Could Assad Win?

[Columbina]

Of course he COULD win, he has the ability to.
WILL Assad win, dear God I hope not.

You rather have a country based on islamic law like Saudi-Arabia but then with Al-Qaeda in power?

I didn't say that, your just picking nonsensical ideas from thin air.

[Havenic Israel]

In the end alot of those weapons came to Al-Qaeda wich was supported by the US, (back then called the mujadeen or something). And that's not the only case of where the US helped them... Everytime the US sends weapons to some kind of group in the middle east for some reason they end up with Al-Qaeda. (US is btw not the only one where this happens)

A lot of Mujahadeen fighter did join the Taliban as well.

No, they didn't. Almost no mujahideen joined the Taliban. The leadership's top ten, such as Mullah Omar, Obaidullah Akhund, and Mullah Dadullah, were veterans. But the rest were actually students recruited from Madrassa in Pakistan.

The majority of the Mujahideen fought for the United Front under Massoud, the rest went back "home" (a lot ended up in Chechnya or Bosnia). So yours is a common misconception, but is glaringly incorrect I'm afraid.

And Al-Qaeda was NOT a terrorist organization originally. It was a school to train mujahideen fighters for conflicts in Kasmir, Bosnia/Croatia, and Chechnya. It didn't become an actual terror organization until 2001.

[Mkuki]

A lot of Mujahadeen fighter did join the Taliban as well.

No, they didn't. Almost no mujahideen joined the Taliban. The leadership's top ten, such as Mullah Omar, Obaidullah Akhund, and Mullah Dadullah, were veterans. But the rest were actually students recruited from Madrassa in Pakistan.

The majority of the Mujahideen fought for the United Front under Massoud, the rest went back "home" (a lot ended up in Chechnya or Bosnia). So yours is a common misconception, but is glaringly incorrect I'm afraid.

And Al-Qaeda was NOT a terrorist organization originally. It was a school to train mujahideen fighters for conflicts in Kasmir, Bosnia/Croatia, and Chechnya. It didn't become an actual terror organization until 2001.

Some did join and that is my point. You're getting bogged down in technicalities. However, I would like to see numbers.

[DogDoo 7]

A lot of Mujahadeen fighter did join the Taliban as well.

No, they didn't. Almost no mujahideen joined the Taliban. The leadership's top ten, such as Mullah Omar, Obaidullah Akhund, and Mullah Dadullah, were veterans. But the rest were actually students recruited from Madrassa in Pakistan.

The majority of the Mujahideen fought for the United Front under Massoud, the rest went back "home" (a lot ended up in Chechnya or Bosnia). So yours is a common misconception, but is glaringly incorrect I'm afraid.

And Al-Qaeda was NOT a terrorist organization originally. It was a school to train mujahideen fighters for conflicts in Kasmir, Bosnia/Croatia, and Chechnya. It didn't become an actual terror organization until 2001.

The USS Cole, and the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania disagree with you

[Havenic Israel]

This does not takes the fact away that lots of these mujahadeen and their US weapons ended up by forming Al-Qaeda.

They didn't. It wasn't a lot at all. Groups that were Pro-US were targeted and destroyed, their weapons were stolen for the most part. Those that did join, did not do it in great numbers. The US wasn't dumb enough to give weapons to groups that weren't Pro-US.

Little known fact: The weapons which were given to the ISI to pass on to the Mujahideen were purposefully made shoddily, so that they inevitably malfunctioned and were unrepairable after a few years of use. Particularly the stinger missiles, which actually were programmed to simply deactivate and malfunction after a couple years.

[Havenic Israel]

No, they didn't. Almost no mujahideen joined the Taliban. The leadership's top ten, such as Mullah Omar, Obaidullah Akhund, and Mullah Dadullah, were veterans. But the rest were actually students recruited from Madrassa in Pakistan.

The majority of the Mujahideen fought for the United Front under Massoud, the rest went back "home" (a lot ended up in Chechnya or Bosnia). So yours is a common misconception, but is glaringly incorrect I'm afraid.

And Al-Qaeda was NOT a terrorist organization originally. It was a school to train mujahideen fighters for conflicts in Kasmir, Bosnia/Croatia, and Chechnya. It didn't become an actual terror organization until 2001.

The USS Cole, and the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania disagree with you

Committed by Al-Qaeda trained terrorists referring to themselves as "Al-Qaeda in Yemen". Not Al-Qaeda. There is a difference. Al-Qaeda was not a terror group. Al-Qaeda in Yemen is simply a group calling itself that but has only superficial ties to AQ itself (i.e they were trained by them, but thats it).

Oh and the embassy bombings were committed by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, trained by Al-Qaeda, but not Al-Qaeda until 2001.

[Havenic Israel]

No, they didn't. Almost no mujahideen joined the Taliban. The leadership's top ten, such as Mullah Omar, Obaidullah Akhund, and Mullah Dadullah, were veterans. But the rest were actually students recruited from Madrassa in Pakistan.

The majority of the Mujahideen fought for the United Front under Massoud, the rest went back "home" (a lot ended up in Chechnya or Bosnia). So yours is a common misconception, but is glaringly incorrect I'm afraid.

And Al-Qaeda was NOT a terrorist organization originally. It was a school to train mujahideen fighters for conflicts in Kasmir, Bosnia/Croatia, and Chechnya. It didn't become an actual terror organization until 2001.

Some did join and that is my point. You're getting bogged down in technicalities. However, I would like to see numbers.

Good luck, finding accurate numbers is nigh on impossible. I only have access to certain types of information, such as the Air Force intelligence reports from the mid-90s given to me during my counter-terorrism class. If you'd like to be educated on the subject, however, a good place to start is Ahmed Rashid's 'Taliban', which has been adopted as the CIA standard on the subject, written by a Pakistani journalist, and is both entertaining and fantastically enlightening.

[Mkuki]

Some did join and that is my point. You're getting bogged down in technicalities. However, I would like to see numbers.

Good luck, finding accurate numbers is nigh on impossible. I only have access to certain types of information, such as the Air Force intelligence reports from the mid-90s given to me during my counter-terorrism class. If you'd like to be educated on the subject, however, a good place to start is Ahmed Rashid's 'Taliban', which has been adopted as the CIA standard on the subject, written by a Pakistani journalist, and is both entertaining and fantastically enlightening.

Then how can you make a factual statement if there is no way to prove said statement?

[Altito Asmoro]

Indonesia can't into Syria.

Oh, the world pressures Indonesia into acting for more direct role in NK.

[Havenic Israel]

Good luck, finding accurate numbers is nigh on impossible. I only have access to certain types of information, such as the Air Force intelligence reports from the mid-90s given to me during my counter-terorrism class. If you'd like to be educated on the subject, however, a good place to start is Ahmed Rashid's 'Taliban', which has been adopted as the CIA standard on the subject, written by a Pakistani journalist, and is both entertaining and fantastically enlightening.

Then how can you make a factual statement if there is no way to prove said statement?

Because it is simply known. The non-Afghan mujahideen left, very few remained after the war. Those that did fought with Massoud. The Taliban themselves were made up initially of around 8000 Madrass students (hence the name Taliban, which means Students). I do not have to the letter figures, but finding general numbers are availible in any academic work on the subject, such as in the book I previously mentioned. I do not pretend that you have access to the reports I did through my coursework, as these are (declassified) intelligence briefs from chiefly Air Force analysts but none the less what I told you is what is known by the US and British intelligence services. This is not some hidden secret.

I do not care if you 'believe' me or not, particularly. I've told you the facts and you can accept them or continue to hold truth in the nonsense that the Taliban were mujahideen fighters from the war. Its simply not the facts and all of the source material draws the same conclusion. Where the myth that you are stating (and it is the generally held opinion by the majority, being non-informed) came from I'll never know.

[Mkuki]

Then how can you make a factual statement if there is no way to prove said statement?

Because it is simply known. The non-Afghan mujahideen left, very few remained after the war. Those that did fought with Massoud. The Taliban themselves were made up initially of around 8000 Madrass students (hence the name Taliban, which means Students). I do not have to the letter figures, but finding general numbers are availible in any academic work on the subject, such as in the book I previously mentioned. I do not pretend that you have access to the reports I did through my coursework, as these are (declassified) intelligence briefs from chiefly Air Force analysts but none the less what I told you is what is known by the US and British intelligence services. This is not some hidden secret.

I do not care if you 'believe' me or not, particularly. I've told you the facts and you can accept them or continue to hold truth in the nonsense that the Taliban were mujahideen fighters from the war. Its simply not the facts and all of the source material draws the same conclusion. Where the myth that you are stating (and it is the generally held opinion by the majority, being non-informed) came from I'll never know.

I never said the Taliban was Mujahadeen. I said that some mujahadeen joined the Taliban.

[Havenic Israel]

Because it is simply known. The non-Afghan mujahideen left, very few remained after the war. Those that did fought with Massoud. The Taliban themselves were made up initially of around 8000 Madrass students (hence the name Taliban, which means Students). I do not have to the letter figures, but finding general numbers are availible in any academic work on the subject, such as in the book I previously mentioned. I do not pretend that you have access to the reports I did through my coursework, as these are (declassified) intelligence briefs from chiefly Air Force analysts but none the less what I told you is what is known by the US and British intelligence services. This is not some hidden secret.

I do not care if you 'believe' me or not, particularly. I've told you the facts and you can accept them or continue to hold truth in the nonsense that the Taliban were mujahideen fighters from the war. Its simply not the facts and all of the source material draws the same conclusion. Where the myth that you are stating (and it is the generally held opinion by the majority, being non-informed) came from I'll never know.

I never said the Taliban was Mujahadeen. I said that some mujahadeen joined the Taliban.

No, you said "a lot" did. That is the issue and why I said you were incorrect

[Mkuki]

I never said the Taliban was Mujahadeen. I said that some mujahadeen joined the Taliban.

No, you said "a lot" did. That is the issue and why I said you were incorrect

Again, technicalities...

[Havenic Israel]

No, you said "a lot" did. That is the issue and why I said you were incorrect

Again, technicalities...

Eye rolling aside, that is not a technicality. The numbers of Mujahideen who joined the Taliban were insignificant.

[Mkuki]

Again, technicalities...

Eye rolling aside, that is not a technicality. The numbers of Mujahideen who joined the Taliban were insignificant.

You're arguing over the usage of one word. It is a technicality.

[Havenic Israel]

Eye rolling aside, that is not a technicality. The numbers of Mujahideen who joined the Taliban were insignificant.

You're arguing over the usage of one word. It is a technicality.

Its part of my training as a professional historian. Details such as that are of enormous importance in my field.

[Mkuki]

You're arguing over the usage of one word. It is a technicality.

Its part of my training as a professional historian. Details such as that are of enormous importance in my field.

I'm an amateur historian myself. I'd say, in my unprofessional opinion, that in this context it's really not a big difference. It's a little different than the difference between saying "Cannae was a Roman disaster" and "Cannae was just another defeat on the part of the Romans".

[Havenic Israel]

Its part of my training as a professional historian. Details such as that are of enormous importance in my field.

I'm an amateur historian myself. I'd say, in my unprofessional opinion, that in this context it's really not a big difference. It's a little different than the difference between saying "Cannae was a Roman disaster" and "Cannae was just another defeat on the part of the Romans".

Clearly you never took theory, because such an argument is made quite frequently in the academic community on the subject. The two are interesting perspectives, and yet have dramatically different consequences for the discussion of and understanding pertaining to the 2nd Punic War.

[Mkuki]

I'm an amateur historian myself. I'd say, in my unprofessional opinion, that in this context it's really not a big difference. It's a little different than the difference between saying "Cannae was a Roman disaster" and "Cannae was just another defeat on the part of the Romans".

Clearly you never took theory, because such an argument is made quite frequently in the academic community on the subject. The two are interesting perspectives, and yet have dramatically different consequences for the discussion of and understanding pertaining to the 2nd Punic War.

I think I'll stop here. I don't wish to argue over the technicalities of technicalities.

[Xanixi]

>doesn't want to provoke Russia
>destroys Russian-gifted equipment

Seems legit.

Btw, how (if they are, which I am assuming they are) is Syria going to pay for the S-300s?

It won't. Russia has a vested interest in keeping Assad in power.

Oh. That's cool.
Just wait 'til we start gifting our missiles around and see how Russia reacts.
Yo, Iraq, want some short-range ballistic missiles? Here ya go!

>doesn't want to provoke Russia
>destroys Russian-gifted equipment

Seems legit.

Btw, how (if they are, which I am assuming they are) is Syria going to pay for the S-300s?

The line between flagrantly and acceptably provocative action is a blurry one.
If IDF strikes the equipment but doesn't harm any Russian personnel, the action would likely be acceptable.
Sure, there will be the ritualistic dickwaving dance and condemnation by the Kremlin but thats about it.

If Russians are harmed or killed it becomes another matter entirely, Israel would be careful to aviod such a scenario

On the topic of payment, it is presumable the defense system has already been paid for and the contract has been in existence since before the eruption of the present shitstorm.

It would be acceptable to Russia. They don't give a damn; no Russians died.
Syrians died. Too many hits, and Syria might hit back (lolfully) at Israel. Any transgression on Israel causes "DAFUQ" reaction in Washington, who replies. This attracts Russia, who believes it was a setup to become involved and set up a puppet.

Suddenly, proxy warz.

>doesn't want to provoke Russia
>destroys Russian-gifted equipment

Seems legit.

Btw, how (if they are, which I am assuming they are) is Syria going to pay for the S-300s?

When they are deliverd it isn't Russia's problem anymore.

Syria will pay, it isn't Greece you know;)

I'd imagine Syria is a bit worse, actually.
Unless, you know, the economic troubles in Greece are equivalent to having a civil war waging all over your country for two years. If it is, what the fuck are the Greeks doing down there?

[Al-Quarra]

You rather have a country based on islamic law like Saudi-Arabia but then with Al-Qaeda in power?

I didn't say that, your just picking nonsensical ideas from thin air.

The thing is that such country will come if Assad falls.

[Al-Quarra]

It won't. Russia has a vested interest in keeping Assad in power.

Oh. That's cool.
Just wait 'til we start gifting our missiles around and see how Russia reacts.
Yo, Iraq, want some short-range ballistic missiles? Here ya go!

The line between flagrantly and acceptably provocative action is a blurry one.
If IDF strikes the equipment but doesn't harm any Russian personnel, the action would likely be acceptable.
Sure, there will be the ritualistic dickwaving dance and condemnation by the Kremlin but thats about it.

If Russians are harmed or killed it becomes another matter entirely, Israel would be careful to aviod such a scenario

On the topic of payment, it is presumable the defense system has already been paid for and the contract has been in existence since before the eruption of the present shitstorm.

It would be acceptable to Russia. They don't give a damn; no Russians died.
Syrians died. Too many hits, and Syria might hit back (lolfully) at Israel. Any transgression on Israel causes "DAFUQ" reaction in Washington, who replies. This attracts Russia, who believes it was a setup to become involved and set up a puppet.

Suddenly, proxy warz.

When they are deliverd it isn't Russia's problem anymore.

Syria will pay, it isn't Greece you know;)

I'd imagine Syria is a bit worse, actually.
Unless, you know, the economic troubles in Greece are equivalent to having a civil war waging all over your country for two years. If it is, what the fuck are the Greeks doing down there?

1. Iraq will only store them, they aren't going to use them against Syria;) Iraq actually supports the Syrian gouverment.

2. Greece is as good as bankrubt, Syria has a war by proxies. After that war (It does matter alot on how long its going to take) the country can be rebuild and the economy can quickly restore. Greece is just screwed with its economy, they will have a bad time for the coming 10/20 years.

[Mkuki]

I didn't say that, your just picking nonsensical ideas from thin air.

The thing is that such country will come if Assad falls.

All of that is an assumption that al Nusra, or any other Islamist group, seizes the reins of power.

[Al-Quarra]

The thing is that such country will come if Assad falls.

All of that is an assumption that al Nusra, or any other Islamist group, seizes the reins of power.

Well who else would? The FSA doesn't have a clear leadership and in some cities they already took the FSA flag down and putted an Al-Qaeda flag instead.

[Mkuki]

All of that is an assumption that al Nusra, or any other Islamist group, seizes the reins of power.

Well who else would? The FSA doesn't have a clear leadership and in some cities they already took the FSA flag down and putted an Al-Qaeda flag instead.

Given how confusing and messy this whole affair is I don't think you can make accurate predictions of the future. Especially for the rebels.