Syria: disillusioned rebels drift back to take Assad amnesty

[cqo_000]

Source: The Telegraph

Disillusioned by the Islamist twist that the "revolution" in Syria has taken, exhausted after more than two years of conflict and feeling that they are losing, growing numbers of rebels are signing up to a negotiated amnesty offered by the Assad regime.

The move is a sign of the growing confidence of the regime, which has established a so-called "ministry of reconciliation" with the task of easing the way for former opponents to return to the government side.

"I used to fight for revolution, but now I think we have lost what we were fighting for," said Mohammed, a moderate Muslim rebel from the northern town of Raqqa who declined to give his last name. "Now extremists control my town. My family has moved back to government side because our town is too unsafe. Assad is terrible, but the alternative is worse."

Ziad Abu Jabal comes from one of the villages in Homs province whose residents recently agreed to stop fighting the regime. "When we joined the demonstrations we wanted better rights," he said. "After seeing the destruction and the power of jihadists, we came to an agreement with the government."


Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10198632/Syria-disillusioned-rebels-drift-back-to-take-Assad-amnesty.html

[delrem]

1. I don't believe *anything* printed about the Syrian war.

This war is as deeply embedded in the press, "the MSM", as any war has ever been.
I didn't believe *anything* printed about the Libyan war either, for the same reason.

There can't be truth when "the western world" poses with mid-east dictators and claims to be "Friend of Syria", while carrying out this war crime. I mean, there can't be truth if this "the western world" isn't taken to international court and given a fair trial.

[David__77]

2. The fight is definitely between al Qaeda vs. everyone else.

Sane observant Muslims will not abide the rule of the insurgents - not in a highly cultured country like Syria. It might take five or ten years, unfortunately.

[delrem]

3. Hmmm. OK. But that is false.

The Syrian war has never been portrayed as "al Qaeda vs. everyone else".
Proof: if that were the case, Assad and Obama would be comrades in arms vs al Qaeda.
But that isn't true.

[David__77]

4. Why would they be comrades in arms? Who says the US always opposes al Qaeda?

I would submit that if the US were consistent in opposing terrorism, it would maintain normal diplomatic relations with the Syrian government, and firmly oppose those parties that are waging a terrorist war.

[delrem]

5. You aren't talking about reality, David_77. nt

[David__77]

6. I believe I'm right, and the elites and talking heads are wrong.

We will see. This thing is far from over yet.

[jakeXT]

8. I think people believing in some kind of GWOT aren't talking about reality. It's the 80s again, Baby

Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2013, 04:35 AM - Edit history (1)

[ForeignandDomestic]

9. It could also be the 70's baby... Groovy!!

[link:

|

[sabrina 1]

7. Gaddafi was known to hate Al Queda, and it was those radicals who were used, armed and financed

by the Western nations, France in particular wanted Gadaffi gone, to fight him. The Libyan people fought back for over a year, but they could not overcome the Western 'proxy war' which is how we fight wars now, using troops from Qatar and Bahrain etc. and Al Queda and whoever will do the actual fighting.

And that is why Cameron is now backing off sending any more weapons to the 'rebels' who are not 'rebels' at all. He has finally expressed 'concerns' about the radicals who would be receiving those weapons and finances. As if the world was not aware of what was going for a long time now.

This is exactly the same scenario used in Libya. The initial protests were peaceful and sincere, but they were soon infiltrated by foreign elements who were being backed by NATO.

The Brits are way more informed than Americans and Cameron is receiving a lot of flack for supporting 'terrorists'. Let's hope he doesn't cave in as these people have suffered enough already and I'm glad the real rebels are refusing to fight alongside these radicals anymore.

[John2]

11. Cameron reversed

himself during the G-8 conference because the Russian President gave a speech that embarrassed him. It left President Obama and the French leader speechless also, because they couldn't counter what Putin said. The German leader completely agreed with Putin and switched sides. That conference was in Britain for all the British media to report. Cameron does not have the approval of his own Parliament.

The difference between Cameron and President Obama though is our Congress and their Parliament. The Congress, such as people like Levin,McCain and Graham, are the ones influencing our Foreign Policy along with the neocons in the intelligence services. It includes the Jewish Lobby which is strongly influenced by Netanyahu and the Government of Israel. Regardless of what the Israelis claim, they have a lot of influence on U.S. politics in both parties. So the British Parliament is different from the American Congress. Obama has been the kind of President that loves to compromise and get along with other politicians. He doesn't use the Bully pulpit to his advantage because he acts like coporations and the well to do hold all the power in this country. The President can change the direction of Foreign Policy all by himself if he really wanted to without Congress. They just hold the purse strings. Just like Nixon went to China, Obama can do what he wants to do. It has been the same case with every President, Reagan, FDR and even Bill Clinton with Northern Ireland. If the President wanted to have talks with North Korea or even the Mullahs of Iran, he does not need the permission of Congress. Obama acts like he needs their approval. He needs to put Netanyahu in his place too. He still has three more years left to act like a President with guts to set his own agenda.

[cosmicone]

10. What? The US created Al Q'aeda

for heaven's sake! Raygun funneled arms, munitions, training, recruitment tools, logistics and intelligence to Al Q'aeda.

Secondly, the US foreign policy has never had any principles other than temporary expediency with no view of long term consequences. The chickens are already coming home to roost in South America from decades of bullying and dictator propping.

I have no doubt that blinded by a temporary Assad-hate, our esteemed CIA and pentagon would not hesitate aligning themselves with anyone, no matter how awful.

[John2]

12. They only

use Assad killing his own people for a diversion. They don't care about the rights of Arabs. They hate Assad because he is against Israel and aligns himself with Hezbullah,the PLO and Iran. He was also supporting Hamas, until the Muslim Brotherhood convinced Hamas to switch sides. I suspect that had something to do with Morsi. He must have promised Hamas something when he got them to stop throwing their rockets into Israel.


Mubarak was also becoming more anti Israel and pissing off the United States. They didn't trust Mubarak. Gaddaffi was only an Ally for convenience until his use ran out. It was the same case with Saddam Hussein. Until this country solves its own racism, it cannot solve those attitudes in other places. You can see how racist Romney was when he went to Israel and praised them. He was the leader of one of our major political parties. You could tell which candidate Netanyahu favored. Romney totally ignored the Palestinians. If he was the President, we would have invaded Syria by now and probably starting World War III by now. All President Obama did was trying to convince them he could do a better job than Romney starting a War with Iran.

[cosmicone]

14. You are right

The US policy towards every country in the middle east is from the eyes of Israel and without regard for our own national interests.

[delrem]

15. So it isn't correct that Al Q'aeda stands alone against the world.

According as your information, and the information of several others who take me to task, the USA, the GCC and several other powers stand with Al Q'aeda.

[Socal31]

16. Actually the Saudis did.

They teach them Wahhabi Islam, we arm them. Great team!

[Bo]

13. Nice...1000s dead 1000000s displaced country ruined and for what?

[eissa]

17. "Assad is terrible, but the alternative is worse."

THIS. Exactly what the majority of Syrians have been saying. The revolution may have been started by young idealists with the best of intentions, but it was very quickly taken over by the extremists who are running the show now. When your ONLY choice is between a brutal dictator and an equally brutal, terrorist-backed theocracy, the choice for many is the former.