|
It's not forgotten by anyone, to be honest. I suppose this ties into more of your "theories."
That said, I wish we hadn't inserted ourselves into that Syrian mess.
Nothing like that. The article quotes newspaper headlines by reputable publications that state that the USA is not arming the rebels and they are the same papers that originally published the story that we are and have been arming those rebels. Now why would that be?
Nothing like that. The article quotes newspaper headlines by reputable publications that state that the USA is not arming the rebels and they are the same papers that originally published the story that we are and have been arming those rebels. Now why would that be?
And there's plenty that say the opposite, so where does that leave us?
It's funny, it's almost as if the mainstream media are doing the tango around the facts to keep the informed public on the edge of their seats to get more hits on the internet, sell more papers, and sell more magazines.
It's not a bad thing to bring up though on your part.
We should stick to arming the drug cartels and let the Iranians and Russians arm the ME "moderates".
Mornin Ttwtt. :2wave: Well it didn't help with ISIS and at first Al Nusra.....just gangsterin the arms and weapons from the Syrian Rebel/Terrorists. We even had material up on Rebel commanders that wanted to bring sharia Law to Syria. That al nusra was the Rebels toughest fighting force. So they just told whoever to give them whatever. Which the Rebels did.
Even had Syrian Rebels admit they were getting the Weapons from Libya. Especially the man-pads.
Many of the weapons and militants have joined up with IS. I presume it must be part of the plan, because our gov't has all the money and brainy people in the World working to solve/cause these problems for some geopolitical objective. The gist of the post is that in 2012 the Media was admitting we were arming Islamic Militants and then for several years after tries to deny/obfuscate that fact. Fer krissakes, these are news reporters, not amateurs. When you are being fed lies, they are part of an agenda. The fact that the lies come from the MSM should make one pause. Can the MSM be trusted on anything? I think not.
President Obama extends national emergency with respect to the actions of Syria declared in Executive Order 13338.....
On May 7, 2014 the SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House of Representatives the following message from the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:
To The Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency, unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the actions of the Government of Syria declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004–as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006, Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008, Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011, Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011, Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011, Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012, and Executive Order 13608 of May 1, 2012–is to continue in effect beyond May 11, 2014.....snip~
President Obama extends national emergency with respect to the actions of Syria declared in Executive Order 13338 | News, US | GroundReport.com – Latest World News & Opinions
Found it.
Of course this is 2 1/2 years since we started arming and funding the Islamic rebels. All I can do is keep repeating "perception management and the CIA" until people wake up and realize they are being bamboozled on a daily basis. The truth was accidently slipped through in 2012 and for the next few years contradictory articles appear to adjust the perception. That would be "perception management." It is not accidental.
No its not accidental.....but who do you think it the cause for the change in terminology? Wasn't the old school reporters and journalists. So Who does that leave? Who is all about changing terminology and going all PC like?
It means that some faction of the government has gained control of the "Editorial review" policy in the major media (MSM). In 1977 the Church Committee found 400 CIA assets and agents operating in USA media. That was the tip of the iceberg. It will have expanded exponentially since then because of bigger budgets and a more organized method. A lot of the groundwork was laid after 9-11 through the Patriot Act and has grown like a cancer. The bullcrap, misinformation, lies, stenographers posing as news reporters(Judith Miller, Brown, etal), built the system that substitutes for news today. Damn shame.
Is it because it can't be blamed on Bush that it must be denied at all cost?
Are you insinuating the mainstream press means to suppress the failures of the Obama administration's arming of "moderate" Syrian rebels because it can't be deflected as a product of the Bush administration, that there is a media conspiracy afoot against Bush and the general Republican base?
This sounds like something I'd hear from a conservative political "analyst" raving on some right wing haven of a news website.
It's very colorful, I'll give you that.
In early 2012 the US missed a huge opportunity to support genuinely moderate (and largely secular) opponents of the Asad regime. Our failure to do so created the opportunity for extremists to supplant them as the regime's principal opponents.
Predictably these "moderates" turned out to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda. So basically should we be arming Al-Qaeda?* US Backing for 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels: Long Reported, Continually Forgotten :* Information Clearing House - ICH
"• New York Times (5/4/13): "President [Obama] seems to be moving closer to providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, even though he rejected such a policy just months ago."• New York Times (5/4/13): "President [Obama] seems to be moving closer to providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, even though he rejected such a policy just months ago."
US Backing for 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels: Long Reported, Continually Forgotten
By Adam Johnson
February 25, 2015 "ICH" - "Fair" - That the US is arming and training Syrian rebels has been well-documented for over two years, yet Western media have historically suffered from a strange collective amnesia when reporting this fact. As Ian Sinclair noted last September in the Huffington Post (9/23/14):
• Guardian (5/8/13): "The US, which has outlawed al-Nusra as a terrorist group, has hesitated to arm the FSA [Free Syrian Army]."…
• New York Times (9/9/14): "Mr Obama has resisted military engagement in Syria for more than three years, out of fear early on that arming the rebels who oppose Mr. Assad would fail to alter the balance in the civil war."
• BBC Today Programme (9/11/14), presenter Mishal Husein to US ambassador: "If you [the US] had helped the moderate Syrian opposition, the Free Syrian Army, three years ago, even two years ago, we might well not be in the position that we are now. President Obama's reluctance to intervene and to take action on Syria has contributed to what we are seeing now."
• Guardian (5/8/13): "The US, which has outlawed al-Nusra as a terrorist group, has hesitated to arm the FSA [Free Syrian Army]."…
• New York Times (9/9/14): "Mr Obama has resisted military engagement in Syria for more than three years, out of fear early on that arming the rebels who oppose Mr. Assad would fail to alter the balance in the civil war."
• BBC Today Programme (9/11/14), presenter Mishal Husein to US ambassador: "If you [the US] had helped the moderate Syrian opposition, the Free Syrian Army, three years ago, even two years ago, we might well not be in the position that we are now. President Obama's reluctance to intervene and to take action on Syria has contributed to what we are seeing now."
Should we be arming Islamic rebels?.
We've been doing this since 2012.
In early 2012 the US missed a huge opportunity to support genuinely moderate (and largely secular) opponents of the Asad regime. Our failure to do so created the opportunity for extremists to supplant them as the regime's principal opponents.
Predictably these "moderates" turned out to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda. So basically should we be arming Al-Qaeda?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?