According to the Pentagon, Aleppo is "primarily held" by al-Qaeda. They argue that the rebels the CIA supports there are allies of al-Qaeda. The CIA, however, "rejects that claim, saying alliancess of convenience in the face of a mounting Russian-led offensive have created marriages of battlefield necessity, not ideology."
Only the CIA doesnt "reject that claim", they don't deny the fact that the rebels they back are in alliance with al-Qaeda, they admit that it is true and then go on and try to justify the crime of supporting international terrorism.
The US is, by their own admission, supporting one of the most horrific terrorist groups in the world through their rebel proxies. Noting this fact only a few months ago would have been rejected outright as some kind of conspiracy theory lunacy, yet now that they are unable to hide it anymore the propaganda narrative has changed. Instead of denying it they admit it, and say the rebels do work with al-Qaeda only they really really don't want to, and so its okay. The problem however is that every single claim made in this argument is false.
They claim that the collusions are "alliances of convenience", except that when the Cessation of Hostilities was agreed upon it was the "moderate" FSA commanders who literally begged the US and Russia to include al-Qaeda in the ceasefire and protect them from being targeted. They referred to the group as their "brothers" and as an "honorable faction." A few months ago an al-Qaeda commander was filmed presenting a gift to an FSA officer stating that "al-Qaeda and the FSA are one" while thanking him for using US-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles in support of al-Qaeda on the battlefield. A few years ago the commander who recieved the largest amount of US aid was interviewed on TV and said al-Qaeda are the "brothers" of the FSA, and that "al-Qaeda does not exhibit any behavior that is different from the FSA" and "our relationship" with the extremists is "good."
This is the reality of the relationship, yet when the rebels are instructed by their British government propaganda arm (the US and UK have admitted to running a PR shop for the FSA in order to clean up their image) they tell the media that they really don't want to be working with al-Qaeda, the media then accept this as fact, and the public are shielded from the inconvenient reality.
Secondly the CIA claims that they themselves do not want the rebels to be working with al-Qaeda, except that it was the US who directly TOLD the rebels to work with them and to subordinate themselves under an al-Qaeda dominated front. When the rebels first conquered Aleppo in 2015, it was revealed in Foreign Policy that the US-led operations rooms had instructed the rebels to fight alongside al-Qaeda and operate under their command.
Back in 2014 one of the CIA-backed rebel commanders revealed to The Independent that he had been instructed by "those who support us", i.e. the US and its allies, to send weapons to the jihadi groups. "When they tell us to do this, we do it," he said.
Thirdly it's claimed that the alliances are a response to the Russian intervention, however as just described the rebels have been working with al-Qaeda long before the Russians ever started bombing.
After this is pointed out it is then argued that the alliances are the result of Assad and his strategy of "bombing the moderates," yet this argument instantly collapses upon examination. The US instigated a proxy insurgency from abroad that has supported some of the world's most viscous terrorists, and Syria has every right to defend itself against this attack. Syria has always fought against al-Qaeda and ISIS and their US-backed affiliates, the "bombing the moderates" line is an attempt to obscure this fact. Further they have every right to attack the affiliates of al-Qaeda, a UN Security Council resolution was reached (that the US agreed to) which calls on all countries to work to eliminate al-Qaeda, ISIS, "and all affiliated groups." What sane and rational person would argue against fighting the affiliates of al-Qaeda?
Fifthly it is argued that these alliances are not a reflection of shared ideology, except it has been widely reported years back that there "isn't a secular group in sight" in Syria, the foremost academic experts on the country have reported that nearly all of the rebels are exclusively Sunni Muslim and that they all desire some from of an Islamic state, meaning one consisting of reactionary Shariah law.
And lastly it's argued that these alliances are a result of "battlefield necessity." Here, however, I actually agree.
Vice president Biden admitted that "there are no moderates" because "the moderates are made up of shopkeepers, not soldiers," while Obama explained that these shopkeepers would never be an effective fighting force, and so there was no "clean way" to carry out their policy of overthrowing the government in Syria. Thus the need to work with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey in supporting the most violent extremist elements. The strategy is one of utilizing the radical jihadis as a means of bringing the Syrian government to its knees and to force it to comply with US demands. If they want to topple Assad, then they have to support the most effective forces on the battlefield which are the extremists. This, however, is not an argument for supporting extremists, it is an argument against it.
Despite the fact that all of the claims in this argument are false, all of this really doesn't matter. The US admits to supporting al-Qaeda through their proxies. Only the vilest of monsters would argue "yes, we are supporting terrorists, but...."
The US and its allies instigated an insurgency by proxy and have supported the worst terrorists groups in the process because it was beneficial to their goals of imperialism. They then go on to blame Assad and Russia for what they are doing.
When the US and its allies support terror groups because it helps them destroy Syria, it's their fault, and only the most deranged of psychopaths would argue otherwise.