pkay posted:

There is no MIGHT to this. The US did aid the Al-Nusra front(Al'Qaeda in Syria). There is no dispute.

Svartvit posted:

I truly do not understand this critique of Fisk. He used to compare Bashar to Hitler and tell everyone that he was raping his people. The main issue people seemed to have at the time was that he also said the armed opposition was full of cold-blooded murderers, apparently only Syrian regime propaganda. I won't devolve this into another Fisk discussion but if you have a few good argument here please share.

pkay posted:

There is no MIGHT to this. The US did aid the Al-Nusra front(Al'Qaeda in Syria). There is no dispute.

quote:

Barclays was slammed with a £72m FCA fine over financial crime risks on Thursday, this time for “ignoring its own process” over how to handle risky very rich clients and basically, allowing the (theoretical) risk of money laundering to creep in via an elephant deal of the century with a “Politically Exposed Person”.

...

"In view of these confidentiality requirements, Barclays determined that details of the Clients and the Transaction should not be kept on its computer systems. A select team, including representatives from senior management, was brought together from across Barclays’ divisions and offices around the world to carry out the checks required to establish the Business Relationship and to arrange and execute the Transaction."

...

" Some documents relating to the Business Relationship were held by Barclays in hard copy in a safe purchased specifically for storing information relating to the Business Relationship. This was Barclays’ alternative to storing the records electronically."

quote:

First contact was not just 2011, but 23 May 2011. That might be a few months later than you were thinking, but fits nicely into a timetable of somebody realising how badly the proverbial was hitting the fan.


At that point, they were in an almighty hurry ("Barclays senior management were concerned about the speed at which the due diligence process could be completed,with one manager expressing a desire to “race this through”).


In fact, the whole thing was so chaotic that they didn't even know how much money was floating around. "In the early stages of arranging the deal, when it was suggested that the Transaction might be for a larger sum".


The FSA looked into it. Maybe any £1.8bn transaction would have got some attention -- but it's also very possible that they were jolted into action by investigations coming from elsewhere.


And the whole thing of keeping it off computers suggests that they were worried about Barclays staff getting interested -- which in turn means that the clients were real household names. There aren't so many Sensitive PEPs who combine that name recognition with having £1.88bn lying around.

Volkerball posted:

He's a Ghouta truther.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/has-recep-tayyip-erdogan-gone-from-model-middle-east-strongman-to-tin-pot-dictator-9252366.html

That segment where he discusses it 100% outs where his loyalties lie. You can put aside everything he's ever said to try and paint civil activists and anyone legitimate who opposes Assad under the jihadist brush, and he still comes out looking like a shill.

Volkerball posted:

The US put al-Nusra on the terror list immediately after they were created, and the day US strikes started in Syria, in September 2014, they bombed JaN.

quote:

They were extremely hesitant to arm groups in Syria as a result of them seeing JaN as an ally in the fight against Assad. It wasn't until mid-2013, over a year after fighting had broken out, when they first provided arms, and when they did, it was accompanied by a massive amount of red tape and vetting, which denied many groups. Even the groups that passed the vetting process and were legitimate forces, like the Hazzm movement, were underequipped. They had tanks they captured just sitting around because their requests for shells were ignored. Men like Salim Idriss and Hazzm's leaders died politically because they had tied themselves to the US, and the US had not done enough in response to give them continued legitimacy.

quote:

That's the caliber of support given to groups that didn't cheerlead 9/11, so the idea that the US has directly supported any sort of jihadist group, which is a pure contradiction to everything else they've ever done in Syria, is pure lunacy.

Count Roland posted:

This is preposterous. He's called Assad terrible things before and after Ghouta. But because he thinks Assad wasn't responsible for Ghouta, that's all magically annulled and he loves Assad? Please. Not everything is as black and white as you think.

Nevermind that Fisk thinks Assad was very likely behind the gas attacks.

fspades posted:

Are you seriously that naive to believe if the US was to send aid to Al Qaeda they would do it publicly with fanfare and full documentation? Really? Did they do that for Nicaraguan death squads? For Gladio? For Afghan Mujahideen? No, of course we are not talking about the US congress passing a motion to support ISIS. Thanks for playing.

quote:

So what's your view of that report and General Flynn's remarks about it then?

pkay posted:

It's almost as if he hasn't seen this same script before.

fspades posted:

Oh good thing they did that when everything exploded and there was a Salafist principality in the middle of Syria and Iraq. Something they actually anticipated to happen...


Are you seriously that naive to believe if the US was to send aid to Al Qaeda they would do it publicly with fanfare and full documentation? Really? Did they do that for Nicaraguan death squads?

fspades posted:

For Gladio? For Afghan Mujahideen?

quote:

Fox Interviewer: They're attacking the very guys who we want to see topple Assad. You would let American plains to just continue and pass them and let them do that?

John Mccain: No but I might do what we did in Afghanistan many years ago and give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes; that equipment is available [starts smiling smugly towards the end of this]

Fox interviewer: Who would be shooting them down?

John Mccain: The Free Syrian Army. Just like the Afghans shot down the Russians planes after Russia invaded Afghanistan. A Russian general shows up at our embassy in Baghdad an hour before it starts, and whats the first target: the people we are supporting and arming and training and equipment. What better way to stick their thumb in our eye.

Encolpio posted:

Volkerball posted:

Yeah, such horrible things that he's now the regimes journalist of choice to get imbedded with the SAA.

quote:

Let’s start with a reality check. The Russian military are killers who go for the jugular. They slaughtered the innocent of Chechnya to crush the Islamist uprising there, and they will cut down the innocent of Syria as they try to crush a new army of Islamists and save the ruthless regime of Bashar al-Assad.

The Syrian army, some of whose members are war criminals, have struggled ferociously to preserve the state – and used barrel bombs to do it. They have also fought to the death.

Encolpio posted:

Indeed, there are parallels here:

pkay posted:

It's almost as if you believe that American foreign policy is largely effected by different administrations.

Volkerball posted:

Yeah, Syria looks pretty much like how it would if Bush was president.

Volkerball posted:

No my point is that they couldn't be bothered to send that much aid to people who supported democratic aims, why would they want to do more for jihadists behind the scenes who would very likely support attacks against American citizens? Maybe they knew it would lead to French destabilization and we're preparing an invasion? You never know with Amerikkka. "Hmmm they're denying they send aid to al qaeda, that's just what someone who was providing aid to al qaeda would do" is a pillar of conspiracy theories. Nothing more. Especially since there isn't anything to suggest the US has an interest in helping al qaeda (to overthrow Assad? loving really? The Obama adminstration could've started bombing him in 2013 and there would have been no arguments from Congress, if the US was so desperate for him to fall) or to suggest that the US has engaged in that type of action.


Taking it to the extent you all are is a misreading. "The opposition is dominated by salafists, AQI, and the Muslim Brotherhood of Muslim Muslims, the US has given weapons to the opposition, therefore." That's a very typical handwavey approach that you get from anti-imperialism types like Mehdi Hassan. It's way more complicated than that. There's THOUSANDS of militias in Syria. If you want to try and prove the US has supported ISIS and JaN, why don't you look at the groups who have been seen with US equipment, and examine where they got it? You'll find that the major groups like the Southern Front and the Hazzm movement have consistently fought both ISIS and JaN.

fspades posted:

Even if we accept the claim the US only armed "moderate rebels,"

fspades posted:

You still haven't addressed what makes that report so explosive. Because here we have a document from DIA, that 1) Admits the insurgency is not driven by forces with "democratic aims", but by sectarians, salafis and Al Qaeda. 2) An assumption this is going to take form of a proxy war where the Western countries (presumably includes the US) already supports the insurgency and will continue to support it in the future. 3) That there is a chance this support might end up in the establishment of a salafi principality in eastern Syria with possible spillover effect to Iraq. and 4) This is what powers that support the insurgency want anyway.

And then you have goddamn General Michael T. Flynn (who cares about Mehdi Hassan lol) saying that this report was not ignored but taken seriously and discussed, but there was "willful decision" from the part of the administration to go ahead with what they were doing anyway.

This is not some conspiracy theory, it's recorded history. Even if we accept the claim the US only armed "moderate rebels," here is a document that says, well, actually they knew these actions would contribute to destabilization of Syria, they knew it was likely to end up with a sectarian terror state, but that was ok, because it would isolate Assad.

Young Freud posted:

Literal advertisement that ran in Soldier Of Fortune magazine.

Young Freud posted:

Literal advertisement that ran in Soldier Of Fortune magazine.

fspades posted:

You still haven't addressed what makes that report so explosive. Because here we have a document from DIA, that 1) Admits the insurgency is not driven by forces with "democratic aims", but by sectarians, salafis and Al Qaeda.

quote:

2) An assumption this is going to take form of a proxy war where the Western countries (presumably includes the US) already supports the insurgency and will continue to support it in the future.

quote:

3) That there is a chance this support might end up in the establishment of a salafi principality in eastern Syria with possible spillover effect to Iraq.

quote:

4) This is what powers that support the insurgency want anyway.

quote:

And then you have goddamn General Michael T. Flynn (who cares about Mehdi Hassan lol) saying that this report was not ignored but taken seriously and discussed, but there was "willful decision" from the part of the administration to go ahead with what they were doing anyway.

This is not some conspiracy theory, it's recorded history. Even if we accept the claim the US only armed "moderate rebels," here is a document that says, well, actually they knew these actions would contribute to destabilization of Syria, they knew it was likely to end up with a sectarian terror state, but that was ok, because it would isolate Assad.

Volkerball posted:

It's not an "admission" that the insurgency was driven by sectarian forces, any more than the US admitted that Saddam had the capability to build weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion. This is an analysis of intelligence. There's a lot of analysis that comes in that gets weighed in the leadup to the creation of policy. And it's pretty clear that the idea that we couldn't afford to risk removing Assad because of the sectarian dynamics at play was idea the Obama administration saw most eye to eye with, so I'm not sure why you think this is a bombshell.

quote:

They are not predicting what US policy will be. They are explaining the environment that, in their opinion, the US will have to navigate in the future, so that policy makers will be better prepared to move forward.

quote:

Again, this was in 2012, before ISIS even existed in Syria. Their citation for this is that JaN was an outstretch of AQI, but as we discovered in 2014, JaN's loyalty was to AQ, not AQI, and JaN and ISIS would soon be at war, rather than crafting a caliphate together as one and the same. So they were wrong on that. Analysis gets it wrong at times. It's opinion, and should be regarded as such. This isn't the golden document that was shoved under the carpet so that we could continue to give tanks to ISIS.

quote:

Certainly Turkey made the judgement that supporting JaN and other salafist groups was worth it to oust Assad. As did KSA. This is not news. Do you have anything to add to that?

quote:

A FOX news contributor trying to blame the rise of ISIS on Obama? Surely, you jest. Understand that Flynn is coming from the position where Obama is a sissy who is afraid to blame Islam for ISIS. He's extremely partisan, and he's been using his newfound pulpit to throw Obama under the bus wherever he can. This is all nothing.

Ikasuhito posted:

I hate to interrupt the usual pissing match, but has anyone else been hearing these rumors that the Afrin Kurds have attacked the rebels north of Aleppo?

MechanicalTomPetty posted:

Afrin's the canton way in the northwest right? What exactly have they been up to, they seem to be pretty isolated and I've heard basically nothing about them for the whole war.

fade5 posted:

The current map.

fspades posted:

What are you talking about? It's a bombshell to say this in the current political climate, never mind back then. Otherwise you wouldn't have NATO throwing a hissy fit every time Russia bombs a sectarian, Salafist dickhead into pieces. The entire legitimacy of NATO involvement in Syria hinges on the narrative there are moderate, non-sectarian rebels with democratic aims currently fighting Assad regime. This is what Obama and the State Department says. And here is this DoD report that says, no, there aren't any worth talking about; there never was even back in 2012.

Yes, the environment where all of the US' allies will support the insurgency in a proxy war with Russia, Iran and China. I'm going to make a wild guess and assume the US will support the insurgency too. I base this on: Recorded history 3 years later.


Go read Wikipedia if you want to refresh your memory about JaN/AQI split. These groups nominally belonged to same parent organization, had the same objectives and the same ideology; the membership between them was porous. After Mosul was captured and ISIS declared its caliphate many JaN members left it for ISIS. And before ISIS forced them out of it, JaN was active in eastern Syria. The end result is: a Salafist principality in Syria, and Iraq. They weren't wrong about that.


Oh no, you don't get away with that "now you see me, now you don't" bullshit. Again, there is no basis to be found in that report to claim the author was specifically talking about Turkey and KSA. That interpretation is entirely brought by you. But the author talks about a concerted and willful effort, which includes Western countries, to isolate Iran and Russia. Now, who would lead such a coalition of the willing?


This report doesn't fit to Republican agenda either, which is why you won't hear it in Fox News. They are too busy listening to McCain jerking off at the thought of arming FSA, a sectarian, Salafist organization with links to Al Qaeda according to DoD.

Google Translate posted:

North Korea officially enter the war and threaten to bomb nuclear strikes Turkey

A massive development on the Syrian arena, it came fairly North Korea officially announced their participation in the war on (Daash) next to the Russians, North Korea has sent a strong message of threat to Turkey provides for the removal of Turkey to exist in the event of a nuclear bombing intervened to help America.

Cat Mattress posted:

The plot thickens...

Cat Mattress posted:

The plot thickens...

Count Roland posted:

hahaha, wow.

fspades posted:

What are you talking about? It's a bombshell to say this in the current political climate, never mind back then. Otherwise you wouldn't have NATO throwing a hissy fit every time Russia bombs a sectarian, Salafist dickhead into pieces. The entire legitimacy of NATO involvement in Syria hinges on the narrative there are moderate, non-sectarian rebels with democratic aims currently fighting Assad regime. This is what Obama and the State Department says. And here is this DoD report that says, no, there aren't any worth talking about; there never was even back in 2012.

quote:

Yes, the environment where all of the US' allies will support the insurgency in a proxy war with Russia, Iran and China. I'm going to make a wild guess and assume the US will support the insurgency too. I base this on: Recorded history 3 years later.

quote:

Go read Wikipedia if you want to refresh your memory about JaN/AQI split. These groups nominally belonged to same parent organization, had the same objectives and the same ideology; the membership between them was porous. After Mosul was captured and ISIS declared its caliphate many JaN members left it for ISIS. And before ISIS forced them out of it, JaN was active in eastern Syria. The end result is: a Salafist principality in Syria, and Iraq. They weren't wrong about that.

quote:

Oh no, you don't get away with that "now you see me, now you don't" bullshit. Again, there is no basis to be found in that report to claim the author was specifically talking about Turkey and KSA. That interpretation is entirely brought by you. But the author talks about a concerted and willful effort, which includes Western countries, to isolate Iran and Russia. Now, who would lead such a coalition of the willing?

quote:

This report doesn't fit to Republican agenda either, which is why you won't hear it in Fox News. They are too busy listening to McCain jerking off at the thought of arming FSA, a sectarian, Salafist organization with links to Al Qaeda according to DoD.

goose fleet posted:

Were photos of bin Laden's death ever taken, and why weren't any released?

I'm just curious, I'm not trying to insinuate any sort of conspiracy theory.

Vladimir Putin posted:

Photos were taken. There should at least be one photo of a SEAL lying next to bin laden as a measure of height. This picture would have been seen by McRaven and Obama.

I have no idea why they have not been released. One reason might be that bin laden got shot in the head and the pictures might be a bit grizly.