Burn, Burn - Africa's Afghanistan

10 posts

Angocachi
There is a difference between giving money, training and weapons to Salafis intent on establishing an Islamic State, and allowing them onto the front because they're fighting the same enemy. In Syria the US has done nothing to stop Al Nusra from coming in, recuiting, acquiring arms, etc because they'd welcome anybody willing to fight Assad; whether Communists, Lesbians, or Animal Rights activists angry that Assad spanked his horse... it doesn't matter to them. But NATO is not trying to oust Assad to install Salafis, but rather ex-Assad regime members that will obey Western capitals. The GCC and NATO only became pissed and reluctant to back the Syrian insurrection when it became clear that the FSA isn't going to be able to shut out the Salafis if Assad falls. In the Balkans, secular Muslim agents of NATO had no problem keeping the lid on the Jihadists, so NATO went in balls out. In Libya, the stooges did have a problem keeping the black banners from the reigns... and the Obama administration learned from that.

Terrorism experts agree that it is a myth and a misunderstanding by laymen that the US has supported Jihadists, most especially not Salafis and Qutbis. On any topic I tend to go with the majority or consensus verdict by the professionals in the field, not Pepe Escobar or Alex Jones.

And just because Jihadists are fighting China, Russia, or Iran... or anyone in their orbit, it doesn't mean the US or Saud are behind it. The Islamists are a third path in the Sunni world. They're trying to throw off everyone, the US, France, UK, China, Russia, Iran, India. Just as the Iraqi insurgency against the US, UK, Poland, etc wasn't a Russian operation... the Syrian insurgency isn't an American plot.. other than the American plot to throw a lasso around it. And Mali, for god's sake, is a French puppet. Why would the West get behind an Islamist insurgency against a regime they already control?

Theo
It wasn't a ragtag army. It's Assad's Army, the Sunni part of it... with all the training and arms he afforded them. Then in addition, Jihadists with years and years of experience in theaters from Iraq to Afghanistan to the Caucasus, from Libya to Somalia to Kashmir.
The US has been backing the FSA, and are (were) relying on Turkey in the way they relied on Pakistan to back the Seven Party Alliance in Afghanistan against the Soviets. But the FSA are not Salafis. They're just a coup of Sunni Assad regime members.
But Al Nusra/Al Qaeda gets its money and weapons in the ways I listed.
Niccolo and Donkey
Theo Angocachi SweetLeftFoot SteamshipTime Roland President Camacho

This is very interesting....................

Terror in North Africa: are Westerners pulling the strings?



Angocachi
Bob Dylan Roof

1 More possibility: Bix Noods making shit up

Ferdinand

Why is it necessary for the US to support the creation of Sharia states? They can generate the conditions that warrant a permanent military presence in various regions. That is, they destroy unitary sovereignty through multiple means in order to justify and perpetuate the existence of AFRICOM et al and allow the entry of the various private interests that can generate a profit. This is especially so when everything is at the expense of Chinese expansion.

Niccolo and Donkey
[​IMG]
Niccolo and Donkey
Angocachi Theo Roland SteamshipTime President Camacho

China and Western intervention in Mali

Niccolo and Donkey
[​IMG]
Team Zissou

Good thing France has all those piles of money lying around with nothing better to do with them than fund colonial wars.

Niccolo and Donkey
Roland Angocachi President Camacho SweetLeftFoot SteamshipTime

Only time will tell if this is true....

Timbuktu mayor: Mali rebels torched library of historic manuscripts

[​IMG]