Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
Rise of al-Qaeda backfired on the United States, Putin says
- Thread starter Hello_10
- Start date
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
Hillary Clinton Admits US and Al-Qaeda On Same Side in Syria
Paul Joseph Watson
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted that Al-Qaeda and other groups on the State Departments terror list are on the same side as the United States in Syria and that they are aiding opposition rebels.
In an interview with BBC News (watch video), Clinton states, We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting claiming to support the opposition [in Syria].
Clintons admission that Al-Qaeda is supporting the armed insurrection in Syria dovetails with reports that the same Al-Qaeda terrorists who helped overthrow Colonel Gaddafi in Libya were airlifted into Syria by NATO forces.
Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahris has also publicly expressed support for Syrian rebel forces.
These terrorists have been blamed for bloody attacks that have killed both Syrian regime officials and innocent civilians, including a bombing earlier this month in Syrias second city of Aleppo which killed 28 people.
The recent Arab League report, which was almost universally ignored by the mainstream media, also concluded that both sides of the conflict were responsible for indiscriminate violence and that terrorist groups were helping the rebels carry out attacks.
Despite the admission that terrorists are aiding opposition forces in Syria, the establishment media has attempted to pour cold water on the issue, primarily through mouthpieces like Syria Danny an activist who has been afforded ample time by the corporate press to beg for a military invasion.
It is richly ironic that the unelected fundamentalist Sunni regimes of the Persian Gulf are supporting Al Qaeda affiliated groups within Syria purportedly to bring about democratic reforms, writes Professor Michel Chossudovsky. This is the same dynamic that prevailed in Libya where the overthrow of that countrys government by Western and Gulf Arab powers has now led to a collapse in human rights and social conditions.
Despite claims to the contrary, a general in the Free Syria Army, the opposition militia, has told journalists that the rebels are being armed with anti-aircraft missiles by the United States and France.
In Homs on Tuesday, a general claiming to be from the rebel group appeared on camera and told a journalist from Reuters news agency that French and American assistance has reached us and is with us. When asked to elaborate on the nature of the assistance he added, We now have weapons and anti-aircraft missiles and, God willing, with all of that we will defeat Bashar [President Assad], reports RT.
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds also reported that US troops landed on the Jordanian and Syrian border back in December for the purpose of training militants to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.
It was also revealed earlier this month that British Special Forces are already on the ground in Syria advising and directing the rebel army.
Prison Planet.com » Hillary Clinton Admits US and Al-Qaeda On Same Side in Syria
Paul Joseph Watson
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted that Al-Qaeda and other groups on the State Departments terror list are on the same side as the United States in Syria and that they are aiding opposition rebels.
In an interview with BBC News (watch video), Clinton states, We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting claiming to support the opposition [in Syria].
Clintons admission that Al-Qaeda is supporting the armed insurrection in Syria dovetails with reports that the same Al-Qaeda terrorists who helped overthrow Colonel Gaddafi in Libya were airlifted into Syria by NATO forces.
Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahris has also publicly expressed support for Syrian rebel forces.
These terrorists have been blamed for bloody attacks that have killed both Syrian regime officials and innocent civilians, including a bombing earlier this month in Syrias second city of Aleppo which killed 28 people.
The recent Arab League report, which was almost universally ignored by the mainstream media, also concluded that both sides of the conflict were responsible for indiscriminate violence and that terrorist groups were helping the rebels carry out attacks.
Despite the admission that terrorists are aiding opposition forces in Syria, the establishment media has attempted to pour cold water on the issue, primarily through mouthpieces like Syria Danny an activist who has been afforded ample time by the corporate press to beg for a military invasion.
It is richly ironic that the unelected fundamentalist Sunni regimes of the Persian Gulf are supporting Al Qaeda affiliated groups within Syria purportedly to bring about democratic reforms, writes Professor Michel Chossudovsky. This is the same dynamic that prevailed in Libya where the overthrow of that countrys government by Western and Gulf Arab powers has now led to a collapse in human rights and social conditions.
Despite claims to the contrary, a general in the Free Syria Army, the opposition militia, has told journalists that the rebels are being armed with anti-aircraft missiles by the United States and France.
In Homs on Tuesday, a general claiming to be from the rebel group appeared on camera and told a journalist from Reuters news agency that French and American assistance has reached us and is with us. When asked to elaborate on the nature of the assistance he added, We now have weapons and anti-aircraft missiles and, God willing, with all of that we will defeat Bashar [President Assad], reports RT.
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds also reported that US troops landed on the Jordanian and Syrian border back in December for the purpose of training militants to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.
It was also revealed earlier this month that British Special Forces are already on the ground in Syria advising and directing the rebel army.
Prison Planet.com » Hillary Clinton Admits US and Al-Qaeda On Same Side in Syria
somebozo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,872
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
CIA, NSA and FBI all knew the existence of Al Quaida threat to USA yet they purposely choose to ignore the threat to use it as a future oppurtunity of waging war. It is mind boggling that when Osama was making threat destroying the west, his representative were busy giving lectures in USA and Osama was being praised by CIA and Mi5.
Also it is mind boggling that MI5 knowingly gave shelter to many Alquaida operatives and supported them logistically and materially. And much to the dismay of CIA, even hired them for covert operations in Libya. Much of the AQ members were drawn from Muslim Brotherhood, the ruling power today in Egypt and Libya..its scary!
Syria is new Afghanistan!
Also it is mind boggling that MI5 knowingly gave shelter to many Alquaida operatives and supported them logistically and materially. And much to the dismay of CIA, even hired them for covert operations in Libya. Much of the AQ members were drawn from Muslim Brotherhood, the ruling power today in Egypt and Libya..its scary!
Syria is new Afghanistan!
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
US “Military Aid” to Syrian Opposition Goes to Al Qaeda
October 16, 2012
American Intelligence officials are acknowledging that the bulk of the weapons flowing into Syria for the US-backed war to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad are going into the hands of Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamist militias.
A lead article appearing in the New York Times Monday confirms the mounting reports from the region that jihadist elements are playing an increasingly prominent role in what has become a sectarian civil war in Syria.
“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.
The article reflects the growing disquiet within US ruling circles over the Obama administration’s strategy in Syria and, more broadly, in the Middle East, and adds fuel to the deepening foreign policy crisis confronting the Democratic president with just three weeks to go until the election.
In the distorted public debate between Democrats and Republicans, this crisis has centered around the September 11 attack on the US consulate and a secret CIA headquarters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi that claimed the lives of the US ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.
Republicans have waged an increasingly aggressive public campaign, indicting the Obama administration for failure to protect the American personnel. They have also accused the White House of attempting to cover up the nature of the incident, which the administration first presented as a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islamic video, before classifying it as a terrorist attack.
In Sunday television interviews, Republicans pressed this line of attack while Democrats countered that it was a political “witch-hunt” and that the initial description of the attack was based on available intelligence at the time.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, appearing on the NBC news program “Face the Nation,” argued that the description of the fatal attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous event was politically motivated. The Obama reelection campaign, he charged, is “trying to sell a narrative that… Al Qaeda has been dismantled—and to admit that our embassy was attacked by Al Qaeda operatives undercuts that narrative.”
What is involved, however, is not merely the disruption of an election campaign “narrative.” The events in Benghazi blew apart the entire US policy both in Libya and Syria, opening up a tremendous crisis for American foreign policy in the region.
The forces that attacked the US consulate and CIA outpost in Benghazi were not merely affiliates of Al Qaeda, they were the same forces that Washington and its allies had armed, trained and supported with an intense air war in the campaign for regime-change that ended with the brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi one year ago.
Ambassador Stevens, who was sent into Benghazi at the outset of this seven-month war, was the point man in forging this cynical alliance between US imperialism and forces and individuals that Washington had previously branded as “terrorists” and subjected to torture, rendition and imprisonment at Guantanamo.
The relationship between Washington and these forces echoed a similar alliance forged in the 1980s with the mujahideen and Al Qaeda itself in the war fostered by the CIA in Afghanistan to overthrow a government aligned with Moscow and to bloody the Soviet army.
Just as in Afghanistan, the Libyan arrangement has led to “blowback” for US imperialism. Having utilized the Islamist militias to follow up NATO air strikes and hunt down Gaddafi, once this goal was achieved Washington sought to push them aside and install trusted assets of the CIA and the big oil companies as the country’s rulers. Resenting being cut out of the spoils of war, and still heavily armed, the Islamist forces struck back, organizing the assassination of Stevens.
The Obama administration cannot publicly explain this turn of events without exposing the so-called “war on terror,” the ideological centerpiece of American foreign policy for over a decade, as a fraud, along with the supposedly “humanitarian” and “democratic” motives for the US intervention in Libya.
Moreover, it is utilizing the same forces to pursue its quest for regime-change in Syria, which is, in turn, aimed at weakening Iran and preparing for a US-Israeli war against that country. And, as the Times article indicates, an even more spectacular form of “blowback” is being prepared.
The Times quotes an unnamed American official familiar with US intelligence findings as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it.”
The article points to the role of the Sunni monarchies in Qatar and Saudi Arabia in funneling weaponry to hard-line Islamists, based upon their own religious sectarian agendas in the region, which are aimed at curtailing the influence of Shia-dominated Iran.
It attributes the failure of CIA personnel deployed at the Turkish-Syrian border in attempting to vet groups receiving weapons to a “lack of good intelligence about many rebel figures and factions.”
What the article fails to spell out, however, is precisely what “secular opposition groups” exist in Syria that the US wants to arm. The Turkish-based leaderships of the National Syrian Council and the Free Syrian Army have little influence and are largely discredited inside Syria.
A report issued by the International Crisis Group (ICG) on October 12 entitled “Tentative Jihad, Syria’s Fundamentalist Opposition” suggests that the so-called “secularist” armed opposition does not exist. It notes that, “the presence of a powerful Salafi strand among Syria’s rebels has become irrefutable,” along with a “slide toward ever-more radical and confessional discourse and… brutal tactics.”
It cites the increasingly prominent role played by groups like Jabhat al-Nusra [the Support Front] and Kata’ib Ahrar al-Sham [the Freemen of Syria Battalions],” both of which unambiguously embraced the language of jihad and called for replacing the regime with an Islamic state based on Salafi principles.”
Finally, it attributes the rising influence of these elements to “the lack of moderate, effective clerical and political leadership,” under conditions in which more moderate Sunni elements have opposed the so-called “rebels.”
“Overall, the absence of an assertive, pragmatic leadership, coupled with spiraling, at times deeply sectarian, violence inevitably played into more hard-line hands,” the ICG report concludes.
Increasingly, elements within the US ruling establishment are citing the growing influence of the Islamist militias in Syria as a justification for a direct US military intervention. Representative of this view is Jackson Diehl, the Washington Post’s chief foreign affairs editor and a prominent advocate of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. In an October 14 column, Diehl describes the situation in Syria as “an emerging strategic disaster” attributable to Obama’s “self-defeating caution in asserting American power.”
“Fixed on his campaign slogan that ‘the tide of war is receding’ in the Middle East,” Diehl writes, “Obama claims that intervention would only make the conflict worse—and then watches as it spreads to NATO ally Turkey and draws in hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters.”
Chiding Romney and the Republicans for focusing on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Diehl notes that this is easier than asking “war-weary Americans” to contemplate yet another war of aggression. Nonetheless, he suggests, once the election is over, such a war will be on the agenda, no matter who sits in the White House.
US “Military Aid” to Syrian Opposition Goes to Al Qaeda | Global Research
October 16, 2012
American Intelligence officials are acknowledging that the bulk of the weapons flowing into Syria for the US-backed war to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad are going into the hands of Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamist militias.
A lead article appearing in the New York Times Monday confirms the mounting reports from the region that jihadist elements are playing an increasingly prominent role in what has become a sectarian civil war in Syria.
“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.
The article reflects the growing disquiet within US ruling circles over the Obama administration’s strategy in Syria and, more broadly, in the Middle East, and adds fuel to the deepening foreign policy crisis confronting the Democratic president with just three weeks to go until the election.
In the distorted public debate between Democrats and Republicans, this crisis has centered around the September 11 attack on the US consulate and a secret CIA headquarters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi that claimed the lives of the US ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.
Republicans have waged an increasingly aggressive public campaign, indicting the Obama administration for failure to protect the American personnel. They have also accused the White House of attempting to cover up the nature of the incident, which the administration first presented as a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islamic video, before classifying it as a terrorist attack.
In Sunday television interviews, Republicans pressed this line of attack while Democrats countered that it was a political “witch-hunt” and that the initial description of the attack was based on available intelligence at the time.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, appearing on the NBC news program “Face the Nation,” argued that the description of the fatal attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous event was politically motivated. The Obama reelection campaign, he charged, is “trying to sell a narrative that… Al Qaeda has been dismantled—and to admit that our embassy was attacked by Al Qaeda operatives undercuts that narrative.”
What is involved, however, is not merely the disruption of an election campaign “narrative.” The events in Benghazi blew apart the entire US policy both in Libya and Syria, opening up a tremendous crisis for American foreign policy in the region.
The forces that attacked the US consulate and CIA outpost in Benghazi were not merely affiliates of Al Qaeda, they were the same forces that Washington and its allies had armed, trained and supported with an intense air war in the campaign for regime-change that ended with the brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi one year ago.
Ambassador Stevens, who was sent into Benghazi at the outset of this seven-month war, was the point man in forging this cynical alliance between US imperialism and forces and individuals that Washington had previously branded as “terrorists” and subjected to torture, rendition and imprisonment at Guantanamo.
The relationship between Washington and these forces echoed a similar alliance forged in the 1980s with the mujahideen and Al Qaeda itself in the war fostered by the CIA in Afghanistan to overthrow a government aligned with Moscow and to bloody the Soviet army.
Just as in Afghanistan, the Libyan arrangement has led to “blowback” for US imperialism. Having utilized the Islamist militias to follow up NATO air strikes and hunt down Gaddafi, once this goal was achieved Washington sought to push them aside and install trusted assets of the CIA and the big oil companies as the country’s rulers. Resenting being cut out of the spoils of war, and still heavily armed, the Islamist forces struck back, organizing the assassination of Stevens.
The Obama administration cannot publicly explain this turn of events without exposing the so-called “war on terror,” the ideological centerpiece of American foreign policy for over a decade, as a fraud, along with the supposedly “humanitarian” and “democratic” motives for the US intervention in Libya.
Moreover, it is utilizing the same forces to pursue its quest for regime-change in Syria, which is, in turn, aimed at weakening Iran and preparing for a US-Israeli war against that country. And, as the Times article indicates, an even more spectacular form of “blowback” is being prepared.
The Times quotes an unnamed American official familiar with US intelligence findings as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it.”
The article points to the role of the Sunni monarchies in Qatar and Saudi Arabia in funneling weaponry to hard-line Islamists, based upon their own religious sectarian agendas in the region, which are aimed at curtailing the influence of Shia-dominated Iran.
It attributes the failure of CIA personnel deployed at the Turkish-Syrian border in attempting to vet groups receiving weapons to a “lack of good intelligence about many rebel figures and factions.”
What the article fails to spell out, however, is precisely what “secular opposition groups” exist in Syria that the US wants to arm. The Turkish-based leaderships of the National Syrian Council and the Free Syrian Army have little influence and are largely discredited inside Syria.
A report issued by the International Crisis Group (ICG) on October 12 entitled “Tentative Jihad, Syria’s Fundamentalist Opposition” suggests that the so-called “secularist” armed opposition does not exist. It notes that, “the presence of a powerful Salafi strand among Syria’s rebels has become irrefutable,” along with a “slide toward ever-more radical and confessional discourse and… brutal tactics.”
It cites the increasingly prominent role played by groups like Jabhat al-Nusra [the Support Front] and Kata’ib Ahrar al-Sham [the Freemen of Syria Battalions],” both of which unambiguously embraced the language of jihad and called for replacing the regime with an Islamic state based on Salafi principles.”
Finally, it attributes the rising influence of these elements to “the lack of moderate, effective clerical and political leadership,” under conditions in which more moderate Sunni elements have opposed the so-called “rebels.”
“Overall, the absence of an assertive, pragmatic leadership, coupled with spiraling, at times deeply sectarian, violence inevitably played into more hard-line hands,” the ICG report concludes.
Increasingly, elements within the US ruling establishment are citing the growing influence of the Islamist militias in Syria as a justification for a direct US military intervention. Representative of this view is Jackson Diehl, the Washington Post’s chief foreign affairs editor and a prominent advocate of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. In an October 14 column, Diehl describes the situation in Syria as “an emerging strategic disaster” attributable to Obama’s “self-defeating caution in asserting American power.”
“Fixed on his campaign slogan that ‘the tide of war is receding’ in the Middle East,” Diehl writes, “Obama claims that intervention would only make the conflict worse—and then watches as it spreads to NATO ally Turkey and draws in hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters.”
Chiding Romney and the Republicans for focusing on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Diehl notes that this is easier than asking “war-weary Americans” to contemplate yet another war of aggression. Nonetheless, he suggests, once the election is over, such a war will be on the agenda, no matter who sits in the White House.
US “Military Aid” to Syrian Opposition Goes to Al Qaeda | Global Research
somebozo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,872
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
1992-1996: KSM Lives in Qatar with Government Protection
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) lives in Qatar during these years. He is invited there by Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani, Qatar’s Minister of Religious Affairs at the time. He works on a farm owned by al-Thani and lives in the open, not even bothering to use an alias. He works as a project engineer for the government. One US official will later recall that al-Thani “has this farm and he always had a lot of people around, the house was always overstaffed, a lot of unemployed Afghan Arabs…. There were always these guys hanging around and maybe a couple of Kalashnikovs [machine guns] in the corner.” [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 12/22/2002] KSM continues to plot and travel extensively, including a 1995 trip to fight in Bosnia with the trip’s expenses paid for by al-Thani. Apparently the CIA becomes aware that KSM is living there in 1995 and is also already aware of his role in the 1993 WTC bombing and the Bojinka plot (see October 1995). KSM will finally have to leave his Qatar base after his presence becomes too well known in early 1996 (see January-May 1996). [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 12/22/2002; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 147, 488] KSM will return to Qatar occasionally, even staying there with the knowledge of some Qatari royals for two weeks after 9/11 (see Late 2001).
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) lives in Qatar during these years. He is invited there by Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani, Qatar’s Minister of Religious Affairs at the time. He works on a farm owned by al-Thani and lives in the open, not even bothering to use an alias. He works as a project engineer for the government. One US official will later recall that al-Thani “has this farm and he always had a lot of people around, the house was always overstaffed, a lot of unemployed Afghan Arabs…. There were always these guys hanging around and maybe a couple of Kalashnikovs [machine guns] in the corner.” [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 12/22/2002] KSM continues to plot and travel extensively, including a 1995 trip to fight in Bosnia with the trip’s expenses paid for by al-Thani. Apparently the CIA becomes aware that KSM is living there in 1995 and is also already aware of his role in the 1993 WTC bombing and the Bojinka plot (see October 1995). KSM will finally have to leave his Qatar base after his presence becomes too well known in early 1996 (see January-May 1996). [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 12/22/2002; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 147, 488] KSM will return to Qatar occasionally, even staying there with the knowledge of some Qatari royals for two weeks after 9/11 (see Late 2001).
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
Analysis: Syria crisis feeds Iraq violence, al Qaeda revival
(Reuters) - It was a brazen, complex attack worthy of Iraq's al Qaeda at its peak. Two bombs minutes apart killed, maimed and distracted while a team of suicide attackers blasted into a Baghdad police base to try to free jailed insurgents.
Tuesday's high-profile assault on a anti-terrorism police unit in Baghdad was the latest in a drive by the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda local affiliate, to make good on a pledge to win back ground lost in its war with American troops - its leader has even threatened to strike at the United States.
Insurgents ultimately failed to free their prisoners, but the intended message was clear: we're back.
With Sunni Muslim militants trickling into neighboring Syria to battle President Bashar al-Assad, security experts say al Qaeda is reaping funds, recruits and better morale on both sides of the border, reinvigorating it after years of losses against U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies.
Islamic State of Iraq and other Sunni militant groups hate Assad's minority Alawite sect, a distant offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, which they see as a heretical oppressor of Sunnis.
Hostile to Shi'ites in general, they also oppose the Shi'ite-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Iran, the major Shi'ite power in the region, is a firm ally of Assad and wields great influence in Baghdad.
Al Qaeda appears to be exploiting Sunni-Shi'ite tensions fuelled by the increasingly sectarian conflict in Syria. Many Sunnis in Iraq are already disgruntled with what they see as Maliki's determination to minimize their share in power.
"The Syrian crisis is a venue in which an Iraqi-dominated al Qaeda branch is better able to attract fighters and resources to its cause," said Ramzi Mardini, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. "This may be a revival of confidence on the part of Sunni extremists."
CHANGING SIDES
Once at the heart of a Sunni insurgency against U.S.-led forces, al Qaeda lost many commanders to Iraqi and U.S. troops. Sunni tribes turned the tide against it from 2007, when they fought the group with U.S.-supplied guns, partly in revulsion at the indiscriminate carnage it had inflicted on civilians.
Iraq's violence has eased since the sectarian bloodbath of 2006-2007, but each month since the last American troops left in December al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for at least one major, well-coordinated attack.
A return to all-out sectarian violence looks unlikely, but the possible fall of Syria's Assad worries Iraqi Shi'ite leaders who fear that a hardline Sunni government could come to power instead, emboldening Sunni militants in Iraq.
Already, Baghdad says that seasoned al Qaeda fighters are crossing the 680 km (422 mile) border into Syria to liaise and conduct attacks on Assad's government. That hands Islamic State of Iraq new legitimacy in the eyes of some Sunnis, experts say.
Along Iraq's western frontier with Syria, near Albu Kamal, unrest across the border has fired up sympathies in a Sunni heartland with shared tribal and family ties.
Al Qaeda influence is strong in some remote border villages, and Iraqi forces skirmish daily with smugglers and insurgents sending fighters and weapons into Syria, said one senior Iraqi security official.
"The religious legitimacy of the Syria war and the increase of funding and fighters almost unquestionably benefits Al Qaeda in Iraq," said Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert at Washington's RAND Corporation and an author on al Qaeda. "It is heavily involved in overseeing the war in Syria."
NEW CHAPTER, NEW TACTICS?
America's withdrawal took with it U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities, handing insurgents more operational space in former strongholds such as Anbar province and areas where local political infighting hobbles Iraqi armed forces.
At the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan at the end of July, a rare communiqué from al Qaeda's local chieftain, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, announced a renewed jihad to recapture areas lost during the years of conflict with American forces.
In a fiery message about his muhahideen combatants,mujahedeenalso warned Americans: "You will soon see them in your homes. The war has only just started."
Even before his call to arms, June witnessed some of the severest attacks attributed to al Qaeda in Iraq since the U.S. pullout, including a surge in bombings on Shi'ite pilgrims and a suicide attack on a Shi'ite religious office in Baghdad.
July was Iraq's bloodiest month in the past two years with 325 people killed in attacks, most of them civilians.
Though al Qaeda's support had dwindled in Iraq because of civilian casualties, its bombings now focus on Shi'ite targets, government offices and local security forces as it seeks to inflame sectarian tensions and undermine Maliki.
The group, once a magnet for foreign fighters who often antagonized locals, has now reverted to a core of Iraqis hardened by the anti-American insurgency and in U.S. jails.
"These organizations have shown a resilience by adapting and forming small diffuse cells," said John Drake, at AKE Group consultancy. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now "seen as a much more domestic organization, so it could actually have more support among some members of the Iraqi public", he added.
FORMER STRONGHOLDS
Undeniably weaker and with less capability to hold territory than it did a few years ago, Iraqi officials acknowledge al Qaeda has crept back into old strongholds, aided by government inertia stemming from political infighting and corruption.
Mosul, a northern city in an area American soldiers once called the triangle of death, is considered the Islamic State of Iraq's unofficial capital, where officials say the group draws millions of dollars a month from extortion rackets.
In Baquba city, where political disputes among Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish leaders have paralyzed the provincial government, more than 20 neighborhood leaders known as mukhtars, who provide information to security forces, quit their posts in July for fear of al Qaeda.
"The reason for this wave of resignations is the armed operations by al Qaeda targeting mukhtars and their families," said Abdullah al-Hiyali, a local mayor.
Some Iraqi security officials play down al Qaeda influence and say evidence from several recent large-scale attacks suggests they were the work of other insurgents linked to political groups trying to destabilize the government.
They point to a wave of attacks that killed more than 100 people on July 23. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, but none of the attacks involved the group's trademark suicide bombings. Instead multiple car bombs were detonated by remote control.
At least six Sunni insurgent groups, including ex-members of Saddam Hussein's former Baath party, have fought on after the U.S. withdrawal, whereas most Shi'ite militias disbanded or were incorporated into government security forces.
That makes for a complex mosaic of Sunni armed groups who are sometimes rivals and sometimes work together.
But Tuesday's attack in central Baghdad looked like classic al Qaeda. An initial car bomb drew in security forces, followed five minutes later by another blast, killing at least 25 people.
At least three gunmen wearing suicide belts and police uniforms, broke into the counter-terrorism headquarters after one of them detonated his explosives at the gate, according to the interior ministry, which blamed al Qaeda.
Only after a sustained gun battle inside the building did the security forces regain control.
"People were saying in 2009, this group is dead," said Daniel Byman, of the Saban Center at Brookings Institute who released a recent study on al Qaeda affiliates. "Even if they don't succeed in reclaiming territory, the fact they can plausibly contest that is the biggest sign of their success."
(Additional reporting by Suadad al-Salhy and Raheem Salman in Baghdad; Editing by Alistair Lyon)
Analysis: Syria crisis feeds Iraq violence, al Qaeda revival | Reuters
(Reuters) - It was a brazen, complex attack worthy of Iraq's al Qaeda at its peak. Two bombs minutes apart killed, maimed and distracted while a team of suicide attackers blasted into a Baghdad police base to try to free jailed insurgents.
Tuesday's high-profile assault on a anti-terrorism police unit in Baghdad was the latest in a drive by the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda local affiliate, to make good on a pledge to win back ground lost in its war with American troops - its leader has even threatened to strike at the United States.
Insurgents ultimately failed to free their prisoners, but the intended message was clear: we're back.
With Sunni Muslim militants trickling into neighboring Syria to battle President Bashar al-Assad, security experts say al Qaeda is reaping funds, recruits and better morale on both sides of the border, reinvigorating it after years of losses against U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies.
Islamic State of Iraq and other Sunni militant groups hate Assad's minority Alawite sect, a distant offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, which they see as a heretical oppressor of Sunnis.
Hostile to Shi'ites in general, they also oppose the Shi'ite-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Iran, the major Shi'ite power in the region, is a firm ally of Assad and wields great influence in Baghdad.
Al Qaeda appears to be exploiting Sunni-Shi'ite tensions fuelled by the increasingly sectarian conflict in Syria. Many Sunnis in Iraq are already disgruntled with what they see as Maliki's determination to minimize their share in power.
"The Syrian crisis is a venue in which an Iraqi-dominated al Qaeda branch is better able to attract fighters and resources to its cause," said Ramzi Mardini, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. "This may be a revival of confidence on the part of Sunni extremists."
CHANGING SIDES
Once at the heart of a Sunni insurgency against U.S.-led forces, al Qaeda lost many commanders to Iraqi and U.S. troops. Sunni tribes turned the tide against it from 2007, when they fought the group with U.S.-supplied guns, partly in revulsion at the indiscriminate carnage it had inflicted on civilians.
Iraq's violence has eased since the sectarian bloodbath of 2006-2007, but each month since the last American troops left in December al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for at least one major, well-coordinated attack.
A return to all-out sectarian violence looks unlikely, but the possible fall of Syria's Assad worries Iraqi Shi'ite leaders who fear that a hardline Sunni government could come to power instead, emboldening Sunni militants in Iraq.
Already, Baghdad says that seasoned al Qaeda fighters are crossing the 680 km (422 mile) border into Syria to liaise and conduct attacks on Assad's government. That hands Islamic State of Iraq new legitimacy in the eyes of some Sunnis, experts say.
Along Iraq's western frontier with Syria, near Albu Kamal, unrest across the border has fired up sympathies in a Sunni heartland with shared tribal and family ties.
Al Qaeda influence is strong in some remote border villages, and Iraqi forces skirmish daily with smugglers and insurgents sending fighters and weapons into Syria, said one senior Iraqi security official.
"The religious legitimacy of the Syria war and the increase of funding and fighters almost unquestionably benefits Al Qaeda in Iraq," said Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert at Washington's RAND Corporation and an author on al Qaeda. "It is heavily involved in overseeing the war in Syria."
NEW CHAPTER, NEW TACTICS?
America's withdrawal took with it U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities, handing insurgents more operational space in former strongholds such as Anbar province and areas where local political infighting hobbles Iraqi armed forces.
At the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan at the end of July, a rare communiqué from al Qaeda's local chieftain, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, announced a renewed jihad to recapture areas lost during the years of conflict with American forces.
In a fiery message about his muhahideen combatants,mujahedeenalso warned Americans: "You will soon see them in your homes. The war has only just started."
Even before his call to arms, June witnessed some of the severest attacks attributed to al Qaeda in Iraq since the U.S. pullout, including a surge in bombings on Shi'ite pilgrims and a suicide attack on a Shi'ite religious office in Baghdad.
July was Iraq's bloodiest month in the past two years with 325 people killed in attacks, most of them civilians.
Though al Qaeda's support had dwindled in Iraq because of civilian casualties, its bombings now focus on Shi'ite targets, government offices and local security forces as it seeks to inflame sectarian tensions and undermine Maliki.
The group, once a magnet for foreign fighters who often antagonized locals, has now reverted to a core of Iraqis hardened by the anti-American insurgency and in U.S. jails.
"These organizations have shown a resilience by adapting and forming small diffuse cells," said John Drake, at AKE Group consultancy. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now "seen as a much more domestic organization, so it could actually have more support among some members of the Iraqi public", he added.
FORMER STRONGHOLDS
Undeniably weaker and with less capability to hold territory than it did a few years ago, Iraqi officials acknowledge al Qaeda has crept back into old strongholds, aided by government inertia stemming from political infighting and corruption.
Mosul, a northern city in an area American soldiers once called the triangle of death, is considered the Islamic State of Iraq's unofficial capital, where officials say the group draws millions of dollars a month from extortion rackets.
In Baquba city, where political disputes among Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish leaders have paralyzed the provincial government, more than 20 neighborhood leaders known as mukhtars, who provide information to security forces, quit their posts in July for fear of al Qaeda.
"The reason for this wave of resignations is the armed operations by al Qaeda targeting mukhtars and their families," said Abdullah al-Hiyali, a local mayor.
Some Iraqi security officials play down al Qaeda influence and say evidence from several recent large-scale attacks suggests they were the work of other insurgents linked to political groups trying to destabilize the government.
They point to a wave of attacks that killed more than 100 people on July 23. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, but none of the attacks involved the group's trademark suicide bombings. Instead multiple car bombs were detonated by remote control.
At least six Sunni insurgent groups, including ex-members of Saddam Hussein's former Baath party, have fought on after the U.S. withdrawal, whereas most Shi'ite militias disbanded or were incorporated into government security forces.
That makes for a complex mosaic of Sunni armed groups who are sometimes rivals and sometimes work together.
But Tuesday's attack in central Baghdad looked like classic al Qaeda. An initial car bomb drew in security forces, followed five minutes later by another blast, killing at least 25 people.
At least three gunmen wearing suicide belts and police uniforms, broke into the counter-terrorism headquarters after one of them detonated his explosives at the gate, according to the interior ministry, which blamed al Qaeda.
Only after a sustained gun battle inside the building did the security forces regain control.
"People were saying in 2009, this group is dead," said Daniel Byman, of the Saban Center at Brookings Institute who released a recent study on al Qaeda affiliates. "Even if they don't succeed in reclaiming territory, the fact they can plausibly contest that is the biggest sign of their success."
(Additional reporting by Suadad al-Salhy and Raheem Salman in Baghdad; Editing by Alistair Lyon)
Analysis: Syria crisis feeds Iraq violence, al Qaeda revival | Reuters
somebozo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,872
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
February 16, 1989-December 1990: CIA Continues to Work with ‘Blind Sheikh’ and Supports Mujaheddin Despite Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Although the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan in February 1989 (see February 15, 1989), the CIA continues to support the mujaheddin because the Soviet-allied Communist government stays in power in Kabul. Apparently, the CIA and the Saudi government continue to fund the mujaheddin at least until December 1990, although it could be longer because the Communist government remains in power in Kabul until 1992. The “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, reportedly has been working with the CIA in the 1980s to help unite the mujaheddin factions fighting each other (see Late 1980s). The Village Voice will later report that according to a “very high-ranking Egyptian official,” Abdul-Rahman continues to work with the CIA after moving to Brooklyn in July 1990 (see July 1990). He “work closely with the CIA, helping to channel a steady flow of money, men, and guns to mujaheddin bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” But despite working with the CIA, Abdul-Rahman still considers the US the “Great Satan” and does not try to hide this. In one radio broadcast, he says that “Americans are descendants of apes and pigs who have been feeding from the dining tables of the Zionists, Communism, and colonialism.” Matti Steinberg, an expert on Islamic fundamentalism, says that Abdul-Rahman’s “long-term goal is to weaken US society and to show Arab rulers that the US is not an invulnerable superpower.” The Egyptian official will later complain, “We begged America not to coddle the sheikh.” [VILLAGE VOICE, 3/30/1993]
Although the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan in February 1989 (see February 15, 1989), the CIA continues to support the mujaheddin because the Soviet-allied Communist government stays in power in Kabul. Apparently, the CIA and the Saudi government continue to fund the mujaheddin at least until December 1990, although it could be longer because the Communist government remains in power in Kabul until 1992. The “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, reportedly has been working with the CIA in the 1980s to help unite the mujaheddin factions fighting each other (see Late 1980s). The Village Voice will later report that according to a “very high-ranking Egyptian official,” Abdul-Rahman continues to work with the CIA after moving to Brooklyn in July 1990 (see July 1990). He “work
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
'US foreign policy depends on military machine and oil – not Republicans or Democrats'
22 October, 2012
As Romney and Obama prepare do battle over foreign policy in their third and final debate on Monday night, anti-war activist Brian Becker says viewers shouldn’t expect tough questions to be asked – or for foreign policy to change anytime soon.
Whether it’s a Republican or Democrat in the White House, one thing will remain consistent. US foreign policy will still be driven by power structures in America – principally the military industrial complex and big oil, Becker told RT.
RT:You're a long-time campaigner against America's foreign military campaigns. Which candidate would be the least warmongering – and how would you predict the winner's policy to pan out?
Brian Becker: I think if we take the debate tonight and the reflective positions of the two candidates and staged it as a theatrical production, we would borrow the words of William Shakespeare and say “It’s much ado about nothing.” US Foreign Policy, regardless of whether the party in the White House is Republican or Democrat, is consistent. And the consistency is based on central power structures in America that drive US foreign policy – principally the military industrial complex and big oil. And I think we can see and expect that even though the rhetoric will be different tonight than it has been during the campaign, that fundamentally the two candidates represent a foreign policy based on the new empire – the American empire that superseded the British Empire at the close of World War II. And I think that’s what we have to look forward to.
RT: Both Obama and Romney will try to highlight their differences on how they see America in the world. But with such similar views on, say, the condemnation of Iran and the support of Israel, how much difference is there really?
BB: Well, I think there’s differences in terms of what they’re trying to do in terms of positioning themselves for the electorate in these last two weeks. Romney is clearly pitching to the military industrial complex and big oil and some of the big banking backers. Of course that’s a question of appealing to power and money so when he talks about Russia being the primary foe of the US, that he seems to be ready to go to war at the drop of a hat against Iran, that he’s condemning the Bush administration for creating a weaker America – all of that is a demagoguery designed to appeal to a particular power center in American politics. They may not have most of the votes, but the military industrial complex, big oil, the biggest banks, they of course have outsized influence in terms of the outcome of the election, so that’s what Romney is trying to do. He’s trying to tell them that even if we’re going to cut tens of billions of dollars from social programs in a Romney administration which they intend to do – and they will under Obama too – that nothing will be taken from the military industrial complex. So it’s sort of a naked appeal to the forces of militarism which of course are also the forces of big business in America.
RT: Are there any vital foreign policy issues neither candidate would want to touch during the final debate?
BB: There’s something that has to be understood about American politics, because it is an empire – because it is the dominant political and military and economic force in the world – what happens in the world also impacts the American people. So you see Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s was a dominant part of the political consciousness there. During the Iraq invasion, the American people turned against another war in a third world country. Likewise, there is now a majority opinion against Afghanistan. I think the candidates have to be very careful, because while they want to position themselves as the best defenders of the empire, they also have to recognize that the American people are sick and tired of war after war after war and sick and tired of having the national treasury drained so that tens of thousands – hundreds of thousands – of public sector workers’ jobs are lost but the military coffers keep growing and growing. So they’re in something of a vice but of course the media in America is so complicit with the media propaganda campaign of the military industrial complex, I don’t think we’ll have many hard questions asked to either candidate.
'US foreign policy depends on military machine and oil
22 October, 2012
As Romney and Obama prepare do battle over foreign policy in their third and final debate on Monday night, anti-war activist Brian Becker says viewers shouldn’t expect tough questions to be asked – or for foreign policy to change anytime soon.
Whether it’s a Republican or Democrat in the White House, one thing will remain consistent. US foreign policy will still be driven by power structures in America – principally the military industrial complex and big oil, Becker told RT.
RT:You're a long-time campaigner against America's foreign military campaigns. Which candidate would be the least warmongering – and how would you predict the winner's policy to pan out?
Brian Becker: I think if we take the debate tonight and the reflective positions of the two candidates and staged it as a theatrical production, we would borrow the words of William Shakespeare and say “It’s much ado about nothing.” US Foreign Policy, regardless of whether the party in the White House is Republican or Democrat, is consistent. And the consistency is based on central power structures in America that drive US foreign policy – principally the military industrial complex and big oil. And I think we can see and expect that even though the rhetoric will be different tonight than it has been during the campaign, that fundamentally the two candidates represent a foreign policy based on the new empire – the American empire that superseded the British Empire at the close of World War II. And I think that’s what we have to look forward to.
RT: Both Obama and Romney will try to highlight their differences on how they see America in the world. But with such similar views on, say, the condemnation of Iran and the support of Israel, how much difference is there really?
BB: Well, I think there’s differences in terms of what they’re trying to do in terms of positioning themselves for the electorate in these last two weeks. Romney is clearly pitching to the military industrial complex and big oil and some of the big banking backers. Of course that’s a question of appealing to power and money so when he talks about Russia being the primary foe of the US, that he seems to be ready to go to war at the drop of a hat against Iran, that he’s condemning the Bush administration for creating a weaker America – all of that is a demagoguery designed to appeal to a particular power center in American politics. They may not have most of the votes, but the military industrial complex, big oil, the biggest banks, they of course have outsized influence in terms of the outcome of the election, so that’s what Romney is trying to do. He’s trying to tell them that even if we’re going to cut tens of billions of dollars from social programs in a Romney administration which they intend to do – and they will under Obama too – that nothing will be taken from the military industrial complex. So it’s sort of a naked appeal to the forces of militarism which of course are also the forces of big business in America.
RT: Are there any vital foreign policy issues neither candidate would want to touch during the final debate?
BB: There’s something that has to be understood about American politics, because it is an empire – because it is the dominant political and military and economic force in the world – what happens in the world also impacts the American people. So you see Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s was a dominant part of the political consciousness there. During the Iraq invasion, the American people turned against another war in a third world country. Likewise, there is now a majority opinion against Afghanistan. I think the candidates have to be very careful, because while they want to position themselves as the best defenders of the empire
, they also have to recognize that the American people are sick and tired of war after war after war and sick and tired of having the national treasury drained so that tens of thousands – hundreds of thousands – of public sector workers’ jobs are lost but the military coffers keep growing and growing. So they’re in something of a vice but of course the media in America is so complicit with the media propaganda campaign of the military industrial complex, I don’t think we’ll have many hard questions asked to either candidate.'US foreign policy depends on military machine and oil
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
,
for those who dont know about these Western War Handlers, would start learning from the few news as below. you people are worried for the criminals/terrorist like Dawood Abrahim, who is wanted in over 1000 deaths in India due to different bomb blasts like in early 90s, murders during 80s with having hands in Mumbai attack also, while its clear on the different political tables that until we may successfully kill those Americans/British who 'handle' the people like dawood abrahim, there is no meaning to fight with either Dawood Abrahim or his lord like Mr P.Musharraf who himself is a Pet Dog of Britain, (who kept Dawood in Pakistan, similar to many kashmiri militants, other different indian criminals in pakistan, as guided by his British lords.....). as, if they used Mr Mush and Dawood like people in past then they may put someone else to do same in future again............
there is no part of the world where the terrorism is not being funded or directly handled by the US's government agencies, India just got an experience in Mumbai Attack as below. internet is full of this type of news, get to know few things as below:
=> I have been part of many type of politics during last 5-6 years, by unwillingness, but I did get valuable experiences due to that. and I can say something in short, "if an American or British is killed somewhere then there is always a 'good' reason behind it." i mean, you just can't ask why an American or British was killed in any part of the world, as there are always too many 'good' reasons behind it that you would simply understand that, "yaah thats how the things are.......". while we find Al Qaeda first raped that US's diplomat in Libya and then killed him as we do know that Al Qaeda and US are 'close' friends, who sometimes work together and sometimes they first have sex and then murder each other.........
American+British governments have organized so many wars, military/economic/political, in this world that its simply foolish to ask for a reason behind killing of their citizens in any part of the world. you may find my this comment little rude but its a type of "common sense" among the different political groups of world..........
for those who dont know about these Western War Handlers, would start learning from the few news as below. you people are worried for the criminals/terrorist like Dawood Abrahim, who is wanted in over 1000 deaths in India due to different bomb blasts like in early 90s, murders during 80s with having hands in Mumbai attack also, while its clear on the different political tables that until we may successfully kill those Americans/British who 'handle' the people like dawood abrahim, there is no meaning to fight with either Dawood Abrahim or his lord like Mr P.Musharraf who himself is a Pet Dog of Britain, (who kept Dawood in Pakistan, similar to many kashmiri militants, other different indian criminals in pakistan, as guided by his British lords.....). as, if they used Mr Mush and Dawood like people in past then they may put someone else to do same in future again............
there is no part of the world where the terrorism is not being funded or directly handled by the US's government agencies, India just got an experience in Mumbai Attack as below. internet is full of this type of news, get to know few things as below:
David Headley is a Chicago-based Pakistani American, who conspired with Lashkar-e-Taiba to launch the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Since his arrest he has been closely guarded by the US government and access to him restricted. Despite pleading guilty he has not been extradited to India, instead he has been cooperating with the U.S. authorities with matters related to terrorism.
Before the attacks the CIA had strong links to Headley and it is suspected that he was an agent for them. Unfreemedia reports that Indias Home Ministry officials are now investigating whether the Pakistani-American terror suspect David Coleman Headley was in fact a CIA double agent.
Terror Alert Fashback: Mumbai Attack Involved CIA and ISI - WideShut: Alternative News
=> I have been part of many type of politics during last 5-6 years, by unwillingness, but I did get valuable experiences due to that. and I can say something in short, "if an American or British is killed somewhere then there is always a 'good' reason behind it." i mean, you just can't ask why an American or British was killed in any part of the world, as there are always too many 'good' reasons behind it that you would simply understand that, "yaah thats how the things are.......". while we find Al Qaeda first raped that US's diplomat in Libya and then killed him as we do know that Al Qaeda and US are 'close' friends, who sometimes work together and sometimes they first have sex and then murder each other.........
American+British governments have organized so many wars, military/economic/political, in this world that its simply foolish to ask for a reason behind killing of their citizens in any part of the world. you may find my this comment little rude but its a type of "common sense" among the different political groups of world..........
Role of Alleged CIA Asset in Mumbai Attacks Being Downplayed
by Jeremy R. Hammond
December 10, 2008
The role in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month of an underworld kingpin that heads an organization known as D-Company, has known ties to Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and who is alleged to have ties with the CIA is apparently being whitewashed, suggesting that his capture and handover to India might prove inconvenient for either the ISI or the CIA, or both.
Kasab told his interrogators that his team had set out from Karachi, Pakistan, on a ship belonging to Dawood Ibrahim, the MV Alpha.
Upon arriving off the coast near the city, they were received by inflatable rubber dinghies that had been arranged by an associate of Ibrahims in Mumbai.
One of the SIM cards used was possibly purchased from New Jersey. Investigators are looking into this potential link to the US, as well.
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen similarly reported that according to intelligence sources, Dawood Ibrahim is a CIA asset, both as a veteran of the mujahedeen war and in a continuing connection with his casino and drug trade operations in Kathmandu, Nepal. A deal had been made earlier this year to have Pakistan hand Ibrahim over to India, but the CIA was fearful that this would lead to too many of its 'dirty secrets' coming to light, including the criminal activities of high level personnel within the agency.
Former Indian Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani wrote in his memoir, My Country My Life, that he made a great effort to get Pakistan to hand over Ibrahim, and met with then US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (now Secretary of State) to pressure Pakistan to do so. But he was informed by Powell that Pakistan would hand over Ibrahim only with some strings attached
Role of Alleged CIA Asset in Mumbai Attacks Being Downplayed | Foreign Policy Journal
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria
While we reflect on the 11th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on American soil, there is a blinding light that may obscure our view: this sworn enemy now fights hand in hand with the US against the Syrian regime.
The historic State of the Union address by US president George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 is loaded with morals and principles about good and evil.
The president's ultimatum was clear: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
In Syria, there is mounting evidence that Al Qaeda and its allies are actively deploying terror tactics and suicide bombers to overthrow the Assad regime.
Syrian citizens who prefer the secular and stable state to the prospect of an Iraqi-style sectarian state may well be turning this same question around to the US government: are you with us, or with the terrorists?
This week, head of the Salafi jihad and close ally of al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, pledged ''deadly attacks'' against Syria as ''our fighters are coming to get you'' because ''crimes'' by the regime ''prompts us to jihad''.
Bush referred to al Qaeda as the enemies of freedom: ''the terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews''. But Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ''your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty Alawites are more infidel than the Jews and Christians''. Because the new jihad targets Alawites rather than Jews and Christians, does this render them better bed fellows?
By his own admission, Bush stated that al Qaeda was ''linked to many other organisations in different countries They are recruited from their own nations where they are trained in the tactics of terror They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction''.
Yet this is precisely how the foreign jihadists in Syria have been described by reporters. They are funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they collaborate with the Free Syrian Army which is aided and abetted by the US.
Bush condemned the Taliban regime because they were ''sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder''. Eleven years later, the parallels produce an uncomfortable truth.
If only the Syrian uprising was as simple as the Arab Spring narrative where citizens seek democracy and freedom. But those unarmed protests have long since been hijacked by a cocktail of agendas which have little to do with Syrian democracy, and more to do with a proxy war to create a sectarian Sunni state that weakens Shi'te Iran's main partner in the region.
Bush was correct in claiming that al Qaeda ''want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan'' - who were all US-Israel allies at that time.
But his list stopped short of mentioning Syria or Iraq, the real targets of al Qaeda. Why does overthrowing Syria, using the same terror tactics, fail to attract the same degree of outrage?
Bush continues: ''We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.''
This pledge appears to have fallen on its own sword, given the funding of the jihadists in Syria. The terrorists have bred and spread across borders, which is the opposite of Bush's prophecy.
The US administration must come clean about its financial aid. It cannot use one hand to sign a blank cheque to the rebels, and the other hand to cover its eyes to their immoral and illegal tactics. It cannot hide behind ''the end justifies the means'' as there are too many innocent lives at stake.
Bush rode off on his high horse: ''We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them may God grant us wisdom''.
If the principles and morality are to be taken seriously, then they need to be applied consistently.
The US regime should be actively and publicly distancing itself from the foreign terrorists and Salafist jihadists that are proliferating within sovereign Syria.
It should be condemning al Qaeda for its militant intervention. It should be condemning the Saudi sheikhs who issue fatwas for an Alawite holocaust.
The wisdom that we see is grief over the al Qaeda crime 11 years ago, yet covert collaboration with this sworn enemy today.
Perhaps the US is applying another principle that they may have learned from their pragmatic Arab allies - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria
While we reflect on the 11th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on American soil, there is a blinding light that may obscure our view: this sworn enemy now fights hand in hand with the US against the Syrian regime.
The historic State of the Union address by US president George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 is loaded with morals and principles about good and evil.
The president's ultimatum was clear: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
In Syria, there is mounting evidence that Al Qaeda and its allies are actively deploying terror tactics and suicide bombers to overthrow the Assad regime.
Syrian citizens who prefer the secular and stable state to the prospect of an Iraqi-style sectarian state may well be turning this same question around to the US government: are you with us, or with the terrorists?
This week, head of the Salafi jihad and close ally of al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, pledged ''deadly attacks'' against Syria as ''our fighters are coming to get you'' because ''crimes'' by the regime ''prompts us to jihad''.
Bush referred to al Qaeda as the enemies of freedom: ''the terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews''. But Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ''your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty Alawites are more infidel than the Jews and Christians''. Because the new jihad targets Alawites rather than Jews and Christians, does this render them better bed fellows?
By his own admission, Bush stated that al Qaeda was ''linked to many other organisations in different countries They are recruited from their own nations where they are trained in the tactics of terror They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction''.
Yet this is precisely how the foreign jihadists in Syria have been described by reporters. They are funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they collaborate with the Free Syrian Army which is aided and abetted by the US.
Bush condemned the Taliban regime because they were ''sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder''. Eleven years later, the parallels produce an uncomfortable truth.
If only the Syrian uprising was as simple as the Arab Spring narrative where citizens seek democracy and freedom. But those unarmed protests have long since been hijacked by a cocktail of agendas which have little to do with Syrian democracy, and more to do with a proxy war to create a sectarian Sunni state that weakens Shi'te Iran's main partner in the region.
Bush was correct in claiming that al Qaeda ''want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan'' - who were all US-Israel allies at that time.
But his list stopped short of mentioning Syria or Iraq, the real targets of al Qaeda. Why does overthrowing Syria, using the same terror tactics, fail to attract the same degree of outrage?
Bush continues: ''We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.''
This pledge appears to have fallen on its own sword, given the funding of the jihadists in Syria. The terrorists have bred and spread across borders, which is the opposite of Bush's prophecy.
The US administration must come clean about its financial aid. It cannot use one hand to sign a blank cheque to the rebels, and the other hand to cover its eyes to their immoral and illegal tactics. It cannot hide behind ''the end justifies the means'' as there are too many innocent lives at stake.
Bush rode off on his high horse: ''We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them may God grant us wisdom''.
If the principles and morality are to be taken seriously, then they need to be applied consistently.
The US regime should be actively and publicly distancing itself from the foreign terrorists and Salafist jihadists that are proliferating within sovereign Syria.
It should be condemning al Qaeda for its militant intervention. It should be condemning the Saudi sheikhs who issue fatwas for an Alawite holocaust.
The wisdom that we see is grief over the al Qaeda crime 11 years ago, yet covert collaboration with this sworn enemy today.
Perhaps the US is applying another principle that they may have learned from their pragmatic Arab allies - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
‘West’s policy of iron and blood doesn’t work’
01 December, 2012
Advancing democracy abroad through "iron and blood" “doesn’t work”, said Russia’s Foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov. In his speech the diplomat slammed the West’s policy towards Syria and reiterated Russia’s stance on the situation in the war-torn state.
Sergey Lavrov stressed that Moscow’s position towards Syria and other countries in the region is not because Russia “opposes Western influence” or “puts a stick in the spokes of Western-initiated projects out of spite", but because “advancing democracy through iron and blood just does not work”.
"In most cases it produces the opposite reaction" and leads to "the strengthening of extremists and repressive forces, decreasing the chances of real democratic change," Lavrov said at a foreign policy council meeting.
“This has been made clear in recent months – the past year-and-a-half," he added.
Lavrov recalled the results of past attempts to use force by avoiding the UN Security Council, and expressed concern that some states are trying to make the "Libyan model a precedent."
"What is worrying is that at times of crises one is tempted to resort to military methods. Some of our partners find these methods suitable," Lavrov said.
"No-one knows in the end what will happen in the Middle East, including Syria," he said.
The latest statement by Lavrov echoes President Vladimir Putin’s comments made back in July. Then Putin criticized the West for clinging to its influence in the Arab world under the guise of “humanitarian operations”, dubbing western involvement in Arab affairs as the export of “rocket and bomb democracy.”
Moscow has been repeatedly criticized for supporting Assad’s regime, including weapon and money supplies, and vetoing resolutions against government regime. Russia has denied the accusations by western powers, but says it will not allow a repeat of Libyan scenario. At the same time, Moscow insists that Assad’s resignation, something the West actively seeks, cannot be decided by foreign states, but only by the Syrian people.
Lavrov: ‘West’s policy of iron and blood doesn’t work’ — RT
01 December, 2012
Advancing democracy abroad through "iron and blood" “doesn’t work”, said Russia’s Foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov. In his speech the diplomat slammed the West’s policy towards Syria and reiterated Russia’s stance on the situation in the war-torn state.
Sergey Lavrov stressed that Moscow’s position towards Syria and other countries in the region is not because Russia “opposes Western influence” or “puts a stick in the spokes of Western-initiated projects out of spite", but because “advancing democracy through iron and blood just does not work”.
"In most cases it produces the opposite reaction" and leads to "the strengthening of extremists and repressive forces, decreasing the chances of real democratic change," Lavrov said at a foreign policy council meeting.
“This has been made clear in recent months – the past year-and-a-half," he added.
Lavrov recalled the results of past attempts to use force by avoiding the UN Security Council, and expressed concern that some states are trying to make the "Libyan model a precedent."
"What is worrying is that at times of crises one is tempted to resort to military methods. Some of our partners find these methods suitable," Lavrov said.
"No-one knows in the end what will happen in the Middle East, including Syria," he said.
The latest statement by Lavrov echoes President Vladimir Putin’s comments made back in July. Then Putin criticized the West for clinging to its influence in the Arab world under the guise of “humanitarian operations”, dubbing western involvement in Arab affairs as the export of “rocket and bomb democracy.”
Moscow has been repeatedly criticized for supporting Assad’s regime, including weapon and money supplies, and vetoing resolutions against government regime. Russia has denied the accusations by western powers, but says it will not allow a repeat of Libyan scenario. At the same time, Moscow insists that Assad’s resignation, something the West actively seeks, cannot be decided by foreign states, but only by the Syrian people.
Lavrov: ‘West’s policy of iron and blood doesn’t work’ — RT
Black Widow
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,130
- Reaction score
- -17
@Hello10 If you stop posting huge posts, We can start the discussion.
We were discussing Syrian issue in some other thread, Pro American and Pro Taliban still not ready to believe that West is waging war on Syria..
I love USA, I love Russia , I Like Syria and Turkey as well. But I strongly hate American policies. American use all means to get there problem solved. Every thing is not fare in war, If you keep ethics behind, the evil will haunt you. Americans used Taliban against Afghans, Now same Talibans are pain in a$$.
Bottom line is West must not support unfare means to achieve objectives. If Asad is gone, same Lunatics will start bombing Israel, Turkey and USA...
We were discussing Syrian issue in some other thread, Pro American and Pro Taliban still not ready to believe that West is waging war on Syria..
I love USA, I love Russia , I Like Syria and Turkey as well. But I strongly hate American policies. American use all means to get there problem solved. Every thing is not fare in war, If you keep ethics behind, the evil will haunt you. Americans used Taliban against Afghans, Now same Talibans are pain in a$$.
Bottom line is West must not support unfare means to achieve objectives. If Asad is gone, same Lunatics will start bombing Israel, Turkey and USA...
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Islamic brotherhood aka rebels suddenly becomes political legt party for US from terrorists when it comes to Syria or ME altogether
Similar threads
