CIA/Mossad Death Squads in Syria

[HoverBoarder]

Yeah, no, probably not the death squads. I should say that if there were an actual anti-Assad movement in Syria, and they were actually destabilizing the country, and CIA/Mossad operatives were assisting them "to promote Western goals", I would support that.

Death squads and Ciaqaeda, not so much.




For sufficiently large values of "Western goals". Mainly because I'm enough of an idealist to believe that whatever goals "the West" has for Syria, they're better than the goals Assad, Russia or China have for Syria.

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.

 

[theprestige]

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.

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.

 

[LSSBB]

Death squads are standard US "counter-insurgency" tools.

'Death Squads in El Salvador:

A Pattern of U.S. Complicity'

by David Kirsch

Covert Action Quarterly, Summer 1990

------

'Iraq's Death Squads'

Anything more up to date than the Cold War?

 

[HoverBoarder]

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.

Fair enough, I would probably agree with that as well, but only because that type of action would be beneficial to the Syrian people.

But this situation is a lot more than just foreign interests.

My main point in focusing on Syria, and highlighting the CTs is to show the reasons why the conflict started, and how to prevent the next one from occurring. All of which largely comes down to accountability.


A lot of the reason why the death squads and other CTs on Syria are so popular is because people would rather use the situation to support their own largely antiwestern bias and propaganda views instead of working to seriously see what is going on.

That kind of behavior contributes to the continuation of the conflict by providing support to groups like Iran and Russia who are perpetuating the Syrian crisis to achieve their own foreign policy goals. Allowing them to not have to hold the Syrian regime accountable for their actions. Many people have built their identities on that type of baseless anti-western CT supported mindset, but they are buying their bubble world fantasy lands with the lives of innocent Syrians.

A selfish act to say the least.

I am interested in looking into why the conflict happened in the first place, and how to prevent a similar occurance from happening in the future.

 

[geni]

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 don't think its practical to arrange a kurdish takeover.

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.

Then you don't know much about the rebels.

 

[JihadJane]

Good one, a great addition to the CT thread.

A propagandistic ostrich response. Ignorance is bliss!

Anything more up to date than the Cold War?

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.

 

[JihadJane]

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

Al Qaeda is only one of the Islamic fundamentalist groups ("rebels") invading Syria and terrorizing Syrians.

They all have substantial foreign support.

Beyond the ridiculousness of the whole death squad stuff,

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.

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.

How did destroying Iraq and turning it over to Iranian influence serve US interests?

The US has long sought to neutralize Syria. Destabilization is the usual way of destroying regimes that no longer serve its "interests".

'Apologies Of An Economic Hitman':

Fair enough, I would probably agree with that as well, but only because that type of action would be beneficial to the Syrian people.

But this situation is a lot more than just foreign interests.

My main point in focusing on Syria, and highlighting the CTs is to show the reasons why the conflict started, and how to prevent the next one from occurring. All of which largely comes down to accountability.


A lot of the reason why the death squads and other CTs on Syria are so popular is because people would rather use the situation to support their own largely antiwestern bias and propaganda views instead of working to seriously see what is going on.

That kind of behavior contributes to the continuation of the conflict by providing support to groups like Iran and Russia who are perpetuating the Syrian crisis to achieve their own foreign policy goals. Allowing them to not have to hold the Syrian regime accountable for their actions. Many people have built their identities on that type of baseless anti-western CT supported mindset, but they are buying their bubble world fantasy lands with the lives of innocent Syrians.

In what way would this alleged mindset be "baseless"? Are you claiming that Western foreign policy actions are never destructive to it recipients?

A selfish act to say the least.

I am interested in looking into why the conflict happened in the first place, and how to prevent a similar occurance from happening in the future.

To summarize, ...CT... blah blah... CT ...blah blah...CT ...blah blah...

What about the West's foreign policy goals, or doesn't it have any besides bringing peace, love and democracy to the barbarians?

 

[HoverBoarder]

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 don't think its practical to arrange a kurdish takeover.

Syrian Kurds would not be pro-western.

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.

Then you don't know much about the rebels.

That is not true of all rebels. However it is doubtful that they would be very pro-western whether we helped them or not.


At this point though, we are where we are. The US couldn't just give unconditional support to the Assad regime after he so blatantly killed tens of thousands of his own people in order to retain his bloody grip on power.

We just have to work with whatever government is in power now, and in the future in Syria to make sure they respect basic human rights, and work with the countries that support them (Russia and Iran) to hold the Syrian government accountable for their actions.

 

[HoverBoarder]

A propagandistic ostrich response. Ignorance is bliss!

Ironic much?

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.

Blanket CT assertions without proof. Perfect.

Thank you for your addition to the thread.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

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

 

[Clayton Moore]

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

That would be difficult since the US military was acting under the direction of Israeli directed neoconservatives.

 

[HoverBoarder]

That would be difficult since the US military was acting under the direction of Israeli directed neoconservatives.

That is a joke right?

 

[Clayton Moore]

That is a joke right?

Connect the dots



Israel Zionists

neoconservatives Zionists

neoconservatives dictate US Foreign Policy

US Military instigates and enforces US Foreign Policy

Israel's super duper death squad =

 

[JihadJane]

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

Have you ever researched this topic yourself?

Read this:

'MOVING TARGETS. Will the counter-insurgency plan in Iraq repeat the mistakes of Vietnam?'

Then this:

'Iraqis Exact Revenge on Baathists
Police Shrug Off Killings of 50 Hussein Loyalists by Unknown Gunmen'

 

[IDB87]

Have you ever researched this topic yourself?

I've read all about the topic. Indeed, an unnamed source handed me a secret document that explains how full of it Seymour Hersh actually is.

Trust me, these sources are reliable.

wink

 

[LSSBB]

Have you ever researched this topic yourself?

Nice, try to turn the tables on me first. How about just answering the question?

By the way, this second article ties nothing to the U.S., I'm looking for hard facts, not random dot connecting:

Then this:

'Iraqis Exact Revenge on Baathists
Police Shrug Off Killings of 50 Hussein Loyalists by Unknown Gunmen'

Your New Yorker article by itself would have been the better response to my question:

Read this:

'MOVING TARGETS. Will the counter-insurgency plan in Iraq repeat the mistakes of Vietnam?'

I like the New Yorker, ever since it did the Bromance cover cartoon of Ryan and Romney.

Let's dig into that one, however. The tactics word-of-mouthedly attributed to Rumsfeld and coterie do appear to fit the Wikipedia evolved definition of death squads, which I guess will do. Now, as to the claim whether these are, as you say:

standard US "counter-insurgency" tools"

Please re-read the article. In the article it states that Rumsfeld had to push his concepts through a reluctant Pentagon staff. For some background, if you recall, Rumsfeld thought that victory in Iraq could be done on the cheap. It was not until the Surge was pushed through by McCain that the tide was turned for the U.S. in Iraq, and Rumsfeld ended up resigning, because his strategy was failing. Some insight for you: one of the case studies that military strategists learn as part of the Joint Professional Military Education that most go through now is Panama. Most notably, a lesson learned after the U.S. invasion of Panama is that it takes a lot of conventional boots on the ground to stabilize a country. Rumsfeld did not take this lesson or learn it: he had his own ideas, which proved to be ineffective.

So what does this show? "Death Squads" are NOT standard U.S. counter-insurgency tools. Now, as to whether or how extensive they are being used in Syria, in concert with Mossad, please supply the proof. Last I checked, Rumsfeld was no longer Secretary of Defense.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Connect the dots



Israel Zionists

neoconservatives Zionists

neoconservatives dictate US Foreign Policy

US Military instigates and enforces US Foreign Policy

Israel's super duper death squad =

OK, I get it. That was most definitely a joke. Because there are a whole lot more people in the US than the neoconservatives, and it would be extremely illogical to make such a claim.

Seemed pretty obvious, but I was just making sure.


The super, duper, snooper, swooper, death squads out to steal our Lucky Charms.

 

[twinstead]

I usually tune out everything that follows "connect the dots" when an ideologue says something

 

[Clayton Moore]

OK, I get it. That was most definitely a joke. Because there are a whole lot more people in the US than the neoconservatives, and it would be extremely illogical to make such a claim.

Seemed pretty obvious, but I was just making sure.


The super, duper, snooper, swooper, death squads out to steal our Lucky Charms.

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

 

[LSSBB]

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]

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?