Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 06, 2012

Ignatius: Let's Create Another AlQaeda

David Ignatius acknowledges that the situation in Syria today is looking quite similar to the one in Afghanistan in the 1980s:
The parallels are spooky. In Syria, as in Afghanistan, CIA officers are operating at the borders (in this case, mostly in Jordan and Turkey), helping Sunni insurgents improve their command and control and engaging in other activities. Weapons are coming from third parties (in Afghanistan, they came mostly from China and Egypt; in Syria, they’re mainly bought on the black market). And finally, a major financier for both insurgencies has been Saudi Arabia.

There’s even a colorful figure who links the two campaigns: Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi ambassador to Washington in the 1980s worked to finance and support the CIA in Afghanistan and who now, as chief of Saudi intelligence, is encouraging operations in Syria.

In Afghanistan, Ignatius says, the Russian left but there were also bad results of the U.S. policy:
On the negative, this CIA-backed victory opened the way for decades of chaos and jihadist extremism that are still menacing Afghanistan, its neighbors and even the United States.

The same is rightly now feared for Syria.

The only plausible way to avoid that danger is to stop all support for the insurgency and instead support the Syrian government in its fight. But instead of that Ignatius only wants the U.S. to be "careful" in supporting those religious extremists. It should look for "sensible elements" within those fighters.

People from Ansar al Sharia in Yemen, which is affiliated with AlQeada, are now moving to Syria:

“The sudden withdrawal of al-Qaeda militants from the two cities of Zinjubar and Ja’ar in Abyan province is connected to a conclusive deal recently made to have groups of armed men relocated to Syria to partake in the war against the Syrian regime, al-Fadhli told the Adenalghd local news site."
We can be sure that Prince Bandar has helped with the plane ticket to Turkey and other expenses.

How will U.S. "carefulness" in supporting those fighters make a difference? Will they slaughter the Syrian people in a more careful way? Will they be "sensible" when they export their trade from a new Syrian emirate? Nonsense.

What Ignatius really says is lets create a new AlQaeda, but lets be "careful" and "sensible" in doing it. Those Ansar al Sharia terrorists, hunted by U.S. drones when in Yemen, will now be the new caressing U.S. heroes in its war on the axis of resistance.

The papers can than again headline about the Anti-Shia warrior who [puts] his army on the road to peace.

Who but war profiteers or Zionist stooges can come up with such an idiotic policy.

Posted by b on September 6, 2012 at 15:14 UTC | Permalink

Comments

My country's government's tactics and strategies internationally remind me of what J. Robert Oppenheimer said when he witnessed the first atomic bomb test. He was reminded of a line from the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu scripture:

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

My nation has become the destroyer of nations and bringer of death to their peoples.

And, in the past, what our government has done overseas tends to then be applied at home....

Posted by: jawbone | Sep 6 2012 16:23 utc | 1

Ah yes, the crocodile tears have started.

I expect many more crocodile tears to be shed by America's "liberals" who will pretend to oppose war as the party and leaders they support foment more war.

But the people I really have my eye on are the 'anti-war' lefties who pretend to distance themselves from the Democrats but are really pro-war stooges:

Antiwar.org/com
Glenn Greenwald
Angry Arab
Juan Cole
Distant Ocean/John Caruso
Chris Floyd
Arthur Silber
[basically look at the Distant Ocean blogroll for a list of perps]

I challenge anyone to analyze the Syria (and Libya) coverage by these putative 'anti-war' commentators.' Analyzing their coverage reveals them to be pro war stooges. I once was fooled by everyone on that list but now I'm certain most of the liberal/lefty blogosphere is controlled opposition.

Here's how to tell:

1. There is almost no coverage of the war on Syria on those blogs. Same with Libya. These commentators used to cover war issues all the time and when Obama starts two illegal wars these people are almost totally silent. Say what? These people were the only lefties willing to criticize Obama on his pro war policies a few years ago but now they ignore his two biggest crimes?

It is not logical to think none of these writers were very interested in Syria or Libya. It makes no sense. If these people were sincere they would be extremely exercised about these wars yet it barely seems to register for them.

2. When they do mention Syria they usually make an effort to trash Assad and the Syrian government and make false equivalencies. Almost all the evidence against Assad/Syria comes from only one incident where the U.S. allegedly rendered a suspect to Syria for torture. The facts are suspicious when one digs in (the Syrians claim never to have tortured the guy and he was released after a short time and was paid millions of dollars for his story). It does not seem credible that an 'anti-war' lefty simply assumes these facts to be true just because the U.S. and Wikileaks (which are the same thing) released the information. Furthermore, there is almost no effort to put these accusations in context. How much of a 'dictatorship' is Syria? Why focus on just one or two incidents when we can analyze systemic issues like how many people are imprisoned in each country, etc.

I have now become convinced the people on the list above are actually perps working for nefarious purposes. How did they all become the main voices for the so-called 'anti-war' left?

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Sep 6 2012 17:34 utc | 2

As an example of a similar 'crocodile tears' article like the one David Ignatius writes above, is this article by Robert Fisk from December 1993 about Osama bin Laden: http://imgur.com/a/5tCZN/noscript


I don't know if I should put Robert Fisk on my perp list in #2 but it is articles like this that make me want to include him. Fisk reveals sensitive information that appears to hurt the Empire, but in the end it really helps the Empire. [Fisk also wrote an article recently about Syria that also is laying the cover story about the new forces forming in Syria]

Both Fisk an Ignatius are serving similar purposes in laying the cover story for the U.S. support of terrorism in these respective countries.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Sep 6 2012 17:48 utc | 4

@WWM leave Arthur Silber the hell out of this. He's been hammering Obomber's sorry ass since before he was inaugurated.

Why, just from today: Murder is Easy

Posted by: ran | Sep 6 2012 18:23 utc | 5

Ran. I will not leave Arthur Silber out of it.

I too was fooled by his false morality. His crocodile tears.

Show me his writing on Syria. Where is it?

Believe me, I've been looking for his writing on Syria. He is the perp I'm most surprised about but it makes sense.

I suspect he's got a scam going on. What's his story? Is he really the down and out pauper he claims to be?

I think his writing is brilliant, btw. Which is why I'm pissed off I got fooled by him.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Sep 6 2012 18:35 utc | 6

Wit Man is nothing but a provacateur and a smear artist. And his methods are transparent.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 6 2012 18:42 utc | 7

Good grief, Walter! People have angles.. they can't be up to speed on all of the empires war fronts.

Silber is hobbling on a fine line between destitution/homelessness and illness/death.
Floyd posts about once a week these days.
Greenwald has about a dozen top issues as of late.

All three touch upon the same rot, without hesitation. I do think these three in particular (because I read nearly everything they say for years now) deserve a higher bar than just a fact they have not posted on Syria. It's an extremely complicated mess.... I've read about it here all along the way and I could hardly begin to discuss it cogently with someone who has no clue or only a main stream media background on he issut. Sometimes saying nothing is a sign of intelligence.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Sep 6 2012 18:57 utc | 8

Silber's made his position on US meddling, militarism and illegal wars of aggression very clear over many brilliant posts no matter whether the war criminal squatting in the oval office is an R or D.

I don't read him as often as I used to because he's ill and doesn't post very often anymore but if he hasn't dealt with Syria it could be that he just tires of repeating himself about our government's endless despicable activities. It's enough to exhaust anyone.

He's fucking earned his credibility in my book.

Posted by: ran | Sep 6 2012 19:01 utc | 9

so, Bandar Bush is not dead?

I searched for any news on him and there is nothing after the announcement that he was killed in a bomb blast.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 6 2012 19:43 utc | 10

All three touch upon the same rot, without hesitation. I do think these three in particular (because I read nearly everything they say for years now) deserve a higher bar than just a fact they have not posted on Syria. It's an extremely complicated mess....

Yeah, they do touch upon the same rot. Which is what attracted me to them.

Like you, I have read almost everything Silber, Floyd, and Greenwald have written over the last 4 or 5 years (and Greenwald for longer). I used to be a huge fan of all three but started losing trust in Greenwald last year and now I've realized the rot is much larger ...

Just a year or so I would have defended Silber as my favorite blogger.

But I don't buy the excuses about why they aren't posting on Syria (or Libya). It doesn't make sense. It's not that complicated. Sure, there is a lot of disinformation and propaganda going on, but these bloggers are smart guys. They recognized similar lies about Iraq and Afghanistan. They surely know the West is attacking Syria and Libya.

So why won't they help expose the fake media stories and media complicity? Isn't that a big deal?

Why hasn't Glenn Greenwald picked up on the same subjects Moon of Alabama is discussing, for instance? Sure, Greenwald is sort of covering the media hyping of war, but he is leaving out very critical information about the extent of media complicity. It's a very sanitized version of what one sees on this blog.

Same thing with 9/11. Have any of these people written about the false flag attack of 9/11?

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Sep 6 2012 19:53 utc | 11

Ditz and Glaser do good work at antiwar.com. Of course any link that goes back to the usual suspects, Wapo, NTT, Reuters should be ignored.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 6 2012 20:16 utc | 12

Walter your appetite for sectarianism seems to be boundless.

If you cannot tell the difference between Chris Floyd and Juan Cole, then you are either a fool or privy to information that nobody else has.

This trick of trying to establish one's radical bona fides by denouncing everyone else on the left is an old one. It is part of the stock in trade of the provocateur and the spy.

I doubt that you are either which is why you would be advised to stop acting like one.

Arthur Silber deserves to be treated with respect.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 6 2012 20:16 utc | 13

oops, I mean NYT.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 6 2012 20:16 utc | 14

Why hasn't Chris Floyd posted much on Syria I wonder?

Kind of odd that< b>all of these great anti-war bloggers had other things to do when it came to detailing two of the biggest Obama administration crimes; the wars on Syria and Libya.

And I have respected Arthur Silber. He was my favorite blogger a year ago. I think his writing is "brilliant." I like his approach and tone for his blog.

I just find it beyond a mere coincidence that all these bloggers are silent on these critical matter.

Re Floyd and not knowing the diff b/w him and Juan Cole.

I have no inside information. I am just analyzing the facts in a very rigorous manner. I could be wrong. I don't have any direct evidence that the suspected perps are perps (nor, is it reasonable to expect me to have this evidence). The are suspected. I could be hyper suspicious and wrong about them but if anything I've learned I haven't been suspicious enough.

Haven't most people here assumed the Democratic party serves a similar purpose? I'm simply taking it a step further. The main left-wing critics of the Democratic party may also be compromised.

Here's Floyd on Cole: http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2226-intervention-blues-the-dangers-of-sipping-at-militarisms-cup.html

Yes, Floyd is taking the more 'radical' or anti-war position. He appears to be admonishing Cole and I once accepted this at face value but now I wonder if they are playing good cop, bad cop while they slide some premises and precedents by us.

And here's Floyd cavalierly accepting the premise that Syria is a brutal regime which is the justification for the attack on Syria:

[Such hypocrisy doesn't mitigate the hideousness of the current Syrian regime, of course. Why, I'm so old, I can remember when Washington sent innocent people to Assad's torture chambers for a little outsourced "rigorous interrogation." But as the hapless ophthalmologist teetering atop the slagheap in Damascus is now learning, no good deed -- or evil favor -- done on behalf of the Potomac Poobahs ever goes unpunished. Then again, the aforesaid hideousness does not gainsay the unsavouriness of the other side in the vicious Syrian civil war. I strongly recommend that readers consult As'ad AbuKhalil -- the "Angry Arab" -- for a clear-eyed view of both these plagued houses.) http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2266-attic-amnesia-the-conveniently-forgotten-context-of-the-greek-catastrophe.html

I am one of the few people I know willing to dig into these details so I it's not that I'm privy to any inside information just that I have taken the time to dig deep and analyze things and question my premises. I could be wrong and be too cynical. I have more hope in Floyd and Sibler than I do Greenwald. And there is a higher chance Greenwald is the real deal than Cole is, for instance.

But in toto, the connections between all these people and the group silence on the huge issue of starting two massive illegal wars, in Libya and Syria, has mad me suspect something is afoot. It just doesn't make sense.

And then to catch the media actively participating in the media lies? And to remain silent?

Not credible.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Sep 6 2012 20:51 utc | 15

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/18/the_damascus_suicide_bombing/


There is nothing from Greenwald to indicate he will take a pro-war position re intervention in Syria or Iran.
There is plenty on Cole.

Walter Wit Man is likely not a provocateur, rather just full of himself, like most hyper-conspiracy theorists, distinguishable from reasonable skeptics.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 6 2012 22:54 utc | 16

Walter Wit Man @ 2

I stopped reading anything from the goons you've mentioned above..I found their views closely aligned with that of NATO but they always use the liberal/leftist humanitarian cover..

People like Angry Arab don't just Blog consistently and EVERYDAY for fun..

AngryArab likes to cover his dubious nature by trying to appear balance and criticizing "both sides". There's no "both sides"..You either support one or you don't..But a critical look at his work shows he really shills for whatever NATO believes.


In case of Syria, he blames the "regime" and also claims he "hates" the fsa but he's very much against the Syrian government, which is the same view shared by the fsa.

Posted by: Zico | Sep 6 2012 23:26 utc | 17

wwm15

*I could be hyper suspicious and wrong about them but if anything I've learned I haven't been suspicious enough. *

u r right about wiki of course
for the sake of the world, lets hope u n chamberlin are wrong about russia
http://tinyurl.com/29fxzcx

Posted by: denk | Sep 7 2012 2:06 utc | 18

The only plausible way to avoid that danger (of decades of chaos and jihadist extremism) is to stop all support violence of any kind. The only plausible way to avoid that danger (of decades of chaos and jihadist extremism) is to stop all support for immoral behavior of any kind.

Because violence begets more violence. And evil begets more evil. Supporting the Syrian government in it's violence and evil ways will only cause more violence and heartbreak and evil behavior (both from that government and directed towards that government).

And I think WWM is just a silly troll.

Posted by: Susan | Sep 7 2012 3:13 utc | 19

I seem to have lost the link to Walter's blog. The one that has the updates on Papua New Guinea.

Posted by: Biklett | Sep 7 2012 4:21 utc | 20

Good chance you can ask David Ignatius a question on Diane Rehm tomorrow at 10 AM Eastern time 1 800 433 8850

Posted by: scottindallas | Sep 7 2012 4:59 utc | 21

'And here's Floyd cavalierly accepting the premise that Syria is a brutal regime which is the justification for the attack on Syria:

[Such hypocrisy doesn't mitigate the hideousness of the current Syrian regime, of course. Why, I'm so old, I can remember when Washington sent innocent people to Assad's torture chambers for a little outsourced "rigorous interrogation."
'========

Assads torture chambers? id like to see evidence Assad signed off on torture...for a govt said to be so brutal and a president who tortures people, the syrians are awfully forgiving! or do they know Assad better than does Floyd?
Heres a pro-assad rally 2011:
Umayad square
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWLFhoJMRk

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2012 5:02 utc | 22

In case of Syria, he blames the "regime" and also claims he "hates" the fsa but he's very much against the Syrian government, which is the same view shared by the fsa.

Posted by: Zico | Sep 6, 2012 7:26:04 PM | 17

No to Assad and No to FSA = YES to FSA

this is like the antiwars
No to NATO and NO to Gadaffi = YES to NATO
both positions lead to nihilism

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2012 5:04 utc | 23

WWM is neither a "silly troll" or an "agent provocateur". He has placed his finger on the sore spot of left politics, which is why his focus has been disparaged by three commenters already. What he is saying, in effect, is that even the so-called 'radical' left is nothing but Christopher Hitchens Lite. The AlJazirah to the BBC. Hitch believed in the motto, 'You are either with us or against us", and he decided he was "with us". He realized that the Enlightenment Project, which severed God's head from the godhead and replaced it with a human one was dead, and changed his religion from Secular Humanist Universalist, to the Religion of Empire - you know, the Olde Tyme religion of Rudyard Kipling et al, of the White Man's Burden, and of Manifest Destiny, which competed with the Enlightenment Universalist Religion in the previous centuries. These co-religionists of Hitch's, headed by that clown Juan Cole, who can be considered an early adopter of the second wave, thanks to his early stance on Libya, realize that if you hack away at the ball of cheese which is Western Civilization, there comes a point where you reach a fork in that road whereat one tine of the fork stops short of the destruction of the whole ball of cheese and remains "constructive", while the other continues the hacking based on Principle, which leaves nothing but a vacuum in its "destructive" wake.

The "Constructivist" Left, if you will, sacrifice their principles in order to save the ground and framework which gave birth to their principles in the first place, and they become whores like everyone else. The reason for this is that those principles, like all synthetic and/ or deviant religions, are ouroboric: they eat themselves, like the ouroboric snakes that they are.

The "Destructivist" Left will remain in a vacuum (the cheese having been destroyed) until they eventually "snap". They snap because they cannot remain in vacuuo indefinitely: they need to stick their head into *some* bubble or another before too long. And so, most of them will "return to the fold" and prostitute their conscience (as pointed out by WWM), or, they will adopt some other religion such as Islam, if they are lucky, or Existentialism, Positivism, revivalist Christianity, or even the many sordid and flaky New Age religions you see in the Left Coast ("California's got the most of them... Boy they got a host of them").

Observing the phenomenology of how the Constructivists rationalize their critical and remaining "constructive" despite the fact that they have fully abandoned their original Constitution or founding principles can be interesting. The Positivist, for example, who remain on the margins of the religion of post-Enlightenment Universalism maintain that all of this business about ideals and principles is nonsense, and clutch at the straw principle that there *are* no moral principles. Their Existential co-religionists, in no less sophisticated a maneuver, construct a 'construct' wherein all (other) constructs are just that: 'constructs', which must be deconstructed. I mean that is just one example of their many multifaceted creeds.

I say 'lucky' if they adopt Islam, because it allows them to maintain the purity of principle which their fitra or primordial disposition and nature insists on clinging on to, and prevents them from having to endure the cognitive dissonance of those who have returned to the fold of whoredom, prostitution, Weaselistan. But of course, Islam is a whole civilization with its own whole host of (new) issues to deal with. It has major, I mean but *major* problems of its own... but its kernel of truth is much larger and much more luminous and accessible than what is left in post-Christian Christendom - because in its core, it is - are you ready for this?? - the truth.

No? I didn't think so.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 7 2012 5:49 utc | 24

But as Freud sez: 'Sometimes a dildo is just a dildo.'

Posted by: Biklett | Sep 7 2012 6:29 utc | 25

Trolling is a focus on disruption and not ideas. Smearing the names of some of the strongest colleagues we have; and not merely criticizing them for relative flaws, but boiling them down to nothing, with the childish and trite title of "perps" , is not an example of serious thought, Constuctivist or otherwise. Anyone who would accuse Arthur Silber of false morality is a rat.

The troll in question initially claims to have admired a host of the greatest men who live among us; but deriving from the sheer fact of his arrested development, he will only put up with this state of affairs temporarily, and he shortly reclassifies them to the polar opposite, as "perps". This does not represent any philosophical development; but is typical of a poltroon, who never has, and never will enter the real world.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 7 2012 6:39 utc | 26

In this context, MoA and b is a shining beacon of purity.

Posted by: Alexander | Sep 7 2012 9:49 utc | 27

"He has placed his finger on the sore spot of left politics, which is why his focus has been disparaged by three commenters already"

aye - the lefty sheep get real sore when ye do that - disturbs their bleating-patterns -

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 7 2012 10:23 utc | 28

"Anyone who would accuse Arthur Silber of false morality is a rat. "

has anyone here even MET Arthur Silber?

Does anyone here know for sure that Arthur Silber is a real live human being that actually exists in the real world, and whose real name is actually Arthur Silber?

Does anyone here have ANY actual evidence that proves that Arthur Silber is not just an internet identity?

Does anyone here have ANY actual evidence that the views expressed by Arthur Silber are in fact Arthur Silber's heartfelt views?

Unless one can answer YES to all of the above - then essentially they are arguing over the integrity of what is, as far as they are aware, a phantom

Getting annoyed because someone disparages a phantom, which you can't even prove exists, is just f**kin retarded, but given the individuals involved I'm not at all surprised

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 7 2012 10:31 utc | 29

https://www.facebook.com/notes/syria-24-english/al-mikdad-usa-and-zionist-entity-mastermind-the-ongoing-aggression-against-syria/425877244114730

Linda Juniper @LindaJuniper
"The German spy ship was hacked & fed false info that helped with many successful military operation" Hosein Mortada. #Syria
Linda Juniper @LindaJuniper
"Later #FSA nicknamed Ahmad Zidan 'ElSahaf', they wanted to kill him so AlJazeera pulled him to Qatar" Hosein Mortada #AlJazeera #Syria (2)
Linda Juniper @LindaJuniper
Ahmad Zidan AJA correspondent once said that Salah Addin is still under FSA control when it wasn't, making 150 of em go there & die. #Aleppo
Linda Juniper @LindaJuniper
"#Syria-n Intel has the ability to track anyone, even those using Thuraya. Certain individuals were targeted accurately through this"Mortada

Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2012 11:36 utc | 30

"The German spy ship was hacked & fed false info that helped with many successful military operation" Hosein Mortada. #Syria

I have said in the past this is what I suspected happened from the scenario that was taking place in the Latakia province and Allepo countryside. How easy it was for the Syrians to ambush the rats. Iran has a 'high tech' military base for just this purpose. This district has a big significance in Persian history.

Posted by: hans | Sep 7 2012 13:20 utc | 31

@all WWT is obviously a troll who is trying to disrupt discussions on the issues I post.

Please don't feed the troll.

Posted by: b | Sep 7 2012 16:44 utc | 32

Hu Bris, might as well embrace your inner Red; you're going to be accused of it no matter what you do. Or, are you one of those blessed who stands above the fray, neither left or right? Smiling benignly down on foolish mortals. That's safe.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 7 2012 17:16 utc | 33

@19 "violence begets violence" That's what the police will say while they spray, taze, club and shoot you.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 7 2012 17:19 utc | 34

Whit Man #2

I am not sure why you consider Glenn Greenwald a "pro-war stooge". He is continually denouncing the lies and euphemisms of the military and political defenders of U.S. military adventures. He is an ardent defender of Wikileaks and in particular acclaims the release of the video entitled "Collateral Murder", q.v., which shows war in all it's brutality. As he denounces the mainstream Media on one hand, on the other hand he applauds Assange and Manning for doing the work that "real" journalists are too cowardly and smug to perform.

Please, please convince me that he secretly worships Obama, and puffs out his chest with martial pride every time he hears about another atrocity. I'm waiting.

Posted by: sangazure | Sep 7 2012 18:47 utc | 35

[Greenwald] is an ardent defender of Wikileaks

That alone is proof enough ;-)

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 7 2012 18:56 utc | 36

I find Hubris's over-cynicism far more reasonable than credulity.

Posted by: demize! | Sep 8 2012 20:31 utc | 37

I might be conflating Witman and Hubris and subsequent threads as well. But the sentiment stands.

Posted by: demize! | Sep 8 2012 20:40 utc | 38

The comments to this entry are closed.