Syrian Civil War

[waldo]

It's been some days since this claim that the group was faked and I've seen nothing on it in any serious media. Only the conspiracy nut sites seem to be playing it up. Having read the article in question it seems rife with suspicions but no actual evidence. It quotes a journalist and an ex-cia official saying they'd never heard of the group, but that's pretty much the totality of the evidence.

Which is probably why none of the more responsible media have even bothered to repeat any of this.

To my mind no one's word is necessarily reliable. However, to gain at least a better idea of whether the government is lying you have to take into account motivations and risks. The US government already had a pretty clear path to bombing, with fairly widespread support. It didn't need to invent a new group to justify it. Faking the group was adding an IMMENSE political risk, in that if it could be proven the group was fake the repercussions would be huge. So why exactly would the administration take such a huge and needless risk? I don't buy it for that reason alone.

a short while back (in another thread) you claimed self-defense was the substantiation for the U.S. bombing of Syria... of course, the accompanying measured self-defense action presumes upon a pre-eminent threat. Of course, that lil' ole "preventive Bush Doctrine" play doesn't go over so well today... hence the need to play up some presumed pre-eminent threat in the name of so-called "self-defense". ... enter the Khorasan boogeyman group!

let's be clear here... are you labeling Glenn Greenwald a "conspiracy nut"?

[Argus]

a short while back (in another thread) you claimed self-defense was the substantiation for the U.S. bombing of Syria.

Not quite. I said Iraq (and its allies) had the right to attack Syria because of the attackers coming across its borders. The 'self defense' is Iraq's.

let's be clear here... are you labeling Glenn Greenwald a "conspiracy nut"?

Or perhaps a very poor excuse for a journalist. Yes, I know he has a decent reputation. But he's always had a deep distrust of governments, and that has led him over the recent past to embrace some dubious characters like Edward Snowden and "Chelsea' Manning, among others. He's offered up precious little (no) evidence in support of his suggestion, and as a result the only sites I can find which are even bothering to discuss it are conspiracy nut sites.

In the absence of evidence I prefer to embrace the one reliable method of determining truth of governmental or institutional statements, that being self-interest. As I said, and which you have chosen not to challenge, it makes no sense for the US government to make up such up a group, and it would pose enormous political dangers to do so.

[waldo]

Not quite. I said Iraq (and its allies) had the right to attack Syria because of the attackers coming across its borders. The 'self defense' is Iraq's.

whether directly Iraq... or the allied U.S. acting at the request of Iraq's government, where is/was the imminent threat, in the name of "self defense", that substantiates the bombing of Syria?

.

Or perhaps a very poor excuse for a journalist. Yes, I know he has a decent reputation. But he's always had a deep distrust of governments, and that has led him over the recent past to embrace some dubious characters like Edward Snowden and "Chelsea' Manning, among others. He's offered up precious little (no) evidence in support of his suggestion, and as a result the only sites I can find which are even bothering to discuss it are conspiracy nut sites.

In the absence of evidence I prefer to embrace the one reliable method of determining truth of governmental or institutional statements, that being self-interest. As I said, and which you have chosen not to challenge, it makes no sense for the US government to make up such up a group, and it would pose enormous political dangers to do so.

other than being so-called whistleblowers, what makes your referenced characters dubious... to the point of, by association, you disparaging Greenwald for writing about Snowden/Wikileaks? --- Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?

making up such a group??? Huh! Of course, Khorasan existed... I suspect you didn't bother to read the linked Intercept article I provided. Greenwald presents a sequencing of events involving the ever obliging mainstream media being fed "nuggets" about the supposed imminent Khorasan threat... from "unnamed government sources". Of course, it was played up as an imminent threat to the U.S. homeland/heartland! Gee, where have we seen that before?

.

[Argus]

whether directly Iraq... or the allied U.S. acting at the request of Iraq's government, where is/was the imminent threat, in the name of "self defense", that substantiates the bombing of Syria?

A state is responsible for all conduct which happens within its borders. It's no good saying "Duh, I don't control them". It's your property, so you're responsible. If Iraq has cause to believe, which it does, that the enemy who have attacked and are killing its people are headquartered across the border in another state and is feeding arms, equipment and men across the border it has a perfect right to take any action necessary to stop them. That includes demanding the other state put a stop to the aggression, and if that state is unable, which Syria is, then Iraq may cross the border and take them out itself.

.

other than being so-called whistleblowers, what makes your referenced characters dubious...

You can call them whistleblowers if you like. I call them confused, narcissistic, shallow traitors.

making up such a group??? Huh! Of course, Khorasan existed... I suspect you didn't bother to read the linked Intercept article I provided. Greenwald presents a sequencing of events involving the ever obliging mainstream media being fed "nuggets" about the supposed imminent Khorasan threat... from "unnamed government sources". Of course, it was played up as an imminent threat to the U.S. homeland/heartland! Gee, where have we seen that before?

Reads very much like all the other 'sequence of events' I read in a variety of conspiracy theories.

It's just as unlikely as they are.

[waldo]

That includes demanding the other state put a stop to the aggression, and if that state is unable, which Syria is, then Iraq may cross the border and take them out itself.

I didn't realize Iraq had F-22 jets! In any case, if your astute take on international law is to be accepted, then why the charade with Khorasan? Why was that somewhat obsure group pushed forward (by unknown U.S. administration sources to major U.S. media outlets) as an imminent threat to the U.S. homeland?... as the justification for U.S. bombing of Syria? And you don't see a slight disconnect here?

You can call them whistleblowers if you like. I call them confused, narcissistic, shallow traitors.

bully! Good for you. In any case you accomplished your intended disparagement of Greenwald for daring to write about Snowden/Wikileaks.

Reads very much like all the other 'sequence of events' I read in a variety of conspiracy theories. It's just as unlikely as they are.

do you not find it the least bit puzzling that there's not a peep out there anymore about that (fake) "Khorasan threat"... I guess that imminent threat to the U.S. homeland somehow disappeared... as quickly as it appeared! Go figure.

.

[marcus]

What is up with Argus' denial of Snowden's credibility? Even the U.S. government has never denied anything that Snowden has released.

Both Snowden and Greenwald have 0 credibility issues. Their information has never been proven to be wrong or lacking credibility.

The only conspiracy theorist here is Argus.

[Argus]

I didn't realize Iraq had F-22 jets!

Are you being deliberately dense? As has already been stated numerous times, Iraq AND ITS ALLIES have the right to defend Iraq, including by attacking the origin of their attackers

In any case, if your astute take on international law is to be accepted, then why the charade with Khorasan?

You have no evidence it was a charade. Nor does Greenwald. It seems to take very, very little to absolutely convince you of something when it agrees with your political positions.

[Argus]

What is up with Argus' denial of Snowden's credibility? Even the U.S. government has never denied anything that Snowden has released.

Both Snowden and Greenwald have 0 credibility issues. Their information has never been proven to be wrong or lacking credibility.

The only conspiracy theorist here is Argus.

I didn't say anything about Snowden's 'credibility'. I said he was a shallow, narcissistic traitor.

I hope he's enjoying his 'freedom' in the Russian Empire, with his every keystroke, statement and movement monitored by the FSB

[Rue]

Marcus you came on this forum and made baseless vile accusations against the US and then you demnd that I be erased or saytin that?Lol.

You forgot. Read your script. You are supposed to be Canadian. We are not in a Muslim state where you can send theMukbarat to silence me because I call your comments out as, baseless, diatribes. Remember?

This is not Tehran or Damascus.

Its called freedom of speech.

You get to state your baseless accusations, I get to challenge them.

Let's explain that phenomena again, its called freedom of speech and that is precisely why we are now at war with ISIL, fundamentalist Muslims, other terrorists.

Lest you misunderstood my earlier comment let me state it again, terrorists are vermin. They are a scurge. They choose to torture, kill and engage in the lowest and most savage forms of human behaviour. They are a cancer that threatens humanity and need to be cut out before they spread.

You want to feign outrage that I call terrorists vermin? Explain.

Explain how terrorists are not vermin. Finish what you started. Explain to me and everyone else on this forum why terrorists are not vermin.

Please quote the passages of the Koran that rationalize terrorism.

Please quote the passages of the Koran that condone the beheading of people whose sole crime was to try help others.

Please quote the passages of the Koran that justify selling women and children as sex slaves and engaging in genocide against non Muslims.

Finish it.

You want to come on this forum and insult the US etc,, for standing up to terroruism, finish it.

Go on, explain why ISIL is not vermin. Tell us all how Al Quaeda,ISIL,Al Nusra, Hamas, are freedom fighters.

Go on.

See its easy to come on this forum and insult the US and ISrael but do you have the integrity to explain your religion, your true identity, what you truly believe in and why you support ISIL and the other terrorist groups?

Well?

You want to use that name Marcus? What does it stand for other that coming on this forum and limiting your words to diatribes against the US and Israel and then trying to suggest I should be erased since I question you?

Come on Marcus, finish just once what you started, whatever name you choose on this forum.

Does this script they give you allow that?

Edited October 5, 2014 by Rue

[eyeball]

Hey Rue, did you happen to notice Saudi Arabia arrests people for free speech and beheads, tortures and murders people much like the vermin we're charging off to war against?

How do you explain the fact SA is one of our staunchest allies in this war?

[Big Guy]

The good news for posters about these anonymous bulletin boards is that the freedom of speech allows the individual posters to fully express themselves and others are able to evaluate their intelligence, background, knowledge, wisdom, political affiliation, civility and any agenda - and evaluate his/her credibility accordingly.

The bad news for posters about these anonymous bulletin boards is that the freedom of speech allows the individual posters to fully express themselves and others are able to evaluate their intelligence, background, knowledge, wisdom, political affiliation, civility and any agenda - and evaluate his/her credibility accordingly.

Expressing one's opinion on an issue says little about the issue but says a lot about the one giving the opinion.

[waldo]

I didn't say anything about Snowden's 'credibility'. I said he was a shallow, narcissistic traitor.

I hope he's enjoying his 'freedom' in the Russian Empire, with his every keystroke, statement and movement monitored by the FSB

no - what you did was tag Snowden with your "dubious character" designation... which was really how you, in turn, denigrated journalist Greenwald (and by extension his linked article highlighting the fake imminent Khorasan terror threat to the U.S. homeland), for his "embrace of dubious characters".

[GostHacked]

Hey Rue, did you happen to notice Saudi Arabia arrests people for free speech and beheads, tortures and murders people much like the vermin we're charging off to war against?

How do you explain the fact SA is one of our staunchest allies in this war?

Yep, we never hear certain posters take Saudi Arabia to task. Same with Qatar and Bahrain. Why do our leaders chose to support some tyrannical countries over others?

[Guest]

I'll do it. I think the Saudis are a bunch of degenerate savages. Those in charge, anyway, and all those who agree with them.

Same with Quatar and Bahrain, (Although I'm taking your word for that. I haven't checked)

[GostHacked]

I'll do it. I think the Saudis are a bunch of degenerate savages. Those in charge, anyway, and all those who agree with them.

Same with Quatar and Bahrain, (Although I'm taking your word for that. I haven't checked)

That is not answering the question. I appreciate the attempt. Yes they are tyrannical. The Saudi's and the US helped crush the rebel uprising in Bahrain, but helped the rebels in Syria. What is the difference between Bahrain and Syria? Why are some rebels good to support, but not others? Why is democracy important in Iraq and Syria, but not in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain?

The rhetoric would be easier to take if the west was consistent in their approach and target ALL tyrannical regimes. But instead the west is very selective in what tyrannies they support and which ones they will help crush.

[GostHacked]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29502448

US Vice-President Joe Biden has apologised to the United Arab Emirates after suggesting it had fuelled the rise of extremist groups in Syria.

The White House confirmed the call to the UAE, a day after Mr Biden offered a similar apology to Turkey.

The authorities in the UAE had earlier condemned his remarks to students at Harvard University last week.

The UAE is among several Arab states that have joined the US-led alliance against jihadists in Syria and Iraq.

The US has in fact supported the rebels (aka terrorists/extremists) in Syria via Turkey and Jordan. So it's not a stretch to claim some support came from the UAE, along with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Mr Biden told the Harvard students on Thursday that Turkey, the UAE and Saudi Arabia had extended "billions of dollars and tens of thousands of tonnes of weapons" to Sunni fighters battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304177104577311572820862442

Notice the date this article was updated.

Updated March 29, 2012 10:30 p.m. ET

Saudi Arabia has pressed Jordan to open its border with Syria to allow weapons to reach rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad's regime, officials from both countries say, a move that could buoy Syria's opposition and harden the conflict in the country and across the region.

In a March 12 meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah asked his Jordanian counterpart to permit weapons shipments into Syria in exchange for economic assistance to Jordan, these officials say. Jordan hasn't yet agreed, they said.

The US was said to be opposed to arming the rebels at that time.

The U.S. has opposed furnishing arms to the rebels, fearing that weapons could end up in the hands of al Qaeda or other extremist groups. But late Thursday, a top U.S. defense official suggested such a policy could potentially shift. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Syrian opposition appeared to be taking steps to unite as a group, a development he said could help clear the way for international aid including arms.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/17/house-vote-isil-resolution/15773835/

WASHINGTON — A wary Congress voted Wednesday to authorize President Obama's mission to arm and train Syrian rebel forces as part of the administration's effort to dismantle the threat posed by the Islamic State militant group.

The US has changed their tune, or at the least admitting that they have been already funding/arming/training the Syrian rebels via Turkey and Jordan.

[marcus]

Lest you misunderstood my earlier comment let me state it again, terrorists are vermin. They are a scurge. They choose to torture, kill and engage in the lowest and most savage forms of human behaviour. They are a cancer that threatens humanity and need to be cut out before they spread.

We agree. They kill innocent people. Some cut off heads of innocents and some drop bombs on them. at the end, thousands of innocent iraqis, syrians and gazans have died. ISIS and IDF are ugly terrorist groups.

Edited October 6, 2014 by marcus

[Rue]

We agree. They kill innocent people. Some cut off heads of innocents and some drop bombs on them. at the end, thousands of innocent iraqis, syrians and gazans have died. ISIS and IDF are ugly terrorist groups.

So tell me are you done? You come on this board to condone terorism, turn it into a partisan pissing match to justify selecting which people you will call terrorists now you want to equate ISIS to the IDF and say we agree...lol...

Really..uh Marcus is it... Hudson. Marcus. Whatever. Such nice anglo names.

Tell me...Marcus is it now...what would happen if you dared called yourself oh day Omar or Abdul or Nasir or Muhammed and you stated the exact same words you do....lol..tell me Marcus is it.... tell me what kind of reaction do you think it would produce on this forum if you did not use an Anglo name hmmmmm?

We agree you say...lol what..those words were supposed to have pissed on my uniform and upset me? Ahah.

Lol. We agree?

So tell me, what kind of putz believes people who spent their lives cleaning bed pans react when they see someone pissing all over themselves...lol...

Marcus is it. ...Lol.

Yiddish Story

There once was a fox. As he aged his teeth fell out. Problem was, he still remained hungry for his meat but needed someone to chew it and make it soft for him to be able to swallow it.

Well that fox figured, where can I find a set of teeth to do that.

Well as luck would have it he ran into a large wolf.

So he made this agreement with the wolf. He would catch the rabbit, the wolf would get to keep most of it but he would chew on some of it and leave it all soft for the fox.

Yes indeed the Fox was so proud of his agreement he puffed up his fur and said "we agree" me and that wolf to all his animal friends.

Well wouldn't you know it the first time he caught a rabbit and brought it over the Wolf ate all of the rabbit and the Fox said, wait we agree..Wolf took one look at the fox then swallowed him.

A vulture passing by looking for scraps asked the Wolf, what happened to that agreement.

The Wolf simply said-that Fox was so busy talking he didn't notice me licking my lips.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Rue

[marcus]

You come on this board to condone terorism,

I don't condone the acts by ISIS, Al Qaeda, the IDF or Hamas.

Do you condone any of their actions?

[Michael Hardner]

US helped crush the rebel uprising in Bahrain

Cite ? I went to this article and didn't see it mentioned:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/15/2_years_after_invasion_to_crush

The US could of course support anti-democratic groups, if it was in their national interest, but they would have to do so covertly. I don't think that would be news to too many people.

[GostHacked]

Cite ? I went to this article and didn't see it mentioned:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/15/2_years_after_invasion_to_crush

The US could of course support anti-democratic groups, if it was in their national interest, but they would have to do so covertly. I don't think that would be news to too many people.

How does the USA reconcile crushing an uprising in one country while supporting an uprising in another? Why would the US help crush it in Bahrain, but yet help it in Syria?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/20/bahrain-saudi-arabia-rebellion

William Butler

The Observer, Sunday 20 March 2011

Despite the official stance that the Saudis and UAE troops had arrived to guard essential infrastructure and restore order on the streets, there was little doubt as to the real purpose: to put down, by whatever means necessary, a growing rebellion by the kingdom's majority, but deprived, Shia citizens.

Let's not forget where the US's 5th Fleet is based out of. The US talks about bringing freedom to the area. Freedom for who? Something else I just thought of, why have we not seen or heard about rebellion in Saudi Arabia?

[Michael Hardner]

How does the USA reconcile ...

Well, I still don't see the US mentioned in your links. I guess you don't have a cite, unless I'm missing something.

[GostHacked]

Well, I still don't see the US mentioned in your links. I guess you don't have a cite, unless I'm missing something.

Yeah, you are usually missing something. But I am here to help.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144637499/bahrain-the-revolution-that-wasnt

And so Bahrain became the one Arab country whose uprising was definitively put down. One reason, argues Toby Jones, a professor of Middle East history at Rutgers University, is that the United States and its allies wanted it that way.

For all America's talk during the Arab Spring about supporting those who seek freedom, Jones says, Bahrain was different.

"If there is a place globally where there is not just distance but a huge gap between American interests and American values, it's in the Persian Gulf," Jones says. "And its epicenter is in Bahrain. Bahrain is ground zero for the Arab Spring in the Persian Gulf. And the United States has chosen sides. It has decided that it wants to see the Bahraini regime survive and endure. And that's important not only for the American relationship with Bahrain but for Saudi Arabia."

The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, giving the U.S. a major presence that has only increased in significance following the U.S. withdrawal of forces from Iraq.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-proxy-war-in-bahrain-saudi-arabia-vs-iran-2011-3

The Iranians clearly benefit from an uprising in Bahrain. It places the U.S. 5th Fleet’s basing in jeopardy, puts the United States in a difficult position and threatens the stability of other Persian Gulf Arab states. For the Iranians, the uprisings in North Africa and their spread to the Arabian Peninsula represent a golden opportunity for pursuing their long-standing interest (going back to the Shah and beyond) of dominating the Gulf.

So if Iran was behind some of these uprisings, you can bet the US was involved in some way to help crush the uprisings in Bahrain. Meaning the US's actions and support are not consistent when dealing with so called tyrannical governments.

[Michael Hardner]

you can bet the US was involved in some way to help crush the uprisings in Bahrain.

I have given you enough chances to provide evidence; if I were you, I would have withdrawn the assertion by now. That's all.

[GostHacked]

I have given you enough chances to provide evidence; if I were you, I would have withdrawn the assertion by now. That's all.

A good deal of assertions over the years have turned out to be correct. Even if I can give you undeniable evidence, there are still some out there who just would not believe it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/14/saudi-arabian-troops-enter-bahrain

Some circumstantial evidence.

Diplomatic relations between Washington and Bahrain's rulers have been sorely tested in the past month. US officials had initially backed the demonstrators' demands for widespread political reforms and the instalment of a constitutional monarchy, which stripped power from the regime.

Their support was partly based on a shift in US Middle East policy to favouring democracy over stability, rather than the other way around - the stated US policy for more than 60 years.

However, frenetic shuttle diplomacy between Manama and Washington, as well as urgent appeals from the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, has since led the US to retreat to the sidelines in the dispute.

Bahraini officials earlier this month told their US counterparts that the protests could gain unstoppable momentum if they continued to be sanctioned by the US, a development that would imperil US interests. The US has long viewed Bahrain as an important strategic ally, and bases its Fifth Fleet near Manama, viewing the kingdom as a buffer amid tensions between the US and Iran.

This is saying the same thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15bahrain.html?pagewanted=all

The help that the US gave was to shut up, stand back and let Saudi Arabia deal with the uprisings. Quite a different approach to Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen... just to name a few.