In the latest war on Syria news , U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has allied the U.S. with al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri in the effort to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashir Assad. Both leaders are quoted in our news from the warfront below:
“We have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future,” Al-Zawahri said. “Assad must go.”
Clinton urged Muslim states, including Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, to come to the aid of Syrian protesters.
“We are trying to start a process of political transition,” Al-Zawahri said. “The failure to do so will increase the risk of a brutal civil war.”
“If we want freedom, we must be liberated from this regime. If we want justice, we must retaliate against this regime,” Clinton said.
Oops, check that, all the quotes by Clinton should be Al-Zawahri’s and the ones by Zawahri should be Clinton.
But you get the picture. The suicide bombers of Damascus have now officially allied themselves with what Western propaganda has presented as an entirely peaceful movement for democracy. The move by al Qaeda is also another very helpful teaching point, that the Syrian rebellion does or will boil down to religious sectarianism and favoritism, noting that the rebellious towns are mostly and al Qaeda is entirely Sunni. The following from the Irish Times is also helpful for understanding what is going on, in my opinion:
The struggle for territory is accompanied by looting by militiamen and criminals, and by kidnappings of Sunnis by Alawites and vice-versa. Some victims are exchanged, some ransomed, others tortured and killed, their bodies dumped on waste ground. According to my diplomatic source, more than 100 Alawite women have been abducted, held for long periods and raped, tortured and slain. Alawites have retaliated by kidnapping and abusing Sunni women.
The source remarks that, in rebel-held Sunni neighbourhoods of Homs, mainly fundamentalist militants have the full support of the populace and even the “old families” who harbour long-standing animosities towards the secular regime. “It is an Islamist uprising to reassert the supremacy of Muslims over infidels,” he said. “Sunnis [elsewhere] do not admit what is happening in Homs. The opposition has used religion to incite people in the streets. While the opposition accuses the regime of exploiting the threat of sectarian warfare to turn people against the rebels, the government’s only hope is to keep playing the secular card.”
So then, ‘For What?‘ — the point of all the civilian and military deaths produced by an uncompromising armed rebellion and Western surge for regime change — seems to be getting answered.



17 Comments




It’s hard to tell who are the “good guys” here. Russian-sponsored media pushes one side, whereas the US press tells the other. The Arab League? Who knows.
The good guys right now are the forces pushing for compromise and peace, which includes and basically comes down to inter-sectarian compromise and peace. Not certain, but I think that right now the Russians and the Syrian government are the good guys from that perspective and Clinton, al Qaeda, and much/most of the armed rebellion right now are the bad guys.
The narrative is changing fast, Now that AQ is openly on the same side as Neocon Dems, they can not longer paint them as simple protestors. Calling for all AQ to show up in Syria for jihad.
I wonder if there are concerns about having the whole AQ militant movement so close to Israel, fired up, battle hardened, and armed? They are much more dangerous that Hizbollah.
Looks like the Empire has incubated a bearded baby to pull at the heartstrings for our viewing enjoyment after all:
http://www.infowars.com/global-media-promotes-syrian-activist-begging-for-military-invasion/
I think it works better without the beard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk
The story of our relationship with al Quaeda is getting to be a little too much like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IBZocFkXGY
LOL
Thanks for the laugh
So we should not do good if our enemy wants to do the same good?
Indeed because we both want to do this good – to stop the killing in Syria – we are now in a “relationship”.
Thanks – I needed the good laugh before going to bed! :-)
Oh – I should have noticed the “Clinton thing” you have going.
Right – Hillary is a real problem for progressives and folks of good intent.
LOL – you are funny.
Oh, you know very well that the Arab League is a US tool.
The US/NATO/Israel complex fomenting civil war in Syria are the much,much,much worser ones here, and it’s not even something to debate. Those who refuse to see this are war-debauched souls.
YOu haven’t figured out that Al Queda are CIA tools going back to Afghanistan days? Give me a break. Yes you have.
We send Al Queda anywhere we want trouble stirred up in the Muslim world.
Well said. Let’s Libya-erate Syria, and then Libya-erate Iran, and then Libya-erate Venezuela, and then Libya-erate Russia, and then Libya-erate China, and then it will be time for your local community to be Libya-erated…
Yeah, good Hilary, the Obliterator…
The Empire created quite the bogeyman, al Qaeda, with which to terrorize and thus totally mislead their own population into bogus proxy wars played out in the Middle East.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnV_pNe_BB0&feature=player_embedded
We want to do good, al Qaeda wants to do good? Like we did in Iraq or Libya? Like they did in New York City or Damascus?
The U.S. created this civil war that has already killed thousands, and you call that doing good.
She is the U.S. Secretary of State, so she is responsible for the civil war her government has encouraged, mostly controlled, and co-sponsored along with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and now al Qaeda. And she and her co-sponsors are not interested in peace or compromise, only in continued inter-sectarian strife, crippling sanctions, and so on until a compliant regime is put in place.
And, btw and look it up, I preferred Clinton over Obama (when those seemed to be the only two choices) back in 2008.
The U.S. and Israel fear popular movements, which I don’t think ‘al Qaeda’ (the ‘al Qaeda’ represented by Zawahari) is. But what Israel/U.S. primarily looks forward to in Syria is two things: removal of a critical Iran and Hezbollah ally, and long-term civil war and inter-sectarian strife in Syria, which will weaken the country and distract it from, for example, the Israeli occupation of Syrian territory.
Yes, but they were funded by SA and then they stopped or curtailed it heavily. In their later manifestations the saudis have paid them to leave them alone.
We were actually allie with with the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood.