]*] http://www.nctc.gov/ ]*] http://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-te...nates-pyd-as-pkk-linked-kgks-syrian-affiliate ]*] http://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-te...page-designating-pyd-as-pkks-syrian-affiliate A Turkish newspaper published an incredible story on February 22... ... and publishes a follow-up 4 days later. This stuff is fascinating reading. At first glance, my first reaction to the NCTC web site and the two Daily Sabah newspaper articles just highlights the difficulty and willingness this administration has in identifying and defining the various terrorists groups, Islamic and otherwise. The lack of communication and coordination across agencies is dramatic, if not frightening.
I think Russia's definition was point on. The U.S shouldn't be working with any terrorists in Syria whether our interests are aligned or not. No good has ever come from that but apparently our leaders are too obtuse to learn [anything from the past] or they just are blinded by their hatred for Assad. If the world is fighting against terrorism then all terrorists should be identified and dealt with.
The other part that just needs to be understood is that these are very fluid organizations and their membership, affiliations and goals can change on a daily basis and their history should be viewed on a timescale of months, not years. They don´t have lifetime membership cards and in that region expecially, they don´t have very long life expectancies. And the truth is this is all about semantics. A gov´t in power will see a small rebel force as ´terrorists´.. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is similar to Nicaragua when we supported the Contras... it was a small rebel group trying to overthrow a gov´t. If we were on the side of the gov´t, we would call them terrorists, if we are supporting the rebels, they are ´freedom fighters´.. And finally, no matter where you are talking about.. these guys are economic opportunists. If you give them arms, and you give them power, the first thing they are going to do is take stuff from the least powerful people they can find... and that means they terrorize the civilian population. These guys are much more about looting and pillaging than they are about winning an actual fight. I have talked to a lot of people about the war here. And this is exactly how it happens. A fairly big city. One side takes control and goes in and pillages. They then leave.. the other side goes in and pillages the same city, often blaming the people for supporting the other side because the other side took all the good stuff. Most people I talked to about the war here said the two sides almost never fought ( and the death tolls show this is true) they just danced around each other looting and taking possession of whatever they could. So when you are talking about these small terrorist groups in Syria, it is much more about ´who gives me the best opportunity to loot´ rather than ideology or general winning the war. The ISIS groups we are fighting now in Syria are just mercenary groups we funded last year but were given more money by ISIS so switched sides. They will leave ISIS as soon as they no longer have a financial incentive to be there.
My original post was to highlight the difficulty and idiocy our own government's parts and pieces has in agreeing who is what over there when a Turkish newspaper can blow up the NCTC web site. Of course, the WH can barely use those words in press dealings. It reminds me of George Carlin's infamous "Seven Dirty Words" now more than 4 decades old. Can't make it up.
As always, US has the propensity to meddle in wars of other countries. A good example is the Vietnam war where US had lost countless of lives and resulted in a rout. Until now those Vietnam veterans are still suffering from physical and psychological hangup. With this ISIS thing in Syria, it seems to me that US is trying to get some business out of it by being the number 1 player in the arms trade. Not only with armaments but also with equipment like aircraft. Clearly, I can see that war is big business for good old America.
That's probably the most intelligent and accurate thing I have read today. America is producing more weapons then it can ever use. The arms industry is such a huge job creator and pumps millions into it's lobby. It's the cornerstone of American manufacturing. Does not matter who they sell the arms too, and even if these weapons get used against the USA. In fact I strongly believe that it's in USA's best interest for the enemy to be using American weapons against American troops, because it means it's easier to justify war if the enemy is well equipped. It's not partisan too, doesn't matter who's running the nation, weapons will get produced. Many have investments in defense contractors too, it's so woven into the fabric of the country that it will never stop. I remember reading a CNN article a year or so back that was about one town who's livelihood depended on tank production. They made so many tanks that the army told them they didn't need anymore, but it would have devastated the town's economy, so the tanks just kept rolling off the assembly line. This is one of the real reasons America is always at war "policing" the world and "exporting democracy." It must have been REALLY scary for the arms industry when the cold war ended. Luckily radical Islam showed up just in time for us to have another enemy. Well it wasn't really luck, since the majority of the radical Islamic movement was funded, equipped and trained by the USA and spurred on by American "intervention" into various parts of the world.
