It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Independent UK asks - Does Obama Know He's Fighting On Al Qaidas Side?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+3 more 
posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:42 AM
EXCELLENT article out of the UK. This Syrian business is a convoluted mess. To enter the fray is insane. Obama is both killing Al Qaida with drones, and helping them by bombing Assad. How can Obama justify drone strike killings of Al Qaida with his right hand, but then help Al Qaida by bombing Assad with his left hand???

The entire article should be read, but here is a snip -

Independent UK - Does Obama Knkow He's Fighting On Al Qaidas Side?

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

So the question .. does Obama know he's fighting on Al Qaidas side?
My answer .. how could he not know that he's helping Al Qaida? He has to.
Unless he's a total idiot. (but of course ... that could very well be the case)

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:48 AM
Great article, always been a fan of Robert Fisk, when it comes to issues on the Middle East. He has been reporting from the area for years.

I find it disturbing that we will be fighting on the same side as those who hold the same beliefs as those who committed the beheading of a British soldier on the streets of Woolwich London.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:53 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

So the question .. does Obama know he's fighting on Al Qaidas side?

He does...he also knows...they had nothing to do with 9/11

They've probably been yelling for the past decade that they had nothing to do with terror attacks...but it's hard for them to get some decent air time on MSM

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:00 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

Only to the untrained eye...

Nothing has really changed. The US has been in alliance with Al-Qaida since the late 80's. They were also in alliance during 9/11 and today.

I would like to ask mr. Fisk:

"Do you know they were never real enemies to begin with" ?

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Remember, "Obama leads from behind".

(which is a politically correct way of saying, "He follows".)

France says jump and apparently we jump (Mai oui!)

Disregard the Constitutional process, disregard the voices of those he supposedly works for, disregard conventional common sense, Obama charges blindly forth!

As long as there are those in front that'll take the fall, take the heat, and take the bullets.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:06 AM

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:36 AM
I've resisted my natural predisposition to comment on Syria, until now.
It's not a cut and dry situation with arguments both for and against any sort of intervention.
It's a genuinely #ty situation - atrocities committed by both sides and none of the combatants seem to have noble intentions or the best interests of the majority of Syrian people at heart.
And as usual it is those ordinary people who are suffering the most - perhaps instead of concentrating on those doing the killing we should be putting the best interests of those who are being killed first.
How to do that?
I honestly don't know, I'm not privy to all the information and I'm not arrogant enough to assume to think that I have the answers.

But I do know it's a precarious situation that could have serious ramifications for each and every one of us.

The UK and US have long preached about the need to follow international law and procedure.
As such every diplomatic avenue must be exhausted and UN protocols followed before any possible intervention takes place.
Obama and Cameron seem to be using the abhorrent use of chemical agents as an excuse to further their own agenda without following these measures - that is inexcusable.

In addition the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, and the impression I get from here and other sources is that it's exactly the same in the US, are currently opposed to any military involvement.
Cameron has recalled Parliament and they will do as instructed in accordance with party political dictate but that does not mean that the will of the people is being followed.
I think I'm correct in saying that it's a similar position in the USA.

Of course Obama and Cameron know that they could well be fighting on Al-Qaida and other like minded groups side - how could they not know?
Do the people of Syria want an Al-Qaida supported government? I suspect not.
So what, or perhaps more to the point, whose purpose is being served?

As a slight aside I've noticed one point not being reported on much by all the news agencies.
This is essentially yet another Shi'a - Sunni issue.
The ruling Alawite Shi'a minority on one side against the various Sunni factions on the other.
Shi'a Iran and Hezbollah are aligning with the Alawites and generally speaking the Sunni nations on the other.
An Islamic issue.

Perhaps an approach to the new regime in Iran, one that allegedly wants to improve relations with 'the west', could help broker a deal that would at least see some sort of ceasefire whilst a diplomatic solution can be reached.
This would have the added bonus of facilitating some sort of reconciliation with Iran, perhaps starting with some relaxation of the sanctions currently imposed upon them and renewed talks and transparency on their nuclear programme etc.

Just a thought.
edit on 28/8/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:00 AM
If you google search "Obama and Al Qaeda" some interesting articles pop up showing Obama both helping and condemning Al Qaeda.
Maybe it's the "enemy of my enemy" theory, maybe something else entirely. But like stated above, I do not think the Syrian people want to be ruled by Al Qaeda.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:19 AM
He knows just as well as Bush (both of them) knew that Al Qaida was not behind 911. When you see the big picture, it all makes perfect sense.

There is a very good reason John Kerry hammered so hard on the 'moral obscenity' aspect of the attack. He is getting everyone to focus on their emotions to distract them from the facts. Just like happened with 911 and and the war on terror.

I've heard colleagues at work talking about how they just can't believe that Assad's regime would organize such an attack. When I tell them that that's probably because it didn't, they just become even more confused and frustrated. This is all very normal because they have been in denial for so long.

This move on Syria is just another piece of the big picture, and I have a feeling that it's the one that brings this picture into focus for many, especially those who were on the fence.

I sure hope so. It could be our only chance. I'm counting on TPTB to eventually overestimate themselves and underestimate the people.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:34 AM
Of course they know, but we also know that it isn't quite as simple as the Independent makes out, so shouldn't fall for their own spin either.

Within the Syrian rebellion, there are dozens of different groups, ranging from Army defectors and secular types in the FSA, through to mid-range islamists right across to Al-Nusra and their Salafist agenda. It isn't quite as cut and dry as saying "Bomb Assad - side with AQ", I thought some people were a bit more intelligent than that...

However, all that aside, we shouldn't just stand by and watch thousands get killed in gas attacks, which is why the West will intervene with the most likely option being targeting their chem weapon stockpiles and logistical chain. Syrian forces, for the most part, will be untouched as will the regime CnC elements. I think most normal people would support this kind of intervention - anything over and above this would be something else though...

Assad will have had a kick up his arse about being a naughty boy and that's that, back to normal, civil war continues unabated - provided he doesn't do anything daft afterwards.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:42 AM

EXCELLENT article out of the UK. This Syrian business is a convoluted mess. To enter the fray is insane. Obama is both killing Al Qaida with drones, and helping them by bombing Assad. How can Obama justify drone strike killings of Al Qaida with his right hand, but then help Al Qaida by bombing Assad with his left hand???

I agree as I could only find the word 'mess' describes this situation and 'convoluted mess' is much better.

I wonder just what the President's options are militarily. Cruse Missiles? He can ask his buddy Bill what happens when you miss and hit a school full of children. A bombing assault? To hit what, exactly? A purposely feeble show of force to appease our allies in a regenerative war? Might be a good idea to know who are our allies are first.

Yup a convoluted mess for sure.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:45 AM
People are far more aware than they were during the iraq and Afghanistan attacks.
Even little old ladies don't believe anything the government is saying, just a few 'non thinkers' are left nodding like donkeys to Mr Cameron's and Mr obama's protests of 'Assad is killing his own'.
If either of these folk were to claim the sky was blue, a lot of people would have to rush out and check it for themselves.

Will they get away with whatever has already been planned? Quite possibly.
But the results may not be what they were expecting. If they want WW 3 then that is more than likely a certainty and we will know that the fabled 'End Game' has arrived and just hope there are some humans left on the planet after the Lunatics who have taken control of the world stage have finished their ' little game.'

It will be what it will be.

May God have mercy on us all, especially the young and the innocent.
May God forgive them what they are about to do because THEY KNOW what they are doing and that is the most damning crime of all.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:28 AM
Hundreds of innocent Egyptians were killed by a military Junta and no one seems to care. Does it matter if your killed by a bullet or chemical weapon? The blood of some seems worth more than others, depending on the political circumstances.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

And over 100,000 have died in Syria so far with nothing more than hand wringing from the West and extra bombs from Russia - and it seems we would have been more than happy to let the conventional civil war play out until the chemical weapons were used and even then, this isn't the first time.

Regardless of who is actually deploying them, all known stockpiles and delivery systems should be neutralised to prevent any further use. This seems to be the likeliest scenario - the bulk of Syria's military, CnC and other assets will be left alone and the war allowed to continue.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:48 AM
The real world is far more complicated than just black and white. In WW2 Maos communists were also fighting the Japanese does that mean FDR was fighting on the Communist side? Hezbollah was helping fight the Serbs in Bosnia does that mean Clinton was fighting on Hezbollah side? Iranian Special ops were also fighting the Taliban before and after 911 does that mean Bush was fighting on Irans side? No. Groups operate for their own self interest. Of course Al Qaida would like the US to stay out of Syria so they can take over when Assad falls, even if the US in Syria means he falls faster. The best way to hand places like Libya and Syria to radicals is to do nothing and let them take all the credit while demonizing the West for doing nothing. You want to really help Al Qaida? Do nothing.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by MrSpad

Exactly - Unfortunately some people, "respected" newspaper journalists and all, try to simplify things down to black and white concepts, or view them in an isolated microcosm without looking at the geo-politics at large or history.

It's also noted that world-famous Anti-Obama ATS'er, Flysersfan, should dig this article up....

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:41 AM
This article is a pretty huge oversimplification of Al-Qa'ida

The message behind it is essentially "Bomb Assad, side with Al-Qa'ida"

It does not go into the intrinsic complexities of Al-Qa'ida in Syria (Al-Nusra) and how they relate into the bigger Al-Qa'ida picture nor does it even mention the length's that America has gone to in attempt to prevent a rise in the influence of Al-Qa'ida in Syria. For example it was reported in the press that America has deployed CIA agents to Turkey whose sole responsibility is to vet rebels reviving western support to ensure that the support is not going to radical Islamist's.

If anything i would say the "Bomb Assad, Side with Al-Qa'ida" mentality is backwards, a huge push behind American Foreign policy towards Syria is preventing a radical Islamist government taking over once Assad is out. Think about how much of a mess it would create for America if Syria fell into the hands of the next Bin Laden, with all those chemical weapons to play with and right in the center of the Middle East. The truth is that by intervening in Syria with military force America can then have huge influence over Syria after Assad, they can put in a American friendly secular leader who wont go start a new war with Israel.

I would normally expect more from Robert Frisk than this, of course Obama is well aware of Al-Qa'ida's presence in Syria.

edit on 28-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by Elliot

I don't know what planet you come from, but 75%+ of the people I've casually talked to about Syria parrot what the MSM is saying.

An even higher percentage of those people simply don't care. They might say, "Obama's gonna do whatever he wants" and then just shrug and continue on. People are apathetic, worn down, and to tired to care.

Lots of people are more worried about the economy and their bank accounts than some "brown people" in a faraway land that they'll never see or meet anyone from.

And I am continually shocked by the number of people that believe we did find WMD in Iraq. They'll often say, "What? We didn't find any? What? I'm sure I heard on TV that we did back then..."

People have been brainwashed, still trust the government (for the most part), and trust the flavor of media they align themselves with. It's not as rosy as you portray it -- most people are still ignorant and asleep.

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
75%+ of the people I've casually talked to about Syria parrot what the MSM is saying.

Really? Every last person I have spoken to say that we shouldn't be anywhere near Syria and that
Obama doesn't know what the heck he's doing. Everyone says it's a mess and it'll only get worse
if we take any actions.

We must hang out with different types of people or something ....

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Of-course he does.

Theres a reason why for the past decade many refer to it as Al-CIAeda.

At this point, the government no longer cares to hide it.

Every so often, someone in a position of power makes this revelation, Hillary Clinton's statement probably being the most well known.

But here is a statement from former British MP, Robin Cook:

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Robin Cook's article appeared in the Guardian on July 5, 2005. He was killed, I mean "suffered a heart attack" a month later on August 6, 2005...

Which always brings me to back to William Cooper's revelation on June 28, 2001. All roads lead to their catalyst: 9/11.

edit on 28-8-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in