"...despite the Obama administration’s opposition to U.S. military intervention and its reluctance to supply weapons directly to the rebels."
"...confirmed the issuance of the license and said it wouldn’t cover the direct shipment of weapons, radios or other technical equipment, which would require a different type of permit."
The Syrian Support Group can give money to the rebels. The rebels spend that money on whatever they want, including buying guns. There is nothing contradictory in that article to anything I have said. I don't dispute that we're supporting the via rebels monetary aid and technical assistance and equipment. In fact, that's exactly what my OP says.
What I dispute is your baseless assertion that we're giving the rebels weapons. We're not. I, and undoubtedly the Obama administration, am perfectly aware that any sort of aid that has value - monetary aid, communications equipment, medical supplies - can be used by the rebels to purchase or barter for weapons. That's uncontroversial. If you can't discern the difference between that, though, and shipping them state of the art weapons I don't know what to tell you. Maybe, double up on the tin foil?