US officials tie terror group to Syrian bombings

[dipsydoodle]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top U.S. intelligence officials pointed to al-Qaida in Iraq on Thursday as the likely culprit behind recent bombings in Syria, the deadliest attacks against the Syrian government in the 11-month uprising.

Though the U.S. has called for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down, his fall could lead to a power vacuum that al-Qaida's largest regional affiliate or other extremist groups could fill, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress. And that could allow such groups to help themselves to Syria's vast stockpiles of chemical weapons, he said.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the crisis in Syria has become "that much more serious" and worrisome to the United States as a result of indications that al-Qaida has infiltrated the government's opposition.

"It does raise concerns for us that al-Qaida is trying to assert a presence there," he said. "As to just what their role is and how extensive their role is, I think that still remains to be seen."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SYRIA_AL_QAIDA?SITE=MAQUI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[joshcryer]

1. If the US flip flops on this and starts supporting Assad...

...it'll be frustrating to see the flip flop on Assad defenders, going from support, to no support.

[David__77]

5. I think...

...you know my position on Syria wouldn't change. Though I note I am not an "Assad supporter."

[joshcryer]

7. Yes, I should've said that. I know you are consistent.

Apologies if you felt covered by that broad brush, but you and I both know it's going to happen with others.

I honestly did think "except for maybe David__77" but I didn't want to do a "call out."

[David__77]

8. Lol yeah that's fine.

Seriously though, ideologically I actually have strong support for many of the groups in the NCB of Syria. But I, like them, oppose foreign intervention. I could understand if they didn't oppose intervention, but that wouldn't change my position...

As for other opposition forces, it's their country, and I consider it a matter for Syrians to decide. But I think there is a real danger of sectarianism that emanates from Sunni Islamism (not Islam, but Islamism), and this appears to permeate certain opposition forces. That doesn't mean I'm rooting for their defeat, but neither do I have positive thoughts.

I know that a lot of people are reflexively "pro-anti-my enemy" and move with the wind more than a little bit. But I do think that narrow national chauvinism is a much bigger problem in this country. Only a tiny sliver of the nominal left would be reflexively "anti-US," and I simply cannot see how anyone would consider it problematic.

[joshcryer]

9. Sectarianism is the largest issue in all of these Muslim countries, imo.

It exists in every single one of them in some form or another.

Ideologically I think that there are only two ways to end sectarianism. 1) Democracy 2) Junta

I do not support the junta idea, because it is unsustainable, and will fall eventually, and the chaos and killing that ensues in the aftermath is just as bad as the junta itself.

We know it worked, fairly well, in Turkey. At the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

I'm not willing to support such an approach.

Let them have democracy now, in the short term it's bad, in the long term, hopefully, it's not so bad.

[tabatha]

12. The sectarianism scare is mostly from outside.

AJ: What happens at a 'typical' protest?

NR: Typically there are lights, banners, flags, and loudspeakers. Each demonstration is led by a hateef who sings songs and is cheered if the lyrics are clever or humorous. Some, like former football player Abdelbaset Sarut in Homs, have become celebrities. The same core of songs are sung throughout the country though there are always local inventions too.

Often there are visitors from other areas. They may be delegations of activists from the Alawite, Christian, Druze, Ismaili, or Kurdish minorities. These are welcomed and they often give speeches.

There is a carnival-like atmosphere for most demonstrations, a celebration of life and dignity. Political speeches are given, educating participants in the values of the revolution, and announcements are made. Poems are also recited.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/20122157654659323.html

War always heighten tensions. There are many tribes in South Africa, and in the lead up to elections there were many tribal conflicts. These have all died down as people turn their attention from power struggles to ordinary daily life. The mixing of all sections of the peoples in South Africa now is better than it ever was. All it needed was a society where respect is shown and rights given to everyone.

That is why if getting to democracy is messy, if the first several years of democracy are messy, the future will always be better in a society where people feel they have the freedom to live the life they want. And I really deplore the judgmentalism of those who have it toward those who do not, and have died to get it.

[Fool Count]

11. Well, it is always a good rule of thumb to be against anything the US government supports.

I'd say it failed me only once, when US Government supported anti-AIDS effort in Africa.
Otherwise USA is pretty reliable in being evil. That's why I wouldn't hold my breath for
US suddenly reconsidering its support for Islamist terrorist takeover of the Middle East.

[tabatha]

13. Oh, good grief. That will never happen.

And I really deplore broad-brushing.

[Fool Count]

16. Broad-brushing? Evilness of US government is just a simple consequence of whose

interests it is constituted to represent. It is kinda hard to be a government of, by and for
transnational corporations (mostly financial capital) and to avoid being evil. After the
Citizens United decision even the last pretense that it was something else is discarded.

[joshcryer]

18. Islamaphobia on DU.

Been here a decade, never thought I'd see the day.

Thank goodness we still have Juan Cole.

[David__77]

22. Is pointing to Islamist terrorism really "Islamophobic?"

"Terrorism" as understood by me is a strategy of tension, employed by knowing or unknowing accomplices to those who really benefit... almost always finance capitalists of one sort or another. In any event, it is in all essentials anti-humanist.

[joshcryer]

25. The total number of people killed directly by Islamist terrorism are less than the...

...number of people who die every day from starvation.*

It is a veritable blip on the scale of human-caused travesties.

Yes, it is a concern, but the solution is not to saber rattle, install juntas, use targeted killing to get those people.

The solution is to build a better society, and allow them their own self-determination.

*not including proxy wars "justified" by terrorism, like Iraq or Afghanistan, but those would only be ... a few weeks worth of starvation deaths, at most.

[David__77]

28. I have said the very same thing, actually.

With a different spin: "imperialism kills millions." These peripheral terror movements are bit players.

[joshcryer]

17. So, if the US government suddenly backed Assad...

...there'd be no contradiction in going from supporting Assad to being against his regime?

That's hilarious.

[Fool Count]

19. Hilarious? Making ridiculous conclusions from dumb-ass hypothetical assumptions -

that's what is hilarious here.

[joshcryer]

20. These are signs that the US may back down the rhetoric.

I don't see how it's "dumb-ass" at all, unless you actually believe the Assad regime isn't brutal enough to garner potential US support.

[Fool Count]

21. How is it dumb-ass? So US government, with its CIA and NSA, its fleets of spy drones and

satellites, its armies of intelligence analyst at cost of hundreds billions of dollars annually, is allowed
to change its position and policy based on better intelligence, and I am expected to maintain mine
no matter what for fear of being "hilarious"? That's how is that premise "dumb-ass". I certainly,
see no shame in taking advantage of US intelligence and analytic capabilities myself. If US changed
its mind, it must have decided that the new policy serves interests of US Government constituents
(transnational corporations) better. If they do that, I will have no problem trusting them on their
terms and opposing the evil that they represent. The alternative would be launching my own spy satellites
and creating my own network of spies on the ground, but that, I am afraid would be too taxing
on my modest income.

[joshcryer]

24. But, you're saying there that you would trust the US if it changed its position.

Interesting, to say the least.

[Fool Count]

26. Of course, I would trust US government to pursue its own selfish interest, who wouldn't?

I would trust it even more to come up with the most evil and deviant ways of doing it, who wouldn't?
I would certainly trust its intelligence and analytic agencies to collect all relevant information and
go through it with a thin-toothed comb in search of those ways, who wouldn't? Sure, even they could
make mistakes, but what better alternatives are there? There aren't any. When US government is doing
something one can be pretty sure it is done to benefit its paymasters. One is also pretty clear on who
those paymasters are. All that makes for a very simple and bullet-proof logic, which is pretty well born
out by historical record. All the bombastic pronouncements from US State Department and such, supported
by hysterical campaigns in subservient mass media, is just to brainwash and confuse the public. That
is also well born out by historical record. Still keeps working like a charm on attention-span-deficient
plebs. So one can't really blame them for always sticking with the same gameplan.

[joshcryer]

27. You started this subthread with "to be against anything the US government supports."

Yet you'd be for the US government supporting Assad because it has its own selfish interests.

Frankly I don't give a crap one way or another. All I care about are the oppressed of the world, here and abroad, and I denounce it in all instances.

The US is not magically a force of good, it does everything it does for its own ends, therefore it is impossible to judge a situation based on "anything the US government supports."

Because one day maybe the US supports something that, only accidentally, you also support.

Then where are you?

Eating your own.

Just as people are eating OWS because of actions within their own groups, just as people turn coat on Libya.

[Fool Count]

29. I guess, the point I was making was too complicated for you to grasp. Let me try again.

What I was saying was that I always trust US government to be evil, so it is almost always right
to oppose anything they support. For instance, they now support regime change in Syria - ergo
it is most probably right and moral to oppose such regime change. If US government changed
its mind and started to support Assad, I would have to conclude they came into some new info
and I too must reevaluate my position, since it is now more likely than not that it was mistaken.
And my trust in US ability to be always on the side of evil is such that I am certainly not above
changing my position in concert with variations of US policy. So no, I am not for the US government
supporting Assad, because then I would have to rethink my own support for him. I am fine with
US government hating him - that's how I know that I am right.

[joshcryer]

30. But, with that simplistic logic, if the US did change it's position, you'd...

..."still know you're right" because "being right" with this poorly thought out idea is simply "trust in US ability to always be on the side of evil."

That's preposterous to the extreme. It means that you should be against Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen because the US is supportive of reforms in those states.

[jakeXT]

2. Panetta playing dumb.../nt

[tabatha]

15. No, people talking shyt.

[David__77]

3. It's only a "terror group" if Syria says so...

If the US says it, there are no scare quotes...

[joshcryer]

4. Hey, you should be glad, the US is clearly resigning itself here.

[tabatha]

6. The dying Al Qaeda is trying to glom onto another country.

The Syrian opposition have stated STRONGLY that they do not support Al Qaeda.

In fact, they thought that the bombings had been done by Assad. I still believe they are correct.

[joshcryer]

10. I think there are possibly elements but they are low level.

It's like walking around an OWS camp and hearing someone spout some Derrick Jensen nonsense. Is OWS then somehow "eco-terrorist"? Naw. But I betcha if it was caught on tape it'd be fodder for the MSM.

For what it's worth I still think that the bombings were unrelated, and I give it maybe a 51/49% odds that the Syrian government orchestrated it (49% foreign Islamist elements).

[tabatha]

14. Well, there was some suspicious activity in another area

by security people today, and people were wondering if it were another "terrorist" bomb plot, after the UN resolution.

We'll see if it happens - I hope they have video.

[nanabugg]

31. My,my what a tangled web we weave!

Another reason to view "The Power of Nightmares."