View Poll Results: Should the USA be funding Islamic terrorists?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES!

    1 7.69%
  • NO!

    9 69.23%
  • Other, please explain.

    3 23.08%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

  1. #11
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,137

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    I would say that that depends on the individual organization. When the UN takes r2p and does it, we will no longer be using US lives and treasure and should desist. Until then, anything goes that reduces our costs, while not hampering goal achievement.
    I do not think we should be having goals in the Mid East. This is a Corporate driven agenda and not people centric. Neither USA people or Mid East people. We are not doing r2p, but aggression that is killing innocent civilians. This is just wrong.

  2. #12
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,818

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Who's side is the USA on?
    Are we funding terrorists?
    Does the USA want bragging rights for this?
    Who are the good guys?
    Is it OK to fund terrorists?
    Where you say we admit to funding terrorists for "services rendered," I offer we continue to engage in our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy.

    Where you say "US is funding jihadist terrorists and mercenaries" or say " there was never such a thing as a moderate rebel," I offer we either continue to ignore or do not bother ever really understanding the nature of the people we are asking to take our side at that moment.

    The sad reality is we continue to make the mistake of assuming that we can appeal to "moderates" to look at things over there but through the confines of western governmental and social ideologies, and it ends up failing time and time again. We continue to look at our "partners" in the region and ignore that they are only a step or two down themselves in being a brutal dictatorship where over here we do not have honest discussion on who we end up funding or why.

    I bring up Saudi Arabia all the time in this regard. A textbook example of the US overlooking their oppression oriented controls, their theocratic nightmare of limited rights of the people, their brutality in the enforcement of the regime... but then we wander around the Middle East calling al-Assad's government a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia,) or Iran's leadership a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia *and* they have basically told us to go **** ourselves.)

    But really we are all talking about cuts of the same cloth, more importantly cuts of the same religious and social ideology that tends to breed theocratic dictatorships. Where the difference between one nation we call an ally and another we call an enemy is simply what the US did not get but wanted, and tends to breed such ideological driven violence that the difference between a "moderate" and a terrorist is whom is the victim in relation to who the US calls an ally. I know it upsets many people to mention but we are talking about a religious ideology that is furthest behind the evolution curve, the easiest to turn into a weapon, and tends to be filled with themes that merges the gap between government authority and religious authority. An Islamic State is not a new term or idea, it is baked into the text of the book they hold most sacred. Harsh law, social controls, and a lack of rights in our terminology is also not a new idea, that is also baked into the text.

    We should never discount that some of those who eventually became al-Qaeda, were funded by the US when they called themselves the Mujahideen going up against Russia in Afghanistan. Nor should we discount the potential that the US and NATO either knowingly took a risk or unknowingly as an act of continued stupidity funded al-Qaeda affiliates and fighters in both the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian Civil War. al-Nusra and various other Islamic organizations in Syria all come to mind, those were the "moderates" that even McCain wanted to fund and arm to the teeth.

    But like everything else our current foreign policy ignores history, we end up funding the next problem. Current US desires for the region end up with consequences. Remember Iran vs. Iraq, and all our dealings with both nations all over the 80's and early 90's right up to having to deal with Iraq going into Kuwait.

    The answers are yes, we are funding terrorists even if it means they are not called as much today. And that means "our side" all boils down to our desires at that moment with no forward thinking. Bragging rights no, but control over the region we either do not understand or do not care to understand is the goal. There are no good guys and it is not OK for us to be funding and arming those who ultimately becomes a future generation's problems. It is all more of the same, the continuation of our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy that breeds tomorrow's problems... on repeat.
    Last edited by OrphanSlug; 07-01-15 at 08:21 AM.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  3. #13
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,137

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Funding rebels =/= funding terrorists. The FSA, for example, is not a terror group but a militia group that fights Assad's regime.
    The article is claiming the US had admitted to funding terrorists directly and indirectly, however in the article provided in reference, this article, there is no such admittance made by the US. The only reference there to the terrorists is in the last paragraph; "officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists".

    The US may have indirectly let organizations such as al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria and Iraq put their hands on US weapons and ammunition by not being careful enough with the droppings, but that is far from being "funding terrorism" and certainly not doing so "directly". The article is ridiculous.


    The funding was admitted to by the Pentagon, Secy' of Defense and Navy Commander. We also funded al Queda starting in 1990 with Osama bin Ladin. There is no question that we are funding terrorist. We are also training them in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It's not the story that is ridiculous, it is the FACT that the USA is funding terrorists that is ridiculous. Di you vote for that?

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:37 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,925

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I do not think we should be having goals in the Mid East. This is a Corporate driven agenda and not people centric. Neither USA people or Mid East people. We are not doing r2p, but aggression that is killing innocent civilians. This is just wrong.
    Innocent civilians will die either way. We should not be doing the heavy lifting in the ME nor in most other places. That should be done by the UN. But that is not the question here, but whether we should support our friends in a semblance of a security system. That is always a tough call, but it usually is better to act quickly. and help them stumble through.

  5. #15
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,137

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    Where you say we admit to funding terrorists for "services rendered," I offer we continue to engage in our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy.

    Where you say "US is funding jihadist terrorists and mercenaries" or say " there was never such a thing as a moderate rebel," I offer we either continue to ignore or do not bother ever really understanding the nature of the people we are asking to take our side at that moment.

    The sad reality is we continue to make the mistake of assuming that we can appeal to "moderates" to look at things over there but through the confines of western governmental and social ideologies, and it ends up failing time and time again. We continue to look at our "partners" in the region and ignore that they are only a step or two down themselves in being a brutal dictatorship where over here we do not have honest discussion on who we end up funding or why.

    I bring up Saudi Arabia all the time in this regard. A textbook example of the US overlooking their oppression oriented controls, their theocratic nightmare of limited rights of the people, their brutality in the enforcement of the regime... but then we wander around the Middle East calling al-Assad's government a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia,) or Iran's leadership a problem (because they would rather deal with Russia *and* they have basically told us to go **** ourselves.)

    But really we are all talking about cuts of the same cloth, more importantly cuts of the same religious and social ideology that tends to breed theocratic dictatorships. Where the difference between one nation we call an ally and another we call an enemy is simply what the US did not get but wanted, and tends to breed such ideological driven violence that the difference between a "moderate" and a terrorist is whom is the victim in relation to who the US calls an ally. I know it upsets many people to mention but we are talking about a religious ideology that is furthest behind the evolution curve, the easiest to turn into a weapon, and tends to be filled with themes that merges the gap between government authority and religious authority. An Islamic State is not a new term or idea, it is baked into the text of the book they hold most sacred. Harsh law, social controls, and a lack of rights in our terminology is also not a new idea, that is also baked into the text.

    We should never discount that some of those who eventually became al-Qaeda, were funded by the US when they called themselves the Mujahideen going up against Russia in Afghanistan. Nor should we discount the potential that the US and NATO either knowingly took a risk or unknowingly as an act of continued stupidity funded al-Qaeda affiliates and fighters in both the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian Civil War. al-Nusra and various other Islamic organizations in Syria all come to mind, those were the "moderates" that even McCain wanted to fund and arm to the teeth.

    But like everything else our current foreign policy ignores history, we end up funding the next problem. Current US desires for the region end up with consequences. Remember Iran vs. Iraq, and all our dealings with both nations all over the 80's and early 90's right up to having to deal with Iraq going into Kuwait.

    The answers are yes, we are funding terrorists even if it means they are not called as much today. And that means "our side" all boils down to our desires at that moment with no forward thinking. Bragging rights no, but control over the region we either do not understand or do not care to understand is the goal. There are no good guys and it is not OK for us to be funding and arming those who ultimately becomes a future generation's problems. It is all more of the same, the continuation of our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy that breeds tomorrow's problems... on repeat.
    The issues you have addressed are all business issues. The Military Industrial Corporate Complex needs customers. Customers mean wars. Any kind of war. "War is good business, and business is good." That is especially prescient when your labor and currency rates are so high that it becomes your most important domestic industry. It is a captive industry built on patronage and collusion and old time corporatists. Good Marketing for the MIC is all about more wars. Terror, drugs, cyber, immigrants, hot, cold, and all very profitable and that is what drives policy, PROFIT. Sad to say.

  6. #16
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    08-12-16 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Ah, yes, information clearing house, the notorious conspiracy/hate site.


    and we are promoting this bat **** crazy website in the poll section instead of it's natural home in the conspiracy section, why, again?
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  7. #17
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,463
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    No doubt there's an angle there somewhere.
    Almost all of the military industrial complex is comprised of union workers.


    Hitlary is pro union.
    "Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me
    www.kohlerimaging.com

  8. #18
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,196
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post

    Hitlary is pro union.
    Hillary is pro anything that will get her elected.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #19
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,463
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Hillary is pro anything that will get her elected.
    Yeah, I gotta be honest...this up coming election scares me a little. I REALLY don't want Hillary to win. I REALLY think that will slide us even farther than Obama did. But I think she's the shoe in for the primary winner, and I have NO IDEA who most of the republican candidates even ARE. I don't know, man. I usually vote third party. I HATE HATE HATE the idea of voting for someone I don't like just to keep someone else I like even less OUT. But Hillary....scares me.
    "Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me
    www.kohlerimaging.com

  10. #20
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,463
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Ah, yes, information clearing house, the notorious conspiracy/hate site.


    and we are promoting this bat **** crazy website in the poll section instead of it's natural home in the conspiracy section, why, again?
    Are you denying the presence of a military industrial complex in the US? Are you saying it's not a FOR PROFIT industry? Do you not believe that it's HUGELY profitable, as evidenced by the number of million and biollionaires employed in that sector? Or are not aware of the fact that the US has been involved in some form of warfare, ALMOST nonstop, since the 16th amendment passed?

    This is hardly a conspiracy.
    "Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me
    www.kohlerimaging.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •