• 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

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.

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

I think the question is, what's going on with both candidates?
 
Reminds me of back in early Iraq when we were sending money to pay for Iraqui dancing boys to entertain the faction leaders we were trying to win over.
 
It's called a strawman. You made it. I didn't.

Again, honesty. When you want to adopt that concept let me know.
It wasn't "spin", isn't "straw", it is called "details" vs "generic commentary". If one chooses to make vague, generic comments and then can't detail how those comments apply to a specific circumstance, maybe you ought to just leave it or not start in the first place.
 
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. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/w...ent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

I think the question is, what's going on with both candidates?

My guess he is talking about stingers, not patriot missile systems.
 
Yes, but food, medical supplies, and clothing will not kill people completely outside of the conflict. Weapons will.

It seems to me it shouldn't be that difficult to supply weapons that only work while "activated".
 
It's just one debacle after another and the Obama spinmeisters are running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to douse the flames

Judge allows 9/11 terrorists to appear in court wearing camouflage 'because they want to look like soldiers' | Mail Online

The sister of one of the pilots whose plane was hijacked on September 11th said that it is outrageous that the military judge ruled in the terror suspects favor by allowing them to wear camouflage clothing inside the courtroom.

‘This judge has to grow a backbone,’ Debra Burlingame told MailOnline

It's actually our Commander in Chief who needs to grow a backbone
 

Obama will end the war on terror as soon as he helps al Qaeda win it

June 15th, 2013

by Jim Emerson, staff writer

The Obama Administration has finally come to the conclusion that Syrian dictator Assad has chemical weapons which he will use against al Qaeda aligned, Muslim Brotherhood backed insurgents and rebels. So after calling for an end to the war on terror, the White House resident has now ordered the U.S. military to develop a plan to assist Syrian rebels in an overthrow of the Assad regime. Once accomplished, Assad will be replaced with a Muslim Brotherhood puppet as seen in Egypt and Libya.

Obama’s military planners are developing plans for arming Syrian rebels and insurgents (al Qaeda terrorists) to fight the forces loyal to Assad. Current plans call for establishing a no-fly zone in Syria from bases located in Jordon. (1) A safe zone will be created near the Jordanian border to train and arm anti-Assad forces. However this proposal leaves Syrian anti-aircraft capabilities untouched. Unless Obama puppet master (Valerie Jarrett) makes a deal with Vladimir Putin, this becomes a very dangerous idea. After all, if Syrian forces feel threatened they will shoot. This is what happens when plans are made by White House Lawyers rather than military professionals.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
obama-will-end-the-war-on-terror-as-soon-as-he-helps-al-qaeda-win-it

After 8 months the detractors are finally seeing the truth. Obama wasted his time now he has no option, unless he sends American troops to clean the mess. Does anyone really think supplying al Qaeda with arms will solve the problem? It has caused the lives of nearly 90,000 Syrians some killed by chemicals shipped to Syria by Sadaam Hussein. Will Obama get down on his knees and kiss the backside of the new Russian dictator Vlad Putin?
 
While it's far from straightforward, the decision the West has to make is between either supporting Assad, Iran and Hizb'ullah by doing nothing and allowing them to crush the uprising, or supporting the rebels who include West-leaning, more secular and liberal forces AND AQ, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. Provide arms to the former and you are inevitably providing support to the latter three. You cannot supply only forces who are friendly to western liberalism and not expect that distinctly unfriendly forces will also benefit.

No one appears to know what the balance of power within the rebel forces might be. Are AQ-aligned factions in the majority and standing by to seize power once Assad has been removed? A power grab attempt seems a certainty, the means and support to do it is unknown.

Those suggesting that direct US military intervention is the only option seem to be misreading the results of recent similar interventions, plus they misinterpret the will of the American people who haven't misread those results.
 
Back
Top Bottom