Syrian rebels: "We have a big fight against the Jews ahead of us"

If this is an Arab "spring" I wonder what the Arab summer will look like?

"a Saudi-backed project to destabilize Syria. "

I tried to tell you.
Saudi Arabia is behing all what is happening in the middle east (i.e the arab spring). And the Saudis will never do anything unless they have a green light from the US.

this article is ridiculous.

it says: "In the province of Homs alone, rebel fighters have driven some 80,000 Christians out of their homes."

but in fact, "the shelling of civilian neighborhoods. . . . drove most civilians out of the city of Homs, for example, including some 150,000 Christians."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/syria-expels-activist-roman-catholic-priest.html?pagewanted=all

aha, so it the bombardment by bashar assad that drove out the christians, NOT the rebels.

what's more: "Father Paolo said he harbored a certain sympathy for the churches headquartered in Damascus because, like all Syrian organizations, they were infiltrated by the secret police."

yes, they are infiltrated, everybody knows that. and these are the sources feeding info to haaretz.

"I was really astonished that the patriarch of Moscow was not able to ask the Russian partner of the Syrian power to protect the Christians of Homs,” he said. “The old Christian presence in Homs is destroyed.” "

yes, the syrian regime is bombarding homs, ALL people are leaving, not just Christians. But that dishonnest article could have at least mentioned the number of muslims who also left homs. but noooooo, 80,000 christians left, and no mention of any muslims (which happen to be several times that number)

"John R. Bradley recently warned in Britain's Jewish Chronicle, Israel may find itself "confronting an even more determined, uncontrollable and fanatical enemy than the Assad regime has ever proved to be." "

oh really? are you sure of that? the assad regime had soviet support and caused several defeats to israel through terrorist proxies. not to mention that this regime destroyed the christians of lebanon. but who is going to support the islamist rebels? saudi arabia? ok. does the united states have more leverage over saudi arabia or the soviet union? i think the answer is obvious. after the collapse of assad, any jihadists left cannot do 1% of the damage to israel that assad did. by the way, did you see what the lybians did to the islamists in benghazi today? (let's see if mr robert spencer is going to post that inconvenient fact, which doesn't fit into his neat "theory of everything.") what will prevent the syrians form doing the same in the future?

is it possible that the syrian opposition is tolerating the islamists because they are desperate for fighter but after the victory they plan to kick them out? the libyans are doing it... the iraqi sunnis did it in 2007 (then reversed that decision after the shiite power grab).. so why can't the syrians do it too?

@RR

"this article is ridiculous."---

Of course, of course... all these sunni majority rebels are nothing more than a peaceful, democratic, anti-sharia army and if they ever rule Syria is gonna be a lovely, peaceful and sharia free zone where atheists, christians, buddhists, shintoists, agnostics, jews, sikhs, hindues... etc. everyone is gonna live together in harmony!.

meryl,
if the rebels win, syria will be a mess for a while, but the removal of assad would be a major strategic victory for the west. remember, the iranians and hezbollah are fighting on the side of assad to the death. of course the sunnis are fighting against him, and yes jihadists having been moving to syria. there are two sides to this war. mr spencer wants the rebels defeated, which is equivalent to having iran and hezbollah win. we are having a discussion over which koutcome is better. mr spencer picked his side. i am making the case that he's dead wrong. nothing could be worse than the assad regime winning this war. i am lebanese christian. i know the details of the region better than mr spencer and i know the lies of the syrian regime, which i have followed all my life. it is one of handful of most evil regimes to have ever existed. mr spencer is being fooled by the regime's propaganda that it is defending the christians of syria and that is fighting jihadists. nothing could be further from the truth. this regime has supported all jihadist organizations... hezbollah, fath al islam, fath al intifada, jund el sham, al qaeda in iraq, etc etc

buraq,
yes i am making "what ifs" about the future. because iran, the current number 1 enemy of the west, if fighting to the death to save that regime.. so maybe you and mr spencer should also do some "what if" scenarios in case iran and hezbollah came out the winners from that war.

you can read about padre paolo from sources other than the new york time, i just had that one available. i am not liberal lefty. just the opposite. mr spencer has always done a great job but when it came to syria he is DEAD DEAD DEAD wrong!

(you said mr spencer posted an article about benghazi. that's good. i didn't notice it. sorry)

Let the dogs bark. Syria is the new Balkans and is heading toward a very long civil war and complete disintegration. There will not be a "Syria" after this. There can't be considering their demographic composition and the various forces meddling there.

They can't take any responsibility for themselves always blaming others when they have no clue how to make their own society functional. Back to the future bro. No one wants to live in a culture that stones innocent people for things they didn't do.

Hugh Fitzgerald on Syria.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/43723
Saturday, 1 September 2012
What Is Best For The West In Syria?

1. It is not ruled by Sunni Muslims.
2. It is not "democracy."
3. It is continued rule, however necessarily ruthless, by the Alawites, supported by Christians, Druse, Kurds (who may be allowed to form a rump state of their own, for the Alawites are unlikely to want to extend their fight for survival to include suppressing the Kurds who, in any case, are useful insofar as they represent a threat to Erdogan and his ilk).
4. It is a weakening of the ties between Syria and Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
Some may dismiss this as impossible. But why?
The Alawites will do whatever they have to do to survive, and to prevent re-domination by Sunni Muslims.
To date, they have tried everything.
They tried the Ba'athist business which in Syria was used to disguise an Alawite dictatorship, as in Iraq it was used to disguise a Sunni Arab dictatorship.
Then they allied themselves with those who were willing to see them as real Muslims -- the Shi'a rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- and with the terrorist organization that, by threatening the Christians, the Druse, the Sunnis -- have helped them to continue to dominate Lebanon, which has been, as the boys at Bruce Henderson's BCG used to say, a Cash Cow.
But that alliance with Iran and Hezbollah will last only so long as its benefits outweigh the costs.
It may be that an attack, by forces large or small, on Iran's science project will so discombobulate the Iranians, and perhaps, within months of the public humiliation, lead to the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic (as the Israeli attack on Entebbe spelled, though not overnight, the end of Idi Amin's rule because he had been so publicly and decisively defeated).

The ideal outcome for the world's Infidels would be this:
The slow and steady degradation of Syrian military, especially air, power, by the attacks of Sunni Muslims.
Attacks by Sunni Muslims on Iranian forces sent to help the Syrians.
Attacks by Sunni Muslims in Lebanon on Hezbollah in revenge for what is going on in Syria.
More economic as well as military aid sent by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the regime in Syria, furtther enraging Sunni Muslims everywhere -- including those in Iraq who, though outnumbered, are much more aggressive than the Shii'a they keep attacking.

Growing fury among Iranians at the expense of supporting Syria (and Hezbollah), and especial fury if and when the nuclear project comes to a sudden halt at the realization at how much that project has cost, and how much economic damage has been done, and will be done (for sanctions shoudl continue for many years to come, until the definitive end of both the nuclear project and of the Islamic Republic of Iran).

It would be ideal if the war in Syria went on forever, just as the war between iran and iraq went on forever.

Everyone is off to a good start. And if the Islamic Republic allied themselves with Iran, and Hezbollah, to increase their power, their wealth (from the cash cow of Lebanon), their military strength, their legitimacy in the Muslim world (Alawites being keenly aware that Sunni Musliims do not regard them as real Muslims, not even as "real" as the Shia in Iran).
and If eventually they realize that Iran, and Hezbollah, cannot give them the support they need, or if the costs (vis-a-vis the American government, and the Israelis who will not hesitate to destroy the Syrian airforce if there is a peep out of Syria.

Just as Egyptian generals of a certain age remember keenly what happened to their forces in 1967 and 1973, the Alawites remember how, the last time the Syrian military challenged the Israelis, 82 of their planes were shot down without a single Israeli loss). , but eventually, as the Alawites become more desperate, and especially if the Islamic Republic of Iran is permanently weakened by the damage done to its science project.

If the war in Syria were to go on for a long time, gradually the Iranians will have to abandon them, and so too will Hezbollah.

That does not mean, however, that they will necessarily be without Russia's protection at the U.N. (and possibly military supplies).
And it does not mean that they necessarily will be defeated, for with the Christians, Druse, and Kurds terrified by the prospect of Sunni Arab rule, and a not inconsiderable number of the Sunnis, those who regard with dismay the possibility of a takeover by other, but fanatical Sunnis, they may be able to hold on. Just.

And for them to hold on, but just, is exactly what one wishes the Alawites to be able to do.
Posted on 09/01/2012 7:45 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

RR may find this sort of analysis extremely discomfiting.

And a bit more, in introductory remarks to this:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/44225
Monday, 1 October 2012
Islamic Republic Of Iran Spends $10 Billion To Prop Up Assad

And now, of course, majority-Sunni Muslim Turkey looks like being sucked into the maelstrom...which would be an EXCELLENT moment for NATO to cut Turkey loose and stand well back, so as to avoid the non-Muslim NATO countries' being sucked in along with Turkey.

Long, long ago, when Shiite Iran and Sunni Muslim Iraq were slugging it out, the story goes that somebody asked the Israeli PM what he thought.

He is said to have replied sardonically that he wished them a long and healthy war.

Left to themselves, without *any* need for any sort of interference from outsiders - and non-Muslims are wisest to refrain from siding with any of the Muslim parties involved, just stand well back, and especially NOT receive any 'refugees' from out of the mess, *unless* those refugees are from the remnant non-Muslim minority groups, fleeing a situation where both sides will periodically attack *them* - Muslims will fight, and fight, and fight. And while they are busy using up men and materiel fighting each other, they have less to devote to fighting *us*.