THESE [TERRORISTS] ARE FRIENDS OF JOHN MCCAIN I PRESUME.
HOMELAND SECURITY NEWS IS REPORTING:
The numbers of Australian Islamists who have traveled to Syria to join the anti-regime rebels far exceed those of Australian Islamists who have traveled to other conflicts, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is especially worrisome since Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria are gaining ground in their campaign to recruit foreign fighters to launch terrorist attacks when they return home. U.S intelligence has discovered training complexes in Syria for foreign fighters to learn techniques which equip them with the know-how to conduct terrorist acts when they go back to their home countries.
Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria are gaining ground in their campaign to recruit foreign fighters to launch terrorist attacks when they return home. [Note here how “the message” is being repeated for emphasis.]
Many of the recruited fighters traveled to Syria to fight against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but upon arrival they become indoctrinated by al-Qaeda affiliates. About 200 Australians have traveled to Syria to help rebels topple the Assad regime, and according to U.S Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, a few dozens of them are actively engaged in combat.
U.S intelligence has discovered training complexes in Syria for foreign fighters to learn techniques, which equip them with the know-how to conduct terrorist’s acts when they return home.
The Age reports that Clapper has pointed to Jabhat al-Nusra as a terror group with “aspirations for attacks on the [U.S.] homeland.”
Half of the Australians fighting in Syria are thought to be members of Jabhat al-Nusra, while others have joined the Islamic State of Iraq, and Syria (ISIS), a more militant Islamist group that claimed ties to al-Qaeda, although al-Qaeda, in a recent posting on its Web site, had distanced itself from the group. American and Australian intelligence agencies have long been concerned of their citizens returning from Syria with combat skills and a high level of radicalization, creating the conditions, which might lead them to launch a terrorist attack. Clapper acknowledges the concern as serious and that the chance of a terrorist attack in Western countries is as strong as it was a decade ago.
The Age notes that Australia’s counterterrorism ambassador Bill Fisher agreed with Clapper’s assessment. The 2002 attacks in Bali that killed 202 people included eighty-eight Australians. ‘”The likelihood of an attack like 9/11 in the West has lessened but the capability of al-Qaeda and its affiliates to undertake lots of smaller but nonetheless deadly attacks is very real – hitting bars where Westerners congregate overseas, and other soft targets. In this respect, the threat is worse,” he said. ”Any place where there is very low domestic security control is an obvious target.”
While large and more organized terrorist networks have been disrupted, smaller grassroots terror cells are emerging and are difficult to detect. Australian intelligence agencies are finding it difficult to track who has traveled to Syria and what they are doing there. ”The numbers (of Australians going to Syria) have caught everybody by surprise,” said Greg Barton from the Global Center for Terrorism Research. The numbers far exceed those of Islamists in Australia who have traveled to other conflicts, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Clapper noted that al-Qaeda’s affiliates have developed counter-espionage tactics to battle Western intelligence agencies. ”They’ve gone to school [on] us, on how we try to track them,” he said. ”The combination of … the geographic dispersal and the increasing challenges in collecting against them makes al-Qaeda, in all of its forms, a very formidable threat.”
As predicted by Jefferson’s Voice the next step in the Global War on Terror psy op and infowar is a new elite created theme of roving international terrorist cells requiring a global military police force with carte blanche authority and more “domestic security control” at home (a.k.a. surveillance police state). Putin and Assad made their deal with the global elite, an understanding that parts of Syria and other nearby nations will become incubators for these roving cells laughably described as being so wily and elusive they present a “very formidable threat” despite the fact that these recruits are notoriously dumb and barely literate. Similar to the US, Russian authoritarian control of its population includes a whipped up and government facilitated “terrorism threat” fear-based control paradigm. This new meme or theme is being quickly adopted as a universal propaganda message for a global prison planetary regime.
If this conundrum unfolding in Syria and other parts of the middle east confuses you, don’t be embarrassed, as damn few in America have ever heard of Jabhat al-Nusra, and very possibly Australia. The CIA created and financed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan through black budget streams decades ago, now the US congress is openly funding Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria using a bogus excuse that they are aiding the “moderate” terrorists as opposed to the more extreme terrorists. Ultimately, they are all brainwashed jihadists and overt support for select groups of terrorists intentionally prolongs the conflict with Syrian government forces and civilians, thus ensuring a never ending Global War on Terror and the creation of more brainwashed and clueless terrorists who then will be allowed to travel around the world inciting more violence thus providing a faux excuse for a global military coalition and destruction of civil liberties for our own “safety”. US allies and globalist minions such as Saudi Arabia have been facilitating the overall game plan supplying jihadists, weapons, and training for terrorists for several decades, it’s business as usual to generate chaos in order to achieve various objectives. Does it not seem counterproductive to support the very people who terrorize different countries, including ours, just to replace their governments? It would be much less expensive in lost lives and money to just send in a sniper and eliminate heads of state or stage a CIA-directed coup, as was done in 1953 in Iran when Mossadegh was overthrown. However, in this new era of global governance, terrorism itself has become a useful tool to control the masses creating fear and distraction from the true perpetrators of endless conflict. But then, what else could we expect from psychotic sociopaths who can easily bamboozle an uninformed and distracted public with an education system like America’s?
Keep in mind the fact that western globalists made darn sure their mass immigration policies included inviting citizens from countries soon-to-be targeted for illegal invasion and terrorism chaos, another example of the-powers-that-be setting the stage for the appearance of an intractable problem they themselves orchestrated.
Analysis: Is Syria now a direct threat to the U S?
BY DAVID ROHDE
(Reuters) – Over the last two weeks, Obama administration officials have signaled – sometimes intentionally, sometimes not – that a worst-case scenario is emerging in Syria.
Peace talks are at a virtual standstill. An emboldened President Bashar al-Assad has missed two deadlines to turn over his deadliest chemical weapons. And radical extremists who have fought in Syria are carrying out attacks in Egypt and allegedly aspire to strike the United States as well.
Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper told members of Congress last week that Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda aligned group in Syria, “does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland.” American and Egyptian officials expressed alarm this week at signs that Egyptians who fought in Syria have returned home to mount an insurgency.
Critics of Obama administration policy in Syria argue that none of this should come as a surprise. For years, they have predicted that Assad and his Iranian and Russian backers would fight tenaciously; militants would flock to Syria; and the region would be destabilized by refugee flows, rising sectarianism and radicalized fighters returning home.
“A lot of things that the pro-interventionist crowd had argued two years ago have come to pass,” said Shadi Hamid, a Brookings Institution expert who called for military intervention in 2012. “The argument was that radicalism will rise.”
It is impossible to know whether a Libya-like intervention would have ended the conflict in Syria or exacerbated it. But citing recent statements from administration officials, Hamid argued that the current American approach is not working.
In his testimony last week, Clapper said that American intelligence agencies had picked up indications of “training complexes” within Syria “to train people to go back to their countries and conduct terrorist acts, so this is a huge concern.”
The retired Air Force general estimated that more than 7,000 foreigners from 50 countries – “many of them from Europe and the Mideast” – are fighting in Syria. He compared rebel-controlled parts of northern Syria to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, or FATA, where foreign and local militants have sheltered since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
“What’s going on there may be in some respects a new FATA,” Clapper said. “And the attraction of these foreign fighters is very, very worrisome.”
In the past, Clapper has been accused of exaggerating terrorist threats and making misleading statements about the scope of American surveillance activities. But Clapper is not the only senior official expressing concern about the rising militant presence in Syria.
At a private meeting with members of Congress at the Munich Security Conference last week, Secretary of State John Kerry said that “the al-Qaeda threat is real, it is getting out of hand,” Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham later told reporters. “He openly talked about supporting arming the rebels. He openly talked about forming a coalition against al-Qaeda because it’s a direct threat.”
State Department officials said that Graham and other members of Congress who disclosed the private meeting distorted Kerry’s statements. They denied that Kerry raised arming the rebels or described the current policy as a failure.
Noah Bonsey, a Beirut-based Senior Analyst for the International Crisis Group, called Kerry’s reported statements “an acknowledgement of the facts.” On the rebel side of the conflict, al-Qaeda aligned militants have badly damaged the international reputation of the Syrian opposition. On the government side, Assad and his backers in Iran and Russia are increasingly confident.
“Geneva made abundantly clear that the regime is not prepared to compromise on anything at all, no matter how small,” Bonsey said in a telephone interview, referring to the peace talks. “They believe themselves to be winning and they perceive themselves as seeing no real pressure, certainly not from Iran and probably not from Russia.”
“SOMEONE ELSE’S CIVIL WAR”
Steven A. Cook, a Mideast expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, agreed that Assad and the militants are both growing stronger. But he defended the administration’s decision to not intervene in what he called “someone else’s civil war.” Cook said the best way for Washington to respond to rising militancy in Syria was through regional allies, not direct American action.
“The question is how we go about countering them,” Cook said in an email. “I suspect that we are already doing things with friendly countries – Turkey, Jordan, others – to counter Nusra without a full-blown intervention in Syria.”
Bonsey said he too opposed direct American intervention but pointed out that for the last two years the United States has been trying unsuccessfully to work through regional allies. Despite scores of joint declarations, the United States, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all continue to back different rebel groups, a practice that further atomizes an already fractured Syrian opposition.
“The first step remains working with the opposition’s regional allies,” he said. “Providing carrots and sticks that can encourage a move toward pragmatism which can make them a more effective force.”
Bonsey said this week’s announcement that Obama will visit Saudi Arabia in March could be a step toward a more unified effort. But Hamid said the Obama administration has little credibility after drawing “red lines” for Assad but failing to enforce them.
A central question – the central question – regarding Syria remains in dispute in Washington, experts said. Does Syria now represent a direct national security threat to the United States? Hamid, who called for intervention in the past, said it does.
“They’re saying now that fighters are going to be trained in Syria and come back to the U.S.,” he said. “We can’t pretend that it doesn’t have an impact on American national security interests.”
Cook and Bonsey agree the threat is rising but say the administration must first develop a coherent approach to Syria with its regional allies. Public opinion polls in the United States continue to show sweeping opposition to greater American involvement, including arming more moderate rebels.
Experts say only one scenario could change Washington’s stance: Syria-based militants somehow strike the American homeland. Until that occurs, no level of carnage in Syria, Egypt or the Middle East is likely to change Washington’s political calculus.
The framers of our Constitution warned us about intervention in foreign countries, but generations of our politicians have been bought off by the corporate lobbyist under the directions of various representatives ( CFR, TLC, and others) of the International Investment bankers who are the real movers and shakers of all countries. Please get this firmly in your head, we the people, do not run this country; we are fools that were beguiled by the false flag of the voting booth. We are constantly beguiled by the controlled media industry right down to the comic books, and our despicable government controlled education. There is nearly nothing in main stream media that is true from a constitutional perspective. There is no possibility of making any changes in America’s foreign policy or anything else of consequence. All of which means, we have two choices; accept eventual death and destruction by various means, or support a full blown revolution. As for me, I would prefer dying in battle because I know I am right, and the only reasons for a revolution not already being carried out is the people are to damn self centered to learn what is being done to them, or they are just plain cowards. My biggest grief is from my fellow Christians who believe we should do nothing but pray for the very people who are killing us. Such myopic theology is not found in the bible, but is preached by apostate preachers everywhere. The only thing possible to save our freedom is for the people to do their own research and discover the truth on their own, and conclude that fighting to the death is far better than kissing the Bankers ass as they have you robbed, and murdered. I am beginning to believe that Americans do not have the courage, or intellect to live free.