A shocking report by McClatchy Newspapers’ David Enders reveals that the militants now on the front lines of the rebel uprising in Syria – supported by the Obama administration and other western powers – are Al-Qaeda terrorists who killed U.S. troops in Iraq and openly espouse their desire to “fight the U.S.” after they topple Bashar Al-Assad.
The official narrative at first attempted to deny the existence of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria altogether, before being forced to admit they were present but downplaying their role as limited and not characteristic of the rebel uprising.
However, Enders documents how Jabhat al Nusra, a group directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda, “has become essential to the frontline operations of the rebels fighting to topple Assad,” that the group is “critical to the rebels’ military advance” and how it conducts the “heaviest frontline fighting” in “battle after battle across the country.”
A journalist cited in the article also discovered “Nusra’s fighters on every frontline he visited.”
Jabhat al Nusra has claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings and other attacks that have killed hundreds of innocent people. Last weekend, disturbing footage emerged of one of their members slaughtering prisoners in cold blood.
Extremist militants have also ransacked Christian churches and carried out sectarianbeheadings.
The article quotes one of the members of the group, who stated unequivocally, “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!”
The journalist who heard the comment considered that it could have been a “joke,” but it didn’t appear to be much of a laughing matter when Syrian rebels were shown on camera proudly burning U.S. flags on two separate occasions recently.
As we previously documented, rebel supporters chanted anti-American slogans as they torched the American flag in Homs and Aleppo.
Another opposition fighter recently spoke of his desire to see the Al-Qaeda flag fly over the White House once the rebels are victorious across the region. Suffice to say, he didn’t appear to be joking
Syrian rebel fighters are routinely photographed wearing the Al-Qaeda motif. There are also innumerable You Tube videos that show opposition forces flying the Al-Qaeda flag – the same distinctive black flag with white Arabic lettering that was flown by rioters during anti-U.S. demonstrations in numerous countries earlier this year.
French Surgeon Jacques Bérès, who worked at a hospital in Aleppo commented that at least half of the militants he treated for injuries were Al-Qaeda terrorists whose goal is to impose sharia law across Syria and the whole region. A German report estimated the figure of foreign fighters in Syria to be even higher - a staggering 95 per cent.
As we have also documented at length, the McClatchy piece emphasizes the fact that Jabhat al Nusra was responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq, noting how the group relies on, “the same people and tactics that fueled al Qaida in Iraq – an assertion that is borne out by interviews with Nusra members in Syria.”
“Among Nusra fighters are many Syrians who say they fought with al Qaida in Iraq, which waged a bloody and violent campaign against the U.S. presence in that country and is still blamed for suicide and car bombings that have killed hundreds of Iraqis since the U.S. troops left a year ago,” writes Enders.
The article asserts that the presence of these terrorists in Syria, “worries U.S. and other Western officials,” although it obviously wasn’t too much of a concern when the Obama administration signed off on over $200 million dollars in aid to the FSA rebels.
Nor was it much of a worry for the CIA when it helped the likes of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar funnel heavy arms to rebel groups in the region.
Although the establishment media has billed the rebels’ cause as a democratic uprising, one of the leaders of Jabhat al Nusra quoted in the McClatchy piece, Iyad al Sheikh Mahmoud, made it clear that there would be no free elections in Syria once Assad is toppled.
“Eighty percent of Syrians want Islamic law,” he said, referring to sharia law, an arcane and inherently brutal system of justice, with harsh punishments for those deemed to have broken its moral code, including torture and execution for sins such as adultery, homosexuality and robbery. The law also stifles free speech as it criminalizes criticism of Islam, the Quran, and the prophet Muhammad.
Why is the Obama administration supporting armed thugs who have not only killed U.S. troops in Iraq on behalf of Al-Qaeda, but also advocate the imposition of sharia law across the entire middle east and the overthrow of the United States and its replacement with an extremist Muslim dictatorship?
A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Originally posted by Jason88
Every group we arm at some point turns around to fight us. Bin Laden comes to mind, Iraq/Iran is another.
The missing money from the budgets, or black budget, likely fund the industries (and rebels/terrorists) that further make money with war - we actually want to fight the folks we arm. It keeps the money-making cycle rolling.
edit on 10-12-2012 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Plan2exist18
when it comes to the rebellion rebelling against US: they can be crushed in our efforts to "create a stable government abroad", the money/arms quietly moved back into our hands
Originally posted by SteveR
They killed U.S. Ambassador Stevens and we still haven't learned. Now we want to remove Assad and let the lunatics take over there too. And note, the anti-muhammad movie was a bunk excuse, the raid on the consulate was proven to be pre-planned.
I don't feel sorry for us. We deserved it by allowing Morons to control our policy. I feel sorry for the students and others who began the protests early in the Arab Spring before it was co-opted by the mass-mobilization of Jihadis. Millions of them pour into the frontlines from all over North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia like pirhanas who get a whiff of blood.
So...Obama is allowing this type of bloodshed to continue and grow.