These Are The Rebels Obama Wants To Arm And Support
-
See ObaMao and Holder's "Fast and Furious"...
arming Mexican drug cartels to cause unrest.
I suppose these terrorists are the ones Obamao is considering
given asylum to here....
-
Remember not too long ago the UN said that the Syrian Rebels were the ones using the chemical weapons? I do. Now all of the sudden it is the Government? I don't think so.
-
Ive been saying all along that the rebels are very very bad and its all bad business to arm them. We need to actually back Iran of all people and crush them. If people think we or Syria is better off with them in charge than Assad they are fucking simpletons. I'd rather have a brutal dictator any day than religious zealots and maniacs in charge of peoples lives.
-
Ive been saying all along that the rebels are very very bad and its all bad business to arm them. We need to actually back Iran of all people and crush them. If people think we or Syria is better off with them in charge than Assad they are fucking simpletons. I'd rather have a brutal dictator any day than religious zealots and maniacs in charge of peoples lives.
Yeah no doubt Saddam and his kids were a class act.Ive been saying all along that the rebels are very very bad and its all bad business to arm them. We need to actually back Iran of all people and crush them. If people think we or Syria is better off with them in charge than Assad they are fucking simpletons. I'd rather have a brutal dictator any day than religious zealots and maniacs in charge of peoples lives.
-
Yeah. Total chaos and religious zealotry are so much better.
-
Yeah. Total chaos and religious zealotry are so much better.
Its like asking someone to choose between a bird shitn on their forehead or nose. Neither one is better than the other.Yeah. Total chaos and religious zealotry are so much better.
-
Sorry. I have to disagree here. Assad is better than the rebels. Way better.
-
Way?
but who cares? If they win we really didn't do enough to be considered an ally and when, they lose we'll be considered the enemy.
By the way 1 of the reasons for the insignificant amount of help we provided in libya was because Khadafi threatened to go door to door drag the rebels out and kill them. Anybody remember that the rebels did exactly that?
WSS
WSS
-
Make no mistake, far from backing Iran to crush the rebels, this is precisely the opposite. We're getting into this to beat back Iranian influence.
-
It's a no win situation. I think it was Pelosi? that went to Syria, over WH objections, and had
a nice visit with Assad back in the Bush years. Assad was the dem's hero, as well as Chavez,
and Castro.
go figure, ....
If the rebels win, what good does it do to allow a new Islamic state to be created, as Iran was back
in the day? Yeah, it really helped to get rid of that really bad western "friendly" dictator in Iran.
History will repeat itself?
-
One of the funniest jokes is us claiming we're only going to arm the "moderate pro-western" rebels. Ha-ha. Osama Bin Laden was a pro western rebel until he was the world's top terrorist. There are no friendly rebels.
-
Here are some guns. Now go shoot some dudes from Hezbollah.
That's as much of the plan as I can make sense of.
The only other part is political - that Obama drew a "red line" and the intelligence agencies think Assad crossed it, so he has to do something. And giving the rebels light arms is the least he can do that counts as a response while not getting truly involved.
-
"not truly involved" doesn't sound right, maybe.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-troops-conducting-military-exercises-syrian-border-19441253
And more American troops are being readied for....Egypt.
-
Here are some guns. Now go shoot some dudes from Hezbollah.
That's as much of the plan as I can make sense of.
The only other part is political - that Obama drew a "red line" and the intelligence agencies think Assad crossed it, so he has to do something. And giving the rebels light arms is the least he can do that counts as a response while not getting truly involved.
Red line. What a joke. The rebels have used chemical weapons and nobody seems to care about that. Rebels also behead people and eat their organs. I can post a picture of a rebel with a human head on a grill if you like, but it doesn't seem to cross Obamas red line. But then his red line is horse shit. Mexicans are beheading women and children and posting it on the internet and we're fucking worrying about helping the Syrian rebels because Assad allegedly gassed them? Our priorities are fucked. One brutal war is a lot closer to home than the other.Here are some guns. Now go shoot some dudes from Hezbollah.
That's as much of the plan as I can make sense of.
The only other part is political - that Obama drew a "red line" and the intelligence agencies think Assad crossed it, so he has to do something. And giving the rebels light arms is the least he can do that counts as a response while not getting truly involved.
-
It seems arbitrary, but there are good reasons that the international community doesn't want to greenlight a future where chemical weapons are used and that's the new normal, wouldn't you agree? That's a pretty scary future. Hence, the "red line."
It's international law, and has been for decades. I don't have a problem with punishing anyone who thinks about starting the world down that road. It leads to a pretty awful place.
-
In other words, giving me the guy cutting out the heart and eating it. He's a barbarian, and history is littered with them. But he can't descend on a on a small city in a haze that kills everyone who breathes him in - man, woman, and child.
-
I'd rather be gassed I think than have my head chopped off with an axe while alive. If you'd rather the opposite so be it, for you.
Also I think you're forgetting the part where our precious rebels also used chemical weapons
http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/06/putin-claims-proof-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons/
-
They're not my precious rebels. And that's World Net Daily.
It's not a matter of how you'd rather die. (And death by chemical weapons is a gruesome affair, so I'm not sure what's so preferable about it.) It's that a guy with an axe isn't a weapon of mass destruction.
States have an obvious and legitimate interest in banning the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
-
Whatever source reported it Putin said it. You know who sucks at intelligence? The KGB. Oh wait, they're kind of good at it.
-
I'm sure the U.N also verified that it was the rebels who used the chemical weapons. Heck is speaking newspeak.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login