Author Topic: Kerry on Syrian rebels’ brutality: It’ll get worse if we don’t intervene  (Read 411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31,674
Kerry on Syrian rebels’ brutality: It’ll get worse if we don’t intervene

Drudge has been killing the White House all day by spotlighting that harrowing NYT story about the rebels that Ed blogged this morning, and now here’s Kerry’s response. If you’re worried about Al Qaeda and its jihadi partners like Jabhat al-Nusra running wild, then you should … support a U.S. attack on their enemy Assad. Wait, what? Sure, says Kerry: Only if the U.S. empowers “moderate” rebels like the Free Syrian Army — whose leadership, by the way, is falling apart — will there be an alternative for people who want Assad gone but don’t want fundamentalists to replace him. Never mind that Reuters reported months ago that jihadi groups were successfully sidelining the moderate elements within the rebel ranks and confiscating their weapons. And never mind that, as of just four months ago, the Times famously reported that there was really no such thing as a secular fighting force in rebel-controlled Syria. Evidently we’re going to find, or build, one and then somehow elevate it to prominence over battle-tested jihadi outfits like the Nusra Front.

But wait. How broad is this intervention going to be? The point of the attack, I thought, was to punch Assad hard in the face for gassing people in Damascus, enough so that he thinks twice about doing it again. What Kerry’s suggesting here goes beyond that, well into McCain territory. If the goal now is to secularize the Syrian opposition, then we’re not just talking about bloodying the regime’s nose. We’re talking necessarily about weakening the jihadi rebels too while the “moderates” gain strength. That means taking on both sides. Are we simultaneously going to bomb the army to try to force Assad to the bargaining table while also droning Nusraites until they sue for peace too? If not, if this is all going to be done theoretically by arming the “moderates” until they can hold their own with jihadis, what happens if the jihadis attack them and gain the upper hand? Do we intervene then to influence the rebel civil war within a civil war? And in that case, if the rebels start killing each other, whose job will it be to take the fight to Assad?

more at:   http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/05/kerry-on-syrian-rebels-brutality-itll-get-worse-if-we-dont-intervene/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"I am responsible for what I say.  I am not responsible for what you understand."  ...me

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31,674


The motely group that targets Christians and government sympathizers is only one segment of insurgents attacking the regime.

If Assad is toppled it will be Egypt all over again....the Muslim Brotherhood faction will demand the seat AT THE HEAD OF THE TABLE.

And if they don't get it....they'll continue their reign of terror.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"I am responsible for what I say.  I am not responsible for what you understand."  ...me

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
I think this admin heart the MB
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,435
  • #ToldYouSo
So now he admits they're bloodthirsty, but only we can redeem them and, what, "train" them to be nice guys?  Give me a break.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf