• 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

Paul doesn't know anything special - he's either making this crap up, or ignorantly repeating what he's heard.

If the best you can come up with is that maybe there is some ridiculous conspiracy theory (and this would be one of the most outlandish ones' I've heard) that will vindicate him, well, then you belong with the 9/11 truthers and perhaps should take this discussion to the forum set aside for it.

What does Rand Paul's knowledge about US support of IS have to do with 9/11 and truth-ers? Boy have you ever left the ranch! :lamo
 
Operation Hornets Nest: Alleged Snowden document says US/UK/Israel are behind ISIS
From Gulf Daily News…

*The former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Snowden said intelligence services of three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”.

NSA documents refer to recent implementation of the hornet’s nest to protect the Zionist entity by creating religious and Islamic slogans.

According to documents released by Snowden, “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state “is to create an enemy near its borders”.

Leaks revealed that ISIS leader and cleric Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech..

Facts:

1) ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi was once a super-high level prisoner of the US government. Despite the fact that the US had offered a ten million dollar reward for him, the Obama regime ordered his release in 2009.

2) The Obama regime, with major support from Senate neo-cons John McCain and Lindsey Graham, gave hundreds of millions in military aid to Sunni Jihadists in Syria. Thousands of individuals receiving US aid are now members of ISIS. In fact, ISIS has even posted pictures of ISIS fighters with US Senator John McCain on the internet.

3) Israel has directly aided Sunni Jihadists in Syria by bombing Syrian military assets during Jihadist attacks.

4) The Israeli Prime Minister has reacted to the ISIS spearheaded Sunni/Shia Civil War in Iraq with borderline glee. The president of Israel has also suggested that a Sunni/Shia war is beneficial to the future of Israel.

5) The US and Britiain provided Sunni Jihadists with Toyota trucks in Syria. When, an army of ISIS fighters rolled over the Syria/Iraq border it looked like a commercial for Toyota.
 
Paul doesn't know anything special - he's either making this crap up, or ignorantly repeating what he's heard.

If the best you can come up with is that maybe there is some ridiculous conspiracy theory (and this would be one of the most outlandish ones' I've heard) that will vindicate him, well, then you belong with the 9/11 truthers and perhaps should take this discussion to the forum set aside for it.

No! Not conspiracy theory. Decades of US support of "terrorist" organisations, also known as militant Islamic groups, makes Paul's claim quite logical actually.


Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone


Such activities have never ceased.
 
Last edited:
No! Not conspiracy theory. Decades of US support of "terrorist" organisations, also known as militant Islamic groups, makes Paul's claim quite logical actually.

No, it doesn't.

Because ISIL is AQI. They are an organization literally founded to kill Americans and foment a civil war in Iraq.

Furthermore, we have a pretty good idea of the groups we are actually helping in Syria, as well as a depiction of the groups we helped in Libya, some of whom may now be in Syria. Neither of these sets of groups is ISIL, or ISIL - affiliated.

So, yes. Conspiracy theory. Because in order for it to be true, it would require that secret US foriegn policy was working at odds to US interests, seeking to kill US citizens, and seeking to ruin our stated foreign policy goals in the Middle East. It would require that there actually be a conspiracy to carry out. So yes, a conspiracy theory. Simply saying "Oh, ISIL is a terrorist group. Some of the people we helped in Libya turned into terrorists groups. Obviously a case can be made that the US might have helped any terrorist group" isn't logical, its' nonsensical. I could use the same logic to make the claim that the US supported the Black Panthers, or that Iran was also supporting ISIL. Both of which would be equally idiotic.

I understand that those who have no education in actual terror groups might get easily confused and not know the difference between, for example, Hezbollah and Hamas, or ANF and ISIL. But people who dont' have any idea what they are talking about shouldn't try to propose policy based on their ignorance.

Which takes us right back to where we began. Either Paul is ignorant, or he is lying.
 
Operation Hornets Nest: Alleged Snowden document says US/UK/Israel are behind ISIS
From Gulf Daily News…

*The former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Snowden said intelligence services of three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”.

NSA documents refer to recent implementation of the hornet’s nest to protect the Zionist entity by creating religious and Islamic slogans.

According to documents released by Snowden, “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state “is to create an enemy near its borders”.

Leaks revealed that ISIS leader and cleric Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech..

Facts:

1) ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi was once a super-high level prisoner of the US government. Despite the fact that the US had offered a ten million dollar reward for him, the Obama regime ordered his release in 2009.

2) The Obama regime, with major support from Senate neo-cons John McCain and Lindsey Graham, gave hundreds of millions in military aid to Sunni Jihadists in Syria. Thousands of individuals receiving US aid are now members of ISIS. In fact, ISIS has even posted pictures of ISIS fighters with US Senator John McCain on the internet.

3) Israel has directly aided Sunni Jihadists in Syria by bombing Syrian military assets during Jihadist attacks.

4) The Israeli Prime Minister has reacted to the ISIS spearheaded Sunni/Shia Civil War in Iraq with borderline glee. The president of Israel has also suggested that a Sunni/Shia war is beneficial to the future of Israel.

5) The US and Britiain provided Sunni Jihadists with Toyota trucks in Syria. When, an army of ISIS fighters rolled over the Syria/Iraq border it looked like a commercial for Toyota.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever.

Create an enemy near Israel's borders to protect it?
Support a group dedicated to killing Americans?

What possible motive could there be for such a plan?
 
No, it doesn't.

Because ISIL is AQI. They are an organization literally founded to kill Americans and foment a civil war in Iraq.

Furthermore, we have a pretty good idea of the groups we are actually helping in Syria, as well as a depiction of the groups we helped in Libya, some of whom may now be in Syria. Neither of these sets of groups is ISIL, or ISIL - affiliated.

So, yes. Conspiracy theory. Because in order for it to be true, it would require that secret US foriegn policy was working at odds to US interests, seeking to kill US citizens, and seeking to ruin our stated foreign policy goals in the Middle East. It would require that there actually be a conspiracy to carry out. So yes, a conspiracy theory. Simply saying "Oh, ISIL is a terrorist group. Some of the people we helped in Libya turned into terrorists groups. Obviously a case can be made that the US might have helped any terrorist group" isn't logical, its' nonsensical. I could use the same logic to make the claim that the US supported the Black Panthers, or that Iran was also supporting ISIL. Both of which would be equally idiotic.

I understand that those who have no education in actual terror groups might get easily confused and not know the difference between, for example, Hezbollah and Hamas, or ANF and ISIL. But people who dont' have any idea what they are talking about shouldn't try to propose policy based on their ignorance.

Which takes us right back to where we began. Either Paul is ignorant, or he is lying.

No doubt Paul would say the same thing of you. Ill go with a guy who has far more knowledge than you do cp. destabilisation of the ME is clearly US foreign policy. If not, then we have a string of hugely incompetent administrations. And just so you'll know, guys like you and I on an Internet message board have no part in policy agenda, we just voice our opinions on its merit or lack thereof as we see it.
 
No doubt Paul would say the same thing of you. Ill go with a guy who has far more knowledge than you do cp.

Paul has demonstrated that he does not have more knowledge than I have, just as you have demonstrated in this thread that you do not have as much knowledge as I have. Which is why you refuse to go into the particulars of ISIL, instead preferring to attempt to spin to strawmen such as Afghanistan in the 80s.

destabilisation of the ME is clearly US foreign policy. If not, then we have a string of hugely incompetent administrations.

Wait, wait, wait.... surely you're not going to suggest that government is by and large a bumbling behemoth, and generally incapable of performing effectively and efficiently at tasks that it sets itself?!?

And just so you'll know, guys like you and I on an Internet message board have no part in policy agenda, we just voice our opinions on its merit or lack thereof as we see it.

The case can defend itself or it can't. The case that we are supporting or have supported ISIL cannot defend itself. It cannot even find any evidence.
 
Paul has demonstrated that he does not have more knowledge than I have, just as you have demonstrated in this thread that you do not have as much knowledge as I have. Which is why you refuse to go into the particulars of ISIL, instead preferring to attempt to spin to strawmen such as Afghanistan in the 80s.



Wait, wait, wait.... surely you're not going to suggest that government is by and large a bumbling behemoth, and generally incapable of performing effectively and efficiently at tasks that it sets itself?!?



The case can defend itself or it can't. The case that we are supporting or have supported ISIL cannot defend itself. It cannot even find any evidence.

Well we obviously disagree on the first, the second, why yes of course and the third, the senator informed you of. But from your house in the woods, you only think you have a better understanding.
 
Well we obviously disagree on the first,

To my knowledge Paul isn't on the Intelligence Subcommittee, meaning that he has your standard TS/SCI clearance, the same as me. Except that I study this sort of thing for a living, and he riles up political supporters for a living.

the second, why yes of course

Well there you are then. I never cease to be amazed by those who insist the United States Government is incompetent to the task of governing well, but then give it the presumption of omniscience and omnipotence when it takes on a security role.

and the third, the senator informed you of. But from your house in the woods, you only think you have a better understanding.

:lol: the senator didn't present a case, he presented a claim. A claim that has no credible backing, and flies in the face of everything else we know about ISIL.
 
To my knowledge Paul isn't on the Intelligence Subcommittee, meaning that he has your standard TS/SCI clearance, the same as me. Except that I study this sort of thing for a living, and he riles up political supporters for a living.



Well there you are then. I never cease to be amazed by those who insist the United States Government is incompetent to the task of governing well, but then give it the presumption of omniscience and omnipotence when it takes on a security role.



:lol: the senator didn't present a case, he presented a claim. A claim that has no credible backing, and flies in the face of everything else we know about ISIL.



ISIS Trained by US Government
 

:doh

This is where actually knowing what you are talking about comes into play. These people are confusing "opposition fighters in Syria" with "ISIS".

For example, claiming that Salim Idris was the former head of ISIL prior to being replaced?

:lol:

Salim Idris was the head of the Free Syrian Army (here is a hint: the FSA and ISIL kill each other. They are not friends). Abubakr al-Baghdadi is and has been the head of ISIL throughout this period. And al-Douri is a Baathist, for cripes sakes.

:lol: Again, this is why people like Paul (and, I suppose, this idiot reporter) need to other to spend a minimum of 10 minutes educating themselves before they start speaking to policy. Or else they make incredibly stupid pronouncements, like this one.
 
:doh

This is where actually knowing what you are talking about comes into play. These people are confusing "opposition fighters in Syria" with "ISIS".

For example, claiming that Salim Idris was the former head of ISIL prior to being replaced?

:lol:

Salim Idris was the head of the Free Syrian Army (here is a hint: the FSA and ISIL kill each other. They are not friends). Abubakr al-Baghdadi is and has been the head of ISIL throughout this period. And al-Douri is a Baathist, for cripes sakes.

:lol: Again, this is why people like Paul (and, I suppose, this idiot reporter) need to other to spend a minimum of 10 minutes educating themselves before they start speaking to policy. Or else they make incredibly stupid pronouncements, like this one.

The relationships between many of the militant groups from Libya into Syria, Iraq, etc., are not completely known or understood. Groups have morphed, worked together, divorced themselves from one another (as with the case between AQ and IS most recently) which had caused all the hand wringing over supplying arms into Syria all along. Things aren't nearly as neat as you describe them. One thing is certain, as a matter of policy, the US has supported militant Islamic groups in this region for decades, and except to the most un-observant, it has achieved its goal of destabilisation. I'll accept Paul's assessment as it fits the SOP.
 
The relationships between many of the militant groups from Libya into Syria, Iraq, etc., are not completely known or understood. Groups have morphed, worked together, divorced themselves from one another (as with the case between AQ and IS most recently) which had caused all the hand wringing over supplying arms into Syria all along. Things aren't nearly as neat as you describe them. One thing is certain, as a matter of policy, the US has supported militant Islamic groups in this region for decades, and except to the most un-observant, it has achieved its goal of destabilisation. I'll accept Paul's assessment as it fits the SOP.

Ignorance speaks.:roll:
 
The relationships between many of the militant groups from Libya into Syria, Iraq, etc., are not completely known or understood. Groups have morphed, worked together, divorced themselves from one another (as with the case between AQ and IS most recently) which had caused all the hand wringing over supplying arms into Syria all along.

Oh for crying out loud. The Baathists have been baathists the whole time (and were before the US invaded Iraq), and AQI/ISIL haven't changed their leadership during the Syrian civil war. Neither of these men were at any time the leader of any organization that was ISIL. You are getting desperate, and in your desperation you are clinging to less and less plausible arguments. It's like claiming that the leadership of public sector unions float back and forth between that and leadership positions in the Libertarian Party, or that Catholic Bishops float back and forth between doing that and leading NARAL.

Things aren't nearly as neat as you describe them. One thing is certain, as a matter of policy, the US has supported militant Islamic groups in this region for decades, and except to the most un-observant, it has achieved its goal of destabilisation. I'll accept Paul's assessment as it fits the SOP.

Pauls' assessment does not fit SOP for US policy in the region, nor does it fit what we know of ISIL. You are clinging to the most vague of strawmen because you lack any evidence to support a claim that all the available data is militantly against.


Just because Paul chose to be an idiot doesn't mean that you have to become an idiot in order to defend him.
 
Last edited:
Oh for crying out loud. The Baathists have been baathists the whole time (and were before the US invaded Iraq), and AQI/ISIL haven't changed their leadership during the Syrian civil war. Neither of these men were at any time the leader of any organization that was ISIL. You are getting desperate, and in your desperation you are clinging to less and less plausible arguments. It's like claiming that the leadership of public sector unions float back and forth between that and leadership positions in the Libertarian Party, or that Catholic Bishops float back and forth between doing that and leading NARAL.



Pauls' assessment does not fit SOP for US policy in the region, nor does it fit what we know of ISIL. You are clinging to the most vague of strawmen because you lack any evidence to support a claim that all the available data is militantly against.


Just because Paul chose to be an idiot doesn't mean that you have to become an idiot in order to defend him.

Dear lord, I'm never surprised the extent that apologists for US policy go to justify wrong doing. Decades of failed policy in the ME as well as support for militant Islamists. A region in total flames and you think I'm the desperate one. Yeah cp, just another patronising conservative hawk.
 
Dear lord, I'm never surprised the extent that apologists for US policy go to justify wrong doing. Decades of failed policy in the ME as well as support for militant Islamists. A region in total flames and you think I'm the desperate one. Yeah cp, just another patronising conservative hawk.

Not desperate, just delusional.:peace
 
To my knowledge Paul isn't on the Intelligence Subcommittee, meaning that he has your standard TS/SCI clearance, the same as me. Except that I study this sort of thing for a living, and he riles up political supporters for a living.

you are paid to study this sort of thing? That makes you a sock puppet in my mind.
 
Hardly. He's paid to study and understand. The Intelligence Community calls them analysts.

Rand Paul is paid to study and understand, we have no idea who the anonymous poster is working for
 
Not the same thing. He's running for POTUS. Analysts have no ulterior motive.:peace

Yes, not the same thing. On one hand we have a guy vetted, known, and voted in to serve us.

on the other, we have some anonymous guy that always defend the US military
 
Back
Top Bottom