• 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


I see you've been around here for a long time, so you've no doubt seen plenty of posters who appear to be here for no other reason than to defend US foreign policy, regardless.
 
I see you've been around here for a long time, so you've no doubt seen plenty of posters who appear to be here for no other reason than to defend US foreign policy, regardless.

some even admit openly to being what amounts to paid lobbyists.
 
That was not a post central to our discussion.

that post by me contained facts that you could refute. you replied without a single fact, just opinions rooted in ignorance, which is all you ever provide.
 
ISIL is not in the title. Look, your clown show is pathetic.
"ISIL" is a different translation of "ISIS." Look, your cheap insults aren't even correct.
As was already stated to your minions:

"ISIS emboldened after US armed its allies in Syria"
Um, you were the first person in the thread to make that claim. That's entirely different from saying that we've been arming ISIS, which was the claim made in the OP.

That is the claim of substance you have given zero evidence of being false. All the crap about if that ally in Syria is ISIS, or some other group is just obfuscation by apologists that don't want to focus on how we arm terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and have done so for decades.

A specific claim regarding a specific foreign policy action is made, and when someone shows it to be false, it's "obfuscation" to distract from an entirely different claim relating to a general US policy? :lol:
 
Well I will confess that I haven't seen all of your posts, so I can't know if you've ever criticised US foreign policy.

Sure. Wander around and take a gander at me attacking our passive position towards Russia and Iran, or our reactive CT posture. I think I've been critiquing the current plan for Afghanistan since it was announced it at West Point. I'm apoplectic that we would backstab natural allies like the Poles in the hopes that an autocrat like Putin would like us more, and I think that our reactive posture has kept us from driving events, or even shaping them. My biggest critique of our foreign policy is that we do not have one, instead running around reacting to whatever gets' media attention, or potentially threatens to embarrass the current administration.

I have no problem with critique of US foreign policy - I do plenty of it myself. My problem is with deliberately uninformed critique of American foreign policy.

But even beyond IS (what they're calling themselves now, just so you'll know.)

:lol: yeah, the premature declaration of the caliphate is going to come back to bite them - firstly because it ruins any chance of reunification (MMO is the Amir al-Mu'minin, and like the highlander, there can be only one), and secondly because it places a series of restrictions and requirements on them that they will find it incredibly difficult to meet. Sure, it'll rev up the facebook generation, but those guys don't have the staying power to see you through to it.

You won't acknowledge all the other examples of the US supporting militant Islamist groups, and that we have imbedded ourselves in a centuries old sectarian conflict, not in the middle even, but rather favouring the Sunnis over the Shias.

:shrug: on the contrary - I have described for you actual accurate examples of US support for militants in the region, mostly, agreeably, to contrast them with and point out that they do not include groups such as ISIL. You continue to hold up the fact that we have worked with questionable groups in the past as though it were some kind of evidence that we have worked with ISIL without bothering to study the history of either, even when it has been given to you.


Completely, isn't a strawman. Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, asking, "aren't they all Muslims"

:lamo

I love that you put those two items literally right next to each other, not even realizing you were doing it.
 
Sure. Wander around and take a gander at me attacking our passive position towards Russia and Iran, or our reactive CT posture. I think I've been critiquing the current plan for Afghanistan since it was announced it at West Point. I'm apoplectic that we would backstab natural allies like the Poles in the hopes that an autocrat like Putin would like us more, and I think that our reactive posture has kept us from driving events, or even shaping them. My biggest critique of our foreign policy is that we do not have one, instead running around reacting to whatever gets' media attention, or potentially threatens to embarrass the current administration.

I have no problem with critique of US foreign policy - I do plenty of it myself. My problem is with deliberately uninformed critique of American foreign policy.



:lol: yeah, the premature declaration of the caliphate is going to come back to bite them - firstly because it ruins any chance of reunification (MMO is the Amir al-Mu'minin, and like the highlander, there can be only one), and secondly because it places a series of restrictions and requirements on them that they will find it incredibly difficult to meet. Sure, it'll rev up the facebook generation, but those guys don't have the staying power to see you through to it.



:shrug: on the contrary - I have described for you actual accurate examples of US support for militants in the region, mostly, agreeably, to contrast them with and point out that they do not include groups such as ISIL. You continue to hold up the fact that we have worked with questionable groups in the past as though it were some kind of evidence that we have worked with ISIL without bothering to study the history of either, even when it has been given to you.




:lamo

I love that you put those two items literally right next to each other, not even realizing you were doing it.

It seems your FP criticisms are to do mostly with democratic presidents. What were you going to say about Bush's lack of knowledge of the sectarian violence and history in the ME? And you diminish the hypocrisy of US foreign policy in the ME by referring to the militant Islamic groups we have supported as merely questionable. That too produces a credibility problem.
 
ISIL is not in the title. Look, your clown show is pathetic.

:doh

I really honestly can't provide a better counter to your attempts to make a point in this thread than to quote you on that.



I really just hope you are trolling for the kicks.



Jack Hays said:
What is without evidence is the allegation that the US has been arming ISIS. Those who would make that charge bear the burden of proof. For those who know the allegation is hogwash, life is simple. It is a logical principle that it is impossible to prove a negative. There is no evidence for us to provide because there is no substance to the claim. It is a product of Paul's fevered imagination or his calculated ambition.

I admit, I started off assuming the former, but given the fervent Need To Believe by some here, I'm wondering if ole Paul doesn't have their number.
 
It seems your FP criticisms are to do mostly with democratic presidents.

:shrug: most of my time here has been spent during the Obama administration. For most of the Bush years I was at whistlestopper, where I critiqued him as well, though less, because I agreed with him on more. I thought his passive reaction to the Georgian invasion was an absolute travesty and an abandonment of an ally, I thought his border policy was atrocious, I've critiques the Iraq decision-making process (in that it doesn't seem to have existed), Donald Rumsfeld was an awful SecDef, :shrug:

One of the benefits about knowing what you are talking about is that it doesn't require that you depend upon shorthand, like believing whatever a politician who tickle your fancy tells you. :)

What were you going to say about Bush's lack of knowledge of the sectarian violence and history in the ME?

:shrug: I would say it proved disastrous, as we were extremely slow to pivot to the threat of Shia insurgency inside of Baghdad, focusing our worry instead on former regime elements until AQI (who is now IS, though I'm going to keep calling them ISIL, I think) was well past stood-up and the Sadrist response a given.

And you diminish the hypocrisy of US foreign policy in the ME by referring to the militant Islamic groups we have supported as merely questionable. That too produces a credibility problem.

Not really. For example, the Kurds have received US aid and support. They are also Islamic, and militants (quite so. if you do not believe me, please feel free to push into Peshmerga territory without their permission). The Sons of Iraq also received US aid and support, despite being Islamic and militant. So have the Jordanian and Egyptian militaries, who are by definition militant as well as being Islamic.

Heck, we have Islamic militants in our own military - I've served with several people who were both Muslim and easily as militant as I.




You over-broadly paint in order to try to connect unlike things. We have not ever had a policy of supporting ISIL under any of it's naming conventions.
 
:shrug: most of my time here has been spent during the Obama administration. For most of the Bush years I was at whistlestopper, where I critiqued him as well, though less, because I agreed with him on more. I thought his passive reaction to the Georgian invasion was an absolute travesty and an abandonment of an ally, I thought his border policy was atrocious, I've critiques the Iraq decision-making process (in that it doesn't seem to have existed), Donald Rumsfeld was an awful SecDef, :shrug:

One of the benefits about knowing what you are talking about is that it doesn't require that you depend upon shorthand, like believing whatever a politician who tickle your fancy tells you. :)



:shrug: I would say it proved disastrous, as we were extremely slow to pivot to the threat of Shia insurgency inside of Baghdad, focusing our worry instead on former regime elements until AQI (who is now IS, though I'm going to keep calling them ISIL, I think) was well past stood-up and the Sadrist response a given.



Not really. For example, the Kurds have received US aid and support. They are also Islamic, and militants (quite so. if you do not believe me, please feel free to push into Peshmerga territory without their permission). The Sons of Iraq also received US aid and support, despite being Islamic and militant. So have the Jordanian and Egyptian militaries, who are by definition militant as well as being Islamic.

Heck, we have Islamic militants in our own military - I've served with several people who were both Muslim and easily as militant as I.




You over-broadly paint in order to try to connect unlike things. We have not ever had a policy of supporting ISIL under any of it's naming conventions.

As I said, I've seen very little of your posting, if you've been a fair and balanced critic of US FP, I'll take your word for it. The Kurds don't fit the SOP of the radical Islamic groups that we have created, supported, used in some places only to have to fight them in others. Most egregiously in Syria in the last three years where they have killed christians, attacked UN convoys, gassed civilians, used indiscriminate truck/car bombs, and yet in your estimation they are just questionable. Before that, AQ which we fought for a decade was used to help us in our abuse of the UN resolution for use of force, to overthrow the Libyan government.
 
As I said, I've seen very little of your posting, if you've been a fair and balanced critic of US FP, I'll take your word for it.

I wouldn't say that. up until about 2005 I tended to defend the 'R' President where he was wrong because I liked him on other issues. Then I got over it. The last 9 years have been a lot easier, intellectually speaking. So I've got my biases (we all do), but I'm not criticising the Democrat foreign policy, I'm criticising Stupid foreign policies. For example, Rand Paul's. Now I'm a fairly conservative fellow - Tea Party supporter, all that. And I like Paul on the size of government, the need to return to a rule of law built around the Constitution, etc. But the isolationist platform is not only naive, it's dangerous.

The Kurds don't fit the SOP of the radical Islamic groups that we have created, supported, used in some places only to have to fight them in others.

Actually the Kurds are pretty much the most emblematic of the non-state-actor groups that we have supported.

Most egregiously in Syria in the last three years where they have killed christians, attacked UN convoys, gassed civilians, used indiscriminate truck/car bombs, and yet in your estimation they are just questionable.

Iraq's Christians seek refuge with Kurds

Is this another example of your confusing armed groups?

Before that, AQ which we fought for a decade was used to help us in our abuse of the UN resolution for use of force, to overthrow the Libyan government.

That is incorrect as well. Elements of the Libyan resistance began to form under AAS banners, and many of them flew AQ flags. However, as Jack has pointed out to you, their existence on the ground does not mean that they were the groups getting aid.
 
I wouldn't say that. up until about 2005 I tended to defend the 'R' President where he was wrong because I liked him on other issues. Then I got over it. The last 9 years have been a lot easier, intellectually speaking. So I've got my biases (we all do), but I'm not criticising the Democrat foreign policy, I'm criticising Stupid foreign policies. For example, Rand Paul's. Now I'm a fairly conservative fellow - Tea Party supporter, all that. And I like Paul on the size of government, the need to return to a rule of law built around the Constitution, etc. But the isolationist platform is not only naive, it's dangerous.



Actually the Kurds are pretty much the most emblematic of the non-state-actor groups that we have supported.



Iraq's Christians seek refuge with Kurds

Is this another example of your confusing armed groups?



That is incorrect as well. Elements of the Libyan resistance began to form under AAS banners, and many of them flew AQ flags. However, as Jack has pointed out to you, their existence on the ground does not mean that they were the groups getting aid.

Jack:lamo

The Daily Mail reported yesterday:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t beenhelping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report | Mail Online
 
Um, you were the first person in the thread to make that claim.

Um, that is a direct quote from Rand Paul you idiot
 
:doh

I really honestly can't provide a better counter to your attempts to make a point in this thread than to quote you on that.

because you are too stupid?
 
I suppose this would be a good time to point out that ad hominem attacks are proof positive that the person using them has lost the debate and has nothing of value to add.

Next subject.
 
But the isolationist platform is not only naive, it's dangerous.

Those scared of their own shadow need a new line, this one has last it’s power over the people.

We live in a world where skyscrapers are blown up, passenger jets are blown to bits, and people are kidnapped on vacations. This all going on not in spite of our sphere of influence around the world, but in many cases because of it. The world is dangerous, stop being such a scaredy cat.

The truth is, and those in the military are never going to accept it, but Edward Snowden has done more to secure my rights then the military has in the last 50 years.
 
Um, that is a direct quote from Rand Paul you idiot

The article was edited on June 23 to "accurately portray Sen. Paul's remarks," and this thread was started on June 22. Since the statement at the beginning of the thread is different than the one made in the updated article, that is the claim that everyone's been responding to.

In any case, that updated statement is still wrong. Almost every major rebel faction - including the ones we support - has been fighting ISIS, so we have not been arming their allies.
 
The article was edited on June 23 to "accurately portray Sen. Paul's remarks," and this thread was started on June 22. Since the statement at the beginning of the thread is different than the one made in the updated article, that is the claim that everyone's been responding to.

In any case, that updated statement is still wrong. Almost every major rebel faction - including the ones we support - has been fighting ISIS, so we have not been arming their allies.


somehow the arms we provided in syria have helped the terrorists in Iraq.

Rand Paul correctly points this out. kudos Rand Paul for cutting through the obfuscations and outright lies.
 
kudos Rand Paul for cutting through the obfuscations and outright lies.

By making a statement which is factually untrue? "Our arms have unintentionally ended up in their hands" =/= "we have armed them or their allies"
 
By making a statement which is factually untrue? "Our arms have unintentionally ended up in their hands" =/= "we have armed them or their allies"

It often takes decades before we release the truth. intentional, or unintentional, our actions have done precisely what he said they had done. Arms given to rebels have aided terrorists.
 
Jack:lamo

The Daily Mail reported yesterday:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t beenhelping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report | Mail Online

Do you read what you post?

....She blamed the Obama administration for tacitly approving the diversion of half of a $1 billion Qatari arms shipment to al-Qaeda-linked militants.

'Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed...

So, basically, we didn't attack Qatar, and you are trying to spin that as us supporting Al Qaeda. Well done.
 
Because it was painfully obvious that you had no idea what you were talking about. As MadLib pointed out to you: ISIL is ISIS.

riiiiight. you have brought nothing but rhetoric and nonsense here. DAIISH or get off the pot.
 
riiiiight. you have brought nothing but rhetoric and nonsense here. DAIISH or get off the pot.

: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. Quick, without google, can you even begin to describe that?
 
Back
Top Bottom