So... Al Qaeda are now our friends in Syria? Cool!

[Puppet]

As I posted in a similar thread:

Time to cut through the rhetoric and talk about what this conflict is really about: gas. Natural gas, not chemical weapons. In a nutshell, back in 2009 (IIRC), qatar wanted a pipeline from its rather recently discovered massive (actually, world's largest) North Dome gas fields to the EU. This pipeline would go through SA, Jordan, Syria to the  Mediterranean and/or Turkey. Syria refused, because it would threaten the stranglehold its Russian ally has on the EU gas market though Gazprom. Instead Syria pursued an alternative pipeline from Irans South Pars gasfield (actually the same gas field, but on Irans side of the persian gulf)  through Iraq to lebanon and the Med, with an option to connect to Turkey. A $10B deal that was signed in 2010. Not much later, the "uprising" began. No coincidence.

Qatar and later SA fund the "rebels" (better word is jihadists or mercenaries) for billions of dollars to get rid of Assad and install a more sunni friendly regime. Failing that, plan B is to split the country in 2, allowing the north/eastern "free Syria" to run the qatari's beloved pipeline to the EU, instead of Iranian gas flowing to the EU. Thats whats going on. The vast majority of "rebels" arent even Syrians, they are jihadist mercenaries from all over the world, and most of them religious fanatics generously paid for by the Saudi's and qatari's.  

The US really doesnt really have a horse in this race, except placating to its allies saudi arabia and israel. And weakening Iran by not allowing Iran to sell gas to the EU, although the only real reason the US wants that is because Israel and SA want that. As for Israel, it doesnt want a Saudi controlled extremist sunni regime at its borders, but it doesnt want a strong Assad supporting Hezbollah (and Iran) either. Lacking a better option, Israel wants perpetual war in Syria, weakening all fractions, including Hezbollah.

Thats the short story.

[lucasjkr]

One which may be minor is that Israel's non-member status in the CW convention may be put in the lime-light.

Haha. Very funny.

Israel isn't affected one iota; to countries that are their forever and unwavering allies (which is us. Sometimes the uk or whichever other UN member owes us a favor), they either do no wrong or else they do (wink wink, nudge nudge, keel over in laughter), Israel has an "undeclared" arsenal. To the rest of the world, that expects Israel to be treated just like every other country, that undeclared arsenal is an egregious issue, expanding territory via seizing land during war is illegal, and countless other issues exist.

So, no limelight will be aimed at anyone. The sponsor of said limelight would do better trying to apply sanctions to an actual US state (to which the state dept, If really backed against a wall, might say "ok, yes Mississippi is host to an illegal nuclear arsenal, but that complaint about our ally? We veto it"

Sorry, they're not getting any limelight shined on them until the worlds sole superpower ceases to be their unequivocal backer.

[tvbcof]

One which may be minor is that Israel's non-member status in the CW convention may be put in the lime-light.

...
Sorry, they're not getting any limelight shined on them until the worlds sole superpower ceases to be their unequivocal backer.

Actually, my prediction came to pass.  There was some mention made of the issue, and Israel had to say something absurd in order to justify (in their minds) remaining in the company of the half dozen states who refuse to be convention members.  The other part of my prediction is that it would be minor, and that also seems to have been borne out.  To pretty much all thinking people in the rest of the world, and about half of the thinking people in the US, Israel is one of the few nations who continues to do land grabs and ethnic cleansing.  Being on the wrong side of chemical weapons deployment is a relatively minor infraction and not especially surprising from them.

It is an interesting apparent truth, though, that Israel's national security, or at least their Zionist aspiration for a 'Greater Israel', does indeed rest on a foundation of support from the US.  And thus, in the ability to manipulate the policies of the US.  Some might call it a form of parasitization especially since their lobbying results in multiple billions of my tax dollars being issued to them in support.  I cannot hold it against the Israelis to look out for their national security interests, but I can hold it against those in MY government who walk in the grey area between looking out for our allies and flat out treason.  In my mind, McCain, Graham, Rice, and a lot of others are out on some pretty thin ice at this time.

---

Lastly, and tangentially, the one thing that _has_ genuinely surprised me in the wealth of info that Snowden provided was that we are piping raw intel feeds replete with information about US citizens to Israel.  We don't know the exact nature of the feeds, much less the end uses of them is, but the enumeration in the leaked document suggest a pretty significant and broad data dump.  I also note that Israel (or the AIPAC-like support groups) tries very hard and usually succeeds in having a well aligned individual installed at the highest level of our internal security apparatus (DHS these days.)  They even floated Jane Harmon again thinking, apparently, that enough years had passed since she was caught red-handed in the Franklin affair.  My analysis is that this potential subversion is not (yet) true for our national intel and defense heads.  Thankfully.

Anyway, I do find it a bit disconcerting that Israel is receiving my personal data, and apparently has enough info about me as an individual to (supposedly) throw the data out after a year.  We are pretty sure they will honor this agreements because they recited the oath 'swear to god, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye' I guess because it was not like they have any legal obligation or oversight as best we can tell.

[the joint]

As I posted in a similar thread:

Time to cut through the rhetoric and talk about what this conflict is really about: gas. Natural gas, not chemical weapons. In a nutshell, back in 2009 (IIRC), qatar wanted a pipeline from its rather recently discovered massive (actually, world's largest) North Dome gas fields to the EU. This pipeline would go through SA, Jordan, Syria to the  Mediterranean and/or Turkey. Syria refused, because it would threaten the stranglehold its Russian ally has on the EU gas market though Gazprom. Instead Syria pursued an alternative pipeline from Irans South Pars gasfield (actually the same gas field, but on Irans side of the persian gulf)  through Iraq to lebanon and the Med, with an option to connect to Turkey. A $10B deal that was signed in 2010. Not much later, the "uprising" began. No coincidence.

Qatar and later SA fund the "rebels" (better word is jihadists or mercenaries) for billions of dollars to get rid of Assad and install a more sunni friendly regime. Failing that, plan B is to split the country in 2, allowing the north/eastern "free Syria" to run the qatari's beloved pipeline to the EU, instead of Iranian gas flowing to the EU. Thats whats going on. The vast majority of "rebels" arent even Syrians, they are jihadist mercenaries from all over the world, and most of them religious fanatics generously paid for by the Saudi's and qatari's.  

The US really doesnt really have a horse in this race, except placating to its allies saudi arabia and israel. And weakening Iran by not allowing Iran to sell gas to the EU, although the only real reason the US wants that is because Israel and SA want that. As for Israel, it doesnt want a Saudi controlled extremist sunni regime at its borders, but it doesnt want a strong Assad supporting Hezbollah (and Iran) either. Lacking a better option, Israel wants perpetual war in Syria, weakening all fractions, including Hezbollah.

Thats the short story.

Bingo, but I think this is connected to a larger issue.  The only thing keeping the dollar alive is a mountain of bullshit, and everyone knows it.  On the other hand, the Chinese yuan is the next best bet for a global reserve currency.  Aside from the obvious explosive growth of the Chinese economy, China has also been doing something else in recent years - they've been buying fucktons of gold, even above market price.

Unfortunately, no matter what happens the dollar is going to fail.  But, with enough war, enough chaos, and enough disruption in a region of the world that will draw some of the world's largest superpowers into the scuffle, you might make everyone so sick, tired, and disgusted with the current plan (i.e. building mountains of bullshit) that they'll settle for any solution, such as "plan B."

What's plan B?  Introduce a new global reserve currency.

Edit:  Don't confuse my plan B with your plan B

[Yura]

We have been told a fairy tale about a phantomatic organization called Al Qaeda, which leader hid in caves in Afghanistan, which supposedly organized 9/11 training their men with Microsoft Flight Simulator. Most of people in West bought that story, and pretty much everybody in high positions agreed Al Qaeda is evil and must be destroyed.

Making a long story short: the US military attacks Al Qaeda in Yemen and Pakistan, while gives them funds in Syria in the fight against Al Assad. Now it seems the US will strike Syria to help Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic fundamentalists against the Syrian secular regime, where religious freedom is guaranteed and any kind of political form of islamism is forbidden.

Seriously guys, WTF?

Anyhow, my call is the US will not have the balls to do a "real" war, sending occupying forces to the territory. Its pretty obvious to me they will just throw some tomahawks to show off. They know too well Hezbollah is very strong in Syria, they are heavily armed with Russian and Chinese weapons financed by Iran. This could be a new Vietnam (or Iraq), and they know it - they cannot afford that ATM.

Al Qaeda is nothing more than just a sub division of the cia. If they want them to appear as an evil organization bent on destroying america, they show them to the world in that light. Cia wants them to be rebel freedom fighters.. that's what they become with proper propaganda.

Can't afford it? As long as the government has the tax payers and the printing press they can afford anything for now

[tvbcof]

Al Qaeda is nothing more than just a sub division of the cia. If they want them to appear as an evil organization bent on destroying america, they show them to the world in that light. Cia wants them to be rebel freedom fighters.. that's what they become with proper propaganda.

Can't afford it? As long as the government has the tax payers and the printing press they can afford anything for now

As I understand things, 'al Qaeda' translates to 'the base' where 'base' initially meant 'database'.  It was a catalog of individuals who our intel services knew of and could induce to perform certain functions.  They performed certain tasks against the Soviets in Afghanistan where things started of course, but also were players in our actions in the Balkans (esp, Kosovo) all the way through the current efforts in Syria.

Whether they 'went rouge' for 9/11 is debatable in my mind since the event ended up being the key to a new series of actions which many in our government were anxious to undertake (exactly as predicted when PNAC mused about a 'new Pearl Harbor' when out of power at the end of B. Clinton's last term.)  Some might suspect that al Qaeda was simply the most convenient party to produce a plausible explanation for the attacks which the American chumps would find believable.  I do.  The biggest hang-up I have with this hypothesis is that Ayman al-Zawahiri would have to be on-board and I have trouble figuring out how that could have been accomplished.

[Yura]

Al Qaeda is nothing more than just a sub division of the cia. If they want them to appear as an evil organization bent on destroying america, they show them to the world in that light. Cia wants them to be rebel freedom fighters.. that's what they become with proper propaganda.

Can't afford it? As long as the government has the tax payers and the printing press they can afford anything for now

As I understand things, 'al Qaeda' translates to 'the base' where 'base' initially meant 'database'.  It was a catalog of individuals who our intel services knew of and could induce to perform certain functions.  They performed certain tasks against the Soviets in Afghanistan where things started of course, but also were players in our actions in the Balkans (esp, Kosovo) all the way through the current efforts in Syria.

Whether they 'went rouge' for 9/11 is debatable in my mind since the event ended up being the key to a new series of actions which many in our government were anxious to undertake (exactly as predicted when PNAC mused about a 'new Pearl Harbor' when out of power at the end of B. Clinton's last term.)  Some might suspect that al Qaeda was simply the most convenient party to produce a plausible explanation for the attacks which the American chumps would find believable.  I do.  The biggest hang-up I have with this hypothesis is that Ayman al-Zawahiri would have to be on-board and I have trouble figuring out how that could have been accomplished.

Yes, you're right on point, that Al Qaeda was trained and armed by the US to fight against Soviet Union in Afghanistan and other conflicts.

They didn't go rogue, they were simply doing what they were told by top officials of CIA and Mossad and by other string pullers. They need to create a problem first to offer up a solution. Problem, reaction, solution. Stage a false flag terror attack, everyone is thrown off and begs for the gov to do something, offer to start a huge mess in the middle east!

Good thing you brought up 911 because what happened in syria with the chemical weapon attacks is another false flag staged attack just 9/11 was.

And for people that think the CIA is your friendly spying agency that would never stage a terror attack... look up Operation Northwoods declassified document

[PrintMule]

It is an interesting apparent truth, though, that Israel's national security, or at least their Zionist aspiration for a 'Greater Israel', does indeed rest on a foundation of support from the US.  And thus, in the ability to manipulate the policies of the US.  Some might call it a form of parasitization especially since their lobbying results in multiple billions of my tax dollars being issued to them in support.  I cannot hold it against the Israelis to look out for their national security interests, but I can hold it against those in MY government who walk in the grey area between looking out for our allies and flat out treason.  In my mind, McCain, Graham, Rice, and a lot of others are out on some pretty thin ice at this time.

Imagine if US would suddenly drop ALL support of Israel? Where would Israel seek new allies? Would it cease to exist without said support?