The Syrian Army has reported an operation northeast of the ancient city of Palmyra on Thursday which led to the rescue of 19 Druze hostages. The women and children were being held by ISIS fighters.
The Druze were some of more than 30 hostages taken by ISIS during July attacks against the Sweida Province, which also killed hundreds. A handful of hostages had already been released, and some others were executed. It is unclear if, following this rescue, all are now accounted for.
Showing little interest in the Syrian rebellion, the Druze found themselves, like many religious minorities in the country, accused of being loyal to the Assad government. This has made them targets for rebels, especially Islamist groups like ISIS.
While ISIS holds little territory anymore in Syria or Iraq, there are still many thousands of fighters loyal to them, mostly scattered around Syria’s eastern desert regions. This groups continue to carry out attacks as the opportunity presents itself.
And where exactly is the territory in question? After all these years we sjouldvknow Syrian geography. So, is ISIS stsying slive staging hit and run attacks in
A/ Syrian Givernment held territory
B/Turkey and its assiciated group territory
C/ US/ SDF territory
If you answered c, you were right. Now, next set of questions:
Who is feeding them in the desert?
Who us providing srms?
Who is providing transport vehicles and gas
Who us providing computers, cell ohones?
Whi is providing salary to soldjers?
None of the above exists in the desert. Could it be at taxpayers’s expense? Or if not, at the expense of our regional allies? Why are we not stopping them — since they are right under our nose? Or we just fo not have a clue as for the purpose of our presence there.
After all there years we still must pretend that the groups like Nusra, Ahrar Asham or ISIS were created by ordinary Syrian population rebelling against the state personified conveniently in the President Assad. Since it has become so abundantly clear that these are terrorist organizations, organized, trained, funded and armed by interfering Western countries and regional ensblers, funders and ideological brains — is there some reason for continuing cslling them “rebels”? Also, if any one knows of ONE group that was/is a genuinely Syrian rebel group, that is — not sponsored by external force — let me know.
All if them are to my knowledge TERRORIST groups that used extreme violence and cruelty over civilians in order to frighten them, to force them to give them miney , half if any orofit they make in any business, forcibly take their boys into their ranks and kidnap girls for “narrisge”.
And this method worked in Sunni communiyies, but those they considered useless — like Druze, Shia, and Christians they either kidnapped for money or killed.
If we are still pretending that it us not so, that armed groups actually represent some political opposition — why the delusion? As if these EVER had a political agenda, ever got any followers’ hearts and minds? Git cuvilians on their side? No. Survivors of long term life as hostages — like popuation of Aleppo — have told incredible stories of cruelty and abuse, while we depicted those monsters as “defenders”. So, why us USIS suddenly active, after it nursed jtself back into health jn US controlled area?
Time fir SOMEBIDY to clean up the mess, and be done with ISIS R&R.
” is there some reason for continuing cslling them ‘rebels?'”
Yes.
That reason is: Words mean things.
You are avoiding the answer. Then why
bother answering? Words mean things. If course they do. THEN APPLY THEM.
So, what “things” are we talking about? Rebels tend to represent someone — and in the name of thise segments of population take a lead and rebel. They state their reasons and their goals. Population or segment of population follows them and supports them.
No Syrian armed group expressed any interest in political or social goals of any kind. They killed population that objected to their seizing the power. These groups have no political agenda, are only interested in killing anyone that stood in their way. Their goal was chaos and destruction of all social institutions. They are terrorists living of foreign paycheck. Executing the ibjective of pay masters. They roam unchecked in enfeebled state, destroying all human institutions from the inside. And they live in packs along with their families. Today, there are many orphans left in both Syria and Iraq — the human cost of experimentation with Islamic cult mercenary packs.
The appropriate word for groups whose only objective is terrorizing pooulation until they submit — is terrorist groups. And as if yet, no ounishment is matted to the architects, financiers and logistical enablers of this type of war waging. Providers of religious ideology, arms, trucks, food and computers enabled terrorists, while population was left helpless at their mercy. Syrian Army was unable to jump and defend every village terrorists seized. Population was left at the mercy of welll trained and equipped thugs.
So, let us not talk abstractions — name places, name names of groups, name their local leaders. I wiuld be gratefull if you could name JUST ONE group in Syria that never tortured and executed innocent civilian population. Name region that supported them without coercion?
Words do have meaning — let us use them appropriatelly. Otherwise, we become part of fake news universe. Let us not be shy — calling terrorists, terrorists. But to be absolutely accurate — let us make sure that if any honorable rebels exist, thst they are named and located.
Ir you can just hint — we are not allowed to badmouth Syrian terrorists, lets call them all rebels — including Al-Qaeda and ISIS and call it a day. I can accept that.
You use the word “rebel” and the word “terrorist” as if they are two mutually exclusive things. They aren’t.
A “rebel” is someone trying to overthrow a government.
A “terrorist” is someone using violence against non-combatants to create a climate of terror for political purposes.
It is entirely possible for someone to be both a “rebel” and a “terrorist.” It is also entirely possible for someone to be just one or the other.
Every native Syrian who fought or fights to overthrow Assad is a “rebel.” That’s just a plain and irrefutable fact. It remains a fact even if the rebel receives outside assistance. It remains a fact even if the rebel is also a terrorist.
Your objection to the word “rebel” is that it is not biased in favor of your ideological values, not that it isn’t applicable.