The New York Times says “American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.”
No shit.
Apart from this hardly being a revelation, the Times states this as though the U.S. hadn’t already long since intervened in Syria, with the CIA coordinating the flow of arms to and training the rebels, with most of the arms ending up in the hands of the Islamic extremists.
My source for that, by the way, is the New York Times. But that information had gotten tossed down the memory hole by the end of last year. Let’s dig it up:
Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.
So what the Times should be saying here is: “American military action is likely to further strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.”
Actually, even that would be understating it. The whole purpose of the plan to bomb Syria is to provide support to the rebels, the most effective fighters of which are the extremists.
Further down in this article, the Times says, “While the jihadis claim to be superior fighters….”
The jihadis claim to be…?
The jihadis claim to be…?
Let’s dig up another Times article tossed down the memory hole, in which the Times itself described the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front “one of the uprising’s most effective fighting forces”.
So I guess that sentence should begin, “Indeed, the jihadis are widely recognized to be among the most effective fighters among the rebels…”
