It's All Al-Qaeda.

[CJCRANE]

Al-Nusra. The Khorasan Group. The Wolf Unit.

We hear these names bandied about, but in reality they only serve to obfuscate the fact they are all part of, or offshoots of, what we used to call "Al-Qaeda". Some of these groups even have original "core Al-Qaeda" members.

And if these groups are part of Al-Qaeda, then why didn't we go after them earlier when they were settling into their safe havens in Syria and then Iraq?

Why did we continue to support the Syrian rebels when it became obvious that they harbored these Al-Qaeda groups among them?

A lot of people were against bombing Syrian government infrastructure last year because they didn't want us to be "Al-Qaeda's Air Force".

A little while later, ISIS popped up and we kind of forgot about Al-Qaeda, even though we are supposedly in a war against them all over the world.

But even ISIS itself is a spin-off from Al-Qaeda, one which was rebranded to appeal to a western audience.

We really need to get to grips with our policy towards Al-Qaeda.

Is this a group we support when it's useful but turn against when it suits us?

Perhaps our policy should remain consistent.

[merrily]

1. Saying it's "all al Qaeda" does give the USG cover and

inflames those 911 memories/emotions/knee jerk lusts for revenge. However, it is almost impossible for ordinary Americans to know if that is true or not. Except of course, for message board posters.

Only a couple of nights ago, Jon Stewart interviewed the President of the Syrian National Coalition, who says IS in Syria was sponsored and fostered by Assad. I just posted the video: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017218271

How do we know that is so? We sure don't know that, either.

My plea to those genuinely trying to sort this out:

Stop believing anything you hear from any source. Almost everyone talking to you about this or writing about it has great incentive to drive an agenda that benefits him or her in some way.

Instead, know that you don't know--that you may never know--and try to keep an open mind as info is fed to you by people who also probably have no way of knowing. But, take in as much info as you can, while continuing to keep an open mind.

Maybe something semi-true will eventually become clear to you. Or not. I think that is best ordinary Americans can do or hope for amidst this very deadly stew. All I know is that our own actions have already made more than enough people want to kill us, our kids and future generations of Americans and our own actions have already led to the rise of more than enough new (or newish) terrorist groups.

[CJCRANE]

2. It's not politically convenient to say "it's Al-Qaeda"

that's why they called it "Khorasan". We were told Al-Qaeda was on the run and on their last legs.

But even according to the official story the leader of that group was in the core Al-Qaeda inner circle.

Plus it's fairly well-documented, even in our MSM, where ISIS got their funding and inspiration from.

However, I agree with your overall point.

[merrily]

3. Where does our MSM gets its information? Or its marching orders?

Last edited Wed Oct 1, 2014, 06:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Our corporate establishment media does not rank high in credibility. From Hearst to MTP, it's been more than willing to drum us into war any way it (or the USG) thinks will work.

And, yes, it is now very politically convenient to say "it's all Al Qaeda." For one thing, the AUMF authorizes action against all those responsible for the attack on the WTC and there is no authorization in place. It's constitutional level convenient, as Obama/Kerry and Congress do the flirtation waltz.

"We don't need your vote, but we'd welcome it if you decide to take it, without our asking you for it."


"Ask us and see what happens."

Ugh. This is war, you fuckers. Our kids. Lives, limbs, blood and guts. And our money. And our future.

[CJCRANE]

4. We talk about the "MSM" but in fact

it's sort of generalizing.

When I talk about the MSM what I really mean are the top stories we see on the TV news or the headlines we see above the fold on the news stand.

There is a lot of other information on the inside pages and other nooks and crannies of the "MSM".

A lot of this information is conflicting, so you have to compare and contrast and sift through it.

As you said in a previous post, you need to take in a variety of news sources, which I try to do, including liberal and conservative, foreign and domestic.

They all have their biases and blind spots, but by sampling a variety you start to get a more holistic view.

[merrily]

6. Same question. Where are all these people getting their

inside info? This unassailable info that we are willing to go to war over?

From their great historical knowledge of Syria and its history and culture? From their contacts inside Al Qaeda, with whom they converse in fluent Arabic.

I am not a betting person, but I bet you the deed to my home if you somehow managed to convince an ordinary Damascene that the lives of his kids depended on a truthful assessment of exactly what is going on, who is supporting whom, he'd say he doesn't know. Just as I would say I have no idea what my government is actually up to a lot of the time--and Assad has never had to worry about the voting booth.

[CJCRANE]

5. You make a good point about the AUMF.

So perhaps there are two sides to this.

The need to use the threat of Al Qaeda to justify the strikes while at the same time not directly referring to Al Qaeda in the "above the fold" headline.

[merrily]

7. Thank you. War is a great incentive for many reasons.

It will overcome the alleged embarrassment of having said in the past that we all but destroyed Al Qaeda. Already, Obama is enduring the alleged embarrassment of saying that his intelligence underestimated ISIS (as Bush said his intelligence had overestimated WMD).

Besides, it's very easy to say, well, we did bust up Al Qaeeda, but now we have rogue Al Qaeeda offshoots that are even worse than Al Qaeeda was. That gives both legal cover and image cover. Or enough of the illusion thereof.

This is not impossible for professional propagandists and both Democrats and Republicans have plenty of those--and they both seem to say war is necessary right now.

[hardcover]

8. Yes, why?

Why did we continue to support the Syrian rebels when it became obvious that they harbored these Al-Qaeda groups among them?

[seveneyes]

9. There is but one thing that ties them all together

Religious dogma with forced adherence.