350 Diplomatic Flights Carry Weapons for Terrorists
Here a link to a highly interesting article published (in English) in Bulgaria, brought to my attention by a visitor of the ACIG.info forum…
Here a link to a highly interesting article published (in English) in Bulgaria, brought to my attention by a visitor of the ACIG.info forum (special thanks!): 350 Diplomatic Flights Carry Weapons for Terrorists.
Now, before I go on, let me explain a few of the backgrounds:
‘Nusra’: former Jabhat an-Nusra, is a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda, primarily supported by Qatar, to a lesser degree by Turkey too. It has meanwhile renamed itself at least two times. Currently it is known as ‘Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham’, i.e. HTS.
‘Salafists’: in the West, this is meanwhile a sort of a pseudonyme for ‘extremists’ and ‘terrorists’, because various of extremists groups here are declaring themselves as such.
However, in the Middle East — and especially between Islamist scholars — there is a distinction between Salafists (conservative, but apolitic and generally: non-violent) and Wahhabists (conservative, aggressive, expansionist and militant).
Indeed, in the Middle East, most of Salafists are at odds with Wahhabists and various of their off-shots — like the Daesh (aka IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL/AQI), the AQAP in Yemen, or the HTS.
PKK: this is an organization of Kurds from Turkey, at war with Turkey since more than 30 years, and considered ‘terrorist organization’ by the USA, all of the NATO, and most of the EU. In Syria, the PKK operates in form of the PYD, and its military wings — YPG and the YPJ. Gauging by their lists of casualties, at least 55, more likely 60% and more of YPG/YPJ combatants are Turkish citizens.
US foreign policy in Syria: while one might expect the CIA and the Pentagon to cooperate and support each other in this regards, they are actually at odds (indeed: ‘almost at war’ with each other). In regards of Syria, the CIA is cooperating with State Department: they are of the opinion that one should support specific Syrian insurgent groups in their struggle against Assadist regime (supported by the IRGC, Hezbollah and the Russian government). However, they have been overruled already by the administration of the former US president Obama, and even more so by that of the current US president, Trump. The result is that currently the US foreign policy in regards of Syria is run by the Pentagon, although this should be none of Pentagon’s business: after all, US laws dictate the military to follow orders from its political masters, and not the other way around. Similarly, US laws strictly prohibit any kind of cooperation with the PKK.
Whatever, the Pentagon dictates that the sole ‘higher national interest’ of the USA in Syria is to fight the notorious ‘Islamic State’ — and not such reasons for its coming into being, like the Assadist regime, or such terrorists groups supporting the Assadist regime, like the IRGC, or Hezbollah.
‘Syrian Democratic Forces’ (also ‘SDF’): because the US laws strictly prohibit any kind of cooperation with the PKK, the Pentagon found a solution for this problem by creating this SDF. Unsurprisingly, the SDF is centred around the PKK/PYD/YPG/YPJ-conglomerate. While Pentagon is swearing the SDF consists foremost of Syrian Sunni Arabs, there is next to no evidence for this (on the contrary: there is more evidence for the SDF ethnically cleansing 200.000+ Syrian Sunni Arabs out of their homes).
SOCOM: stands for ‘Special Operations Command’; this is one of major joint commands of the US military, i.e. the Pentagon.
Everything clear? OK, then let’s go back to the actual story.
Now, Mrs. Gaytandzhieva writes in this article that she received documents stipulating arms deliveries with help of some 350 flights from Bulgaria to the Middle East — and that the documents in question are providing evidence for ‘USA providing arms to Nusra’.
To me, the documents in question appear genuine, and there’s no problem with their authenticity.
Sadly (indeed: tragically), Mrs. Gaytandzhieva is wrong in regards of destination of arms shipments in question — probably because she does not know about all of what I’ve explained in ‘introduction’ above. Namely, the papers in question show that the primary customer for majority of arms shipments in question is the US SOCOM.
There is no way the SOCOM would support ‘Nusra’ (i.e. HTS), and ‘Nusra’ never received any kind of US aid. At most, it captured some of arms and equipment provided by the CIA to various of Syrian insurgent groups after attacking the same.
This is where it’s getting really interesting. Namely, yes, it could be said that most of arms exported _via_ Bulgaria (then, by far not all were from Bulgaria: plenty of arms in question were from Croatia and Serbia) were provided to ‘terrorists’ — and then ‘terrorists’ considered as such by the USA and all the NATO, even by most of the EU. And, surely enough, to terrorists supported by the USA and the NATO.
But, the terrorists in question are those of the PKK, i.e. those now acting under titles of the PKK/PYD/YPG/YPJ/SDF-conglomerate.
Namely, the SOCOM always insisted — and continues insisting — on supporting the PKK, i.e. the PYD/YPG/YPJ/SDF-conglomerate.
The arms in question are provided to this conglomerate officially, and with the purpose of the ‘SDF’ fighting the Daesh (aka Islamic State/IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL/AQI etc.).
The ‘rest’ of arms obtained by the SOCOM was flown all the way to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The next interesting point is that merely some 6–7% of shipments in question (23 out of 370) had Saudi Arabia as destination, even fewer the United Arab Emirates.
Now, it’s fashionable in these days to blame Saudi Arabia for ‘supporting terrorism’. And, no doubt, 10 and more years ago this would be absolute truth: back then, an entire branch of the Saud family (the least-powerful of the three major branches) was involved in this ‘business’. However, ‘even’ Sauds have meanwhile learned what’s at stake and ceased doing so.
Instead, the Saudis are nowadays supporting such parties like ‘Islamic Front’ in Syria, and/or ‘Quietists’ in Yemen. No doubt, both are local Salafists, and — as explained above — ‘Salafists’ have a terrible reputation here in the West, no doubt about this. To a certain degree, it is perfectly possible the Saudis are supporting such groups out of hope they might, sometimes in the future, kind of ‘convert’ to Wahhabism.
However, the point is: the Saudi-supported groups in question — such like the Islamic Front in Eastern Ghouta of Syria, or the so-called ‘Quietists’ in Yemen — have no ideology of launching terrorist attacks in the West (nor, indeed, of ever fighting the Western powers). Actually, not only that the Islamic Front is fiercely attacking the HTS in Eastern Ghouta, but the Quietists — there are five groups of them — are some of most fierce and most effective anti-AQAP combatants in Yemen (and that’s why they are wholeheartedly supported by the Emirates, too).
Quite curiously, Qatar — primary supporter of the HTS in Syria and various extremist Islamist groups in Libya — is not mentioned in that report with a single word. Turkey, which is at least supporting the Syrian Moslem Brotherhood, and — to a certain degree — the HTS too, is foremost mentioned as a destination for SOCOM’s — i.e. US — arms purchases. Means: the USA are buying and delivering arms for a terrorist organization fighting against its NATO-ally (Turkey) and considered a ‘terrorist’ organization by all of the NATO and most of the EU), and letting these be delivered to a NATO air base in Turkey.
What a surprise then if Erdogan (certainly a story of its own) is complaining, isn’t it…?
Plus, a few of arms shipments in question (diminutive minority in total) were actually delivered to the DR Congo — which now seems to be receiving Saudi aid in this regards.
You know why is this as interesting? Because ever since 1996 (when it was still named Zaire) the DR Congo is constantly exposed to aggressions of US-, Israel-, Great Britain- etc., supported Rwanda. The biggest aggressions in question — those of 1996–2003-period — left over 5 million of the Congolese citizen dead in their wake.
You can’t believe this? Rwandans are ‘good guys there’? Well, read and see with your own eyes:
In a hyperbole, and considering the Rwandans remain eyebrows-deep involved in attempts to destabilize DR Congo in interest of their illegal exploitation of the Congolese mineral wealth (estimated as worth some US35 trillion), this means that the Saudis are de-facto supporting the fight against US-supported terrorism there.
Sounds absurd?
That’s the sad reality of our days.