• 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!

Obama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels

the_recruit

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,207
Reaction score
2,615
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels | Reuters

Not entirely surprising, really. Ultimately it's a wise move; for Assad the writing is on the wall. It's still very unclear how long he will survive, though. Two weeks ago, the FSA seemed poised to bring it all down, but the Army has since retaliated and regained much of what they lost.
 
Not much of a secret it would seem. I know DP is at the cutting edge but.......
 
And the leaks continue....
 
I love that we have secret support for the rebels. Does Obama also have secret love for his wife? Rediculous. Stop the leaks.
 
so we are financing terrorists? Or are they not terrorists if we like them? Are we financing insurgents? Or are we calling them freedom fighters?
 
so we are financing terrorists? Or are they not terrorists if we like them? Are we financing insurgents? Or are we calling them freedom fighters?

It all depends. If they sodimize their leader with a knife, freedom fighters. If they sieze a town, they are insurgents. If they sieze the capital, and then claim they hate the US, then they are terrorists.
 
so we are financing terrorists? Or are they not terrorists if we like them? Are we financing insurgents? Or are we calling them freedom fighters?

There is legitimate concern that militant Sunni organizations such as Al Qaeda are seeking to steer the uprising to their own ends, which is one reason the response from the West, in particular the US, has been so tepid. In fact, the order from Obama explicitly forbids providing the rebels with "lethal" equipment for this exact reason.

But, in general, I don't see how the rebel's response to the government's violent suppression of peaceful protests with violence qualifies them "terrorists". Unless your definition of terrorist is as moronic as "muslim with an AK-47".
 
There is legitimate concern that militant Sunni organizations such as Al Qaeda are seeking to steer the uprising to their own ends, which is one reason the response from the West, in particular the US, has been so tepid. In fact, the order from Obama explicitly forbids providing the rebels with "lethal" equipment for this exact reason.

But, in general, I don't see how the rebel's response to the government's violent suppression of peaceful protests with violence qualifies them "terrorists". Unless your definition of terrorist is as moronic as "muslim with an AK-47".

I guess they would be terrorists in the same sense that the founding fathers were terrorists.
 
There is legitimate concern that militant Sunni organizations such as Al Qaeda are seeking to steer the uprising to their own ends, which is one reason the response from the West, in particular the US, has been so tepid. In fact, the order from Obama explicitly forbids providing the rebels with "lethal" equipment for this exact reason.

But, in general, I don't see how the rebel's response to the government's violent suppression of peaceful protests with violence qualifies them "terrorists". Unless your definition of terrorist is as moronic as "muslim with an AK-47".

where is the info on al qaeda angling in?
 
where is the info on al qaeda angling in?

There is no concrete info. As I said, it's a concern. There's bits of evidence here and there. al Zawahiri has been very vocal about his support of the uprising. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that he has dispatched some lieutenants to assist in any way they can.
 
Not cool Obama...
Several things to say from my POV
1.)I could care less that this leaked. I think its a good thing it leaked. Secrets are not good for a well informed democracy to function
2.)I dont think we should be supporting sides in a civil war. I support the rebels in their fight against an oppressive government but we the USA should not be involved.
 
Syria and Libya, "There are foreign mercs invading our soil!"

US media, "They are bombing their own rebels."

*shrugs* The world may never know.
 
There is no concrete info. As I said, it's a concern. There's bits of evidence here and there. al Zawahiri has been very vocal about his support of the uprising. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that he has dispatched some lieutenants to assist in any way they can.

Taking solid action on whiffy info is never a good idea. Also, if anyone believes we are not providing lethal aid.....oh boy.
 
Why isn't this situation being taken care of by the neighboring countries? Why do we have to get involved?
 
Why isn't this situation being taken care of by the neighboring countries? Why do we have to get involved?

What's the point of ridiculous spending on a military budget if you don't use it?
 
Taking solid action on whiffy info is never a good idea. Also, if anyone believes we are not providing lethal aid.....oh boy.

who's taking solid action? In face of such concerns, I said the West's reaction has been cautious.

And I believe we are not providing lethal aid. Or was the order to supply lethal aid sent in another double-secret directive? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Obama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels | Reuters

Not entirely surprising, really. Ultimately it's a wise move; for Assad the writing is on the wall. It's still very unclear how long he will survive, though. Two weeks ago, the FSA seemed poised to bring it all down, but the Army has since retaliated and regained much of what they lost.

Monkeying with revolutions in other countries has never once come back to bite us, I say go for it!
*cough*
 
Monkeying with revolutions in other countries has never once come back to bite us, I say go for it!
*cough*

Doesn't mean we should never intervene, though.

One of Bill Clinton's greatest regrets was that he didn't intervene during the Rwandan genocide.
 
Doesn't mean we should never intervene, though.

One of Bill Clinton's greatest regrets was that he didn't intervene during the Rwandan genocide.

I am ok if our intervention is sparking the UN, but otherwise, we don't need to be involved.
 
who's taking solid action? In face of such concerns, I said the West's reaction has been cautious.

And I believe we are not providing lethal aid. Or was the order to supply lethal aid sent in another double-secret directive? :roll:

I don't think you understand how it works. They aren't going to advertise supplying munitions so the admitted shipments are just cover. It has always been like this.
 
Doesn't mean we should never intervene, though.

One of Bill Clinton's greatest regrets was that he didn't intervene during the Rwandan genocide.

I thought his biggest regrets were of an entirely different nature...
 
I don't think you understand how it works. They aren't going to advertise supplying munitions so the admitted shipments are just cover. It has always been like this.

Oh right, sorry. I must have misplaced my tinfoil hat.
 
Back
Top Bottom