A little click bait hyperbolic title there, not unlike my last diary. I'm just trying to fit in with what passes as jurnalism these days. New poling has come out that shows the most hawkish political demographic in 2019 are Democratic voters (notice I didn't say democratic voters because someone back before I was born used that as a derogatory term and the average age of the readers here is well over 55, and hence they lose thier shit over something hardly anyone under 40 remembers or gives a shit about). Flip the R to a D and you can appoint Victoria Nuland, or have Robert Kagan serve on the State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board and the Democratic base will unquestionably support your foreign policy. You will be called the "best president eva!!!", and the Secretary of state will be called the "most qualified candidate in history". No need to critique said policy let alone go over it with a fine tooth comb.
The title of my last diary was somewhat tongue in cheek. I was expecting plenty knee jerk reactions no doubt about that, but I was also expecting some covo that contained nuance, clearly I was wrong. I was expecting a decent amount of American exceptionalism bullshit and plenty of the stupid obnoxious shallow one liner arguments I had to deal with when I was 20 years old, opposed to the Iraq war, and living in a tiny little town in Mississippi. I had to deal with it with my interactions with people in my town, then I got to go home and deal with the same stupid arguments on the news. I used to rack my brain wondering how such a large precent of the population could be so god dam stupid. It appears that precent is sadly far larger than I could of imagined.
90 precent of the comments were accusing me of "Putin propaganda". To that end I want everyone who accused me of that to do me a favor. Stay the fuck away from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Radio Free Europe and stick to the Daily Kos, Share Blue, and Addicting info, if you want to avoid "Putin propaganda" because there was not a single example I used that hasn't been reported in the NYT, WAPO, or Radio Free Europe.
One of the first examples I used was the Trump Tower meeting during the 2016 election season between Trump, Eric Prince, UAE/KSA emissary George Nader, and Joel Zamel the Israeli specialist in social media manipulation. Joe Zamel's company, which employed several Israeli former intelligence officers, specialized in collecting information and shaping opinion through social media. Wine moms grab your wine, old men grab your pipes and go sit on the front porch and meditate on this fact, you may not be aware of that meeting, but I assure you the front page publishers most certainly fucking are. If they or the many readers who are aware of that fact actually gave a flying fuck about foreign countries using social media to influence the 2016 elections in favor of Trump, there would be a whole hell of a lot more ink on that piticular meeting than there is now. They don't. Why would they? Wolfowitz, Brizenski (rip) and Bill Kristol are the new heros now. Never Trumpers forever!!! Rip Weekly Standard.
Furthermore I went on to show how Trump's policy has been far more favorable to Israel, the UAE, and the KSA, than his policies toward Russia (Nord Stream, Ukraine, pressuring NATO countires to increase funding). I sited the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem, and Trump's policy towards Qatar, and Yemen. A reader was kind enough to inform me I misspelled Yemen, of course he did so while critiquing my claim that Trump's policies/rhetoric towards Qatar and Yemen were beneficial for the UAE and KSA. To said reader: It's been 17 years since those towers were knocked down, if you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with the geopolitics of the middle east by now then maybe you should avoid commenting in diaries that are published here in this reality based community.
One of my later examples was the Syrian policy currently touted not only by the folks at the now defunct Weekly Standard but by Dem pols and rank and file Democrats. Had the President been a Republican during the Syrian civil war there is absolutely no doubt in my mind his policies regarding Syria would have been gone over with a fine tooth comb, and the CIA TOW/Train and equip program would be examined with a microscope here in this lovely reality based community. Now I for one have absolutely no problem admitting this topic requires a enormous amount of nuance, and things are not exactly black and white, and would most certainly expect conversations here in the reality based community to take on a nuanced and detailed manor. I mean the people who populate this forum are not the dingbat assholes from my tiny town in Mississippi, they certainly are not the obnoxious talking heads of Iraq invasion era Fox News ( not saying present day Fox News talking heads are not just as obnoxious) one would hope. That hope would be misplaced.
Off the top, if your ass can't name a single fucking militia that was a member of the CIA TOW program, then you have absolutely no business calling anyone a pro Trumper, or Putin apologist who was critical of said program. I do know this. If this policy was carried out under a Republican administration a whole hell of lot more of the people who populate this forum would be able to name one than they can now.
Again this is a topic that requires plenty of nuance, no doubt. War produces strange alliances. Enemy of my enemy and all that. If any of the regular readers actually gave a fuck about this war you would be aware of the fact that coalitions form and dissolve every three to six months. You would also be aware of the fact that these militias spend a whole hell of a lot more time fighting each other than they do fighting the Syrian government (although they have come together from time to time to fight the Syrian government, case in point during the attempted braking of the siege of Aleppo, and the East Ghouta campaign). The militias fighting in this war are nothing close to a homogeneous freedom loving group of people who the MSM generically calls "rebels".
Now on to some of the Militias that were in the TOW program.
:Mountain Hawks Birgades. The Mountain Hawks Birgades (secular, pro democracy) were apart of the Mare opperations room that included Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya arguably one of the most well funded and well equipped militias in Syria (they are backed by Saudi Arabia), second to only Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham aka al-Qaeda in Lavant at this time. Periodically the Obama administration would bomb Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, at the time known as Al Nusar, said bombing resulted in the defection of roughly half of Al Shams fighters to Al Nusar. They were pissed Obama was bombing AQ, and refused to be member of a militia that works with US supplied militias (Mountain Hawks Birgades). And why wouldn't they be? They share the exact same Wahabi ideology as AQ. There are however some differences worth pointing out. Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya wishes to establish a Wahabi Islamic state in Syria, and has no desire to operate in any other country, nor engage in terrorism in any other country. That being said should they come out on top, which should Assad's be removed and his forces destroyed would not be unlikely, expect to see a Taliban Hazara situation, regarding Druze, Alawite, Christian, Yazidi, Shia, Sufi, Suni who isn't Salifist, and of course every " godless commie Kurd ".
:the First Coastal Division (secular pro democracy) . While at the moment they are currently fighting Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham aka al-Qaeda, for a substantial time during this war they often engaged in joint opperations with Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, and often referred to them as "brothers in arms". During the very first cease fire with Russia/Syria/"rebels" they engaged in a joint opperation with AQ on Khanasir road (links Allepo to the rest of government held Syria). We know this because one of the conditions of being the TOW program they have to film themselves every time they use a TOW as proof they used it inorder for them to be able to receive more TOWs. The TOW groups love doing it no doubt, and used said films, videos whatever, as a recruiting tool. As shallow as this might sound, one of the First Coastal Division's TOW operators was piticulary entertaining, his videos resembled a 80s action movie (he was a small guy who rocked a mullet and did the Home alone fist pump). At any rate while the MSM didn't explicitly say the the Syrian government/Russia broke the cease fire, it would be dam near impossible to come to any other conclusion after reading their reporting. There reporting was at the very least disinformation.
:The Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement (Salifist, anti democracy) : Pretty sure I don't need to go in to too much detail with this one. Most readers are familiar with the infamous child head choppers, so I'll keep it short. They adhere to Salifism, and later joined Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham aka al-Qaeda after the US cut them off. Later they had a major disagreement with AQ (a very frequent occurrence, again coalitions form and dissolve on the regular) and left to join Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya. Over the past 3 weeks AQ has made significant advance against Al Din Zenki. Making AQ at this point the biggest player by far in Idlib. Something I have absolutely no doubt would be major news here in this forum had US intervention in Syria taken place under a Republican administration.
One of my other examples was the militia makeup of East Ghouta. Which holy shit the push back I got from that. One pearl clutching commenter called me a asshole or piece of shit something like that. Guy clutched his pearls over a topic he doesn't give a flying fuck about. I got to admit that made me laugh harder than I have in weeks.
The militias that controled East Ghouta were Jaysh al-Islam, Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, and Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya. They spent 80% of the time fighting eachother, and rarely joined together to fight the Syrian government. East Ghouta is nothing more than a few miles from Assad's residence. Ther primary reason why he didn't atempt to clear the pocket much earlier in the war was because the militias spent half the time doing his work for him ie they spent half the time killing eachother. Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya are enemies of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham , and Jaysh al-Islam is enemies with both, and obviously vice versa. I have zero doubt the majority of the readers here would be well aware of these facts had US involment began under a Republican administration. Many of the readers would laugh out loud when they saw how the media flipped on Zahran Alloush, the leader/founder of Jaysh al-Islam, when he was recorded rallying the troops by calling for the extermination of all Druze, Alawites, Christians, Sufis etc. Prior to said comments he was referred to as a powerful "rebel leader". Post comments he used as a exmple of "how Assad poisoned the revolution" piticulary by the Daily Beast, who ran at least 6 articles to that effect. This of course is another topic that requires a bit of nuance. Douma a traditionally very conservative suburb of Damascus was Zahran Alloush's hometown and base of support. Said town was only a few miles from the prison Zahran Alloush was being held. Massive protest demanding the realease of Zahran, were taking place at said prison that was only a few miles from Assad's residence. He didn't realease Zahran in a atempt to "poison the revolution" but in a atempt to cool down some shit that was taking place right on his doorstep. That concession was one of many to the demands of protesters. Mind you I am under no illusion thoses concessions were made with belovant intent nor did they change the status quo regarding the Assad government power structure. But they were made nonetheless.
Now as far as the gas attacks go? I'm inclined to believe the first attack was committed by the Assad government. That being said, both Jaysh al-Islam, and Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham have per the DOD used chlorine gas against it's enemies. I would also like to mention Khan Shaykhun was also controlled by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham if you are getting confused by all these names let me remind you Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham is Al Qaeda in Levant, aka al-Qaeda in Syria. The fact that the MSM media referred to them simply as rebels, is at the very least disinformation.
Not mentioned in my last diary but a point I want to touch on. I remember well about a year ago Tulsi was touching on these points, and a few diaries were written on the topic. LMFAO. The comments section was filled with people screaming join republicans all ready. I couldn't bare to read said stupid shit so I just left, and haven't visited much as a result. Yes Republicans is technically correct. There are two who are opposed to the current Washington concensus regarding Syria. Trump, and Rand Paul. We know of one Republican who certainly supports the Washington concensus that is called the Washington concensus because it's the fucking Washington concensus, regarding Syria, and that would be Rubio who used the exact same foreign policy consulting firm during the 2016 primary season as Hillary. Everybody in DC loves them some PNAC.
Now on to Ukraine. Which at this point I'm not even going to lie to you. Writing long shit ain't my thing, and I'm tried as hell. I try to respect the readers time, and I doubt in this case I was successful, however I will try to make this short. Andriy Parubiy the chairman of the Ukrainian parliament is undeniably a Nazi, now like what so many rank and file Democrats like to say about DLC Third Way " New Democrats " who try running at a national level they try to say about Mr. Andriy Parubiy and that is "he changed" and "people learn" wether you like it or not C14, and the Azov battalian receive not only government funding but also arms.
You either support this shit or you don't. But I can say this if you do, you are in the wonderful company of Bill Kristol, and Lindsey Graham.