American Intelligence officials are acknowledging that the bulk of the weapons flowing into Syria for the US-backed war to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad are going into the hands of Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamist militias.
US “Military Aid” to Syrian Opposition Goes to Al Qaeda | Global Research
I don't even know what to say about this. I'm at a loss for words.
What the hell is going on at the WH? This isn't f*cking funny anymore.
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.
False, the article says:are going into the hands of Al Qaeda
Oct. 14 American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats say 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.
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.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
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 it is not the Obama Administration but Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whom we support?
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.So I disagree with both candidates on what we should be doing to aid countries in the midst of civil unrest.
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.
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.
“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.
Except, it isn't ....since it doesn't support your premise.That's about as damning as it gets
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 now you are talking about supporting the Assad regime. That is not what we want to do.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.
Uh....did you not get the point, that premise is not supported by the NYT article.We're already doing it when weapons are funneled to AQ combatants.
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".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.
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.
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".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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?