The NYT tells (a bit) of the truth, but misses the most important story

You have to do a little -- but just a little -- reading-between-the-lines to comprehend the truth of this NYT article: The so-called war on ISIS is actually a war to achieve the goal of ISIS. Obama wants to eradicate Bashar Assad of Syria, not the ISIS marauders in Iraq.

To bring about regime change in Syria, your tax dollars will be used to fund the very people Obama tells you we are against.

President Obama’s determination to train Syrian rebels to serve as ground troops against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria leaves the United States dependent on a diverse group riven by infighting, with no shared leadership and with hard-line Islamists as its most effective fighters.

After more than three years of civil war, there are hundreds of militias fighting President Bashar al-Assad — and one another. Among them, even the more secular forces have turned to Islamists for support and weapons over the years, and the remaining moderate rebels often fight alongside extremists like the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.

Nusra and ISIS are both Al Qaeda offshoots, and any conflicts between them should be regarded as petty squabbles over "turf," as Justin Raimondo recently put it.

Obama has announced that "vetted" moderates will be trained in Saudi Arabia -- the very same reactionary religious dictatorship which has funneled so much money to ISIS. That word "vetted" is a bad joke: By this point, the "moderate" Free Syrian Army and the Al Qaeda-linked religious maniacs have thoroughly intermixed their forces.

You might as well try to isolate the chocolate from the milk after you've already tossed in the Nestle's and run it through a blender.

Here's a little nugget that the NYT keeps hidden: Although the beheading of journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley did much to stir up American fury at ISIS, both men were actually kidnapped by the "moderate" Free Syrian Army -- the very force that Obama wants to train with your tax dollars.

The truth about Foley is here. (He was captured by an FSA brigade which defected to ISIS.) And then you'll want to read the truth about Sotloff.

I cannot recall ever being so infuriated, appalled and bewildered: Nobody seems to care that Obama has openly announced support for the very people who kidnapped those journalists. Not even the progressive bloggers (or the libertarian anti-interventionists) have picked up on this act of mega-hypocrisy. Only Moon of Alabama seems to have noticed:

The later beheading of Sotloff by ISIS was marketed by the Obama administration as one reason to bomb them. Why then not bomb the FSA who kidnapped him in the first place?

Here's a bit more truth that you won't find in the most recent NYT story:

Weapons and ammo provided by the CIA to the "moderate" Free Syrian Army has a tendency to pop up in the hands of ISIS. For a while, Obama stopped the weapons flow -- but only for a while.

An analysis by Janes concluded that

"The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict. The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out."

The FSA factions near Lebanon have pledged cooperation with ISIS and Nusra. The FSA, Nusra and ISIS have a history of mounting joint operations.

Obama is calling for $500 million in aid to "vetted" moderates, to make up for the previous $500 million in arms that the FSA "mysteriously" lost to ISIS. And when the FSA loses that $500 mill, you'll just have to cough up some more.

This cynical but quite informed article delves deeply into the origins of the FSA, which seems to have begun life as an operation by Turkish intelligence. Since 2011, the organization has become so amorphous and ill-defined that it can hardly even be called an organization any longer.

Shorter version of the above: Let’s say it again, the FSA doesn’t exist – at least not as commonly perceived.

Better, perhaps, to say that what we call the FSA is really a catch-all banner applied to a large number of warlord-led militias.

According to Reuters (and lots of other analysts), aid to the FSA is transforming Syria into another Somalia -- an unorganized, uncivilized, chaotic mess of a country, run by petty military chieftains in perpetual conflict with each other.

The British connection. Here's another important part of the story that you won't read about in the New York Times.

Although I cannot yet tell all that I have learned, the UK played a huge role in the decision to depose Assad. In the French-language video below, former foriegn minister (the equivalent of our Secretary of State) Roland Dumas reveals that he learned of the plan in 2009, two years before the violence broke out. Here's the translation:

I was there by chance, not at all for Syria. I met British officials, some of whom are friends of mine. They confessed while trying to persuade me that preparations for something were underway in Syria. This was in England, not America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria. They even asked me, as a former foreign minister, whether I wanted to participate in this. Of course I declined. I am French. I am not interested.

I just want to say that this operation goes way back. It was prepared, conceived and planned.

When asked the purpose, Roland replies:

Very simply, for the purpose of overthrowing the Syrian government. Because it is important to know in the region the regime has an anti-Israel stance, and thus everything in the region revolves around it."

Why is the UK promoting this neocon policy? Because they are being manipulated by a powerful, well-funded, yet little-known group -- one which functions almost as a secret society. No, I'm not indulging in Alex Jonesian conspiracy speculation. Although you have (probably) never heard of this group, they are quite real, and they've been manipulating public opinion in a number of ways.

More soon.