Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There've been references to weapons being smuggled to Syria via Turkey and Lebanon. Who is supplying these weapons?

I can only think of a couple possibilities but have heard nothing to confirm or deny any supposition.

* Syrian expatriates/refugees in Turkey and Lebanon who have connections to the opposition.

* Arab league countries who support the sunni ethnic group that makes up a good part of the opposition.

*Nato countries buying soviet style weapons and funneling them to the opposition covertly much like they did in the soviet invasion of Afghanistan via Turkey (part of Nato) and Lebanon (neutral)

Also whilst we're on it. If, worst case scenario. Nato finds itself at war with both Syria and Iran. Would Russia and China do anything/could they do anything to prevent that turn of events in the military sense. my feeling is that both China and Russia know their conventional armies are no match for NATO and are also seperated geographically from the region without Mhe means to move troops there. Which limits them to a threat of nuclear action which could only lead to MAD. I also think both governments have a nest of internal problems that limits their action even more. Aside from selling weapons and political pressure at the UN I don't think they would be a real issue. The biggest worry for NATO would be if countries where the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt/Tunisia) has to some extent came to power would side with Iran and their fellow muslims against a percieved Western crusade.

(Checks lock to THE BOX)
Nope, not me.

*Dons tinfoil hat*

The Obama administration is supplying the weapons to draw attention away from recent activity at Area 51.

*Removes tinfoil hat*

kronk wrote:*Dons tinfoil hat*

The Obama administration is supplying the weapons to draw attention away from recent activity at Area 51.

*Removes tinfoil hat*

Dude, the BBC mentioned it off-hand one time but didn't say who it was. I'am just speculating. Things are a bit on edge with the gulf of Hormuz, Irans nuclear weapons programme and of course the Syrian uprising. Anything could happen, and the US has moved more soldiers into the Persian Gulf and Israel. That might equally lead to nothing but that doesn't mean its a conspiracy theory to imply the self evident fact that the US has strategic interests in the Middle East. I asked you a question, not a statement of fact or a theory. Just something i heard and wondered if it had any validity.

Totalwar1402 wrote:I asked you a question, not a statement of fact or a theory. Just something i heard and wondered if it had any validity.

Easy, killer!

I wasn't attacking or trolling you. I just wanted to be the first person to make up a conspiracy theory for once. It made me feel just like I imagined it would... Giddy!

As to who is really supplying them the arms, I certainly can't say, but I bet you the powers that be have a very good idea.

No word on foreign suppliers of arms, it seems to me like the armed portion of the opposition is made up of deserters from the security forces who are bringing their weapons with them.

Then from where and whom are the munitions comming from, a deserter can only carry so much ammo and not to put to finer point on it they all look like they have a BS of like 2.
So even if the iron mongers arn't selling them weapons who is suppyling all the AK rounds?

I'm not seeing a lot opposition. It loks like most of the rounds are only going one way if you catch my drift.

Frazzled wrote:I'm not seeing a lot opposition. It loks like most of the rounds are only going one way if you catch my drift.

Yes well it helps it you have IFV that are proofed against any thing smaller that a 50 call, morters, artilary and tanks.
Looking at it the Syrian army is a bit OP in their codex compaired to the Opposition codex....

BBC Radio 4 reported that the Syrian leadership is having to get very picky about which troops they use for the dirty work as many are deserting. When a lot of troops desert along with officers they tend to take TRUCK loads of ammo and equipment with them.

The reports that are coming out tend to leave out one small but salient point: There has been a civil war going on in Syria for YEARS and this is just an escalation of it.

Yes most of them do have a BS of 2 but if the template and/or the target are big enough then it doesn't take a world class sniper to hit something.

And it's not just a few hundred men - reports are in the 10's of thousands. From the wikipedia entry for the Free Syrian Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army):

Weapons

The Free Syrian Army is mainly armed with AK-47s and RPG-7s.[52] Because defecting soldiers lack air cover, deserting soldiers have to abandon their armoured vehicles. Soldiers defect carrying only their army issued light arms and hide in cities, suburbs or the cover of the countryside.[14] Raids on government checkpoints and arms depots are carried out to supply the free army with ammunition and new arms. The FSA also purchases weapons on the Syrian black market which is supplied by arms smugglers from neighboring countries and corrupt loyalist forces selling government arms. There have been reports that whole arms depots have been offered for sale, although these offers were refused because of fears of a potential trap.[53][54] Besides AK-47s, some free army soldiers also have M16s, FN FALs, shotguns,[55] G3 assault rifles,[56] and PK machine guns.[57] Because the free army has a limited supply of weapons, Colonel Riad Asaad has asked the international community to help supply them with arms so that they can protect the Syrian people.[58][59] As of winter, the FSA had not secured outside funding or arms supplies.[60]
The Free Syrian Army is mainly armed with light weapons, however, it has a few heavy weapons which it has captured. In February, video footage was posted online showing a captured government tank, being used in Homs by the FSA forces. The tank carried flags of the Syrian opposition and was seen firing with armed men in civilian clothes backing it up and taking cover behind it.[61] The Free Syrian Army appears to have confirmed that they have a few tanks, as a spokesman stated that when 100 soldiers defected one day, they brought three tanks with them.[46]

The answer is quite obvious.

kronk wrote:I wasn't attacking or trolling you. I just wanted to be the first person to make up a conspiracy theory for once. It made me feel just like I imagined it would... Giddy!

Too late. Well, you're first on the Area 51 part.

I have no idea what that site is about, it showed up on Google and was an amusing read.
...oh look, they have a 9/11 section.

Isn't this what the Arab League is supposed to handle? For F'ks sake can we stay out of this one, or at the least not go in first and or do all the work. I'm so sick of the media saying that the blood is on the hands world community for not stopping this massacre. You know what I think we have done more than our share and get gak for it. Let the Arab League handle the problems in the middle east.

If the Arab League can't control it's area of influence what is it good for?

Totalwar1402 wrote:There've been references to weapons being smuggled to Syria via Turkey and Lebanon. Who is supplying these weapons?

Everywhere and anywhere, guns are both cheap and plentiful in the Middle East.

The Syrian state is Arab nationalist, and essentially secular (the religious trappings are extraneous), so getting funding and support from fundamentalist movements isn't difficult. Think of Syria like the unsung Iraq.

dogma wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:There've been references to weapons being smuggled to Syria via Turkey and Lebanon. Who is supplying these weapons?

Everywhere and anywhere, guns are both cheap and plentiful in the Middle East.

This information is new and shocking.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab League can't control it's area of influence what is it good for?

Existing?

Its not like we're members of it.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab League can't control it's area of influence what is it good for?

Existing?

Its not like we're members of it.

What is the point of it's existence if it can't control it's own sphere of influence. More to the point why do they have to come to the UN or Nato and ask for Military action. Just do it yourself.

I understand that we are not members obviously. But the Arab league has a history of coming to the UN and Nato for military assistance, like they did with Libya. Combined the Militaries of the Arab league are vast. If they want intervention, I say that they can do it themselves. These guys sure know how to band together to fix the price of oil, no fix your region. Is it just so they can always blame the west for the fallout? They don't want to be seen as the bad guys in their own sphere. F them.

Their motto: why do tomorrow, what you can get someone else to do today.

Iran

I thought nearly all of them were army defectors who took their equipment with them? That's how it's reported by the BBC, anyway.

Syria is one of Iran biggest supporters, it would make no sense for Iran to be backing Syrian rebels. It would be like the US arming Canadians rebels.

Turkey, Lebanon, russia, indonesia, egypt, latvia, czech republic.... What does it matter? Illegal guns come from all over the place.

Andrew1975 wrote:
What is the point of it's existence if it can't control it's own sphere of influence.

You're assuming its about control, and that said control is based on Western values and priorities.

Andrew1975 wrote:
More to the point why do they have to come to the UN or Nato and ask for Military action. Just do it yourself.

Because they can?

I think a lot of people don't quite understand how common the AK is. AK47s can smell conflict and flow there like the tide. It definitely does not take a state actor to satisfy the need for AKs in a conflict.

You're assuming its about control, and that said control is based on Western values and priorities.

If they didn't want it controlled then why come to the UN or Nato at all?

Because they can?

Right, this is my point. They love to get us to do the dirty work for them and to take the blame for any fallout. While of course selling us the oil we need to do such actions. We should not help them.

Granted a strong Arab League that exercises it's own military powers may not really be in our best interests, but I see it as better than doing the dirty work for them. It's high time we let regional powers handle their own affairs, well at least to a point.

Agreed

AustonT wrote:Iran

Their, their ally. Of course! It all adds up!

Craig's List...

Rented Tritium wrote:I think a lot of people don't quite understand how common the AK is. AK47s can smell conflict and flow there like the tide. It definitely does not take a state actor to satisfy the need for AKs in a conflict.

True, but i doubt a country where you can't protest without being shot at would allow public arms bazaars. Even if private traders were responding to 'demand', as it were, it would still be very ramshackle and sporadic in terms of moving guns and the like.Some level of organization would be needed to get guns n ammo to the actual fighters. Yes they can carry truck loads of stuff with army deserters and a lot of the Arab population is armed but surely that could only go so far; even with a conservative use of ammunition.

So you all seem to think its just Syrian expats paying toward getting the dakka dakka into their home country.

Hmmm, has anyone ever watched the news channel Russia Today? Unsurprisingly a lot of their coverage has been stilted against any intervention in Syria and they press the idea that NATO are supplying the rebals (BTB they're a State sponsored Russian news channel in English ie propaganda). What is the Russian interest in embarresing itself by backing the Assad regime? Its not like Russia could exactly do much to stop a NATO intervention. They already lost the morale high ground on intervening in other countries with their invasion of Georgia on the pretext of an attack on South Ossetia. Say what you like about NATO and America playing the worlds policeman but it is rich that Russia and China can claim to be acting in any interest other than their own or at the expense of the United States.