Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists

We knew it, but there was no real proof or study, until now.

Charles Lister, author of the analysis, said: "The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict. The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out."

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands. The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda.. Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle. There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

It is much more than Kerry & friends said it was. I also remember a recent video of McCain in which he was denying the facts (also the photos in which he was posing with 'rebels').

Al-Qaeda has assassinated several FSA rebel commanders in northern Latakia province in recent weeks, and locals say they fear this is part of a jihadist campaign to gain complete control of the territory. As well as being better armed and tougher fighters, ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra have taken control of much of the income-generating resources in the north of the country, including oil, gas and grain.

LINK

McCain's interest in Syria is bordering on obsession.

He is absolutely everywhere, with an opinion about everything relating to Syria. He is so keen on obliterating Assad's regime into the annals of history, it is becoming extremely suspicious.

Have no fear, if he had become President, he would be sending an invading party into Syria by now.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I agree with you there. If McCain had won the Presidency, I don't think we need even wonder about him asking Congress. It would definitely have been a simple 'notify' situation, just about the time satellite feeds indicated the first shots were being fired. Quite possibly Romney too, for that matter.

Nothing about Obama's past history or world view really indicates he'd be a warmonger like he's turning out to be. It really makes me think of strong forces behind him that I've never really had the feeling were there with others. Others didn't need help being warmongering jerks. It came naturally.

In a way, at this point? We may actually be kind of lucky we have a weak one like Obama. Oh, only for this very limited example...but at least he doesn't have the guts to jump out front and LEAD anywhere. It would have gotten us up a creek in a flash, this time, IMO.

reply to post by gosseyn


The CFR, Counsil on Foreign Relations, agrees.

www.cfr.org...

The SC took the Assad regime's seat at the Arab League summit in Dubai and opened its first embassy, in Qatar, in March 2013. The United States recognizes the coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people," hoping it will serve as a counterweight to extreme Islamist groups fighting in Syria, including Jabhat al-Nusra, which is tied to al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Ahrar al-Sham. These groups have proven among the most effective opposition fighters, and have begun establishing municipal governments in areas under their control. Foreign jihadis have joined their ranks and are streaming into Syria, officials say, at rates higher than that of Iraq at its insurgency's peak. Some analysts view the Syrian conflict as two parallel civil wars: one between the regime and the opposition, and the other between opposition moderates and extremists.

reply to post by gosseyn


We already knew this didn't we? As long as the truth is being told I am for it.

Obama waved a provision "Today" to Arm the friendly Al Keida (Misspell), whatever, I don't care anymore, no one is listening.

Meanwhile our Military can't have guns on (they called it a campus!?!!!) a Military base, but Our Government Can send Machine guns to Arm the Enemy!


Does anyone see............. We Are Now The Enemy!


Nice job people, Keep your hands up until they tell you to lower them.

reply to post by PRS395


Nah, the politicians, McCain, Obama, Kerry, and MSM prestitutes are pushing the agenda that the majority of rebels are "moderate" while Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions are the minority.

McCain: Most Syrian rebels are moderates

Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports

Obama, Kerry, and McCain have a ‘moderate’ problem in Syria

McCain Passionately Defends Syrian Opposition

Instead, he insisted that his regular contacts with the opposition convince him that Islamic extremists, including those who hail from the radical al Nusra offshoot of al Qaeda, “are in the minority” and lack a large following among Syrians.

Wait people wrapping themselves in religion while at war? That never happens. I am most Syrians look at this as a religous crusade to free themselves. Same thing everyone says in every war. That does not make you a Jihadist it barely makes you a Republican.

reply to post by gosseyn


I don't see why everything has to be a Jihad with these guys. Syria, Iraq, etc. They're all Muslims. While they're killing each other the West's pulling the old switcheroo with their resources.

reply to post by gosseyn


Recently I noticed that Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Al Qaeda fighters to stop teaming up with Syrian rebels and you have to know that the Syrian rebels have learned that teaming up with jihadists has only hurt their cause (or at least receiving any help from anyone). Hopefully, now we'll be able to get a better idea of which groups are where and who's who in the future.

The down side to all of this is knowing that Al Qaeda, all the other jihadists and the rebels are all going to have to turn on each other when/if Assad's regime ever falls. This could drag out forever, like Iraq.

reply to post by gosseyn

Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists

I'm sitting here wondering where are all the ones who just a couple of years ago were defending the 'Jihadists' as something not to be feared or scoffed at? I mean Islam has a set of 'Jihads' that every 'Good' Muslim must complete. I guess a 'Jihad' is only good when fighting Western forces eh?

Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle". Within the context of the classical Islam, particularly the Shiahs beliefs, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in Islamic God (Allah). However, the word has even wider implications.

Jihad is commonly used term for "Holy War", Jihad means "to struggle in the way of Allah". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status. In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.

There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle. The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties. This non-violent meaning is stressed by both Muslim and non-Muslim authors. However, there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.

The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle against the enemies of Islam.[2] This physical struggle can take a violent form or a non-violent form. The proponents of the violent form translate jihad as "holy war", although some Islamic studies scholars disagree. The Dictionary of Islam[2] and British-American orientalist Bernard Lewis both argue jihad has a military meaning in the large majority of cases.[13] Some scholars maintain non-violent ways to struggle against the enemies of Islam. An example of this is written debate, often characterized as "jihad of the pen".

According to the BBC, a third meaning of jihad is the struggle to build a good society. In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct"

Jihad

Deetermined
reply to post by gosseyn

 

Recently I noticed that Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Al Qaeda fighters to stop teaming up with Syrian rebels and you have to know that the Syrian rebels have learned that teaming up with jihadists has only hurt their cause (or at least receiving any help from anyone). Hopefully, now we'll be able to get a better idea of which groups are where and who's who in the future.

The down side to all of this is knowing that Al Qaeda, all the other jihadists and the rebels are all going to have to turn on each other when/if Assad's regime ever falls. This could drag out forever, like Iraq.

edit on 17-9-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

The rebels and jihadist started open fighting with each other this week. No idea if the the radicals will keep fighting Assad as will or just focus on the rebels.

reply to post by MrSpad

Wait people wrapping themselves in religion while at war? That never happens. I am most Syrians look at this as a religous crusade to free themselves. Same thing everyone says in every war. That does not make you a Jihadist it barely makes you a Republican.

And when you are elected as "anti-war" yet start more wars than the last two Presidents combined that makes you a typical democrat politician.

Suckers!

TPTB don't pick parties....they control parties.

Is there a point ?

Half are jihadists ?

Would that be Sunni AQ or Shia Hezbollah, and foreign figthers friendly to both sides ?

seabag
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Wait people wrapping themselves in religion while at war? That never happens. I am most Syrians look at this as a religous crusade to free themselves. Same thing everyone says in every war. That does not make you a Jihadist it barely makes you a Republican.

And when you are elected as "anti-war" yet start more wars than the last two Presidents combined that makes you a typical democrat politician.

Suckers!

TPTB don't pick parties....they control parties.

Which President are you talking about? I am completely missing the reference.

reply to post by neo96

Is there a point ?

Half are jihadists ?

Would that be Sunni AQ or Shia Hezbollah, and foreign figthers friendly to both sides ?

I try to understand the 'take' many here on ATS have on this issue but I'm still conflicted as to who the good guys are in that part of the world. Based on my own personal experiences, I’m confident those who are truly conducting "Jihad" are not on my side. The problem is that one man’s jihad is another man’s freedom fighter. Religion (and the intentional bastardization and exploitation of religious terms) has muddied the water. All the more reason the US should take our toys and leave the sandbox.

I’m unclear about the proper direction US should take and I CERTAINLY don’t trust the elected A-Holes in charge right now to make the right decision for me. Sorry for being skeptical but they haven’t exactly made the greatest decisions here at home. I have no reason to trust them abroad.

reply to post by MrSpad

Which President are you talking about? I am completely missing the reference.

Not the republican!

The one who acts worse and has a different title before his name; you know, the latest sock puppet in chief.

seabag
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Which President are you talking about? I am completely missing the reference.

Not the republican!

The one who acts worse and has a different title before his name; you know, the latest sock puppet in chief.

If your suggestion Obama has started more wars than the last two Presidents I would have to ask for a list because last I checked outside of some airstrikes in Libya everything else we have been involved had already started.

MrSpad

seabag
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Which President are you talking about? I am completely missing the reference.

Not the republican!

The one who acts worse and has a different title before his name; you know, the latest sock puppet in chief.

If your suggestion Obama has started more wars than the last two Presidents I would have to ask for a list because last I checked outside of some airstrikes in Libya everything else we have been involved had already started.

Really?

*He waged war in Libya.

*Covert drone war in Yemen.

*Covert drone war in Pakistan.

*Obvious covert war in Iran.

*Obvious covert war in Syria.

*Obvious covert war in Egypt.

*Proxy war in Somalia.

*Escalated the war in Afghanistan.

*Prolonged draw down of troops in Iraq.

The Nation has learned from well-placed special operations sources that among the countries where elite special forces teams working for the Joint Special Operations Command have been deployed under the Obama administration are: Iran, Georgia, Ukraine, Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Peru, Yemen, Pakistan (including in Balochistan) and the Philippines. These teams have also at times deployed in Turkey, Belgium, France and Spain. JSOC has also supported US Drug Enforcement Agency operations in Colombia and Mexico. The frontline for these forces at the moment, sources say, are Yemen and Somalia. "In both those places, there are ongoing unilateral actions," said a special operations source. "JSOC does a lot in Pakistan too." Additionally, these US special forces at times work alongside other nations' special operations forces in conducting missions in their home countries. A US special operations source described one such action where US forces teamed up with Georgian forces hunting Chechen rebels.

link

Just because ABC, MSNBC and CBS don’t call it “WAR” doesn’t mean it isn’t one.

Why are we still debating this?

The rebels suck.
Assad sucks.
Civil war sucks.
War sucks.
The US foreign policy sucks.

Why can't we concentrate on the only true good people?


The million+ refugees that are living in toilets because we give all our damned money to the fracking rebels!

reply to post by gosseyn


In Truth there are no moderates.