U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands

[red states rule]

Get ready for Obama and his supporters to blame Bush for this as well. It is amazing how this (and other stories that show this administration in a bad light, are coming out after the election
The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats. No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), in September. 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.
The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

Anyone want to bet libs will make a big deal out of this like they did Iran- Contra?

[jafar00]

Nobody in the US had an objection when Al Qaeda was created by, trained buy, armed buy and fully supported by the USA. Just Sayin....

[jimnyc]

Nobody in the US had an objection when Al Qaeda was created by, trained buy, armed buy and fully supported by the USA. Just Sayin....

Wrong again, Al Qaeda was started by Bin Laden and others, I believe in Pakistan. No doubt though that American funding and arms went to help them though, but I doubt America as a whole would have supported propping up a terrorist group. Were they in fact a terror group already? Did they target outside of military in Afghanistan? I'll have to look up some more.

[aboutime]

Nobody in the US had an objection when Al Qaeda was created by, trained buy, armed buy and fully supported by the USA. Just Sayin....


jafar. Even if what you said above WAS TRUE. Look at how you are defending a known terrorist group who...by the way. Has it's sights on OZ...better known as where YOU NOW LIVE.

Hope your Australian neighbors recognize, and learn how supportive you REALLY ARE about terror, and terrorists.

If not. Maybe some of us can help SPREAD THE WORD for you.

[jafar00]

jafar. Even if what you said above WAS TRUE. Look at how you are defending a known terrorist group who...by the way. Has it's sights on OZ...better known as where YOU NOW LIVE.

Hope your Australian neighbors recognize, and learn how supportive you REALLY ARE about terror, and terrorists.

If not. Maybe some of us can help SPREAD THE WORD for you.

Since when have I supported Al Qaeda. On the contrary. People like those are my enemy.

[jimnyc]

Since when have I supported Al Qaeda. On the contrary. People like those are my enemy.

I guess they don't spill enough "jew blood" for you, otherwise you might support them too?

[aboutime]

Since when have I supported Al Qaeda. On the contrary. People like those are my enemy.


Really? Could'a fooled us. Check that. You fooled us with your otherwise, previous remarks and lack of disavowing approval.

[Gaffer]

Nobody in the US had an objection when Al Qaeda was created by, trained buy, armed buy and fully supported by the USA. Just Sayin....

Okay, another wrong statement by you. Seems I'm always correcting your facts. Al qaeda was formed by bin laden. It was an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood. His second in command was a high ranking member of the brotherhood. They were originally part of the muhadeen (sp) that fought the russians in afghanistan. Any arms they got from the US was for attacking the russians. The US supplied them because we were in the middle of the cold war. We stopped supplying the arms when the war there ended. bin laden and al qaeda moved from country to country for a while somolia, sudan, pakistan and finally settled in afghan where the taliban govt welcomed them with open arms and protected them.

[logroller]

Okay, another wrong statement by you. Seems I'm always correcting your facts. Al qaeda was formed by bin laden. It was an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood. His second in command was a high ranking member of the brotherhood. They were originally part of the muhadeen (sp) that fought the russians in afghanistan. Any arms they got from the US was for attacking the russians. The US supplied them because we were in the middle of the cold war. We stopped supplying the arms when the war there ended. bin laden and al qaeda moved from country to country for a while somolia, sudan, pakistan and finally settled in afghan where the taliban govt welcomed them with open arms and protected them.
Still similar; in that the arms were delivered to combat a common enemy(Russians:ghadafi). The difference being the us didn't supply the arms to Libyan rebels; Qatar did.
My problem with it is the haphazard way the US has conducted "war" since wwII; devoid of any formal declaration that would unleash the full power necessary to achieve unconditional victory. Instead, Strategic defense has become the moniker for clandestine offense; creating agencies which benefit from the perpetual demand for additional threats, imagined and real...often in that order.

[Gaffer]

Still similar; in that the arms were delivered to combat a common enemy(Russians:ghadafi). The difference being the us didn't supply the arms to Libyan rebels; Qatar did.
My problem with it is the haphazard way the US has conducted "war" since wwII; devoid of any formal declaration that would unleash the full power necessary to achieve unconditional victory. Instead, Strategic defense has become the moniker for clandestine offense; creating agencies which benefit from the perpetual demand for additional threats, imagined and real...often in that order.

True about lybia. But I was referring to al qaeda and afghan. The muhadeen were supplied with stinger missiles, and there was always a third party involved in shipping them in. I agree with you about the strategic defense BS that has been going on since WW2. It all started with Truman and Korea.

[revelarts]

the facts are that some factions of the U.S gov't have propped up and supplied weapons to terrorist groups and gov't overthrows around the world when it's suits us since WW2 at least.

I've posted recent history to that fact in several places.
there's no excuse for it other than imperialism. that's the raw facts.

I posted the news that the U.S. was supporting AlQuida troops in Libya who had fought AGAINST U.S. troops in Iraq a year or 2 earlier.
Mostly to silence here or "well Khadafiis a real bad guy, he did that thing that time so he deserves it..."

Israeli Mosad Admits it created Hamas, Seemed like a good idea at the time.
I've post the links.

We supported Saddam, supplied him with arms...

As Jafar points out we supported AlQuida and the Mujahaden.
Not Just with Stingers but with training. we brought many of them to U.S. air bases and trained them.

I've posted links About the Jundula terrorist group that the U.S. gov't is propping up NOW. We are at war with 'terror' but they are A-OK ---today--- because they are terrorist in IRAN....at least for now.

Did someone mention IRAN contra?
What was that about? SELLING the IRANIAN Aatolla WEAPONS -!!??- during an embargo/sanctions and using the Money to supply the Contra terroris... I mean 'freedom fighters' in Nicaragua.


And today also we are throwing our support toward Syrian rebels that are many of whom have been revealed to be terrorist , Alquida linked. but that's OK? Assasd's a bad guy i guess. right.
Or we just don't mention that or we "don't see it".

and

what about or good friends the Egyptians?

<header> U.S. Weaponry Heading to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (http://reason.com/24-7/2012/12/07/us-weaponry-heading-to-muslim-brotherhoo) <time datetime="2012-12-07T15:08:00+00:00">December 7, 2012</time>
</header> For Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/egypts-muslim-brotherhood/)-dominated government, more battle tanks and jet fighters are on their way from the United States.
Cairo’s military link to Washington has remained intact, meaning the U.S. will continue to modernize the biggest military in Africa – even as President Mohammed Morsi (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mohamed-morsi/) has decreed near-absolute power for himself and his supporters and opponents battle outside his palace.
Analysts say Egypt (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/egypt/)’s military buildup presents risks for Washington – and Israel (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/israel/) – with the growing influence of the Brotherhood (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/egypts-muslim-brotherhood/), whose overriding goal is to establish Shariah, or Islamic, law worldwide...






this is on Obama's watch but do we see a pattern here?

It would be a lie to say that only the democrats do stupid Crap like this. Please dont lie to yourselves their. The fact is our foreign covert/military policy since WW2 has been corrupt, immoral and self destructive. Focused on imagined short terms gains while creating new enemies for the future. it's dark n crazy.

for some reason the kids nursery rhyme comes to mind

""There was an old woman who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
There was an old woman who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die. There was an old woman who swallowed a bird,
How absurd! to swallow a bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
....."
and so on

[red states rule]

Nobody in the US had an objection when Al Qaeda was created by, trained buy, armed buy and fully supported by the USA. Just Sayin....

You have to be a proctologist jafar. You always have your head shoved up your ass


Still similar; in that the arms were delivered to combat a common enemy(Russians:ghadafi). The difference being the us didn't supply the arms to Libyan rebels; Qatar did.
My problem with it is the haphazard way the US has conducted "war" since wwII; devoid of any formal declaration that would unleash the full power necessary to achieve unconditional victory. Instead, Strategic defense has become the moniker for clandestine offense; creating agencies which benefit from the perpetual demand for additional threats, imagined and real...often in that order.

Looks to me like this is a foreign version of Fast and Furious. Obama tried to sneak guns out of the country and US citizens ended up MURDERED by those guns

[logroller]

Looks to me like this is a foreign version of Fast and Furious. Obama tried to sneak guns out of the country and US citizens ended up MURDERED by those guns
Looks to me like you didn't read the OP. fast and furious was BS though-- No arguments there.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

the facts are that some factions of the U.S gov't have propped up and supplied weapons to terrorist groups and gov't overthrows around the world when it's suits us since WW2 at least.

I've posted recent history to that fact in several places.
there's no excuse for it other than imperialism. that's the raw facts.

I posted the news that the U.S. was supporting AlQuida troops in Libya who had fought AGAINST U.S. troops in Iraq a year or 2 earlier.
Mostly to silence here or "well Khadafiis a real bad guy, he did that thing that time so he deserves it..."

Israeli Mosad Admits it created Hamas, Seemed like a good idea at the time.
I've post the links.

We supported Saddam, supplied him with arms...

As Jafar points out we supported AlQuida and the Mujahaden.
Not Just with Stingers but with training. we brought many of them to U.S. air bases and trained them.

I've posted links About the Jundula terrorist group that the U.S. gov't is propping up NOW. We are at war with 'terror' but they are A-OK ---today--- because they are terrorist in IRAN....at least for now.

Did someone mention IRAN contra?
What was that about? SELLING the IRANIAN Aatolla WEAPONS -!!??- during an embargo/sanctions and using the Money to supply the Contra terroris... I mean 'freedom fighters' in Nicaragua.


And today also we are throwing our support toward Syrian rebels that are many of whom have been revealed to be terrorist , Alquida linked. but that's OK? Assasd's a bad guy i guess. right.
Or we just don't mention that or we "don't see it".

and

what about or good friends the Egyptians?



this is on Obama's watch but do we see a pattern here?

It would be a lie to say that only the democrats do stupid Crap like this. Please dont lie to yourselves their. The fact is our foreign covert/military policy since WW2 has been corrupt, immoral and self destructive. Focused on imagined short terms gains while creating new enemies for the future. it's dark n crazy.

for some reason the kids nursery rhyme comes to mind

""There was an old woman who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
There was an old woman who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die. There was an old woman who swallowed a bird,
How absurd! to swallow a bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
....."
and so on






The pattern I saw was obama's overwhelming interest in making sure dictators were overthrown to allow hardcore muslim radicals to establish Islamic theocracies and was deliberately lying to us about how it was a democracy movement. How obama wants to give the Muslim Brotherhod even more of our money WHILE THEY GEAR UP TO BE ABLE TO ATTACK ISRAEL.
How obama is helping Islamists to establish a worldwide Caliphate! I see, and I see it clearly.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I bet the Caliphate ain't real happy about Obama allowing drones to kill all the al qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

[revelarts]

I bet the Caliphate ain't real happy about Obama allowing drones to kill all the al qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

And Probably not to happy about sanctions on Iran and Aircraft carriers off the coast and Computer viruses planted in their systems and State supported terrorist in their country.

or the killing of their scientist. not by the U.S. or Israel wink wink.

Why did Reagan, Bush Senior and Ollie North and crew Sell guns to the Iranian Aatolahs?
Or support Bin Laden and AlQuida or the Muhahajaden.
Are there any reasons except to support the Caliphate?!!?!

I THINK NOT!!
:poke:

[Drummond]

Okay, another wrong statement by you. Seems I'm always correcting your facts. Al qaeda was formed by bin laden. It was an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood. His second in command was a high ranking member of the brotherhood. They were originally part of the muhadeen (sp) that fought the russians in afghanistan. Any arms they got from the US was for attacking the russians. The US supplied them because we were in the middle of the cold war. We stopped supplying the arms when the war there ended. bin laden and al qaeda moved from country to country for a while somolia, sudan, pakistan and finally settled in afghan where the taliban govt welcomed them with open arms and protected them.

Not only that, but Jafar's timing is off. The Mujahiddeen existed long before Al Qaeda, as you say, and it was the Mujahiddeen that was assisted. Al Qaeda did not even EXIST before 1988 (some say 1989). The US has never given anything to Al Qaeda ... not its creation, nor any form of support afterwards.

By attempting such a smear, Jafar, I suggest that your anti-Americanism is showing.

[Dilloduck]

How is America paving the way for the new "Caliphate" without helping Al Qaeda at the same time ?

[jimnyc]

I really don't see the point of bringing up who did what in the past. Is it to excuse people who currently do it? I'm not sure. If anything, it should serve as a lesson, and show us that it simply doesn't work and very well may come back to bite us in the ass.

What the government does in secrecy is one thing, but to infer that Americans as a whole support propping up terrorist groups is a truly dumb thing to say. And pointing out that this kind of crap has happened before in no way means that some of us can't condemn similar actions today.

[Drummond]

How is America paving the way for the new "Caliphate" without helping Al Qaeda at the same time ?

Is this part of an overall position of yours, namely, that there should be as little involvement in Middle Eastern affairs by America as possible ?

And if terrorists do get their hands on Syrian WMD's at any time .. will you persist with such a position ?

You must be comforted by the thought that this position just happens to dovetail with a scenario which Al Qaeda would be delighted with ..

[revelarts]

I bet the Caliphate ain't real happy about Obama allowing drones to kill all the al qaeda leaders in Pakistan.


Not only that, but Jafar's timing is off. The Mujahiddeen existed long before Al Qaeda, as you say, and it was the Mujahiddeen that was assisted. Al Qaeda did not even EXIST before 1988 (some say 1989). The US has never given anything to Al Qaeda ... not its creation, nor any form of support afterwards.

By attempting such a smear, Jafar, I suggest that your anti-Americanism is showing.

And the Mujahiddeen were made of of people who were later called AlQuida i believe.

your splitting hairs in an attempt to cover our side from any complicity in our own troubles.
it's dishonest.


...
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom
Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world....



By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation....



MSNBC
...The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html

waving the flag over the activities won't make them right.

[Dilloduck]

Is this part of an overall position of yours, namely, that there should be as little involvement in Middle Eastern affairs by America as possible ?

And if terrorists do get their hands on Syrian WMD's at any time .. will you persist with such a position ?

You must be comforted by the thought that this position just happens to dovetail with a scenario which Al Qaeda would be delighted with ..

No--I'm just happy to point out that this isn't a behavior that Obama invented.

[Robert A Whit]

Nobody in the US had an objection when Al Qaeda was created by, trained buy, armed buy and fully supported by the USA. Just Sayin....

If that were true, it would be a fine story. Sorry but we got there late and provided no weapons to Al Qaeda nor money. We supported the freedom fighters in words vs the Soviets until Charlie Wilson took this on. It got called his war. Oh, and he was a Democrat.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No--I'm just happy to point out that this isn't a behavior that Obama invented.



So what! Hitler didnt invent murder or genocide but he doesnt get a pass for not being the original creator.
obama is the first American president that is a damn traitor.. -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Why did Reagan, Bush Senior and Ollie North and crew Sell guns to the Iranian Aatolahs?
Or support Bin Laden and AlQuida or the Muhahajaden.
Are there any reasons except to support the Caliphate?!!?!

I THINK NOT!!
:poke:

I plan to correct you just so you know.
Israel sold stinger missiles to Iran. Their goals were more than one. Goal 1 was to get back on the good side of the USA due to the Pollard incident. Second goal was hoping that they could help the USA recover hostages held in Lebanon. Stinger missiles are wire guided missiles to be used on tanks. Isreal wanted to replenish their stock and got more from the USA. Later this came to the attention to North and he acted to supply them. Actually no support directed to Bin Laden nor to Al Qaeda was approved by the USA. Missiles suited to bringing down airplanes were haned to the freedom fighters though none to Al Qaeda.

[jafar00]

I bet the Caliphate ain't real happy about Obama allowing drones to kill all the al qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

Who is "the Caliphate"?

[Drummond]

And the Mujahiddeen were made of of people who were later called AlQuida i believe.

your splitting hairs in an attempt to cover our side from any complicity in our own troubles.
it's dishonest.

Dishonest ?

FACT - Al Qaeda didn't exist until the late 1980's. The Mujahiddeen did, however. The Mujahiddeen never did have any goal in mind to launch the 9/11 attacks .. it didn't exist for that. But Al Qaeda DID.

Even if many of the original Mujahiddeen later became Al Qaeda members, they could only become that once Al Qaeda, and its objectives, came into existence.

And the very basis of your argument is nonsense. If a criminal becomes one as a result of joining a criminal gang, are you saying that said criminal MUST have been a criminal before the gang's existence ?

Perhaps if a person defects from one political Party to another, this means that the original Party must automatically undergo a metamorphosis to become the same as the second one ???

So, no. I find your 'reasoning' to be bizarre. America could give assistance to the Mujahiddeen with good reason, and with a good conscience. But she never aided Al Qaeda in any way. The two were different entities.

[revelarts]

Dishonest ?

FACT - Al Qaeda didn't exist until the late 1980's. The Mujahiddeen did, however. The Mujahiddeen never did have any goal in mind to launch the 9/11 attacks .. it didn't exist for that. But Al Qaeda DID.

Even if many of the original Mujahiddeen later became Al Qaeda members, they could only become that once Al Qaeda, and its objectives, came into existence.

And the very basis of your argument is nonsense. If a criminal becomes one as a result of joining a criminal gang, are you saying that said criminal MUST have been a criminal before the gang's existence ?

Perhaps if a person defects from one political Party to another, this means that the original Party must automatically undergo a metamorphosis to become the same as the second one ???

So, no. I find your 'reasoning' to be bizarre. America could give assistance to the Mujahiddeen with good reason, and with a good conscience. But she never aided Al Qaeda in any way. The two were different entities.

please see links above.
"...The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc


We supported, supplied and trained Jihadist we knew were our enemies and in hopes that they would help crush another enemy.

Y

Now we claim the Jihadist are the most evilest, insanest things ever ever ever and they must be stopped at any cost and those countries that support them are evil terrorist as well. Unless of course they are over throwning an M.E. gov't we don't like.


you and others seem to be saying something like,
'Well back then the olden days of th 80s Jihadist were A-OK, 'freedom fighters'. Being Muslim was Ok then too, or at least not worth bringing up today, and the Caliphate was not really a worry. And we should have then -and should NOW- just forget about all their Musliminess and jihadiness back in the old old olden days of the 80s-90s. They were our Allies!
But NOW its a different story. READ the KORAN you fools, LOOK at the STONINGS and treatment of women folk, Look at Sharia Law, And terroist attacks round the world! They want to kill every American dead dead dead and they can't ever be trusted, or negotiated with, or trusted, because they are all crazy religious fanatics, there are no moderate ones.'




Drummond your right it is bizarre.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

please see links above.
"...The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc


We supported, supplied and trained Jihadist we knew were our enemies and in hopes that they would help crush another enemy.

Y

Now we claim the Jihadist are the most evilest, insanest things ever ever ever and they must be stopped at any cost and those countries that support them are evil terrorist as well. Unless of course they are over throwning an M.E. gov't we don't like.


you and others seem to be saying something like,
'Well back then the olden days of th 80s Jihadist were A-OK, 'freedom fighters'. Being Muslim was Ok then too, or at least not worth bringing up today, and the Caliphate was not really a worry. And we should have then -and should NOW- just forget about all their Musliminess and jihadiness back in the old old olden days of the 80s-90s. They were our Allies!
But NOW its a different story. READ the KORAN you fools, LOOK at the STONINGS and treatment of women folk, Look at Sharia Law, And terroist attacks round the world! They want to kill every American dead dead dead and they can't ever be trusted, or negotiated with, or trusted, because they are all crazy religious fanatics, there are no moderate ones.'




Drummond your right it is bizarre.

Look, doesnt matter who past administrations supported or didnt support. Our enemies now are our enemies now! If past idiots didnt recognise the people they dealt with and the insanity of their religion so what? That doesnt change a thing about that insanity and its goal of enslaving or killing -ALL- that do not yield to it as the final and absolute authority over the freaking entire world. Does not change its path of destruction ,murder and terror. Does not change its 1400+ years of seeking world domination.
Myself, I do not care who kissed their asses in the past . I see what they are now, what they do and what they intend to do ! Who they fooled in the past can not be changed. And frankly objectively it doesnt matter. Its who they fool now and who refuses to oppose them now that matters. We can not eliminate the threats we face now by arguing about past mistakes unless its a wise course and studied in order to avoid such mistakes again.

Whats bizarre is that the world still believes the fable that islam is a religion of peace..-Tyr

[logroller]

Look, doesnt matter who past administrations supported or didnt support... unless its a wise course and studied in order to avoid such mistakes again.

well if who those past administrations supported have become our current administration's enemy, then it would be wise to analyze the motives and methods of previous support.
there is revel arts point. Seems many dismiss the past without such study. Yet by the same token use WWII as evidence to support preventative intervention. Well we won WWII, only to create another enemy in the USSR. So we fight them in Afghanistan, only to create another enemy in AlQaida. It just starts to look like a perpetual cycle of war-- the blight of man I suppose. I'm not sure there's any peace to be had outside one's self. If somebody finds that, good for them. But I've not met anyone who found peace through violent means. Just indignation and apathy.

[red states rule]

Looks to me like you didn't read the OP. fast and furious was BS though-- No arguments there.

I read the OP LR. Obama screwed up again and this time US citizens died. Dems and the liberal media have done their best to ignore and dismiss this story since the light of truth would be shined on Obama and the fact the members of the US military were killed. Sine libs have circled have the with the liberal media giving directions) and past comments about our troops from Dems (like John Kerry calling the troops uneducated, Dick Durbin comparing the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot) I am not surprised by their lack of interest. As far as F&F, since a border agent was murdered, again I am not surprised libs are not interested. After all Brian Terry was keeping undocumented Democrats from entering the country so I am sure many libs are delighted he is no longer doing his job on the US border. And as usual, Obama blamed Bush for his screw up - nothing new there LR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

well if who those past administrations supported have become our current administration's enemy, then it would be wise to analyze the motives and methods of previous support.
there is revel arts point. Seems many dismiss the past without such study. Yet by the same token use WWII as evidence to support preventative intervention. Well we won WWII, only to create another enemy in the USSR. So we fight them in Afghanistan, only to create another enemy in AlQaida. It just starts to look like a perpetual cycle of war-- the blight of man I suppose. I'm not sure there's any peace to be had outside one's self. If somebody finds that, good for them. But I've not met anyone who found peace through violent means. Just indignation and apathy.

Nothing new about man's nature being that of greed and lust. Nothing new about war being a product of greed and lust for power. Take any nation and if it could be made to be 100% peaceful, never to fight no matter what, that nation would soon be conquered. There can be no peace on earth until man's nature is changed. With that being a reality, we must always be prepared to defend ourselves! Like it or not sometimes that requires striking first in order to limit damage to ourselves. The people that scream -no war, no war ignore the fact that war is a product of human nature and can not ever be vanquished until that nature is fundamentally and eternally changed. All the screaming about the horror and injustice of war can not change that. And disarming to be slaughtered does not effect change .
Im a big believer in studying history to try to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Yet even when thats done it does not stop others from making mistakes and attacking .

Best way to avoid war is to always be prepared to fight and win one! This does not insure no war, (nothing can), but it insures our survival. I vote for insuring our survival. Its not my job/responsibility to insure our enemies's survival. Pie in the sky is for fairy tales and to give children something to dream about. Reality is, if you have stuff there are people that are going to try to take it. Some of us say, go ahead try , we can not stop you from making that mistake but we will kill you for your efforts.-Tyr

[revelarts]

Nothing new about man's nature being that of greed and lust. Nothing new about war being a product of greed and lust for power. Take any nation and if it could be made to be 100% peaceful, never to fight no matter what, that nation would soon be conquered. There can be no peace on earth until man's nature is changed. With that being a reality, we must always be prepared to defend ourselves! Like it or not sometimes that requires striking first in order to limit damage to ourselves. The people that scream -no war, no war ignore the fact that war is a product of human nature and can not ever be vanquished until that nature is fundamentally and eternally changed. All the screaming about the horror and injustice of war can not change that. And disarming to be slaughtered does not effect change .
Im a big believer in studying history to try to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Yet even when thats done it does not stop others from making mistakes and attacking .

Best way to avoid war is to always be prepared to fight and win one! This does not insure no war, (nothing can), but it insures our survival. I vote for insuring our survival. Its not my job/responsibility to insure our enemies's survival. Pie in the sky is for fairy tales and to give children something to dream about. Reality is, if you have stuff there are people that are going to try to take it. Some of us say, go ahead try , we can not stop you from making that mistake but we will kill you for your efforts.-Tyr





So the Swiss are a pie in the sky fairy tale?

[Dilloduck]

Nothing new about man's nature being that of greed and lust. Nothing new about war being a product of greed and lust for power. Take any nation and if it could be made to be 100% peaceful, never to fight no matter what, that nation would soon be conquered. There can be no peace on earth until man's nature is changed. With that being a reality, we must always be prepared to defend ourselves! Like it or not sometimes that requires striking first in order to limit damage to ourselves. The people that scream -no war, no war ignore the fact that war is a product of human nature and can not ever be vanquished until that nature is fundamentally and eternally changed. All the screaming about the horror and injustice of war can not change that. And disarming to be slaughtered does not effect change .
Im a big believer in studying history to try to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Yet even when thats done it does not stop others from making mistakes and attacking .

Best way to avoid war is to always be prepared to fight and win one! This does not insure no war, (nothing can), but it insures our survival. I vote for insuring our survival. Its not my job/responsibility to insure our enemies's survival. Pie in the sky is for fairy tales and to give children something to dream about. Reality is, if you have stuff there are people that are going to try to take it. Some of us say, go ahead try , we can not stop you from making that mistake but we will kill you for your efforts.-Tyr


Being prepared for war doesn't insure anything. It's been tried before. There is no such thing as security.

[Robert A Whit]

Though Charlie Wilson, democratic congressman from TX gets credit for the help given to the fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan, or some want to pin that tail on Reagan, the CIA field director who then served in Pakistan states flat out, no money went to Bin Laden. The help this country afforded to fight the Soviets went to the actual Afthanistan people involved in the fight.

I read that article by some guy named Moran posted by Revelarts dated in 1998 but the author cites no authority he should have used to get his story right. No mention of the CIA field director and the only politician he named was Hatch. Actually it was Charlie Wilson that took on this charge trying to get the USA to help with surface to air hand held missiles to shoot down the Soviets aircraft. Those resemble the missiles long used to shoot at tanks. Hand launched missiles are too small to have much of a range. Best used on approaching targets.


Being prepared for war doesn't insure anything. It's been tried before. There is no such thing as security.

A lot of us think it is time that Al Qaeda learned that lesson. The USA has the better stuff to fight with. Best toys win.


Did someone mention IRAN contra?
What was that about? SELLING the IRANIAN Aatolla WEAPONS -!!??- during an embargo/sanctions and using the Money to supply the Contra terroris... I mean 'freedom fighters' in Nicaragua.

The story of this event is too deep for links to articles. Too deep for a dozen posts trying to smear Reagan.

I have read a number of books on this topic.

Best book I found to read is by the husband/wife author team of Strober. Reagan, the man and his presidency is the name of their book.
<o:p></o>
http://www.historynet.com/book-review-reagan-the-man-and-his-presidency-by-deborah-hart-strober-and-gerald-s-strober-ah.htm
REAGAN: THE MAN AND HIS PRESIDENCY, by Deborah Hart Strober and Gerald S. Strober, Houghton Mifflin Co., 640 pages, $35.


The Strobers wrote this book with the help of interviews with 108 men and women who knew Ronald Reagan at different times in his life. The list of the people they talked with includes George Bush, Jerry Falwell, Alexander Haig, Fawn Hall, Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, Oliver North, Michael Reagan, George Shultz, Caspar Weinberger, and even Manuel Noriega. Their stories combine to create the best biographical portrait of Ronald Reagan to date. <o:p></o>
Among the topics recorded in this substantial biography are Reagan's personality, the 1981 assassination attempt, the emerging AIDS crisis, the Iran Contra scandal, the Grenada invasion, and the debates with President Jimmy Carter during the 1980 campaign. Along the way, the book imparts the flavor of nearly a decade of world history. <o:p></o>
Jim Romeo is a freelance writer from Chesapeake, Virginia, and the author of The Autograph Sourcebook. <o:p></o>

NOTE. This book may be in your library. And it is available at less cost than shown.
<o:p></o>

[Drummond]

please see links above.
"...The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc


We supported, supplied and trained Jihadist we knew were our enemies and in hopes that they would help crush another enemy.

Y

Now we claim the Jihadist are the most evilest, insanest things ever ever ever and they must be stopped at any cost and those countries that support them are evil terrorist as well. Unless of course they are over throwning an M.E. gov't we don't like.


you and others seem to be saying something like,
'Well back then the olden days of th 80s Jihadist were A-OK, 'freedom fighters'. Being Muslim was Ok then too, or at least not worth bringing up today, and the Caliphate was not really a worry. And we should have then -and should NOW- just forget about all their Musliminess and jihadiness back in the old old olden days of the 80s-90s. They were our Allies!
But NOW its a different story. READ the KORAN you fools, LOOK at the STONINGS and treatment of women folk, Look at Sharia Law, And terroist attacks round the world! They want to kill every American dead dead dead and they can't ever be trusted, or negotiated with, or trusted, because they are all crazy religious fanatics, there are no moderate ones.'


Drummond your right it is bizarre.

Revelarts .. your logic is flawed. Simply put, to suspect that a grouping might, conceivably, turn against you YEARS later .. is by no means the same thing as KNOWING them to be an enemy., beforehand.

Suspicions, whether or not they have any grounding, are just that. They fall short of actual knowledge.

In Al Qaeda's case, they didn't even exist at the time America aided the Mujahiddeen !!

So, tell me. Should America have refused to ever consider the Soviet Union as a possible ally against Hitler at the time of World War 2, on the grounds that they MIGHT become a perceivable enemy later ? OR, did other, more immediate, considerations come to the fore .. and RIGHTLY so ?

[Robert A Whit]

Revelarts .. your logic is flawed. Simply put, to suspect that a grouping might, conceivably, turn against you YEARS later .. is by no means the same thing as KNOWING them to be an enemy., beforehand.

Suspicions, whether or not they have any grounding, are just that. They fall short of actual knowledge.

In Al Qaeda's case, they didn't even exist at the time America aided the Mujahiddeen !!

So, tell me. Should America have refused to ever consider the Soviet Union as a possible ally against Hitler at the time of World War 2, on the grounds that they MIGHT become a perceivable enemy later ? OR, did other, more immediate, considerations come to the fore .. and RIGHTLY so ?

Bear in mind what the Soviets did FIRST.

They accepted our money and arms to fight a war against Hitler.

Then they kept countries they had captured showing the USA the other side.

It was only AFTER they did that we heard for the first time of the Soviets being against the USA.

I can't recall a direct war though against the Soviets.

[revelarts]

Revelarts .. your logic is flawed. Simply put, to suspect that a grouping might, conceivably, turn against you YEARS later .. .. is by no means the same thing as KNOWING them to be an enemy., beforehand.
Suspicions, whether or not they have any grounding, are just that. They fall short of actual knowledge....

cough-Iran-cough-noWMDS-cough-No-nukes-cough-neverattackedanyforigncountry-CoughSyrianevr-attacked-theUS?-CoughAhem


sorry cough
What's that your saying there Drummond?

[Gaffer]

cough-Iran-cough-noWMDS-cough-No-nukes-cough-neverattackedanyforigncountry-CoughSyrianevr-attacked-theUS?-CoughAhem


sorry cough
What's that your saying there Drummond?

Got your ear plugs in and blinders in place, good for you. Take something for that cough, probably just a dry throat from going lalalalala.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Being prepared for war doesn't insure anything. It's been tried before. There is no such thing as security.


No such thing as -absolute- security. One must measure security against the amount of freedom one has to abandone to increase it!
One thing is for sure its better to be prepared for war than it is not to be prepared.

[red states rule]

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/720922275/sticker_rectangle.jpg?color=White&height=460&width=460

[revelarts]

Tyr i agree with on you on the Human nature thing. And part of Human nature of those in power is is that power corupts and leaders tend to lie or exaggerate threats for the various reasons.
And It think you agree with me on that point to some degree.

I'm convinced that a rise in radical muslims nations is not a good thing but I'm not afraid of them as many here seem to be. Just as foolish as you think that position may be. i think the opposite is just as foolish.
We're both old enough to remember what a threat the soviets and world wide communism was. they where about to take over ever year according to those on the right i listened to during the 70's and 80's. come to find out that Many if Not MOSt of the fears where overblown. AND that WE were proppong up our Enemies with food factories and weapons and weapons tech -yes weapons-.
Having said that they where in many respects a real threat.

But the mish mash of Muslims countries and rag tag groups of scattered of terrorist -we trained- is NOTHING in compassion.
NOTHING.

Are the a terrorist general threat to some life and safety? sure. But the IRA are/were a terrorist threat as well. Are they going to take over the world? Most of the Muslim terrorist activity is similar to the IRA, they want Their Country free of foreign infidels and under a crazy version of Sharia.

Muslim terrorist are a horrible -but small- reality but not a world wide threat of world domination. that's just HYPE by our own gov'ts for reasons known and unknown.

During the cold war every communist coutry was said to be end of the world as we know it.
'If Veit Nam Falls so goes the rest of Asia.' Even in the short term that never happened.
'If Angola goes Commie they'll block the gulf of our oil etc etc ' BS, never happened.
If Nicaragua falls the soviets will have a base and all of central America will turn commie and in less than 20yrs America will be attacked or overrun economically... its inevitable.'
BS BS BS.
All of the above and more was warned against. Most if not all of that stuff was not true, the worse fears were either Hype, or lies or misplaced fears blown out of proportion. or all 3.

This Muslim threat is Another version of that scenario. With less real threatening material to work with. ALL of the Muslim countries combined do not have the firepower we have. And most have never attacked a foreign power outside of the M.E.. The Soviets armed and supplied Many revolutions in countries around the globe. the Muslims can barley arm themselves.

-'BUT THEY MIGHT ONE DAY MAYBE!!!'-

Well IMO It Crazy talk to say they are any serious threat. A explosive nuisance, absolutely. a threat of world wide domination. that's almost laughable.

You and others mention that the Caliphate! is some plan world dominion ongoing for 1400 years. That the Koran commands, predicts world wide conquest. Well it looks like it's not working out to good for um. Kinda slow don't yeah think maybe we've got another 1400 yrs to to worry about it.

And BTW I know you do NOT believe the Koran?! Mohamed is a false prophet? Why should we be worried?

'well They Believe it?'

Jafar didn't even know what it was. And the same is probably true for most of the umpteen million Muslims. many Muslims probably agree on religion as much as the Christians on this board do concerning what Christianity is, says, and what Christians should be doing.

But I can say this . As a Christian I believe we have NO right to attack others that have not attacked us or even have the capacity to attack us. Imagined threats are NO justification for a Christian to start a war. If war is justified at all as a christian, it's in defense, not veiled offense of BS overhyped 20 yrs from now maybe one day threats.

[revelarts]

Nothing new about man's nature being that of greed and lust. Nothing new about war being a product of greed and lust for power. Take any nation and if it could be made to be 100% peaceful, never to fight no matter what, that nation would soon be conquered. There can be no peace on earth until man's nature is changed. With that being a reality, we must always be prepared to defend ourselves! Like it or not sometimes that requires striking first in order to limit damage to ourselves. The people that scream -no war, no war ignore the fact that war is a product of human nature and can not ever be vanquished until that nature is fundamentally and eternally changed. All the screaming about the horror and injustice of war can not change that. And disarming to be slaughtered does not effect change .
Im a big believer in studying history to try to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Yet even when thats done it does not stop others from making mistakes and attacking .

Best way to avoid war is to always be prepared to fight and win one! This does not insure no war, (nothing can), but it insures our survival. I vote for insuring our survival. Its not my job/responsibility to insure our enemies's survival. Pie in the sky is for fairy tales and to give children something to dream about. Reality is, if you have stuff there are people that are going to try to take it. Some of us say, go ahead try , we can not stop you from making that mistake but we will kill you for your efforts.-Tyr

and all due respect,

the Chinese have manged practically no war for sometime now. they are far from perfect but they have found NO NEED to run around the world killing socalled "potential" threats.

[Gaffer]

and all due respect,

the Chinese have manged practically no war for sometime now. they are far from perfect but they have found NO NEED to run around the world killing socalled "potential" threats.

Yeah, the chinese aren't a threat to anyone. They have N. Korea to do their dirty work. They took over Tibet. They are threatening Taiwan making moves against Japanese islands. They are building a navy, including carriers. They are breeding children to serve in their ever growing military. What's to worry about? It's 20 years in the future before they can do anything.

The muslims are not united. They are fighting among themselves. Nothing to worry about. They don't even have the technology to build an army. Most people don't even know what a caliphate is so why worry about it. They're way over there and it doesn't affect us at all. We don't need to prepare for future threats, we can just go about our business and let everyone be. Just like the 1920's. We don't even need that big military that cost so much to maintain. There's nothing to worry about.

Of course if we do all that, maybe we should let the govt run our daily lives as well. Maybe expand the TSA and IRS. Create more govt agencies to oversee our daily lives. There's no threat there. The govt looks after our best interest, right?

Never plan ahead and wait until something happens before taking action should be your motto.

[revelarts]

Yeah, the Chinese aren't a threat to anyone. They have N. Korea to do their dirty work. They took over Tibet. They are threatening Taiwan making moves against Japanese islands. They are building a navy, including carriers. They are breeding children to serve in their ever growing military. What's to worry about? It's 20 years in the future before they can do anything.

The muslims are not united. They are fighting among themselves. Nothing to worry about. They don't even have the technology to build an army. Most people don't even know what a caliphate is so why worry about it. They're way over there and it doesn't affect us at all. We don't need to prepare for future threats, we can just go about our business and let everyone be. Just like the 1920's. We don't even need that big military that cost so much to maintain. There's nothing to worry about.

Of course if we do all that, maybe we should let the govt run our daily lives as well. Maybe expand the TSA and IRS. Create more govt agencies to oversee our daily lives. There's no threat there. The govt looks after our best interest, right?

Never plan ahead and wait until something happens before taking action should be your motto.

you've almost got me right.
We need a military a big and strong one. But not a stupidly big one 'policing' the world.
We do need to prepare. we don't need to Attack every time some other country/group looks at us cross eye or gets a new weapon.
If we do 5 other things instead of the TSA , the TSA will be as unnecessary as it was pre-911.
If we're not policing the world the IRS will need less taxes.


We should prepare but not go looking for trouble. Or go around the world poking people in the chest because we THINK they might attack us.

BTW have we found those WMDS in Iraq that were going to kill us after Saddam attacked the US and the UK and Israel?:eek:

as Drummond put it SUSPICION is NOT KNOWLEDGE.

[revelarts]

Ronald Reagan ...
"U.S. Defense Policy The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace." ...

"former chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene notes: "Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the (1983) assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today's neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?".

[jafar00]

You and others mention that the Caliphate! is some plan world dominion ongoing for 1400 years. That the Koran commands, predicts world wide conquest. Well it looks like it's not working out to good for um. Kinda slow don't yeah think maybe we've got another 1400 yrs to to worry about it.

And BTW I know you do NOT believe the Koran?! Mohamed is a false prophet? Why should we be worried?

'well They Believe it?'

Jafar didn't even know what it was. And the same is probably true for most of the umpteen million Muslims. many Muslims probably agree on religion as much as the Christians on this board do concerning what Christianity is, says, and what Christians should be doing.

I know what it means. I just doubt the existence of this conspiracy in this day and age. Besides the "Caliphate" requires the Muslims to be united to work and we are anything but.

[revelarts]

info dump


...Syria will not use any chemical or biological weapons against its own people. The Obama Administration and company are just recycling the same lines that were used months earlier against Damascus.



These statements are disingenuous and hollow. They can easily be deconstructed as rhetoric. All we need to do it look at recent history.

In 2011, were not similar charges put forward against another Arab country? Were they not claiming that the late Muammar Qaddafi would use chemical weapons against his own population? Was it not claimed even earlier that Qaddafi and the Libyan military had brought in black-skinned African mercenaries to kill Libyan citizens? Or that Libyan jets were killing Libyan protesters? What happened to the genocide in Benghazi? Now there is nothing but silence and lost memories. Claims were made, morality and responsibility were invoked, and then a rising Arab country was bombarded. An engine of economic progress in Africa was halted in its tracks overnight and an entire society robbed.

There was also the textbook case of Iraq even before the lies about the Libyan Jamahiriya. Did not the Bush Jr. Administration, Tony Blair, and their circle of war criminals-in-office not lie to the entire international community and say that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and weapons of mass destruction in 2003? What happened to those WMDs? This is not something that can easily be scoffed at. More than one million Iraqis died over the lies conjured by the Anglo-American duo. Not to mention the ecological damage and the intellectual genocide perpetrated against Iraq’s intelligentsia and professional class.

Let us be clear, Syria threatened to use chemical weapons against any invading force on July 23, 2012. Firstly, the statement was made in a defensive context. Secondly, it was directed against military threats. This is very different from planning on using chemical weapons against your own citizens, specifically civilians.

Obama and NATO are sharing the same Script

It is no mere coincidence that both the Obama Administration and NATO are now singing the same threatening tune against the Syrian Arab Republic. Both the US government and NATO are ominously using the same talking points. Of course there is a reason for this of course, and it is not due to any humanitarian concern for the Syrian people.

The threats come at a time when NATO is deploying Patriot missiles to Turkey’s border with Syria under the Orwellian pretext of protecting Turkey’s skies from a Syrian attack. The last thing that the government in Syria will do is attack Turkey. Albeit Israel is the exception, Damascus is too busy trying to clean house to even pose a threat against any of its neighbors. Moreover, is it not Turkey which is openly hosting anti-government militias and arming them from its territory? So, who is really threatening who?

Rhetorically, red lines are being drawing in the shifting sand of the Levant. Obama and NATO have warned that they will not tolerate or allow the Syrian government to use chemical weapons against it own people. They have threatened to hold the government in Damascus to account.

Oh, really? Well then Mr. President, you and NATO should start by arresting those US, British, and Israeli officials who okayed and used WMDs against civilians in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. Remember the white phosphorous in Fallujah? The US and British military forces attacked an entire civilian population with their arsenal of chemical weapons in 2004.

Unlike the US and UK, Syria is part of the small handful of countries that is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. What happened to the treaty obligations of the US and UK?

It is funny how the resistance in Fallujah was also called an insurgency back then too. So the US and UK considered Iraqis fighting two invading armies an “insurgency” while they consider foreign-backed militias in Syria as “rebels” and “freedom fighters.” An Orwellian world it is indeed.


As for Israel it is also guilty of the same war crimes. Jacob Edery, an Israeli cabinet minister, even admitted in 2006 that Tel Aviv used white phosphorus after the Red Cross and human rights organizations leaved charges against Israel about using chemical weapons on civilians. It is not Damascus, but Tel Aviv that is the home of pundits and officials who frequently speak about “Doomsday weapons” and the “Samson Option” when referring to their nuclear WMDs.
Yes Mr. President, hold people who use chemical weapons against civilians to account! I could not agree with you anymore.

Will any of the US or British or Israeli leaders involved in these crimes and disregard for legally binding treaties signed by the US be held to “account?” Or is “accountability” a word used as a club or iron stick to beat and punish any government that dares to have a different opinion or foreign policy from yours? Or are you, Mr. President, using the time-honored double-standards that are a hallmark of US foreign policy?

A Controversial question to think over

The Syrians are trying to prevent their chemical weapons from falling into the hands of the GCC/NATO-sponsored anti-government militias that are menacing the Syrian countryside. This is what the Syrian Army has been presently doing. Obama and NATO know that very well too, just like they knew that Libya was not using its military jets to kill Libyan protesters.

International law is a matter of mere convenience. The very same countries posturing negatively towards Syria from a moral high ground have themselves lost their own moral compasses. The US, Britain, France, and NATO have not only refused to commit themselves to a “no first use” policy on their own WMD, specifically nuclear bombs, but have reserved the rights to us nuclear weapons in any war or conflict as a means of insuring their own victories. This includes any conflict with a non-nuclear state.


The US and its allies even deem the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) null and void in the scenario of a major war. What this means is that the NPT and international law are merely followed as a matter of convince by the US and its NATO allies. They will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons the moment that they think they will need them. Yet, they hold Syria to totally different standards.
Agree or disagree, Syria has reserved the right to use chemical weapons in a scenario where it is being invaded. Can Damascus be blamed for threatening to use chemical weapons to protect itself from foreign intervention? Especially in light of the position of the US to use nukes to ensure victories that are favorable to it and its allies. Why the double standards? ...


Turkey itself is a major target for destabilization, upheaval, and finally balkanization through its participation in the US-led siege against Syria. Ankara has burned its bridges in Syria for the sake of its failing neo-Ottoman regional policy. The Turkish government has actively pursued regime change, spied on Syria for NATO and Israel, violated Syrian sovereignty, supported acts of terrorism and lawlessness, and provided logistical support for the insurgency inside Syria.
Any chances of seeing some form of Turkish regional leadership under neo-Ottomanism have faded. Turkey’s southern borders have been transformed into intelligence and logistical hubs for the CIA and the Mossad in the process, complete with an intelligence “nerve centre” (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801) in the Turkish city of Adana. Despite Turkey’s denials, reports about Adana are undeniable and Turkish officers have also been apprehended in covert military operations against the Syrian Arab Republic.
The Turkish Labour Party has even demanded that the US General Consul in Adana be deported for “masterminding (http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_08_02/Is-humanitarian-catastrophe-in-Syria-provoked-from-outside/) and leading the activities of Syrian terrorists.” Mehmet Ali Ediboglu and Mevlut Dudu, two Turkish MPs, have also testified that foreign fighters have been renting homes (http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/a-rebel-fighter-falls-in-aleppo-but-this-one-was-from-istanbul) on Turkey’s border with Syria and that Turkish ambulances (http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/a-rebel-fighter-falls-in-aleppo-but-this-one-was-from-istanbul) have been helping smuggle weapons for the insurgents inside Syria.
Turkish Regional Isolation
If the Syrian state collapses, neighbouring Turkey will be the biggest loser. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government are foolishly aligning Turkey for disaster. Aside from Ankara’s historically bad relations with Armenia, Erdogan has managed to singlehandedly alienate Russia and three of Turkey’s most important neighbours. This has damaged the Turkish economy and disrupted the flow of Turkish goods.
There have been clamp downs on activists too in connection with Turkey’s policy against Damascus. The freedom of the Turkish media has been affected as well; Erdogan has moved forward with legislation to restrict media freedoms. Prime Minister Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu have even both attacked “reporters who quoted President Assad’s statements in Cumhuriyet, accusing them of treason, because they had questioned (http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/10023) the official Turkish account of the Turkish jet shot down by in [sic.] Syria [for spying].”
To Turkey’s eastern flank tensions are building between it and both Iraq and Iran. Baghdad is reviewing its diplomatic ties with the Turkish government, because Ankara is encouraging the Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq to act independently of Iraq’s federal government. Erdogan’s government has done this partially as a result of Baghdad’s steadfast opposition to regime change in Syria and in part because of Iraq’s strengthening alliance with Iran.
Tehran on the other hand has halted the visa-free entry of Turkish citizens into Iran and warned the Turkish government that it is stroking the flames of a regional fire in Syria that will eventually burn Turkey too.
Growing Internal Divisions in Turkey
Despite all the patriotic speeches being made by the Turkish government to rally the Turkish people against Syria, Turkey is a much divided nation over Erdogan’s hostilities with Damascus. A significant portion of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey or Turkish Meclis and Turkey’s opposition parties have all condemned Erdogan for misleading the Turkish people and stirring their country towards disaster.
There is also growing resentment amongst the citizens of Turkey about Erdogan’s cooperation with the US, NATO, Israel, and the Arab dictatorships – like Qatar and Saudi Arabia – against the Syrians and others. The majority of Turkish citizens oppose Turkish ties to Israel, the hosting of NATO facilities in Turkey, the missile shield project, and cooperation with the US in the Middle East.
The Republican People’s Party, Turkey’s second largest political party and its main opposition party, has condemned the government in Ankara over Syria. Their leader, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, has openly accused Prime Minister Erdogan of interfering in the internal affairs of Syria (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288970-kilicdaroglu-accuses-govt-of-interfering-in-syrias-internal-affairs.html). Kilicdaroglu has been joined by Turkey’s other political parties in the condemnations of Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party.
Devlet Bahceli, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party, has warned the Turkish government not to drag their country into a war with Syria through intervention. “Some Western countries have put pressure on Turkey for an intervention in Syria. Turkey should not fall into this trap,” Bahceli, who leads the third largest Turkish political party, has warned Erdogan according to the Turkish press (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opposition-calls-on-govt-to-use-diplomatic-channels-over-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=24033&NewsCatID=338).
The Peace and Democracy Party, which is the fourth largest Turkish political party, has also clarified that it is against war with Syria. (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opposition-calls-on-govt-to-use-diplomatic-channels-over-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=24033&NewsCatID=338) The politician Selahattin Demirtas, who is one of the leaders of the Peace and Democracy Party, has warned that any military intervention by Ankara in Syria would drag Turkey into a broader regional war (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opposition-calls-on-govt-to-use-diplomatic-channels-over-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=24033&NewsCatID=338).
Hasan Basri Ozbey, the deputy leader of the Turkish Labour Party, has announced that his political party will file a complaint against Turkish President Abdullah Gul with the Turkish Meclis and the Turkish Higher Court to prosecute Gul, because the Labour Party “has clear evidence that [Gul] incited terrorism and war on Syria and signed a secret agreement with the United States, which alone is grounds for trial (http://www.tehrantimes.com/middle-east/99807-turkish-president-encourages-terrorism-in-syria--).”
Mustafa Kamalak, the leader of the Felicity Party, has even led a Turkish delegation (http://www.dp-news.com/en/detail.aspx?articleid=107877) to visit Bashar Al-Assad to show their support for Syria and opposition to Erdogan’s policies.
The mobilization of the Turkish military (http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120802/174924803.html) on the Syrian border as a show of force is a psychological tactic to scare the Syrian regime. Any large-scale military operations against the Syrians would be very dangerous for Turkey and could fragment the Turkish Armed Forces. Segments of the Turkish military are at odds with the Turkish government and the military itself is divided over Turkish foreign policy. Erdogan does not even trust half of Turkey’s own military leaders and has arrested forty of them (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-military-council-retires-arrested-generals-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=27078&NewsCatID=338) for planning to overthrow him. How can he send such a force to even attack neighbouring Syria or think that he can control it during a broader war?
The Dangers of “Blowback” from Syria
While Turkey is trumpeting that it will not allow Kurdish militias to establish bases in northern Syria, the Turkish government is actually facilitating this itself. There is a real risk of “blowback” from Syria for Turkey. Like Syria, Turkey is a kaleidoscope of various peoples and faiths. The people of Turkey are held together by the primacy of the Turkish language and a shared citizenship. Turkey’s minorities constitute at the very minimum one-third of the country. A significant proportion of Turkey’s minority communities have ties to Syria, Iraq, or Iran.
The Kurds and other similar Iranic peoples alone form about 25% of Turkey’s population, which means one out of four Turkish citizens are of Kurdish and Iranic stock. Other ethnic minorities include Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Azerbaijanis, Bulgarians, and Greeks. No exact figures have ever been available about Turkey’s Shiite Muslims, because of the historical persecution and restrictions on Shia Muslims in Turkey from Ottoman times.
Anywhere from 20% to 30% or more of the Turkish population may be categorized as Shiite Muslims, which includes Alevis, Alawites, and Twelvers. Turkey also has a small Christian minority, some of which have historic or organizational ties to Syria like Turkey’s Alawites and ethnic Arabs. Turkey will be consumed too, one way or another, should a broader sectarian conflict spread from Syria and should the Syrians be violently divided along sectarian fault lines.
The Self-Destructive Nature of Turkish Involvement in Syria
All the factors discussed above are a receipt for disaster. Civil war in Turkey is a real possibility in an increasingly polarized Turkish state. Should Syria burn, Turkey will ultimately burn too. This is why a whole spectrum of Turkish leaders have been warning their country and people that the consequences for the fire that Erdogan, Davutoglu, and Gul are stroking in Syria will have disastrous consequences for Turkey and all the countries bordering Syria.
Erdogan’s government has managed to alienate Turkey from its most important neighbours, hurt the Turkish economy, and destabilize their country’s own borders. This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg compared to the damages they could unleash on Turkey. The Turks have been walking into a trap, where they are slated for a self-destructive kamikaze operation against Syria.
The US-led siege on Syria intends to create chaos across the entire Middle East and ignite multiple regional conflicts. Violence and conflict from Syria is intended to consume Lebanon and Iraq too. Within this mêlée, Turkey has been slated to be weakened and divided – just as the US, NATO, and Israel have envisaged in their project to create a “new Middle East.” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3882)
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning author and geopolitical analyst. He is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations.
He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) in Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica in Italy. He has also addressed the Middle East and international relations issues on several news networks including Al Jazeera, teleSUR, and Russia Today. His writings have been translated into more than twenty languages. In 2011 he was awarded the First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club for his work in international journalism...
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/08/16/the-push-to-ignite-a-turkish-civil-war-through-a-syrian-quagmire-the-self-destructive-nature-of-turkish-involvement-in-syria/

[Dilloduck]

No such thing as -absolute- security. One must measure security against the amount of freedom one has to abandone to increase it!
One thing is for sure its better to be prepared for war than it is not to be prepared.

We get so prepared for war that we can't afford not to have one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We get so prepared for war that we can't afford not to have one.

Thats not true. I admit people make money off of war but for that to be the reason we go to war one has to show government corruption is behind it. As in unnecessary wars are being waged solely for the purposes of making selected people filthy rich. The fact that money is made even huge sums isnt proof. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Thats not true. I admit people make money off of war but for that to be the reason we go to war one has to show government corruption is behind it. As in unnecessary wars are being waged solely for the purposes of making selected people filthy rich. The fact that money is made even huge sums isnt proof. -Tyr

what would be proof?

[Dilloduck]

*crickets*

[aboutime]

*crickets*


Since when do *crickets* sound like you? 4146

[bingster]

Okay, another wrong statement by you. Seems I'm always correcting your facts. Al qaeda was formed by bin laden. It was an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood. His second in command was a high ranking member of the brotherhood. They were originally part of the muhadeen (sp) that fought the russians in afghanistan. Any arms they got from the US was for attacking the russians. The US supplied them because we were in the middle of the cold war. We stopped supplying the arms when the war there ended. bin laden and al qaeda moved from country to country for a while somolia, sudan, pakistan and finally settled in afghan where the taliban govt welcomed them with open arms and protected them.

You didn't mean to, but you just made his point. It doesn't matter what we meant to do, the fact was that we did arm, train, support, etc... elements that became al qeada.

Of course, it happened again in Libya. I'm sure, if we're not careful and maybe if we are careful, it will happen again in Syria. Reagan sold the helicopters to Sadam Husein that he used to gas the Kurds.

[aboutime]

You didn't mean to, but you just made his point. It doesn't matter what we meant to do, the fact was that we did arm, train, support, etc... elements that became al qeada.

Of course, it happened again in Libya. I'm sure, if we're not careful and maybe if we are careful, it will happen again in Syria. Reagan sold the helicopters to Sadam Husein that he used to gas the Kurds.


bingster, or, whoever you are pretending Not to be here. You sound like a hate-filled, liberal, democrat Bigot of the first order. Always reaching back to blame a man you still hate, to blame him while saying nothing about the Present ASS-HOLE who claims to be our President...disobeying our laws, his oath, and the Constitution...all the while, destroying our nation by appeasing our enemies whom he Bows to, and Kisses their Asses like the Little Lost Boy he is.
But you wouldn't dare say such things...worried that someone might accuse you of being the RACIST...you obviously are.

[ConHog]

the facts are that some factions of the U.S gov't have propped up and supplied weapons to terrorist groups and gov't overthrows around the world when it's suits us since WW2 at least.

I've posted recent history to that fact in several places.
there's no excuse for it other than imperialism. that's the raw facts.

I posted the news that the U.S. was supporting AlQuida troops in Libya who had fought AGAINST U.S. troops in Iraq a year or 2 earlier.
Mostly to silence here or "well Khadafiis a real bad guy, he did that thing that time so he deserves it..."

Israeli Mosad Admits it created Hamas, Seemed like a good idea at the time.
I've post the links.

We supported Saddam, supplied him with arms...

As Jafar points out we supported AlQuida and the Mujahaden.
Not Just with Stingers but with training. we brought many of them to U.S. air bases and trained them.

I've posted links About the Jundula terrorist group that the U.S. gov't is propping up NOW. We are at war with 'terror' but they are A-OK ---today--- because they are terrorist in IRAN....at least for now.

Did someone mention IRAN contra?
What was that about? SELLING the IRANIAN Aatolla WEAPONS -!!??- during an embargo/sanctions and using the Money to supply the Contra terroris... I mean 'freedom fighters' in Nicaragua.


And today also we are throwing our support toward Syrian rebels that are many of whom have been revealed to be terrorist , Alquida linked. but that's OK? Assasd's a bad guy i guess. right.
Or we just don't mention that or we "don't see it".

and

what about or good friends the Egyptians?



this is on Obama's watch but do we see a pattern here?

It would be a lie to say that only the democrats do stupid Crap like this. Please dont lie to yourselves their. The fact is our foreign covert/military policy since WW2 has been corrupt, immoral and self destructive. Focused on imagined short terms gains while creating new enemies for the future. it's dark n crazy.

for some reason the kids nursery rhyme comes to mind

""There was an old woman who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
There was an old woman who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die. There was an old woman who swallowed a bird,
How absurd! to swallow a bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
....."
and so on






which only proves that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Of course the USA has and does and will continue to support such characters when our goals align with theirs. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

What's amazing is how many times our idiotic government has funded the beginnings of the very people who later fight us with the very weapons and training we supplied them with.

[bingster]

Anyone want to bet libs will make a big deal out of this like they did Iran- Contra?

We are not purposely arming both sides in this case and lying about it at the same time.


Looks to me like this is a foreign version of Fast and Furious. Obama tried to sneak guns out of the country and US citizens ended up MURDERED by those guns

No, it looks like you're the proctologist.

Logroller had a good point.

We supported Sadam Hussein for years partially for oil and partially as an ally against Iran. We overthrew Sadam's Sunni Ba'ath Party and replaced it with a Shia government. The Iranian government is Shiite. Do you think, maybe, we lost our ally? Do you think just maybe we added another potential Iranian ally right smack dab between Iran and Syria?

Foreign affairs are complicated and no matter what we do over there there's better chance than not, it will blow up in our faces.

[jimnyc]

We supported Sadam Hussein for years partially for oil and partially as an ally against Iran. We overthrew Sadam's Sunni Ba'ath Party and replaced it with a Shia government. The Iranian government is Shiite. Do you think, maybe, we lost our ally? Do you think just maybe we added another potential Iranian ally right smack dab between Iran and Syria?

Foreign affairs are complicated and no matter what we do over there there's better chance than not, it will blow up in our faces.

Just curious, bingster - but do you support Obama sending F16's and other weaponry to the Muslim Brotherhood? Do you approve of them sending arms to Libyan rebels? How about Syrian rebels?

[jafar00]

do you support Obama sending F16's and other weaponry to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Wasn't that part of a shipment secured under the Mubarak regime?

[jimnyc]

Wasn't that part of a shipment secured under the Mubarak regime?

I believe so, but I wanted the answer for a different reason, which I believe I explained to you too, so I'll mention again. I know the F16's aren't to "the citizens", but wanted to mention his arming here anyway. And then of course I more so ask about Syria and Libyan rebels - as in the point being, many won't have an issue with this, and of course 99.99% of Obama supporters won't take issue with it - but a ton of those supporters of arming foreign citizens want restrictions and bans here in America. I probably should have reserved the question for just the latter 2. But that's what I meant - arming citizens for the rare time they are being crushed by their much more powerful tyrannical government.