You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Increasing Likelihood Of Nuclear War Should Straighten Out All Our Priorities
"The scenario where a US-backed, US-supplied jihadist group in Syria uses US weapons to shoot down a Russian plane and then murders the pilot on the ground should be seen as a near-nightmare escalation, drawing the US and Russia terrifyingly closer to direct conflict."
Must have been a premature release on his part, al Nusra Front fighters claimed responsibility for shooting down the plane, they are not affiliated with US armed forces stationed over there and on are the US terrorist list, they are known affiliates or off shoot of ISIS. The article makes for great hype to the end of humanity, scare mongering at it's finest.
Gareth Porter wrote an excellent piece at Consortium News exposing how al-Nusra works very closely with the US backed jihadists in Syria: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/16/obamas-moderate-syrian-deception/
When taken the above article written to heart one would have to concede that whom owns control over what would be considered a minute amount of the worlds vast energy resources located in Syria wouldn't be a substantial enough reason for nuclear annihilation. That would read out (from any of the parties involved) like before I ever concede this small patch of resources I will destroy the world along with myself first. Russia nor the United States have nothing to gain except more influence and power, Syria isn't a do or die situation whereas if they don't have it they can't survive without it so we might as well just annihilate everyone if we are going to die without it anyway. Whereas to the other groups involved it just the opposite, first they have to gain control to produce the equity to gain the power and influence. Which group succeeds at that is where all the fighting comes in. For it's whoever that holds those rights in the country is the one who concedes those right to those who can add it to their portfolio so to speak adding more power and influence to the world markets. It's never going to amount to a make it or break it dire situation to the superpowers, whoever the loser is will continue on regardless. Now we get down to who is allowed to gain control of those rights within the country and the whole ball game changes because to all of them it is a do or die dire straits situation, if you don't do you can die, you can be managed, you can be told what to believe, how to walk, how to talk and since they all literally without question hate each others guts (and they can do that all on their own) it's vital to them who controls the power and it's worth fighting and they are willing to open the door to whomever will back them in that fight. Look at is as a game of wagers, (instead of based on internal conflicts) with the US and Russia, they set up the game, build the infrastructure then allow outside bidders to come in and invest their money on who will win. Technically though it's all based on internal conflicts, religious based hatred that whoever wins has the most influence in maintaining and spreading their doctrine. That's what they care about the most. Right now it's like Russia owns Park Place and the United States owns Boardwalk in Syria. The US was sending what they described a non military aid to the rebels up to Russia's full involvement, then other military aid was sent in, some of that aid "supposedly" went to the rebels fighting Assad as far as the US was concerned but ended up in the hands of other rebels, meaning that could have included Nursa since most who did align with them, including other rebel groups found them to be a more formidable fighting force, though Nursa was a off branch of what was ISIS in Iraq they claimed to be more moderate then their counterparts in Iraq. Still their over all objective also was the take charge of Syria and implement their own strict version of Sharia law, most felt compelled to join forces with them because of their strength and promises that they wouldn't inflict strict Sharia practices upon the populace as ISIS was doing. In the long haul though the US wasn't ready for that either so they put them on the terrorist watch list which then forbid the military from "openly" working with them but that doesn't mean that's the way it went down. It wouldn't surprise me either that just like the Kurds the US was using them as pawns in the game. In the end though, just as we have seen with Iraq when the Kurds moved for independence the US decided not to have their back. What's going on in Syria is no less what happened in Iraq, different factions coming together to oust a evil that was worse then they were to each other, once that's accomplished they go back to fighting each other. You see the same sort of butt kissing with Turkeys involvement, Turkeys like okay use the Kurds but once you run ISIS out it's got to be back to hating the Kurds and no help for them. It's a never ending cycle over there and it's important who controls the resources because it's the resources used to finance the regimes, the wrong regime the more the conflicts, the more hate, the more genocides and more growth potential for that hate to spread outside the country. When Russia entered the picture physically along with Iran (who'd basically say okay Assad we saved your butt now we want to widen our supply route of military surplus to cause deeper conflicts elsewhere, it's a never ending circle of violence) the US had no option but to play by dirty rules without physically using manpower. Yes it wouldn't surprise me one bit the US used Nursa heavily these last few months, they've totally managed to gain the upper foot hold on ISIS faster then any administration has since this started....but in the middle east he who is seen as your friend today is your mortal enemy tomorrow, that's just how they roll over there and the US is just playing their game by their rules. Do I think dirty politics is going to bring the world to a end? Nah, they've been playing these games for way to long.