• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fail: Obama Administration Provides Weapons to Al Qaeda

Bronson

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
3,195
Reaction score
1,192
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I find the website more than a little dubious.

However, it claims to be quoting from the New York Times, though it doesn't give a link to the story.
 
This is a serious allegation. We need credible proof.
 
I find the website more than a little dubious.

However, it claims to be quoting from the New York Times, though it doesn't give a link to the story.

The article comes from an organisation set up by this guy.

It's slightly amusing that Bronson and Hicup are taking it so seriously without knowing who's behind it.
 
I don't understand supplying military aid for internal conflicts. If we want to supply aid, it should be in the form of humanitarian resources: medical care and supplies, food, clothing, etc.

Stop funneling weapons into unstable regions, especially when conflict in those regions is crossing borders into neighboring countries. You just put more lives at risk.
 
I don't understand supplying military aid for internal conflicts. If we want to supply aid, it should be in the form of humanitarian resources: medical care and supplies, food, clothing, etc.

Stop funneling weapons into unstable regions, especially when conflict in those regions is crossing borders into neighboring countries. You just put more lives at risk.
In a speech at the Virginia Military Institute last Monday, Mr. Romney said he would ensure that rebel groups “who share our values” would “obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.” That suggests he would approve the transfer of weapons like antiaircraft and antitank systems that are much more potent than any the United States has been willing to put into rebel hands so far, precisely because American officials cannot be certain who will ultimately be using them.

But Mr. Romney stopped short of saying that he would have the United States provide those arms directly, and his aides said he would instead rely on Arab allies to do it. That would leave him, like Mr. Obama, with little direct control over the distribution of the arms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/w...ent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Fast and Furious, meet Dumb and Dumber......this administration is amazing.
 
So it is not the Obama Administration but Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whom we support? And the arms SA and Qatar are getting is from us?

The largest arms dealers in the world are the 5 permanent members of the UN.
 
Last edited:
In a speech at the Virginia Military Institute last Monday, Mr. Romney said he would ensure that rebel groups “who share our values” would “obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.” That suggests he would approve the transfer of weapons like antiaircraft and antitank systems that are much more potent than any the United States has been willing to put into rebel hands so far, precisely because American officials cannot be certain who will ultimately be using them.

But Mr. Romney stopped short of saying that he would have the United States provide those arms directly, and his aides said he would instead rely on Arab allies to do it. That would leave him, like Mr. Obama, with little direct control over the distribution of the arms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/w...ent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So I disagree with both candidates on what we should be doing to aid countries in the midst of civil unrest.
 
So it is not the Obama Administration but Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whom we support?
Well, as the NYT article states, SA and Q are distributing the second hand small arms supplied by the US.....which are finding their way to jihadists....who are probably doing the main fighting against Assad.
 
So I disagree with both candidates on what we should be doing to aid countries in the midst of civil unrest.
Since Assad is in charge still, we could not get the humanitarian supplies you want distributed to the forces opposing Assad with any certainty, much less so than small arms, since those items are generally tougher to smuggle in significant quantities......and if any ended up "in the wrong hands" we would still have the hardliners on your side going off the deep end about that...just as they are doing now.
 
Well, as the NYT article states, SA and Q are distributing the second hand small arms supplied by the US.....which are finding their way to jihadists....who are probably doing the main fighting against Assad.

“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.

That's about as damning as it gets
 
The article comes from an organisation set up by this guy.

It's slightly amusing that Bronson and Hicup are taking it so seriously without knowing who's behind it.

When you can't dispute the facts, try and attack the source /yawn

“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.
 
Well, as the NYT article states, SA and Q are distributing the second hand small arms supplied by the US.....which are finding their way to jihadists....who are probably doing the main fighting against Assad.

I had just edited to reflect that. Just to point out again, the largest arms dealers in the world are the 5 permanent members of the UN.
 
Since Assad is in charge still, we could not get the humanitarian supplies you want distributed to the forces opposing Assad with any certainty, much less so than small arms, since those items are generally tougher to smuggle in significant quantities......and if any ended up "in the wrong hands" we would still have the hardliners on your side going off the deep end about that...just as they are doing now.

Yes, but food, medical supplies, and clothing will not kill people completely outside of the conflict. Weapons will.
 
Yes, but food, medical supplies, and clothing will not kill people completely outside of the conflict. Weapons will.
Well now you are talking about supporting the Assad regime. That is not what we want to do.
 
Well now you are talking about supporting the Assad regime. That is not what we want to do.

We're already doing it when weapons are funneled to AQ combatants.

At the end of the day, if we provide any aid it should NOT be aid that could be used to kill innocents, as these weapons likely will.
 
We're already doing it when weapons are funneled to AQ combatants.
Uh....did you not get the point, that premise is not supported by the NYT article.

At the end of the day, if we provide any aid it should NOT be aid that could be used to kill innocents, as these weapons likely will.
You are still avoiding the previous point, you want aid to someone....but if you want to aid the Assad regime, you are supporting the "killing of innocents".

You have to come to some realization of the logistic reality of what you want to promote.
 
Uh....did you not get the point, that premise is not supported by the NYT article.

You are still avoiding the previous point, you want aid to someone....but if you want to aid the Assad regime, you are supporting the "killing of innocents".

You have to come to some realization of the logistic reality of what you want to promote.

When you want to actually read and understand what I'm posting let me know, k? I never said anything about wanting to support Assad. I made a generic comment about military aid/foreign aid to unstable regions. You tried to spin it into some sort of backwards support of Assad. I don't do dishonest debates, dude. Let me know when you reject them, k?
 
When you want to actually read and understand what I'm posting let me know, k? I never said anything about wanting to support Assad. I made a generic comment about military aid/foreign aid to unstable regions. You tried to spin it into some sort of backwards support of Assad. I don't do dishonest debates, dude. Let me know when you reject them, k?
You want to make pie in the sky generic comments about supplying "aid", but you can't say to whom or how....and then I point out some of the basic realities of what you generically propose.....and suddenly it becomes "spin". When you say we should "supply humanitarian aid to those arab countries where civil war is occurring"..... and the country in discussion IS Syria.....you ARE talking about supplying SYRIA (the Assad regime) with humanitarian aid while IT IS killing "innocents".

If you can't see how that works out in reality, it isn't my fault....and it certainly isn't "spin".
 
You want to make pie in the sky generic comments about supplying "aid", but you can't say to whom or how....and then I point out some of the basic realities of what you generically propose.....and suddenly it becomes "spin". When you say we should "supply humanitarian aid to those arab countries where civil war is occurring"..... and the country in discussion IS Syria.....you ARE talking about supplying SYRIA (the Assad regime) with humanitarian aid while IT IS killing "innocents".

If you can't see how that works out in reality, it isn't my fault....and it certainly isn't "spin".

It's called a strawman. You made it. I didn't.

Again, honesty. When you want to adopt that concept let me know.
 
Back
Top Bottom