The Times, however, did not completely endorse the truthers' view. Only Saudi Arabia and Qatar are mentioned as the financial and military backers of the Jihadists. According to the warped worldview of the Times, the CIA is just throwing money at the wind in Syria, not funding any terrorists or arming them.
I respect the CIA's capabilities more than the Times and other "mainstream" newspapers. I think CIA officials are smart and competent enough to deliver American taxpayers' money to anti-American terrorists in Syria, rather than flush it all down the toilet in hotels in Turkey.
But, hey, at least we've come half way as far as the truth is concerned. The presence of Jihadist terrorists in Syria has been acknowledged by the most powerful and prestigious American newspaper.
We should not forget that it was only a few months ago when it was considered a fringe conspiracy theory by the "mainstream" press that the violent opposition against Assad is being led by Jihadist terrorists backed by Western governments, Turkey, and the Gulf monarchies.
At the time, the mainstream media absurdly called the anti-Assad opposition a collection of protesters who were demanding their freedom from a tyrant, and ignored the reality that they were in fact terrorists with a record of killing innocent civilians, kidnapping foreign journalists, committing massacres, looting private property, and provoking the Syrian army.
Kurt Nimmo broke down the false points within the Times' narrative in his article, "New York Times: Weapons Going to al-Qaeda in Syria," writing:
"In other words, the CIA and the fanatical Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supporting and arming al-Qaeda in much the same way they did in Libya. In order to mute this reality, the Times describes the rebels as “hard-line Islamic jihadists” and repeats the widely debunked fallacy that the United States really wants to support “more secular opposition groups” attacking the government of Syria."This isn't the first time that the New York Times has lent its weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. In late April, the Times published a report that uncovered the FBI's fake terror cases.
I was genuinely surprised at the Times' reporting and wrote an article about it. Saying that the FBI is manufacturing terror plots and exploiting the manufactured fear of terrorism for its own gain is traditionally the territory of "fringe conspiracy theories." So it was weird as hell for a major publication like the New York Times to take such a huge leap into the fringe.
Could it be that the mainstream media is reclaiming its role as an investigative institution that works for the public interest? That sounds too good to be true. So let's not get ahead of ourselves. Acknowledging the reality that Al-Qaeda is in Syria is different from admitting that the U.S. government created Al-Qaeda and directs its operations.
In its report on the Syrian rebels, the New York Times did not inform its readers that for the past several months NATO has shipped Jihadists terrorists from Libya and across the Middle East and North Africa into Syria.
Also, the role played by the U.S. and Israel in stoking chaos in Syria and funneling arms and cash to Jihadist terrorists to bring down the Assad regime is still denied by the mainstream press.
Some views remain in the department of "fringe conspiracy theories," while others are suddenly safe to talk about.