made partnerships with groups in areas like Nigeria, Tanzania, Chad, Cameroon, and many other places. Al-Qaeda is a world-wide organization that has destabilized many countries and taken over large parts of countries all in the name of fighting the "near enemy". However, that's not to say they don't allocate some fighters and resources to attacking the West, because they do. The point I'm trying to make, is that assuming the entirety of their operations is based on attacking the West, is false. That is why they remain a viable threat to many different countries and regions. [/quote] It doesn't matter if it isn't their main goal, the point is they can't. They can only carry out large attacks in countries near them, which is why I agree they're a threat. [quote]I'll give you that they don't have the missiles like Hezbollah, but then again, they aren't being funded by Iran.[/quote] What's the difference? The point is they have thousands of missiles, and AQ doesn't. [quote]Besides becoming a part of the political process (which, they do have veto power in Lebanon--I'll also give you that), their other goals and objectives has not been reached. [/quote] Yet. Hopefully they disarm and only keep weapons for self defense, but you and both know that isn't going to happen. Israel is too nosy and they're too radical. [quote]No where in your post did you call al-Qaeda a "real threat" nor did you even imply it. But as outlined here, they have and they can "drastically change" a lot. Not just in Syria, but in many other places in the world. I don't even know why we're arguing this. Hezbollah is really only a threat to Israeli security and the overall Levant region; whereas al-Qaeda is a global threat. But I just want to reiterate something: Al-Qaeda in Syria is not something to laugh at. They are just as much of a threat in Syria as Hezbollah. See, Hezbollah just wants to keep Assad in power because that's tantamount to theirs and Iran's plan regarding Israel. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, has more sectarian issues to cover--Article about them battling Kurds. Like I said, AQ wants this war to drag on because it will drain the economy of Syria, Hezbollah and Iran. The point I was trying to make in my last post about "investing a lot into this war" is that al-Qaeda is putting a lot of resources into this fight so they will not be defeated easily so they can drag this war out. It doesn't matter which terrorist organization has more "missiles" or whatever, what matters is the differences in ideology and motives for fighting in Syria. Let's take ar-Raqqah, for example. The city is controlled by al-Nusra and it is just one city, of many, being controlled by jihadist factions. To be to the point here: By taking over entire cities, al-Qaeda is making sure some aspects of the war will result in a stalemate--which I'm referring to their goal of dragging the war out and their intent on investing a lot of resources into this war.[/quote] They didn't start the uprising in Syria. Syrians did. They hopped on the bandwagon to see if they could help the rebels win and control Syria. That isn't going to happen, however. As I said, their motivation doesn't matter, they can't destroy the economy in a country, nor can they control entire countries. Hell, the different groups even fight each other. [quote]I don't believe the Caliphate will happen either, but I'm not going to discredit the threat that they carry. I've already offered you a link as to why their threat in the Middle East is very much real. Not taking their threat seriously is a very naive thing to do. I mean, if their threat wasn't credible, we wouldn't have shut down 20+ embassies throughout the Muslim world a few weeks back.[/quote] I meant I don't take their goals seriously. I do take them seriously enough to know they're a threat. (They aren't a charity foundation, after all.) [quote]No, it's still an over generalization. You're assuming the entirety of the rebels don't know shit when it comes to fighting or that they even have sufficient arms. However, you seem to be forgetting that the majority of the Free Syrian Army are Syrian Military defectors, take munitions with them. Apparently some defectors brought three tanks with them. Or, They seize weapons in raids.[/quote] Serious weaponry is limited to them. They mostly just have assault rifles and turrets attatched to cars. And I'm not assuming anything, I know for a fact they don't know shit because they're getting their asses kicked. Look, this is getting stupid. I think we can both agree that these groups are a threat, and hope for them to be destroyed/dismantled as soon as possible.

My whole point of commenting on your posts is now for you to understand the threat al-Qaeda in Syria poses.

I know they pose a threat. That's why Hezbollah is helping Al Assad.

Maybe its just me, but it seems as if you've been writing off al-Qaeda in Syria this whole time. If not, I'm sorry. But this was still fun, at least I think so. Its not very often I get to tout my extensive knowledge on al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism (not being arrogant, just saying). Good talk. I hope for more in the future.

I'm not writing them off, they're causing a lot of chaos in Syria. And yes, good discussion. Salam.

damn

I wouldn't take what he said to be credible, sadeeqi.

>sadeeqi >wat?

Brother, or friend in Arabic.