Should US Ally with Al Qaeda in Syria?

Exclusive: The new U.S. “group think” is that Russian President Putin broke his promise to attack only the Islamic State when his warplanes hit other rebel targets in Syria. But Putin never limited which terrorists he’d hit and the targeted rebel coalition includes Al Qaeda’s affiliate, as Robert Parry reports.

By Robert Parry

The key sentence in The New York Times’ lead article about Russian airstrikes against Syrian rebel targets fell to the bottom of the story, five paragraphs from the end, where the Times noted in passing that the area north of Homs where the attacks occurred had been the site of an offensive by a coalition “including Nusra Front.”

What the Times didn’t say in that context was that Nusra Front is Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, an omission perhaps explained because this additional information would disrupt the righteous tone of the article, accusing Russia of bad faith in attacking rebel groups other than the Islamic State.

The World Trade Center's Twin Towers burning on 9/11. (Photo credit: National Park Service)

The World Trade Center’s Twin Towers burning on 9/11. (Photo credit: National Park Service)

But the Russians had made clear their intent was to engage in airstrikes against the mélange of rebel groups in which Al Qaeda as well as the Islamic State played prominent roles. The Times and the rest of the mainstream U.S. media are just playing games when they pretend otherwise.

Plus, the reality about Syria’s splintered rebel coalition is that it is virtually impossible to distinguish between the few “moderate” rebels and the many Sunni extremists. Indeed, many “moderates,” including some trained and armed by the CIA and Pentagon, have joined with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, even turning over U.S. weapons and equipment to this affiliate of the terrorist organization that attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. Lest we forget it was that event that prompted the direct U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

However, in recent months, the Israeli government and its American neoconservative allies have been floating trial balloons regarding whether Al Qaeda could be repackaged as Sunni “moderates” and become a de facto U.S. ally in achieving a “regime change” in Syria, ousting President Bashar al-Assad who has been near the top of the Israeli/neocon hit list for years.

A key neocon propaganda theme has been to spin the conspiracy theory that Assad and the Islamic State are somehow in cahoots and thus Al Qaeda represents the lesser evil. Though there is no evidence to support this conspiracy theory, it was even raised by Charlie Rose in his “60 Minutes” interview last Sunday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The reality is that the Islamic State and Al Qaeda have both been leading the fight to destroy the secular Assad government, which has fought back against both groups.

And, if these two leading terror groups saw a chance to raise their black flags over Damascus, they might well mend their tactical rifts. They would have much to gain by overthrowing Assad’s regime, which is the principal protector of Syria’s Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other “heretics.”

The primary dispute between Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, which began as “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” is when to start a fundamentalist caliphate. The Islamic State believes the caliphate can begin now while Al Qaeda says the priority should be mounting more terrorist attacks against the West.

Yet, if Damascus falls, the two groups could both get a measure of satisfaction: the Islamic State could busy itself beheadings the “heretics” while Al Qaeda could plot dramatic new terror attacks against Western targets, a grim win-win.

One might think that the U.S. government should focus on averting such an eventuality, but the hysterical anti-Russian bias of The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media means that whatever Putin does must be cast in the most negative light.

The Anti-Putin Frenzy

On Thursday, one CNN anchor ranted about Putin’s air force attacking “our guys,” i.e., CIA-trained rebels, and demanded to know what could be done to stop the Russian attacks. This frenzy was fed by the Times’ article, co-written by neocon national security correspondent Michael R. Gordon, a leading promoter of the Iraq-WMD scam in 2002.

The Times’ article pushed the theme that Russians were attacking the white-hatted “moderate” rebels in violation of Russia’s supposed commitment to fight the Islamic State only. But Putin never restricted his military support for the Assad government to attacks on the Islamic State.

Indeed, even the Times began that part of the story by citing Putin’s quote that Russia was acting “preventatively to fight and destroy militants and terrorists on the territories that they already occupied.” Putin did not limit Russia’s actions to the Islamic State.

But the Times’ article acts as if the phrase “militants and terrorists” could only apply to the Islamic State, writing: “But American officials said the attack was not directed at the Islamic State but at other opposition groups fighting against the [Syrian] government.”

Unless The New York Times no longer believes that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, the Times’ phrasing doesn’t make sense. Indeed, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front has emerged as the lead element of the so-called Army of Conquest, a coalition of rebel forces which has been using sophisticated U.S. weaponry including TOW missiles to achieve major advances against the Syrian military around the city of Idlib.

The weaponry most likely comes from U.S. regional allies, since Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other Sunni-led Gulf states have been supporting Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other Sunni rebel groups in Syria. This reality was disclosed in a Defense Intelligence Agency report and was blurted out by Vice President Joe Biden.

On Oct. 2, 2014, Biden told an audience at Harvard’s Kennedy School: “our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria the Saudis, the emirates, etc., what were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” [Quote at 53:20 of clip.]

Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front also has benefited from a de facto alliance with Israel which has taken in wounded Nusra fighters for medical treatment and then returned them to the battlefield around the Golan Heights. Israel also has carried out airstrikes inside Syria in support of Nusra’s advances, including killing Hezbollah and Iranian advisers helping the Syrian government.

The Israeli airstrikes inside Syria, like those conducted by the United States and its allies, are in violation of international law because they do not have the permission of the Syrian government, but those Israeli and U.S. coalition attacks are treated as right and proper by the mainstream U.S. media in contrast to the Russian airstrikes, which are treated as illicit even though they are carried out at the invitation of Syria’s recognized government.

Obama’s Choice

Ultimately, President Barack Obama will have to decide if he wants to cooperate with Russia and Iran in beating back Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other jihadists or realign U.S. policy in accord with Israel’s obsession with “regime change” in Syria, even if that means a victory by Al Qaeda. In other words, should the United States come full circle in the Middle East and help Al Qaeda win?

Preferring Al Qaeda over Assad is the Israeli position embraced by many neocons, too. The priority for the Israeli/neocon strategy has been to seek “regime change” in Syria as a way to counter Iran and its support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, both part of Shia Islam.

According to this thinking, if Assad, an Alawite, a branch of Shia Islam, can be removed, a new Sunni-dominated regime in Syria would disrupt Hezbollah’s supply lines from Iran and thus free up Israel to act more aggressively against both the Palestinians and Iran.

For instance, if Israel decides to crack down again on the Palestinians or bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, it now has to worry about Hezbollah in southern Lebanon raining down missiles on major Israeli cities. However, if Hezbollah’s source of Iranian missiles gets blocked by a new Sunni regime in Damascus, the worry of Hezbollah attacks would be lessened.

Israel’s preference for Al Qaeda over Assad has been acknowledged by senior Israeli officials for the past two years though never noted in the U.S. mainstream media. In September 2013, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in an interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with Al Qaeda.

And, in June 2014, then speaking as a former ambassador at an Aspen Institute conference, Oren expanded on his position, saying Israel would even prefer a victory by the brutal Islamic State over continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said. [See’s “Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and Israel.”]

So, that is the choice facing President Obama and the American people. Despite the misleading reporting by The New York Times, CNN and other major U.S. news outlets, the realistic options are quite stark: either work with Russia, Iran and the Syrian military to beat back the Sunni jihadists in Syria (while seeking a power-sharing arrangement in Damascus that includes Assad and some of his U.S.-backed political rivals) — or take the side of Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists, including the Islamic State, with the goal of removing Assad and hoping that the mythical “moderate” rebels might finally materialize and somehow wrest control of Damascus.

Though I’m told that Obama privately has made the first choice, he is so fearful of the political reaction from neocons and their “liberal interventionist” pals that he feels he must act like a tough guy ridiculing Putin and denouncing Assad.

The danger from this duplicitous approach is that Obama’s penchant for talking out of multiple sides of his mouth might end up touching off a confrontation between nuclear-armed America and nuclear-armed Russia, a crisis that his verbal trickery might not be able to control.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

64 comments for “Should US Ally with Al Qaeda in Syria?

  1. October 12, 2015 at 18:49

    I don’t understand the logic of the West, some middle east countries nor Israel. I understand why Russia would back Assad. But there is no coalition of rebel forces who would live peacefully with the rest of the world that is going to take over the country if Assad falls. Yes, Assad is a brutal dictator, but Isis (not a moderate rebel force) is currently in control over 1/3 of the country. Al Qaeda which is the second strongest rebel force who is an enemy of the West and Israel is now being used to fight other enemies.

    There are no lesser evils here, all three are brutal, all three present a major problem for the rest of the world!

  2. Christopher C. Currie
    October 7, 2015 at 14:58

    The US foreign policy to train and equip insurgency forces to violently overthrow the UN-recognized government of Syria means that “we” (the United States Government) have been the AGGRESSORS in that situation. It is as if our government is being run by Ho Chi Minh, which is nothing to be proud of.

    Instead of seeking “regime change” in Syria, the US Government SHOULD have worked WITH the Assad government (and the United Nations) to work out a peaceful solution in Syria, as it did regarding the removal Syria’s chemical weapons capability. The US Government is in many ways responsible for creating the violent anarchy in Syria.

  3. Abe
    October 2, 2015 at 18:17

    “You have a situation in Syria where opposition groups use Youtube to share videos and I fully expect to see Russian aircraft in those videos quite soon.”
    – Eliot Higgins

    • Mortimer
      October 3, 2015 at 15:21

      There is no appetite in Europe for more Middle East intervention. The public could care less about the people and nations involved. – James Lake
      Does this signify some dissolution of the “Atlantic Alliance” aka NATO, as the Euro’s are being overrun with Muslim “Strangers”/possible jihadists?

      Are those dreamers who departed Europe’s virtual paradise to join the barbaric jihadists hiding among the refugees? – with aspirations of suicide bombings…?

      Will the NATO Generals fall in line with LePens style Nationalist movement undercurrents
      flowing throughout Europe – fomenting racial discord as exists in the ‘United States’?

      This sample of questions and more lay/lie in wait as the world turns and bombs fall and ISIS decapitates and rapes beautiful people and mass murder escalates with impunity.

  4. bobzz
    October 2, 2015 at 17:52

    “…Obama…is so fearful of the political reaction from neocons and their “liberal interventionist” pals that he feels he must act like a tough guy ridiculing Putin and denouncing Assad. The danger from this duplicitous approach is that Obama’s penchant for talking out of multiple sides of his mouth might end up touching off a confrontation between nuclear-armed America and nuclear-armed Russia, a crisis that his verbal trickery might not be able to control.”

    Or the next President will use his words to justify his/her aggression. I’ll do what he only said he would do. Recall Ray McGovern’s vignette about Obama’s meeting with his contributors. When they asked what happened to the liberal Obama of 2008, he rose and said, “Don’t you remember Martin Luther King”? I wish that one could be substantiated.

    • Mortimer
      October 3, 2015 at 13:51

      Or perhaps he meant to infer – – don’t you remember JFK… ?

  5. paul wichmann
    October 2, 2015 at 16:42

    “Should US Ally with Al Qaeda in Syria?”

    Sure. As soon as US dismantles its / our police state, which flowered as a consequence of Al Qaeda’s assault on 9-11-01

    • Joe L.
      October 2, 2015 at 17:31

      Paul Wichmann… Isn’t the question “Should the US Ally with Al Qaeda in Syria?” kind of redundant given that US General Austin told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that there were only 4 or 5 moderate Syrian rebels fighting ISIS in Syria meanwhile the US feigns anger at Russia bombing forces other then ISIS in Syria (who else is there besides Al Qaeda, the Al Nusra Front)? Seems like US anger at Russia for seemingly bombing Al Qaeda in Syria kind of answers the question of whether the US should ally with Al Qaeda in Syria, or so it would seem.

  6. Blasphemer, adulterer, pork eater
    October 2, 2015 at 16:20

    Does anyone remember the early 2000s? Remember how frightening, awful, despicable, destructive and EVIL Al Qaeda was? I guess the government and media did not really mean it all that much. But this whole matter, our government actively supporting al qaeda against whomever, it is like all those right-wing despots and dictatorships the u.s. supported all during the Cold War. Communism must have been a state, a condition, so terrible, so evil, that killing pregnant women and children and everyone and everything was the only choice. Syria under its despot Assad is so bad that we must now support al qaeda against it? Hm. Well, if that’s what “they” say. Anyway, anyone ever notice what an ignorant boob and boneheaded buffoon charlie rose is?

    • Joe Tedesky
      October 2, 2015 at 16:52

      On 9/11 the U.S. made special arrangements to fly the visiting Bin Laden family safely out of America. Would keeping the Bin Laden’s here not have been a good bargaining tool to get Osama to surrender?

  7. Lorraine B.
    October 2, 2015 at 16:10

    I despise those murderous neocon hypocrites. We fought wars for over 12 years AGAINST al Qaeda and now our “ally” Israel and the Z-firsters are saying we should play footsie with them to beat Assad? So Israel can waltz thru in the continuing RPB / conquest of the so-called promised land? Not over my dead army veteran body. A pox on their lying, scheming, manipulative hasbarbaric heads. If Russia succeeds in it’s plan to vanquish ISIS, Putin for President of the world.

  8. Bob Van Noy
    October 2, 2015 at 15:55

    Why We Need Transparency

    Did anyone, after reading about Mr. Brzezinski’s theories approve or dissent? Have his peers discussed his thinking? If so, do they agree? What right does Mr. Brzezinski have to organize our future to his way of thinking? Have we elected him? Does President Obama approve of his take of the past and our future? Mr Obama speak up; let us know what you think of your advisor We need to know what you seem to know and approve of; but we do not.

    I am impressed by Mr. Putin, not only is he clearly a Russian patriot but he is flexible enough to understand American patriotism as well. That is the very description of a diplomat. Diplomacy used to be an esteemed category, that is, before Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, and Margaret Thatcher brought new meaning to it. What made them so bitter, is their excuse WWII? That happened to all of us.

    In Japan markers were built, “High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants,” the stone slab reads. “Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point,” only to be ignored by a more contemporary generation. Generationally we never learn. We ignore rising oceans as though we know more than our planet knows. We live in peril not because we don’t know our earth and ourselves but because we choose to ignore what we see and know.

    My Grand Chessboard Move: Stop warring. Learn to live like a thinking, loving people, learn, act, and to understand. Have we not learned that?

    Perhaps Mr Brzezinski, like George Bush, has a special relationship with god or maybe he thinks he is a god. If so, we need to hear more from him so that we may decide for ourselves. Unfortunately those who have payed the ultimate price for his theories, cannot respond… Mr. Brzezinski is forcing us to live in a world of his understanding; I for one refuse.

    Thank you Robert Parry and Consortium News.

    • F. G. Sanford
      October 2, 2015 at 23:46

      Here’s my take on Brzezinski. Mackinder came up with the concept of the “earth-island” in about 1905, and wowed the Royal Society. If you take a globe off the stand and turn it just right, you’ll see that you can make Eurasia dominate the visible part. All other geopolitical areas are handicapped by a need to combine land and maritime routes to engage in commerce. But not Eurasia. Germans invented the notion of “Geopolitik”, which correlated racial and cultural predisposition to geographic factors. Karl Haushoffer was a WWI General who developed the concept of “Lebensraum” or literally “living space”, and incorporated it into German Geopolitik. Rudolf Hess was his student, and introduced him to Hitler, who incorporated Lebensraum into his ideology. Britain, America and the Far East were all essentially “maritime” powers, but Germany, as a land power, could dominate by controlling the “earth island”. The only problem was Russia. Brzezinski, a Polish noble believing himself to have been dispossessed of his family wealth, title and prestige, has a pathological hatred of Russia. JUST MY OPINION: Brzezinski’s geopolitical theories are plagiarized from Karl Haushoffer, though he is careful to submerge the racial and ideological overtones that may imply. His Eurasian domination key to world politics is just a little too tidy. I regard him as a crypto-ideologue.

      • Bob Van Noy
        October 3, 2015 at 00:43

        Thanks for the background F.G. Sanford, I’ve come to expect the exceptional from you…

        “I regard him as a crypto-ideologue.” Love it, kind of like William F. Buckley, darling of the neocons being a crypto-nazi. I’m not really bright like many scholars that I know but I suspect that the Social Sciences are not Real Science, or if they are, they should prove they are, with something like peer review. So a german intellect in1905 declares he has discovered the earth island and Brzezinski.picks up on that theme and makes it a geopolitical philosophy: hundreds die, he survives to write on, having payed no price for his flawed theory, where is the justice in that?
        Again, like Alan Greenspan and Milton Freedman all so self assured, all wrong, all bringing great destruction to our society. Where is the justice that…

    • dahoit
      October 8, 2015 at 11:59

      Were any of those stone markers at Fukushima?
      Brzezinski is an illegal alien.Or should have been.How a Pole can advise America on Russian relations is like having victims on a jury.

  9. Abe
    October 2, 2015 at 13:52

    Contrary to popular belief, American policy is not created by politicians either in the Oval Office or in Congress. Instead, doctrine, war plans, domestic and foreign economic policy, and geopolitical and strategic plans laid out for years to come, originate in corporate-financier funded think tanks and among the army of academics, industry leaders, and other lobbyists of special interests employed by them. These think tanks and the policymakers that work within them are unelected, transcending political party lines, and political administrations.

    The fact that a Democratic US president expanded the wars of his Republican predecessor, and provoked those this Republican opponents failed to implement during their term, illustrates perfectly the continuity of agenda prevalent in Western politics. Like the US often accuses its competitors around the world, the United States itself is ruled by an oligarchy of special interests who simply dress up their singular agenda as partisan politics to maintain the illusion of representative governance.

    Their wars which in reality serve the singular purpose of achieving and maintaining global geopolitical socioeconomic hegemony are dressed up as “defending the homeland” under Republicans, and “humanitarian interventions” under Democrats. In following the unwarranted wealth and influence wrought from such wars, it can be seen clearly for what purpose they are truly waged.

    Thus, the criticism from across American foreign policy circles in the wake of the UN General Assembly, reveals precisely where America’s true problems lie. It was their policy that President Obama was attempting to present to the world at the UN General Assembly. President Obama wasn’t upstaged because he is a poor orator or because he depends on incompetent speechwriters, but because nothing the United States is truly doing around the world could be honestly presented to the public, leaving only the same tired rhetoric and boundless hypocrisy that even the least observant among us are beginning to notice.

    This can best be illustrated in Syria, where the United States claims to be committed to defeating terrorism, all while it transparently supports terrorist militants in its goal to overthrow the government in Damascus. Thus, President Obama’s talking points during the UN General Assembly regarding Syria rang particularly hollow. Conversely, when Russia stated that it planned to defeat terrorism in Syria, the world could already see clearly that it has been Russia supporting the only force within Syria’s borders confronting terrorism – the government in Damascus.

    US Upstaged at UN General Assembly – Who’s to Blame?
    By Tony Cartalucci

    • Joe L.
      October 2, 2015 at 17:38

      Abe… Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t there a meeting just after WW2 in the US by all of the heads of the major US corporations who were pushing for a permanent war economy in the US? I swear that I saw or read that somewhere… possibly in Oliver Stone’s documentary series the “Untold History of the United States”. Maybe I will have to see if I can find that episode. In essence, I believe that we don’t really live in democracies and maybe we never really did but rather we are living in plutocracies. I even see talk of fascism in the western world, I don’t know if we are quite there yet but there are definitely hints of it.

    • Abe
      October 2, 2015 at 23:49

      The Origins of the Permanent War Economy

  10. Joe L.
    October 2, 2015 at 10:31

    I just wonder at what point the American people are going to get really angry at the US government or reject what it is saying? What is it going to take? Do the American people hate Russia so much that they are willing to support “Al Qaeda”, even though the anniversary of 9/11 was less then 1 month ago, in Syria? Seriously, what is it going to take because I am just truly dumbfounded how far the stupidity has actually gone with people still believing in and supporting the US government. I just don’t know how much lower the situation in the Middle East can truly sink. Over 14 years of bombing in the Middle East in 7 countries which has led to a refugee crisis, an exodus, seemingly the US might actually be supporting Al Qaeda (which it actually helped create in the first place), and yet even among all of this insanity the US press still spins it and the American people still largely believe the lie. Maybe ignorance is strength where US government interests are concerned. Wow…

    • Bob Van Noy
      October 2, 2015 at 10:45

      I think we’re almost there Joe L. Bernie may be the guy to being light, or put it out if he’s not for real.

      • Bob Van Noy
        October 2, 2015 at 10:47


      • Joe L.
        October 2, 2015 at 11:01

        Bob Van Noy… I hope you are right but I have heard that Bernie’s foreign policy is not very good as well. I am Canadian and we are having an election on October 19th and I think most of our government is off its’ rocker but then I see the Republican race or even listen to people like Hillary Clinton etc. and it makes our politicians look sane. What is encouraging is that it seems that people are starting to reject the mainstream media but at the same time you can see the US government, along with other governments, trying to subvert supposed independent media as well. For me, I do actually watch RT from time to time but also I will read articles on Al Jazeera or Press TV and lately I have been watching English programs on Telesur from South America just to get a different perspective – along with Consortium News because I think our media, the western media, has lost all semblance of sanity in this day and age. I’m actually to the point now that I fully support the rise of China, who seems to be using soft power around the world with creating infrastructure rather then using bombs, and other countries simply to provide a counterbalance to us. Maybe we will start to gain more sense when we are not the only game in town because “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This is just craziness, the refugee crisis in Europe and the US being angry that Russia bombed Al Qaeda in Syria.

        • Bob Van Noy
          October 2, 2015 at 13:18

          Thanks Joe L. New Deal Democrats like me have been cooped many times; both legally and illegally, so I’m no longer surprised by fake candidates. If Bernie is the candidate, and is another right Republicans; We’re sunk, and I will be w/o hope.

        • Joe Tedesky
          October 2, 2015 at 16:46

          Joe L. after reading your comments here, I have too tell you how things maybe changing (a bit). This week since Sunday nights airing of the Charlie Rose interview with Putin, several people I know have said how they think Putin makes sense. Also, since Russia has started bombing the terrorists, and especially since it is now well out in the open (thanks to the WSJ & John McCain) that the terrorist are CIA assets, well…. this caught the attention of these friends of mine, I am referring to. All, of these friends of mine are disgusted with how the U.S. has conducted itself in regard to all these wars. They, seem to feel that maybe Putin has it right, after seeing Russia in action, and listening to Putin’s words. A year ago I would have thought how Putin could never influence these people I am talking about, but there again life is full of surprises. Just for the record, the friends I mention here, are anything but liberal. To be honest, these certain individual’s are more to center right of the political spectrum than left, if you know what I mean. I think if people were to get a more honest account of the news, things would be much different. Our problem in the western nations is our news media is corrupted by influential parties. We need news outlets to be more independent of sponsors who wield their commercial weight to push their own agendas (Boeing, GE, etc.). America, would do well to split up all these mega-corporate profiteers, and make them smaller and more effective to the commons. When, I did business with my father’s generation, there was always someone in the room who would ask, “now how does this benefit our community”. My generation, was more about layoff’s and profits only. The older generation use to say to me, “long after price is forgotten, quality will be remembered”. Maybe we could tweak that to say, “long after profits are spend, people should be rewarded”. If this kind of mine set should become popular, then and only then will we lift all boats. These corporations ignore to often that there are people who suffer from their decisions that they make within their boardrooms. Now, how to tell this to the Brookings Institute!

          • Joe L.
            October 2, 2015 at 18:01

            Joe Tedesky… Well that is a little semblance of hope and hopefully not an anomaly. The story of good guys and bad guys has become so twisted at this point that it amazes me that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can believe the story. It is even more amazing that meanwhile the US feigns anger at Russia for bombing Al Qaeda in Syria that the western media can still try to spin it. Do you think that the media will try and convince us that this is the “good Al Qaeda”, the “good terrorists” – a complete oxymoron? Though they won’t be terrorists anymore, they will be “freedom fighters”…

            Makes me wonder if Americans hate of Russia will obfuscate Americans hatred of Al Qaeda? Seems, at least with your friends, that Al Qaeda is the bigger threat and maybe they are waking to the reality of what levels the US government will go to push for “regime change” to further its’ own economic and geopolitical interests. Hopefully if they are disgusted by these recent events then they will revisit history to come to the realization of an American Empire, Pax Americana.

          • Joe L.
            October 2, 2015 at 18:33

            Joe Tedesky… One other thing that I was really surprised that it squeaked through was Ben Swann’s report for “Reality Check” on CBS. If you have not seen it then I highly suggest that you watch it because it delivered the most truth that I think I have ever seen from our mainstream media in the western world, but you can judge that for yourself:


          • Joe Tedesky
            October 2, 2015 at 20:15

            That CBS clip is great. Back between 1985&89 CBS aired a program called West 57th Street. The show ran an investigative series where Air Force pilots were talking about freights they flow up from South America and delivering in U.S. American places …they were bringing in cocaine. Crazy stuff naming like Vice Presidents and high up people who knew, or ordered these flights. It wasn’t long after the show went off the air, and no other CBS news show ever reported this story in such a manner. I’m not saying the show was removed by a shadow government, but forget the show, where did the narrative go? Like hold on too that little ray of light, and never let it go. After that clip the network should have run a story about the General Allen Erdogan Bromance thing that went on this pass summer. Good video.

          • Bob Van Noy
            October 2, 2015 at 21:18

            Bless your heart Joe Tedesky you always provide an opening for me to run through. Could you be alluding to Iran Contra arms for drugs run out of Ronnies basement by Poppy and Oliver North flown out of an airport in Bill’s state…?

          • Joe Tedesky
            October 3, 2015 at 00:26

            Yes Bob, I am. Considering this is Robert Parry’s specialty it seems appropriate.

  11. Mortimer
    October 2, 2015 at 09:49

    “So, that is the choice facing President Obama and the American people. Despite the misleading reporting by The New York Times, CNN and other major U.S. news outlets, the realistic options are quite stark: either work with Russia, Iran and the Syrian military to beat back the Sunni jihadists in Syria (while seeking a power-sharing arrangement in Damascus that includes Assad and some of his U.S.-backed political rivals) — or take the side of Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists,… ”

    ACTUAL FACTS on the ground hint to a possible US defeat in the attempt create *A NEW MIDDLE EAST*
    Their dependable Arab ally, super-rich, weapons buying Saudi Arabia is facing a great implosion from within as civil war inside The Kingdom is now in effect.
    Will we send “military advisors” to protect The Kingdom or sit and watch More internecine warfare?

    When oh when will these neocon architects of doom recognize the error in their assumption that they could “create reality?”

    • Mortimer
      October 2, 2015 at 10:07


      Full Disclosure,
      a good night’s sleep
      under the spell
      of transparency.
      An Open Sky,
      the rest of trust
      beneath the wealth
      of stars.

      Presidential priviliege,
      burning midnight oil
      covering a web
      of secrecy –
      Behind the scenes
      executive braintrusts
      with covert powers
      of deception.

      Replace my Haven
      with slogans of terror
      which they’ve concocted
      in error
      And in their dream
      of ruling the world,
      their plans’ve created
      a Nightmare.

      • Bob Van Noy
        October 2, 2015 at 10:40

        Thanks for that Mortimer, I’m still trying to recover from your introduction of Zbigniew Brzezinsk, from the other day. As nearly as I can tell a dispicable man…

  12. ConsortiumNews
    October 2, 2015 at 09:20

    Posted on behalf of Peter Loeb:


    Who (which nations) have the inalienable “right”
    to invade and topple other nations of their choice?

    Only the US and its friends and dependents it
    would seem.

    If, for example, The US were being attacked
    by “foreigners” with the intent to topple its
    government, would the US have the “right”
    to ask Russia to help fight for survival?

    Or Israel?

    Or any nation at all?

    And what about the UN despite the fact that no one
    ever follows “international law”?

    Evidently, the only nation which can decide to
    invade any other nation is the US and friends.
    At a place and time of its own choosing.

    Losing is not an option. So while this is going
    on, no one can defend themselves against
    any collection of self-proclaimed white hats.

    The US never loses. Ever. Not one tank, not
    one soldier.

    No, I suppose President Obama, if attacked,
    would HAVE to agree to “transition” which
    is to say an agreement with its invaders
    to vacate any and all authority Why?
    For “peace” of course!!!


    More formally, I would refer to S/Res/2139(2014)
    point # 14 which passed the Security Council
    in February of last year UNANIMOUSLY. The US
    agreed with all the other nations to assist embattled
    UN Sovereign Member State, Syria (Bashar al
    Assad) .


    I do not think Obama has any “choice” at all in the
    sense that either his basic nature combined with
    his reliance on Israel and Israeli-supporting neocons
    have already chosen for him.

    —Before Russia entered the picture, US MSM was
    furiously running pieces about the inevitability of the
    fall of the Assad regime. (Applause! For “our” victory

    Robert Parry’s article above is an excellent summation
    of the absurd and (to borrow a phrase) “desperate”
    actions of the western governments who only
    weeks ago felt poised on the brink of inexorable

    And those who support the secular Assad regime, what
    of them? It seems that they are the majority. At any rate
    they are never heard from.

    As I have asked in the past, are the “war refugees”(=
    . “migrants) fleeing Assad or the lethal forces which
    the US, Israel and others are supporting?

    —–Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • dahoit
      October 8, 2015 at 11:49

      As they weren’t deserting Syria prior to our destabilization,demonization,and elimination campaign,I’ll go with the latter,the CIA lethal terrorists.
      The MSM’s total failure to critique US involvement with terrorist groups alleged to have murdered and maimed thousands of Americans is bound to have some effect on the American sheeple,at least one hopes.
      Friends now,and friends then?9-11?
      And the obvious Zionist protective order regarding such.

  13. Neil CLARKE
    October 2, 2015 at 05:15

    What the MSM seems to have missed in their frenzy is that their so-called CIA backed “moderates” attacked by the Russians in the town of Rastan were the very same “moderates” who as Islamic State were reported to have executed seven people accused of being gay.


    Watch this inconvenient truth as it is deleted from the Web

  14. incontinent reader
    October 1, 2015 at 22:13

    It is absolute lunacy to pretend that Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq are not terrorists committing terrorists acts, and the very fact that we helped give birth to that movement, and have been clandestinely allied with many of the groups under the Al Qaeda umbrella is an expression of our original sin(s), although born of ignorance not of knowledge- and in the case of John McCain (and Hillary Clinton, and so many others), born of not only ignorance, but of their own pathology and the mental sepsis that goes with it. Chris Stevens was killed because of it, and people like Robert Ford and Jeffrey Feltman cultivated the relationship with those types to spread chaos in Syria and overthrow Assad- and let’s not forget Ford’s complicity with his former boss John Negroponte in those mass assassinations and torture in Iraq.

    So, more power to the Russians for coming to the rescue of the oppressed in Syria to slay our dragon. I’ve always wondered why the people at the top who doubtless had to study Beowulf in their high priced prep schools never understood its underlying thesis, or if they did, took heed to learn anything from it.

    • Bob Van Noy
      October 1, 2015 at 23:30

      Your last paragraph is precisely what I think esp. your comment about people at the top. See my exchange with Mortimer here : More Anti-Russian Bias at the NYT on this site; follow his links and review advice, it is stunning and (warning) depressing.

    • dahoit
      October 8, 2015 at 11:14

      Stevens was facilitating the jihadis.Why would they kill him?I still think it possible they were Khaddafi loyalists,in payback.

  15. Zachary Smith
    October 1, 2015 at 19:39

    “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

    Actually, Israel wants a terrorist regime in power in Syria. And the worse it is, the better. The 1948 and 1967 land grabs didn’t have even a fig leaf to cover the stealing, but driving out terrorist evildoers in former Syria would give Israel all the cover it needs to send the army North and steal the land and water there. Naturally there would be another huge surge of refugees from the New Nakba.

    What worries me about a potential confrontation of Russia and the US is how the US Air Force Academy has been a nest of Christianists for many years now. Any one of those devout nuts could cause us all an awful lot of trouble.

  16. Gregory Kruse
    October 1, 2015 at 18:54

    The Russian people seem to be behind the rational action of Vladimir

    • Joe Tedesky
      October 1, 2015 at 22:07

      I wish Putin would take this to the next level. How about a TV series with one hour episodes. Possibly, Vlad would hire Oliver Stone to produce & direct this project. Have guest host each week, maybe Oprah Winfrey, and then why not the Pope. Each show would expose the real story behind the lies, such as; the Assassination Era (JFK,MLK,RFK, X,etc) or what really went on with 9/11.

      If the U.S. was to join with Russia against the CIA proxy terrorist in Syria, would the U.S. Goverment be liable to pay those deceased proxy mercenaries death benefits? Maybe the U.S. could pay these creeps a bonus, then kill them.

      As far as the Russian people and their leader Putin, I’m wondering about the same thing. I wish a Russian who visits this site would let us know a little about that. My guess, is America’s warring actions does have an overwhelming way of uniting people. My understanding of this phenomena is it is happening to work out that way in Syria.

      • Taiga
        October 9, 2015 at 19:21

        @Joe Tedesky
        “As far as the Russian people and their leader Putin, I’m wondering about the same thing. I wish a Russian who visits this site would let us know a little about that. My guess, is America’s warring actions does have an overwhelming way of uniting people. My understanding of this phenomena is it is happening to work out that way in Syria.”

        A little comment about Americans and Russians.
        In the first interview (done by American journalist) – only one guy refused to sign petition to nuke Russia.
        Same setting only in Russia (actually, May-June, Crimea), interview is in Russian. The idea is that only one person out of 30+people have signed petition to nuke USA. He emphasized few times that Russia should nuke states only if they throw bomb first. The rest were saying that we “trust Putin, he knows what to do”. Also, people were commenting that only crazy will use nuclear weapon. They kept refusing to sign petition in spite provoke questions and pressure from the journalist…
        Sometimes i question mental level of Americans. But that what media keeps doing, makes people not to use their brain. As I say: “Keep watching Kardashian show”…
        Today sociologists released data showing that 60% of Russian people support bombing Syria. Do not forget that Syria is not that far from Russia.

  17. Joe L.
    October 1, 2015 at 18:43

    One question, the fact that the US is upset that Russia not only bombed ISIS but the Al Nusra Front suggest that the US is “already” aligned with Al Qaeda in Syria? Thoughts?

    • F. G. Sanford
      October 1, 2015 at 20:18

      I had a thought pretty consistent with yours, but it’s “awaiting moderation”. I hate when that happens…

    • Joe L.
      October 2, 2015 at 11:26

      F. G. Sanford & Abbybwood… I don’t know if you watched this or not but I thought that Ben Swann on CBS’s “Reality Check” did the best the job that I could see explaining what is really going on in the Middle East, I was actually shocked to see this on CBS:

  18. A T Drinker
    October 1, 2015 at 18:25

    Only Murkans could be so moronic and naive as to swallow that one. It’s high time you people woke up before you destroy the world while watching wrassling

    • RRR
      October 5, 2015 at 15:15

      Every NATO country and beyond is getting the same snow job. People refuse to think about it. “What can I do about it” is all I hear…”well just start talking about it to people and raise awareness” is all I ask anyone to do about it and “think about your children”

      • dahoit
        October 8, 2015 at 11:12

        Why;Because every NATO nation has a Zionist owned media.
        Until we purge these crazy wackos,we are screwed.

  19. Joe L.
    October 1, 2015 at 17:54

    Is it just me or didn’t US generals say that there were only something like 5 moderate Syrian rebels in Syria? So basically the United States is upset that Russia is not only bombing ISIS but Al Qaeda, the Al Nusra Front, in Syria – that is at least my take! I just don’t know how much more decrepit this situation can get and I really question the level of intelligence of anyone to believe a single thing coming out of the US administration especially when it is upset that anyone is bombing Al Qaeda let alone people like Petraeus suggesting supporting Al Qaeda in Syria (9/11 ring any bells?). This is just incredibly stupid and I quickly checked out an article on CBS about this very subject and so many people are upset that Obama is not stronger with Russia. Seriously how stupid are people these days or was there a swathe of US government propagandists swamping their social media? I saw one guy that laid it out just I see it about the US being upset that Russia is bombing Al Qaeda but it seems like a lot are more upset that the US is not stronger with Russia. We are living in some fairy tale or something these days. The “legal” Syrian government “asked” Russia to help in the fight against terrorists in its’ country meanwhile our nations, myself being Canadian, who are “illegally” bombing in Syria are upset that Russia is bombing the arm of Al Qaeda that seemingly we are supporting in the effort for regime change. So twisted… I even saw, I believe, a US official suggesting Russia be brought up on war crimes in Syria – seriously!

    • jeff armstrong
      October 3, 2015 at 04:04

      Not just that, but it was Al Nusra that decimated the carefully-vetted moderates on whom 1/2 billion dollars was lavished. And how does the US respond? By threatening Assad should he dare attack these five superhuman fighters ( who would easily vanquish ISIS and Assad with their hands tied behind their backs, if not for the meddling Russians. The moderates are a mere cover for the funneling of arms to Al Nusra (al Qaeda) along with the Orwellian media doublespeak of AQ as the lesser evil, rather than the supposed target of the imperial crusades to begin with.

    • RRR
      October 5, 2015 at 15:12

      As a Canadian, I would think that in the Middle of an Election, something like this would knock the Harper government out of the water. Not a ripple…I posted it around some websites and only one person responded to it. To check out the sources themselves. Then finally, Cleminga (sp) wrote a story in his blog about it. Canada had to courage to say no to Iraq and begrudgingly agreed to Afghanistan as, They are our neighbours and they were attacked.” None of this militarism ever existed in Canada. Not in my sixty years. And I am quite sure a great many more financial crimes have been committed by this government than the terrible one’s we already know about. Like these trade deals that Harper “negotiates” Saudi Arabia owns our Wheat Board. Who knows what he gave China. And those were in the open. This latest TPP is just going to devastate us. I would cancel all of these deals as “Odious” committed by a criminal regime. End of Story.

      • Joe L.
        October 6, 2015 at 01:06

        RRR… As a Canadian, I am astounded how far Harper has gone with this country. I personally am so upset at the Canadian government for breaking international law by bombing in Syria and I think it is ignorance on the part of Canada not to realize that this refugee crisis is the result of bombing in country after country along with regime change. I actually just read today that Harper used to belong to a group called the “Northern Foundation” which supported the racist South African government, supported apartheid, and was opposed to the release of Nelson Mandela. That is our Prime Minister and I also agree that the TPP is great for corporations but will be bad for the rest of us. Anyway, I am voting NDP and hopefully we can get rid of this Conservative government.

  20. F. G. Sanford
    October 1, 2015 at 17:52

    I usually agree 100% with Mr. Parry, but in this case, I can only muster 99%. The pursuit of a de facto relationship with Sunni elements by repackaging Al Qaida as moderates would actually be the establishment of a de jure relationship. A de facto relationship has existed for a long time as the contents of that DIA memo so troublingly elaborate. The strategy aimed at perpetuating the insoluble befuddlement of the average American includes a list of synonyms which, despite what may be some real distinctions, all refer to elements of Al Qaida. We have Army of Conquest, Corason Group, Al Nusra, Jabhat al Nusra, Nusra Front, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh – there may be others. The general public’s knowledge is superficial enough that the latest strategy could work. It would be a new paradigm: “Regime Change by Name Change”, if you will. Kinda like Warren Wilhelm getting elected New York City Mayor by running as Bill deBlasio. Hey, Fiorello LaGuardia was on to something. But seriously, a couple of days ago, I read a blurb about US forces attacking the Taliban. In a moment of abject cynicism, I thought, “Yeah, I bet the Taliban they attacked were fighting ISIS.” Well, wouldn’t you just know it – that’s exactly what they were doing – protecting our Al Qaida investment. The hypocrisy of claiming that Putin is attacking “our terrorists” instead of “their terrorists” is just stunning. In Putin’s press conference, he explained that the forces in Syria are mainly mercenaries, and they fight for whoever pays them the most. He paused, and said, “I even know how much they are paid.” Putin uses words economically. That was coded language for, “I know who pays them, how many there are, who they work for, how the funds are transferred, and how much the competition is willing to pay.” Israel’s admission that it is functionally allied with – and would prefer a victory for – Al Qaida should come as no surprise. What does surprise me is that they are so cavalier about potentially legitimizing an array of esoteric speculation. The “esoteric speculationists” must be beside themselves. But lets face it – the mirror image of hypocrisy is chutzpah. All in all, Mr. Parry still gets an “A+” on this assignment.

    • Joe Tedesky
      October 2, 2015 at 10:18

      Good to see your comment finally made it through the moderation process. Have you any idea which think tank thought up the idea, of using these proxy army’s? I think these think tanks, and corporate America are running the show. Maybe instead of us voting, we would do better to boycott some corporate products. Have a good day F.G., and thanks for your comment.

    • Bob Van Noy
      October 2, 2015 at 10:25

      I agree with you F.G.Sanford about President Putin, I watched, against my better judgment, not 60 Minutes, but the two hour “Charlie Rose Show,” and at one point he expressly asks Charlie if h’d be quiet long enough for him (Putin) to explain why he is obligated to protect the interests of 14 Million Russians in neighboring countries. He specificly asked for four minutes of uninterrupted time and thoroughly, and convincingly made his case. I honestly think he (again Putin) won the day. Putin is an excellent communicator and the translator was superb.

    • Abe
      October 2, 2015 at 13:27

      It has taken 267 stories of chutzpah to “secure the realm”. That’s why Israel is so snuggly with Al Qaeda next door.

  21. October 1, 2015 at 17:36

    a tell tale link of the “moderate” elements in Syria, and the wahabist forces called by as many names and acronyms.
    the following link is to the “white helmets,” who’s website gives no solid history of who they are. these guys are most probably the “humanitarian” groups often cited by news media regarding alleged attacks on civilians by Syrian Forces using “barrel bombs” … and allegedly filled with … chlorine?
    a video hosted on features the execution of a man which is not quite as graphic as the warning suggests, but it is sad. what is interesting is when three members of the “white helmets” who were waiting of to the side, quickly arrange to remove the body. perhaps to present as evidence of Syrian Forces’ atrocities to waiting “journalists.”
    this site’s comment moderator may not allow a comment with the link. if you need proof, follow to, and search “so-called “white helmets” facilitate” …

  22. October 1, 2015 at 17:35

    The Obama Administration has a further barrier to rebranding Al Nusrah Front (“ANF”) as moderate and worthy of support: U.N. Security Council Resolution 2170 (2014), which specifically prohibits U.N. member states from providing any support to ANF (identified by name) or working in cooperation with it or any of its derivatives.. The U.S. voted for that resolution and will run up against the stone wall of Russia’s veto in any attempt to modify it to the benefit of ANF or its sponsors.

  23. Mortimer
    October 1, 2015 at 17:31

    The Al Qaeda of Usama bin Laden.

    The Al Qaeda/bin Laden that the US funded, armed and trained, citing Jihad against “atheist communist’ USSR.

    The Al Qaeda that flew airplanes into the New York World Trade Center on September 11, 2001
    inciting the Global War On Terror.

    The Al Qaeda deceptively declared allied with Saddam Hussein in the drumbeat for war against Iraq.

    The Al Qaeda of US ally Saudi Arabia, the leading proponent of Sharia style Islamic extremism.

    The Al Qaeda, again our allies against the (anti-jihadist) “brutal dictator” Basher Assad in multicultural Syria.

    Should the US ally with Al Qaeda in a world disrupting war against Russia? (We;re already their Major Arms Supplier (through Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Oil States).

    Would we dare to go that far???

  24. October 1, 2015 at 17:29

    a tell tale link of the “moderate” elements in Syria, and the wahabist forces called by as many names and acronyms.
    the following link is to the “white helmets,” who’s website gives no solid history of who they are. these guys are most probably the “humanitarian” groups often cited by news media regarding alleged attacks on civilians by Syrian Forces using “barrel bombs” … and allegedly filled with … chlorine?
    the following link is to a video hosted on it features an execution of a man it is not quite that graphic, but it is sad. what is interesting is when three members of the “white helmets” who were waiting of to the side, quickly arrange to remove the body. perhaps to present as evidence of Syrian Forces’ atrocities to waiting “journalists.”

  25. Abe
    October 1, 2015 at 17:17

    For decades the United States has funded Sunni takfiris to destabilize the southern parts of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. These forces have now found their way to Syria.

    The majority of social media activity supporting ISIS originates within Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan, all governed by US-aligned regimes. Turkey, a US-aligned regime and NATO member, currently allows trucks to cross its border every day and deliver supplies to ISIS-controlled territories.

    While declaring “God has commanded us never to attack Israel,” ISIS has unleashed its terrorism against the Syrian Arab Republic, the Shia community in Iraq, and the revolutionary movement for independence in Yemen. While the US was able to very quickly topple the government of Saddam Hussein, aside from a few demagogic speeches, very little has been done by the United States to defeat the ISIS terrorists. US leaders are happy to publicize ISIS atrocities in order to demonize Islam and justify drone strikes. But while doing so, the Pentagon brass are basically sitting back and allowing ISIS to fight their enemies for them. They hope that ISIS can topple Assad and reduce Syria to the same kind of chaos that has overtaken Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.


    Meanwhile, the US-supported “moderate Syrian rebels” who seek to overthrow the Syrian government are nowhere to be seen. The Al-Nusra Front, supposedly opposed to both ISIS and Assad, continues to receive funding from the Gulf State allies of the United States, though its vision for Syria is almost identical to ISIS, and its strength is dwindling.

    The Revolution Against ISIS and its Lessons for the World
    By Caleb Maupin

  26. France in California
    October 1, 2015 at 16:44

    Who’s the Certifiable Lunatic who thought up that one? This is just like Iran-Contra and will end as badly, if not worse.

Comments are closed.