Syria: Cameron and Obama agree to military strike over chemical weapons

[izzyscout21]

Iran

Iran has been Syria's main backer in the region since well before the current conflict and has been highly critical of any prospect of intervention.

It has warned a top UN official visiting Tehran of "serious consequences" of any military action.

Foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi also repeated claims that it was in fact rebels who used chemical weapons, AFP reports.

[bacpacker]

Here is a new story I just found. Quite a different take on possible outcomes than is getting much discussion.

http://blogs.csoonline.com/global-se...ck-against-usa

Could Syria launch a major cyberattack against the USA?
Are US businesses ready?
Posted September 02, 2013 to Global Security |
As the US government debates the pros and cons of a use of force against Syria over the coming days and weeks, should our leaders also consider whether pro-Syrian forces might launch a cyberattack against US critical infrastructure in retaliation?
There are many important questions that are surfacing regarding this topic. Some of these include: How dangerous could an online attack really be? What is the most likely scenario? Are owners and operators of US critical infrastructure ready to defend the power grid, transportation systems our water supply and more? Are there steps that chief information security officers (CISOs) and other technology leaders should be taking now to prepare? Or, is any cyberthreat resulting from current events in the Middle East just overblown?
My view: American businesses should hope for the best, while preparing for the worst.
Recent Warnings of Coming Cyberattack
Yesterday, I posted this blog over at Govtech.com which highlighted Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s outgoing speech at the National Press Club last week. Here is an excerpt that I think everyone who has a role in protecting critical infrastructure in America should take very seriously:
“Our country will, for example, at some point, face a major cyber event that will have a serious effect on our lives, our economy, and the everyday functioning of our society.
While we have built systems, protections and a framework to identify attacks and intrusions, share information with the private sector and across the government, and develop plans and capabilities to mitigate the damage, more must be done, and must be done quickly....”
Background of the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA)
There has been plenty of press coverage regarding the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA). Krebs on Security recently provided this background piece on the SEA and their potential capabilities. Most recently, the SEA was able to bring down the New York Times.
But can they much more? Or, if they work with others who may sympathize with their viewpoint on world-events, could they cause serious damage – such as the “major cyber event” described by Secretary Napolitano?
These questions have become hot topics online. Consider these three perspectives:
How Serious is the Threat of a Syrian Cyberattack?
US Threat: Syria to retaliate with a cyber attack?
How Real is the Threat of Syrian Cyber Retaliation?

Be Prepared
While opinions vary widely on the SEA’s cyber capability to cause harm, businesses are preparing. National Public Radio (NPR) reported that US firms are taking notice:
"A lot of companies are coming and asking us to do assessments on the Syrian Electronic Army and other actors in the broader region and how they may suffer attacks in the coming weeks from them," says Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer at CrowdStrike, which provides companies with cybersecurity advice and assistance.
"My phone has been buzzing off the hook over the last few days because of this," he says.
At the same time, as the NPR report makes clear, there has not been any special alerts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or others to take special steps – at least not yet.
Bloomberg ran this piece last week which offered suggestions for banks and utilities to prepare for a possible Syrian cyberattack. I think these words from Michael Chertoff, who is the former Secretary of DHS are very important and relevant:
“The line between national security and private security is eroding,” said Chertoff, founder of a Washington consulting company. “It is a reasonable concern to be prepared for the possibility of some kind of retaliation -- asymmetric retaliation -- if we take action in Syria.”
The question remains, are we ready? If the Congress votes for military action, we are about to find o
- See more at: http://blogs.csoonline.com/global-se....nCy1F2nv.dpuf

[Stg1swret]

More news :http://rt.com/news/naval-forces-syria-strike-514/

RT
September 7, 2013

Mounting pressure for a Western strike on Syria has seen naval forces both friendly and hostile to Damascus build up off the embattled country’s coastline.

Credit: Public Domain
Credit: Public Domain

The potential of a US strike against Syria in response to an August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb gained steam on Wednesday, when a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad’s government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.

President Obama has decided to put off military action until at least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure.

Following the August 21 Ghouta Attack, which killed anywhere between 355 to 1,729 people, the diplomatic scramble to launch or stave off a military strike on Syria was mirrored by the movement of naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria.

The deployment of US and allied naval warships in the region has been matched by the deployment of Russian naval warships in the region.

While the Western vessels have in many cases been deployed in the event a military strike against Syria gets a green light, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.

Below is a brief summary of the naval hardware currently amassed off Syria’s shores.

USA

The US Navy has five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers off the coast of Syria, which its top admiral says is “fully ready” for a wide range of possible actions.

The USS Ramage, USS Mahan, USS Gravely and USS Barry are each armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,151 miles) and are used for precise targeting.

The ships are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the vessels from air attacks.

On August 29, the USS Stout was sent to relieve the USS Mahan, but a defense official told AFP that both ships might remain in the area for the time being.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday that the US ships are prepared for what he called a “vast spectrum of operations,” including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Syria, as was done in Libya in 2011, and protecting themselves in the event of retaliation, AP reports.

In addition to the destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines off the coast of Syria. At one time these subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Nowadays, they are capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

It was also announced on Monday that the US had deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship, to the Eastern Mediterranean.

The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” a defense official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The deployment of the USS Antonio comes despite promises from President Obama that no amphibious landing is on the agenda, as the US has ostensibly ruled out any “boots on the ground.”

While the wording of the draft resolution set to be put before the House does not permit a ground invasion, the wording of the text could potentially allow troops to carry out non-offensive operations within Syria, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.

On Monday, it was also announced the USS Nimitz super carrier had moved into the Red Sea, though it had not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited US military strike on Syria, US officials told ABC News.

The other ships in the strike group are the cruiser USS Princeton and the destroyers USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.

The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission, but was shifted in the event its resources are needed to “maximize available options.”

The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is also in the northern Arabian Sea.

Russia

Russia, Syria’s longtime ally and primary arms supplier, has its only overseas naval base located in the Syrian port of Tartus, which has reportedly been used to support Russia’s growing number of naval patrols on the Mediterranean. However, Russia insists recent efforts to bolster its naval presence in the region are not in response to Western threats of a military strike.

Reported movements of many Russian ships in the region are coming from anonymous Russian defense ministry sources and have not been confirmed. RT contacted the Russian Navy to ask for confirmation of the reported ship movements, though no comment was forthcoming.

On Friday, for example, the large landing ship, Nikolai Filchenkov, was reportedly dispatched from the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it is eventually expected to reach the Syrian coast, a source told Interfax News Agency.

“The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.

RIA news agency quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying on Friday that the frigate, Smetlivy, would leave for the Mediterranean on September 12-14, and the corvette Shtil and missile boat Ivanovets would approach Syria at the end of the month.

The Russian destroyer Nastoichivy, which is the flagship of the Baltic fleet, is also expected to join the group in the region.

Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was unable to comment on specific reports, said on Thursday the Russian navy currently had a “pretty strong group” there.

“The Russian navy does not intend to take part directly or indirectly in a possible regional conflict,” he told the state Rossiya 24 broadcaster.

“Our navy vessels are a guarantee of stability, guarantee of peace, an attempt to hold back other forces ready to start military action in the region.”

Also reportedly in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.

They are expected to be joined by the guided-missile cruiser Moskva.

The Moskva, set to arrive in a little over a week’s time, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region.

“The plans of the naval unit under the command of Rear Admiral Valery Kulikov had to be changed a little. Instead of visiting a Cape Verde port, the cruiser Moskva is heading to the Strait of Gibraltar. In about ten days, it will enter the eastern Mediterranean, where it will replace the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev as the flagship of the operative junction of the Russian Navy,” a source told Interfax on Wednesday.

Panteleyev incidentally, only arrived in the east Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after leaving the Far-Eastern port city of Vladivostok on March 19 to join the Russian standing naval force as its flagship.

The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship, Priazovye, is also reportedly on its way to join the group in the Eastern Mediterranean. Accompanied by the two landing ships, Minsk and Novocherkassk, the intelligence ship passed through the ‘Istanbul Strait’ on Thursday, which helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia.

France

On August 31, French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, and the transport ship, Dixmude, were in the Mediterranean. French officials denied they are in the region to participate in military action against Syria, but were rather taking part in training and operation preparations.

Despite their presence in the region, France currently has no ship-based missiles, so any offensive action would come from the air in the form of long-range Scalp missiles, similar to those the nation used in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, Time reports.

Italy

Two Italian warships set sail for Lebanon on Wednesday in a bid to protect 1,100 Italian soldiers in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Syria’s southeastern neighbor, Agence France Presse reported.

The Italian ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a torpedo destroyer boat departed from Italy’s southeastern coast on Wednesday and would provide additional protection to the soldiers in the event the Syrian conflict further deteriorates.

UK

As of August 29, the Royal Navy’s Response Force Task Group was deployed in the Mediterranean as part of long-planned exercise Cougar 13. The force includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious, type-23 frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Montrose, amphibious warship HMS Bulwark and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.
The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in Gibraltar.

On the same day that British media started touting Britain’s “arsenal of military might” which would be available in the event of intervention, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes. In light of the shocking parliamentary defeat, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would only be able to offer the US “diplomatic support.”

The UK’s Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the UK would not seek a further vote on action in Syria.

The real question now is will we strike Syria, and if so what will the response if any be. The pucker factor is pretty high.

[Stg1swret]

More news:full story herehttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...l-weapons.html


Numerous Intelligence Officials Question Administration’s Claims
Washington’s Blog
September 7, 2013
Preface: Without doubt, intelligence is being manipulated to justify war against Syria. Here, here,here, here and here.
Without doubt, the Syrian rebels had access to chemical weapons … and have apparently used them in the recent past.
Associated Press reported last week:
An intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
***
Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
Reuters notes today:
With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.
No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.
Indeed, numerous intelligence officers say that the rebels likely carried out the August 21st attack.
For example, the Daily Caller reports:
The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.
According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.
***
The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC.
According to the doctored report, the chemical attack was carried out by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an elite unit commanded by Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.
However, the original communication intercepted by Unit 8200 between a major in command of the rocket troops assigned to the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, and the general staff, shows just the opposite.
The general staff officer asked the major if he was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. From the tone of the conversation, it was clear that “the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions,” the former officers say.
According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major “hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.
The report contains a note at the end that the major was interrogated by Syrian intelligence for three days, then returned to command of his unit. “All of his weapons were accounted for,” the report stated.
***
An Egyptian intelligence report describes a meeting in Turkey between military intelligence officials from Turkey and Qatar and Syrian rebels. One of the participants states, “there will be a game changing event on August 21st” that will “bring the U.S. into a bombing campaign” against the Syrian regime.
The chemical weapons strike on Moudhamiya, an area under rebel control, took place on August 21. “Egyptian military intelligence insists it was a combined Turkish/Qatar/rebel false flag operation,” said a source familiar with the report.
[A "false flag" is a ploy for starting war which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years.]
Agents provacateurs are as old as warfare itself. What better than a false flag attack, staged by al Qaeda and its al Nusra front allies in Syria, to drag the United States into a war?
And 12 very high-level former intelligence officials wrote the following memorandum to Obama today:
We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”
***
There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.
According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.
We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.
Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government
The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.
This article was posted: Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 5:34 am

[The Stig]

Original story HERE at millitary.com

Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops

Sep 14, 2013

Military.com| by Richard Sisk

The White House and the Pentagon have repeatedly ruled out "boots on the ground" in Syria, but Defense Department officials were less certain Thursday on whether U.S. military personnel might be sent to help secure or destroy Syria's chemical weapons.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little gave a vague answer when asked if U.S. troops were prepared to assist should an international agreement allow Russia to take control of the tons of chemical weapons believed to be in the stockpiles of President Bashar al-Assad.

"I'm not going to speculate on who may or may not be participating in a process that may or may not take place," Little said. "We've got to see where the process goes" before the U.S. military considers involvement, he said.

The first steps in the process were taking place in Geneva, where Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting for a second day with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Moscow's proposal to have international teams take control of the chemical weapons.

Syria has tentatively agreed to the Russian initiative and also agreed to join the international ban on chemical and biological weapons.

Lavrov has urged the U.S. to speed the negotiations by dropping the threat to launch strikes on Syria, but Little said "the threat of military action is driving the process forward."

To back up the threat, the U.S. was keeping four destroyers off the Syrian coast and the Nimitz carrier strike group in the Red Sea, though some of the ships may be replaced if the negotiations are drawn out, Little said.

"We have a mix of assets that would be available" to back up the threat, Little said. He wouldn't comment on whether submarines were also in the Mediterranean to join with the surface ships in launching Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. Little stressed that "we remain fully prepared to act" in the event that the talks with the Russians fail.

Any strike on Syria would also likely include B-52 bombers and possibly B-2 Spirit bombers firing cruise missiles from "stand-off" positions beyond the range of Syrian air defenses.

In a phone call Friday morning to British Defense Minister Philip Hammond, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel provided an "update on U.S. activities in the eastern Mediterranean" in response to the alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 on the Damascus suburbs, Little said.

Little declined comment on whether Hammond and Hagel discussed the possible use by the U.S. of the British airbase at Akrotiri on Cyprus, which is about 160 miles from the Syrian coast.

Last Sunday, the British Ministry of Defense confirmed that Typhoon interceptors had scrambled from Akrotiri to confront Syrian fighters that had flown into international air space near Cyrpus.

In a statement, the Ministry of Defense said that "Typhoon Air Defense Aircraft operated from RAF (Royal Air Force) Akrotiri to investigate unidentified aircraft to the east of Cyprus; the aircraft were flying legally in international airspace and no intercept was required."

The Syrian planes were believed to have been two Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft that were flying "low and fast," the Daily Mail newspaper reported.

Before the stunning Aug. 30 vote by the British parliament against the use of force in Syria, Britain had sent six Typhoons to Akrotiri.

"This is purely a prudent and precautionary measure to ensure the protection of UK interests and the defense of our Sovereign Base Areas at a time of heightened tension in the wider region. This is a movement of defensive assets operating in an air-to-air role only," an RAF spokesman said at the time.

At the White House Friday, President Obama discussed Syria with the visiting Amir of Kuwait, Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah. Kuwait has been one of the Gulf states along with Qatar and Saudi Arabia that have been supplying the rebels in Syria with money and, allegedly, arms.

"Our two countries are in agreement that the use of chemical weapons that we saw in Syria was a criminal act," Obama said. "I shared with the Amir my hope that the negotiations that are currently taking place between Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov in Geneva bear fruit."

Obama said "any agreement needs to be verifiable and enforceable and we agreed that, ultimately, what's needed for the underlying conflict is a political settlement."

[The Stig]

Original story HERE at Isrealnationnews.com

Report: Assad Scattering Chemical Weapons

Despite agreeing to part ways with his deadly arsenal, Wall Street Journal says the Assad regime is playing a game of hide and seek.

By Adam Ross
First Publish: 9/13/2013, 9:56 AM

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, Bashar Al-Assad has begun scattering his massive stockpile of chemical weapons to as many as 50 different sites across the country.

The US newspaper claimed in a report Friday that a secretive military unit at the center of the Syrian chemical weapons program had been charged with moving the lethal stockpile, making it difficult for the international community to track. The newspaper cited US and Europeans intelligence agencies as saying: "Unit 450 is in charge of mixing and deploying chemical munitions, and it provides security at chemical sites."

The move is in contrast to commitments made by Assad to hand over his chemical weapons in a Russian deal that would prevent a military strike on his regime. As recently as Friday morning, the UN announced that it had received a letter from the Syrian government asking to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.

The US threatened an attack on Syrian military installations following its accusation that Assad was behind a sarin gas attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21 the US says killed more than 1400 civilians.

The report in the Wall Street Journal quoted US officials as saying the recent move had led to increased doubts among intelligence agencies as to the locations of Syria's chemical weapons:

"We know a lot less than we did six months ago about where the chemical weapons are," one official was quoted as saying.

The report also suggested that any future US strike would need to be careful it did not destabilize unit 450 which it said had Syria's estimated 1000 tonnes of chemical weapons under tight security.

"If you attack them you may reduce the security of their weapons, which is something we certainly don't want," the report quoted Jeffrey White, a veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency and a defense fellow at The Washington Institute.

The report also stated that although tracking the movement of the weapons was not always easy to do, when chemical munitions were deployed in the field, Unit 450 would need to pre-deploy heavy equipment to chemical mixing areas, which the US. and Israel were able to track.

As US-Russian talks to formulate a response to the crisis continue in Geneva, US Secretary of State John Kerry issued a warning to the Syrian President that a US strike was still possible.

From the "well, no shit Sherlock" files......

[The Stig]

Original story HERE at the Telegraph

Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report

Nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria are now aligned to jihadist or hardline Islamist groups according to a new analysis of factions in the country's civil war.


By Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent, and Ruth Sherlock in Beirut

7:17PM BST 15 Sep 2013

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.

The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of Western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are "palatable" to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower.
Related Articles

Fears that the rebellion against the Assad regime is being increasingly dominated by extremists has fuelled concerns in the West over supplying weaponry that will fall into hostile hands. These fears contributed to unease in the US and elsewhere over military intervention in Syria.

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."

The study is based on intelligence estimates and interviews with activists and militants. The lengthy fighting has seen the emergence of hundreds of separate rebel bands, each operating in small pockets of the country, which are usually loyal to larger factions.

Two factions linked to al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - also know as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) - have come to dominate among the more extremist fighters, Mr Lister said. Their influence has risen significantly in the past year.

"Because of the Islamist make up of such a large proportion of the opposition, the fear is that if the West doesn't play its cards right, it will end up pushing these people away from the people we are backing," he said. "If the West looks as though it is not interested in removing Assad, moderate Islamists are also likely to be pushed further towards extremists."

Though still a minority in number, ISIL has become more prominent in rebel-held parts of Syria in recent months. Members in northern Syria have sought to assert their dominance over the local population and over the more moderate rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The aim of moderate rebel fighters is the overthrow of their country's authoritarian dictator, but jihadist groups want to transform Syria into a hard-line Islamic state within a regional Islamic "caliphate".

These competing visions have caused rancour which last week erupted into fighting between ISIL and two of the larger moderate rebel factions.

A statement posted online by Islamists announced the launch of an ISIL military offensive in the eastern district of Aleppo which it called "Cleansing Evil". "We will target regime collaborators, shabiha [pro-Assad militias], and those who blatantly attacked the Islamic state," it added, naming the Farouq and Nasr factions.

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.

This has given them significant economic clout, allowing them to "win hearts and minds" by providing food for the local population in a way that other rebel groups cannot.

ISIS has also begun a programme of "indoctrination" of civilians in rebel-held areas, trying to educate Syria's traditionally moderate Sunni Muslims into a more hard-line interpretation of Islam.

In early September, the group distributed black backpacks with the words "Islamic State of Iraq" stamped on them. They also now control schools in Aleppo where young boys are reportedly taught to sing jihadist anthems.

"It seems it is some sort of a long-term plan to brainwash the children and recruit potential fighters," said Elie Wehbe, a Lebanese journalists who is conducting research into these activities.

From the "well no shit" files......

[herofb]

Today a Syrian heli passed the board and destroyed by Turkish jets , i do now what kind of scenario is this because they should be crazy to do this and they were not doing things like this before cause we mentioned that we will shoot every vehicle coming from Syria which did not pass the board yet too...