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