Yay! We'll be arming Al-Qaeda in Syria

[cali]

yes indeed. they're prominent among the rebels we'll be arming.

deja vu all over again.

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/

[PuraVidaDreamin]

1. Say hello to the new and improved Al Qaeda

Who WILL get their hand on some rebel arms.

But gotta have a new war to direct attention away from intrusive spying on all Americans.
Or to justify the need to spy on all Americans.

[cali]

4. gotta create terrorists to fight and for corporations to make more money from

[warrant46]

35. MLK said

don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world - MLK- 1967

[cali]

2. in your face kick for all those here supporting arming the rebels

[one_voice]

104. wow

[kentuck]

3. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

even if they are al Qaeda.

[ForeignandDomestic]

7. Um...

So let me get this straight I have to give up my rights to privacy and get groped by the TSA at the airport because of the threat Al Qaeda poses.. But elsewhere in the world our government is funding and supplying them with weapons whenever we need them to help us take out another government that we don't like?

This is way past Orwell levels of insanity!!

[cali]

8. you summed that up rather nicely.

[sulphurdunn]

34. We did it in Afghanistan

against the Russians. In essence we created Al-Querida, which has become a generic boogeyman for all fundamentalist Islamic movements.

[warrant46]

42. Awesome analysis

[Myrina]

77. ^^ This, and then some ^^

Well stated!!

[annabanana]

78. Shhh.. I'm watching So You Think You Can Dance. . .. .n/t

[beerandjesus]

85. Amen!

[Catherina]

90. What Cali said. Excellent summation n/t

[leftstreet]

94. Yep

[sibelian]

20. That's...

... something you probably want to reconsider.

[kentuck]

46. Why??

??

[sibelian]

49. ... Jesus, dude...

Because it's obviously NUTS. You're now siding the the guys who crashed the twin towers because...

What IS the benefit?

Assad's an evil jerk. The rebels are evil jerks. Siding with any of them is just a fricken bad idea.

Is there even going to be a pretence of democracy being on the march this time... or... what?

[kentuck]

53. You have difficulty with facetiousness and sarcasm?

That is an old Middle East saying and it appears our government is going to adopt it? Yes, it is nuts. It is obvious, I thought?

[sibelian]

59. Ah.

Well, there you go.

Thank God.

I feel strangely vulnerable now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

100. Dude... that's the utterly wrong-headed thinking that made this mess starting (for us) in the '50s.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, it's just another enemy to be dealt with later. So, arming them is probably not the best strategy.

[penultimate]

101. I agree with you 100%, behaving rationally and intelligently is soooo over-rated....

I hope we give them nuclear weapons and slinkies with any weapon shipments. This planet sucks anyways. Kaaaaa-boooom.

[backscatter712]

5. Not promising, but I hope that Obama's smart enough to know which groups are & aren't Al Qaeda. nt

[cali]

6. c'mon. use some sense. there is no way to discern this in the fog of war

and the fluidity of weapons between aligned groups is hardly a secret. Even if the U.S. managed to only supply arms to the "good" rebels, there is no way to ensure that those rebels won't sell or give them to others.

[backscatter712]

24. Like I said, it's not promising. n/t

[penultimate]

102. Or just have them taken from them by the bad ones...

Assuming the rebels (good and bad) defeat Assad, the Jihadist won't pack up their stuff and leave. They're going to go for the total win and they are battle hardened from all the other conflicts they've been in. All those weapons will end up in their control eventually.

[Monkie]

18. he didnt in libya, they now have real problems with islamic extremists

but you know, as long as the US supports totalitarian states and dictatorships in the ME not much is going to change is it.

[Laelth]

9. Of course we will, if it's useful to us.

Proof that Al-Qaeda is not the enemy. Iran is.

-Laelth

[cali]

11. I think it's more about corporate profits than any enemy

[Laelth]

12. In part, certainly.

Smedley Butler told us long ago that war is always a racket. I don't doubt that. All the same, I think it's important for us to see where this is heading. Iran is the enemy, not Al-Qaeda. Taking out Syria is just a necessary step toward neutralizing Iran, or so our hawks tell us.

-Laelth

[Dash87]

61. Al Qaeda isn't the enemy? They've been trying to attack us since 9/11.

We're giving them free weapons to do so now.

[Laelth]

64. Take a look at the essay to which I link in this post.

It shows that Al-Qaeda is no longer our primary enemy. Iran is.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

-Laelth

[RC]

83. My question is; "Why do we need an enemy to function anyway?"

Al-Qaeda used to be our friend. We trained and armed them. Where does anyone think bin Laden came from?
Come on people, all this crap is not happening in a vacuum. It have a long history and we, the US are right in the middle.

[Laelth]

86. We have enemies, whether we like it or not.

We have allies, whether we like it or not. Our allies have been pressuring us to get involved in Syria for some time. When it looked like the rebels were winning, Obama was able to keep the dogs of war at bay. Now that it appears Assad is winning, the pressure for us to intervene is becoming immense.

I hate defending war, and I am not doing so, but I think it's useful to understand what's going on.



-Laelth

[RC]

88. Would we care if we had not been meddling in the Middle East for the last 90 some years?

If fact, if we had stayed out of there, this situation probably would not even exist.
It is the meddling in the internal affairs of other countries that are casing these conflicts in the first place. Toppling democratically elected governments, arming rebels in otherwise peaceful countries, that result in dictatorships.
War is our most profitable export. We really need to find something else. The first step is to stop justifying what we are doing to the rest of the world as somehow "Defending Freedom" or worse yet, defending OUR freedom from over there.

[Laelth]

92. Yes, I think we would care.

Japan has no oil. France has no oil. Germany has no oil. The U.K. has the North Sea, but even they are dependent on oil from the Middle East. Iran, on the other hand, has oil--a good chunk of the world's oil supply. Right now, they are selling it to the Chinese. Our allies need oil from the Middle East, and that's the main reason they have been pressuring us to get involved in Syria--to fight Iran, for Syria is Iran's proxy state. We are at war with Iran. We launched a cyber-attack against them, and they have launched cyber-attacks on us and our allies. We must stay involved in the Middle East.

So far, we have handled this issue pretty poorly, doing more harm than good (Afghanistan, Iraq). Still, I can only begin to imagine the pressure on the President to address this issue--with force. As I have said before, I would not want to be in his shoes. But these are the facts, as I know them. We may not like it, but all of Western Civilization is now dependent on oil, and we will fight to preserve Western Civilization. That, as I understand it, is the point of view of those who have convinced the President to take military action in Syria.

-Laelth

[mbperrin]

112. Well said. I don't support any US military action beginning with Korea.

65 years of unnecessary war all around the world is enough, I think.

[Savannahmann]

10. A couple of months ago

I got into an argument with another user about what was going to happen because of a foolish armature mistake and the speech about red lines. A post got hidden by jury decision, for attacking the individual who insisted that President Obama had made no mistake in that speech. I said at the time, that when all of this happened, I would not care. To date I have not posted in one single thread about Syria since that time.

So I don't care that we are going to be the poster boy of stupid actions by arming the group we've been at notional war with for twelve years.

I don't care that when I look at the situation, I am reminded of the Eastern Front of World War II. Where the forces of the brutal dictator Hitler were defeated by the forces of the brutal dictator Stalin. I just don't care.

I don't care that no matter who wins, the victors will hate us just a little more, partially from our delayed decisions, and partially from the long history the combatants have of hating one thing more than their current combat enemy, us.

I don't care that some of the refugee's we're talking about taking in will almost certainly be terrorists that are smart enough not to email so that PRISM is denied the ability to identify them.

I just don't care. And I'm not going to care ever. And here is why. I live in South Georgia, and the chances of the Terrorists backing either the AQ aligned rebels, or the brutal dictator Assad, attacking South Georgia is pretty darned slim, so this is just not my problem. Go on, have your silly little war, with your silly little drones, and kill each other all you want. I'm not going to speak out when we bomb them, and when they bomb us, It's just none of my business.

My position is absolute neutrality and complete disinterest in the issue of Syria. When a few thousand Syrians die, I am not going to feel like it is any of my business. When AQ blows up a group of American's, civilian or military, I am going to have exactly the same reaction, it is none of my business, and doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Good bye boys, have a good time storming the castle.

[sibelian]

16. I don't blame you one slightest little bit.

And I'd like to think I'm further than you from that position, but, slowly...

[warrant46]

39. I too thought this would happen ----I turn this site off for almost a year

because of the never ending hero worship of the present administration-- whatever happened to debate?

[zeeland]

98. I hear you. K&R

Trying desperately to remain publicly respectful of the Administration
while privately seething. It's certainly a lot more restraint and respect
than what was shown to "the base" over the last few years. There could
have been a substantial very loud, politically active contingent in place.

[Harmony Blue]

13. It just boggles my mind

how all that effort to build up a strong foreign policy is falling apart because of pressure from hawks.

[sibelian]

14. YAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!

I shouldn't laugh. But...

[cali]

15. you just got a strangled chuckle out of me

oh dear.

[sibelian]

19. I think I might be going a bit funny.

I going to have to lay of the Snowden threads. My face is melting with the stupidness of the "PLEASE SPY ON ME" people.

[Enrique]

17. that will make up for killing bin Laden

now the terror war can go on forever.

[David__77]

29. One could rightly refer to it as America's "apology gift" to al Qaeda.

If bin Laden hadn't been killed, he could have gone to Syria to help out.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

21. It seems a grand folly to anyone who has paid attention to history for the last 500 years.

[cali]

23. more like a squalid little folly to me.

and of course it's not a folly to those making money from it.

[leftynyc]

22. This is a huge mistake

and I've never changed my mind on this at all. Getting involved in Syria is madness cubed.

[Recursion]

28. Letting Hezbollah win is better?

[cali]

32. staying out is better. just for once.

[Recursion]

33. Right, that's supporting Hezbollah

It's a choice of which bad people we want to win. There is no "staying out" in any real sense; you call this decision "arming rebels", but you could call the opposite "embargoing rebels". Either way, there's no escaping the moral decision here, nor the fact that no course is pretty.

[cali]

36. what if hezbollah did "win"? what does that entail? what does it look like?

and of course we could have stayed out.

[Recursion]

40. It's as murky as the rebels' "winning" is

But Hezbollah getting it in their heads that "intervening" across borders is a good idea will almost certainly make a prime minister just south of Lebanon very antsy.

[railsback]

109. Don't bother

Like with Snowden, most here are distracted by shiny objects.

[KoKo]

51. George Bush coined "Bad Guys/Good Guys" as our new Foreign Policy...

He got it out of one of the comic books he read. It was disheartening when Obama started to use "Bad Guys" in speeches. Since PBO is known for his brilliant mind...I gotta assume that either he thinks Americans are as dumb as George II or that "Comic Book" mentality is useful these days in making folks think the world should be seen in terms of Good Guys and Bad Guys...with no nuances allowed lest the "People" have to think further about endless wars and our foreign policy.

[Recursion]

54. So I'm coining "bad guys/bad guys", then (nt)

[Romulus Quirinus]

71. If you're not with us you're with the terrorists!

hurr durr

[leftynyc]

47. In all honesty

When it's between al queda and hezbollah, I don't give a shit who wins.

[Aerows]

69. I feel the same way

We don't need to get involved there.

[Dash87]

60. Yes, because they're at least somewhat reasonable

They won't stock pile nerve agents from the war and unleash them in New York City, for one.

[penultimate]

103. It probably is, I think..

Hezbollah is mostly limited to that region. The other ones seem to have more global aspirations

[progressoid]

25. Oh goodness gracious, what could possibly go wrong?

We just need to call the "Freedom Fighters" like Reagan did.

Problem solved.

[LuvNewcastle]

26. The arms industry has no political loyalty.

Like any corporation, the goal of arms manufacturers is to make more money. They make money by selling arms. They sell arms by encouraging continued conflict.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. They want to make debt, then make the money off of the debt.

Arms sales are like a middle man, the real deal is the financing of these wars. Sell them into debt on both sides, support the largest debtor as victor, collect for decades.

[Recursion]

27. And if we don't arm them, we're helping Hezbollah

Great bunch of choices we have there...

[TommyCelt]

41. Yeah, but...

That's the same kind of thinking that got us bogged down in Iraq in the first place. We CREATED Al Qaeda in Iraq; it didn't exist until "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was underway.

What new group of thugs and murderers will we create with our involvment in Syria?

[Recursion]

45. A different group than we'll create by embargoing them

[TommyCelt]

70. Hezbollah...

...is going to be there, going through its cycles of strength and weakness, like it has been for decades, regardless of whether we embargo, attack, or ignore.

How many lives of our servicemen/women is this impending conflict worth?? How many civilian lives that our weapons will snuff out is it worth??

Describe what a "win" in Syria will look like from an American perspective, should we put weapons and boots on the ground.

[Comrade Grumpy]

105. We are under no obligation to get involved in this mess.

Despite the Hezbollah boogeyman.

[mbperrin]

113. Thank you, and you're right.

Never saw a mess the MIC couldn't make money from, and get lots of kids killed in the process. If both sides were still throwing rocks, casualties would be lower.

We don't need to be anywhere at all militarily in the world.

[TommyCelt]

30. Will the hawks on either side of the aisle learn...

EVER?

Here comes the word we heard to rightly in relation to the Iraq war...quagmire.

There will be no clear goal. No exit strategy. Tons of "collateral damage" or whatever euphemism they'll use this time to describe the innocent civilians they'll kill. We will scritch the ears of another pseudo-democratic lapdog/tin-pot dictator til HE gets overthrown. And the dance goes on.

Disgusted.

[datasuspect]

31. "just so long as the checks clear"

-Phineas Q. Bankster

[get the red out]

37. Afghanistan reset

In a few years we can get another war out of it. Gotta plant the seeds to reap the harvests (for the military contractors).

[Rozlee]

84. During the first Gulf War, who was the wag that said if Kuwait's main export was broccoli

we wouldn't be over there? Geo-petrol (is that a word?) interests have turned the Middle East into the inferno it is today. We keep the House of Saud propped up even though they're known as the Beheading Capitol of the World and keep their people in poverty while they blow hundreds of millions on a birthday party for a little Saudi princess, a house for a Swedish mistress, a graduation present for a Saudi Prince and a 10 million dollar placating shopping spree for a sheik's favored wife. We prop up dictators like Saddam and then spend over a trillion dollars to oust him from power. We depose of a democratically elected president in Iran and install a brutal Shah and watch the blowback as a fundamentalist theocracy takes over. We'll be SOL if a similar event takes place in Saudi Arabia. We've bankrupted ourselves and continue to do so as the domino effect of our policies from our oil dependency continue to play themselves out. We've got dead and severely injured soldiers and Arabs in Iran and Afghanistan as a result and the greatest refugee crisis on the planet as 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. The winners of our oil dependency have been the oil companies and war capitalists. They have no conscience standing on the corpses of millions and impoverishing their countrymen and the the lives of everyday citizens everywhere.

[sulphurdunn]

38. Lot's of lunatics

waving Korans and AK-47s makes good business sense if you're a government military or security contractor.

[Fuddnik]

43. If we don't arm them, we won't have any enemies to fight later.

[KoKo]

57. Given that the MIC and Private Military/ Security Contractors provide

the best employment opportunities these days...then we gotta keep that going because there aren't any new jobs coming from infrastructure or business investment.

More Wars..good for USA Economy!

[ReRe]

44. Stupid is...

...as stupid does. But somebody's gonna' make allot of money off them thar weapons and lost lives. Nothin' wrong with makin' a little money, now is thar'? Whoopee! USA! USA! USA!

(Sar-caz-um.)

[ctsnowman]

48. When it comes

to money for war it seems we aren't so broke after all.

[mbperrin]

52. As usual, the real terrorists win - the military industrial

complex.

What a streak they're on, beginning in Korea.

[dgibby]

108. And they're the ones collecting our metadata.

Nice gig if you can get it. We are so screwn!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

55. if President Obama does this ....I am done with him.

[KoKo]

58. Sadly...it's getting pretty obvious that Neither PBO nor Congress

gives a flying fark over whether we support them or not.

[cali]

62. It's done.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

67. then all Hope is gone

[Laelth]

66. Obama doesn't deserve the blame for this, imo.

It appears to me that Obama has been fighting back against the dogs of war for some time. Precisely because Obama was resistant, I think, the MIC pulled out some big guns--a popular, Democratic ex-President and Gramps (sadly, the best the Republicans have)--in order to put pressure on Obama. Apparently, it worked. I do not blame Obama too much. I suspect the pressure was enormous. I certainly wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

-Laelth

[cali]

68. I agree that the pressure was enormous, but in the end he's responsible for making this decison

[Dash87]

56. Just like the "brave and oppressed mujahideen fighters" in Afghanistan.

Lets arm the Syrian rebels do that they can become a hostile theocracy that encourages terrorist attacks against the West. Brilliant.

[heaven05]

63. you

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

know I remember when I was growing up, the derision french politics got for backing this or that different countries politics, oh the comments of how whorish french politics were because they went with anyone that furthered their agenda. Well starting with the debacle of installing the shah of iran, pahlavi, after mosaddegh threatened 'the oil' with nationalization right after the ww2 overthrow of the shah's father, we've been like the french. Guess who backed the overthrow? One guess. Many dictators backed by us in viet nam, we all know how that turned out. Many central american dictator backing 'mistakes'. Allende types in south america. Banana republic invasions in the name of united fruit company, oh the list goes on and on. Hell, we backed bin laden during the soviet invasion of afghanistan!!!!!!! Iraq the latest and now this. Whorish to say the least.

[libdude]

65. As was said

there is money to be made supplying the Army with the tools of the trade, I guess you could change the Army with Al Quida, or any other group the various and different Administrations decide they can back. I find agreement with the previous post of Mr. I don't care, and the lack of interest in these world issues that are more related to matters completely unrelated to the U. S. deciding what side of the issue to come down on.
So, it appears we are seeking to ally this country with groups that have some affiliation with those that are or were our enemies and have sought our destruction. Stop the presses, the plan of total U. S. destruction is on hold until the Syrian Islamic Republic is up and running.
Perhaps there is the opportunity to rebuild their infrastructure, to buy friends with loads of cash.
Perhaps the elected leadership can convince the people that looking outside our borders to extend Peace American will do more that being concerned over silly things such as Constitutional rights, 14% real unemployment, crushing student debt, deteriorating infrastructure, increasing poverty, shrinking middle class, etc.
Happy Friday.

[relayerbob]

72. So you support a bloodthirsty dictator

who uses chemical weapons on his own people?

Please provide a realistic solution ..... Ah, that's a lot harder, eh?

[cali]

75. right. of course I support a bloodthirsty dictator, just like YOU support murderous, cannibal rebels

fuck I hate stupid shit.

and the realistic solution is to stay out of it. it may not be a wonderful bluebird song solution but it's better than getting involved.

anyway, it's too late. we are involved.

[relayerbob]

111. Burying one's head in the sand ...

is not a solution. I proposed you offer one up. You didn't.

[rhett o rick]

73. It's called the "cycle-of-terror". We support terrorists so they can fight against their dictator.

Then at some point we become their enemy, so we fight the terrorists and support a dictator to clamp down on them.

It's what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial-Terror Complex.

[woo me with science]

93. +1

Blood and devastation for power and profit.

[AndyA]

74. Anything to keep the American military-industrial complex moving forward

With Iraq shut down and Afghanistan winding down, we needed to do something to pump more money into the coffers.

[Myrina]

76. We were against them before we were for them ... or, wait ...

We were for them before we were against them and now we're for them, on a limited basis. Or something?

[markiv]

79. 12 years of anti-Al-Qaeda hysteria end with us arming them

well, that makes sense, 46 years of cold war ended with handing everything over to China, so i guess this was to be expected

[markiv]

81. they defend tapping our phones and helping al-qaeda in the same week

just a new page in 1984

[bahrbearian]

82. Looks like we need to send Rumsfeld on another Mission

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Rumsfeld+/Saddam&biw=1272&bih=564&tbm=isch&tbnid=PfgDlju0NcQxHM:&imgrefurl=http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/2013/05/rumsfeld-rules-forget-failures-and-sell.html&docid=yTjFBjPhU2xtsM&imgurl=&w=432&h=319&ei=ECe7UZm1J8jjrAGk54DwDA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:3,s:0,i 2&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=177&tbnw=232&start=0&ndsp=10&tx=124&ty=56

[MelungeonWoman]

114. Send McCain

He could use his kidnapper friends as emissaries.



Jesus, the United States government is nothing but a criminal enterprise.

[FarCenter]

87. Perhaps the objective is to prolong, so that the maximum number of jihadis kill each other

The US policy generally seems to be to intervene on the side that is suffering the larger losses. This prevents the other side from winning. The end result is that the war continues and more combatants on both sides are killed.

This is probably a deliberate strategy.

[ljm2002]

89. You must have meant "freedom fighters" when you said "Al-Qaeda"...

...right? Like the mujahideen in Afghanistan back in the 80s.

I'm sure this time it will all work out better for us.

[sabrina 1]

91. Well, we armed them in Libya. Old habits die hard, we created and armed them in Afghanistan.

But hey, ten years from now we can claim we have to 'go after Al Queda' who are 'armed and dangerous' and 'hate us for our freedoms' and get billions more in funding to 'fight for our freedoms' all over again.

It's a very lucrative project, our bouncing back and forth with Al Queda. Sometimes I wonder what's in it for them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. "Bring it on!" "Smoke 'em out!" "Mission Accomplished!" "USA! USA!"

Dear NSA, please put that on my Permanent Record.

[Rex]

96. Just let McCain go over there on his own

he seems to be able to shamble into crowds of evil doers.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

97. Does "Charlie Wilson's War" ring a bell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War

Do we really need to help with the sequel?

[Egalitarian Thug]

99. Well, we created OBL and milked that for 20 years or so. But the amorphous bogey-man of

al-queda and the generic Islamic terrorist are losing the limited focus of the sheeple, so we need a new face of fear to re-gather the flock and get them bleating.

[pampango]

106. Most of the opposition to Assad is not al-Queda, but

the danger is that the weapons will end up in the wrong hands anyway.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2013/05/14/63221/the-structure-and-organization-of-the-syrian-opposition/

[cali]

107. Of course that's true, but we will inevitably end up arming al-qaeda.

[railsback]

110. This is true, MOST are not Al Qaeda

and MOST oppose Nusra's vision of strict Islamic rule.

[idwiyo]

115. Question 1: where did they get intel for that map from?

Question 2: Why would anyone with a little bit of brain think that its a swell idea to get involved in a civil war in a foreign country in a ME?

[David__77]

116. The graphic isn't right.

Nusra/Qaeda controls Raqqa completely and forms a large percentage of the insurgents in Aleppo. I guess the geo-location of the spheres wasn't meant to convey anything. I think the numbers are off, but it's not especially relevant.