Syria . . .

[sonofdaxjones]

 

Crickets.

[Rams]

There's an incredibly big difference between low-key special ops missions to support an existing civilian uprising vs. massive troop deployment to wage a full-scale war with little-to-no civilian support.

Also, you're trying WAY too hard to link this back to the U.S.  "NATO/Western Intelligence" and "Mid-East U.S. Puppets" and "CIA assets" does not equal U.S. troops.

[LickNeckey]

I personally prefer sleek plausibly deniable military and intelligence support of native insurgency as opposed to the unilateral decade long commitment of significant assets.

Regardless of political affiliation.

[ednksu]

I like the use of puppets in Dax's op.  Try to work in sheeple next time.

[ednksu]

Is Qatar anything but a U.S. puppet state at this juncture?

The CIA unleashed . . . it's perfectly fine, as long as a Democrat is President.

LOL

call me when Olie is running guns into the place.  The CIA presence is at best minimal.  They don't even have basic anti-tank weapons that hadjis do.

[ednksu]

Your examples are completely immaterial to the discussion. 

In addition State and CIA's actions in Syria is straight off the Central American model on some levels.  Hell, the former U.S. Ambassador to Syria served under Captain Death Squad himself John Negroponte in Iraq.

You act like NATO/NATO Intelligence/CIA are mutually exclusive entities when it comes to these kinds of operations, and they are not.

wow you're so off base. 

First my examples show just how little you understand about the CIA's covert missions.  The inherent problem is that you believe revolution against authoritarian regime = US/Nato/West involvement.  It is possible that this is a home grown insurgency against their rulers.  Second, if the CIA was involved the insurgents would have the basic tools necessary to fight the regime.  That is been the CIA MO for decades, from Nicaragua to Afghanistan.   Third they are mutually exclusive when it comes to these types of things when we want them to be.  Clearly many want us involved, even some NATO members, but we haven't.  The situation in Homs proves that US involvement is at a minimum at best.  The daily onslaught and the complete inability to drive back armored forces show that they don't even have a basic understanding or materials necessary for IEDs.  If we can get AA weapons into the hills of Afghanistan in the 70s don't you think we can get a few rusty soviet stock shells into Syria for them to make IEDs?

[Panjandrum]

I personally prefer sleek plausibly deniable military and intelligence support of native insurgency as opposed to the unilateral decade long commitment of significant assets.

Regardless of political affiliation.

 

[LickNeckey]

Regardless of political affiliation.

also kudos to CIA/MI-6 if true. wish they would have done one of these on Iraq when they had Bechtel full of operatives.  would have beat the hell out OIF.

What is going on in Syria right now has been in the CIA/MI-6 playbook since the Eisenhower administration, in fact it is going down exactly how they first put on paper in 1957 or thereabouts.

[Panjandrum]

U.S. Global Hegemony is a-Okay . . . as long as a Democrat is President.

Well, I'm with LN on this.  I'm okay with it as long as it's done through intelligence operations as opposed to occupation forces.

[Rams]

U.S. Global Hegemony is a-Okay . . . as long as a Democrat is President.

Well, I'm with LN on this.  I'm okay with it as long as it's done through intelligence operations as opposed to occupation forces.

Yeah...everybody's on the same page.  Dax just doesn't understand it.  He's trying to make a weak comparison where there is none and then claim there's a double standard.  It's so ignorant it's not even worth discussing.

[kstatefreak42]

lol

[felix rex]

I think people would be surprised by how little the CIA (or any other intel agency) has to do with what's going on in Syria. Despite the credit they may want to take for political or budgetary reasons.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think people would be surprised by how little the CIA (or any other intel agency) has to do with what's going on in Syria. Despite the credit they may want to take for political or budgetary reasons.

It seems to me the entire so-called Arab spring is about forming Islamic Sharia governments. JMO

[ednksu]

I think people would be surprised by how little the CIA (or any other intel agency) has to do with what's going on in Syria. Despite the credit they may want to take for political or budgetary reasons.

It seems to me the entire so-called Arab spring is about forming Islamic Sharia governments. JMO

Arab spring: no

revolution and instability after arab spring: yes

[LickNeckey]

That's the bitch about democratic republics in Islamic states.  Turns out they like Islamic thingies.