Arun Lund sent me this: (I cite with his permission): "I saw your blog post, which mischaracterizes my view of Syria's civil war.
When did I ever predict the "imminent fall" of the Syrian regime? Ever since this tragedy began in 2011, my position has been that unless the current dynamics change, Syria will end up a disastrously failed state where the regime will control some territory and a variety of Islamist and other opposition groups will control the rest.
If you can find an article or interview where I talk of the "imminent fall" of the Syrian regime, I'd very much like to see it. If not, a correction or a retraction would be in order.
As for Hassane Abboud, my point was that even though he was a stringent salafi, a sectarian Sunni Islamist, and a supporter of theocracy in Syria, he was not a internationalist salafi-jihadi in the al-Qaida mold. If he had been, he'd have joined Jabhat al-Nusra, or some other group that caters to that line of thought.
This narrow ideological difference might not matter to you, but it certainly matters to anyone trying to follow the dynamics of Syria's insurgent movement." On `Abbud, I say this to Arun: yes, he did not join with Nusrah Front because his sponsors in Qatar and Turkey urged him against it so that he would not be listed as a terrorist organization. He maintained close ties with Nusrah and fought with them on many front and only disagreed with Nusrah when they intended to declare an Islamic state in Idlib and its countryside. Most importantly, how come none of the Western accounts of `Abbud mentioned that Abu Khalid As-Suri was a key leader in his organization, and that the graduates of Al-Qa`idah (what is known as "muhajirin") joined Ahrar Ash-Sham. He never disguised his adherence to Global Jihadism. As for his clashes with ISIS, that only was triggered when ISIS killed Abu Khalid As-Suri. These are facts.
When did I ever predict the "imminent fall" of the Syrian regime? Ever since this tragedy began in 2011, my position has been that unless the current dynamics change, Syria will end up a disastrously failed state where the regime will control some territory and a variety of Islamist and other opposition groups will control the rest.
If you can find an article or interview where I talk of the "imminent fall" of the Syrian regime, I'd very much like to see it. If not, a correction or a retraction would be in order.
As for Hassane Abboud, my point was that even though he was a stringent salafi, a sectarian Sunni Islamist, and a supporter of theocracy in Syria, he was not a internationalist salafi-jihadi in the al-Qaida mold. If he had been, he'd have joined Jabhat al-Nusra, or some other group that caters to that line of thought.
This narrow ideological difference might not matter to you, but it certainly matters to anyone trying to follow the dynamics of Syria's insurgent movement." On `Abbud, I say this to Arun: yes, he did not join with Nusrah Front because his sponsors in Qatar and Turkey urged him against it so that he would not be listed as a terrorist organization. He maintained close ties with Nusrah and fought with them on many front and only disagreed with Nusrah when they intended to declare an Islamic state in Idlib and its countryside. Most importantly, how come none of the Western accounts of `Abbud mentioned that Abu Khalid As-Suri was a key leader in his organization, and that the graduates of Al-Qa`idah (what is known as "muhajirin") joined Ahrar Ash-Sham. He never disguised his adherence to Global Jihadism. As for his clashes with ISIS, that only was triggered when ISIS killed Abu Khalid As-Suri. These are facts.
