About 60 percent of rebel fighters in Syria hold an Islamist extremist ideology, a British think-tank has found. About a third of them hold the same ideology as the Islamic State.
the rebel fighters are anti-Assad? I am still confused as to the different sides fighting in Syria.
As far as I know, all of the rebel fighters are anti-Assad.
If 30% of the rebels have identical ideology with Daesh, I wonder why they haven’t joined Daesh?
This provides good reason for Syria to be colonized by Europeans again. The Arabs over there would either have a socialist or Islamic extremists controlling them if they ran their own nation.
Wow, blatant imperialism! Could you at least not have some faith in socialism, instead of dogmatically saying that it is bad? Do you honestly think a government such as East Germany or that of communist Hungary or Cuba is as bad Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, El Salvador, Guatemala or Afghanistan?
Do you dispute this?
For more than 40 years, from 1948 to the early 1990s, the United States used its power and resources to make sure that Latin Americans had governments more conservative (and thus anticommunist) than Latin American voters were willing to elect. The human cost of this effort was immense. Between 1960, after the Soviets had dismantled most of their gulags, and the Soviet collapse in 1990, the number of political prisoners, torture victims, and executions of nonviolent dissenters in Latin America **vastly exceeded **that of the Soviet Union and its East European satellites.
I think that most Americans were expecting this. I’m not shocked at all. Well, perhaps I am shocked that any think tank would even bother to investigate our “allies.”
I know that socialism goes against the Church. This includes the socialism of Bashar al-Assad. Communist nations are quite bad in that respect. I do not dispute your article.
Thank you. That is an admission that actual “communism” (the adjective “actual” is incorrect, since they not were not “communist” states, but socialist states under Marxist-Leninist governments) were much more benign than the anti-communists in Central and South America. That is not communist propaganda, but the truth supported by a plethora of evidence that renders such a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, even noticing this kind of thing normally gets anyone labeled as Islamophobic.
Truth has a way of coming up and biting us on the behind though, to the point when even npr is starting to notice.
The myth of the Arab Spring being waged and won by young liberals with their cell phones has turned into one miserably bleak, perpetually long winter.
How do you wage war against an ideology?
How is it Islamophobic to point out that most of the Syrian opposition are highly sectarian. Heck, the number is probably higher than 60% since an overt Pentagon problem to find non-jihadi opposition failed due to a lack of suitable members.
Yes, we all know the truth about Salafi-Qutb jihadism during the second September 11th. Reality has a way of coming up and biting us in ironic ways though.
- A moderate opposition doesn’t exist. The United States is trying to build one to act as its partner.
The report refers to US efforts to create partners in Syria, a euphemism for puppets who can be relied upon to promote US interests.
“Secretary of Defense Carter described the ‘best’ scenario for the Syrian people as one that would entail an agreed or managed removal of Assad and the coalescence of opposition forces with elements of the remaining Syrian state apparatus as U.S. partners ….” (emphasis added, pp. 15-16).
Also: The Pentagon “sought to…groom and support reliable leaders to serve as U.S partners…” (emphasis added, p. 23).
To create partners, the United States is engaged in the project of building a “moderate” opposition. According to the report:
“On June 18, Secretary of Defense Carter said, ‘…the best way for the Syrian people for this to go would be for him to remove himself from the scene and there to be created, difficult as it will be, a new government of Syria based on the moderate opposition that we have been trying to build…” (footnote, p. 16).
In the report summary the researchers write that US strategy seeks to avoid “inadvertently strengthening Assad, the Islamic State, or other anti-U.S. armed Islamist groups” (emphasis added.) What’s left unsaid is that armed Islamist groups that are not immediately [latias emphasis] anti-U.S. may be looked upon favorably by US strategy.
The Mujahedin were also not immediately anti-US. Bin Laden was not immediately anti-US.
When you consider that, as The Washington Post reported, “the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years”  and that, at best, there are 700, and more likely only 70 “moderate” rebels in Syria , then the bulk of the large rebel force the CIA has trained and equipped is very likely made up of Islamist extremists. Concealing this shameful reality from the US public is probably the principal reason the program is covert.
Washington wants to contain ISIS, but not eliminate it, in order to maintain military pressure on the Syrian government.
Bottom line, ISIS will remain for some time. There is no political will to eliminate it.
What I said is that people who have been pointing this out for the last few decades have been labeled as Islamophobic. We live in the era of 'overseas contingencies, and ‘work place violence’, after all.
The myth of Islam as the Religion of Peace and that jihadists are on the extreme, is exposed by the idea that 60 percent of rebels are extremists.
The liberal majority of young people with cell phones leading the Arab Spring simply does not exist. That is the myth too.
The reality is that Islamism is in the driver’s seat in the House of Islam. Even NPR is recognizing that now.
But for the past fifteen years to dare to recognize this has led to jeers labeling anyone who dares to notice this reality as being Islamophobes and xeonophobic haters.
How is that Islamophobic?
You tell me. It is not my rhetoric that has made this so.
BTW, I personally don’t care if there are terrorists in Confucianism or Shinto, by the way.There is only one religion where religious extremism and religious violence has become a factor gloabally, and that is Islam.
The Buddhist version of Syria simply does not exist.
Oh, no! Sorry. I thought you were one of the left-wingers that says that Islam is the religion of peace and points out all the other religions that have killed people. I’m not one of the Islam-defenders, either.
I was saying that all religions have had extremism in some sense, I guess, but Islam is prone to it especially. I thought you were accusing people of being “Islamophobic” because we now confirmed that 60 percent of rebels are extremists.