From our state funded propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe:

"But this battle also comes at a price -- a key Al-Qaeda-linked group has helped spearhead the attack on the city. Operating under the umbrella organization Jaish al-Fatah, Army of Conquest, the newly rebranded Al-Nusra Front, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, used suicide sappers and tunnel bombs to break open the Syrian Army's battle lines and main defenses, through which various rebel groups are now streaming. As David Patrikarakos explained for RFE/RL on August 4, while many more moderate rebel groups also played very important roles, Al-Qaeda's leading role may impact the entire trajectory of the war moving forward."
http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-ramouseh-artillery-base-victory/27903617.html

That's the US government's news outlet just saying Al- Qaeda just won a stunning victory and that this will "impact the entire trajectory of the war moving forward."

Wahhabist sharia law Islamic state here we come then?

And if our "moderate" rebels are riding on the coat tails of Al-Qaeda, what does that say about our entire role funding rebels, prolonging the civil war and ultimately helping Al-Qaeda win?

in the ME is to systematically destroy many of the more power powerful nations in the ME: namely the secular ones with a diverse population that had also treated women well, and Iran. They want the jihadist to enter the conflict and break these nations up, so they will be permanently weak. Their diverse populations made them vulnerable to this destruction method.

The planners' goal is to leave their favorite nation with total domination of the region.

You really think "our" plan was to have ISIS running loose in the world? What about all the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks before the US invasion of Iraq--how does that fit into your theory, if I dare ask?

And "the planners" want "their favorite nation with total domination"? Who exactly are the planners and which nation would that be? Do tell.

There is no need to slip in thinly veiled anti-semitism into our own failed foreign policy actions.

The invasion of Iraq was not done as a favor to Israel, it was George W's and Cheney's desire to control Iraq's massive oil reserves that were the ultimate reason for our actions.

"Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.
It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

Posting our actual motives for invading Iraq was apropos.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

Want a private discussion? Then use DU mail.

When in a reply to a post where I am SUPPORTING you you say:

"I wouldn't say it if you didn't tend to troll/flamebait all my posts"

You do see how silly that looks right?

Who is flame baiting whom when you just posted:
"butt out and let the questionee respond"

These are discussion forums.

If you don't like people replying to your posts that disagree with you, perhaps, just perhaps, that is a failing on your part.
Its even sillier when you get upset when a person AGREES with you. Good grief.

and you can sit and wonder why so few people reply to yr posts, GWYM. Enjoy your stay.

Sorry that me agreeing with you upset you this much.

it's just the basic corruption that dominates Washington DC. (I don't do crazy: Oswald did it, I support GMO's, truthers are kooks, an invisible man in the sky doesn't control the Universe, etc)

Most politicians don't care about any particular agenda. Most of them do at any particular moment what they believe will get them reelected. In the Bush administration, the Neocons set the agenda, with their targets of Iraq, Syria, Libya. and Iran, all nations that are enemies of the terrorists that committed 9-11. Neocons are open about their agenda to destroy those nations for the benefit of Israel. It's not a secret.

9-11 was a fortuitous gift to the Neocons, though a major terrorist attack was highly predictable due to US human rights abuses and atrocities in the ME that we had been committing for decades. I wasn't the least bit surprised on 9-11.

The Neocons are conspiracy kooks, and US foreign policy is what you get when conspiracy kooks get power in government. They were able to scam the US public to support an unprovoked attack against a random Muslim majority nation because they are part of a nefarious "axis of evil." Iraq was part of some great Muslim conspiracy.

The Neocons set the agenda, and now that they got the predictable results, most politicians are now doing what they think needs to be done with the current facts on the ground, which gives us permanent war.

Many politicians are also open about their threats against Iran for the benefit of Israel. We are supporting the terrorists against Syria because the Israel supporters care more about weakening Assad's power than the kooks that want to create a theocracy in Syria and Al Qaeda that attacked the US.

Washington DC is much more complicated than I can write in a few paragraphs, since there are so many agendas, but this is an important element of our war agenda.

And the planners want ISIS to run amok as they are doing because it serves their goal, correct?

They aren't super human with super powers (including they can't see the future perfectly) and I have no way of reading their minds. The fact that civil war broke out was predictable by anyone that knows anything.

The Neocons were also war profiteers, including Dick Cheney who understood the obvious about taking down Saddam:

The anti-Israel bias is just way over the top.

We, the US, do bad things foreign policy-wise 99.999% of the time in pursuit of our own perceived interests.

The US has been a major human rights abuser since long before Israel. There are many agendas in Washington DC, including Israel, whose supporters in the US are currently a major force for corruption in the US.

You can't properly understand our foreign policy without acknowledging the obvious influence of Israel's supporters. The conspiracy kooks are the ones that are pushing our anti-Muslim war agenda.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/eye-opening-graphic-map-of-muslim-countries-that-the-u-s-and-israel-have-bombed/

Before then we were fine with jihadist rebels fucking shit up.

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.