Lexington wrote:The oddness is that the US clearly has huge ideological differences with al-Qaeda (not least that they rather want to kill us).
So what? Ideological differences didn't stop us from creating Al Qaeda in the first place, or working with them in multiple cases. We couldn't give a damn about the ideology of others as long as they're working for us.
It's naive to think that the US doesn't work with others based on ideological differences. This is a slap in the face of history.
Lexington wrote:And I am freely admitting that in certain situations the interests of US and radical Islamists align.
Well you certainly aren't free enough to admit that those radical Islamists are Al Qaeda. I mean it's just hilarious how you take the US state department approach on this point.
Lexington wrote:The interests of the US and the Soviet Union also aligned in a certain world war.
But we were talking about Al Qaeda. There are immense differences between WWII and today on reasons of allegiances.
Lexington wrote:But we were talking about Nigeria.
We
were talking about Nigeria, and Al Qaeda. I was staying on topic, reminding you of the US' history working with with Al Qaeda. I've never gotten off subject. You, on the other hand, want to compare the US relationship with Al Qaeda to the US relationship with the USSR.
Lexington wrote:The "tepid/cautious" thing is the fact that it took years for us
This is a complete and utter lie. The CIA has been on the Turkish/Syrian border for years, routing weapons and funds from various arms providers to the "rebels" (or as I like to call them, the "destabilizers", most of which aren't even Syrians themselves)
Lexington wrote:and now we're only giving a handful of weapons to heavily vetted groups in Syria
This isn't any better than the blabber coming from the US state department press briefings. Those "handful of weapons" are now thousands of anti-tank missiles (half of which are routed through Saudi Arabia). And those heavily vetted groups, somehow have snuck past the fact that they work with Al Qaeda on a regular basis. How is that for vetting?
Lexington wrote:precisely because we don't want those weapons going to the hardcore Islamists (which is not just al-Qaeda - al-Qaeda is just one group in the pantheon of radical Islamists in Syria).
Honestly, unless they're speaking to the public, the US could care less who their weapons are going to, as long as it's fueling the destabilization of Syria. The naive idea that they don't want their weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda, contradicts their history in which they explicitly wanted their weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda.
Also, please name the groups of radical Islamists in Syria that are explicitly unaffiliated with Al Qaeda.
Lexington wrote:Now, the US has no interest in a destabilized Syria either. A wrecked Syria is useless for business.
Man, you make so many statements without any explanation. The US definitely has an interest in protracted conflict Syria, as that drains and weakens Iranian and Hezbollah resources. General Wesley Clark said himself that Syria is on the destabilization list for future US military intervention.
So your idea that the US has all along wanted a stable Syria is just ridiculous...
Lexington wrote:Because it makes no sense - the West and China both do business in Nigeria. Destabilizing Nigeria (and the activities of Boko Haram are not limited to the north) does not selectively benefit the West. The United States is its largest export partner and its second largest import partner.
Oh come on, all of Boko Haram's attack are in the North (mainly Borno state). US interests are on the coast of Nigeria. You simply cannot sit here and tell me that the US and Chinese interests are perfectly aligned.
Lexington wrote:The FSA is not al-Qaeda.
Nobody said they were. But they actively work with Al Qaeda, and a lot of their brigades have either left for Al Qaeda or remained as Al Qaeda.
Lexington, pretending that the US has no idea about this (while routing money and weapons to them) is just ridiculous.
Lexington wrote:The US has specifically worked to vet groups in Syria to which it provides aid precisely so that those weapons and aid don't go to al-Qaeda.
This is such bogus. They obviously haven't vetted the FSA enough to know that many of it's brigades actively work with Al Qaeda, and in some cases claim Al Qaeda affiliation themselves. Yet, the US just pledged 27 million bucks to them last week.
Lexington wrote:You don't like Gordon Brown, but you think Breitbart's people are a sane and honest source of information?
The source of that information wasn't Breitbart, buddy, it was the Executive Director of the Westminster Institute, Katherine Gorka. As far as Breitbart's people being a sane and honest source of information, I'm not sure, I don't get my news from them. But upon wiki research I've found that they run stories from the Associated Press and Reuters, so.... I mean, it definitely looks like they're to the right of the political spectrum, but not sure how that automatically makes them dishonest as you suggest.