Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

occrp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 206 posts

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#121

Post by mythrwy »

djsumdog wrote: post #32
jdhn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, is anybody surprised by this? It's quite clear that when it comes to sponsoring groups in the Middle East, we just throw money/weapons at anyone, no matter who they are.

I've been saying this for years. "The CIA created ISIS. Not just funded, but created the situation where such organizations could come up." I constantly get criticized for this. "No, of course America isn't funding ISIS. We're fighting them." I then talk about The Bay of Pigs, the 1973 Coupe in Chile, Iranian Contras, The School of the Americas ... a criminal rap sheet that shows a pattern of sociopathhy by the US go…

There are a number of groups that benefited from ISIS being in the area.

Certainly Iran and Russia getting a poke in the eye probably wasn't a bad thing from the CIA's perspective but they were probably not the only (or even main?) players. More like the gun store and some advisory support. For the other suspects we need only look for the folks who benefited from a buffer between Russia and Iran and their own states and a proxy army keeping Iranian/Syrian/Russian forces tied down. The whole thing is pretty inexcusable though and the people responsible are a level of criminal IMOP. It also appears the scheme isn't going to work out long term and Iran and Russia will continue to have influence in the region. Which given the behavior of our "friends" in the area I can't say I feel terrible about. But I'm probably not looking at it through a geopolitical chess perspective but more a perspective of ruined lives and societies and the spread of extremist ideology.

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#122

Post by mengibar10 »

jdhn wrote: post #20
hammock wrote: post #4

The same documents confirm the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda in Syria. Scroll down to the last map[1] which shows CIA weapons went directly to Idlib province (northwest section in green) and the Golan border region (south). Both of these areas were and continue to be occupied by Al Qaeda. Idlib specifically is where genocidal cleansing of religious minorities was confirmed to be conducted by Al Qaeda "rebels" directly…

At this point, is anybody surprised by this? It's quite clear that when it comes to sponsoring groups in the Middle East, we just throw money/weapons at anyone, no matter who they are.

US is giving weapons to PKK in Syria. PKK has been considered a terrorist organization both by US and EU for a very long time, I mean decades. They are giving weapons under the pretext of fighting ISIS. Among the weapons given there are surface to air anti-aircraft missiles. Strange thing is that ISIS does not have any aircraft to shoot down. The amount of weapon delivery as of last week is about 13,000 containers. Hard to believe, right?

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#123

Post by megous »

enraged_camel wrote: post #82
baursak wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This literally started a couple of months ago under Trump, along with ending CIA's weapons running program. Here Trump truly deserves credit and outshines Nobel Peace laureate Obama. If he removes PKK from the US list of terrorist groups, that would be a 3 for 3 for him, although I'm not holding my breath.

The PKK is responsible for killing over 30,000 Turkish civilians back in the 80s and 90s. That's roughly ten times the number of people that died in 9/11 attacks. If that doesn't make them a terrorist organization... well, I don't know what to tell you.

Turkey is responsible for executing 20,000 Kurdish civilians and destroying several thousands villages in the same conflict. They're still destroying Kurdish cities today, Sur, Sirnak, Nusaybin, Cizre, ... Burning civilians alive by hundreds in one incident.

If that doesn't make them a terrorist organization... well, I don't know what to tell you.

It's a war.

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#124

Post by alrs »

pm90 wrote: post #103
alrs wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US supported both Iran and Iraq in their war against each other, which makes sense if the end-goal was to weaken both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid...

This comment is quite misleading. The US did support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The Iran-Contra affair, if you read the article you linked to, was an attempt to free American hostages held by Hezbollah (an Iranian funded group) while also procuring illicit money to pay the Contras. i.e. US sells weapons to Iran, Iran pays US, Hezbollah frees hostages, US pays the money from Iran to Contras. The US never supported Ira…

Anti-Iran since 1979? Not yet both parties in 1980, allegedly.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/15/world/new-reports-say-1980...

https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/11/the-october-surprise...

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#125

Post by omurphy27 »

travmatt wrote: post #24
skrebbel wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone got a tl;dr about the motive behind all this? What does the US government gain by flooding the middle East with weapons?

Broadly, America has traditionally supported Sunni leaning states, most notably Saudi Arabia. Russia has traditionally supported Shia Iran, and both the powers are competing for influence within the region. In the course of the Arab Spring, the legitimacy of many ME leaders/dictators was questioned, among the most notable of these was the rule of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. A popular local outpouring of resentment agai…

"A popular local outpouring of resentment against his regime was coopted and inflamed by hardline Sunni extremists"

I seem to remember the Assad regime continuously arresting, torturing, and even outright shooting peaceful protestors for a number of months, which directly lead to the armed rebellion. Obviously, Sunni extremists would later hijack the opposition, but I feel that far too many gloss over Assad's role in starting the entire conflict.

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#126

Post by mixmastamyk »

wavefunction wrote: post #29
jdhn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, is anybody surprised by this? It's quite clear that when it comes to sponsoring groups in the Middle East, we just throw money/weapons at anyone, no matter who they are.

When you have someone like Senator John McCain claim that "we can tell the bad guys from the good guys" while being photographed on his photo op tour of Syria with known mass murderers of civilians, you had to know these folks don't know what they're talking about.

We understand that bureaucrats and their institutions are quite inept when tasked with delivering the mail, for example. But they often get a pass with international relations.

Might be the bikeshed effect in action.

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#127

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

yogthos wrote: post #33
baursak wrote: post #5

The US is literally sponsoring Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria to fuel the proxy war against Russia and Iran and to hinder their fight against ISIS and other jihadi groups. It's 1980s all over again and a 16th anniversary of 9/11. No lessons learned.

Wars are a business for the US military industrial complex, plain and simple. The longer US is funding these wars, the more profit these people make.

I thought as you do. That's why I invested in Haliburton when Trump was elected. I figured the Military/Industrial complex was about to do VERY well.

I'm down 20% since Trump was elected. Not saying we are wrong, necessarily.

But its good to check these theories against reality whenever possible.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/hal

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#128

Post by [deleted] »

yogthos wrote: post #33
baursak wrote: post #5

The US is literally sponsoring Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria to fuel the proxy war against Russia and Iran and to hinder their fight against ISIS and other jihadi groups. It's 1980s all over again and a 16th anniversary of 9/11. No lessons learned.

Wars are a business for the US military industrial complex, plain and simple. The longer US is funding these wars, the more profit these people make.

[deleted]

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#129

Post by travmatt »

hammock wrote: post #4

The same documents confirm the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda in Syria. Scroll down to the last map[1] which shows CIA weapons went directly to Idlib province (northwest section in green) and the Golan border region (south). Both of these areas were and continue to be occupied by Al Qaeda. Idlib specifically is where genocidal cleansing of religious minorities was confirmed to be conducted by Al Qaeda "rebels" directly…

By your peculiar logic cops are the proximate cause of crime because they are most frequently in areas where crime has occurred. And doctors are the cause of disease since they are near sick people most often. Or it may be possible that the CIA funnels weapons to enemy areas because that's where the people they are trying to kill are locate.

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#130

Post by pehtis »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #83
X86BSD wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reason Syria was destabilized by the US. Natural gas to Europe. Period. This is not about Assad, the US is simply demonizing him to justify their destruction of another secular soverign country. Russia supplies Europe with almost all of its natural gas. This is unacceptable to the west. What the west wants is to drag nat gas up from Qatar through Syria to the med and north into Europe breaking Russia's st…

do you have any sources for these claims?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/competing-gas-pipel...
Post reply on HN