Intervention in Syria is seeing a tarantula fighting a scorpion, and helping the scorpion.

Intervention in Syria is seeing a tarantula fighting a scorpion, and helping the scorpion.

I really can't think of a better metaphor.

There is absolutely nothing for the American people or those of the UK or France or NATO to gain from this tarpit. The official story is so painful I feel my ears bleeding everytime I hear it now. We are to believe that this thing the CIA made up called "Al Qaeda" was responsible for the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, but then the very people they pointed at and called our greatest unified enemies are now in dire need of our help to overthrow their government so they can plunge their country into oblivion?

Setting aside that this is the most perfect example of Orwellian Double-think in recrent memory, and with it that we should help our "enemies" fight our other "enemies", what is really going to be done here? We are to belive that a "Gulf-war 3.0 CNN special" series of airstrikes can quickly and surgically remove the Syrian military's fighting ability? Did we not just witness a decade of wars (the LAST decade, no less) fought by some of the best guerillas the world has ever known, many many years after the supposedly greatest military ever had flattened all of their production, communications, and defensive assets? Did we forget we are talking about a part of the world that has more tunnels in it than swiss cheese, and that the real assets are all hidden underground, and consist in mobility and stealth?

So we are to believe that we are to support an absurd goal to be realized by an absurd gameplan.

And on top of all of that, Even if the concept made sense and was achievable, we have Russia and Iran sternly saying "NO". What is out there that is of such value that we would risk provoking one of our strongest opponents to give aid to our supposed enemies over?

Does this make anyone else's heads hurt?

The best I can do when I try to make sense of it is to suppose that they want to destabilize Syria to the greatest extent possible, even more so than this massive civil war already has, so that Iran has one less friend to turn to when the crosshairs move one hair to the right and settle on them in the following months or year.

Does anyone out there have a better idea of what the hell is going on than I do? If not to weaken Iran, then why?

I agree wholeheartedly.
The real travesty here is that someone out there has an agenda to push... that there are "good guys" and "bad guys" in this scenario. Of course, the question has to be asked, which is which?

Are the good guys the ones that keep beheading people and dragging their bodies through the street?
...or is it the guys that keep killing their own civilians as they line up for bread?

Fact is, this is lose/lose.
Help Assad, and you're helping a dictator who has brutally crushed discontent in his own nation - often at the expense of those most vulnerable.
Help the rebels, and you're essentially handing Al-Qaeda and/or The Muslim Brotherhood a nation of their own (to add to Egypt and Libya).

The tragedy in this scenario is that in the middle of all of this unrest and violence is a whole bunch of innocent people who probably aren't madly in love with either side.... but of course, they'll have to die along with whichever side is the loser in this fiasco. It's just plain wrong.

Indeed. What is so valuable here that none of those conditions matter? Everyone on the map is collateral to these guys. Why is Peace Prize Obama stopping at nothing to push this war agenda in this case?

if mass abductions occurred of those telepathically picked as evol by their population who would be evol

the abducted or the abductors...



EA*RTH

Any thread on ATS about Al-Qa'ida is always just one big oversimplification and this is no different,

first of all no the CIA did not create Al-Qa'ida

Secondly the west is not supporting Al-Qa'ida now, yes Al-Nusra is basically Al-Qa'ida in Syria but its not the same group that attacked America on 9/11 and besides America has formally declared it a terrorist organization and is actively trying avoid providing any support to any radical Islamist sects of the rebel force.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Secondly the west is not supporting Al-Qa'ida now, yes Al-Nusra is basically Al-Qa'ida in Syria but its not the same group that attacked America on 9/11 and besides America has formally declared it a terrorist organization and is actively trying avoid providing any support to any radical Islamist sects of the rebel force.

This is basically my point. Yes the people themselves did exist, and their motives did exist. But this massive blanket term has for them has been engineered. They didn't refer to themselves as "Al Qaeda" or "Al-Qa'ida". Basically they were 15 dissparate groups with dissparate goals and agendas, and sometimes little to no communication. But we couldn't say that, we had to have one term to describe them all, to make them sound like this big powerful boogeyman force that had to to feared. The fact that we can call people in Afganistan and Pakistan and Syria all by the same name, when they have little to do with one another only proves the point in my opinion.

reply to post by joeraynor


And in this country today if we were to have a large scale civil war there would be a host of variously different idealistic coloration and political flavor fighting against the government. Someone would certainly focus on whatever group fit their ends in the support or lack their of.