• 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 Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

Should the USA be funding Islamic terrorists?


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
"By Brandon Turbeville

June 30, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Activist Post" - When researchers such as myself have reported that the United States is funding al-Qaeda, Nusra, ISIS and other related terror organizations in Syria, we were not kidding. Still, despite the fact that even the U.S. government itself has admitted that it was funding terroristsdirectly and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the suggestion was met with disbelief, ridicule, or either entirely ignored."...
"According to the Pentagon, Syrian “rebels” being trained and “vetted” by the United States are receiving “compensation” to the tune of anywhere between $250 to $400 per month to act as America’s proxy forces in the Middle East. Reuters reports that the payment levels were confirmed by the Pentagon and also that the Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Navy Commander Elissa Smith both separately admitted the fact that these “new” terrorists are receiving a stipend."...
"Of course, “human rights” and the “rule of law” have never been concerns before, even as the United States has funded, armed, trained, and directed jihadists on the ground from the very beginning of the Syrian crisis. Neither has there been any concern over the presence of “moderate” rebels that have never actually existed in Syria. After all, it should be remembered that the United States own Defense Intelligence Agency was recently forced to release and declassify documents which admitted that not only did the US know that the “rebellion” was made up of al-Qaeda and Nusra forces but that these organizations and similar groups were attempting to create a “Salafist principality” in the east of Syria and West of Iraq. The DIA docs also show that the US was supporting all of these efforts. In reality, of course, the US was directing these efforts.

Make no mistake, the United States is not funding “moderate vetted rebels” to fight ISIS or al-Qaeda. The US is funding jihadist terrorists and mercenaries to work alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda (if they are not members of these organizations already) to overthrow the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. Virtually every person of a moderate persuasion in Syria has long come over to the side of the Syrian government. Indeed, there was never such a thing as a moderate rebel in Syria to begin with and the reality on the ground has not changed since."

Who's side is the USA on?
Are we funding terrorists?
Does the USA want bragging rights for this?
Who are the good guys?
Is it OK to fund terrorists?

 
We have been helping out AQ since they began and our actions led to the creation of ISIS, there is no doubt the US government is fueling the war on terror for the military-industrial complex. Meanwhile the conservatives buy the party line like a cop to a doughnut shop.
 
Why do you ask the question in such a naïve way? Is there any question in the mind of a sane person? Obvious someone in the federal govt is screwing up royally if the story is true. Anything else?
 
Why do you ask the question in such a naïve way? Is there any question in the mind of a sane person? Obvious someone in the federal govt is screwing up royally if the story is true. Anything else?

Yes, how is this going to get Hillary elected POTUS?
 
"By Brandon Turbeville

June 30, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Activist Post" - When researchers such as myself have reported that the United States is funding al-Qaeda, Nusra, ISIS and other related terror organizations in Syria, we were not kidding. Still, despite the fact that even the U.S. government itself has admitted that it was funding terroristsdirectly and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the suggestion was met with disbelief, ridicule, or either entirely ignored."...
"According to the Pentagon, Syrian “rebels” being trained and “vetted” by the United States are receiving “compensation” to the tune of anywhere between $250 to $400 per month to act as America’s proxy forces in the Middle East. Reuters reports that the payment levels were confirmed by the Pentagon and also that the Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Navy Commander Elissa Smith both separately admitted the fact that these “new” terrorists are receiving a stipend."...
"Of course, “human rights” and the “rule of law” have never been concerns before, even as the United States has funded, armed, trained, and directed jihadists on the ground from the very beginning of the Syrian crisis. Neither has there been any concern over the presence of “moderate” rebels that have never actually existed in Syria. After all, it should be remembered that the United States own Defense Intelligence Agency was recently forced to release and declassify documents which admitted that not only did the US know that the “rebellion” was made up of al-Qaeda and Nusra forces but that these organizations and similar groups were attempting to create a “Salafist principality” in the east of Syria and West of Iraq. The DIA docs also show that the US was supporting all of these efforts. In reality, of course, the US was directing these efforts.

Make no mistake, the United States is not funding “moderate vetted rebels” to fight ISIS or al-Qaeda. The US is funding jihadist terrorists and mercenaries to work alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda (if they are not members of these organizations already) to overthrow the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. Virtually every person of a moderate persuasion in Syria has long come over to the side of the Syrian government. Indeed, there was never such a thing as a moderate rebel in Syria to begin with and the reality on the ground has not changed since."

Who's side is the USA on?
Are we funding terrorists?
Does the USA want bragging rights for this?
Who are the good guys?
Is it OK to fund terrorists?


I would say that that depends on the individual organization. When the UN takes r2p and does it, we will no longer be using US lives and treasure and should desist. Until then, anything goes that reduces our costs, while not hampering goal achievement.
 
Why do you ask the question in such a naïve way? Is there any question in the mind of a sane person? Obvious someone in the federal govt is screwing up royally if the story is true. Anything else?

True. But each story must be looked at on its own merits and for that, you need more info.
 
Who's side is the USA on?
Are we funding terrorists?
Does the USA want bragging rights for this?
Who are the good guys?
Is it OK to fund terrorists?

Funding rebels =/= funding terrorists. The FSA, for example, is not a terror group but a militia group that fights Assad's regime.
The article is claiming the US had admitted to funding terrorists directly and indirectly, however in the article provided in reference, this article, there is no such admittance made by the US. The only reference there to the terrorists is in the last paragraph; "officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists".

The US may have indirectly let organizations such as al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria and Iraq put their hands on US weapons and ammunition by not being careful enough with the droppings, but that is far from being "funding terrorism" and certainly not doing so "directly". The article is ridiculous.
 
We have been helping out AQ since they began and our actions led to the creation of ISIS, there is no doubt the US government is fueling the war on terror for the military-industrial complex.

You can provide evidence of your claim? I guessing you can't.

Meanwhile the conservatives buy the party line like a cop to a doughnut shop.

You mean like Bush created ISIS? That party line stuff?
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064775786 said:
Yes, how is this going to get Hillary elected POTUS?

No doubt there's an angle there somewhere.
 
Why do you ask the question in such a naïve way? Is there any question in the mind of a sane person? Obvious someone in the federal govt is screwing up royally if the story is true. Anything else?

Nothing naive about it. The question was raised to address the hypocrisy of USA policies. We do not seem to be the good guys. This is official USA gov't policy. Our Military Offense budget is about this. I didn't vote for this.
 
I would say that that depends on the individual organization. When the UN takes r2p and does it, we will no longer be using US lives and treasure and should desist. Until then, anything goes that reduces our costs, while not hampering goal achievement.

I do not think we should be having goals in the Mid East. This is a Corporate driven agenda and not people centric. Neither USA people or Mid East people. We are not doing r2p, but aggression that is killing innocent civilians. This is just wrong.
 
Who's side is the USA on?
Are we funding terrorists?
Does the USA want bragging rights for this?
Who are the good guys?
Is it OK to fund terrorists?

Where you say we admit to funding terrorists for "services rendered," I offer we continue to engage in our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy.

Where you say "US is funding jihadist terrorists and mercenaries" or say " there was never such a thing as a moderate rebel," I offer we either continue to ignore or do not bother ever really understanding the nature of the people we are asking to take our side at that moment.

The sad reality is we continue to make the mistake of assuming that we can appeal to "moderates" to look at things over there but through the confines of western governmental and social ideologies, and it ends up failing time and time again. We continue to look at our "partners" in the region and ignore that they are only a step or two down themselves in being a brutal dictatorship where over here we do not have honest discussion on who we end up funding or why.

I bring up Saudi Arabia all the time in this regard. A textbook example of the US overlooking their oppression oriented controls, their theocratic nightmare of limited rights of the people, their brutality in the enforcement of the regime... but then we wander around the Middle East calling al-Assad's government a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia,) or Iran's leadership a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia *and* they have basically told us to go **** ourselves.)

But really we are all talking about cuts of the same cloth, more importantly cuts of the same religious and social ideology that tends to breed theocratic dictatorships. Where the difference between one nation we call an ally and another we call an enemy is simply what the US did not get but wanted, and tends to breed such ideological driven violence that the difference between a "moderate" and a terrorist is whom is the victim in relation to who the US calls an ally. I know it upsets many people to mention but we are talking about a religious ideology that is furthest behind the evolution curve, the easiest to turn into a weapon, and tends to be filled with themes that merges the gap between government authority and religious authority. An Islamic State is not a new term or idea, it is baked into the text of the book they hold most sacred. Harsh law, social controls, and a lack of rights in our terminology is also not a new idea, that is also baked into the text.

We should never discount that some of those who eventually became al-Qaeda, were funded by the US when they called themselves the Mujahideen going up against Russia in Afghanistan. Nor should we discount the potential that the US and NATO either knowingly took a risk or unknowingly as an act of continued stupidity funded al-Qaeda affiliates and fighters in both the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian Civil War. al-Nusra and various other Islamic organizations in Syria all come to mind, those were the "moderates" that even McCain wanted to fund and arm to the teeth.

But like everything else our current foreign policy ignores history, we end up funding the next problem. Current US desires for the region end up with consequences. Remember Iran vs. Iraq, and all our dealings with both nations all over the 80's and early 90's right up to having to deal with Iraq going into Kuwait.

The answers are yes, we are funding terrorists even if it means they are not called as much today. And that means "our side" all boils down to our desires at that moment with no forward thinking. Bragging rights no, but control over the region we either do not understand or do not care to understand is the goal. There are no good guys and it is not OK for us to be funding and arming those who ultimately becomes a future generation's problems. It is all more of the same, the continuation of our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy that breeds tomorrow's problems... on repeat.
 
Last edited:
Funding rebels =/= funding terrorists. The FSA, for example, is not a terror group but a militia group that fights Assad's regime.
The article is claiming the US had admitted to funding terrorists directly and indirectly, however in the article provided in reference, this article, there is no such admittance made by the US. The only reference there to the terrorists is in the last paragraph; "officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists".

The US may have indirectly let organizations such as al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria and Iraq put their hands on US weapons and ammunition by not being careful enough with the droppings, but that is far from being "funding terrorism" and certainly not doing so "directly". The article is ridiculous.



The funding was admitted to by the Pentagon, Secy' of Defense and Navy Commander. We also funded al Queda starting in 1990 with Osama bin Ladin. There is no question that we are funding terrorist. We are also training them in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It's not the story that is ridiculous, it is the FACT that the USA is funding terrorists that is ridiculous. Di you vote for that?
 
I do not think we should be having goals in the Mid East. This is a Corporate driven agenda and not people centric. Neither USA people or Mid East people. We are not doing r2p, but aggression that is killing innocent civilians. This is just wrong.

Innocent civilians will die either way. We should not be doing the heavy lifting in the ME nor in most other places. That should be done by the UN. But that is not the question here, but whether we should support our friends in a semblance of a security system. That is always a tough call, but it usually is better to act quickly. and help them stumble through.
 
Where you say we admit to funding terrorists for "services rendered," I offer we continue to engage in our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy.

Where you say "US is funding jihadist terrorists and mercenaries" or say " there was never such a thing as a moderate rebel," I offer we either continue to ignore or do not bother ever really understanding the nature of the people we are asking to take our side at that moment.

The sad reality is we continue to make the mistake of assuming that we can appeal to "moderates" to look at things over there but through the confines of western governmental and social ideologies, and it ends up failing time and time again. We continue to look at our "partners" in the region and ignore that they are only a step or two down themselves in being a brutal dictatorship where over here we do not have honest discussion on who we end up funding or why.

I bring up Saudi Arabia all the time in this regard. A textbook example of the US overlooking their oppression oriented controls, their theocratic nightmare of limited rights of the people, their brutality in the enforcement of the regime... but then we wander around the Middle East calling al-Assad's government a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia,) or Iran's leadership a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia *and* they have basically told us to go **** ourselves.)

But really we are all talking about cuts of the same cloth, more importantly cuts of the same religious and social ideology that tends to breed theocratic dictatorships. Where the difference between one nation we call an ally and another we call an enemy is simply what the US did not get but wanted, and tends to breed such ideological driven violence that the difference between a "moderate" and a terrorist is whom is the victim in relation to who the US calls an ally. I know it upsets many people to mention but we are talking about a religious ideology that is furthest behind the evolution curve, the easiest to turn into a weapon, and tends to be filled with themes that merges the gap between government authority and religious authority. An Islamic State is not a new term or idea, it is baked into the text of the book they hold most sacred. Harsh law, social controls, and a lack of rights in our terminology is also not a new idea, that is also baked into the text.

We should never discount that some of those who eventually became al-Qaeda, were funded by the US when they called themselves the Mujahideen going up against Russia in Afghanistan. Nor should we discount the potential that the US and NATO either knowingly took a risk or unknowingly as an act of continued stupidity funded al-Qaeda affiliates and fighters in both the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian Civil War. al-Nusra and various other Islamic organizations in Syria all come to mind, those were the "moderates" that even McCain wanted to fund and arm to the teeth.

But like everything else our current foreign policy ignores history, we end up funding the next problem. Current US desires for the region end up with consequences. Remember Iran vs. Iraq, and all our dealings with both nations all over the 80's and early 90's right up to having to deal with Iraq going into Kuwait.

The answers are yes, we are funding terrorists even if it means they are not called as much today. And that means "our side" all boils down to our desires at that moment with no forward thinking. Bragging rights no, but control over the region we either do not understand or do not care to understand is the goal. There are no good guys and it is not OK for us to be funding and arming those who ultimately becomes a future generation's problems. It is all more of the same, the continuation of our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy that breeds tomorrow's problems... on repeat.

The issues you have addressed are all business issues. The Military Industrial Corporate Complex needs customers. Customers mean wars. Any kind of war. "War is good business, and business is good." That is especially prescient when your labor and currency rates are so high that it becomes your most important domestic industry. It is a captive industry built on patronage and collusion and old time corporatists. Good Marketing for the MIC is all about more wars. Terror, drugs, cyber, immigrants, hot, cold, and all very profitable and that is what drives policy, PROFIT. Sad to say.
 
Ah, yes, information clearing house, the notorious conspiracy/hate site.


and we are promoting this bat **** crazy website in the poll section instead of it's natural home in the conspiracy section, why, again?
 
No doubt there's an angle there somewhere.

Almost all of the military industrial complex is comprised of union workers.


Hitlary is pro union.
 
Hillary is pro anything that will get her elected. :wink:

Yeah, I gotta be honest...this up coming election scares me a little. I REALLY don't want Hillary to win. I REALLY think that will slide us even farther than Obama did. But I think she's the shoe in for the primary winner, and I have NO IDEA who most of the republican candidates even ARE. I don't know, man. I usually vote third party. I HATE HATE HATE the idea of voting for someone I don't like just to keep someone else I like even less OUT. But Hillary....scares me.
 
Ah, yes, information clearing house, the notorious conspiracy/hate site.


and we are promoting this bat **** crazy website in the poll section instead of it's natural home in the conspiracy section, why, again?

Are you denying the presence of a military industrial complex in the US? Are you saying it's not a FOR PROFIT industry? Do you not believe that it's HUGELY profitable, as evidenced by the number of million and biollionaires employed in that sector? Or are not aware of the fact that the US has been involved in some form of warfare, ALMOST nonstop, since the 16th amendment passed?

This is hardly a conspiracy.
 
The issues you have addressed are all business issues. The Military Industrial Corporate Complex needs customers. Customers mean wars. Any kind of war. "War is good business, and business is good." That is especially prescient when your labor and currency rates are so high that it becomes your most important domestic industry. It is a captive industry built on patronage and collusion and old time corporatists. Good Marketing for the MIC is all about more wars. Terror, drugs, cyber, immigrants, hot, cold, and all very profitable and that is what drives policy, PROFIT. Sad to say.

Well said.
 
The issues you have addressed are all business issues. The Military Industrial Corporate Complex needs customers. Customers mean wars. Any kind of war. "War is good business, and business is good." That is especially prescient when your labor and currency rates are so high that it becomes your most important domestic industry. It is a captive industry built on patronage and collusion and old time corporatists. Good Marketing for the MIC is all about more wars. Terror, drugs, cyber, immigrants, hot, cold, and all very profitable and that is what drives policy, PROFIT. Sad to say.

I go back and forth between the interests of the Military Industrial Complex and that of the Oil Industry, often seemingly to be inline with one another's objectives. At this point you could argue well that the majority of our Middle East decisions since the 1970s has been about the flow of Oil to all over Europe, Asia, and parts of the US. Energy controls seems to be hand in hand with selling weapons and equipment.
 
I go back and forth between the interests of the Military Industrial Complex and that of the Oil Industry, often seemingly to be inline with one another's objectives. At this point you could argue well that the majority of our Middle East decisions since the 1970s has been about the flow of Oil to all over Europe, Asia, and parts of the US. Energy controls seems to be hand in hand with selling weapons and equipment.


Wars run on ENERGY. The mechanical and technical weapons are all powered by Petro Products. You move all equipment and personnel to and from war zones with Petro Products. The first profits of war are these ENERGY initiated activities and the longer you can keep the war going , the longer the profits flow. If, by chance of planning, your war gains new Petro Production assets, then profits are twice served. Corporatism is about profits, ergo the industry analysts know all about these profits and are as anxious for wars as good marketing policy as weapons, MIC, and banking industries. Even sadder, eh?
 
The only "sources" for the information that allegedly our government "paid" Syrian rebels are UN-NAMED Syrian rebels. That is a completely laughable source.
 
The only "sources" for the information that allegedly our government "paid" Syrian rebels are UN-NAMED Syrian rebels. That is a completely laughable source.

You mean other than the Pentagon, Ashton Carter (Secy of Defense) and the Navy Commander who all acknowledged the payments/stipends?
 
Back
Top Bottom