Foreign Fighters Join Syria's Rebels

[Comrade Grumpy]

Source: Al Jazeera

Some foreigners are fighting in Syria's largest city, Aleppo, alongside rebels who say they are disappointed that more residents have not joined their cause.

Reporting from the frontline, Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr says the young rebels in the city have come mainly from the countryside of Aleppo province. It has not been easy to stand up against the Syrian army, especially when the city did not rise up when rebels entered some poor neighbourhoods and set up bases, she says.

"We saw a few Arab fighters from Saudi Arabia and Egypt who didn't want to be filmed," our correspondent said, adding that some of the foreign fighters claimed allegiance to al-Qaeda. "Undoubtedly the majority of the fighters here are Syrians, but this war has attracted Arabs who feel obliged to help the opposition, who are mainly Sunni Muslims."

Al Jazeera's Khodr also says the authorities still enjoy some backing in Aleppo, either out of fear of the state or fear of an opposition that has no clear agenda apart from toppling President Bashar al-Assad. Aleppo, which is Syria's financial capital, had long been immune from the fighting in the countryside. However, now the conflict has divided the people along class and religious lines, she says.



Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/201282345719523948.html

---

The "foreign fighters" are the jihadis, the Al Qaeda types.

I think Al Jazeera's sympathies are showing. It downplays the foreign fighters and it downplays regime support in Aleppo and seeks to explain it away.

The rebels are trying to take over a city that doesn't want them.

[Arctic Dave]

1. Kind of like the other military adventurism we injected ourselves into.

A hand full of "rebels" overthrowing the government with our air support.

Except we don't help them when they are trying to do it to our "allies", then we turn a blind eye and let them do what they want.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. And then there's this: "Rebels say 70% of city is with the regime"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/21/syrian-rebels-aleppo-local-hostility

From the article:

More than a month into the battle for Aleppo, the rebels who seized control of much of the city sense that its residents do not yet fully support them. Opposition fighters – around 3,000 of them – are almost the only people moving around the eastern half that the Free Syrian Army now controls. The small numbers of non-fighters who remain seem to pay them little heed. Few seem openly welcoming.

"Yes it's true," said Sheikh Tawfik Abu Sleiman, a rebel commander sitting on the ground floor of his fourth new headquarters – the other three were bombed. "Around 70% of Aleppo city is with the regime. It has always been that way. The countryside is with us and the city is with them. We are saying that we will only be here as long as it takes to get the job done, to get rid of the Assads. After that, we will leave and they can build the city that they want."

----------

[riderinthestorm]

3. Destroy the village to save the village AGAIN!!

"After that, we will leave and they can build the city that they want." "





And the Islamists won't leave - they'll simply install religious enforcers to drag Syria back into the middle ages with their draconian form of Islam.

[David__77]

6. Aleppo was enjoying peace before this terrorist invasion.

And to be clear, not all armed fighters are terrorists. But those who enter in order to spread terror, destroy public infrastructure, force political meeting attendance, target people based on sect, loot homes and stores without permission of the owners, use homes and businesses for military purposes (without permission) are most certainly TERRORISTS. There is a reason that people flee from those neighborhoods, well before the Syrian army responds to the insurgents. They want to be in peace.

Wherever the insurgents have gone, they leave destruction behind them; worse, they scurry away once militarily confronted, forcing all sorrows on those they claim to "liberate." They are only liberating people of their homes, jobs, schools, water and power, etc.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Oh, you and I know that but that's not the approved DU meme

There are still more than a few DUers who persist in believing this is an Arab Spring revolution springing from "grass roots" demonstrations and that Syria's progress into its current tribal and sectarian warfare is a natural progression solely from Assad's actions.

[eissa]

4. My in-laws live in Syria

and are fiercely pro-regime. They have witnessed the brutality of the rebels and say 1) most of them are not even Syrian, and 2) they most definitely have an Islamic/Taliban agenda. As Christians, they are beyond fearful and want no part of this "democratic" revolution.

[pampango]

5. Who could have foreseen that one consequence of violently repressing peaceful protests might be

that some really bad characters would enter the conflict.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=607677

1: When massive peaceful protests occur, repress them as them as violently as you can get away with - snipers, tanks, artillery, arrests, torture, etc.

2. Sometimes repression works to quell the protests. (It's why dictators frequently stay in power so long or inherit their positions from their fathers like in Syria and North Korea.) If repression works, reward your military and security services and go back to being a dictator.

3. If #1 doesn't work right away and massive peaceful protests continue, keep up the repression. (You have to come up with a strategy to keep the international community at bay. If you already have a powerful international patron, you may be OK. If not you had better find one.) Start talking about the presence of "criminal gangs" or "terrorists" among the protestors. There may not be any yet, but it's good to get the talking point out there for future use.

4. If, after many months, your military and security forces continue to prove to be ineffective in suppressing dissent, don't worry. Do not stop the armed repression. (As a dictator, the military and security forces are all you have going for you. Peaceful negotiations are a trap. Your assets - the army and internal security forces - cannot help you there.) Eventually frustration will build up among factions of the protesters and some will become willing to resort to violence given the apparent futility of peaceful protest. (You will also lose some of your common soldiers to defection. Many of them will not understand that they signed up to protect you not the country.) Or outside groups will begin to take advantage of these frustrations.

5. At this point you can unleash your military and security forces to the full extent and hope you don't lose the civil war you have created. Keep in mind that civil wars are very messy affairs. Be sure to keep you international patron happy.

I think this is a strategy that is workable in many repressive countries when populations get fed up with living with no rights.

[Igel]

8. It's not just Syria.

The south-eastern part of the country is pretty solidly pro-rebels. It's also where there were a lot of problems with sheltering and supplying Sunnis in Anbar province.

Yes, it's Ramadan, but it can't hurt that there's a handy poorly controlled part of Syria just over the border when you want to unlease a well-organized wave of bombings in Iraq.

Libyra has Mali. Syria just might have Iraq.

[Ken Burch]

9. For a second there, I thought the headline was "Foo Fighters Join Syria's Rebels".

I can picture that happening for some reason, though.

[oldsarge54]

10. Anyone Remember the Lincoln Brigade?

Perfect opportunity for chicken hawks to put their bodies where their mouth is. For those who forgot, the Lincoln Brigade fought for the anti-fascists in the Spanish civil war. On the other hand, if Romney wins, you might be declared an undersirable communist.