• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Treasury Confirms that Al Qaeda Runs Syrian “Rebellion”

Then why did we allow Iraqi oil contracts to go out onto an open bid system?
Because the Western oil companies piggyback off OPEC price-gouging. In addition to domestically owned oil participating in the 5,000% profit margin on oil that is as cheap to pump as water, the Western companies make more doing the OPECkers' work for them than they did when they totally owned the oil we used but had to keep their profit margins reasonable because they couldn't blame the prices on foreigners.

Our pre-owned media don't let you realize this collaboration with America's enemies, not even the fake conspiracy theorists reveal it. The traitors who rule us have come up with a perfect plan to drain off the majority's power, mind, and will to fight their absolute rule.
 
Because the Western oil companies piggyback off OPEC price-gouging. In addition to domestically owned oil participating in the 5,000% profit margin on oil that is as cheap to pump as water, the Western companies make more doing the OPECkers' work for them than they did when they totally owned the oil we used but had to keep their profit margins reasonable because they couldn't blame the prices on foreigners.

Our pre-owned media don't let you realize this collaboration with America's enemies, not even the fake conspiracy theorists reveal it. The traitors who rule us have come up with a perfect plan to drain off the majority's power, mind, and will to fight their absolute rule.

So instead of taking direct possession of these wells, fields, and services contracts which they could have conceivably done, they chose to... gain indirect profits from the spike in prices? Why?
 
If we had a moon base and an accidental explosion happened, we would blame al qaeda and invade the country of our choice.
 

There is so much fail I'm not sure where to start.

The Syrian resistance is one of the most fractured groups fighting a regime in history. Units and I use that term loosely don't even cooperate in the same city. Essentially it's dozens of small militias all fighting the Syrian Regime on their own terms. There is no leadership. The new "government" that operates out of Turkey does not even have a grasp of control of the units in combat. Literally, no one is in charge. To argue that somehow that Al Qaeda is in charge is insane. No one is in charge.

Did you learn nothing from the Cold War? Not every Islamic group is Al Qaeda. Not every group that is backed by Iran agrees with each other. The idiocy of the article completely forgets what was learned in the Cold War. Your enemies are not monolithic. The article treats all of the Islamic groups as the same thing. They are not.

And Christians favor the Allawites because the Allawites protect minority rights. It's partially to keep themselves in power, but Syria is largely a secular nation with strong women's and minority rights. The Sunni majority would end that. It's not that Christians are being targeted specifically, it's that they are afraid of what happens when Secular Syrian Rule ends and Islamic Sunni rule begins.

Syria is damn complex country (arguably the most in the region) and to think you can suddenly be an expert via one article is insane.

I fail to see how it is intelligent to consider any groups remotely Islamic as automatically Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda cannot even funds it basic operations anymore (Thanks Obama!) much less field soldiers in a fight that isn't even against America.
 
By: Robert Tilford


According to reports al-Qaeda flags are flying openly in some areas of Idlib and Aleppo provinces that straddle the borders with Turkey and Iraq (see article: Al-Qaeda tries to carve out a war for itself in Syria The flags are increasing more common in Syria, especially with the influx of new arms and cash in the region. The Daily Telegraph witnessed the black flag used by al Qaeda flying high in several villages and on pick up trucks of rebel fighters, the article noted.
“The place (Syria) is crawling with al-Qeada

http://www.examiner.com/article/syrian-rebels-flying-al-qaeda-battle-flags-parts-of-aleppo-and-idlib
 
Then why did we allow Iraqi oil contracts to go out onto an open bid system?


Before the Iraq War we had 0% Iraq OIL, except through back door trades. Now, may I ask what percentage of Iraqi OIL do we get? What does that amount in dollars and cents and who profits? The foreign oil contracts are a necessary cost of doing business and are a drop in the proverbial bucket.
 
Then why did we allow Iraqi oil contracts to go out onto an open bid system?

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?pagewanted=all
 
A guy who writes for Infowars, Tony Cartalucci, writes a piece which is based on an op-ed piece, which doesn't actually support his assertion.

Here's the opinion piece which Mr. Cartalucci cites in the article in the OP Seth Jones: Al Qaeda's War for Syria - WSJ.com

Somehow there's no indication that aQ is running anything, merely that they had been in Syria since we invaded Iraq, and that they're still in Syria and a small organization which is growing.

think what you will
 
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its article, "Al Qaeda's War for Syria," cited officials from the US Treasury Department stating, "Al Qaeda in Syria (often operating as the "Al Nusra Front for the People of the Levant") is using traffickers—some ideologically aligned, some motivated by money—to secure routes through Turkey and Iraq for foreign fighters, most of whom are from the Middle East and North Africa. A growing number of donors from the Persian Gulf and Levant appear to be sending financial support."

This undercuts the West's year and a half-long narrative that Syria's violence was the result of a so-called "uprising" by the people of Syria.
US Treasury Confirms that Al Qaeda Runs Syrian “Rebellion” | Global Research

the second paragraph there is inaccurate.
 
A guy who writes for Infowars, Tony Cartalucci, writes a piece which is based on an op-ed piece, which doesn't actually support his assertion.

Here's the opinion piece which Mr. Cartalucci cites in the article in the OP Seth Jones: Al Qaeda's War for Syria - WSJ.com

Somehow there's no indication that aQ is running anything, merely that they had been in Syria since we invaded Iraq, and that they're still in Syria and a small organization which is growing.

think what you will

I've always found it strange they for more than a decade we have been looking for al qaeda while always knowing where they are at the same time.
 
That article is really suspect. Here's something on the author Tony Cartilucci: Tony Cartalucci’s Covering for the Israel Lobby « The Passionate Attachment

When I read that article, something in the way it was written didn't sit right with me. Seemed unprofessional and speculative in tone.

Global Research is headed up by professor Michel Chossudovsky.

MICHAEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
As overseer of the anti-U.S., anti-globalization website GlobalResearch.ca, Chossudovsky has manufactured a long list of eyebrow-raising accusations that often read more like wild-eyed conspiracy theories than serious political discourse: the U.S. had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks ("Of course they knew!"); "Washington's New World Order weapons have the ability to trigger climate change"; the U.S. knew in advance about the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, but kept it to themselves (apparently so they could ride to the rescue of devastated coastal regions); big banking orchestrates the collapse of national economies. Of course, all that talk of banking conspiracies can lead one into some bigoted territory. B'nai Brith Canada has complained to the University of Ottawa about anti-Semitic postings on Chossudovsky's site.

Here's another article from Global Research. Conclusion; the government did 9/11 to preempt war on Iraq.

Frankly, this article should be in conspiracy theories.
 
Since the US has refused intervention, I'm not sure what the issue is here.
The US has refused intervention? Seriously? The US is active, they have their para's over there.
 
So instead of taking direct possession of these wells, fields, and services contracts which they could have conceivably done, they chose to... gain indirect profits from the spike in prices? Why?
As I said, they can now blame their own prices on foreigners and claim we can do nothing about it. When Americans had to pay the price set by American companies, the people had some leverage against them. That's why the oil companies were only able to charge a dollar a barrel when we were independent. Prices are always dependent on what the seller can get away with. The American people were more democratic back then, so the greedy oil barons had to come up with this scheme of closing down domestic drilling and making us dependent on the Arabs, who could raise the prices charged by America's enemies at home and abroad on both imported and domestic oil.
 
For some reason, I can't bring myself to think of you as a reliable source. Nothing personal, but I don't believe a word you say.


The US has refused intervention? Seriously? The US is active, they have their para's over there.
 
If true, then the highest profile supporter and advocate is President Obama.
 
If true, then the highest profile supporter and advocate is President Obama.

Yes, since his ''handlers'' cannot be implicated so easily.
 
Back
Top Bottom