Syria, Rebels, Assad ... what is going on

[Crabtownboy]

Another thread on the NSA and phone records has gone astray with talk about funding of the rebels.

So, should the rebels be funded?
If no, why not?

What is the purpose of funding the rebels.

I have thought about this and have come to the conclusion that there is a gambit being played by the US.

*There is no way the US would fund Assad. This would be helping Iran and a rogue government in Syria and we do not want to do anything that helps Iran. This would definitely not be in our own best interest.

*Funding the rebels is a gambit that could help us in the long run or, as gambits are want to do, come back and bite us.

There are some wild ideas floating around the 'net on funding the rebels. Like almost all wild ideas I believe they are wrong. Those who say Obama is funding the rebels to help Moslems and harm Christians, IMHO, simply are not thinking of the big picture. Simple answers satisfy them and simple answers are wrong. So, let's look at this situation a bit:

Who are involved?
Two Islamic groups and both hate the west and the United States.

How can we take advantage of this?

Fund one group and suck both into an Iraq type war whereby two of our powerful Islamic enemies are fighting and killing each other. We stay out, as far as personnel, and supply weapons to help them kill each other.

I believer there is no doubt that Al-Qaeda has infiltrated rebel groups. There should be no surprise in this. With their help the rebels were on the move, capturing territory and towns.

What happened?

Iran comes to the aid of the Assad government and as things deteriorate for Assad what should happen but that Hezbollah comes in on the side of Assad.

Now to this point the gambit is working. We now have two extremist Islamic groups fighting and killing each other. Two of our sworn enemies fighting and weakening each other. Two sworn enemies are now involved with each other and cannot pay as much attention to the US. Not bad for us .... at least so far.

So, what can go wrong. One side wins. It does not matter which side, it probably would be bad for us. The trick is how to keep them fighting and no one wins? That is the trick, the tightrope we walk ... in a manner of speaking.

Please join in and please be thoughtful and rational.

Thanks.

 

[poncho]

This thread should be in politics. I don't know about you but I can fill up three pages with credible sources all by myself with little trouble. We may need ten pages for this thread.

What's the big picture? Preventing Russia and China from gaining preeminence in Eurasia. How do I know this?

I read the book.

I read the documents.

I read the reports.

I read the policy recommendations from the think tanks.

And of course as you found out in another thread I read the newspapers. And I watched it happening in real time while everyone else was arguing about how many republicans and democrats can dance on the head of a needle and giving up our liberties one after another because we trembled at the thought of a phantom menace our own government helped create and controls.

I agree with you Crabby we really do need to get to the bottom of this it's my hope that we can all just put our political leanings and preconceived notions aside for one thread and actually have a productive discussion about what we're seeing and what we're being told. .

 

[Revmitchell]

We need to stay out of that mess. Even if it was the right thing to do (and it is not) we still do not have the money. We are broke. In fact we need to bring our troops home from all over the world, secure our own borders and security, and stop all the spending on much of anything at all.

 

[poncho]

We need to stay out of that mess. Even if it was the right thing to do (and it is not) we still do not have the money. We are broke. In fact we need to bring our troops home from all over the world, secure our own borders and security, and stop all the spending on much of anything at all.

That's just it Rev, we're broke. The bankers are getting fatter and the corporations that make up and service the global war machine and the corporations that are growing fat on technology to track and trace our every move would stand to lose to much money and power if we just stayed out of that mess.


Where's the insentive to get out of trouble if there's more money to be made from continuing or even expanding the trouble?

You're asking an awful lot of transnational corporations to give up a fortune just because "we're broke".

 

[Crabtownboy]

We need to stay out of that mess. Even if it was the right thing to do (and it is not) we still do not have the money. We are broke. In fact we need to bring our troops home from all over the world, secure our own borders and security, and stop all the spending on much of anything at all.

Every "mess" around the world is an opportunity. Using it to our advantage is the trick. The question is how can we use this mess to our advantage?

 

[poncho]

Every "mess" around the world is an opportunity. Using it to our advantage is the trick. The question is how can we use this mess to our advantage?

Hmmm. I got an idea. We could use this mess to wake people up to the fact this mess has been created so a few transnational psychopaths can make trillions by stealing billions and killing millions on a global scale using islamic terrorists and western politicians to do their dirty work and take the blame while piecing together a high tech scientific militarized big brother stasi police state for the rest of us.


Yeah that's it partner! Great idea! BB high five! Let's use this mess to show just how phoney the war on terror really is! Yeah now yer talkin!

 

[exscentric]

Shouldn't we be better than just a bunch of users?

 

[poncho]

Shouldn't we be better than just a bunch of users?

Meaning what?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I am interested in someone addressing the idea of our using a gambit in order to tie down two avowed enemies into fighting and killing each other?

 

[poncho]

I am interested in someone addressing the idea of our using a gambit in order to tie down two avowed enemies into fighting and killing each other?

I'm more interested in why you can't admit that Obama has been, is, and plans to continue to fund and arm islamic extremists. Let's get that out of the way first then we can discuss why he's funding and arming them.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I'm more interested in why you can't admit that Obama has been, is, and plans to continue to fund and arm islamic extremists. Let's get that out of the way first then we can discuss why he's funding and arming them.

Poncho, believe I did in my post. Play one group off against the other. Set them to fighting each other and they have fewer resources to bother us ... and fewer people as they are killing each other. Iraq is funding one group. Their opposition has no chance unless they are funded. So we fund them, not enough they can win but continue fighting and killing the other Islamic extremist. That is the gambit I speak of.

If you have two enemies what is the best thing to do? Find a way to involve them in fighting the other. I think that is rather clever. Agree?

 

[Matt Black]

Every "mess" around the world is an opportunity. Using it to our advantage is the trick. The question is how can we use this mess to our advantage?

I don't think either the UK or the US can or should use it to our advantage.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't think either the UK or the US can or should use it to our advantage.

That's right but you know that every good Saul Alinsky indoctrinataire will not let a good crisis go to waste.

 

[poncho]

Poncho, believe I did in my post. Play one group off against the other. Set them to fighting each other and they have fewer resources to bother us ... and fewer people as they are killing each other. Iraq is funding one group. Their opposition has no chance unless they are funded. So we fund them, not enough they can win but continue fighting and killing the other Islamic extremist. That is the gambit I speak of.

If you have two enemies what is the best thing to do? Find a way to involve them in fighting the other. I think that is rather clever. Agree?

No I don't think it's rather clever. I think it's reckless and dangerous and it will backfire on us just as it has in the past. The CIA created and used a terrorist group to destabilize the Iranian government and oust Mossadegh in 1953 to install a friendly dictator. We know how that is turning out.

Right now thanks in part to Hillary Clinton and John McCain a terrorist group (MEK) that is known for killing Americans is being sponsored by the U.S. government in another bid to use terrorism to achieve "regime change" in Iran. It's no secret I can post a couple pages of "credible sources" to back that up if you'd like.

Osama Bin Laden was our "ally" against the USSR. Look how that turned out.

This isn't new Crabby. It isn't some clever Obama ploy to get our enemies to destroy themselves. It's an old divide and conquer tactic empires have used for centuries to destabilize and weaken other nations so they can be taken over and controlled by "administrators" or in our case global private central banks and huge multinational corporations.

It's not defensive warfare, it isn't protecting our freedom, it isn't about liberating the oppressed masses, it puts us in more danger as more and more people become "radicalized" and hate us. It's not just. It's not legal and it's immoral and about as un American as it can get.

It's a global criminal enterprise being run by psychopaths that operate above government that have hijacked our military and is using it for their own selfish ends. That's not clever, it's sick because millions have died as a result while only a few people at the top of the power structure reap the rewards and pocket fortunes we should all be against it.

 

[poncho]

Got awful quite in here all of a sudden, was it something I said?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Got awful quite in here all of a sudden, was it something I said?

Nope, nothing you said. Just .... guess I'd best not go there. :laugh:


Playing off one side against the other is the only thing that makes sense to me. Guess the conspiracy folk do not like that ides ... too rational I guess. :laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

That's right but you know that every good Saul Alinsky indoctrinataire will not let a good crisis go to waste.

There's more of your precious 'Holy DNA' for you Rev.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

We all know how much you value human life, so it's not surprising your solution is to make them all dead. You are a true neo-con cheerleader.

Edited to add ....message to C.T.Boy, not to KYRedneck.

 

[saturneptune]

Got awful quite in here all of a sudden, was it something I said?

Not hardly, profound as it was. Now back to the op. Syria and its fate do not threaten the national security interests of the United States, so we should stay out in all aspects, money, arms, troops, information, and intelligence. The United States should have stayed out of many conflicts from the past like Iraq, Croatia, Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam, Libya, and others.

For all I care, the two sides can fight themselves into obivion, but it is not worth one penny to do anything about it. It is their fight and their problem. For just once in our history, lets keep our nose out of other people's business.

 

[InTheLight]

Poncho, believe I did in my post. Play one group off against the other. Set them to fighting each other and they have fewer resources to bother us ... and fewer people as they are killing each other. Iraq is funding one group. Their opposition has no chance unless they are funded. So we fund them, not enough they can win but continue fighting and killing the other Islamic extremist. That is the gambit I speak of.

If you have two enemies what is the best thing to do? Find a way to involve them in fighting the other. I think that is rather clever. Agree?

So fund war for the sake of war? Craziness.