• 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!

Paul: US has been arming ISIS in Syria

Do you read what you post?



So, basically, we didn't attack Qatar, and you are trying to spin that as us supporting Al Qaeda. Well done.

Yes, and it would advance our discussion if you would too! Before you respond.
 
Is there any evidence that Paul is right?

Yes there is. We know for a fact that the US has been arming the rebels for quite some time ('US arming Syrian rebels forces Iran to bleed resources' | JPost | Israel News) (US to start arming Syrian rebels, but will it make much difference? - CSMonitor.com), we also know that the Islamist groups do most of the fighting in Syria (Al-Qaeda Jihadists Are The Best Fighters Among The Syria Rebels - Worldnews.com).

It is impossible to keep track of these weapons once they get into the country and on top of that, the weapons would possibly go to the best fighters, the jihadists, so it is quite likely that the US has been arming groups like ISIS, albeit inadvertently.
 
Yes, and it would advance our discussion if you would too! Before you respond.

:doh

I did read your sources, which is why I knew that the first thing you posted had confused the Free Syrian Army with ISIL and the second thing you posted had a headline you liked, but the body which completely failed to support your contention.
 
:lol: coming from the guy who didn't even know that ISIS and ISIL were the same organization.

reading back through the thread, I've done more to break out ISIL and the personalities involved than anyone else.

For example, when I pointed out the example of Maqdisi critiquing the declaration of the caliphate.

what you have done, is ignore a substantial point of Paul's.

Quick, without google, can you even begin to describe that?

what are you, 12? put your little willy away, this isn't a pissing contest.
 
:doh

I did read your sources, which is why I knew that the first thing you posted had confused the Free Syrian Army with ISIL and the second thing you posted had a headline you liked, but the body which completely failed to support your contention.

The FSA has morphed many times, but I really think your splitting hairs, and that its not completely known where each and every jihadist in Syria has been or is going. Far more important than this technical diatribe of yours, is that as a matter of policy the US has supported these factions in one configuration or another for these last three years, and in some fashion, militant Islamic groups that have committed terrorist acts for past decades and it hasn't done a damn thing to bring stability to the region, has actually had the opposite effect and logically one should acknowledge that instability is indeed the policy, or successive incompetent administrations. Either way we have sucked at the ME and should get the hell out, and for a long time. As a note of encouragement, recent polls show that more and more Americans are taking the more isolationist view, so perhaps our foreign policy will be given to people who think more like at least, Rand Paul in the future.


The group, in its original form, was composed of and supported by a variety of Sunni insurgent groups, including its predecessor organizations, the Mujahideen Shura Council, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the insurgent groups Jaysh al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba, Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah and Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura, and a number of Iraqi tribes that profess Sunni Islam.
 
Last edited:
The FSA has morphed many times, but I really think your splitting hairs, and that its not completely known where each and every jihadist in Syria has been or is going.

:doh the leadership of ISIL has been known for years and never involved these guys. In fact the basic ideals of these guys are anathema to the ideals of ISIL.

It's like claiming that because membership if the Communist part is fluid, some of their leadership also did stints in charge of the Libertarian party.

Far more important than this technical diatribe of yours

You mean the facts.

is that as a matter of policy the US has supported these factions in one configuration or another for these last three years, and in some fashion, militant Islamic groups that have committed terrorist acts for past decades and it hasn't done a damn thing to bring stability to the region, has actually had the opposite effect and logically one should acknowledge that instability is indeed the policy, or successive incompetent administrations. Either way we have sucked at the ME and should get the hell out, and for a long time.

On the contrary, what we are seeing now is the result of a lack of US involvement. We've gone passive in the last 5 years or so. Welcome to what the world looks like without America. The Middle East is in flames, so is half of North Africa, Central Asia is about to descend back into civil war, and Central Africa isn't looking so hot, either.

As a note of encouragement, recent polls show that more and more Americans are taking the more isolationist view, so perhaps our foreign policy will be given to people who think more like at least, Rand Paul in the future.

God I hope not. The last thing we need to do is double down on awful.
 
what you have done, is ignore a substantial point of Paul's.

No, I have ignored the attempt to insert a strawman argument into Pauls' (false) statement.

what are you, 12? put your little willy away, this isn't a pissing contest.

No, it is a debate. A conflict of knowledge in which you are unarmed.
 
:doh the leadership of ISIL has been known for years and never involved these guys. In fact the basic ideals of these guys are anathema to the ideals of ISIL.

It's like claiming that because membership if the Communist part is fluid, some of their leadership also did stints in charge of the Libertarian party.



You mean the facts.



On the contrary, what we are seeing now is the result of a lack of US involvement. We've gone passive in the last 5 years or so. Welcome to what the world looks like without America. The Middle East is in flames, so is half of North Africa, Central Asia is about to descend back into civil war, and Central Africa isn't looking so hot, either.



God I hope not. The last thing we need to do is double down on awful.

Now move the goal post to just IS leadership. There is no way of knowing with any certainty, who their ranks are, where they've been, (AQ, al Nusra, MB etc.) or where they're going, and frankly, this technicality your arguing distracts from the larger and more important point that US policy is helping to drown the ME in sectarian violence, sorry but that's my concern, and its my belief that Rand and his father have and are shinning light on this, hopefully the new polls on the subject mean that Americans are thinking about it.
 
Now move the goal post to just IS leadership.

YOUR SOURCE IS THE ONE THAT MADE THAT ARGUMENT. Seriously. Do you read what you cite?

the larger and more important point that US policy is helping to drown the ME in sectarian violence, sorry but that's my concern, and its my belief that Rand and his father have and are shinning light on this, hopefully the new polls on the subject mean that Americans are thinking about it.

If Rand wanted to argue that point then he should have argued that point, instead of making the blatantly false claim that we were arming ISIL. That he made the latter indicates that he doesn't have a terribly good argument for the former, which isn't surprising given that it would be false. The U.S. has expended quite a lot of blood and treasure trying to keep the Fitna under wraps.
 
YOUR SOURCE IS THE ONE THAT MADE THAT ARGUMENT. Seriously. Do you read what you cite?



If Rand wanted to argue that point then he should have argued that point, instead of making the blatantly false claim that we were arming ISIL. That he made the latter indicates that he doesn't have a terribly good argument for the former, which isn't surprising given that it would be false. The U.S. has expended quite a lot of blood and treasure trying to keep the Fitna under wraps.

My source argues rank and file. And you've pushed the two of us even farther apart with your declaration that we've had a policy of inaction in the ME! That's totally a strange way to describe action that you disagree with. I'm exhausted with our discussion, and can't seem to narrow the ground between us, sorry cp, I'm out of here. Now don't talk bad about me behind my back :2wave:
 
No, I have ignored the attempt to insert a strawman argument into Pauls' (false) statement.

As others have pointed out, the initial article that this thread was based on falsely reported Paul's remark. the link cited in the Op has been corrected, and I posted his statement of substance that you have completely ignored.

and I know why, he is leading the GOP right now, and he has views of foreign policy that you don't agree with. That doesn't make him an idiot, or stupid, as he is clearly far more intelligent then you are.

No, it is a debate. A conflict of knowledge in which you are unarmed.

more empty rhetoric by someone obviously carrying a great deal of insecurities....much like a child.
 
My source argues rank and file

No, it doesn't. Look, here: since I read your source, I'll cite it for you.

...According to the article, it was not known whether those doing the training were direct members of the US government or if they worked for a private firm, but the main focus of the training was on anti-tank weaponry. The report continues to point out that 200 men were trained at the facility and that over 1200 will be added in a plan to prepare to free Syria from the rule of President Bashar Al-Assad. Besides the American trainers, it is reported that French and British advisors were present as well to aid in the training.

According to Jordanian intelligence sources, it is reported that the program is designed to create 10,000 fighters who will exclusively be a part of the ISIS group. ISIS is now responsible for the unrest occurring in Northern Iraq, and it would be quite ironic if the United States was actually responsible for the training that is now being used to destabilize the Iraqi nation.

The plan appears to have been designed to train 10,000 “moderates” of Islam in the hope that they would follow American interests in the region. Arizona Senator John McCain even paid a visit to the group during training to show his support for the group, and to demonstrate the support of the US government for their cause. McCain was photographed with General Salim Idris, who was later expelled from the group because he was seen as too moderate for them. The new leader of the group is General Ibrahim al-Douri, who was the Vice-President of the Revolutionary Council under former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He was supposed to be the successor to Hussein, and looks like this goal may still be reached....

Neither of those two men were, at any time, a member of ISIL. Much less it's leader. Your source is taking any Syrian opposition leader and lumping them in under "ISIL", an approach that is only marginally more idiotic than Paul's.

And you've pushed the two of us even farther apart with your declaration that we've had a policy of inaction in the ME! That's totally a strange way to describe action that you disagree with

On the contrary, the action I disagree with is inaction. I said at the very beginning that we should shape this conflict, and we failed to do so. Now look where we are.

I'm exhausted with our discussion, and can't seem to narrow the ground between us, sorry cp, I'm out of here. Now don't talk bad about me behind my back :2wave:

Man, the only things I would say about you, I"ve already said to your face :) I think you are woefully ignorant about the situation in Syria, and I think that you choose to remain so because it allows you to defend a politician.
 
As others have pointed out, the initial article that this thread was based on falsely reported Paul's remark. the link cited in the Op has been corrected, and I posted his statement of substance that you have completely ignored.

I haven't seen that, but it would be good to see noted. Do you have the link demonstrating that saved?

and I know why, he is leading the GOP right now, and he has views of foreign policy that you don't agree with. That doesn't make him an idiot, or stupid, as he is clearly far more intelligent then you are.

:lol: Paul is not leading the GOP right now, though it is true that the lure of ignoring the world is probably as strong as it has been since our last great era of just awesome application of that foreign policy in the 1970s.

more empty rhetoric by someone obviously carrying a great deal of insecurities....much like a child.

No. Just a recognition that you made very, very, very basic errors.
 
I haven't seen that, but it would be good to see noted. Do you have the link demonstrating that saved?

It's in this thread. the original article that started this thread has been updated to correct the error.

:lol: Paul is not leading the GOP right now

Polls say otherwise.

though it is true that the lure of ignoring the world is probably as strong as it has been since our last great era of just awesome application of that foreign policy in the 1970s.

more empty rhetoric

No. Just a recognition that you made very, very, very basic errors.

right. I laughed at your literal claim to the thread title, which you ignorantly call an error. you got nothing.
 
It's in this thread. the original article that started this thread has been updated to correct the error.



Polls say otherwise.



more empty rhetoric



right. I laughed at your literal claim to the thread title, which you ignorantly call an error. you got nothing.

Denying that decades of foreign policy failure has left the ME in ruins is what the far right has been doing forever. They love US interference in other countries, and as you can tell by this dudes round abouts, the US is the only country that can keep the world spinning, except as soon as we get the hell out, things will improve. Rand Paul is right.
 
More evidence has been entered into the files of public record that terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the al-Nusra Front are completely controlled by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies.

In fact, according to Nabil Na’eem, founding member of the Islamic Democratic Jihad Party and a former commander of al-Qaeda, all current al-Qaeda affiliates are nothing more than offshoots of an overarching CIA terror operation. He also claimed that these groups will eventually be turned against Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has acted as a bankroller and facilitator for them for years on end.
 
I don't know if there is direct evidence but indirectly, what happens when the people we're arming die? Where do their U.S. supplied weapons go?

Fighters from either side could pick up a weapon from a dead man on the battlefield. If this is Rand Paul's evidence that the U.S. government (Obama Administration) is arming ISIS, he's loonier than I thought!
 
Last edited:
Fighters from either side could pick up a weapon from a dead man on the battlefield. If this is Ron Paul's evidence that the U.S. government (Obama Administration) is arming ISIS, he's loonier than I thought!

It was Rand, and that's not what he said, although of course, that could happen too.
 
It was Rand, and that's not what he said, although of course, that could happen too.

Corrected...thanks.

What Rand Paul seems to be suggesting is that where the U.S. is arming Syrian rebels (militia fighters who apparently consist of Muslim Extremist/Islamist), the high-tech weapons (i.e., anti-tank weapons, etc.) Sen. McCain himself has suggested we provide to them are somehow finding their way down into Iraqi and into the hands of Sunni militia fighters there.

Well, that's possible, but again it's foolish on Rand Paul's part to suggest that such an indirect passing of arms equates to the Obama Administration supporting the Sunni Muslims in Iraq.

Furthermore, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "Pres. Obama, you must get involved with the overthrow of Assad in Syria; arm the opposition" on the one hand, but then make the bold claim that "arming the opposition" in a neighboring country who is experiencing its own civil war is by definition "arming the Islamists" in another neighboring country simply because U.S. weapons are somehow finding their way down into Iraq.

Whether true or not, it's a BIIIIIIG stretch!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom