So U.S. arms may have been used in the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya. Is this the reason for the Benghazi cover up? this could make Iran Contra look like a walk in the park.

Now Dear Leader wants to arm more Jihadis in Syria. Does this even make sense?

"But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries."


New York Times article

I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

We would be better off just doing the dirty work ourselves, that way we keep our weapons and make sure they don't end up in the jihadi's hands.

But, I say we just stay out of it and let Israel level the place if necessary.

So now guns/arms kill people and people don't?

And what is this 'cover up' that you speak of anyway?

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

Syria already has WMDs.

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

You are now on the record as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there's no way arming them could ever backfire.

We should send them WWII era weapons. That way then they use them against us it won't be as much of a threat.

(12-07-2012 04:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So now guns/arms kill people and people don't?

And what is this 'cover up' that you speak of anyway?

No, they're saying that muslim terrorists kill people, so why the hell are we giving them guns?!!!

(12-07-2012 06:54 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So now guns/arms kill people and people don't?

And what is this 'cover up' that you speak of anyway?

No, they're saying that muslim terrorists kill people, so why the hell are we giving them guns?!!!

or fertilizer...

(12-07-2012 04:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So now guns/arms kill people and people don't?

Are you really that big of a fool?

(12-07-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

You are now on the record as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there's no way arming them could ever backfire.

Exactly how? I oppose dealing with Hamas (while at the same time, recognizing that the PA does not equal Hamas nor excusing idiotic right wing Isreali settlements on the West Bank). I don't like the MB, but recognize that the US needs to have some contact with the Morsi government. I've never mentioned AQ, but I oppose them.

You seem to not understand the difference between Hamas and the PA. And Gaza and the West Bank. And who Hezbollah is a client of (they're in Lebanon and are an Iranian client btw). Hamas controls Gaza. They throw bombs over the border and cannot be supported until the stop doing so. The PA controls the West Bank homelands and is much more moderate (They even have a lot of Christians in their leadership - certainly more than Israel does btw). Hezbollah is Shiite and controls (along with the Amal militia) much of Southern Lebanon. They get their funding from Syria and Iran. Al Qaida is not aligned with Hezbollah (AQ is Sunni), nor Hamas (I don't know why, but for whatever reason they aren't), nor the PA (who won't have anything to do with them - the PA fears radical Islamists, who constitute a threat to the PA's leadership role in the West Bank).

However, I don't hate all Muslims/Arabs and don't assume that every Muslim/Arab is worse than every Christian or the right wing parties in Israel. And I, like many Isrealis, think that the Shas party (a right wing, settler party in Israel) is very bad for peace in the region. And that further settlements in the West Bank in complete violation of existing agreements are counterproductive to peace AND Isreal's security and should be condemned.

Assad is a jerk and we aren't even the biggest conduit of arms to the rebels in Syria. That would be Turkey.

(12-07-2012 07:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

You are now on the record as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there's no way arming them could ever backfire.

Exactly how? I oppose dealing with Hamas (while at the same time, recognizing that the PA does not equal Hamas nor excusing idiotic right wing Isreali settlements on the West Bank). I don't like the MB, but recognize that the US needs to have some contact with the Morsi government. I've never mentioned AQ, but I oppose them.

However, I don't hate all Muslims/Arabs and don't assume that every Muslim/Arab is worse than every Christian or the right wing parties in Israel.

Assad is a jerk and we aren't even the biggest conduit of arms to the rebels in Syria. That would be Turkey.

How? You support arming the Syrian government's enemies who are jihadis, aka: Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. That's how.



I feel like after 20 years of threats from Al Qaeda that nobody understands the concept of "blowback." WTF

(12-07-2012 04:32 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

Syria already has WMDs.

Chem weapons, yes. Nukes no. I stand corrected.

(12-07-2012 07:26 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

You are now on the record as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there's no way arming them could ever backfire.

Exactly how? I oppose dealing with Hamas (while at the same time, recognizing that the PA does not equal Hamas nor excusing idiotic right wing Isreali settlements on the West Bank). I don't like the MB, but recognize that the US needs to have some contact with the Morsi government. I've never mentioned AQ, but I oppose them.

However, I don't hate all Muslims/Arabs and don't assume that every Muslim/Arab is worse than every Christian or the right wing parties in Israel.

Assad is a jerk and we aren't even the biggest conduit of arms to the rebels in Syria. That would be Turkey.

How? You support arming the Syrian government's enemies who are jihadis, aka: Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. That's how.



I feel like after 20 years of threats from Al Qaeda that nobody understands the concept of "blowback." WTF

That's a laughable conclusion. I guess you'd rather let Iran continue to have a proxy in Syria? Using your ridiculous logic, that would make you a supporter of Iran. Of course, that assertion would be as ridiculous as yours calling me a supporter of Hamas, the MB, and Al Qaida.

I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding of the Middle East that underpins your 'logic'. I hope its a lack of understanding rather than bigotry.

Hamas is in Syria????? Really? Where?

(12-07-2012 07:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:26 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

You are now on the record as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there's no way arming them could ever backfire.

Exactly how? I oppose dealing with Hamas (while at the same time, recognizing that the PA does not equal Hamas nor excusing idiotic right wing Isreali settlements on the West Bank). I don't like the MB, but recognize that the US needs to have some contact with the Morsi government. I've never mentioned AQ, but I oppose them.

However, I don't hate all Muslims/Arabs and don't assume that every Muslim/Arab is worse than every Christian or the right wing parties in Israel.

Assad is a jerk and we aren't even the biggest conduit of arms to the rebels in Syria. That would be Turkey.

How? You support arming the Syrian government's enemies who are jihadis, aka: Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. That's how.



I feel like after 20 years of threats from Al Qaeda that nobody understands the concept of "blowback." WTF

That's a laughable conclusion. I guess you'd rather let Iran continue to have a proxy in Syria? Using your ridiculous logic, that would make you a supporter of Iran. Of course, that assertion would be as ridiculous as yours calling me a supporter of Hamas, the MB, and Al Qaida.

I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding of the Middle East that underpins your 'logic'. I hope its a lack of understanding rather than bigotry.

Hamas is in Syria????? Really? Where?

Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist is what we're talking about. By stating you support what Obama is doing, you are stating you support giving guns to al qaeda affiliated jihadists. It's not a leap, it's not a stretch. That's what they're doing! That's who they're giving guns to fight Syria. We should stay out of it. Giving weapons to Islamic extremists is always a bad idea. How do we not get that by now?

It's no different than giving weapons to Al Qaeda in the 90s to fight the soviets. If you think giving guns to jihadis to fight Syria, as a proxy fight against Iran, is worth it, that's your business. History has shown us it's a horrible idea. It will cause blowback.

(12-07-2012 07:51 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:26 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  You are now on the record as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there's no way arming them could ever backfire.

Exactly how? I oppose dealing with Hamas (while at the same time, recognizing that the PA does not equal Hamas nor excusing idiotic right wing Isreali settlements on the West Bank). I don't like the MB, but recognize that the US needs to have some contact with the Morsi government. I've never mentioned AQ, but I oppose them.

However, I don't hate all Muslims/Arabs and don't assume that every Muslim/Arab is worse than every Christian or the right wing parties in Israel.

Assad is a jerk and we aren't even the biggest conduit of arms to the rebels in Syria. That would be Turkey.

How? You support arming the Syrian government's enemies who are jihadis, aka: Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. That's how.



I feel like after 20 years of threats from Al Qaeda that nobody understands the concept of "blowback." WTF

That's a laughable conclusion. I guess you'd rather let Iran continue to have a proxy in Syria? Using your ridiculous logic, that would make you a supporter of Iran. Of course, that assertion would be as ridiculous as yours calling me a supporter of Hamas, the MB, and Al Qaida.

I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding of the Middle East that underpins your 'logic'. I hope its a lack of understanding rather than bigotry.

Hamas is in Syria????? Really? Where?

Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist is what we're talking about. By stating you support what Obama is doing, you are stating you support giving guns to al qaeda affiliated jihadists. It's not a leap, it's not a stretch. That's what they're doing! That's who they're giving guns to fight Syria. We should stay out of it. Giving weapons to Islamic extremists is always a bad idea. How do we not get that by now?

It's no different than giving weapons to Al Qaeda in the 90s to fight the soviets. If you think giving guns to jihadis to fight Syria, as a proxy fight against Iran, is worth it, that's your business. History has shown us it's a horrible idea. It will cause blowback.

Turkey is giving guns to fight Assad. The US isn't stopping those arms going there. I'd rather deal with some blowback to contain Iran. Change the government in Syria and you starve Hezbollah in Lebanon. Knock out Assad and Russia loses its only base in the region (btw - Russia is engaged in Nuclear proliferation in the region - that's why Israel bombed Syria's nuclear plant three years ago). Assad's buddies are: Iran, Hezbollah, Venezuela, and Russia. This is a no brainer.

After Assad falls, there will be a period of chaos as the new regime takes shape. But just because there will be a period of chaos, does not mean that the US should oppose a popularly led group seeking to change the regime.

I don't think you understand the situation there. Assad is toast, with us providing minimal assistance to the rebels (many of whom are not particularly Islamist) or without us doing so.

I'm afraid that some Americans are so desperate to tag Obama as a Muslim or hate ALL Muslims/Arabs so much that they cannot see the political reality in the region. Or are so afraid of protecting US interests in the region that they'd rather let Russia and Iran take the lead there.

(12-07-2012 07:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:26 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

You are now on the record as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure there's no way arming them could ever backfire.

Exactly how? I oppose dealing with Hamas (while at the same time, recognizing that the PA does not equal Hamas nor excusing idiotic right wing Isreali settlements on the West Bank). I don't like the MB, but recognize that the US needs to have some contact with the Morsi government. I've never mentioned AQ, but I oppose them.

However, I don't hate all Muslims/Arabs and don't assume that every Muslim/Arab is worse than every Christian or the right wing parties in Israel.

Assad is a jerk and we aren't even the biggest conduit of arms to the rebels in Syria. That would be Turkey.

How? You support arming the Syrian government's enemies who are jihadis, aka: Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. That's how.



I feel like after 20 years of threats from Al Qaeda that nobody understands the concept of "blowback." WTF

That's a laughable conclusion. I guess you'd rather let Iran continue to have a proxy in Syria? Using your ridiculous logic, that would make you a supporter of Iran. Of course, that assertion would be as ridiculous as yours calling me a supporter of Hamas, the MB, and Al Qaida.

I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding of the Middle East that underpins your 'logic'. I hope its a lack of understanding rather than bigotry.

Hamas is in Syria????? Really? Where?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/2...CC20120224

You again display warped Progressive logic. When there's a battle of a repressive ruler and a bunch of rebels made up of terrorist groups, the obvious choice of who to support should be neither. Of course, the Progressive mind doesn't work that way, and insists the state have a hand in everything.

(12-07-2012 07:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:32 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

Syria already has WMDs.

Chem weapons, yes. Nukes no. I stand corrected.

zoooomm meeerrr geerrrrdd. someone admitted to being wrong on this board. Allah be praised.

(12-07-2012 11:11 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:32 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

Syria already has WMDs.

Chem weapons, yes. Nukes no. I stand corrected.

zoooomm meeerrr geerrrrdd. someone admitted to being wrong on this board. Allah be praised.

Sir...put the vest down!

(12-07-2012 11:48 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:11 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:32 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support us arming the opponents of Iran's ally, Syria.

1) Syria supports Hezbollah in Lebanon
2) Syria is aligned with Russia
3) Syria has tried to acquire WMD
4) Syria is aligned with Iran

I see no problem in assisting those opposing Assad, especially if it can be done on the cheap and without a commitment of US direct involvement.

Syria already has WMDs.

Chem weapons, yes. Nukes no. I stand corrected.

zoooomm meeerrr geerrrrdd. someone admitted to being wrong on this board. Allah be praised.

Sir...put the vest down!

Yiddo Yiddo Yiddo!!!

I got the Mossad of Haringey on my side.