CIA/Mossad Death Squads in Syria

[MaGZ]

The thing is that no country in the world benefits from a destabilized Syria.

Some Countries allow it to happen, either because like Iran, they are betting everything on a doomed bloody dictatorship to boost their own foreign policy interests without a care for how many innocent Syrians die from it, or like the US because they cannot afford to get involved except for speaking out against the abuses of the regime, or like Russia because they have financial and military interests in the country that they know will inevitably change from and Assad rule but are making arms sales in the meantime to at least hedge their bets and get something out of it, but destabilization does not benefit any country.

The only group that a destabilized Syria helps is Al-Qaeda.


Beyond the ridiculousness of the whole death squad stuff, the US would never go against their own interests, and the interests of their allies in the region including Israel to destabilyze Syria for the heck of it. Or for any other reason.



Now. Speaking out against the war crimes and human rights abuses of the Syrian regime is one thing, and giving vocal support for groups that fight against the regime is one thing, but that is nowhere near the same as destabilizing Syria for the heck of it.

The US (under ZOG) has a standard policy of overthrowing every country in that region that is an enemy of Israel.

 

[MaGZ]

Giving vocal support is fine too.

What about giving material support? Or giving operational support? Or giving direct military support in the form of allied troops in combat alongside groups that fight against the regime?

Anyway, to restate my previous clarification: I'm not in favor of destabilizing Syria for the heck of it. But if Syria were to be destabilized, I am in favor of influencing the course of events such that when Syria restabilizes, it does so in a state that is more aligned with "Western goals".

I guess what I'm saying is, I reject the conspiracy theory, but if US forces were operating covertly to support the rebels and establish a lasting friendship with a new Syrian government that more closely aligned with Western values, I'd be okay with that.

The Syrian resistance has been coopted by the jihadists and Al Qaeda so the possibility of a democratic Syria is now just a fantasy.

 

[MaGZ]

A propagandistic ostrich response. Ignorance is bliss!



Iraq.

The "War on Terror" is a continuation of the "Cold War" with a new, manufactured enemy to justify the continuation of the same rapacious foreign policies.

The military industrial complex has to be feed, right Jane?

 

[MaGZ]

Ok, name an instance of a "Death Squad" sponsored by the U.S. in Iraq.

The only example I can think of is when CIA agent Mike Spann threatened to kill Taliban prisoners, sparking a riot that lead to his own death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Micheal_Spann

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton, name one neo-con who Controls U.S. Foreign Policy.

ETA: wait, isn't Chris Matthews a member of the Main Stream Media? And you still trust him?

It's neoconservativeS.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/whats-a-neoconservative/

But this is because most Republicans didn’t think of the Iraq War as “policing the world” but as a legitimate matter of national defense. We now know that it had absolutely nothing to do with America’s defense and we’re still bogged down needlessly in another nation’s civil war.

But this has always been the neocon ruse—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection—much less regret—for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America’s wars are valid by their own volition. America’s “mission” is its missions. Writes Max Boot: “Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators.”

 

[Border Reiver]

The US (under ZOG) has a standard policy of overthrowing every country in that region that is an enemy of Israel.

Other than Iraq very recently, what anti-Israeli governments have been overthrown by US intervention?

Egypt - not anti-Israeli and was done by its own people anyway
Tunisia - as above
Libya - primarily done by the Libyians themselves

 

[Clayton Moore]

Other than Iraq very recently, what anti-Israeli governments have been overthrown by US intervention?

Egypt - not anti-Israeli and was done by its own people anyway
Tunisia - as above
Libya - primarily done by the Libyians themselves

Thanks for the Israeli mind meld display.

 

[HoverBoarder]

The only example I can think of is when CIA agent Mike Spann threatened to kill Taliban prisoners, sparking a riot that lead to his own death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Micheal_Spann

Not a death squad.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Tell MSNBC that.
Chris mentions, almost daily, that the neocons control US Foreign Policy.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Chris_Matthews_2011_Shankbone.JPG/220px-Chris_Matthews_2011_Shankbone.JPG[/qimg]

Uh, no he doesn't. I don't know of anyone in the mainstream news business who does.


Unless you are going to count the CT 'news' sources. Than we are all controlled by the neoconservative new world order, and they're all lizards too!

 

[HoverBoarder]

It's neoconservativeS.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/whats-a-neoconservative/

That is not naming one neoconservative that controls our foreign policy.


Amusingly, one of the comments on the article said "neoconservatives are primarily liberal social hawks." Which is somewhat ironic considering that liberals are one of the biggest critics of neocons. There is a lot of distancing from the posters on the conservative site from a group that is supposed to "be controlling all of our country." He-larious.

 

[LSSBB]

It's neoconservativeS.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/whats-a-neoconservative/

Ok, so name them and show them how they control foreign policy ("can convince" is not control, by the way).

 

[HoverBoarder]

An article posted from Childlike Empress in support of the 'death squad' CT.

This one contains a lot of detailed information, and I will pull out some of the material as I read through it more.

NATO Using Al Qaeda Rat Lines to Flood Syria With Foreign Terrorists

 

[Border Reiver]

Thanks for the Israeli mind meld display.

You can feel free to point out what anti Israeli governments the US has overthrown as well.

 

[LSSBB]

An article posted from Childlike Empress in support of the 'death squad' CT.

This one contains a lot of detailed information, and I will pull out some of the material as I read through it more.

NATO Using Al Qaeda Rat Lines to Flood Syria With Foreign Terrorists

I'm looking at that article and it's not only NOT providing definitive proof of direct funding / sponsorship to Al Qaeda extremists or Libyan exports to Syria ( more rather innuendo and guilt-by-geographic overlay), it also states the U.S. is working through Saudi Arabia. They in turn "promise" that they will not sponsor extremists. Feel free to show me where I am wrong, however to me it's not proof of execution, more of possibility and thus inference. If anything, it's more of an illustration of the dangers of playing in the Arab Spring arena, because of shifting intents and alliances.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Argument from incredulity

Death squads have long been used as a US counter-insurgency tool. Crying "CT" doesn't alter this fact nor does it obscure (wilful?) ignorance about unsavory US foreign policy actions around the globe.

By the way, it is not a lack of imagination that causes me to be skeptical about the CT of US 'death squads' in Syria.

It is a lack of evidence. Something that will cause me to remain skeptical until any evidence emerges that proves otherwise.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I'm looking at that article and it's not only NOT providing definitive proof of direct funding / sponsorship to Al Qaeda extremists or Libyan exports to Syria ( more rather innuendo and guilt-by-geographic overlay), it also states the U.S. is working through Saudi Arabia. They in turn "promise" that they will not sponsor extremists. Feel free to show me where I am wrong, however to me it's not proof of execution, more of possibility and thus inference. If anything, it's more of an illustration of the dangers of playing in the Arab Spring arena, because of shifting intents and alliances.

Thanks for the analysis and post.

I have also not found any substance in the article that provides credence to its title, but it certainly has a lot more writing than the usual CT articles on US death squads in Syria or elsewhere.

 

[HoverBoarder]

The US (under ZOG) has a standard policy of overthrowing every country in that region that is an enemy of Israel.

Not even close.

Egypt became less of a partner with Israel after the revolution that we gave vocal (but not material) support for. Ditto for Libya although we did give material support in that case.

Syria is the same way. They are likely to be more of a threat to Israel after the revolution, but we just cannot give support to a dictator that kills tens of thousands of his own people in order to terrorize them into submission.


The problem is that you see the US foreign policy goals in a single one policy bullet. When in fact, there are many things that the US considers when making foreign policy. We did not go into Bosnia to stop the genocide there because it helped Israel. We stopped the genocide there because we felt that we had a moral obligation to do so.


In Syria, we cannot just follow our desire to protect Israel by supporting Assad which would have resulted in the safest situation for Israel. Russia supported the mass murders of the Assad regime in order to guarantee their own self interests of military and financial assets in the country, but we in good conscious cannot.

Supporting Assad would have been better for Israel, but we cannot do that because we cannot support a dictator that kills tens of thousands of his own people in order to terrorize them into submission. Israel was close to signing a truce with Syria, and is unlikely to attack Israel no matter what the case. That is not so clear with the more Saudi aligned FSA.

Sometimes you just have to stand up to needless mass murderers even if it costs you to do so.

If more countries did that (mainly Russia and Iran), there would have never have been a Syrian crisis in the first place.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I'm looking at that article and it's not only NOT providing definitive proof of direct funding / sponsorship to Al Qaeda extremists or Libyan exports to Syria ( more rather innuendo and guilt-by-geographic overlay), it also states the U.S. is working through Saudi Arabia. They in turn "promise" that they will not sponsor extremists. Feel free to show me where I am wrong, however to me it's not proof of execution, more of possibility and thus inference. If anything, it's more of an illustration of the dangers of playing in the Arab Spring arena, because of shifting intents and alliances.

So far the only thing the article shows is that the only 'death squads' were terror groups supported by the Syrian regime in Iraq and their own country.

Honestly, a lot of the Shabiha activities through killing relatives of defectors, and people in towns suspected of not supporting the regime are a whole lot closer to the actual definition of death squads.

 

[HoverBoarder]

The only example I can think of is when CIA agent Mike Spann threatened to kill Taliban prisoners, sparking a riot that lead to his own death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Micheal_Spann

By the way, do you or anyone else have any real examples of US death squads in Iraq or Syria?

And if not, do you find that at all troubling for supporting the belief that they exist?

 

[Clayton Moore]

By the way, do you or anyone else have any real examples of US death squads in Iraq or Syria?

And if not, do you find that at all troubling for supporting the belief that they exist?

Do the words "covert" ring a bell?