Whenever you see something in the mainstream media, it’s always a good idea to ask yourself, “who benefits” from the situation and how it is portrayed. Besides the damning evidence Israel was directly involved  in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that question is why I’m highly skeptical about the terrorist network, Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda’s actions appear to benefit (perceived) Jewish interests and the hostile elite within Anglosphere much more than it benefits the Muslims it claims to represent. If anything, Al-Qaeda seems to act against the interests of Arab Muslims (as well as white people).
So when I heard Gaddafi’s claim  that, “al-Qaeda is behind the Libyan uprising,” last year, I dismissed it as Gaddafi making a very ineffective, naïve, and embarrassing appeal to those in the West (1). Given his character and history, I wouldn’t have put it past him.
Now Assad’s government in Syria is also claiming Al-Qaeda is playing a role  in the violence aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government. This, and my better grounding in the global political situation (especially concerning Russia) made me reflect more on the situation.
I’ve come to suspect two things. First, that, Al-Qaeda operatives probably were involved in overthrowing Gaddafi’s government and are currently involved in the attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. To what extent, I don’t know, but this would make a lot of sense if Al-Qaeda is actually an Israeli-Neocon front group or is somehow bribed into serving their interests. Second, that instead of a poorly thought-out appeal to the West, claiming Al-Qaeda is involved in the rebel’s terrorism may actually be very smart political positioning – at least in Assad’s case. Let me explain.
By claiming Al-Qaeda is involved with but not necessarily the only group behind the rebels, Syria leaves room for its allies, namely Russia, to strike a deal with Anglosphere that allows the West a way to save face if it backs down from supporting the overthrow of Assad’s government.
If a deal cannot be struck, the Assad government has not claimed that Al-Qaeda is exclusively behind the rebellion and therefore can still point the finger at Western governments (i.e. the United States, Israel, and the U.K.). Such an accusation may be more powerful than you would think given the West’s long track record of intervention in the Middle East. If promoted enough by allies like Russia and China, exposing Western involvement in the violent terrorism in Syria could critically undermine Anglosphere’s ever-decreasing credibility on Middle Eastern affairs and threaten to unite most of the world in anger against the primary culprits—America, Israel, and the U.K.—who are already growing more and more isolated on the international political plain.
In an admittedly unlikely scenario, it’s even possible that bringing captured Al-Qaeda operatives into the international limelight  could expose the unseemly connections between Al-Qaeda and the governments and groups who actually run and/or support it.
Whoever runs Al-Qaeda and whatever role it is really playing, I think the motive for claiming Al-Qaeda involvement in the conflict is primarily to leave options open for political maneuvering by allies like Russia that have the power to dissuade Anglosphere from further pursuing Syrian regime change. In any case, there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye, and it behooves us to read between the lines and ask, “why is this being said,” and “who benefits from this?”