The Media is Propaganda

[Berzerker]

If true it would certainly anger me but nowhere near as much as when we rewarded Gaddafi's dismantling of Libya's WMD programs in response to the anti-WMD war against Iraq by almost immediately going to war in a regime change campaign against Libya. That was profoundly stupid.

We sent Libyan weapons to Ukraine and Turkey to arm Azov and ISIS

[Geronimo]

We sent Libyan weapons to Ukraine and Turkey to arm Azov and ISIS

Bull****. nobody redirecting that stuff believed it would end up with ISIS. ISIS was never seen as useful to any of your hated "neocon" masterminds agenda. In fact it undermined their machinations at almost every turn. If ISIS got any of that material it was the same way the Taliban has ended up with our military kit. It was through intercepting it from its intended recipients.

Azov got weapons as US state policy.

ISIS got weapons from US state incompetence.

There is responsibility for either outcome but there is a world of difference in lessons that should be drawn (if any).

[Geronimo]

I was talking about Tucker

My apologies. That actually makes more sense.

[Berzerker]

Bull****. nobody redirecting that stuff believed it would end up with ISIS. ISIS was never seen as useful to any of your hated "neocon" masterminds agenda. In fact it undermined their machinations at almost every turn. If ISIS got any of that material it was the same way the Taliban has ended up with our military kit. It was through intercepting it from its intended recipients.

Azov got weapons as US state policy.

ISIS got weapons from US state incompetence.

There is responsibility for either outcome but there is a world of difference in lessons that should be drawn (if any).

The Taliban didn't have to intercept our equipment, we left it behind at an airbase. In 2014 Jake Sullivan emailed Hillary telling her Al Qaeda was on our side in Syria and we poured weapons into the country. Obama said we armed "moderate rebels" and ISIS took half of Syria and you believe him, I dont. I believe Jake Sullivan's email to Hillary, Al Qaeda was on our side. We dont choose 'moderates' to fight our proxy wars. I thought we were at war with Al Qaeda and there we were arming them, something criminal comes to mind about giving material aid to our enemy. 'Al Qaeda is on our side'... let that sink in while you watch a time lapse of ISIS expansion in Syria.

[Geronimo]

The Taliban didn't have to intercept our equipment, we left it behind at an airbase. In 2014 Jake Sullivan emailed Hillary telling her Al Qaeda was on our side in Syria and we poured weapons into the country. Obama said we armed "moderate rebels" and ISIS took half of Syria and you believe him, I dont. I believe Jake Sullivan's email to Hillary, Al Qaeda was on our side. We dont choose 'moderates' to fight our proxy wars. I thought we were at war with Al Qaeda and there we were arming them, something criminal comes to mind about giving material aid to our enemy. 'Al Qaeda is on our side'... let that sink in while you watch a time lapse of ISIS expansion in Syria.

Jake's email to Hillary? The one published by WikiLeaks where jake says AQ is on our side in Syria?

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225

Read it Berz. It's short.

It doesn't advocate arming anyone. In fact it's a SPOT REPORT Syria Update.

It's describing recent events in Syria as of 12FEB2012. The email leads with:

"See last item - AQ is on our side in Syria.

Otherwise, things have basically turned out as expected."

and the rest is various Syrian news and intelligence tidbits until the last item turns out to be the revelation that AQ leader Al-Zawahiri publicly exhorted all Muslims to oppose the Assad regime. That's it. That the big bombshell revelation that the neocons planned to assist AQ, which you further embellish to claim that they sent material support to ISIS.

First off, Wikileaks and especially Assange, hates Hillary Clinton and the Obama presidency so they will spare nothing to undermine them, yet this is the juiciest AQ support evidence they have. Secondly, Jake emailing this no more implies he supports ISIS than cold war correspondence noting friction between the PRC and the Soviet Union would imply the US was willing to materially support either of those states. Jake seems to be saying "no big surprises concerning Syria lately, but get a load of what the AQ leader just said about Assad's regime! I guess they're on our side in Syria!".

This was in Feb 2012. ISIS did not exist. Its predecessor organization ISI, however, would a few weeks later have its founding leader Abu Omar Baghdadi killed in a US neocon blessed military operation in Apr 2012. Doesn't sound very friendly to me.

There were scores of rebel groups in Syria throughout the Syrian war. Why do you believe the US intended to support ISIS? iSIS would distinguish itself by almost continually avoiding direct conflict with the Assad regime and continually attacking US aid recipients, the Syrian Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, and the Iraqi government. How would neocons want any of that?

Explain why you believe anybody in the US government wanted ISIS to receive any support whatsoever. Please.

I recommend this short 2015 BBC article to get a more believable perspective on how the US botched its rebel aid assistance in Syria.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408

[-Jrabbit]

It's all part of the ongoing mission of the US right: to find and willfully misinterpret information, then pretend it somehow became policy without anyone noticing.
That, along with unqualified generalizations blaming Obama and Biden for anything negative, but blaming the conveniently-invisible "deep state" for anything happening during the Trump administration (like vaccines and lost elections), is a pretty consistent hallmark of the conspiracy-driven landscape.

[pchang]

What happened to make Berz so anxious and prone to seek instant gratification?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22000719

[Berzerker]

Jake's email to Hillary? The one published by WikiLeaks where jake says AQ is on our side in Syria?

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225

Read it Berz. It's short.

It doesn't advocate arming anyone. In fact it's a SPOT REPORT Syria Update.

It's describing recent events in Syria as of 12FEB2012. The email leads with:

"See last item - AQ is on our side in Syria.

Otherwise, things have basically turned out as expected."

and the rest is various Syrian news and intelligence tidbits until the last item turns out to be the revelation that AQ leader Al-Zawahiri publicly exhorted all Muslims to oppose the Assad regime. That's it. That the big bombshell revelation that the neocons planned to assist AQ, which you further embellish to claim that they sent material support to ISIS.

First off, Wikileaks and especially Assange, hates Hillary Clinton and the Obama presidency so they will spare nothing to undermine them, yet this is the juiciest AQ support evidence they have. Secondly, Jake emailing this no more implies he supports ISIS than cold war correspondence noting friction between the PRC and the Soviet Union would imply the US was willing to materially support either of those states. Jake seems to be saying "no big surprises concerning Syria lately, but get a load of what the AQ leader just said about Assad's regime! I guess they're on our side in Syria!".

This was in Feb 2012. ISIS did not exist. Its predecessor organization ISI, however, would a few weeks later have its founding leader Abu Omar Baghdadi killed in a US neocon blessed military operation in Apr 2012. Doesn't sound very friendly to me.

There were scores of rebel groups in Syria throughout the Syrian war. Why do you believe the US intended to support ISIS? iSIS would distinguish itself by almost continually avoiding direct conflict with the Assad regime and continually attacking US aid recipients, the Syrian Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, and the Iraqi government. How would neocons want any of that?

Explain why you believe anybody in the US government wanted ISIS to receive any support whatsoever. Please.

I recommend this short 2015 BBC article to get a more believable perspective on how the US botched its rebel aid assistance in Syria.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408

My God the photo of the Obama brain trust discussing Syria is a gathering of the intel experts telling us to ignore Hunter's laptop. Ty BBC for telling us the Obama administration's narrative. We poured weapons into Syria and ISIS took half the country but we never meant to arm them. Silly us, did we do that? I see the email was from Feb '12, that aligns with both Timber Sycamore and the weapons shipments from Benghazi to Turkey. The push to arm ISIS came later in 2012 when Petraeus wanted to arm the Syrian resistance. We already knew at that time Al Qaeda was on our side.

'See last item - AQ is on our side in Syria. Otherwise, things have basically turned out as expected.'

Quite a pleasant surprise, our declared enemy is on our side. Cant say I'm surprised, Reagan sold our weapons to Iran shortly after they waited for his presidency to release our prisoners. So how do we arm them and lie about it? Invent "moderate rebels" and blame them for arming ISIS. And Putin blew up his own pipeline. Why didn't Obama shut off the arms when his moderate rebels never materialized and ISIS expanded? Trump ended that policy and agreed to stay out of Putin's way as he attacked ISIS. That really pissed off the neocons. Wesley Clark was interviewed about US policy around the end of Bush's 2nd term and he listed several countries on the govts regime change list, Libya and Syria were on it.

Why would anyone in the US government want ISIS to receive support? These people were arming Nazis killing eastern Ukrainians at the same time in another proxy war, pattern of behavior mean anything? We wanted Assad replaced by a pro-US govt, who else was going to get rid of him for us? As for ISIS leaders killed by the US, we were at war with ISIS in northeastern Syria and Western Iraq as part of our support for the Kurds. We were arming ISIS in Syria to attack Assad, not our Iraqi friends. "Moderate rebels" was a joke a decade ago.

[Geronimo]

Could you edit some of your sources into that post before we reply Berz? Thanks.

[Berzerker]

For what specifically? You tracked down the relevant email showing Jake Sullivan telling Hillary Al Qaeda was on our side in Syria shortly before we flooded the country with weapons and ISIS (not our 'moderates) took half the country. You just think it was all an accident, unintentional, doh us.

[Geronimo]

For what specifically? You tracked down the relevant email showing Jake Sullivan telling Hillary Al Qaeda was on our side in Syria shortly before we flooded the country with weapons and ISIS (not our 'moderates) took half the country.

For any hint of intent to arm ISIS or AQ, ever, by anyone in the US government.

You just think it was all an accident, unintentional, doh us.

Never attribute to malice that which is most easily explained by stupidity.

[Berzerker]

The hints are numerous, actually arming ISIS for years as they took half the country while our 'moderate rebels' evaporated and we knew AQ was on "our side" before we armed them. And of course Wesley Clark said Libya and Syria were on our hit list before we attacked both. Are the sanctions on a quake ravaged region malicious or stupid? We're sitting on their oil and wheat to starve people, is that stupid or malicious? Obama was arming Nazis killing eastern Ukrainians, stupidity or malice? The US altered the findings of the Douma investigation to blame a gas attack on Assad. We were using ISIS to destroy Syria and when Trump ended the policy the neocons were angry, Mattis even resigned because Trump was ending our wars.

https://youtu.be/j-W8vlqFynQ

Here's Aaron Mate on Zelensky and Murdoch and Tucker's firing. When the security state and war machine celebrate silencing the loudest critic dont think it's a malicious cabal when it's easily explained by stupidity.

David Frum of "The Atlantic" in the video

[N35t0r]

Is Berz also claiming that the US was actually arming North Vietnam during their civil war?

Because weapons were being sent, and the north was winning over the south, so that must mean the weapons were going straight to the north!

And a few months later the US decided to intervene, so it further proves that the US was supplying the communist vietnamese with weapons in order for them to justify direct US intervention!

[N35t0r]

If you need sources, I'm sure I can find a YouTube video somewhere supporting my views.

[Dauphin]

If you need sources, I'm sure I can find a YouTube video somewhere supporting my views.

Where does it say you must out your sources to the FBI like that?