Treason from the US Gov't

[cadet]

5142

What's terrible, is that you can type this stuff into Google and see that it's true. Our gov't is corrupt beyond belief.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/world/us-syria-aid

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/al-qaeda-acknowledges-syrian-rebels-are-part-of-its-network-fighting-to-establish-caliphate-in-syria/

[gabosaurus]

Cadet, put this into Google: Back in the early 80's, Iraq and Iran fought a war. We had an administration who pumped billions of dollars worth of military and economic aid to Iraq. Which was later used against us.
Was that treason?

[Robert A Whit]

Cadet, put this into Google: Back in the early 80's, Iraq and Iran fought a war. We had an administration who pumped billions of dollars worth of military and economic aid to Iraq. Which was later used against us.
Was that treason?

Sorry but Iraq used Russian Arms. France also helped them a lot.

[cadet]

Cadet, put this into Google: Back in the early 80's, Iraq and Iran fought a war. We had an administration who pumped billions of dollars worth of military and economic aid to Iraq. Which was later used against us.
Was that treason?

No, because Iraq turned around and shot when they were done with all their crap. So, THEY betrayed US LATER. In this case, arming your enemy sounds pretty treasonous to me.

[cadet]

Also gabby,
We screwed up then so it's ok to do it now?

[Gaffer]

Just to clarify things. The only aid the US gave to Iraq during it's war with iran was intelligence. There wasn't billions of arms or anything of the kind. It was Russian and French arms that were used there. The chemical weapons were also russian supplied.

[revelarts]

The Point is that We KNOW that the Syrian "rebels" are Alqeada, Alqeada linked, extremist, muslim lung eating terrorist.
and people here in the US are ready to drone strike ANY alqeada and anyone in the vicinity is that get hurt is just a causality of war.
..to bad, that's war, ho hum, father shouldn't have been alqueda, to bad, tough...
But Here we KNOW it's Alqueda and we are NOT killing them we want to ARM them. and it's not just he DEMONcrats it's the REDpublicains too.
what's wrong with this picture folks?

war on terrors full of BS.
Tap our phones, emails etc etc looking for Alqeada muslim terrorist but we've got the local, names and boot sizes of alqeda terrorist overseas that we want to ARM?!?
Total wholesale BS.

[revelarts]

Syria rebels 'beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs' as fears grow over Islamist atrocities (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255103/Syria-rebels-beheaded-Christian-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html)


Quote:

Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.

The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the ruling regime behaved like bandits.

She said his headless corpse was found by the side of the road, surrounded by hungry dogs. He had recently married and was soon to be a father.

Sister Agnes-Mariam de la Croix said: ‘His only crime was his brother criticised the rebels, accused them of acting like bandits, which is what they are.’

There have been a growing number of accounts of atrocities carried out by rogue elements of the Syrian Free Army, which opposes dictator Bashar al-Assad and is recognised by Britain and the West as the legitimate leadership.

Sister Agnes-Miriam, mother superior of the Monastery of St James the Mutilated, has condemned Britain and the west for supporting the rebels despite growing evidence of human rights abuses. Murder, kidnapping, rape and robbery are becoming commonplace, she says.

‘The free and democratic world is supporting extremists,’ Sister Agnes-Miriam said from her sanctuary in Lebanon. ‘They want to impose Sharia Law and create an Islamic state in Syria.’...

Are we going to hunt down those muslim extremist? tap their phones? drone strike them?

"so does that mean we let Assad get away with it"
the Fox News Sunday host ask


either fight alqeda and muslim extremist or don't.
But don't SUPPORT them, that's just crazy.

[aboutime]

For as long as I have been a member here. I have been repeating the same words....it seems, most of you out there have simply chosen to ignore....because....I SAID IT.

So, I'll say it again. Will any of you pay attention?

POLITICIANS, American politicians from all political parties....Cannot be trusted. They Lie, and their only interest does not lie in WE THE PEOPLE, and more in THEIR POLITICAL CAREER.

We must all remember. Anyone who goes to Washington as an Elected member of Congress or the Presidency. Is only interested in ONE THING. Themselves...FIRST.

Some of them are just MORE pleasant, and appear to be trustworthy...some of the time.

[Drummond]

Here's something I consider treasonous. I gather that both your Government, and mine, both want and intend to have the talks referred to ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22968615


US President Barack Obama has said he expected "friction" ahead of peace talks with the Taliban and said there was still "enormous mistrust" across the region.

Mr Karzai suspended scheduled negotiations with the Obama administration on the nature of the US military presence in the country after foreign troops withdraw in 2014.

A spokesman for the Afghan leader said the decision was taken over "contradictions" in the US proposal of direct peace talks with the Taliban.

Mr Karzai also ruled out talking to the Taliban until the peace process was "Afghan-led".

Speaking at a news conference in Berlin Mr Obama said Afghans had to talk to Afghans, adding, "you've got to have a parallel track to at least look at the prospect of political reconciliation".

The Taliban should not be, nor ever be considered to be, fit to talk to. They were terrorist enablers, they have since become Muslim enemies of the worst sort, enemies that have been butchering US and other forces for well over a decade.

They are scum.

The Taliban are an undefeated enemy. Thanks to the Obama-led phased withdrawals of troops, they've been given the opportunity of a reprieve they could never have earned. And Obama is now, clearly, adding to a process which betrays every American, and Allied, serviceman who'd been injured or killed in the service of the cause of freedom and decency in the face of savagery.

[revelarts]

So you think arming Alqeada today is NOT treason.
But talking to the Taliban who hosted Alqeada years ago IS treason?

is that what your saying?

[aboutime]

So you think arming Alqeada today is NOT treason.
But talking to the Taliban who hosted Alqeada years ago IS treason?

is that what your saying?


Any kind of Deal, or Secret negotiation that gets the Approval of Obama, without Congressional oversight is TREASONOUS.

In fact. Anything Obama does, outside of his Constitutional Duties, authorized by the Constitution is Unconstitutional.

All of the people who voted for Obama, and believed he was a DOVE....which gave them that PHONY HOPE idea. Should now see, and understand how THEY were Played, Snookered, Betrayed, Cheated, and LIED to.

But...they won't, because those who voted for Obama. Simply aren't smart enough to understand, or admit...they are FOOLS.

[Drummond]

So you think arming Alqeada today is NOT treason.

Curious. You seem to have made up your mind that this was a thought of mine. But I fail to see why. Did I say (or type) any such thing ?


But talking to the Taliban who hosted Alqeada years ago IS treason?

Now, this is a point I HAVE made.

I call this progress ...


is that what your saying?

I am saying what I'm saying !

[gabosaurus]

The Taliban should not be, nor ever be considered to be, fit to talk to. They were terrorist enablers, they have since become Muslim enemies of the worst sort, enemies that have been butchering US and other forces for well over a decade.

So why did the Reagan administration spend so much money and resources building them up in the 1980's? And why did the Thatcher regime send them so much military and financial aid?

[Voted4Reagan]

So why did the Reagan administration spend so much money and resources building them up in the 1980's? And why did the Thatcher regime send them so much military and financial aid?

The Taliban and Mujahadeen are not synonymous. They were separate groups. Not all Taliban were Mujahadeen, Not all Mujahadeen were Taliban.

Your Logic is flawed there Gabby...

I guess the Afghans were better being slaughtered by Hind Gunships by the Soviets..... At least thats how your scenario works out Gabs.

[revelarts]

Curious. You seem to have made up your mind that this was a thought of mine. But I fail to see why. Did I say (or type) any such thing ?
Now, this is a point I HAVE made.
I call this progress ...
I am saying what I'm saying !

that's why i asked the question drummond.
notice the question mark.
if you'd kept the comments to-ge-ther might make my point clearer.

It's becuase you DIDN'T say that you believe supporting the Syrian alqeada "rebels" is Treason. i had to ask.
and you still haven't said.
seems strange, since you are such a hater of Muslim extremist and alqueada, that you haven't loaded this thread with :clap:.

please give us your POV on support for alqeada Muslim extremist in Syria? is it treason? or not?

[jimnyc]

It's just a dumb move at this point. Al Qaeda has announced their involvement and many rebels have even sworn allegiance to Al Qaeda. That right there alone should be reason enough not to send a damn thing there. The people given weapons and money back in the 80's weren't our sworn enemies, but they later obviously became so. In this instance, arms will definitely go to those who have sworn to kill us.

Then add in what the Islamic world has stated since 2003, that we should never be in their land, mind our own business, we have no right to be on foreign soil and such unless it's an imminent threat. So be it then. I wish them well, and bon voyage!

[jimnyc]

I also agree with 'no talks' with the Taliban, and they don't want us involved either. They only thing they should ever see from our end is the scope of a gun or an incoming MOAB. They are terrorists that are little different than Al Qaeda, IMO.

[aboutime]

I also agree with 'no talks' with the Taliban, and they don't want us involved either. They only thing they should ever see from our end is the scope of a gun or an incoming MOAB. They are terrorists that are little different than Al Qaeda, IMO.


Jim. Correct me if I am wrong here but...Is it NOT the policy of the United States of America to NEVER DEAL, or NEGOTIATE with terrorists, or anyone who is trying to Blackmail the U.S. in any way???

I see "TALKS" as they are loosely being described...with the Taliban as Directly Opposite of U.S. Policy.
On the other hand. Since Obama and Company have Declared....TERRORISTS, TERROR, and TERRORISM No Longer Exists. That must be his LAME excuse for authorizing said..TALKS with Taliban....Terrorists????

[jimnyc]

Jim. Correct me if I am wrong here but...Is it NOT the policy of the United States of America to NEVER DEAL, or NEGOTIATE with terrorists, or anyone who is trying to Blackmail the U.S. in any way???

I see "TALKS" as they are loosely being described...with the Taliban as Directly Opposite of U.S. Policy.
On the other hand. Since Obama and Company have Declared....TERRORISTS, TERROR, and TERRORISM No Longer Exists. That must be his LAME excuse for authorizing said..TALKS with Taliban....Terrorists????

As I recall, that policy was started under GWB, pertaining to dealing with terrorists and those who harbor them. It seems that any more it is getting to the point that talking about how much terrorism still exists, is as if it's forbidden and a bad word. Obama WOULD have you believe he defeated terrorism and the bad guys no longer would like to see us dead.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Also gabby,
We screwed up then so it's ok to do it now? Gabby says its always ok to help muslims even when they are about to cut your damn head off for some minor transgression. A muslim appeaser she be if not a muslim convert. As Mr.T. would say, " I pity the fooooool."--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

that's why i asked the question drummond.
notice the question mark.
if you'd kept the comments to-ge-ther might make my point clearer.

It's becuase you DIDN'T say that you believe supporting the Syrian alqeada "rebels" is Treason. i had to ask.
and you still haven't said.
seems strange, since you are such a hater of Muslim extremist and alqueada, that you haven't loaded this thread with :clap:.

please give us your POV on support for alqeada Muslim extremist in Syria? is it treason? or not? It is treason by Obama because he does so knowing they are our enemies and hoping someday we fall as a nation. As we are enemies of Allah and he Obama is a loyal Muslim, only a Muslim in hiding. Secretary of State Kerry just recently announced that Egypt is a democracy, so its ok for us to give them billions of dollars and those F-16's and Abrams tanks. Here is a hint for those so damn slow on the uptake --- WE ARE ALREADY ARMING our avowed enemies and its being done to aid and speed up the coming Caliphate. The Clintons, Kerry ,Obama and a host of other politicians are all traitors that have sold this nation out IMHO. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I also agree with 'no talks' with the Taliban, and they don't want us involved either. They only thing they should ever see from our end is the scope of a gun or an incoming MOAB. They are terrorists that are little different than Al Qaeda, IMO.

I thought it was the current Afghan government they wouldn't talk to/don't recognize.

[jimnyc]

I thought it was the current Afghan government they wouldn't talk to/don't recognize.

I was going by the following... When I said "they", I should have clarified, with they = collectively.


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan's president said Wednesday he will not pursue peace talks with the Taliban unless the United States steps out of the negotiations, while also insisting the militant group stop its violent attacks on the ground after it claimed responsibility for a rocket attack that killed four Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-leader-backs-away-taliban-talks-133211624.html

[fj1200]

I was going by the following... When I said "they", I should have clarified, with they = collectively.

Gotcha. I'm not sure why the Taliban would bother talking to the Afghan government, it doesn't have the firepower to stand long term IMO.

[revelarts]

Israel finally negotiated and dealt with the PLO, and with Hexbollah too.
As terrible as these groups are sadly they won't just disappear. And after 12 years of fighting Afghanistan the Taliban STILL have more control over the country than our friends in the corrupt drug dealing central gov't. I'm not sure there's a good political altenative to talking at this point unless you want to commit a million troops to the country for a generation to clear it of the Tailban plague. A Rand Corp study group said it would take about that much to get it done.

And again i'm not so sure what we're so upset with them about now. there's no alqeada in Afghanistan. but WE are harboring/aiding/ Alqeada in Syria and Libya. Why is that so horribly different than what the Taliban did. the tailban didn't train them or arm them or want to provide "air support" like were doing today.



Didn't Bush say something about attacking anyone who harbors the enemy, doesn't the patriot act and AUMF, say those that support Alqeada are considered enemy combatants?

it is against the law to support alqeada, where's the outrage? Being related to an alqeada supporter and being killed because of it has been deemed OK here but full on support of KNOWN alqeada is just considered a mistake that an election should fix? a bad policy ho hum. seems kerry and Obama deserve drone strikes. there's more public evidence of their support for alqeada than the hundreds of souls they've called alqeada or "terrorist".

[revelarts]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tsHjH3Jno6k?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

THEN
Those that assist alqeada deserve no trial, no lawyer, torture and indefinite detention


NOW
McCain and Graham Outline Support for Syrian Rebels (Alqeada) with tanks, heavy weapons, a No Fly Zone and Missile strikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUuaXOMrPLE


What's wrong with this picture.
this is Pure double speak.

[Drummond]

that's why i asked the question drummond.
notice the question mark.
if you'd kept the comments to-ge-ther might make my point clearer.

Then I shall do so. And yes, I noticed the question mark. I noticed where you'd placed it.

So, keeping your comments 'together', as is appropriate to what we're discussing (your post #11) ... we see this ...


So you think arming Alqeada today is NOT treason.
But talking to the Taliban who hosted Alqeada years ago IS treason?

Except for the font enlargement, THIS is what you posted, and HOW you posted it.

It is perfectly clear that your first sentence did not have a question mark after it, but instead, a full stop. Your first sentence is, therefore, A STATEMENT, not a question.

Your statement assumed something about my thinking which you had no basis to assume. But, you went ahead and assumed it, anyway.

This, revelarts, is dishonest debate. I will represent those views I hold .. I do not expect to be made 'accountable' for any views I've never given anybody reason to believe I hold.

Is this perfectly clear ?


It's becuase you DIDN'T say that you believe supporting the Syrian alqeada "rebels" is Treason. i had to ask.
and you still haven't said.

I refer you to my answer above. This issue, and how you're presenting and addressing it, is a product of YOUR mind, not mine.

Now ... I shall tell you what my viewpoint is. Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin ..

I do not believe that all the Syrian rebels are 'Al Qaeda' rebels. I'd be willing to bet that only a minority are. That said, though ... I'd be surprised if Al Qaeda isn't busily working away in the background, influencing the fighting, aiding it.

And even the CHANCE of arming Al Qaeda, no matter how indirectly, is totally unacceptable.

It comes down to whether Obama has any way of keeping arms out of the hands of Al Qaeda. If he doesn't have ... and I fail to see how he could have ... then, knowing that he's risking arming Al Qaeda, his choice is surely a treasonous one. Al Qaeda is a sworn enemy of the US, and of the West, and we all know they mean both your country and mine enormous harm.

Only if Obama could prove he hasn't armed Al Qaeda should he escape a charge of treason, in my view.

seems strange, since you are such a hater of Muslim extremist and alqueada, that you haven't loaded this thread with :clap:.

please give us your POV on support for alqeada Muslim extremist in Syria? is it treason? or not?

I have now answered you. And kindly neither invent nor embellish in the future.

Oh, and I should add this. My understanding of the Syrian conflict is based on British news reporting. I don't think I've seen any claims that all the rebels are Al Qaeda. The reporting we get, to the extent it's even been considered to any great degree, is that it's possible that Al Qaeda is significantly contributing to the fighting. Nobody says to what exact extent, and it's presented speculatively .. as if nobody has any real idea of the full extent that's involved.

[Drummond]

So why did the Reagan administration spend so much money and resources building them up in the 1980's? And why did the Thatcher regime send them so much military and financial aid?

I don't believe that you can back any of this up, Gabby.

But I am asking you to do so. Present your supporting evidence.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tsHjH3Jno6k?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

THEN
Those that assist alqeada deserve no trial, no lawyer, torture and indefinite detention


NOW
McCain and Graham Outline Support for Syrian Rebels (Alqeada) with tanks, heavy weapons, a No Fly Zone and Missile strikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUuaXOMrPLE


What's wrong with this picture.
this is Pure double speak. Pure bullshat... We know the Syrian rebels are comprised of several terrorist groups that are at war with us yet we help them. Why? Because they are fighting to create a Caliphate and our messiah is all for the birth of that Caliphate. Which means he is the GD FFING TRAITOR THAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE BASTARD IS.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then I shall do so. And yes, I noticed the question mark. I noticed where you'd placed it.

So, keeping your comments 'together', as is appropriate to what we're discussing (your post #11) ... we see this ...



Except for the font enlargement, THIS is what you posted, and HOW you posted it.

It is perfectly clear that your first sentence did not have a question mark after it, but instead, a full stop. Your first sentence is, therefore, A STATEMENT, not a question.

Your statement assumed something about my thinking which you had no basis to assume. But, you went ahead and assumed it, anyway.

This, revelarts, is dishonest debate. I will represent those views I hold .. I do not expect to be made 'accountable' for any views I've never given anybody reason to believe I hold.

Is this perfectly clear ?



I refer you to my answer above. This issue, and how you're presenting and addressing it, is a product of YOUR mind, not mine.

Now ... I shall tell you what my viewpoint is. Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin ..

I do not believe that all the Syrian rebels are 'Al Qaeda' rebels. I'd be willing to bet that only a minority are. That said, though ... I'd be surprised if Al Qaeda isn't busily working away in the background, influencing the fighting, aiding it.

And even the CHANCE of arming Al Qaeda, no matter how indirectly, is totally unacceptable.

It comes down to whether Obama has any way of keeping arms out of the hands of Al Qaeda. If he doesn't have ... and I fail to see how he could have ... then, knowing that he's risking arming Al Qaeda, his choice is surely a treasonous one. Al Qaeda is a sworn enemy of the US, and of the West, and we all know they mean both your country and mine enormous harm.

Only if Obama could prove he hasn't armed Al Qaeda should he escape a charge of treason, in my view.


I have now answered you. And kindly neither invent nor embellish in the future.

Oh, and I should add this. My understanding of the Syrian conflict is based on British news reporting. I don't think I've seen any claims that all the rebels are Al Qaeda. The reporting we get, to the extent it's even been considered to any great degree, is that it's possible that Al Qaeda is significantly contributing to the fighting. Nobody says to what exact extent, and it's presented speculatively .. as if nobody has any real idea of the full extent that's involved. I agree you are spot on my friend.. -- :beer: and -- :clap:-Tyr

[revelarts]

... Then I'll begin ..

I do not believe that all the Syrian rebels are 'Al Qaeda' rebels. I'd be willing to bet that only a minority are. That said, though ... I'd be surprised if Al Qaeda isn't busily working away in the background, influencing the fighting, aiding it.

And even the CHANCE of arming Al Qaeda, no matter how indirectly, is totally unacceptable.

It comes down to whether Obama has any way of keeping arms out of the hands of Al Qaeda. If he doesn't have ... and I fail to see how he could have ... then, knowing that he's risking arming Al Qaeda, his choice is surely a treasonous one. Al Qaeda is a sworn enemy of the US, and of the West, and we all know they mean both your country and mine enormous harm.

Only if Obama could prove he hasn't armed Al Qaeda should he escape a charge of treason, in my view.


I have now answered you. And kindly neither invent nor embellish in the future.

Oh, and I should add this. My understanding of the Syrian conflict is based on British news reporting. I don't think I've seen any claims that all the rebels are Al Qaeda. The reporting we get, to the extent it's even been considered to any great degree, is that it's possible that Al Qaeda is significantly contributing to the fighting. Nobody says to what exact extent, and it's presented speculatively .. as if nobody has any real idea of the full extent that's involved.

OK Drummond,
Just FYI then


---From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): جبهة النصرة لأهل الشام‎ Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahl ash-Shām, "Front of Defence for the People of Greater Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Syria)"), is an Al Qaida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaida) associate operating in Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-8) The group announced its creation on 23 January 2012 during the Syrian civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-alarabiya-9) It is described as "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-Ignatius-3) The group was designated by the United Nations[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-10) as a terrorist organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organisation) and by the United States in December 2012.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-11) In April 2013, the leader of the Islamic state of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state_of_Iraq) released an audio statement announcing that Jabhat al-Nusra is its branch in Syria.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-globalpost-4) The leader of Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, denied the merger but affirmed their allegiance to Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) leader Ayman al-Zawahiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-naharnet-12) By May 2013, a faction of Jabhat loyal to the Islamic State of Iraq leadership began acting under the name of the "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-reuters170513-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-telegraph190513-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-aljazeera150613-15)

The group is generally described as being made up of Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam) Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) Jihadists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism). Its goal is to overthrow the Assad government and to create a Pan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Islamism)-Islamic state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state) under sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-Inside_Jabhat_al_Nusra-16) It encourages all Syrians to take part in the war against the Syrian government.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-alarabiya1-17)

more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18048033
....................



Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra

The well-resourced organisation, which is linked to al-Qaida, is luring many anti-Assad fighters away, say brigade commanders
The flag of the Islamist rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra flying over the main square of the city of Raqqa in Syria. Photograph: Reuters
Syria (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/syria)'s main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/al-qaida) that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bashar-al-assad)'s regime.
Illustrating their plight, FSA commanders say that entire units have gone over to al-Nusra while others have lost a quarter or more of their strength to them recently.

"Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra because that means power and influence," said Abu Ahmed, a former teacher from Deir Hafer who now commands an FSA brigade in the countryside near Aleppo. "Al-Nusra fighters rarely withdraw for shortage of ammunition or fighters and they leave their target only after liberating it," he added. "They compete to carry out martyrdom [suicide] operations."
Abu Ahmed and others say the FSA has lost fighters to al-Nusra in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib and Deir al-Zor and the Damascus region. Ala'a al-Basha, commander of the Sayyida Aisha brigade, warned the FSA chief of staff, General Salim Idriss, about the issue last month. Basha said 3,000 FSA men have joined al-Nusra in the last few months, mainly because of a lack of weapons and ammunition. FSA fighters in the Banias area were threatening to leave because they did not have the firepower to stop the massacre in Bayda, he said.
The FSA's Ahrar al-Shimal brigade joined al-Nusra en masse while the Sufiyan al-Thawri brigade in Idlib lost 65 of its fighters to al-Nusra a few months ago for lack of weapons. According to one estimate the FSA has lost a quarter of all its fighters.
Al-Nusra has members serving undercover with FSA units so they can spot potential recruits, according to Abu Hassan of the FSA's al-Tawhid Lions brigade.
Ideology is another powerful factor. "Fighters are heading to al-Nusra because of its Islamic doctrine, sincerity, good funding and advanced weapons," said Abu Islam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/islam) of the FSA's al-Tawhid brigade in Aleppo. "My colleague who was fighting with the FSA's Ahrar Suriya asked me: 'I'm fighting with Ahrar Suriya brigade, but I want to know if I get killed in a battle, am I going to be considered as a martyr or not?' It did not take him long to quit FSA and join al-Nusra. He asked for a sniper rifle and got one immediately."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

[Drummond]

This is the sort of reporting we're getting these days on the conflict here in the UK ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22630005


The overt involvement of Hezbollah fighters in the battle for the strategic western Syrian town of Qusair confirms the transition of the militant Lebanese Shia movement into a whole new phase of its existence.

From its inception as an Iranian- and Syrian-backed counter to the Israel invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Hezbollah's main focus was on resistance to Israel.

Its campaign against the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon culminated in Israel's decision to pull its troops out of Lebanon altogether in 2000.

The month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006 gave the movement heroic status throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds for its extraordinary performance as an Arab David against the Israeli Goliath.

But less than two years later, in May 2008, that lustre dimmed sharply as Hezbollah did something its leader said it would never do - it turned its weapons against fellow Lebanese.

Stung by provocative positions taken by Sunni and Druze leaders, Hezbollah overran many Sunni areas in a short-lived conflict that reflected and exacerbated both rising sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shia in Lebanon and the region; and divisions between the movement's Iranian and Syrian patrons on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia, other Sunni powers and their allies on the other.

Now, those regional, political, strategic and sectarian issues have come to a head even more forcefully, as Hezbollah plunges deep into a Syrian civil war that is only tangentially related to its basic struggle with Israel.

The dangers for Hezbollah are obvious - that it may be drawn ever deeper into a bottomless pit of conflict in Syria that could leave it severely depleted and easy prey to a death-blow from Israel, although Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has dismissed that possibility.

"Yes, it's a risk for Hezbollah, but it's part of Iran's overarching regional strategy: the Syrian regime must not fall," said one well-placed Shia observer.

"It's all systems go, and Iran will unleash everything it has to. It and Hezbollah consider this a threat to their political existence."

"Israel's interest is to see the civil war continue and Hezbollah sucked in and massacred as it has been in the past few days, when they've lost 40 fighters. It's a grinding machine, and Israel is laughing and happy."

Indeed, put like that, it is hard to imagine Israel not being happy to see what it regards as extremists and terrorists from both the Shia and Sunni sides of the sectarian divide at each other's' throats in Syria.

Apparently foreshadowing Hezbollah's deepening involvement, Hassan Nasrallah in a speech on 30 April made it clear that Syria's allies in the "Axis of Resistance" - Iran and Hezbollah - would do everything necessary to save it.

Some Western diplomats believe that much of the recent progress scored by regime forces against the rebels is down to active involvement by Hezbollah, whose expertise in street fighting surpasses that of the conventional Syrian army.

"It is an obvious sign of crisis for the regime that Hezbollah and the new National Defence Force should play such a big role in the key attacks at Qusair and east of Damascus," said one.

While government forces have been making advances in some key areas, the rebels have also been gaining ground in other places and control large swathes of territory in the north, east and south.

If military stalemate should lead to some kind of fragmented equilibrium, Hezbollah's help in controlling the Qusair area, with its 20 or so Shia villages inhabited by many Lebanese nationals, would be vital to the regime's ability to protect the link between Damascus, the main cities to the north, and what is seen as the Alawite heartland along the north-west coast.

In Qusair, Hezbollah finds itself in a head-on collision not just with the Sunni-majority Syrian rebels and al-Qaeda-related Salafist fighters, but also with fellow Lebanese - Sunni jihadist militants come to join the fray.

Being the BBC, they couldn't resist getting a dig or 2 in against Israel. But what's evident from all this is that Syria has terrorist factions fighting in it ... with HEZBOLLAH taking a significant role. Summarising .. it depends what faction is considered as to what brand of terrorist may be involved, or to what exact extent. Basically .. there's a mess in Syria, and terrorists have moved in to exploit it. Apparently Al Qaeda have involvement, though I see nothing in the report to suggest it's a dominant one. Hezbollah seems more of an issue than Al Qaeda.

The concern HAS to be what will happen to arms supplied to the rebel side. They may stay out of Al Qaeda hands, but there's surely no way to guarantee it. And THIS is the real issue, and the one which determines the extent of treason the likes of Obama and his Administration should be culpable for.

[Drummond]

OK Drummond,
Just FYI then


---From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#mw-navigation), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#p-search)


<tbody>





































</tbody>
The Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): جبهة النصرة لأهل الشام‎ Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahl ash-Shām, "Front of Defence for the People of Greater Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Syria)"), is an Al Qaida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaida) associate operating in Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-8) The group announced its creation on 23 January 2012 during the Syrian civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-alarabiya-9) It is described as "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-Ignatius-3) The group was designated by the United Nations[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-10) as a terrorist organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organisation) and by the United States in December 2012.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-11) In April 2013, the leader of the Islamic state of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state_of_Iraq) released an audio statement announcing that Jabhat al-Nusra is its branch in Syria.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-globalpost-4) The leader of Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, denied the merger but affirmed their allegiance to Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) leader Ayman al-Zawahiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-naharnet-12) By May 2013, a faction of Jabhat loyal to the Islamic State of Iraq leadership began acting under the name of the "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-reuters170513-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-telegraph190513-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-aljazeera150613-15)

The group is generally described as being made up of Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam) Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) Jihadists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism). Its goal is to overthrow the Assad government and to create a Pan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Islamism)-Islamic state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state) under sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-Inside_Jabhat_al_Nusra-16) It encourages all Syrians to take part in the war against the Syrian government.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-alarabiya1-17)

more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18048033
....................

Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra

The well-resourced organisation, which is linked to al-Qaida, is luring many anti-Assad fighters away, say brigade commanders

The flag of the Islamist rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra flying over the main square of the city of Raqqa in Syria. Photograph: Reuters

Syria (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/syria)'s main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/al-qaida) that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bashar-al-assad)'s regime.

You've stopped trying to put words into my mouth. I thank you for that.

Can I point out that I haven't denied Al Qaeda involvement in Syria ? I actually DO question the extent of it. But I'm sure they have their own claim to be active in the country.

See the BBC report I just posted previously .. I believe it's a little more recent than the BBC link you've just posted yourself. But, I also see this, from YOUR link ...


The al-Nusra Front's pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda has ended speculation over the suspected ties between the Syrian jihadist group and the Islamist militant network.

The announcement came just days after al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called on jihadis to do everything possible to bring about an Islamic state in Syria.

But al-Nusra was quick to stress that the oath would have no impact on its role in Syria, where it has come to play a significant role in the fight against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

The Front's leading figure, Abu Mohammed al-Jawani, assured Syrians that the "good behaviour" they had experienced from al-Nusra on the ground would continue unchanged.

He also rejected claims that al-Nusra had merged with al-Qaeda's Iraq branch, saying he had not been consulted on the matter.

Nevertheless, the pledge is likely to put the Front in an awkward position as it tries to win the support of the population in rebel-held areas, and to keep the goodwill of other opposition groups who do not want to be associated with al-Qaeda.

So you see, there's resistance to association with Al Qaeda. YES, Al Qaeda have successfully got themselves involved. But they're not the only 'players' in the conflict on the rebel side. Not by a long shot.

Not that any of this changes the central issue: can Obama supply weapons to rebels, and know they will stay out of terrorist hands, terrorists who are America's enemies ? I DON'T BELIEVE HE CAN .. AND HE MUST SURELY KNOW IT.

THAT makes his position treasonable.

[revelarts]

This is the sort of reporting we're getting these days on the conflict here in the UK ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22630005



Being the BBC, they couldn't resist getting a dig or 2 in against Israel. But what's evident from all this is that Syria has terrorist factions fighting in it ... with HEZBOLLAH taking a significant role. Summarising .. it depends what faction is considered as to what brand of terrorist may be involved, or to what exact extent. Basically .. there's a mess in Syria, and terrorists have moved in to exploit it. Apparently Al Qaeda have involvement, though I see nothing in the report to suggest it's a dominant one. Hezbollah seems more of an issue than Al Qaeda.

The concern HAS to be what will happen to arms supplied to the rebel side. They may stay out of Al Qaeda hands, but there's surely no way to guarantee it. And THIS is the real issue, and the one which determines the extent of treason the likes of Obama and his Administration should be culpable for.

please read the above from BBC, the guardian and wikipedia.
AlQeada is the only gorup getting any fighting done. they are sucking up the fighters from the other FSA groups.

seems your going soft on alqeada groups Drummond.
putting arms within arms reach and in fact in there hands. and watching them fight and take over cities in Syria , and NOT calling on immeadte drone strikes on that portion of the FSA.
why aren't we attacking that part of the FSA with drones and cutting off there funders and suppliers.
We KNOW where they are. what gives here?
the most imorptant thing you guys have been telling me is KILLING and torturing alqeda and muslim terrorist. or we're gonna die.
Now your saying to arm the rebels and hope "they may stay out of Al Qaeda hands".
Seems a much softer line than promoting killing al qeada anytime anywhere and anyone in the general vicinity who gets hurt is just to bad.

[revelarts]

You've stopped trying to put words into my mouth. I thank you for that.
Can I point out that I haven't denied Al Qaeda involvement in Syria ? I actually DO question the extent of it. But I'm sure they have their own claim to be active in the country.
See the BBC report I just posted previously .. I believe it's a little more recent than the BBC link you've just posted yourself. But, I also see this, from YOUR link ...
So you see, there's resistance to association with Al Qaeda. YES, Al Qaeda have successfully got themselves involved. But they're not the only 'players' in the conflict on the rebel side. Not by a long shot.
Not that any of this changes the central issue: can Obama supply weapons to rebels, and know they will stay out of terrorist hands, terrorists who are America's enemies ? I DON'T BELIEVE HE CAN .. AND HE MUST SURELY KNOW IT.
THAT makes his position treasonable.

you quote an the al nusra guy, Well good to see that you give some muslims the benifit of the doubt BUT,
They are on the are on the terrorist in the U.S. and the U.N..
Drummond sorry neither you nor Obama or McCain and Graham can run from the facts here.

............................
http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2013/05/31/un-adds-nusra-front-to-al-qaeda-sanctions-list/

Wall Street Journal

The United Nations Security Council added the Nusra Front (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2013/sc11019.doc.htm) to its list of aliases for al Qaeda in Iraq, subjecting the Syrian group to a global asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo.

The U.N. move was taken by the Security Council’s al Qaeda sanctions committee, which maintains all sanctions imposed under Resolution 1267.
Nusra Front, which is fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, pledged allegiance (http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/world/meast/syria-al-nusra-front) to al Qaeda’s Iraq branch in April. In December, the U.S. State Department placed Nusra Front (http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/12/11/us-lists-syrian-al-qaeda-linked-group-as-foreign-terror-organization/) on its list of foreign terror groups.
On May 16, the State Department named (http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2013/05/16/state-department-names-nusra-front-leader-as-terrorist-2/) the Nusra Front leader, Muhammad al-Jawlani, as a terrorist, placing him under sanctions.

......................
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/world/middleeast/us-designates-syrian-al-nusra-front-as-terrorist-group.html?_r=0

New York Times
WASHINGTON — The United States has formally designated the Al Nusra Front, the militant Syrian rebel group, as a foreign terrorist organization.

The move, which was expected, (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-tied-to-al-qaeda-play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all) is aimed at building Western support for the rebellion against the government of President Bashar al-Assad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/bashar_al_assad/index.html?inline=nyt-per) by quelling fears that money and arms meant for the rebels would flow to a jihadi group.
The designation was disclosed (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-29870.pdf) on Monday in the Federal Register, just before an important diplomatic meeting Wednesday in Morocco on the political transition if Mr. Assad is driven from power. The notice in the register lists the Al Nusra front as one of the “aliases” of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
In practical terms, the designation makes it illegal for Americans to have financial dealings with the group. It is intended to prompt similar sanctions by other nations, and to address concerns about a group that could further destabilize Syria (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) and harm Western interests.
France, Britain, Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council have formally recognized the Syrian opposition. European Union foreign ministers met Monday with the head of the Syrian opposition coalition, Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, in Brussels. .....

..............................
the bulk of the Syrian Rebels are terrorist.

[Drummond]

please read the above from BBC, the guardian and wikipedia.
AlQeada is the only gorup getting any fighting done. they are sucking up the fighters from the other FSA groups.

seems your going soft on alqeada groups Drummond.
putting arms within arms reach and in fact in there hands. and watching them fight and take over cities in Syria , and NOT calling on immeadte drone strikes on that portion of the FSA.
why aren't we attacking that part of the FSA with drones and cutting off there funders and suppliers.
We KNOW where they are. what gives here?
the most imorptant thing you guys have been telling me is KILLING and torturing alqeda and muslim terrorist. or we're gonna die.
Now your saying to arm the rebels and hope "they may stay out of Al Qaeda hands".
Seems a much softer line than promoting killing al qeada anytime anywhere and anyone in the general vicinity who gets hurt is just to bad.

I spoke too soon. AGAIN, you're trying to tell me what I'm thinking. 'seems your going soft on alqeada groups Drummond' is another of your inventions.

Another is .. Now your saying to arm the rebels and hope "they may stay out of Al Qaeda hands". OK, back that up.

Revelarts, are you, or are you NOT, going to stop inventing my positions for me ??

You say that Al Qaeda, I quote, 'is the only gorup getting any fighting done.' Well, the BBC article I posted myself examined what appeared to be significant involvement by Hezbollah fighters. In fact, it went on to say that Israel wanted Hezbollah involved there, because their commitment to fighting in Syria had a tactical advantage for Israel.

But you seem locked in on only considering Al Qaeda as having significance. Why is that ?

[revelarts]

I spoke too soon. AGAIN, you're trying to tell me what I'm thinking. 'seems your going soft on alqeada groups Drummond' is another of your inventions.

Another is .. Now your saying to arm the rebels and hope "they may stay out of Al Qaeda hands". OK, back that up.

Revelarts, are you, or are you NOT, going to stop inventing my positions for me ??

You say that Al Qaeda, I quote, 'is the only gorup getting any fighting done.' Well, the BBC article I posted myself examined what appeared to be significant involvement by Hezbollah fighters. In fact, it went on to say that Israel wanted Hezbollah involved there, because their commitment to fighting in Syria had a tactical advantage for Israel.

But you seem locked in on only considering Al Qaeda as having significance. Why is that ?


Drummond.
I'm a bit shocked and disappointed frankly. you go on and on for pages elsewhere on the evils real and imagined of Muslim terrorist, alqeada , 911 around a corner if we don't kill kill kill. But i point out to you a group of Muslim terrorist operating in the open that people on the left and right in both our countries want to arm, and you question my motives.
what the heck is that about?

[Voted4Reagan]

As I recall, that policy was started under GWB, pertaining to dealing with terrorists and those who harbor them. It seems that any more it is getting to the point that talking about how much terrorism still exists, is as if it's forbidden and a bad word. Obama WOULD have you believe he defeated terrorism and the bad guys no longer would like to see us dead.

Dealing w/ terrorists stopped under RONALD REAGAN.

It has come back into fashion since 2009...

[jimnyc]

It is described as "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force"..

Wasn't it not long ago you were calling for less money and other things with the war on terror. Even at one point not long ago you were talking about how Al Qaeda was broken down and less than a few hundred numbers, and minimized their danger? But now it's a ton of danger on just one branch in Syria?

I agree they are there. I agree that they shouldn't get jack shit from us. I agree it's arming an enemy of ours. I agree that these weapons can easily be used against us someday.

But this branch in Syria is proving what I said back then, that they ARE still a large danger, they are always looking to regroup, and the more room and time we give them, that's exactly what they'll do - recruit and train. And now here they are in Syria and having the rebels announce their allegiance to them.

[Drummond]

Drummond.
I'm a bit shocked and disappointed frankly. you go on and on for pages elsewhere on the evils real and imagined of Muslim terrorist, alqeada , 911 around a corner if we don't kill kill kill. But i point out to you a group of Muslim terrorist operating in the open that people on the left and right in both our countries want to arm, and you question my motives.
what the heck is that about?

I question your motives ??

You ask what the heck that's about. To which I say, answer your own question. I have no answer for you, because again, you're trying to tell me how I'm thinking.

And I'm getting pretty tired of it. OK, you're a Leftie. Even so ....

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for you .. and can you PLEASE not add MORE of your inventions ??

Al Qaeda are scum. I see no reason why anybody should consider their lives worth saving. Extermination is what they deserve (.. unless capturing them will yield useful information adding to the defeat of terrorism).

They're operating in Syria ? Why should I want any of them spared ? I do not.

But I also think that realism about terrorism has importance. Al Qaeda are active in Syria, but they're not the only ones. Hezbollah has been named as another 'significant player'. And this in an article more recent than the one you provided.

Why will you not acknowledge that ? Am I to understand that you want attention taken AWAY from all terrorist groups except for Al Qaeda ?

And there's something else for you to acknowledge. There ARE rebels fighting in Syria who are independent of these terrorist factions.

Now, will you accept reality ? Or, is your only interest to continue to try and point-score, with varying degrees of inventiveness indulged in along the way ?

[Drummond]

Wasn't it not long ago you were calling for less money and other things with the war on terror. Even at one point not long ago you were talking about how Al Qaeda was broken down and less than a few hundred numbers, and minimized their danger? But now it's a ton of danger on just one branch in Syria?

I agree they are there. I agree that they shouldn't get jack shit from us. I agree it's arming an enemy of ours. I agree that these weapons can easily be used against us someday.

But this branch in Syria is proving what I said back then, that they ARE still a large danger, they are always looking to regroup, and the more room and time we give them, that's exactly what they'll do - recruit and train. And now here they are in Syria and having the rebels announce their allegiance to them.

Well remembered, Jim. Revelarts definitely made that case. Yet now, we've got these latest posts which concentrate on what's apparently a far harder line.

The only sense I can make of this is that a points-scoring exercise is the intention.

Perhaps I SHOULD question your motives, Revelarts.

For my own position ... hopefully one that'll remain free from reinvention ? .. I say this.

I believe there are rebels out there, in Syria, whose motivations are good. Assad is a despot, they have good reason to fight him, and - were it possible without further factors intervening - I'd say that arming them was reasonable.

NOTE - I'M TALKING ABOUT REBELS UNCONNECTED TO ANY TERRORIST FACTION.

However, the interference of Al Qaeda and others has so muddied the waters that I don't think any risks can be taken in arming anybody. I see no way that Obama could ever be sure that terrorists wouldn't grab the armaments supplied. This should never be allowed to happen, and if Obama takes that risk, HE KNOWINGLY RISKS ENDANGERING AMERICAN AND WESTERN LIVES.

And that must surely be treasonable. How can't it be ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

However, the interference of Al Qaeda and others has so muddied the waters that I don't think any risks can be taken in arming anybody. I see no way that Obama could ever be sure that terrorists wouldn't grab the armaments supplied. This should never be allowed to happen, and if Obama takes that risk, HE KNOWINGLY RISKS ENDANGERING AMERICAN AND WESTERN LIVES.

And that must surely be treasonable. How can't it be ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the meat on the bone of the matter. We have two snakes fighting for control and are suddenly calling the snake that has attacked us previously a democratic movement comprised of freedom fighters, which pure ffing hogwash! Obama is backing the side that wants to establish a supreme Caliphate that will be a united entity to oppose us! It is pure treason and he gets by with it because that truth is denied. We should stay out of it and let the bastards kill the hell out of each other, the more lives lost the better. They are both our enemies but the greater enemy of the two are the ones Obama wants to aid! Either 1. insanity or 2.else a plan, a treasonous plan . I say its the second one and tons of evidence support that IMHO. Same treason as is our giving such massive military aid to Egypt. Wake the hell up folks.... Mark my words those f16's and Abrams tanks will be first used against Israel and later against our guys and Obama knows it!!! -Tyr

[Drummond]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the meat on the bone of the matter. We have two snakes fighting for control and are suddenly calling the snake that has attacked us previously a democratic movement comprised of freedom fighters, which pure ffing hogwash! Obama is backing the side that wants to establish a supreme Caliphate that will be a united entity to oppose us! It is pure treason and he gets by with it because that truth is denied. We should stay out of it and let the bastards kill the hell out of each other, the more lives lost the better. They are both our enemies but the greater enemy of the two are the ones Obama wants to aid! Either 1. insanity or 2.else a plan, a treasonous plan . I say its the second one and tons of evidence support that IMHO. Same treason as is our giving such massive military aid to Egypt. Wake the hell up folks.... Mark my words those f16's and Abrams tanks will be first used against Israel and later against our guys and Obama knows it!!! -Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

I have to agree. When you get down to it, these conclusions are inescapable.

I feel sorry for what DECENT rebels there are, who want nothing to do with either Al Qaeda or any other terrorist faction, but just to fight for freedom against oppression. But terrorists CANNOT BE, MUST NOT BE, ARMED.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap:

I have to agree. When you get down to it, these conclusions are inescapable.

I feel sorry for what DECENT rebels there are, who want nothing to do with either Al Qaeda or any other terrorist faction, but just to fight for freedom against oppression. But terrorists CANNOT BE, MUST NOT BE, ARMED. Do not feel to much pity my friend. They are all Muslims and the decent ones are only a handful compared to the rest and consider this-- even those few decent ones have been executing Christians there too. When tossed into a pit of poisonous vipers its best not to think any of them are good, tame or better than the others. All are poisonous. That fact is being denied by Obama and crew because just like in Egypt they want to present it as a democracy movement when its a Muslim Caliphate movement instead. A Muslim Caliphate would be a far greater and more dedicated enemy to our nation than Assad ever has been or ever would be!

[Drummond]

Do not feel to much pity my friend. They are all Muslims and the decent ones are only a handful compared to the rest and consider this-- even those few decent ones have been executing Christians there too. When tossed into a pit of poisonous vipers its best not to think any of them are good, tame or better than the others. All are poisonous. That fact is being denied by Obama and crew because just like in Egypt they want to present it as a democracy movement when its a Muslim Caliphate movement instead. A Muslim Caliphate would be a far greater and more dedicated enemy to our nation than Assad ever has been or ever would be!

On reflection .. points taken. Thanks, and in the final analysis, you're right. :clap::beer:

[revelarts]

Wasn't it not long ago you were calling for less money and other things with the war on terror. Even at one point not long ago you were talking about how Al Qaeda was broken down and less than a few hundred numbers, and minimized their danger? But now it's a ton of danger on just one branch in Syria?

funny you guys say i mis rep you. i try to self correct but you guy never represent my position on this correctly.
YES we do not need BILLIONS to fight alqueada.
we can do it with less than we do now.
I say TARGET the real terrorist, NOT the general public, NOT innocent Bystanders and NOT family.
Capture when possible, Kill as necessary when they are making a move not when thinking about it. like we do with stings, using the constitutional laws that apply.
is that clear? is that clear? is that clear?

Don't misrepresent me as not wanting to fight just because i want to stay within the constitution, pre-9/11 laws, and the budget to win it.
But you'll probably do it in reply to the post.


NoW my point here is that YOU GUYS claim stuff LIKE "kill kill kill, rules and laws be Danged, they are trying to kill us all, can't trust a terrorist, there are 10's of thousands maybe or millions, kill terrorist at nearly any cost."
But here you seem to mildly condone the consideration at least just mildly condemning the idea of funding and arming alqueda "it's a dum idea" . But you want to jump on my head about wanting to reign in the cost. But the congress and president are FUNDING and ARMING the enemy! and i'm the bad guy?!?!?
this is what IVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. we are creating these enemies. SPENDING MONEY to help these people that should be targets.

But Drummond wasn't sure they are not terrorist, but is willing to trust the gov't when they claim total unknowns are terrorist and cheers the deaths of these unknowns and now is upset with me when i say that the president and congress critters are treasonist for supporting real self proclaimed alqueada affilitiates .





I agree they are there. I agree that they shouldn't get jack shit from us. I agree it's arming an enemy of ours. I agree that these weapons can easily be used against us someday.
But this branch in Syria is proving what I said back then, that they ARE still a large danger, they are always looking to regroup, and the more room and time we give them, that's exactly what they'll do - recruit and train. And now here they are in Syria and having the rebels announce their allegiance to them.

If you read the articles above you'd see that the army in SYRIA is growing. because we've opened the door for them to set up shop and recruit, and not stopped there funding or supplies, corrupted the communication or targeted there leaders for capture trial, jail or otherwise who have on record and sometimes on film killed.
we've allowed the infection to grow and now want to feed it.
And STILL i stay we can cut back to sane levels of actions and dollars and STILL contain terrorism.



I question your motives ??

You ask what the heck that's about. To which I say, answer your own question. I have no answer for you, because again, you're trying to tell me how I'm thinking.
And I'm getting pretty tired of it. OK, you're a Leftie. Even so ....
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for you .. and can you PLEASE not add MORE of your inventions ??
Al Qaeda are scum. I see no reason why anybody should consider their lives worth saving. Extermination is what they deserve (.. unless capturing them will yield useful information adding to the defeat of terrorism).
They're operating in Syria ? Why should I want any of them spared ? I do not.
But I also think that realism about terrorism has importance. Al Qaeda are active in Syria, but they're not the only ones. Hezbollah has been named as another 'significant player'. And this in an article more recent than the one you provided.
Why will you not acknowledge that ? Am I to understand that you want attention taken AWAY from all terrorist groups except for Al Qaeda ?
And there's something else for you to acknowledge. There ARE rebels fighting in Syria who are independent of these terrorist factions.
Now, will you accept reality ? Or, is your only interest to continue to try and point-score, with varying degrees of inventiveness indulged in along the way ?

you say i mis represent you but you call people leftie who don't even remotely fit the label. It's pretty funny.

As far as the other terrorist are concerned Drummond. you point would be more well made if the U.S. was trying to send guns or air support to Hexbollah.
When they do that rest assured you'll see me posting a thread with just as much anger. Hexbollah is fighting for Asad. But bad as Hexbollah is they didn't launch 9-11 or any other attacks on the U.S. that i know of. If we were going to choose a terrorist group to ARM why did we pick the one that we say killed 3000+ americans? Hexbollah and alqeada both are going to have h3ll to pay Drummond i do not support either. I really don't see your point.

As far as the other moderate rebels, yes is terrible sham they couldn't get things together. at this point the well is poisoned and their own allies are falling away to the alqeada group.
the Christians and minority Muslim population of the country are in a terrible spot.

but again i don't know what that has to do with the main situation or the subject of the thread.

if you want to talk about the millions of refugees, and the chemicals weapons use by both side, or the atrocities by various groups, fine lets start another thread.
seems like your trying to deflect the conversion away from the theme here.
U.S., or UK support for alqeda affiliates is treason.
that stands alone as fact. which i see you agree with.
regardless of the hexbollah, independent rebels, and other issues.

[aboutime]

funny you guys say i mis rep you. i try to self correct but you guy never represent my position on this correctly.
YES we do not need BILLIONS to fight alqueada.
we can do it with less than we do now.
I say TARGET the real terrorist, NOT the general public, NOT innocent Bystanders and NOT family.
Capture when possible, Kill as necessary when they are making a move not when thinking about it. like we do with stings, using the constitutional laws that apply.
is that clear? is that clear? is that clear?

Don't misrepresent me as not wanting to fight just because i want to stay within the constitution, pre-9/11 laws, and the budget to win it.
But you'll probably do it in reply to the post.


NoW my point here is that YOU GUYS claim stuff LIKE "kill kill kill, rules and laws be Danged, they are trying to kill us all, can't trust a terrorist, there are 10's of thousands maybe or millions, kill terrorist at nearly any cost."
But here you seem to mildly condone the consideration at least just mildly condemning the idea of funding and arming alqueda "it's a dum idea" . But you want to jump on my head about wanting to reign in the cost. But the congress and president are FUNDING and ARMING the enemy! and i'm the bad guy?!?!?
this is what IVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. we are creating these enemies. SPENDING MONEY to help these people that should be targets.

But Drummond wasn't sure they are not terrorist, but is willing to trust the gov't when they claim total unknowns are terrorist and cheers the deaths of these unknowns and now is upset with me when i say that the president and congress critters are treasonist for supporting real self proclaimed alqueada affilitiates .





If you read the articles above you'd see that the army in SYRIA is growing. because we've opened the door for them to set up shop and recruit, and not stopped there funding or supplies, corrupted the communication or targeted there leaders for capture trial, jail or otherwise who have on record and sometimes on film killed.
we've allowed the infection to grow and now want to feed it.
And STILL i stay we can cut back to sane levels of actions and dollars and STILL contain terrorism.




you say i mis represent you but you call people leftie who don't even remotely fit the label. It's pretty funny.

As far as the other terrorist are concerned Drummond. you point would be more well made if the U.S. was trying to send guns or air support to Hexbollah.
When they do that rest assured you'll see me posting a thread with just as much anger. Hexbollah is fighting for Asad. But bad as Hexbollah is they didn't launch 9-11 or any other attacks on the U.S. that i know of. If we were going to choose a terrorist group to ARM why did we pick the one that we say killed 3000+ americans? Hexbollah and alqeada both are going to have h3ll to pay Drummond i do not support either. I really don't see your point.

As far as the other moderate rebels, yes is terrible sham they couldn't get things together. at this point the well is poisoned and their own allies are falling away to the alqeada group.
the Christians and minority Muslim population of the country are in a terrible spot.

but again i don't know what that has to do with the main situation or the subject of the thread.

if you want to talk about the millions of refugees, and the chemicals weapons use by both side, or the atrocities by various groups, fine lets start another thread.
seems like your trying to deflect the conversion away from the theme here.
U.S., or UK support for alqeda affiliates is treason.
that stands alone as fact. which i see you agree with.
regardless of the hexbollah, independent rebels, and other issues.




Rev. Not only No. But HELL NO!

Anyone, from any other nation. Not a citizen, or a former citizen who takes up arms against the United States of America, on other than foreign soil....DOES NOT, SHOULD NOT, and SHALL NOT get any constitutional protections, rights, or offers of appeasement from ANY GOVERNMENT agency of the United States.
The ENEMY of the United States WE CALL terrorists. Should either be DRONED, or if captured. Moved to a reserved stateroom in GITMO.

[jimnyc]

funny you guys say i mis rep you. i try to self correct but you guy never represent my position on this correctly.
YES we do not need BILLIONS to fight alqueada.
we can do it with less than we do now.
I say TARGET the real terrorist, NOT the general public, NOT innocent Bystanders and NOT family.
Capture when possible, Kill as necessary when they are making a move not when thinking about it. like we do with stings, using the constitutional laws that apply.
is that clear? is that clear? is that clear?

Again, you missed my point. I wasn't claiming anywhere at all about not wanting to fight, or doing so within the constitution. My point was that it wasn't long ago that you were trying to support claims that Al Qaeda has been shattered, and downplayed their abilities by stating they likely had less than 500 members worldwide. Now you're pointing out just how bad one branch alone is within Syria's borders.