America is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
The evidence is absolutely damning. Even one of the most important generals in the so-called Free Syrian Army has now pledged fealty to Al Qaeda (a.k.a. Jabhat Al Nusra, or JAN -- or just Nusra, if you're feeling informal). All the proof you need is here.
It was always going to be a difficult task to convince the American people to support a group they have been constantly told was responsible for the death of thousands of US soldiers and civilians. They were reminded by their own government every year to “never forget 9/11” and their young men were sent to die to avenge the incident, now they are being asked to forget just that.
But the task of rebranding JAN has been fraught with other difficulties, the main being that Al Nusra is not co-operating with the US-Qatari plan. In an angry statement, JAN denied US media reports that they were breaking ties with Al Qaeda. The AFP wrote that JAN had rejected “any plan to break away [from Al Qaeda ] and become a more internationally acceptable rebel force.”
But the AFP falls short of explaining how dropping a label would make JAN more internationally acceptable and no longer a ‘terrorist’ organisation.
Toward the end of the video, Maram Susli makes an excellent point: The time will come when the Americans will turn against the new Al Qaeda government in Syria. That is inevitable. Everyone knows that the new Syrian government will surely commit terrible atrocities -- so terrible that even our compliant news media will be forced to acknowledge that DC replaced Assad with worse-than-Assad.
So, what we’re now seeing in Official Washington is the beginning of a neocon finger-pointing narrative that promotes the theme that if President Barack Obama had only armed and trained “moderate” rebels and bombed the Syrian military (to create “safe zones” or to punish the government for its alleged use of sarin gas), everything would have worked out just fine.
The reality is far different.
Obama understood -- hell, everyone understood -- that the Free Syrian Army was largely fictional, and only the jihadis had the necessary muscle. That's why the neocons decided that we had to buddy up with Al Qaeda, rebranded as the Nusra Front.
But today’s immediate concern for the neocons is to create a framework for the “who lost Syria” blame-game that would surely follow the collapse of the secular government of Bashar al-Assad and its replacement by a coalition of Sunni jihadists led by Al-Qaeda’s affiliate Nusra Front. Since the neocons still dominate the opinion circles of Official Washington, it’s important to get everyone into a “group think” that blames Obama for not intervening militarily earlier.
And with Israel indicating that its primary goal is to overthrow Assad and thus hit back at Iran – even if that means a victory by Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State – the U.S. political/media opinion circles will continue to push the “Assad must go” theme. But what Official Washington seems most concerned about right now is to make sure that — if Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State wins — Obama gets the blame.
Why did Obama -- the guy who was elected because everyone thought he opposed the Iraq invasion -- go along with this disgusting neocon scheme?
Nothing good will come of the overthrow of Assad. The jihadis will institute an ultra-maniacal rule throughout Syria, and everyone will blame Barack Obama. Not only will his page in history will be forever mud-stained, his hypocritical neocon pals will be the first to toss mud.
So why did Obama do it? What's in it for him? He had attained all the power any man could want, and he is set for life financially. Why, why, why did he do it?
If you get into bed with a neocon, you'll get a disease worse than AIDS.
moonofalabama.org, veteranstoday.com, what's next, stormfront? There are many brutally anti-Catholic websites, I don't view them, I don't cite them and I don't rely on them for information. And I'm sure your not that obtuse, but to be clear guilt=regret which can be atoned for, shame=humiliation which leads to addiction, murder and suicide. One of the goals of AA is to turn shame into guilt, because guilt there are ways of dealing with guilt. Guilt is what we have done, shame is what we are.
Moon of Alabama is great. Took me a little while to figure out that the Veterans site was run by nutballs. I admit that. I think that your redefinition of the words "shame" and "guilt" does not accord with everyday parlance (as in "I'm ashamed to admit that I never thought of that before") -- and your harping on the distinction is getting kind of weird, frankly
By the way, why do you keep going on about Catholicism? I've probably attended more services in more Jewish houses of worship than I have in Catholic churches. Although frankly, the only reason I would ever attend ANY service would be out of social obligation.
Okay, there's also the art. You gotta give THAT one to the RCs. The art might be enough to entice me in, even if the price one must pay is sitting through some bizarre ritual. But I'm pretty sure that you too would appreciate a chance to see Bernini's Baldacchino in persion.
thanks joseph.. it makes no sense whatsoever.. just like so much of usa foreign policy until one considers the idea that war 24/7 is what the mic and fic are interested in and will only settle for that.. sorry, but that is being laid bare for so many years and has just ramped up more with less reason not to see it for what it is.. thanks for your posts.. james
posted by Anonymous : 10:16 PM
1. The point about shame started with Dershowitz on child porn. Dershowitz said that people should be punished for harming children, but not for being looking at child porn. My point was that people should be punished for doing something, not for being something.f We need to address the problem of child sexual abuse and we don't do it by shaming people. I can't change the world, few people listen to me, but you have a big megaphone. If I can get one person to understand the difference and that one person gets more people to understand, perhaps it would lead to better outcomes and I might save some Jessica Lunsford. The thought pleases me and I don't feel guilty about it. 2. When billmon ran moonofalabama, it was anti-Israel, but he made extremely important economic points, which seemed to be his main focus. Now, it has only two points: Iran and Russia good, American and Israel bad. While most blogs propagandize to some extent, that propaganda should be more than the talking points of a public relations client. The world is a complicated place. And I understand unmoderated comments, but when vicious anti-semitism appears in those comments and the host says nothing, that indicates approval. 3. You say you are not anti-semitic and I take you at your word. But I fail to see how one can oppose anti-semitism and be oblivious to the concerns of the Jewish community. If Israel were to be destroyed, there would be millions of dead Jews, just as Hamas has repeatedly said it wished for. You have mentioned what you perceive to be anti-Catholic bias. In saying that I understand and empathize with those concerns, I was hoping that perhaps I could convince you to empathize with our concerns. Empathy, you might try it.