• 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”

24107

24107

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
Click to expand...


US Treasury Confirms that Al Qaeda Runs Syrian “Rebellion” | Global Research
 
24107 said:
US Treasury Confirms that Al Qaeda Runs Syrian “Rebellion” | Global Research
Click to expand...

All I can say is that the posted link should be required reading for every Citizen of the United States. The distortions being disemminated by the "Mighty Wurlitzer" are blatant and reading this makes one aware of that. It also reinforces the continuing existence of the "Mighty Wurlitzer." The depth of betrayal by our own gov't is obvious. The true nature of the CIA, and hint number one is that it has nothing to do with patriotism, becomes obvious. This OP is worthy of political debate and has all levels of politics covered.
 
From the WSJ article itself:
While al Qaeda makes up a small part of the resistance movement, its strength appears to be rising. Since last December, al Qaeda has conducted roughly two dozen attacks, primarily against Syrian security service targets.
Click to expand...

Since the US has refused intervention, I'm not sure what the issue is here.
 
specklebang said:
From the WSJ article itself:


Since the US has refused intervention, I'm not sure what the issue is here.
Click to expand...


Sometimes people see what they want to see. The downside disappears and what they want to see manifiests itself in their own minds. Lotta that goin' round, don't you think?
 
I'd appreciate a little further explanation of your response.

Bear in mind that I am non-partisan and not voting for either party.

The WSJ article implies that Al Queda is NOT playing a major role. The OP implies that Al Queda is playing a major role.

I'm just trying to learn.

DaveFagan said:
Sometimes people see what they want to see. The downside disappears and what they want to see manifiests itself in their own minds. Lotta that goin' round, don't you think?
Click to expand...
 
I'm with specklebang on this one...I put this in the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" file. To read the OP article it would seem that the Syrian rebellion is nothing more than an al Qaeda proxy war, and it isn't. This a weird time where al Qaeda's interests and our interests are the same, but what they want as a result of our shared goal is quite different from what we want.
 
24107 said:
US Treasury Confirms that Al Qaeda Runs Syrian “Rebellion” | Global Research
Click to expand...

That isn't what the Treasury Department said at all, and the evidence is in your quoted portion. They say something we already knew, that al-Qaeda is using smuggling routes to bring in weapons and fighters to the country, they also mention that the Gulf States are providing support for fighters by setting up funding conduits. We knew about this months ago, which coincidentally is why your article from the WSJ is from over a month ago. It should come as no surprise that al-Qaeda is finding political space in Syria, absent any other outside support the Syrian rebels like the Libyan, Chechen, and Bosnian rebels before them will accept help from anywhere they can get it. It is a consequences of the lack of involvement from the international community, particularly the United States.
 
so, if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then that means al qaeda has now become our friend?

this excerpt seems to partially explain why there is no defined objective, which when accomplished, would end our war in afghanistan:
... Essentially, the so-called “War on Terror” is a fraud, the belligerents on both sides fueled by the West as a means of establishing military, economic, and political hegemony in otherwise unapproachable targeted nations. When Al Qaeda cannot sufficiently overrun a targeted nation as a proxy “foreign legion” of Western interests (Libya), its presence, facilitated by the West in the first place, is then cited as a “casus belli” for military intervention (Afghanistan). ...
Click to expand...

any wonder why our nation's presence in the region is resented by its indigenous people
 
If it wasn't obvious that mercs were running the show in Libya and Syria then please keep hiding under your rock.

Im not saying this person did this but what was it the person with the biggest private army said?
 
specklebang said:
I'd appreciate a little further explanation of your response.

Bear in mind that I am non-partisan and not voting for either party.

The WSJ article implies that Al Queda is NOT playing a major role. The OP implies that Al Queda is playing a major role.

I'm just trying to learn.
Click to expand...

This is the key in the link posted by the OP.
"Not only did the United States government, with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel’s aid, knowingly assemble a sectarian extremist front affiliated with Al Qaeda, not from within Syria, but from beyond its borders, it knew well in advance the destructive consequences such a foreign policy would yield.

The US government has since willfully lied to the both the American people and the world regarding the true nature of the violence unfolding in Syria, and with the help of the corporate-media, is attempting to spin the forewarned consequences of their long-planned conspiracy as merely an unfortunate by-product of a spontaneous conflict.

A Foreign Invasion, not a Rebellion

The WSJ’s article begins with the sentence, “the United States and its allies should consider opening a second front in the Syrian war. In addition to helping end Bashar Assad’s rule, there is a growing need to conduct a covert campaign against al Qaeda and other extremist groups gaining a presence in the country.”

In essence, we are being told that the militant extremists the US assembled against Syria have failed to overthrow the government, so the US should intervene on the pretext of liquidating the very terrorists they conspired to send, funded and armed, and have been supporting since the very beginning."

We are talking about a USA sponsored war against Syria. Since this would be CIA turf, then decide how much CIA "black budget" money went in to this operation. It's established firmly that our Government has lied to us at every opportunity about this war and which country or group is responsible. That's means they are lying about the money also. It's not rocket science. Since people who lie usually tell the "opposite of the truth," it is a good place to use the opposite as a possible truth. The US says the rebels are the good guys, but common sense, logic and reason say the rebels are the bad guys. The US says it's not funding the rebels, the opposite says they are funding the bad guys. More often than not, the exact opposite of a headline is the truth. Thank the "Mighty Wurlitzer."
 
Al-Qaeda is acting as a reinforcement and support of an existing indigenous movement, nor is US funding or support going to al-Qaeda. Indeed the reason al-Qaeda is flourishing is because of a lack of US support that forces the FSA to seek out their support. Furthermore US support has been extremely limited, revolving around civil communication equipment and some limited funding.
 
An opinion of the Wall Street Journal does not make enough of a case. So far, the US has wisely mostly stayed out of the fray. I don't see how we would benefit by taking sides. Actually, to be cold about it, it keeps Syria busy and takes pressure off Israel for a spell.

People being murdered is a horrible thing. It goes on all over the place. We're perhaps less evolved than we fancy ourselves.



DaveFagan said:
This is the key in the link posted by the OP.
"Not only did the United States government, with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel’s aid, knowingly assemble a sectarian extremist front affiliated with Al Qaeda, not from within Syria, but from beyond its borders, it knew well in advance the destructive consequences such a foreign policy would yield.

The US government has since willfully lied to the both the American people and the world regarding the true nature of the violence unfolding in Syria, and with the help of the corporate-media, is attempting to spin the forewarned consequences of their long-planned conspiracy as merely an unfortunate by-product of a spontaneous conflict.

A Foreign Invasion, not a Rebellion

The WSJ’s article begins with the sentence, “the United States and its allies should consider opening a second front in the Syrian war. In addition to helping end Bashar Assad’s rule, there is a growing need to conduct a covert campaign against al Qaeda and other extremist groups gaining a presence in the country.”

In essence, we are being told that the militant extremists the US assembled against Syria have failed to overthrow the government, so the US should intervene on the pretext of liquidating the very terrorists they conspired to send, funded and armed, and have been supporting since the very beginning."

We are talking about a USA sponsored war against Syria. Since this would be CIA turf, then decide how much CIA "black budget" money went in to this operation. It's established firmly that our Government has lied to us at every opportunity about this war and which country or group is responsible. That's means they are lying about the money also. It's not rocket science. Since people who lie usually tell the "opposite of the truth," it is a good place to use the opposite as a possible truth. The US says the rebels are the good guys, but common sense, logic and reason say the rebels are the bad guys. The US says it's not funding the rebels, the opposite says they are funding the bad guys. More often than not, the exact opposite of a headline is the truth. Thank the "Mighty Wurlitzer."
Click to expand...
 
We would absolutely benefit by taking sides, and every day is another missed opportunity.
 
Sherman123 said:
We would absolutely benefit by taking sides, and every day is another missed opportunity.
Click to expand...
let me make sure i understand what you mean by insisting we participate and take side against the existing syrian government of assad
which then means we join the side of the rebel forces of al qaeda against that existing government

please tell me if i got anything wrong
 
justabubba said:
let me make sure i understand what you mean by insisting we participate and take side against the existing syrian government of assad
which then means we join the side of the rebel forces of al qaeda against that existing government

please tell me if i got anything wrong
Click to expand...

When we fought in Libya did we join the elements of al-Qaeda and Islamists and become their allies? No. Part of the reason you get involved is to have a say in who gains power after Assad falls.
 
Sherman123 said:
When we fought in Libya did we join the elements of al-Qaeda and Islamists and become their allies? No. Part of the reason you get involved is to have a say in who gains power after Assad falls.
Click to expand...

but YOU are the one who insisted that we MUST take a side
and there are two sides in syria
the side of the syrian assad government
or the side of the al qaeda rebels
now which side are you telling us we should join
assad's?
or alqaeda's?
 
justabubba said:
but YOU are the one who insisted that we MUST take a side
and there are two sides in syria
the side of the syrian assad government
or the side of the al qaeda rebels
now which side are you telling us we should join
assad's?
or alqaeda's?
Click to expand...

That is not the dichotomy. The FSA does not equal al-Qaeda, just like the forces of the TNG did not equal al-Qaeda.
 
Sherman123 said:
That is not the dichotomy. The FSA does not equal al-Qaeda, just like the forces of the TNG did not equal al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

then you are telling us the information found in the OP cite, indicating al qaeda comprises a portion of the rebel force, including maintaining a supply line, is false information
you are wanting us to believe that al qaeda is not part of the opposition force that you would have us side with?
 
justabubba said:
then you are telling us the information found in the OP cite, indicating al qaeda comprises a portion of the rebel force, including maintaining a supply line, is false information
you are wanting us to believe that al qaeda is not part of the opposition force that you would have us side with?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what is confusing. Of course al-Qaeda comprises a portion of the rebel forces, I already explained and attested as to why that is the case. But you can support the FSA without backing al-Qaeda just as you could back Libyan forces without backing the al-Qaeda brigades. You dilute their power and strength by picking the winners who will receive US support and strengthening those groups, especially those who initially founded the FSA. While al-Qaeda has had an outsized impact on the conflict due to the technical experience of their fighters, they are a decisive minority of combatants.
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm not sure what is confusing. Of course al-Qaeda comprises a portion of the rebel forces, I already explained and attested as to why that is the case. But you can support the FSA without backing al-Qaeda just as you could back Libyan forces without backing the al-Qaeda brigades. You dilute their power and strength by picking the winners who will receive US support and strengthening those groups, especially those who initially founded the FSA. While al-Qaeda has had an outsized impact on the conflict due to the technical experience of their fighters, they are a decisive minority of combatants.
Click to expand...

then you ARE telling us that we must join the side and fight as an ally of al qaeda
thank you for the admission
 
I see Syria and Iraq the same. We were in Iraq to get the Iraqi OIL into the Central Distribution Network controlled by Western Energy Corporations, no WMDs, no threat, no BS, that's why we were there. Mission accomplished. Libya, same deal. Syria has a little OIL, but it is a great pipeline asset and has a great port but the Russians are in that port. Syria has nothing to do with freedom and democracy and that is just the "Mighty Wurlitzer" tickling your soft spots. Skullduggery is our middle name in all events MidEast. OIL is the motivation. Who owns the press? Who buys the media? Is the media for sale? These questions have been answered for a long time. We have the best press money can buy. That's Capitalism.
 
DaveFagan said:
I see Syria and Iraq the same. We were in Iraq to get the Iraqi OIL into the Central Distribution Network controlled by Western Energy Corporations, no WMDs, no threat, no BS, that's why we were there. Mission accomplished. Libya, same deal. Syria has a little OIL, but it is a great pipeline asset and has a great port but the Russians are in that port. Syria has nothing to do with freedom and democracy and that is just the "Mighty Wurlitzer" tickling your soft spots. Skullduggery is our middle name in all events MidEast. OIL is the motivation. Who owns the press? Who buys the media? Is the media for sale? These questions have been answered for a long time. We have the best press money can buy. That's Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Then why did we allow Iraqi oil contracts to go out onto an open bid system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom