Clinton Pledges $45 Million in Aid to Al Qaeda in Syria.

Run_to_da_hills

This dose not make any sense at all, you have the US administration on one hand demonizing Al Qaeda as ruthless Global terrorists even going so far to assassinate without trial their so called leader in Pakistan and now at the same time they are arming the very same terrorist organisation up to the teeth to take out Assad's team in Syria.

Where do they draw the line.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US would be providing an additional $45 million in “non-lethal aid” to the “opposition” in Syria, reported the Associated Press.

The Western press chose their words carefully, ensuring that the term “civilian opposition” was repeatedly used to describe the armed terrorist forces attempting to violently overthrow the Syrian government.

Clinton’s Aid is Going to Al Qaeda, Not a “Civilian Opposition.”

While the Western media attempts to portray heavily armed foreign terrorists as “Syria’s civilian opposition,” it has been revealed that entire brigades are led by Libyan terrorists drawn from the ranks of the US State Department (#29), UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf), and UN-listed terror organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

The presence of LIFG in Syria was first announced by the Western press in November of 2011 when the Telegraph in their article, “Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would report:

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/09/30/surreal-clinton-pledges-45-million-in-aid-to-al-qaeda-in-syria/

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This dose not make any sense at all, you have the US administration on one hand demonizing Al Qaeda as ruthless Global terrorists even going so far to assassinate without trial their so called leader in Pakistan and now at the same time they are arming the very same terrorist organisation up to the teeth to take out Assad's team in Syria.

Where do they draw the line.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US would be providing an additional $45 million in “non-lethal aid” to the “opposition” in Syria, reported the Associated Press.

The Western press chose their words carefully, ensuring that the term “civilian opposition” was repeatedly used to describe the armed terrorist forces attempting to violently overthrow the Syrian government.

Clinton’s Aid is Going to Al Qaeda, Not a “Civilian Opposition.”

While the Western media attempts to portray heavily armed foreign terrorists as “Syria’s civilian opposition,” it has been revealed that entire brigades are led by Libyan terrorists drawn from the ranks of the US State Department (#29), UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf), and UN-listed terror organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

The presence of LIFG in Syria was first announced by the Western press in November of 2011 when the Telegraph in their article, “Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would report:

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/09/30/surreal-clinton-pledges-45-million-in-aid-to-al-qaeda-in-syria/

It's funny how in topsy-turvy CT world, the brutal dictator is the good guy, and anyone who opposes him is...an evil terrorist. It's all totally according to script.

I can't wait to hear the defence for Lukashenko when he finally gets what is coming to him in Belarus.

shedweller

Well, this is a new slant from the debunkers. Seems to be across the board too. Are you lads working for the same people?

Tzar Chasm

You have to admit its a bi odd tho, fighting a war in one country and funding the same group in another country

Monty Burnz

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

You have to admit its a bi odd tho, fighting a war in one country and funding the same group in another country

Are we taking it as established fact that the people receiving aid in Syria are Al Qaeda? Or is it possible that some of the resistance in Syria - or even most of it - is just local resistance, the type that Assad's father massacred in their thousands a few decades ago?

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This dose not make any sense at all, you have the US administration on one hand demonizing Al Qaeda as ruthless Global terrorists even going so far to assassinate without trial their so called leader in Pakistan and now at the same time they are arming the very same terrorist organisation up to the teeth to take out Assad's team in Syria.

Game of football?

Wait, I thought you said Al Qaeda were CIA controlled already?

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are we taking it as established fact that the people receiving aid in Syria are Al Qaeda? Or is it possible that some of the resistance in Syria - or even most of it - is just local resistance, the type that Assad's father massacred in their thousands a few decades ago?

Monty,
The US is fighting on the side with groups under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda in Syria as they did in Libya as they will in Lebanon when civil war breaks out when Assad falls.

Fools laughed at Gadaffi when he said the militants were jihadi terrorists. Gadaffi was right.

They are fighting for and against "Al Qaeda" at the same time - it's insane.

Hersh has been writing about the US's alliance with Sunni radicals in the middle east to counter Shia (Iranian) influence for years.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Monty,
The US is fighting on the side with groups under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda in Syria as they did in Libya as they will in Lebanon when civil war breaks out when Assad falls.

I don't think that's true at all. How come the victors in Libya are not looking to establish a Taleban-style regime?

Why should we presume that those opposed to Assad are under an 'Al Qaeda' umbrella?

My impression is that there is a range of opposition - some of which would come under the heading of 'radical Islam', but the majority of which would not. I see no contradiction in the US funnelling aid towards the moderate opposition.

asherbassad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's funny how in topsy-turvy CT world, the brutal dictator is the good guy, and anyone who opposes him is...an evil terrorist. It's all totally according to script.

I can't wait to hear the defence for Lukashenko when he finally gets what is coming to him in Belarus.

Well in non-topsy-turvy world the brutal dictator is also the good guy.

Karimov in Uzbekistan, Mubarak in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines, the Saudi regime, The Bahraini regime, etc., etc.

Ceaucescu was even supported by the US until it became untenable to do so and he was cut loose.

Can you actually explan how Gadaffi was such a tyrant? Examples please?

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

Can you actually explan how Gadaffi was such a tyrant? Examples please?

You just proved his point.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

You just proved his point.

No he didn't, he asked a question.

Brown Bomber

asherbassad wrote: »

Well in non-topsy-turvy world the brutal dictator is also the good guy.

If you want to know about topsy-turvy you don't have to look at "CT World" just US foreign policy. Just using the OP as an example:

Al-Liby, the Al-Qaeda commander who was killed in a CIA drone strike was a key member of the LIFG, who the US supported to overthrow Gadaffi. Al-Liby, representing Al Qaeda, also supported the US/NATO regime change war. The British hired Al Qaeda to assasinate Gadaffi in the 90's. A decade later the British were working with Gadaffi in a joint-operation with Libyan intelligence targetting LIFG members in England. Only a few short years after that the British were allied with Belhaj's Jihadi outfit the LIFG to fight the Libyan army. In between all this Belhaj, the leader of Al Qaeda's ally the LIFG was arrested in Asia and handed over to British intelligence who had the CIA rendition him (and his wife) to Libya to be tortured as a Gift to Gadaffi.

It reminds me of a WWF script.

dlofnep

The Obama administration moved Friday to rally Syria’s opposition with pledges of $45 million in new non-lethal and humanitarian assistance as the administration and other world leaders lamented the failure of diplomatic efforts to push Syrian President Bashar Assad from power.

Oh yeah, she must be helping Al Qaeda... arming them with mobile phones and food to THROW at Assad. Jesus christ, the spin machine is strong in here as per usual...

Brown Bomber

dlofnep wrote: »

Oh yeah, she must be helping Al Qaeda... arming them with mobile phones and food to THROW at Assad. Jesus christ, the spin machine is strong in here as per usual...

Yeah, your probably right...Hilary Clinton cares about Syrian people and only wants the best for them, especially the children.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No he didn't, he asked a question.

Whats the definition of a tyrant..

A cruel and oppressive ruler.
A person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way.

Gadaffi was by no means the worst, but his actions, policy defined him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

Up until the Libyan uprising, most anti-Western cynics commonly used Gadaffi as a poster-boy and prime example of how the "evil" West supported tyrants.

It echos the ongoing simplistic game of sides that's played out by certain individuals. Particular commentators generally support or back whoever is against the "evil" West (Libya, Iran, Syria, etc) and criticise those who are seen as onside with the West (Bahrain, Saudi, etc)

CT's often provide a comfortable posting ground for those with the above disposition.

The title of the thread is not exactly subtle.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Whats the definition of a tyrant..

A cruel and oppressive ruler.
A person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way.

Gadaffi was by no means the worst, but his actions, policy defined him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

Up until the Libyan uprising, most anti-Western cynics commonly used Gadaffi as a poster-boy and prime example of how the "evil" West supported tyrants.

That's simply not true.

I

Jonny7 wrote: »

t echos the ongoing simplistic game of sides that's played out by certain individuals. Particular commentators generally support or back whoever is against the "evil" West (Libya, Iran, Syria, etc) and criticise those who are seen as onside with the West (Bahrain, Saudi, etc)

CT's often provide a comfortable posting ground for those with the above disposition.

The title of the thread is not exactly subtle.

It's nothing to do with anyones "disposition". It's got to do with a transparent hypocrisy of preaching pro-democracy, justice, democracy, equality etc and practicising support of dictators and tyrants who are your friends and at the same time destroying nations and lives of of those who aren't friendly enough to you.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think that's true at all. How come the victors in Libya are not looking to establish a Taleban-style regime? .

Our revolution has been stolen, say Libya's jihadists

http://news.yahoo.com/revolution-stolen-libyas-jihadists-124559159.html

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why should we presume that those opposed to Assad are under an 'Al Qaeda' umbrella?

Some certainly are - Syrians and foreigners who have heeded al Zawahiri's call for Jihad against Assad.

[QUOTE=Monty Burnz;81043829My impression is that there is a range of opposition - some of which would come under the heading of 'radical Islam', but the majority of which would not. I see no contradiction in the US funnelling aid towards the moderate opposition.[/QUOTE]
Which "moderate" opposition. There is a violent civil war going on.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Our revolution has been stolen, say Libya's jihadists

http://news.yahoo.com/revolution-stolen-libyas-jihadists-124559159.html

This story just looks at some of the fundamentalist element who were involved in the wider uprising.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Some certainly are - Syrians and foreigners who have heeded al Zawahiri's call for Jihad against Assad.

I'm sure that some are indeed - but I'm assuming that most are just normal moderate muslims tired of living in a dictatorship.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which "moderate" opposition. There is a violent civil war going on.

Well, I meant moderate in terms of their outlook rather than in the means they are using to get rid of Assad.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This story just looks at some of the fundamentalist element who were involved in the wider uprising. .

Jihadis were central to the uprising. Belhaj was military commander of the NTC.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sure that some are indeed - but I'm assuming that most are just normal moderate muslims tired of living in a dictatorship.

If you want to that model without Al-Qaeda/NATO assistance then look at Bahrain. The moderate Muslims were marginalised by the extremists.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, I meant moderate in terms of their outlook rather than in the means they are using to get rid of Assad.

Fair enough. Take Clinton at face value then. How do they ensure that support isn't received by Al Qaeda?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you want to that model without Al-Qaeda/NATO assistance then look at Bahrain. The moderate Muslims were marginalised by the extremists.

Do you think there should have been Western intervention on Bahrain? There seem to have been some appalling injustices meted out there.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's simply not true.

I
It's nothing to do with anyones "disposition". It's got to do with a transparent hypocrisy of preaching pro-democracy, justice, democracy, equality etc and practicising support of dictators and tyrants who are your friends and at the same time destroying nations and lives of of those who aren't friendly enough to you.

It's not a playground, no countries are "friends". Think of it like businesses.
South Korea does not "support" North Korea, yet it can be construed as such by the simple observer.

Each country has a complex relationship with another, and that varies from administration to administration and also changes with events and time.

People repeatedly fall into the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" trap.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Do you think there should have been Western intervention on Bahrain? There seem to have been some appalling injustices meted out there.

That is something that I can't quite decide. Interventions hve a track-record of making situations worse. I would favour genuine altruistic humanitarian internventions but who gets to decide where and when? The UN is a sham, the concept of the US as a moral elder is a sham and any interventions has cannot be politically motivated as has oftenb been the case.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is something that I can't quite decide. Interventions hve a track-record of making situations worse. I would favour genuine altruistic humanitarian internventions but who gets to decide where and when? The UN is a sham, the concept of the US as a moral elder is a sham and any interventions has cannot be politically motivated as has oftenb been the case.

Interesting points. I wouldn't entirely agree with you with regard to the interventions of the US - obviously, they generally act in their own interests but they do also have a genuine track record of trying to improve the lot of others in an altruistic manner. Ironically, when they don't intervene they also get (metaphorically) slaughtered - Rwanda being the obvious example.

So, taking your point to its logical conclusion, were they right to do nothing in Rwanda? (where a million odd died, but things seem to have settled down reasonably well now - who knows what would have happened had foreign troops got involved?)

Or would they be right not to intervene in something like what we saw in Cambodia?

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Interesting points. I wouldn't entirely agree with you with regard to the interventions of the US - obviously, they generally act in their own interests but they do also have a genuine track record of trying to improve the lot of others in an altruistic manner. Ironically, when they don't intervene they also get (metaphorically) slaughtered - Rwanda being the obvious example.

So, taking your point to its logical conclusion, were they right to do nothing in Rwanda? (where a million odd died, but things seem to have settled down reasonably well now - who knows what would have happened had foreign troops got involved?)

Or would they be right not to intervene in something like what we saw in Cambodia?

The honest answer is that simply don't know. It's not a lazy response, I have wrestled with these ideas and I cannot come up with a better, realistic solution. In an ideal world there would be a neutral, incorruptable, non-demoninational, non-politcal committee that are supported by all nation states that are capable of acting in a manner that is based on peace, truth, justice and morals. A UN/World Court that works I suppose.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The honest answer is that simply don't know. It's not a lazy response, I have wrestled with these ideas and I cannot come up with a better, realistic solution. In an ideal world there would be a neutral, incorruptable, non-demoninational, non-politcal committee that are supported by all nation states that are capable of acting in a manner that is based on peace, truth, justice and morals. A UN/World Court that works I suppose.

Agreed, and it's not a lazy response at all. Unfortunately for us though, that's not the world that well-meaning people in government (and even non-well meaning governments that sometimes try to do good) have to operate in. It seems much easier to do harm, whether deliberately or by accident.

Run_to_da_hills

Romney also Vows To Arm Al-Qaeda Terrorists In Syria.

"Mitt Romney will vow to arm Syrian rebels today during a major foreign policy speech, illustrating once again how there is virtually no difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to serving the interests of the military-industrial complex".

http://www.infowars.com/romney-vows-to-arm-al-qaeda-terrorists-in-syria/

Corkfeen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Romney also Vows To Arm Al-Qaeda Terrorists In Syria.

"Mitt Romney will vow to arm Syrian rebels today during a major foreign policy speech, illustrating once again how there is virtually no difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to serving the interests of the military-industrial complex".

http://www.infowars.com/romney-vows-to-arm-al-qaeda-terrorists-in-syria/

Covering yourself on the off chance Obama doesn't get reelected?

Monty Burnz

Corkfeen wrote: »

Covering yourself on the off chance Obama doesn't get reelected?

It's a bit late for that!

We are still waiting for the assassination attempt that results in a serious head wound for Obama, as confidently predicted by RTDH. 1 month to go...