Syria's rebels are not an al-Qaeda army

[tabatha]

But it's all pretty flimsy, isn't it? Leaving aside the intelligence, National or otherwise, of a Washington insider who doesn't know the difference between an earmark and a hallmark, just because something looks like an al-Qaeda attack doesn't mean it is one, particularly if the accusation is that the Syrian regime has dressed it up to look like one. (Note - a defector has already claimed that is was done by Assad now, and at the time, there were reports that the area was cordoned off by regime forces.)

The reality is that, as The Telegraph has reported consistently in recent years, there is growing evidence of collaboration between the Iranian government, Assad's backers, and al-Qaeda, some of whose members (including Bin Ladens) have been "guests" of Tehran since fleeing Afghanistan in 2001.

In Libya too, the evidence for actual, rather than incipient chaos is not as strong as it might appear – "if anything, the fighting appears to be getting worse, as the country breaks into hostile armed fractions – a fertile hunting ground for al-Qaeda," says Oborne. Yet this is demonstrably untrue. There are squabbles and fights between different (largely city-based) militias, in which some die, and that is indeed a worrying portent for the future. But the deaths are small compared to the shootings of the early days of the uprising, let alone the war that followed. The absence, not presence, of al-Qaeda is the most startling aspect of the new Libya. Amnesty International rightly pointed the other day to the barbarous behaviour of the once heroic Misrata brigade, and the prisoners they have tortured and, in 12 cases, killed. That is damnable; but it is a figure that would be regarded as "great progress" in the case of our other Middle East ventures, and that is not as sick a thought as it seems to anyone who witnessed the horrors of Gaddafi and his brood. I will not quickly forget the sight of the remains of the scores killed and cremated by Khamis Gaddafi in a single incident in a shed-prison as he fled Tripoli in August.

Commentators talk of the Arab Spring as unleashing a poison across the Middle East. The ghastliness of the mixed metaphor is enough to show how flawed is the thought it expresses. The poison was there. It was created, or at least nurtured, by the dictatorships, the same dictatorships that are now bombing their own people in their homes and seizing children off the streets, cutting out their genitals, and murdering them. Are we really to turn a blind eye? The politics of the Arab Spring are just as complicated as Oborne suggests, but a simple principle remains of overwhelming importance. Can Europe really urge democracy on the world, while consigning our neighbours to the rule of psychopaths?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100138473/syrias-rebels-are-not-an-al-qaeda-army/

Really good article - cuts through the nonsense.

[Bonobo]

1. Sell your wars somewhere else.

I think America has done quite enough military invasions and killing in the last 10 years and it needs a little breather, ok?

[joshcryer]

2. I do not see anyone selling a war here.

Merely a correction to the typically xenophobic and racist slurs being leveled at Syrian rebels.

[Bonobo]

3. No, not in this one post.

But selling wars in Libya and then Syria seem to be what some posters are into, Don't you think?

[joshcryer]

4. Sympathizing with a peoples' desire for self-determination is not "selling war."

Some posters are in to trumpeting islamphobia on a liberal website, of all places, though.

[Bonobo]

9. Sympathize all you want, but don't use my tax money while you deny health care

to tens of millions of US citizens and imprison tens of millions more for petty drug offenses.

Besides, bombing the shit out of people doesn't TEND to help situations.

Especially when you don't REALLY know what the fuck you're messing with wrt tribal resentments, etc.

This is not a comic book with a bad guy vs. a good guy and we are not the Lone Fucking Ranger.

[joshcryer]

11. So, the ratio to Syrians killed and Americans without healthcare is not yet sufficient...

...to merit sympathy on your behalf, I assume.

I personally don't see what that has to do with anything, I can support health care, mass pardons and immunity to prisoners, and, amazingly, I can support the cause of those in Syria who want their own self-determination.

And your "paying taxes" has shit all to do with that, since it's a first amendment right.

[Bonobo]

15. With a limited amount of money, one must prioritize

So you STILL don't see how one thing has to do with another?

You can "support" the moon being turned into a large convenience store, but that doesn't mean your "support" is worth shit unless you put your money where your mouth is.

So does your "support" include taking from the limited US supply of money and resources and spending it on another regime change bombing mission in Syria?

You supported the Libya intervention. Are you pushing for Syria now?

Well I say that my tax money shouldn't be spent on it. As for Libya, the congress tried to limit the size of the action and the President defied them. The congress is the closest to the will of the people in terms of direct representation on a federal level. The Constitution you quote also says that THEY are the only ones with the right to declare war --a position you also are no doubt against.

I will continue to opposed your and other people's attempts to make war.

[joshcryer]

17. I took money from the limited US supply of money and gave it to Libya?

What kind of silliness is this?

My support can only be so deep as to post on a internet forum. That's all. I am inconsequential on the scheme of things. But I am morally and ethically consistent, unlike those who go around parroting vile slanders about whole groups on one instance (Libya, Syria), and doing a complete reverse in other incidents (OWS).

Congress actually manipulated a lot of people, they had enough votes to at least send a signal that they disagreed with the President's actions, but not only did they voted not to withdraw the troops, they voted to not not withdraw the troops. Two resolutions, the same fucking outcome. It was political gamemanship at its finest. They could've defunded it immediately and I wouldn't have cared one iota. The Libyan people had support from the international community at that point.

Meanwhile, I will continue to rebut the personal vendettas people still show toward me for supporting the Libyan people.

[Bonobo]

19. Calm yourself.

I didn't say you sent the money yourself, did I?

I said you are supporting military actions and general interventionist behavior by the US that is not only counterproductive in that violence simply perpetuates violence (Consistent? Really?), but is also damaging to the security of the US because:

1) It reduces the resources that can be used to better the US such as money spent on people, infrastructure, etc.
2) In perpetuating violence, it undermines our security by creating more enemies.

Where would your ideas that the US should intervene end in theory? There will always be more targets for someone with your "support of people".

And when those people you supported rise up and commit injustices, there will always be more money that we can spend to take them down too.

The point where you and I differ is your arrogant belief that a westerner has the knowledge and perspective and understanding needed to step in the shit without stepping in the shit.

[joshcryer]

20. You make it sound like I care about the west, I don't. I just care about those being persecuted.

The writing is on the wall. Syria will undergo a civil war for years. Assassination attempts will happen. Whole cities will be besieged. Underground battles will take place. Whole nine yards. We know that no one is going to help those in Syria. The west doesn't care, Russia doesn't care, China doesn't care (they didn't in Burma either). The worlds nations only want whats in it for them (hell in Burma the west wanted to intervene in order to get the potential for a western-friendly regime in the aftermath). Oh, and you worried about the Islamists now? Give them 5 years of civil war and see what kind of people that creates.

I do not advocate "western intervention" I advocate internationalism and support of fellow human beings. I advocate it in all circumstances. Darfur, Sudan, Somalia, the list goes on. The US has used its military hegemony for far too long to support repressive regimes for far too long, those regimes have risen up, and the reforms are happening (it may just be luck that we have a President that isn't manipulating the situation, or just isn't good at it). I'll note that Yemen, during the peak of the Libya crisis was being touted as proof the "US doesn't care," etc. I'll note that Yemen is no longer mentioned these days, because of the reforms that are happening there, most likely. The point is it doesn't matter if the US cares or not, it's possible that it might, but in the end, it's unlikely. We only care about ourselves, with such posts as some people equivocating US health care and drug imprisonment to the wholesale slaughter of innocents.

Libya was a coincidence, caprice, luck. They got lucky that there were interests that were involved to the point where there were just enough to get involved and the veto powers were convinced to stay out of it. They got damn lucky. Where is the support for Somalia? Non-existent. Same thing happened in the Ivory Coast, France had way too many deals that they'd lose if they didn't help the democratically elected leader (who, also, btw, was a Muslim), they got lucky there, too. If there was no support from the international community, Libya would very likely look like Syria does now. And people would still be, from their high positions of privilege in the western world, lambasting anyone who support the Libyan people.

[Bonobo]

21. Military intervention can destroy things. It cannot built them.

And THAT is something you really do not seem to get when you advocate us picking up the sledgehammer.

Libya is out of control. It is now a snake pit with hundreds of militia groups running around.

THEY are the "law" now and woe to you if you are not a member of their tribe or a dark-skinned visitor from another country.

Destroying institutions that are "bad" may seem like a good thing, but it is a matter of perspective.

With chaos in charge, it is impossible to say what will happen to Libya now, but to advocate sledgehammer foreign policy such as you do, is to invite trouble and all your statements about doing it out of concern for the "people" are just so much hot air if the results are as they are.

Have you not learned anything from Iraq? Destroying a "bad guy" isn't so hard. But what steps into that vacuum is an unknown.

[joshcryer]

22. Typical western hyperbole. Caracas is more deadly than all of Libya.

Caracas, Venezuela. Are you going to then make the same sorts of equivocations that Venezuela's pre-revolution institutions were desirable?

Chaos always follows the fall of an empire or an authority. It always does, always. There's nothing that can stop it.

This is why I make the statement that this line of reasoning is indistinguishable from the pro-apartheid arguments.

In the end there the factionalized incidents in Libya have been far far more muted than I could have ever expected.

But we've really had this conversation before, so I'm done.

[Bonobo]

23. You said "guns are being collected and violence is over except for the next few weeks"

You also said you would apologize if you were wrong.

Guess what.

You were wrong.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h7-BakQsKqX7s4nG9xpBYUF8sT_A?docId=39af1300cc034f9e8854557b1f1e2935

And claiming that my arguments against war-mongering are the equivalent of "pro-apartheid" arguments are a lovely example of Doublespeak.

[joshcryer]

25. I remember that exchange well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2159087&mesg_id=2165792

This is the maybe 20th significant incident in almost 5 months.

I was admittedly wrong with the ease at which the guns would be collected.

I was not wrong that it wouldn't turn into an Afghanistan/Iraq fiasco with civil war and bloodshed on a regular basis.

That remains to be seen.

You have apparently lowered the bar so much that small inter-factional militia fighting or thuggery, ala Caracas Venezuela, constitutes "more war." That's fair enough, I suppose. Though I don't think Caracas is "at war." For perspective here, twice as many people died in December in one city in Venezuela than in all of Libya over the last 5 months due to factionalism.

[Bonobo]

26. Compare these statements and tell me who was substantially wrong.

Joshcryer (in a few weeks or months) "Libya militas will be mostly disarmed by then and you'll see a dramatic drop in deaths."

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil (Libyan Leader) paraphrase "I am powerless to control the militias"

You then go on to say "Meanwhile I have a private list of people I have asked to admit they were wrong, and I do not in fact expect them to ever do so, you've been added. Please PM me if you ever post it, I may not be around DU for the elections. "


So do I count this as your official admission of being wrong?

[joshcryer]

27. Uh, I just admitted to being wrong about that.

Read carefully next time.

I do not admit to being wrong that they are still at war or that they are becoming like Iraq/Afghanistan.

You can pick stuff apart all you want, it's still a fact that Libya is doing far better off than either Iraq or Afghanistan.

An inconvenient point which you're deflecting.

[Bonobo]

28. "Better than Iraq or Afghanistan"??? And you say I am lowering the bar!? LOL!

I didn't say it was war.

I said it was warfare and it is. It is bloody chaos and it shows no signs of NOT being bloody chaos.

The "leaders" are not in any degree of control of the hundreds of militias.

So what the fuck was accomplished? A modern nation that we supported for decades with a high standard of living but a repressive dictator was brought down...great? But what is replacing it? Chaos. Chaos that is as likely to get worse as it is to get better.

And your defense, your shocking lowering of the goalposts (which you ironically accuse ME of) is to say:

"It isn't as bad as Iraq or Afghanistan"

well whoop do fucking whoop. Now that's a ringing endorsement.

You were wrong. You won't really admit it though no matter how bad things might get.

[joshcryer]

30. Did you not read my original post?

You're the one who is changing what warfare means.

You:

Yes, I predict more war. Are you predicting a stable democracy?

The rebels show every sign of being as bad as that which precedes them.

I will admit to being wrong as soon as their first democratic and fair election is over and the blood is still not running.

Will you do the same when things go south?

Me:

I have maintained that from the start.

That I would admit being wrong about the Libyan Revolution if, for example, it turns into an Afghanistan/Iraq fiasco with civil war and bloodshed on a regular basis. I do expect some small skirmishes for a few weeks if a few months yet (apparently there are a few small pockets of resistance left) but the war is over. I maintain I am right about this.

The rebels have shown very few signs that they are "as bad as that which precedes them." In fact, they've shown remarkable coherence in light of their lack of real leadership and pure decentralized operation. I maintain I am right about this.

Tell ya what, you'll start seeing about the gun collecting in the next month or so (it will take about that long for things to simmer down). Libya militas will be mostly disarmed by then and you'll see a dramatic drop in deaths. I was wrong about that.

Meanwhile I have a private list of people I have asked to admit they were wrong, and I do not in fact expect them to ever do so, you've been added. Please PM me if you ever post it, I may not be around DU for the elections.

I suspect if someone gets a damn nosebleed you'll claim "blood is running" and weasel away from admitting you were wrong. If you believe that Libya is "at war" then you must, for consistency, say that Venezuela is at war. Thuggery skirmishes are not war by any means. You know what I meant, I know what you meant, and this rhetoric is pointless.

[ellisonz]

57. I vote...

...DU raises some funds and sends Bonobo to somewhere "with a high standard of living but a repressive dictator" so that he can decide which is more important - material goods or liberty. I think Turkmenistan might be a good comparison - their per capita income is only $3,000 less than Libya's but their dictatorship isn't quite so brutal.

[Bonobo]

65. I vote we send you to basic training so you can fight.

Since you think so little of the lives of soldiers that you feel their blood should be spilled not in defense, but in nation-state building interventions where you, couch-dwelling denizen of the Kingdom of Cornchips, decide he/she should go.

And WHY should they go? Because said denizen feels that 30 years is long enough for our strongman to be oppressing the people we originally sent him their to oppress and now needs to be torn down. Thus the virtuous cycle continues and everyone (most notably Haliburton and other mercenaries) can flourish.

[inna]

58. "Caracas is more deadly than all of Libya." - saved for posterity, lol

[joshcryer]

59. It's a fact.

Less than 300 killed in Libya over the last 5 months (since the war ended). Over 600 killed in Caracas in December of 2011.

[inna]

61. it's a fact according to josh, enough said

[joshcryer]

62. It's a fact according to publicly available data.

[inna]

63. if one picks and chooses the most blatantly biased stats, only

[joshcryer]

67. I don't think you've even looked at the stats, to be honest.

[Zalatix]

41. Okay now I'm with you on that. One hundred percent.

America is not the world's policeman. We've tried and all we've gotten as a result is blowback.

[riderinthestorm]

10. Says one of the #1 cheerleaders of NATO and US intervention in Libya on DU, evah?

What. The. Fuck.

You were all about western interference when it was about OIL in Libya, but now any opinions with the Syria conflict are slammed as "xenophobic" or "racist slurs"?

NOTHING about this conflict is easily reduced to hyperbolic simplicity. You show your rah rah naivety if you think anyone is reducing the Syrian rebels as some monolithic entity. The forces acting behind the scenes in Syria are about as complex as anything I've ever seen and punking anyone chiming in on this is crass.

[joshcryer]

12. That is a blatant falsehood. I supported Libyan self-determination and got lied about for months.

I resisted racist, xenophobic, islamaphobic hatred being spit by the left and right alike. And what happened? I had people on various websites calling me an imperialist, calling me a paid shill, and so on.

It is the same sort of claims without evidence, Libya had islamists, etc, etc. It was wrong then and as the OP argues it is wrong now. I am not saying that they do not exist, but as far as bit players are concerned, they must assuredly be small players, unless you're going to have me believe a decade of Bush-era propaganda about scary "terrorists."

Islamism cannot be neutered with autocrats and dictatorships (or, as in the case of Turkey, a decades long junta that killed hundreds of thousands).

Anyone who advocates against those people in Syria who want self-determination are automatically siding with autocrats, dictatorships, or laughably, juntas.

This is not a call for war, merely a call to show where your sympathies are.

[bvar22]

78. There is a Lesson Here:

You said:[font color=red]
"I supported Libyan self-determination."[/font]


And do you believe that the general population in Libya supports the imposition of Sharia Law?

"The head of Libya's transitional government, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, announced on Sunday that post-Gadhafi Libya will be structured according to sharia law. "We are an Islamic state," he told a crowd in Benghazi."

Did the now Self-determined people of Libya vote to impose Sharia Law?
I don't think so. Sharia Law doesn't work that way.

The Lesson:
Never EVER support the overthrow of an "Evil Dictator" unless you KNOW what will replace him.

Most Iraqis agree that their life was better under the "Evil Dictator" Saddam.


[font size=4 color=firebrick]
If you're not FOR the WAR in VietNam Iraq Libya,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi!!![/font]

[inna]

82. "I supported Libyan self-determination" - lol. good one, josh.

[TheWraith]

5. You forgot to use the word "unamerican."

Hey, as long as you're accusing people of irrational and obnoxious things in order to try and discredit their opinions, you might as well go all the way, right?

[riverwalker]

6. selling wars?

how is information "selling wars"?
Self imposed obstruction of information, is exactly what got us into Iraq.
Pretending things are not happening is.......unusual. This is the information age, remember. Denial and feigned ignorance may have worked in the Holocaust, and in Rwanda, even Bosnia, but it won't carry water in this day and age.
If someone doesn't want to know, doesn't care care, just admit it. I don't buy the phoney "peacenik" facade to justify indifference thrown up by some.

[Bonobo]

8. One person's "information" is another person's "propaganda". nt

[stockholmer]

13. +100

[ButterflyBlood]

37. Please point to me where the OP mentions American military invasion in Syria

I can't find it, so I'll assume this post is just a Family Guy-esque non-sequitur.

[Bonobo]

38. More of a pattern of postings on this issue that make me say that. nt

[stockholmer]

7. OP IS WRONG........Washington Post : Al-Qaeda infiltrating Syrian opposition, U.S. officials say

Last edited Thu May 17, 2012, 09:54 AM - Edit history (1)

The OP is the same-old same-old support for empiric interventionism

Al-Qaeda infiltrating Syrian opposition, U.S. officials say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/al-qaeda-infiltrating-syrian-opposition-us-officials-say/2012/02/16/gIQA9LDJIR_story.html

Members of al-Qaeda have infiltrated Syrian opposition groups, and likely executed recent bombings in the nation’s capital and largest city, the United States’ top intelligence official said Thursday. The remarks by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are the most definitive to date from a senior Obama administration official on al-Qaeda’s efforts to insert itself into the Syrian uprising.

Two bombings in Damascus in December, as well as deadly attacks on security and intelligence buildings in Aleppo last week, “had all the earmarks of an al-Qaeda-like attack,” Clapper said, adding that the network’s affiliate in Iraq “is extending its reach into Syria.” But Clapper suggested that al-Qaeda has so far not sought to call attention to its presence, and that its operatives may have slipped into groups of fighters opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Al-Qaeda extremists “have infiltrated” opposition groups that “in many cases may not be aware they are there,” Clapper said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee.

snip
---------------------------------------------

Al-Qaeda agents worm into Syrian rebel army

------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS News: Al Qaeda urges Muslims to help Syria rebels

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57376121/al-qaeda-urges-muslims-to-help-syria-rebels/

(AP) BAGHDAD - Al Qaeda's chief has called on Muslims from other countries to support rebels in Syria seeking to overthrow President Bashar Assad, saying they cannot depend on the West for help. Ayman al-Zawahri, in a videotaped statement released late Saturday, asked Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to join the uprising against Assad's "pernicious, cancerous regime." All four states border Syria.


A senior Iraqi security official also told the Associated Press on Saturday that intelligence over the last four months has revealed a flow of al Qaeda-linked fighters from the northern Iraqi city of Mosul into Syria.


The comments by both the Iraqi official and al-Zawahri came a day after two suicide car bombers struck security compounds in Aleppo, a Syrian city that had been relatively peaceful throughout the country's 11-month-uprising. Though there was no claim of responsibility, suicide bombings are a hallmark of al Qaeda.


"There is no treatment for (the Assad regime) other than removal," al-Zawahri says in the eight-minute video posted on jihadist websites, according to U.S.-based SITE Intel Group, which monitors militant messages.


snip

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In complicating move, al-Qaeda backs Syrian revolt

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-12/al-qaeda-syria/53061264/1

BEIRUT (AP) – Al-Qaida's leader has called for the ouster of Syria's "pernicious, cancerous regime," raising fears that Islamic extremists will try to exploit an uprising against President Bashar Assad that began with peaceful calls for democratic change but is morphing into a bloody, armed insurgency.

The regime has long blamed terrorists for the 11-month-old revolt, and al-Qaida's endorsement creates new difficulties for the U.S., its Western allies and Arab states trying to figure out a way to help force Assad from power. On Sunday, the 22-nation Arab League called for the U.N. Security Council to create a joint peacekeeping force for Syria, but Damascus rejected it immediately.

In an eight-minute video message released late Saturday, al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahri called on Muslims to support Syrian rebels.

"Wounded Syria is still bleeding day after day, and the butcher (Bashar Assad) isn't deterred and doesn't stop," said al-Zawahri, who took over al-Qaida after Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces last May. "However, the resistance of our people in Syria is escalating and growing despite all the pains, sacrifices and blood."

snip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Al Qaeda moves fight to Syria, violence in Iraq drops sharply

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0221/As-Al-Qaeda-moves-fight-to-Syria-violence-in-Iraq-drops-sharply

The departure of Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters from Iraq to join the rebellion against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria has had one benefit, Iraqi officials say: Violence has dropped in this country, in some areas by as much as 50 percent in just a few months.

Iraqi officials declined to provide precise figures for the drop-off or to estimate how many Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters have left the country for Syria. But the impact of the departure, they said, has been especially apparent in Ninewah province, which borders Syria and has long been the scene of some of Al Qaeda in Iraq's most violent bombings and assassinations.

The province's capital, Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, was once home to as many as 800 Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters, US officials estimated last summer. But one provincial security officer said Al Qaeda in Iraq attacks in Mosul have become infrequent this year, and the attacks that do occur generally are small or are detected before they can be carried out. The officer spoke only on the condition of anonymity because regulations prohibit him from talking to reporters.

"Violence is down in Mosul, maybe one or two operations per day, sometimes none," the officer said Monday. "Today, members of (Al Qaeda in Iraq) attempted to booby-trap a house, but they were discovered and the operation failed. Yesterday, two IEDs" — improvised explosive devices — "were planted and both were discovered, and they failed again. The day before that there were no operations at all."

snip

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘US thinks it can use Al-Qaeda temporarily in Syria’

http://rt.com/news/us-al-qaeda-syria-otrakji-635/

The US and Al-Qaeda are using each other to topple President Assad, believes Camille Otrakji, editor of online magazine Syria Comment. ­US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said Al-Qaeda is working alongside Syria’s armed opposition http://rt.com/news/syria-opposition-al-qaeda-us-567/ , while Washington considers extending support to the rebels.

Otrakji told RT that both sides think they are using the other, hoping to control them later. “For example, the Islamists and Al-Qaeda think, 'We can have an alliance with the Americans or with any secular opposition forces, but later we will be in power,' and the Americans think they can use Al-Qaeda temporarily, if they have to, to get rid of the Syrian regime, and they will somehow manage to get rid of them. So, unfortunately they are apparently working together.”

The journalist added that it is important to understand how decision-making takes place in Washington D.C. “Some people really do not care about what will happen in Syria after. For example, there are factions that just want to punish the Syrian regime – I’ve heard this from someone in Washington – for their help in 1982, when Hezbollah attacked US troops in Lebanon.” And others, Otrakji said, are optimistic, thinking that there will be elections and that Syria is secular enough that Al-Qaeda factions or other Islamists will not win. “So, they just want to be hopeful for now, all they want to focus on now is to get rid of the regime – then, they think, they will manage somehow.”

And journalist and peace activist Don Debar said the US have already become some allies with Al-Qaeda in Libya. “First of all, the US is bedfellows with Al-Qaeda in Libya already. Secondly, if you look at the history of al-Qaeda, actually they are a successive group to the allies the US had in Afghanistan when it was fighting the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and early 1980s.” Debar also remembered a recent comment by Al-Qaeda that they were backing the Syrian rebels, which he said is “the same group the US is not only backing, but has been arming and training.” “So it’s not whether it will happen or not – it’s really been happening,” the activist concluded.

snip

--------------------------------------------------------


The Road To Tehran Goes Through Damascus

http://nilebowie.blogspot.com/2012/02/road-to-tehran-goes-through-damascus.html

Between the chaos and artillery fire unfolding in Homs and Damascus, the current siege against the Ba’athist State of Bashar al-Assad parallels events of nearly a century ago. In efforts to maintain its protectorate, the French government employed the use of foreign soldiers to smother those seeking to abolish the French mandated, Fédération Syrienne. While former Prime Minister Faris al-Khoury argued the case for Syrian independence before UN in 1945, French planes bombed Damascus http://mideastviews.com/articleview.php?art=122 into submission. Today, the same government http://euobserver.com/13/114380 – in addition to the United States http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-06/middleeast/world_meast_clinton-syrian-opposition_1_assad-syrian-opposition-syrian-national-council?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST and its client regimes in Libya and Tunisia http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-funded-tunisian-president-prepares.html – enthusiastically recognize the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leadership of Syria. Although recent polls funded by the Qatar Foundation claim 55% of Syrians support the Assad regime http://www.thedohadebates.com/news/item/index.asp?n=14312 , the former colonial powers have made a mockery of the very democratic principles they tout.


Irrespective to the views of the Syrian people, their fate has long been decided by forces operating beyond their borders. In a speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California in 2007 http://fora.tv/2007/10/03/Wesley_Clark_A_Time_to_Lead retired US Military General Wesley Clark speaks of a policy coup initiated by members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm . Clark cites a confidential document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2001 stipulating the entire restructuring of the Middle East and North Africa. Portentously, the document allegedly revealed campaigns to systematically destabilize the governments of Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.Under the familiar scenario of an authoritarian regime systematically suppressing peaceful dissent and purging large swaths of its population, the mechanisms of geopolitical stratagem have freely taken course.


Syria is but a chess piece being used as a platform by larger powers. Regime change is the unwavering interest of the US-led NATO block in collaboration with the feudal Persian Gulf Monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This is being accomplished by using Qatar-owned media outlets such as Al-Jazeera to project their version of the narrative to the world and by arming radical factions of the regions Sunni-majority population against the minority Alawi-Shia leadership of Assad. Since 2005, the Bush administration began funding Syrian opposition groups http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html that lean toward the Muslim Brotherhood and their aspirations to build a Sunni-Islamic State. The Muslim Brotherhood has long condemned the Alawi-Shia as heretics and historically attempted multiple uprising in the 1960’s. By arming radical Sunni factions and importing Iraqi Salafi-jihadists and Libyan mercenaries, the NATOGCC plans to topple Assad and install an illegitimate exiled opposition leader such as Burhan Ghaliun (leader of the Syrian National Council) to be the face of the new regime.



The recent example of implementing foreign policy by arming Al-Qaeda fighters in Libya has proved disastrous - as the rule of law passes from the NATO-backed Libyan Transitional Council to hundreds of warring guerilla militias. At a meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Hillary Clinton, Davutoglu pledged http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57374741/turkey-to-propose-syria-strategy-to-clinton/ to find ways outside the United Nations Security Council to pressure Assad. In addition to bolstering longstanding sectarian divides in Syria, the US is smuggling arms into Syria from Incirlik military base in Turkey and providing financial support for Syrian rebels. Syrian opposition forces led by defected Syrian colonel Riad al-Assad have been trained on Turkish soil since May 2011. Exclusive military and intelligence sources have reported to Israel’s DEBKAfile that British and Qatari special operations units are assisting rebel forces in Homs http://www.debka.com/article/21718/ by providing body armor, laptops, satellite phones and managing rebel communications lines that request logistical aid, arms and mercenaries from outside suppliers.

snip

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gen Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

US/UK/NATO support of al-Qaeda: Libya, now Syria, and also before:


Abdel Hakim Belhaj is a ranking al-Qaeda affiliated leader (emir of the Islamic Fighting Group of Libya)

http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/Report/RSIS_Libya.pdf (page 18 has interview with Belhaj)

Belhaj is now helping lead the Free Syrian Army

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/12/cias-belhaj-on-syria-border.html

Leading Libyan Islamist (Belhaj) met Free Syrian Army opposition group

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8919057/Leading-Libyan-Islamist-met-Free-Syrian-Army-opposition-group.html

One of Belhaj's underlings is Nasser Tailamoun, who was Osama bin Laden's driver. Qadaffi released these 2, plus dozens of other radicals, in September of 2010.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/libya-releases-islamists-including-bin-ladens-driver-48737

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282353/benghazi-sea-al-qaeda-flags-john-rosenthal

"Benghazi: A Sea of Al-Qaeda Flags"

The emergence of images of a black al-Qaeda flag flying atop the Benghazi courthouse, the symbolic cradle of Libya’s anti-Qaddafi rebellion, has provoked hasty efforts at damage control by defenders of the rebellion and the new Libyan order. The latter, mostly operating under cover of anonymity in online comments sections, have suggested, among other things, that the images were photoshopped, that the flag is not in fact the al-Qaeda flag, and that the raising of the flag was an isolated incident: the work of, as one commentator here http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/11/ominous_al_qaeda_in_libya.php put it, a “small group of Islamists.” But pictorial evidence posted on an Arabic-language Islamic Internet forum reveals that the Benghazi waterfront was in fact covered by a veritable sea of al-Qaeda flags last week: both the “classic” black version and a more novel white one.


"This is to say, in effect, that one can wave the al-Qaeda flag in the noses of Western journalists in broad daylight in Libya, and they will either not recognize it, or if they do, not deign to inform their readers. The episode could serve as a parable for the virtual entirety of Western reporting on the Libyan war."

snip

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Flying proudly over the birthplace of Libya's revolution, the flag of Al Qaeda

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055630/Flying-proudly-birthplace-Libyas-revolution-flag-Al-Qaeda.html#ixzz1n4zl3xSI

The black flag of Al Qaeda was hoisted in Libya yesterday as Nato formally ended its military campaign.
The standard fluttered from the roof of the courthouse in Benghazi, where the country’s new rulers have imposed sharia law since seizing power.
Seen as the seat of the revolution, the judicial building was used by rebel forces to establish their provisional government and media centre.



snip

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US and NATO use and support of al-Qaeda in the Libya coup d' etat

Abdel Hakim Belhaj, Tripoli's newly installed military governor (also a key official within Libya's National Transitional Council), is linked to Al Qaeda, reports Liberátion (Leftist French newspaper).

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012356209-abdelhakim-belhaj-le-retour-d-al-qaeda

http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fmonde%2F01012356209-abdelhakim-belhaj-le-retour-d-al-qaeda

Belhaj is the former head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (an affiliate group of Al Qaeda). In 2003, Belhaj was arrested in Malaysia in 2003, later being interrogated by CIA in 2004 in Thailand. He was set free in Libya in 2008.


It's important to note Belhaj is supported by NATO, as Le Parisien and MSN France report:

http://news.fr.msn.com/m6-actualite/monde/libye-calme-relatif-%c3%a0-tripoli-avanc%c3%a9es-dans-louest-statu-quo-dans-lest-2


http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.fr.msn.com%2Fm6-actualite%2Fmonde%2Flibye-calme-relatif-%25c3%25a0-tripoli-avanc%25c3%25a9es-dans-louest-statu-quo-dans-lest-2


10 h 20. Un islamiste à la tête du commandement militaire de la rébellion à Tripoli. Abdelhakim Belhadj a été le chef militaire qui a préparé, avec l'aide de l'Otan, la prise du QG de Kadhafi, à Bab Al-Azizya. Al-Jazeera lui a consacré un long entretien en direct du QG à l'issue des combats. Ancien dirigeant du Groupe islamique des combattants libyens (GICL), lié à Al-Qaida, Abdelhakim Belhadj, a été arrêté en 2004 par les Américains en Asie et livré par la suite à la Libye, selon la presse arabe. Il aurait bénéficié de l'amnistie de centaines d'islamistes libyens en mars 2010 ordonnée par Saif Al-Islam, fils préféré de Kadhafi.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karel Abderrahim, a researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques, a French think tank) said in an interview to La Croix, a Catholic French newspaper, that he is skeptical about the dissolution of Al Qaeda-Libyan Islamic Fighting Group:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-croix.com%2FActualite%2FS-informer%2FMonde%2FKader-Abderrahim-chercheur-a-l-Iris-Je-ne-vois-pas-qui-pourrait-federer-la-Libye-_EG_-2011-08-24-702836


Further background:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270293/al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebellion-john-rosenthal

Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion

A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.”

The sponsors of the report are the Paris-based International Center for Research and Study on Terrorism and Aide to Victims of Terrorism (CIRET-AVT) and the French Center for Research on Intelligence (CF2R). The organizations sent a six-member expert mission to Libya to evaluate the situation and consult with representatives on both sides of the conflict. From March 31 to April 6, the mission visited the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the region of Tripolitania; from April 19 to April 25, it visited the rebel capital of Benghazi and the surrounding Cyrenaica region in eastern Libya.

snip

The report describes members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group as the “main pillar of the armed insurrection.” “Thus the military coalition under NATO leadership is supporting a rebellion that includes Islamic terrorists,” the authors write. Alluding to the major role played by the Cyrenaica region in supplying recruits for al-Qaeda in Iraq, they add, “No one can deny that the Libyan rebels who are today supported by Washington were only yesterday jihadists killing American GIs in Iraq.”

The full composition of the NTC has not been made public. But, according to the authors, one avowed al-Qaeda recruiter, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, is himself a member of the NTC. (On al-Hasadi, see my March 25 report here.) Al-Hasadi is described by the authors as the “leader of the Libyan rebels.” Although Western media reports commonly say that he is in charge of the defense of his home town of Darnah in eastern Libya, the CIRET-CF2R report suggests that in mid-April, al-Hasadi left Cyrenaica by boat in order to participate in the battle of Misrata. He is supposed to have taken arms and 25 “well-trained fighters” with him. Misrata is in western Libya, a mere 135 miles from Tripoli.

snip

report is here: http://www.cf2r.org/images/stories/news/201106/rapport-libye.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------
more info:


http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/libyan-fighting-factions-to-unite-under-single-military-command-1.380955?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2011/08/27/al-qaeda-in-libya-started-to-act-killing-friends-and-foes/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


"Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries"....................


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flashback 2 years (including Young Turks video) more US support of terrorist groups

Saudis and CIA back Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s Jundullah in Pakistan and Iran?

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/12/saudis-and-cia-back-khalid-sheikh.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flashhback to 2007 (BBC) Libyan Islamists 'join al-Qaeda'

Zawahri called for North African leaders to be overthrown
A Libyan Islamist group has joined al-Qaeda, according to an audio message on the internet attributed to the radical network's second-in-command.

Ayman al-Zawahri purportedly said the Fighting Islamic Group in Libya was becoming part of al-Qaeda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7076604.stm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flasback to 2002 (Guardian UK) French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/nov/10/uk.davidshayler

MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'Startling revelations by French intelligence experts back David Shayler's alleged 'fantasy'about Gadaffi plot

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lies, War, and Empire: NATO’s “Humanitarian Imperialism” in Libya (Video + Article)

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/08/26/lies-war-and-empire-nato%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Chumanitarian-imperialism%E2%80%9D-in-libya


snip

It has been said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Libya is no exception. From the lies that started the war, to the rebels linked to al-Qaeda, ethnically cleansing black Libyans, killing civilians, propaganda, PR firms, intelligence agents, and possible occupation; Libya is a more complex story than the fairy tale we have been sold. Reality always is.

What Were the ‘Reasons’ for ‘Intervention’?

We were sold the case for war in Libya as a “humanitarian intervention.” We were told, of course, that we “needed” to intervene in Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was killing his own people in large numbers; those people, on the same token, were presented as peaceful protesters resisting the 40-plus year reign of a brutal dictator.

In early March of 2011, news headlines in Western nations reported that Gaddafi would kill half a million people.<1> On March 18, as the UN agreed to launch air strikes on Libya, it was reported that Gaddafi had begun an assault against the rebel-held town of Benghazi. The Daily Mail reported that Gaddafi had threatened to send in his African mercenaries to crush the rebellion.<2> Reports of Libyan government tanks sitting outside Benghazi poised for an invasion were propagated in the Western media.<3> In the lead-up to the United Nations imposing a no-fly zone, reports spread rapidly through the media of Libyan government jets bombing the rebels.<4> Even in February, the New York Times – the sacred temple for the ‘stenographers of power’ we call “journalists” – reported that Gaddafi was amassing “thousands of mercenaries” to defend Tripoli and crush the rebels.<5> Italy’s Foreign Minister declared that over 1,000 people were killed in the fighting in February, citing the number as “credible.”<6> Even a top official with Human Rights Watch declared the rebels to be “peaceful protesters” who “are nice, sincere people who want a better future for Libya.”<7> The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights declared that “thousands” of people were likely killed by Gaddafi, “and called for international intervention to protect civilians.”<8> In April, reports spread near and far at lightning speed of Gaddafi’s forces using rape as a weapon of war, with the first sentence in a Daily Mail article declaring, “Children as young as eight are being raped in front of their families by Gaddafi’s forces in Libya,” with Gaddafi handing out Viagra to his troops in a planned and organized effort to promote rape.<9>

As it turned out, these claims – as posterity notes – turned out to be largely false and contrived. Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International both investigated the claims of rape, and “have found no first-hand evidence in Libya that rapes are systematic and being used as part of war strategy,” and their investigations in Eastern Libya “have not turned up significant hard evidence supporting allegations of rapes by Qaddafi’s forces.” Yet, just as these reports came out, Hillary Clinton declared that the U.S. is “deeply concerned by reports of wide-scale rape” in Libya.<10> Even U.S. military and intelligence officials had to admit that, “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas”; at the same time Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, “told a closed-door meeting of officials at the UN that the Libyan military is using rape as a weapon in the war with the rebels and some had been issued the anti-impotency drug. She reportedly offered no evidence to backup the claim.”<11>

snip

------------------------------------------------------------------

article is heavily footnoted and sourced (127 total footnotes) with hyperlinks as well

--------------------------------------------------------------

Al Qaeda is an artificial hydra, utilizing the 150 year-old methods the British practised in the middle east. The 'tip of the spear' low-level terrorists are many times actual believers in their cause, but the operational control is far removed from that paradigm.


The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda: The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/the-imperial-anatomy-of-al-qaeda-the-cia%E2%80%99s-drug-running-terrorists-and-the-%E2%80%9Carc-of-crisis%E2%80%9D/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Power of Nightmares

subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a 3 part BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, the USA seeds of al-Qaeda started in 1978 and 1979, under Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Carter regime, (now Gates has been the Sec of Defense under both Bush and Obama) and Brzezinski is a de facto chief architect of geo-political policy for the Obama administration http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65720/zbigniew-brzezinski/from-hope-to-audacityhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama08.htm .


Zbigniew Brzezinski:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=cambodia_662

1980-1986: China and US Support Kymer Rouge

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/us.html

China and the US sustained the Khmer Rouge with overt and covert aid in an effort to destabilize Cambodia’s Vietnam-backed government. With US backing, China supplied the Khmer Rouge with direct military aid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser during the administration of President Carter, will later acknowledge, “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.”
--------------------------------------------------------

September 4, 1997: Brzezinski’s ‘The Grand Chessboard’ Advocates Overthrow of Iranian Goverment

“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. In the book Brzezinski details how in order to protect America’s status as the last remaining super power on earth it would be necessary to invade and control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran. The book theorizes that America could be attacked by Afghan terrorists which would lead to our invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately control of Iran as a key strategic country to hold in the war for global supremacy.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US empire's currency (the rapidly-dying dollar) is backed up, collateralized by oil, and the oil is, in turn backed up by the global Anglo-American war machine.

This crisis point with the current global monetary debt regime will occur in the next 5 to 10 years max, it even may cause a new world war, as many industrialized countries (not just 3rd world periphery states) will simply be unable to continue to operate at a level that will prevent their own citizens from outright civil wars and coup d' etats (much like we see now in the 'arc of crisis' ie. Morocco to the Chinese border).

This concept was laid out over 30 years ago by Zbigniew Brzezinski (chief geo-political strategist for Carter, now for Obama) in his books, speeches and CFR articles. His goal is to use this arc to force a China vs. Russia war by 2020. This will complete the elimination (in his mind) of the last threat to the Anglo/American banking cartel for true, lasting technetronic global hegemony.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921766,00.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32309/george-lenczowski/the-arc-of-crisis-its-central-sector

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_chessboard.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/04-0

-----------------------------------------------------------
2 key books by Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299979870&sr=8

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------

Between Two Ages

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/between_twoages.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creating an "Arc of Crisis": The Destabilization of the Middle East
and Central Asia The Mumbai Attacks and the “Strategy of Tension”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24770171/Creating-an-Arch-of-Conflict
------------------------------------------------------------------

[PufPuf23]

14. Heck of a post Stockholmer, should be an OP nt

[Bonobo]

16. +2

[joshcryer]

18. DU spent a decade being warned about the phantom that is Al-Qaeda.

I'm personally shocked that this climate change denier is still posting Al-Qaeda scare mongering pieces.

[stockholmer]

29. number one, if YOU BOTHERED TO READ MY POST, you would see that I call out A-Q for what it is-

an artificial hydra used for instabilty, rationalization of war, social control/loss of liberty inside the West, and chaos-driven profits by the systemic empiric controllers.

The reason I draw attention to A-Q in Syria is that it exposes the deep-political machinations of the banksters and their war-machine as they attempt to roll up all independent nations under their blanket control of global financial imperialism.

Number 2, I am not a climate change denier (again with the pseudo-religious slurs), your ad hominen attacks are pathetic, as I simply have not seen enough evidence to make up my mind either way definitively on the subject. I tend to think that there is more of a tilt to pro-warming side, but I definitely do not think that the current cap and trade schemas will address it in an effective manner. Even more problematic is the potential for large-scale corruption and profits under the system of private trading exchanges as currently proposed.

I am extremely pro-environment, and work (and vote) vigourously in terms of conservation and protection of nature, I am extremely anti-uranium-based nuclear power, I am completely anti-frakking, as well as being a big proponent of alternative energy sources.

As for being 'personally shocked', well too bad, I suppose. If this is enough to 'shock' you, perhaps you need to get out more.

[joshcryer]

33. Your post makes al-Qaeda out to be a real entity worth worrying about. 46 mentions.

The entire post is filled with al-Qaeda scare mongering.

As far as the denialism, one need only follow your posts on climate change to make their own determination.

[stockholmer]

39. a diffuse form of al-Qaeda scare mongering is exacting what you do, you try to bully people

into supporting your so-called 'freedom fighters' as they do the empires dirty work, then, when that very same empire-created porta-riot henchmen (al-Qaeda) are proven to be in the vanguard of the sytemic take-down of a country, you deny that they are present. The reason you deny this is because of the baggage that A-Q carries in the minds of the average person in the West (as A-Q have been purpose-made into the eternal boogeyman of terror, again by the same empire).

At this point, cognitive dissonance begins in your target audience train's of thought: The 'peaceful protestors who I (your intended audience member) want to support are also partially made-up of the 'ultimate enemy' (A-Q) who I know wants to kill me, uhh uhhh, omg, I am sooo confused........).

Given you past postings, I HIGHLY doubt that you have been 'exposing' al-Qeada for the systemic contollers' artificial global destabilisation force that they are in reality. I am fairly sure that you think they are an organic uprising of terrorists who, from top to bottom, simply want to attack the West and all other 'infidels' because 'we' are free and decadent and therefore, to quote the despicable W Bush, 'they hates us for our freedom'.

I furthermore think that you parrot the standard spew (especially when it is one of 'your' party who is in charge) that comes out of the US/UK/NATO power-nexis propaganda line's mouth, albeit with the prerequisite, oh-so-sensitive, caring 'panache' of a so-called enlightened western 'liberal'. You surely did during the Libya disaster.

Empiric embargos/sanctions, bombs, drones, invasions, third-party coups, etc etc all kill the same way, regardless of whether it is a Democratic (yay) or a Republican (boo) calling the shots. They either starve people to death, deny them needed medicine, (speaking of which, perhaps you should look into the 500,000 plus who died in Iraq under Clinton's sanctions of the 1990's) or rip human beings (mostly civilian woman and children) apart, literally and figuratively, from limb to fucking limb.

Shameful. At the deepest level.

[joshcryer]

44. I agree with Castro who says al-Qeada is a mythical invention of the west.

I disagree with Castro who says al-Qeada is a threat.

ie, I think that al-Qeada is a small, minority, bit player that has no relevance in any discussions whatsoever, which is why I haven't engaged such pathetic slanders in the past.

Ooh! Scary al-Qeada! The Bush admin would be proud of your propaganda efforts.

[Bonobo]

46. The Bush admin would be even PROUDER of your efforts to start more wars in the ME. nt

[joshcryer]

49. Please stop being hateful toward me.

I have been as respectful as possible toward you (despite your hateful, cruel, unsubstantiated dishonest slanders) and absolutely nothing I have said has "supported efforts to start more wars in the ME."

You may have a vendetta, I do not.

[Bonobo]

51. Don't call my arguments indistinguishable from a "Pro-Apartheid" supporter

and I will not call you a "war mongerer".

[joshcryer]

54. You called me a war-monger before I made those statements.

In my case I think that ultimately I support self-determination, whereas your comments are irreconcilable with those of pro-apartheid. If you used arguments that were not indistinguishable maybe there would be some common ground here. Anyone who defends authoritarianism over personal self-determination must, irrevocably, be indistinguishable from those racist, xenophobic pro-apartheid people. You simply cannot single out a small subset of people without falling into that cycle. This is why I unabashedly support OWS even when bad things happen, because if I were to have a "selective judgment" I would be no different.

[Bonobo]

55. That is so reductionistic.

You start with the false premise that because I am universally against wars of choice, I am defending "authoritarianism".

Ironically you claim to be a supporter of "self-determination" but seem to feel that other countries cannot determine their own fates.

When I argue that there is chaos and bloodshed after the Western intervention, you say "well it is inevitable and unavoidable".

If that is the case, then I think you must also accept the fact that blood will be spilled when they themselves decide to revolt.

Surely you also can appreciate the fact that by interfering, we inevitably poison these movements. The leaders we support invariably get tainted by that support both in reality and in the minds of the supporters who are no fans of the US and other interfering Western powers. So we ALWAYS set up a situation that will have some kind of blowback.

In fact, ALL such destructive actions and acts of violence always have blowback aspects to them.

If you feel that the people in Libya and Syria are so capable of self-determination, then give them the credit they deserve. Allow them to be the change they have been waiting for.

With Western intervention, a pattern is always created whereby a Western friendly leader is placed in power (he wouldn't attain power unless he IS western-friendly as you know). And SINCE he is western-friendly, a dynamic in which he will inevitably be despised as a puppet is created. This has been shown time and time again and it is why your interventionist ideas will never work.

[joshcryer]

56. Your premise might make sense if it weren't for the fact that all revolution ends this way.

South Africa and Venezuela were the examples I gave. You take exception to South Africa because you find offense at the idea that your comments are irreconcilable with those of the pro-apartheid. You assume that "western intervention" is the cause, indeed, in South Africa the west sided with anti-apartheid, so clearly that proves the case, no? Of course, when all is said and done, and you look at Venezuela who had their own revolution, the chaos that ensued wasn't part of the wests' intentions or actions. So it would be totally wrong to say that the rest was responsible for the 100k+ deaths that happened after apartheid ended. The racists would disagree, they'd say that the west, by supporting anti-apartheid, were responsible for those deaths and take it much further and imply (though never explicitly saying so) that the system they had in place was superior.

This is what happens. You strip away the authoritarian power structure and some small subset of peoples will try and take advantage of it. In Libya racist, possibly even islamist groups decided to have out their own vendettas. In Venezuela people decided to do the same, to take advantage of the power vacuum that occurred due to the stripping of power. The same is to be said of South Africa. So the fuck what? Are we going to start championing pro-apartheid arguments to "prove" that the system that was in place before was "better?" Well, you've done so here and in your prediction that the system would not be better!

It has nothing to do with "western intervention." We have our cases. We know how history works when a country rises up or is pressured from within. We know that ultimately the results are not so pretty. That is life. That is what happens when you strip the power structure from being. It is unfortunate. It is simply how things are. I accept it. I think the end of apartheid is a good thing. I think the nationalization of oil is a good thing. I think that free health care is a good thing. I think that equality among citizens is a good thing. I accept that human beings will resort to debase behavior, a small subset of those human beings mind you, if they have the opportunity because the power structure is stripped away.

And I think it's worth it. I think that the 100k+ killed after the end of apartheid was a fair enough sacrifice. I think the 200k+ killed after Venezuela nationalized the oil was a fair enough sacrifice. It fucking sucks. I can't say that the outcome could've been different. In both countries it probably could have been. It should've been, frankly. But that's OK. The poverty reduction in Venezuela was worth it. The ability for blacks to be autonomous was worth it. I truly believe that.

To say otherwise would be to embrace ideals that are simply impossible. Western intervention be damned.

[Bonobo]

64. Why choose S. Africa and Venezuela when talking about the Middle East?

Probably because if you discussed ME countries, you would see that my point (that you essentially bullshitted around by talking a lot and really saying nothing).

Iraq -institute a US strongman who is unpopular, setting the stages for a future uprising where we can go in again and start all over (shades of Halliburton who destroys and rebuilds as part of their Shock Doctrine Capitalism).

Iran -same thing

Afghanistan -same thing

Libya -same fucking thing

"western intervention be damned" is a weird thing to be saying when you are calling for it.

What you really mean is "Western intervention please and damn the consequences!"

[joshcryer]

66. You say it but you can't substantiate it.

I'm showing you that bad things happen when we support good things, but somehow that is lost on you.

I have never ever said "western intervention please." Ever. It's just unsubstantiated crap to shit on me for no reason other than that people can't reconcile their corrupt beliefs with a given societies desire for self-determination. That's all. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

[Bonobo]

68. Your posts don't make much sense to me, that's why I don't get them

I can't be sure if it's because you're not a good writer or tired or what, but I have no idea what you are even saying. I am making an effort with you, more than I believe you actually deserve at this point.

* I can't substantiate that the US has a history of overturning govts. and installing strongmen that are hated for being US supporters? Really? Really? Are you kidding me?

* You're showing me that "bad things happen she we support good things"? Whaaaat? What the hell are you referring to? Are we even speaking on the same channel at all? This statement leaves me completely clueless as to what you mean.

* You have never said "Western intervention please"??? Really? Really? I think you have said it over and over and over pretty clearly. With regard to Libya at any rate.

* "People can't reconcile their corrupt beliefs with a given society's desire for self-determination. That's hypocrisy at its finest." Again, whaaaat? It's like you just arrange words together with correct syntax but with no meaning. What the hell is that supposed to mean?? What can't I reconcile? what is hypocritical?

And the weird thing is that YOU are the one hypocritical. You support the idea of maintaining a Western imperial paradigm where we maintain a military dominance over the rest of the world and set up nations as we see fit. You claim that you are for self-determination but you call for interventions that would do anything BUT allow these countries to determine their own fate. Look at what happened when we intervened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Chile, Argentina.

Strongmen get placed to suit the needs of the Imperialist powers and the needs of the people who you say you support are NEVER given any kind of priority. And THAT is why it would be better for the US to stay out.

[joshcryer]

69. The typical mockary continues.

1) you can't substantiate that I am "calling for" "western intervention." That is a total falsehood, merely meant to cut at me, merely meant to insult me. Unsubstantiated. I have repeatedly denied it, you repeatedly repeat it, without actually providing evidence to those ends.

2) bad things happen when we support good things, I provided a several paragraph post to substantiate that. Good thing = end of apartheid. Bad thing = tens of thousands of dead due to the turmoil after the fact. Good thing = nationalization of oil and health and education in Venezuela. Bad thing = 10x increase in crime in Venezuela. I am at a loss as to how this is missed in my statement, I'm providing very comprehensive arguments here.

3) "western intervention please" Nope, not at all. I illustrated what the Libyan people wanted, throughout my entire coverage of the Libyan episode, but I do not think that I once called for it personally. In fact, I have repeatedly said that the NATO intervention in Libya could be a good way to ... end NATO. And that appears to be the outcome (just Google NATO alliance, any recent report shows where NATO is heading, and it's all because of Libya and the Euro-forced-alliance).

4) the hypocrisy is apparent. People judging Libya, Syria, on the actions of a few or on reports that may or may not indicate a negative element. Good. People judging OWS on the actions of a few or on reports that may or may not indicate a negative element. Bad. This is inherently corrupt. The only basis for which to judge Libya (or Syria) but defend OWS is an anti-American sentiment, it has nothing to do with a rational consideration for the self-determination of the parties involved.

Meanwhile, I have called for no western interventions, and you are merely making stuff up as you have repeatedly done throughout this conversation, without substantiating one iota of your false projections. In fact, in this very thread, I have pointed out how US imperialism in support of autocrats and dictators has created the problems that we are currently witnessing in the middle east, and that to end these issues we must support the self-determination of the people involved.

Don't worry. Nothing will happen in Syria. As I tell climate change deniers, nothing will be done about climate change, so why worry? Why spend so much effort bloviating about something that nothing will be done about? That same exact advice I give you to. Syria will fall into despotism and I will continue showing solidarity toward those in Syria. I will not advocate for anything to do about it.

[Bonobo]

70. Actually, forget it.

I give up.

[riderinthestorm]

80. Ireland managed to wrest it's freedom, without post-revolutionary violence

(or "western" military intervention).

Took a hell of a long time but it happened. And the aftermath was MUCH calmer.

Western military intervention appears to be the problematic factor.... the point will be lost on the warmongers but there are examples today (and throughout) history that lend credence to non-intervention when the country's population takes the lead in overthrowing their dictators. Its bloody and hard to watch on the sidelines but the reality just may be that western intervention is a big mistake in self-determination.

[stockholmer]

71. oki, I will take you at face value on the 'A-Q as invention of the West' meme, we agree on this, but

Last edited Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:24 AM - Edit history (1)

I also do NOT want to seem to be pushing A-Q as 'scary-scary threat' in and of itself. I fear the power that is unleashed against entire nations (empiric wars) and the citizens of the West (police state loss of liberties) by the systemic controllers all in the name of fighting the phantom menace. I despise the Bush-style fear mongering.

Perhaps now you see the tack that I am taking? I also apologize if I misunderstood you on certain points.

cheers

[PufPuf23]

81. What does climate change have to do with a well cited intelligent post?

POTUS Obama, his appointees, members of the Congress, and representitives of media, military, and civilian government cite "Al-Qaeda".

US policy in the Middle East is confusing to me because of the narrative in public discourse.

There is Sunni versus Shiite and relative degrees of State control in most of the Middle East except Israel.

The US is not consistent. This cannot come to a good trajectory.

Iraq and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- Shia majority but Sunni dominates (but after regime change in Iraq a shift to Shia and closer to Iran).

Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are Sunni.

The USA supported what became Al-Qaeda in Soviet Afganistan and what was essentially Al-Qaeda mercenaries in the former Yugoslavia.

"Al-Qaeda" came from Libya to Iraq primarily from easter Libya (Bengazi).

Aside: The Russians have a naval base in Syria and were about to have another base on Med Sea in eastern Iraq (where the USA had a base many years post WWII).

One would have to be naive not to realize that the USA intelligence profession is not involved in essentially any country of possible "National Interest".

[Prometheus Bound]

24. Impressive work, Stockholmer.

I'll need to bookmark this. Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

32. Wow, make that an OP, Stockholmer.

I think you proved the point beyond any doubt. I've also read about the Libyan 'rebels' also Al Queda, some of them, traveling to Syria to stir up trouble, and reports say, shooting at everything and everyone. Who is responsible for the killings? According to reports and to Syrians themselves, 'strangers' to their country are killing civilians. So, it's hard to tell how many people have tragically died at the hands of infiltrators, but there is no doubt at all that many have.

[girl gone mad]

40. Excellent.

Thank you.

[inna]

60. great post, obviously. thank you.

[UnseenUndergrad]

31. Right on Scendule

Posting a Libya/Syria article that appears moderately thoughtful has kicked off the whackiest 4 hours since North Korean Public Radio.

[joshcryer]

34. Eh, tab usually gets a hit and run.

I decided to defend the basic idea of helping other human beings. I'm done now. I'm not willing to engage the others here.

[Bonobo]

36. It is sad and hilarious that you think that strawman is appropriate

Joshcryer: "I decided to defend the basic idea of helping other human beings."

Translation: "Everyone against more military intervention is against helping other people"

Reality: Joshcryer is supporting military intervention in yet ANOTHER ME nation. Where will it end, Josh?

[joshcryer]

43. Total dishonesty.

As per usual. Show sympathy for the persecuted = supporting intervention.

I don't know how I deal with the hateful, despicable smears.

[Bonobo]

47. So do you support Syrian intervention? nt

[joshcryer]

50. I support the international community.

In this event I cannot support Syrian intervention as proposed by the current status of Syria within the UN Security Council.

If that changes I will support it.

As now I grieve for those in Syria who have no support.

I do not call for nor do I condemn the international community to support the Syrian uprising.

[Bonobo]

52. But the "international community" is not REALLY all that international, is it?

I mean even when we talk about the "international community", we are really talking about the same imperialistic powers that have run things for the last 100 years US, Britain, France with a dash of Germany, China and Russia thrown in. Right?

It's not like we're talking about powers whose general white, Western view are any different than the US.

[joshcryer]

53. Indeed.

The veto countries have their own interests to keep, therefore Syrian self-determination must fall to the way-side.

Thus my grief.

[Fool Count]

79. WTF? Can one distort reality more than that? That's the "veto countries" who put a stop to

attempts by foreign powers to impose solutions/regime change on Syria. Self-determination prevailed and
foreign intervention failed, at least for now. What kind of orwellian newspeak is that - to call diktat by
foreign powers "self-determination"? Do you even know what "self-determination" means?

[inna]

83. yep, pretty darn orwellian, but the answer to your question in the subject line is

"hell, yes"

[Zalatix]

42. Anyone who supports military intervention in Syria should sign up and put some skin in the game.

How much skin do you have in that game?

[joshcryer]

48. What? I can't show solidarity without putting my neck out there?

Ridiculous. So I'm supposed to become an unlawful combatant in Syria when Obama has shown that he has no regard for unlawful combatants, I'm supposed to put my life on the line, before I'm allowed to express my first amendment rights? Fucking ridiculous.

I have a right to express my opinion. As long as it fits within the ToS of this website, indeed, I can say anything I want to say here.

I don't have to fit some absurd, privileged purity test to "be able" to express that opinion.

Do you support the self-determination of the Syrian people? Or are you pro-Assad, or despotism?

FYI I have not once, ever, posted in support of "military intervention in Syria" and you would be hard pressed to find such a claim by me because you're just making stuff. Go ahead. I challenge you.

[Sabayon65]

35. The Syrian situation should be left in the hands of the Syrian people

It may sound callous, but to aid the rebels is very short-sighted. Nearly everything we knew about Libya was incorrect, and the involvement had underlying causes which were beneficial in the short-run to American foreign policy. Thus the engagement in Libya was done not to help the Libyans achieve democracy, but in the end to benefit certain globalist powers that be. Not only that, a large part of the population was loyal to Gaddafi because he funded free health care and education, as well as public works.

Just like in Libya, we're hearing that Assad is a brutal dictator, which undoubtedly might have truth to it, but we should remember that the same media which is telling us this, also claimed that Saddam WMD's and was linked to Bin Laden. We should think twice about such unnecessary involvement.

[joshcryer]

45. Who said anything about aiding them? All the OP did was show that al-Qeada was a false claim.

That's all! And here we have al-Qeada trumpeters who, if you didn't know better, are indistinguishable from Bush-era right wingers! It's impossible to tell! I suspect if Bush or a "right winger" were still in charge we'd completely dismiss al-Qeada propaganda as just that. It really blows my mind!

[bvar22]

72. How do you feel about the "Rebels" imposing Sahrai Law in Libya?

"The head of Libya's transitional government, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, announced on Sunday that post-Gadhafi Libya will be structured according to sharia law. "We are an Islamic state," he told a crowd in Benghazi."

http://theweek.com/article/index/220677/islamic-law-for-libya-will-we-end-up-missing-gadhafi

I guess its a good thing that we bombed the shit out of the Libyans to get them ready for Sharia Law being imposed.
Good Job USA!!!!

[UnseenUndergrad]

73. What is this "Sahrai" Law you speak of?

Some remnant of Javanese Hinduism?

I believe that this issue has been covered repeatedly, including within the Libyan popular press. There was clarification, a partial walk-back and heavy debate.

However, something puzzles me.

THEN

Bush: Al Queda!

DU: *yawn*

NOW (or recently so)

Qaddafi: Al Queda!

DU: *loses its shit*

[bvar22]

76. Excuse the typo, but I think you know what I meant.

I have witnessed a remarkable consistency in our government's ability to fool MOST Americans ALL of the time no matter WHICH political party is in power.
Herman Goering said it best, and you can currently observe this process at work with the target being Iran.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."--- Herman Goering, Spandau Prison, 1946

[font size=4 color=firebrick]
If you're not FOR the WAR in Iraq Libya Iran,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi The Ayatollahs!!![/font]

[eissa]

74. What total bullshit

"The reality is that, as The Telegraph has reported consistently in recent years, there is growing evidence of collaboration between the Iranian government, Assad's backers, and al-Qaeda, some of whose members (including Bin Ladens) have been "guests" of Tehran since fleeing Afghanistan in 2001."

Al-Qaeda is as vehemently opposed to the Shia branch of Islam (Iran is predominantly Shia) as it is to most everything else. It is utterly laughable to link Al-Qaeda to the Assad regime when they (and many fundamental Islamists) consider the sect the Assad family belongs to (the Alawis) to be heretics. Additionally, to say Al-Qaeda supports a secular (albeit brutal) regime such as Assad's is as ridiculous as it was when the same link was being made about them and Saddam Hussien.

Look, no one is questioning the brutality of the Assad regime. But if anyone believes the "pro-democracy" opposition would be any better, well, there's a bridge in Brooklyn.......

For the record, I have family that lives in Syria. The vast majority support the regime, as hard as that may be to believe. Do they complain about corruption and limited freedoms? Of course, they do. But they know with utmost certainty that the chaos that will ensue should the regime fall will make Iraq look like fucking Disneyland. Syria is a very heterogenous society and the mayhem that will occur in the power vacum left will be a bloodbath. I'm pretty sure our intelligence agencies realize this (as do most western powers) hence the hesitation to get involved. Sometimes brutal dictatorships are underrated.

[Dokkie]

75. Same story with Libya

but nobody listened.

[Alamuti Lotus]

77. primarily a mercenary force operating at the behest of the wahhabi dictators in Saudi Arabia & Qatar

there are many geniune elements within the opposition (small-o use of the word), however the most well-funded, most sectarian, and most well-armed forces running amok rather fairly fit the bill otherwise. The grouping around Haytham Al-Manna would be an example of the principled opposition, however his opposition to the Saudi/Qatari-directed Ikhwanist SNC umbrella and their armed terrorist gangs is almost as strong as it is to the Assad government.

Blog postings from English Conservatives nothwithstanding, of course. And if it was written on Twitter, it must be @gospel.