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

191–200 of 206 posts

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

#191

Post by mengibar10 »

riku_iki wrote: post #190
mengibar10 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, can we then draw the conclusion that US is giving PKK all these weapons for a purpose beyond fighting ISIS?

Are all kurds members of PKK? Is there any evidence that US is giving these weapons specifically to PKK?

Absolutely not. Especially support for PKK diminished recently after they sabotaged peace process. During the talks Kurds in southeast of Turkey has seen what it would be like of truce. Unfortunately PKK saw an opportunity in Syria and upped the bargain and started playing hard again. After they killed 2 police officers (in their homes) state went after them like no before.

Evidence, yes. Even Turkish government give serial numbers of captured weapons.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1392863...

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

#192

Post by mengibar10 »

baursak wrote: post #181
mengibar10 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PKK is a terrorist organization because they have been killing civilians. Especially indiscriminate killings through bombings market places, public meetings. Most of the time their victims have been Kurdish people. A terrorist is a terrorist only when Americans are targeted?

Do you mind posting links from reputable sources (i.e. not blatant Turkish government propaganda)?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-blast/kurdish-milit...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/10/bomb-outside-i...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/explosions-reported-tu...

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

#193

Post by mythrwy »

meri_dian wrote: post #159
mythrwy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not people are horrified by Assad's regime at all. That's just a line to sell a war in newspapers. There are much much worse governments than Assad in the world. Some are nominally our friends. Some we just ignore because they aren't in strategically important locations or don't have resources of interest. I thought it was commonly understood at this point that "spreading democracy and human liberty" translated…

You're much too cynical. We support democratic nations and try to set up democracy and liberal institutions when situations present themselves. We don't completely shut out nations like Saudi Arabia because there is more to be gained by working with them than against them. What would you want the US to do, invade Saudi Arabia because we disagree with it?

Is what was done to Syria and the Syrian people worth the cost of "setting up democracy and liberal institutions"?

(As if that were even remotely possible to be the outcome)

So what is it then? Why are we there? It's not human liberty when the people being armed are worse than the people they are trying to overthrow.

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

#194

Post by mengibar10 »

meri_dian wrote: post #132
david927 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rubbish. The US needs to curb its military, worldwide.

The US is a major reason for the lasting peace among developed nations. A multi-polar world means war.

How do you explain fabricating evidence to invade a sovereign country within that context?

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

#195

Post by dragonwriter »

meri_dian wrote: post #132
david927 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rubbish. The US needs to curb its military, worldwide.

The US is a major reason for the lasting peace among developed nations. A multi-polar world means war.

> The US is a major reason for the lasting peace among developed nations.

The Soviet Union was a bigger reason, with Russia (with an assist from al-Qaeda/ISIS) stepping in to take their place not long after the USSR fell.

There's been peace among the First World countries because they are united in an alliance with common enemies. The US has been important in forming the alliance, sure, but the enemies were the real key.

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

#196

Post by rapeofthelocke »

danso wrote: post #114

I doubt I would have read this article (through HN) if the submitter hadn't added "Falsifies End User Documents" to the submission title (actual title of the article is "Revealed: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2 Billion on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels"). So I'm glad that technical detail was emphasized, because a lot of this story deals with technicalities. It's not a secret that the Pentagon spends hundre…

Thank you. That was the point of my submission. The importance of the article is not so much that the US is funding weapons to Syria (as many commenters have said, that's unsurprising); the key point here is that they are using nefarious means to do it, and thereby undermining international law and control mechanisms such as the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

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

#197

Post by rapeofthelocke »

FrojoS wrote: post #184

Several comments here blame profits of the military-industrial complex as motivation for these arm exports, yet these weapons are produced in former USSR countries not in the US. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet, since it's even in the title of the article. Of course, there are still profits for the US military-industrial complex. For instance the article states that "US-based Alliant Techsystems Ope…

Pleasure. Keep following OCCRP: they are the world's best kept secret in investigative reporting.

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

#198

Post by mhermher »

Chathamization wrote: post #156
omurphy27 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those locations occupied exclusively by Al Qaeda? The only evidence you've shown is that the CIA has given arms to rebels in areas where Al Qaeda and its affiliates are known to operate. I see no evidence that the CIA directly gave weapons to Al-Nusra or other Al-Qaeda affiliates. And zero evidence of any direct funding or support of ISIS as conspiracy theorists and Putin propagandists love to assert. It's possib…

> Are those locations occupied exclusively by Al Qaeda? They aren't; there are even areas controlled by the Syrian government. Here's a map of Idlib that someone tried to make recently[1]; HTS is the group that includes al Qaeda/al Nusra (though it should be noted that al Nusra is officially no longer part of al Qaeda). I don't think any Idlib groups are currently being aided by the U.S. either (unless I missed somet…

The best known example is that the CIA did in fact support nour al din al zinki, who were literally fighting side by side with nusra in Aleppo (and now in idlib) in the same operation group. So you have various groups coordinating and working together with some light delineation between them. That's how technically the CIA can deny that they ever directly armed al qaeda.

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

#199

Post by riku_iki »

mengibar10 wrote: post #191
riku_iki wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are all kurds members of PKK? Is there any evidence that US is giving these weapons specifically to PKK?

Absolutely not. Especially support for PKK diminished recently after they sabotaged peace process. During the talks Kurds in southeast of Turkey has seen what it would be like of truce. Unfortunately PKK saw an opportunity in Syria and upped the bargain and started playing hard again. After they killed 2 police officers (in their homes) state went after them like no before. Evidence, yes. Even Turkish government give…

Captured weapons is not evidence of direct supply. ISIS uses all kinds of american and russian weapons, but it doesn't mean it is supported by those countries.

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

#200

Post by Chathamization »

gebruikersnaam wrote: post #185
Chathamization wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your first link: > The group received funding, including salaries for its fighters, from the CIA, before being cut off in December 2014 following battlefield reversals at the hands of the al-Nusra Front. > In mid-2015 the group renewed cooperation with the al-Nusra Front as part of the Army of Conquest during the northwestern Syria offensive (April–June 2015). The CIA having supported groups that have at times w…

"In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that “most” of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to “hardline Islamic jihadists”— obviously meaning al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, al Nusra." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-...

The New York Times article they're using as their source doesn't say that, however. The article is also from 2012, and not dealing with the CIA's later program to arm rebels (which I believe started in 2013):

> Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

...

> The United States is not sending arms directly to the Syrian opposition. Instead, it is providing intelligence and other support for shipments of secondhand light weapons like rifles and grenades into Syria, mainly orchestrated from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The reports indicate that the shipments organized from Qatar, in particular, are largely going to hard-line Islamists.

The only mention of al Qaeda in the New York Times article is this:

> The disorganization is strengthening the hand of Islamic extremist groups in Syria, some with ties or affiliations with Al Qaeda, he said: “The longer this goes on, the more likely those groups will gain strength.”

Post reply on HN