• 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

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

Never said it hasn't. Nor does it follow that if intervention A backfired, all interventions must necessarily backfire.
 
As much as I'm saddened by what's happening in Syria, the world is aware that a huge contingent of Al Qaeda is fighting on the rebels' side. For every perceived successful rebellion, as in Tunesia, there are rebellions that have left the country in flux, under the same or worse oppression than that which they rebelled against, as in Egypt and parts of Africa and Malaysia. The jury is still out on Libya.

People should be careful what they wish for. A country controlled by a western-hating dictator may or may not be better than a country controlled by a western-hating terrorist organization like Al Qaeda. Can anyone imagine what carnage Al Qaeda could reap if it had the resources of an entire country to draw from, along with international representation and recognition? I can.
 
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 haven't seen your link documenting these peaceful protestors that you speak of. Perhaps you are speaking metaphorically? It would not be appropriate to think that your typing fingers were working without your mind.
 
Didn't China and Russia say no military ops in Syria?
 
Oh right, sorry. I must have misplaced my tinfoil hat.

Portable brains can be hazardous. Hopefully it is accessible when you read:

"The Obama administration quietly has cleared the way for U.S. residents to buy weapons for the rebels who are fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, granting a Washington-based advocacy group a rare license to collect money for arms and other equipment."
U.S. eases arms purchases for Syrian rebels - World - MyrtleBeachOnline.com
 
Didn't China and Russia say no military ops in Syria?

Im not sure Assad cares what they say.

(I know what you meant.....just being sarcastic)
 
Portable brains can be hazardous. Hopefully it is accessible when you read:

"The Obama administration quietly has cleared the way for U.S. residents to buy weapons for the rebels who are fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, granting a Washington-based advocacy group a rare license to collect money for arms and other equipment."
U.S. eases arms purchases for Syrian rebels - World - MyrtleBeachOnline.com



For just the cost of a cup of coffee a day, you can buy this 7 year old insurgent the bullets he needs to topple his government. Your donation will help to provide children in need with loving firearms, trainings, bullets and hope for the future. With your donation, children all over the world can have the chance of a lifetime – something many of us take for granted each and every day. Won't you help today?
 
Portable brains can be hazardous. Hopefully it is accessible when you read:

"The Obama administration quietly has cleared the way for U.S. residents to buy weapons for the rebels who are fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, granting a Washington-based advocacy group a rare license to collect money for arms and other equipment."
U.S. eases arms purchases for Syrian rebels - World - MyrtleBeachOnline.com

"...despite the Obama administration’s opposition to U.S. military intervention and its reluctance to supply weapons directly to the rebels."

"...confirmed the issuance of the license and said it wouldn’t cover the direct shipment of weapons, radios or other technical equipment, which would require a different type of permit."

The Syrian Support Group can give money to the rebels. The rebels spend that money on whatever they want, including buying guns. There is nothing contradictory in that article to anything I have said. I don't dispute that we're supporting the rebels via monetary aid and technical assistance and equipment. In fact, that's exactly what my OP says.

What I dispute is your baseless assertion that we're giving the rebels weapons. We're not. I, and undoubtedly the Obama administration, am perfectly aware that any sort of aid that has value - monetary aid, communications equipment, medical supplies - can be used by the rebels to purchase or barter for weapons. That's uncontroversial. If you can't discern the difference between that, though, and shipping them state of the art weapons I don't know what to tell you. Maybe, double up on the tin foil?
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen your link documenting these peaceful protestors that you speak of. Perhaps you are speaking metaphorically? It would not be appropriate to think that your typing fingers were working without your mind.

Don't be obtuse. I'm referring to the origins of the conflict over a year ago. That the initial protests were peaceful and were met with violence is indisputable.
 
"...despite the Obama administration’s opposition to U.S. military intervention and its reluctance to supply weapons directly to the rebels."

"...confirmed the issuance of the license and said it wouldn’t cover the direct shipment of weapons, radios or other technical equipment, which would require a different type of permit."

The Syrian Support Group can give money to the rebels. The rebels spend that money on whatever they want, including buying guns. There is nothing contradictory in that article to anything I have said. I don't dispute that we're supporting the via rebels monetary aid and technical assistance and equipment. In fact, that's exactly what my OP says.

What I dispute is your baseless assertion that we're giving the rebels weapons. We're not. I, and undoubtedly the Obama administration, am perfectly aware that any sort of aid that has value - monetary aid, communications equipment, medical supplies - can be used by the rebels to purchase or barter for weapons. That's uncontroversial. If you can't discern the difference between that, though, and shipping them state of the art weapons I don't know what to tell you. Maybe, double up on the tin foil?

Hair splitting is a joke man. Do you actually think Obomba could walk up to the podium and straight up say:

"We are arming insurgents."

By clearing the licenses for the weapons that is exactly what we are doing.
 
Last edited:
Hair splitting is a joke man. Do you actually think Obomba could walk up to the podium and straight up say:

"We are arming insurgents."

By clearing the licenses for the weapons that is exactly what we are doing.


facepalm.gif


Re-read your own article. Carefully. The license is for giving the rebels MONEY. It is not for giving the rebels WEAPONS. I already stated through the ****ing OP that we are giving them monetary aid. Your article presents no new information and conflicts with absolutely nothing I have said.

We give the rebels money.

We do not give the rebels weapons.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you.
 
For just the cost of a cup of coffee a day, you can buy this 7 year old insurgent the bullets he needs to topple his government. Your donation will help to provide children in need with loving firearms, trainings, bullets and hope for the future. With your donation, children all over the world can have the chance of a lifetime – something many of us take for granted each and every day. Won't you help today?

The death toll in Syria is nearing 20,000. You'll have to excuse me if I don't share your flippancy.
 
facepalm.gif


Re-read your own article. Carefully. The license is for giving the rebels MONEY. It is not for giving the rebels WEAPONS. I already stated through the ****ing OP that we are giving them monetary aid. Your article presents no new information and conflicts with absolutely nothing I have said.

We give the rebels money.

We do not give the rebels weapons.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

The article points out the new license allows the purchase of weapons. Wtf do you think that means?

"
 
The article points out the new license allows the purchase of weapons. Wtf do you think that means?

"

Yes, the author does point out that one can use money to buy weapons. You can also use money to buy an ipad. You can buy a bicycle. You can buy shaving cream. You can buy mangos. You can buy books. You can buy a puppy....

Who knew? Glad you posted this article, I had no idea. :roll:. Come on, man. Put your critical thinking cap on when you're reading articles like that. The Syrian Support Group gives the rebels money. They have no control over that on which the rebels spend the money. Which is the case when anybody gives anybody money.
 
You're too busy splitting hairs to be flippant.

You're right. There is no meaningful difference between

5736105470_100_dollar_bill_xlarge.jpeg and javelin0s0df0o9.jpg

I'm sure it would make no difference to you if your boss paid you in dollars or armor piercing 120mm tank ammunition. :roll:
 
Yes, the author does point out that one can use money to buy weapons. You can also use money to buy an ipad. You can buy a bicycle. You can buy shaving cream. You can buy mangos. You can buy books. You can buy a puppy....

Who knew? Glad you posted this article, I had no idea. :roll:. Come on, man. Put your critical thinking cap on when you're reading articles like that. The Syrian Support Group gives the rebels money. They have no control over that on which the rebels spend the money. Which is the case when anybody gives anybody money.

"The Obama administration quietly has cleared the way for U.S. residents to buy weapons for the rebels..."

Wtf does that say?
 
sigh...it's like talking to a brick wall. oh well, i tried.
 
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.

funny because it's true
 
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?

We'd be supporting terrorists either way in this one. The Assad regime (at least Hafez), supported Hezbollah.
 
We would have had much, much, much better control over which groups were in the ascendency in Syria if we had had agents on the ground and supply pipelines months ago. I predict our indecision on Syria is something that will haunt us for years to come. We had an opportunity and we have steadily frittered it away letting others haphazardly pick up the slack, choosing their own winners and losers. I tend to think we won't like to see which militias have received the benefit of Saudi and Qatari largesse.
 
Don't be obtuse. I'm referring to the origins of the conflict over a year ago. That the initial protests were peaceful and were met with violence is indisputable.


Right, or not! So post the link/s.
 
Yes, the author does point out that one can use money to buy weapons. You can also use money to buy an ipad. You can buy a bicycle. You can buy shaving cream. You can buy mangos. You can buy books. You can buy a puppy....

Who knew? Glad you posted this article, I had no idea. :roll:. Come on, man. Put your critical thinking cap on when you're reading articles like that. The Syrian Support Group gives the rebels money. They have no control over that on which the rebels spend the money. Which is the case when anybody gives anybody money.


It's obvious that we are supporting the overthrow of Assad. The likely reason is to get rid of the Russian naval base. Do you think that is why the Russians have just publicized the support for an upgraded base on Lourdes? Lourdes is Cuba. We have been encircling and attempting to contain Russian influence and power under the guise of Missile warning systems all over the Baltic countries to warn of incoming missiles from Iran. A real transparent agenda. Now the Russians will put some Nukes in Lourdes just to play diplomatic "tit for tat," and the USA will start scrounging for more money for more weapons and more high tech to defend against the "Soviet menace." The Russians are making a lot of money with their natural resources and are flush and the USA seems to be broke and nearly broken. Geez, and we are talking about Syria.
 
I guess they would be terrorists in the same sense that the founding fathers were terrorists.

Hmmm, were our founding fathers members of the muslim brotherhood?
 
Back
Top Bottom