Niets
nieuws zou je zeggen, immers dat de VS de zogenaamde gematigde
rebellen (psychopathische moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen)
steunden met o.a. wapens en transportmiddelen was al lang geen geheim
meer, althans voor mensen die verder kijken dan wat de reguliere westerse
(massa-) media aan 'nieuws' brengen.
Het
nieuwe is wel het toegegeven van deze zaken door de rechterhand van
Obama, ten tijde van diens presidentschap, al moet daar onmiddellijk
aan toegevoegd worden dat zoals gezegd een aantal zaken al lang bekend waren,
zoals het onder leiding van de VS vechten van het Vrije Syrische Leger (FSA) in combinatie met IS.... Zaken die door de reguliere westerse
media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici worden afgedaan
als samenzweringstheorieën en 'fake news....' (nogmaals dit wordt gezegd over feitelijke berichtgeving in de sociale media en Wikileaks, terwijl wat betreft op de laatste site, die van Wikileaks, officiële documenten van de VS overheid zijn te vinden die e.e.a. bevestigen....)
In
2013 werkte VS ambassadeur in Syrië, Robert Ford, nauw samen met een
bekende IS commandant, zo heeft Ford zelf toegegeven......
Lees
het volgende ontluisterende artikel van Tyler Durden over deze zaak
(eerder gepubliceerd op Zero Hedge), het steunen door de VS van
jihadistische terreurgroepen, die liefkozend 'gematigde rebellen'
worden genoemd en waartoe, zoals nogmaals blijkt, zelfs een tijdlang IS
behoorde...... Het lullige is wel dat gezien de feiten je niet
anders kan dan de volgende conclusie trekken: de VS heeft zelfs aan
'de wieg van IS' gestaan........ (en ook dat is al veel langer bekend >> zie de links onder dit bericht.....)
Oh ja, mocht je het vergeten zijn: Obama kreeg de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede.... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Oh ja, mocht je het vergeten zijn: Obama kreeg de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede.... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Obama Adviser: We Knew We Were Arming and Funding Terrorists in Syria
June
24, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Written by Tyler
Durden
(ZHE Op-ed) — Someone
finally asked Obama administration officials to own up to the
rise of ISIS and
arming jihadists in Syria.
In
a wide ranging interview titled “Confronting
the Consequences of Obama’s Foreign Policy” The
Intercept’s Mehdi
Hasan put the question to Ben Rhodes,
who served as longtime deputy national security adviser at the White
House under Obama and is now promoting his newly published book, The
World As It Is: Inside the Obama White House.
Rhodes
has been described as being so trusted and close to Obama that
he was “in
the room” for almost every foreign policy decision of
significance that
Obama made during his eight years in office. While
the Intercept interview
is worth listening to in full, it’s the segment on Syria that
caught our attention.
In
spite of Rhodes trying to dance around the issue, he sheepishly
answers in the affirmative when Mehdi Hasan asks the
following question about supporting jihadists in Syria:
Did you intervene too much in Syria? Because the CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding and arming anti-Assad rebels, a lot of those arms, as you know, ended up in the hands of jihadist groups, some even in the hands of ISIS.
Your critics would say you exacerbated that proxy war in Syria; you prolonged the conflict in Syria; you ended up bolstering jihadists.
Rhodes
initially rambles about his book and “second guessing” Syria
policy in avoidance of the question. But Hasan pulls him back with
the following: “Oh,
come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms.”
The
two spar over Hasan’s charge of “bolstering jihadists” in the
following key
section of the interview,
at the end of which Rhodes reluctantly answers “yeah…” — but
while trying to pass ultimate blame onto US allies Turkey, Qatar, and
Saudi Arabia (similar to what Vice President Biden did in
a 2014 speech):
MH: Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms. You know, the U.S. was heavily involved in that war with the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks.
BR: Well, I was going to say:Turkey, Qatar, Saudi.
MH: You were in there as well.
BR: Yeah, but, the fact of the matter is that once it kind of devolved into kind of a sectarian-based civil war with different sides fighting for their perceived survival, I think we, the ability to bring that type of situation to close, and part of what I wrestled with in the book is the limits of our ability to pull a lever and make killing like that stop once it’s underway.
Deputy National Security adviser Ben Rhodes and President Obama. Image source: AP via Commentary Magazine
To
our knowledge this is the
only time a major media organization has directly asked a
high ranking foreign policy adviser from the Obama administration to
own up to the years long White
House support to jihadists in Syria.
Though
the interview was published Friday, its significance went without
notice or comment in the mainstream media over the weekend (perhaps
predictably). Instead, what did circulate was a Newsweek article
mocking “conspiracy theories” surrounding the rapid rise of
ISIS, including
the following:
President Donald Trump has done little to dispel the myth of direct American support for ISIS since he took office. On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump claimed—without providing any evidence—that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-founded the group and that ISIS “honors” the former president.
Of
course, the
truth is a bit more nuanced than that,
as Trump himself elsewhere seemed to acknowledge, and which
ultimately led to the president reportedly shutting down the CIA’s
covert Syrian regime change program in the summer of 2017
while complaining
to aides about the shocking brutality of the CIA-trained “rebels”.
Meanwhile,
mainstream media has been content to float the falsehood that
President Obama’s legacy is that he “stayed
out” of Syria,
instead merely approving some negligible level of aid to
so-called “moderate” rebels who were fighting both Assad and
(supposedly)
the Islamic State. Rhodes
has himself in prior interviews attempted to portray Obama as wisely
staying “on
the sidelines” in Syria.
But
as we’ve pointed
out many
times over the years, this narrative ignores and seeks to
whitewash possibly the
largest CIA covert program in history,
started by Obama, which armed and funded a jihadist insurgency bent
of overthrowing Assad to the tune of $1 billion
a year (one-fifteenth
of the CIA’s publicly
known budget according
to leaked Edward Snowden documents revealed
by the Washington
Post).
It
also ignores the well established fact, documented in both US
intelligence reports and authenticated
battlefield footage,
that ISIS
and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) jointly fought under a
single US-backed command structure during
the early years of the war in Syria, even as late as throughout
2013 — something
confirmed by University of Oklahoma professor Joshua Landis, widely
considered to be the
world’s foremost expert on Syria.
Important “Islamic State Leader Omar al-Shishani Fought Under U.S. Umbrella as Late as 2013” by @BradRHoff medium.com/@BradRHoff/isl…
Syria
experts, as well as a
New York Times report which
largely passed without notice, verified the below footage from
2013 showing
then US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford working closely with a
“rebel” leader who exercised operational command over known ISIS
terrorists (Ambassador
Ford has since acknowledged
the relationship to McClatchy News):
This
latest Ben
Rhodes non-denial-cum-sheepish-affirmation on
the Obama White House’s arming jihadists in Syria follows
previous bombshell reporting by Mehdi Hasan from 2015.
As
host of Al Jazeera’s Head
to Head,
Hasan asked the former head of Pentagon intelligence under Obama,
General Michael Flynn, who
is to blame for the rise of ISIS? (the
August 2015 interview was significantly prior to Flynn joining
Trump’s campaign).
Hasan
presented Flynn with the 2012
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) declassified memo revealing
Washington support to al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists in Syria in order
to counter both Assad and Iran. Flynn affirmed Hasan’s charge
that it was “a willful
decision to
support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim
Brotherhood…”.
Soon after, The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the shocking contents of the Flynn interview:
It
will be interesting to see years from now which “narrative”
concerning Obama’s legacy in the Syrian conflict future historians
choose to emphasize.
…Obama
the president who “stayed out” and “on the sidelines” in
Syria? …Or Obama the president whose decisions fueled
the rise of the most brutal terrorist organization the world has ever
seen?
Below
is the relevant excerpt covering Syria from the 26-minute Intercept
interview with
Obama deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes [bold emphasis
ours].
Mehdi
Hasan: My
guest today was at President Obama’s side every step of the way
over the course of those two terms in office. Ben Rhodes joined the
Obama election campaign in 2007 as a foreign-policy speechwriter,
when he was just 29, and rose to become a deputy national-security
adviser at the White House, who was so intellectually and
ideologically close to his boss that he was often described as having
a mind-meld with Obama.
Ben,
who currently works at the Obama Foundation, has written a new book,
“The World as It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House.” And
earlier this week I interviewed him about Obama’s rather
contentious foreign policy record…
…
MH: But
Ben, here’s what I don’t get, if you’re saying this about
Afghanistan and prolonged conflict, all of which I don’t disagree
with what you’re saying. How
do you, then, explain Syria? Because
you’ve been criticized a lot. I’ve been listening to your
interviews on the book tour; you talk about in the book about how you
were criticized for not doing enough on Syria. I remember being an
event in D.C. a couple years ago where Syrian opposition members were
berating you for not doing enough at an event, and you often were the
public face who came out and defended Obama. I
want to come to the other direction and say: Did you intervene too
much in Syria? Because the CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars
funding and arming anti-Assad rebels, a
lot of those arms, as you know, ended up in the hands of jihadist
groups, some even in the hands of ISIS. Your
critics would say you exacerbated that proxy war in Syria; you
prolonged the conflict in Syria; you
ended up bolstering jihadists.
Ben
Rhodes: Well,
what I try to do in the book is, you know, essentially raise — all
the second guessing on Syria tends to be not what you expressed,
Mehdi, but the notion that we should’ve taken military action.
MH: Yes.
BR: What
I do in the book is I try to look back at 2011 and 2012, was there a
diplomatic window that we missed or that we, in some ways, escalated
its closure by pivoting to the call for Assad to go — which
obviously I believe should happen, I believe Assad has been a
terrible leader for Syria and has brutalized his people — but,
you know, was there a diplomatic initiative that could have been
taken to try to avert or at least minimize the extent of the civil
war. Because, you know, what ended up happening essentially there is,
you know, we were probably too optimistic that, you know, after
Mubarak went and Ben Ali and eventually Saleh and Gaddafi, that you
would have a situation where Assad would go. And, you know, not
factoring in enough the assistance he was going to get from Russia
and Iran, combined with his own nihilism, and how that could lead him
to survive. So I do look back at that potentially missed diplomatic
opportunity.
On
the support of the opposition, you know, I don’t know that I would
give us that much agency.
There
are a lot of people putting arms into Syria, funding all sorts of —
MH: Oh,
come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms. You
know, the
U.S. was heavily involved in that warwith
the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks.
BR: Well,
I was going to say: Turkey,
Qatar, Saudi.
MH: You
were in there as well.
BR: Yeah,
but, the fact of the matter is that once it kind of devolved into
kind of a sectarian-based civil war with different sides fighting for
their perceived survival, I think we, the ability to bring that type
of situation to close, and part of what I wrestled with in the book
is the limits of our ability to pull a lever and make killing like
that stop once it’s underway.
So
that’s why I still look to that initial opening window. I also
describe, there was a slight absurdity in the fact that we were
debating options to provide military support to the opposition at the
same time that we were deciding to designate al-Nusra, a big chunk of
that opposition, as a terrorist organization. So
there was kind of a schizophrenia that’s inherent in a lot of U.S.
foreign policy that came to a head in Syria.
MH: That’s a very good word, especially to describe Syria policy…
============================
Zie ook:
'The United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia Created and Funded ISIS'
'CIA valt nogmaals door de mand als wapenleverancier van IS.......'
'VS steunt terreurgroepen als ISIS in Syrië...........'
Tracing ISIS’ Weapons Supply Chain—Back to the US
'VS centraal commando werkt in Syrië samen met IS en verklaarde Rusland de oorlog.........'
ISIL weapons traced to US and Saudi Arabia
'VS centraal commando werkt in Syrië samen met IS en verklaarde Rusland de oorlog.........'
'Syrië, de prijs van westerse terreur (die onmiddellijk gestopt moet worden >> tijd voor actie!)......'
''False flag terror' bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken..........'
'Syrië: Vlaamse pater roept op niet langer de westerse anti-Syrië propaganda te geloven!'
'Syrië: nieuwe gifgasaanval als 'false flag' operatie tegen Syrisch bewind in voorbereiding........'
'Assad heeft geen gifgas gebruikt tegen de Syrische bevolking!'
'VS geeft toe dat er geen bewijs is voor het gebruik van gifgas 'door Assad', ofwel: alweer 'fake news' van de massamedia doorgeprikt!'
'Israël bewapent minstens 7 terreurgroepen in Syrië.......'
'VS trainingsnetwerk voor terroristen in Syrië.......'
Mijn excuus voor de belabberde vormgeving, krijg het niet op orde.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten