Meet Obama’s new friends in Syria



photo: NY Times

The NY Times today:

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.

The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

And they are nasty. You can find more of the character of the opposition here and here.

The two prominent Al Qaida powered groups in Syria are Islamic States in Syria and Al Nusra. Most (John Kerry, apparently, among them) do not know that Al Nusra merged with the Free Syrian Army a couple of months ago.

This footage from May and June 2013 shows battalions from the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) declaring their unification with al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra (Nusra Front) in the eastern Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta and in Aleppo, both strongholds of the anti-government militants. Although some instances have occurred where clashes between the two groups have taken place, for the most part, the FSA and al-Qaeda unite under the banner of Islamic monotheism.


At this point Al Qaida and the FSA are one and the same. The Times goes on:

That has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.

Ya think? The star of the NY Times video makes a promise- genocide:

But, they said, one of his tactics has been to promise to his fighters what he calls “the extermination” of Alawites — the minority Islamic sect to which the Assad family belongs, and which Mr. Issa blames for Syria’s suffering.

The Al Qaida linked rebels also promise to slaughter the Christians in Syria once Barack Obama comes to their aid.

It is against this backdrop that the feckless and clueless John Kerry argues the Obama regime position:

Secretary of State John Kerry’s public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.

At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama’s plan for limited military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.
“And the opposition is getting stronger by the day,” Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

U.S. and allied intelligence sources and private experts on the Syrian conflict suggest that assessment is optimistic.

Indeed. Back to the Times:

Much of the concern among American officials has focused on two groups that acknowledge ties to Al Qaeda. These groups — the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — have attracted foreign jihadis, used terrorist tactics and vowed to create a society in Syria ruled by their severe interpretation of Islamic law.

And they appear to be winning:

“I’ve heard that there are moderate groups out there we could, in theory, support,” said Joshua Foust, a former U.S. intelligence analyst who now writes about foreign policy.

“But I’ve heard from those same people and my own contacts within (U.S. intelligence) that the scary people are displacing more and more moderate groups. Basically, the jihadists are setting up governance and community councils while the moderates exhaust themselves doing the heavy fighting,” Foust said.

If we tip Syria over, these groups will be the new leaders. And if we knock Assad off or over, we’ll most certainly have to insert ground troops to secure the WMD’s. You can’t help but get the feeling Barack Obama has been thinking about this for some time.

Securing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.

That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.

‘The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor’s staff,’ a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

Which is why I doubt it when Obama says he doesn’t want to ouster Assad or tip the balance of the war. Obama initially promised no boots on the ground and then sent Kerry to the Senate and opened the door for just such an action. The plan written by the Senate is chock full of loopholes. Why would Obama need 90 days to send a “message”?

So what are the goals of this regime? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was asked about this:

Dempsey Can’t Say What U.S. is Seeking in Syria

I don’t think we’re going to like Obama’s new best friends.


Barack Obama has made a career as a community organizer. His entire life as an adult has been spent pitting one group against another and it has been the hallmark of his Presidency. I don’t know that he’s even capable of banding people together using anything other than fear and threat, which I think is why we’re seeing him flounder so badly right now. There is no “we.” There is only “us” and “them.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

These the moderates of which John Fkn Kerry speaks. Hillary Clinton gets our ambassador and brave soldiers killed in Bengasi and lies about it , Holder gets 300 + Mexican nationals and USD boarder patrol agents killed with the regimes Fast and Furious scam and lies about it, and now they want us to believe them when they tell us they know who the good guys are in Syria.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Bush started ‘Fast and Furious’ and dozens of Embassies were attack when he was President. I guess they don’t tel you this on Fox News.

I see the local troll couldn’t wait to blame Bush again… And of course has his facts wrong once again in his zeal to support Obama.

Wrong. Wide receiver was Bush’s program and it was far different than Fast and Furious. The weapons were tracked electronically and there was coordination with Mexican authorities. It didn’t work well and the Bush team shut it down in 2007. You might want to educate yourself before blathering on the company line. You’ll end up being educated here or elsewhere until then.


Ignore this one. He’s nothing more than another Obama troll, like Greg, but at least I think Greg is smart enough to get paid for spewing his propaganda. this one is not.

A good way to assess the Islamism of the groups the MSM is visiting is how tightly the journalist covers her hair. When visiting govt’s like Karzai, Mubarrak, or Assad, they leave it uncovered. When visiting the hard core Islamists, no tuff is uncovered. When visiting the “moderate” Islamists, that only kill Jews, not fellow Islamists, a few tuffs in the front may show.

Another assessment can be made on the facial hair of the “rebels.” From Achdiminjad to Osama, it’s not the volume of the beard, but the quantity of the rebels trying to grow one. Even a scruffy appearance counts.

It should be much easier to deal with Iran’s nuclear sites, now that it’s been decided that their little buddy Assad’s chemical weapons pose no threat of instant retaliation against Israel or other U.S. allies.


@retire05: Will do. Sorry for feeding.

I still think Greg and This One are the same person or troll.

I didn’t actually expect an intelligent response to #7, even though the question is one of genuine importance that no one seems to be asking.

Trolls, btw, are defined by their behavior, not by their opinions.

Talk about your TIN EARS!!!

Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons
“We’ll kill their women and children like Osama Bin Laden said”
Nadeem Baloosh, is a member of an insurgent group called Riyadh Al Abdeen, which is active in the Latakia area of Syria.

Baloosh speaks of “chemicals which produce lethal and deadly gases that I possess,” before going on to state, “We decided to harm them through their women and kids.”

Baloosh ponders if it is acceptable to harm women and children before quoting the Koran, “Fight them as they fight you. ” He goes on to quote Osama Bin Laden (whom other rebel groups have openly praised).

“We’ll kill their women and children like Sheikh Osama Bin Laden said – “until they cease killing our women and kids,” he states.

So, the upshot of this?

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who on Saturday said he supported President Obama’s decision to launch military action in Syria, has changed his mind.
Grimm is the 91st House member to express opposition to military action in Syria, along with 93 who have expressed skepticism. That means the ranks of those likely to vote against a use of force resolution is getting close to the 217 that will be required to defeat it.

And a Democrat, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., says:

Obama has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country’s two-year civil war.
He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons.

Evidence cited in that report included “intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used.”

Grayson, however, says “the claim has been made that that information was completely mischaracterized.”

He points to an article published by The Daily Caller that alleges the communications actually showed Syrian officers were surprised by the alleged chemical weapon attack. The communications, according to unnamed sources paraphrased in article, were intercepted by Israeli intelligence and “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion.”

The wheels fall off the wagon.
Will Obama even come back to America or will he settle down in some country where he feels more at home?
Besides Russia, Iran and, of course, Assad; China, the European Union and the Pope all warned against attacks on the Assad regime.
Brazil, India and South Africa also
worry that intervention would do economic harm.

Obama supposedly has about ten countries willing to SAY they back his idea of attacking Assad (you know, lip service) but none will help with military or money.

@Scott in Oklahoma:

No…I’m not blaming Bush, just pointing out wingnut hypocrisy when they point fingers at Obama.

Under Bush this ‘gun walking’ program was called ‘Operation Wide Receiver.’

“13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News”

Nice try, lol!

@This one: Under Bush this ‘gun walking’ program was called ‘Operation Wide Receiver.’

That operation involved TRACKING weapons (but losing some) and Obama’s F&F operation involved NOT TRACKING weapons (and losing ALL of them).
The goal Bush was after was co-opted by Obama and twisted into a phony crisis of gun sales across the border so as to impose gun control for a ginned up reason.
Guns traced back to Obama’s F&F are STILL to this day being tied to murder cases, some involving US citizens, most involving Mexican citizens.
Over 300 people have been murdered so Obama might get tighter gun controls on law abiding people in his own country.


It should be much easier to deal with Iran’s nuclear sites, now that it’s been decided that their little buddy Assad’s chemical weapons pose no threat of instant retaliation against Israel or other U.S. allies.


I’m really not clear on what you’re asking here, but I’ll take a stab at it. I just want to get this straight…..
Around the time of the 2008 elections, without even talking about bombing Iran, democrats stated that they would impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without congressional approval. From Biden’s interview with Chrissy Matthews:

Matthews: You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?

Biden:Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority…to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of.

~emphasis added mine
And here is Obama’s take on Iran during his first presidential run…..

“strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’

Now we find out that the woman Kerry and McCain are getting their information about the Syrian Rebels from is a paid advocate for the rebels.
(Sorry for the “biased” source, they are the only ones reporting it)
I believe the president when he says Assad is responsible for the attack. From what I have read, the Germans intercepted a call between a Hezbollah commander and the Iranian embassy recorded that Assad ordered the attack because he thought Damascus was going to fall to the rebels.
Tell me exactly how that translates to a future attack on Israel or our other allies? Assad has had these weapons since the start of the second gulf war. We tried to tell you guys this during the Iraq war. From Obama’s Director of National Intelligence:

current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, who formerly headed the U.S. agency that processes and analyzes satellite imagery (the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency), claimed in an interview with the New York Times in October of 2003 that “satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March” led him to believe that illegal weapons material had “unquestionably” been moved out of Iraq.


I believe the president when he says Assad is responsible for the attack.

One of Obama’s main boot lickers seems to have a major problem with the intel being provided to Congress:

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country’s two-year civil war.
Grayson made the accusation in an interview published Wednesday by The Atlantic and offered more detail in a Thursday discussion with U.S. News. He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons.
Grayson said he cannot discuss the classified briefings, but noted details in the administration’s public, non-classified report are being contested.

When an Obama lackey like Grayson is throwing doubts on the intel that even Congress is getting, are we to just automatically assume that Obama, who couldn’t seem to find who was responsible for Benghazi (although the leader of that pack was hiding in plain view) now has absolutely certain, without doubt, proof that it was Assad lobbing a chemical weapon?

We have NO strategic interest in Syria. And Syria is NOT the only hot spot where women and children are being slaughtered. We learned with Egypt that the alternative was worse than the existing dictator. Same with Libya. And now we are training rebels in Jordan? For what? From Honduras to Libya, Obama’s actions in regard to other nations has been a train wreck.

You can believe Obama all you want. But far too many times this administration has proven to have lied to the American people for nefarious reasons, Benghazi caused by a YouTube video being just one of those lies. And please, don’t tell me that was Hillary and Susan Rice’s ideas. They work(ed) for the man sitting at the Resolution Desk.

When it came to Iraq, the left demanded President Bush appear before them. He did. They demanded he take his case to the UN. He did. They demanded he prove his case to the American people. He did. Where are the same demands for this Community Organizer in Chief? Crickets. And while I don’t hold any great love for Alan Grayson, finding him an crass individual of the highest order, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and Grayson has been solidly in Obama’s corner up until this point.

@Aqua: Well written and fair. You’ve clearly pointed out both Btden and Obama are on record that they believe Congressional approval needed for a strike on Syria.
You have stated your belief that based on intelligence Assad is responsible for CW attack of Aug.21. You stated Assad has had these weapons since the start of the 2nd gulf war.
Reto5 Grayson? Again strange bedfellow. In 2010 Palin and Beck said it was more important to beat progressive Grayson than any other Congressional candidate.
Stopped clock is right twice a day.How many times is it wrong? lol

@Richard Wheeler:

Again, you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear anything that doesn’t meet with your opinion. You know, like Alan Grayson stating that the administration is not being honest with Congress.


One of Obama’s main boot lickers seems to have a major problem with the intel being provided to Congress:

Grayson? Alan Grayson?
German Intelligence:

We have NO strategic interest in Syria.

I think I said that. To me it doesn’t matter which side did what. As far as I can see, there are no threats to the US or our allies. I don’t like the UN and I don’t trust the UN, but this is exactly whey they exist. The fact that the UN is unable to find a solution to this problem is exactly why it should be done away with.


Ok, so I am supposed to base my opinion on an anonymous Hezbollah jihadist? Sorry, but I put him with the bad guys who wants Assad out. Hezbollah, like the rest of the jihadists wants control, thats clear in Lebanon.

@Aqua, #14:

My thinking has been that any preemptive action against Iranian nuclear facilities would most likely be taken by Israel, with the United States providing extensive clandestine support in the form of intelligence and specialized weapons systems. The United States, as Israel’s ally, would also stare down anyone outside the region threatening retaliation against Israel. (Russia)

Assad’s alliance with Iran and his chemical weapons totally change that calculation. Any move by Israel against Iran could result in instant retaliation with WMDs from less than 100 miles away.

No action against Assad may significantly increase the likelihood of a nuclear-armed Iran, by raising the cost of any preemptive action to prevent it to an unacceptable level.

@retire05, #15:

When it came to Iraq, the left demanded President Bush appear before them. He did. They demanded he take his case to the UN. He did. They demanded he prove his case to the American people. He did. Where are the same demands for this Community Organizer in Chief? Crickets.

Nobody demanded that the Bush administration do any of that. It was all part of the carefully orchestrated selling of the war in Iraq.

Why do you suppose Obama and others are advocating a response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons? The reason is because they see Assad’s WMDs as a significant danger. One thing should be fairly obvious: No one is advocating this to win any popularity contests. Taking so unpopular a position is at the expense of public approval. It will have an obvious political cost.

Obama’s ”friends,” in Syria have laid down an ultimatum: Christians! Convert to Islam or die!
25 miles from Damascus, Maaloula has been taken over by Syrian rebels associated with the al Nusra Front, an al Qaeda-associated Islamist group.
They have stormed the Christian center and offered local Christians a choice: conversion or death.
A witness stated, “I saw the militants grabbing five villagers and threatening them and saying, ‘Either you convert to Islam, or you will be beheaded.’”