- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,587
- Reaction score
- 2,291
- Location
- Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Do you have a link that specifically addresses the so called " test program" ? Or did you just make that up yourself when jango proved your previous post to be false/lie?The earlier (couple months ago perhaps) photo I saw did not appear to be US.
Apparently, such weapons are being supplied as a test program for keeping weapons out of extremists' hands.
Do you have a link that specifically addresses the so called " test program" ? Or did you just make that up yourself when jango proved your previous post to be false/lie?
September 17, 2013
The Obama administration waived provisions of a federal law which ban the supply of weapons and money to terrorists. The move is opening doors to supplying Syrian opposition with protection from chemical weapons.
The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) allows the US president to waive provisions in Sections 40 and 40A, which forbid providing munitions, credit and licenses to countries supporting acts of terrorism. But those prohibitions can be waived "if the President determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."
President Barrack Obama ordered such a waiver for supplying chemical weapons-related assistance to "select vetted members" of Syrian opposition forces, the administration announced on Monday.
The Syrian opposition groups are increasingly dominated by radical Islamists, many of them foreign fighters who, the UN says, are involved in numerous crimes committed in Syria. According to estimates of defense consultancy IHS Jane's, more than a half of the forces fighting to topple President Bashar Assad government are jihadists. The US explicitly listed Al-Nusra Front, a powerful Al-Qaeda-linked part of the Syrian opposition, as a terrorist organization.
Still, US politicians believe national intelligence community can ensure that the military assistance goes to the right hands.
"Our intelligence agencies, I think, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support," Senator Bob Corker said on CBS on Sunday. "And there's going to be mistakes. We understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. But we still should be doing everything we can to support the free Syrian opposition."
We're not going to win any hearts and minds anyway, so who cares?
As an earlier poster stated there is no reliable evidence whatsoever that the US has been arming or supporting ISIS. I'll even add that there is great evidence that we have been doing exactly the opposite in an effort to contain them. Paul's remarks are almost certainly wrong.
Mornin' Sherman. :2wave: You are correct that No one in the News says that the US is arming Terrorists.
But now Rebels are a different story.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=u.s.+tow+missile+syria
Is there any evidence that Paul is right?
Yes we've been arming some of the rebel groups, specifically those that are in confrontation with ISIS and associated Islamist organizations. Which is a direct contradiction of what Paul claimed.
You are correct that No one in the News says that the US is arming Terrorists.
And nobody in any of the rebel groups gave any of our weapons to ISIS people?
The tactics employed by the ISIS are so brutal that in February the main branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria disavowed the group entirely. The U.S. government, which has been funding and arming rebels in Syria has attempted to distance itself from both the ISIS and mainline Al-Qaeda fighters in Syria, however the so called "moderate" rebels that Washington is publicly supporting, have admitted that they regularly carry out joint operations with Al-Qaeda, and do not consider the group their enemy.
U.S. officials acknowledge that American weapons and vehicles have been diverted to extremists in both Iraq and Libya, but as of yet they have dodged the obvious questions related to their channeling of arms to insurgents in Syria.
Weapons and funding aside, it is the U.S. government's push to topple Assad that has made ISIS's rise to power possible. The group has thrived in the chaos of the Syrian war, and in its weakened state the Syrian government has been unable to push them out of their strongholds
'I am not fighting against al-Qa’ida… it’s not our problem', says West’s last hope in Syria
While Maarouf maintains that their military supplies are too few to share, he cites the battle of Yabroud, against the regime, as an example of how his group shared weapons with Jabhat al-Nusra
Yes we've been arming some of the rebel groups, specifically those that are in confrontation with ISIS and associated Islamist organizations. Which is a direct contradiction of what Paul claimed.
He never came out and said BO was sending them to Terrorists Directly.....but then we know they were sent and taken from the MB backed Rebels by al Nusra and ISIL.
Which didn't count any cooperative battles. Wherein the MB backed Rebels just gave the weapons to both groups of Terrorists.
Also the info is not all out on the Weapons that we were sending to Syria from Libya. But the Pieces are coming together.
From the OP's link "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that the Sunni militants taking over Iraq have quickly gained power because the United States has armed their group in Syria.". That statement is false.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between him and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.
Not no one, the alternative media certainly are. Just not the mainstream media, because they're useless insiders.