Dylith, Iraq, Kurdistan, and so forth

[umair127]

It didn't turn out well largely because (speculation here since games of 'what if' are always off) we didn't act strongly enough / quickly enough and that gave room and time for the rebellion to be overrun by Islamists backed by outside interests. Assad also held off a lot longer and better than hoped. We have been able to pressure Turkey and some Gulf states to stop their funding of said groups, and have also gotten Syria to agree to give up its chemical weapons (a slow going process, but still). Not sure what more we could expect since the diplomatic efforts to intervene more heavily were frustrated earlier on with legislative votes. Or rather, i'm not sure what more we should be expected to do here?

[zolace]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

I don't think Assad's government was stable. The civil war itself would suggest otherwise. But Assad has also historically been an "enemy" of the US a bit like Gaddafi only much less annoying. Assad supported Hamas and Hezbollah which put the administration against Israel and thus us. They supported for a time AQI in Iraq when they were fighting US occupation, the regime itself was very meddlesome in regional politics (particularly in Lebanon), and it was highly undemocratic and abusive. It was more of a threat to us and our allies than Saddam had been in Iraq; especially with their chemical weapons program and contacts with the North Koreans in uranium enrichment.

in other words its NEVER Obama's fault .

[umair127]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

I don't think Assad's government was stable. The civil war itself would suggest otherwise. But Assad has also historically been an "enemy" of the US a bit like Gaddafi only much less annoying. Assad supported Hamas and Hezbollah which put the administration against Israel and thus us. They supported for a time AQI in Iraq when they were fighting US occupation, the regime itself was very meddlesome in regional politics (particularly in Lebanon), and it was highly undemocratic and abusive. It was more of a threat to us and our allies than Saddam had been in Iraq; especially with their chemical weapons program and contacts with the North Koreans in uranium enrichment.

in other words its NEVER Obama's fault .

Why would you blame President Obama or any outside force for that matter for the civil war in Syria? That would be like me blaming the Bush administration for the instability in western Sudan simply because it happened while he was in office. That's dumb.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Because there are (was?) a greater disparity between Palestinian terror operatives residing in Syria-Damascus than AQI elements. Consider that Syria has provided support to AQI and allegedly other anti-coalition militias since approximately 2005. One has to speculate on the sudden political attitude adjustment.

[zolace]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Fallacious statement indicated by your reassertion above. Just for your information.

The point was that the US government shared a cohesive counter-terrorist and political relationship with Syria even during simultaneous engagements in Iraq with Syrian anti-government irregulars. Current numbers are not difficult to locate. DCIA Michael Hayden asserted in 2007 that "mid-range two hundred" terror suspects were being renditioned to Syria for post-blacksite interrogation. It is not unreasonable to presume that those figures are actually much higher. More importantly, we cannot presume that US-Syria detainee transfer programs stopped due to a new inbound administration. Guantanamo Bay, sir? Even with all the US legislation enacted against Syria (Syria Accountability Act for example) we were wittingly cooperating with Syria. Why did things change so suddenly?

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Because there are (was?) a greater disparity between Palestinian terror operatives residing in Syria-Damascus than AQI elements. Consider that Syria has provided support to AQI and allegedly other anti-coalition militias since approximately 2005. One has to speculate on the sudden political attitude adjustment.

What political attitude adjustment? Fighting against ISIS? that was AQI's call. We didn't initiate the civil war in Syria. there really isn't much for us to have to "vindicate".

[Rigon]

Unknown if you're vindicating the current situation because Syria was/is "probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East", but I hope not. Surely, Pakistan, Iran, and China are more deserving of an uprooting US-armed insurgency if we're citing state sponsored terrorism and gross human rights violations.

[zolace]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Because there are (was?) a greater disparity between Palestinian terror operatives residing in Syria-Damascus than AQI elements. Consider that Syria has provided support to AQI and allegedly other anti-coalition militias since approximately 2005. One has to speculate on the sudden political attitude adjustment.

What political attitude adjustment? Fighting against ISIS? that was AQI's call. We didn't initiate the civil war in Syria. there really isn't much for us to have to "vindicate".

The political attitude adjustment: Obama Administration ascending from low kinetic operations to arming anti-Assad forces to proactively pushing for air assaults/airstrikes. So, again, Aside from the SAD/JSOC raid into Abu Kamal, the current and previous administrations have been extremely reserved on the application of violence scale toward Syria.

Spearheading Tbilisi, aggression in Ukraine-Crimea, and recent involvement subverting US interests in Iraq; yet you still doubt that the motives for supporting Syrian insurgents are not founded on questionable Russian statecraft? And I think it's safe to say that you and I both know what Syria's primary puppeteer -- Iran/Hezbollah -- are responsible for. We allegedly "didn't initiate the civil war in Syria", but we certainly are prolonging it for a punitive reason.

[noviapriani]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so.

Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so.

Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here.

Syria has long been a major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran Is a pretty large supporter of external militant and terrorist organizations as well in both central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The other large one was Libya under Gaddafi.

The role that many Gulf States like Qatar, the U.A.E. etc play tends to be different than Iran, and Syria. Saudi Arabia was a mix of the two strategies. A lot of money for terrorism is funneled through non-state actors in the Gulf. So the U.A.E. was a big staging point for funds for Al Qaeda Central, and a lot of Gulf Charities can redirect funds to terrorism organizations as well as individual financiers.

Syria's role has been reported for years by the Combating Terrorism Center, IHS Janes, The Institute for the Study of War, the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, SITE intelligence, and the Long War Journal. It isn't really a secret or unknown aspect of the Assad regime's past state sponsoring of terrorism. We've also conducted several raids against AQI stationed in Syria long before the current civil war.

Even now though Assad still funnels money to the ISIS in exchange for oil (as reported by the Terrorism Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation) even as they fight each other.

I'd be happy to find more detailed sources for you when I have more time later, but here is one small article from the Long War Journal detailing one incident: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...an_officia.php

[noviapriani]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so.

Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here.

Syria has long been a major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran Is a pretty large supporter of external militant and terrorist organizations as well in both central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The other large one was Libya under Gaddafi.

The role that many Gulf States like Qatar, the U.A.E. etc play tends to be different than Iran, and Syria. Saudi Arabia was a mix of the two strategies. A lot of money for terrorism is funneled through non-state actors in the Gulf. So the U.A.E. was a big staging point for funds for Al Qaeda Central, and a lot of Gulf Charities can redirect funds to terrorism organizations as well as individual financiers.

Syria's role has been reported for years by the Combating Terrorism Center, IHS Janes, The Institute for the Study of War, the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, SITE intelligence, and the Long War Journal. It isn't really a secret or unknown aspect of the Assad regime's past state sponsoring of terrorism. We've also conducted several raids against AQI stationed in Syria long before the current civil war.

Even now though Assad still funnels money to the ISIS in exchange for oil (as reported by the Terrorism Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation) even as they fight each other.

I'd be happy to find more detailed sources for you when I have more time later, but here is one small article from the Long War Journal detailing one incident: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...an_officia.php

Israel's stake in the situation plays a bigger role in US decision making. A weak Syria gives Israel a stronger position in occupying the Golan Heights.

[umair127]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

[noviapriani]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.