Muslim Terrorist liquidated in air strike

The Jihadists are far worse scum than Assad. Supporting such evil is neither realistic nor did it have good results.

 

What a beautiful demonstration of the workings of the minds of the tin foil hat brigade. Your best evidence that Obama is supporting Al Qaeda and Al Nusra in Syria is a Seymour Hersch article that doesn't as much as even MENTION Al Qaeda and Al Nusra in Syria. The article DOES say that weapons were purchased with "funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar". It does say the weapons went to "Syrian opposition" and to "Free Syrian Army [FSA]", but your brain reads "Al Qaeda and Al Nusra" because that's what you sooooo desperately want to believe.

 

You have not studied the situation Dixon. Early on there were "moderate" protests. As soon as the armed insurrection started it was the extremists who wanted Strict Sharia.

Right off the hop Al Qaeda and Al Nusra were joined at the hip with the extremists. There were never any moderates = not insisting on strict Sharia in the initial phases.

It was not until years later, after years of civil war and the creation of a massive humanitarian crisis that groups claiming to be "moderate" showed up.

 

This is getting too far into speculation ?

 

Lets see your evidence. Giftedone's best evidence that Obama supports Al Qaeda and Al Nusra in Syria is a Seymour Hersch article that doesn't as much as even mention Al Qaeda or Al Nusra in Syria. Lets see your best evidence for a laugh.

 

What nonsense. ISLAM created Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and now Daesh. In the tradition of the first Rashidun Caliphate, waging war against the godless Mulims who stopped paying tribute to Mecca when Muhammad died. In the tradition of the Saudi Ikhwan waging Jihad against the godless Shiites in Iraq in the 1920s. In the tradition of the al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Egypt waging Jihad against the godless government of Egypt in the 1950s.

Same (*)(*)(*)(*), different day.

 

So far your best evidence is a Seymour Hersch article that doesn't as much as even MENTION alqaeda or al nusra. You babbling on that it is so, doesn't have much credibility.

 

Dixon .... go do some research. It is not a big secret that the rebels were extremists and going after Christians right from the get go.

It is also no secret that they were affiliated with Al Qaeda and Al Nusra.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html

Here is an article from September 2012 about foreign fighters flocking to Syria

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/23/syria-foreign-fighters-joining-war

Jihadi veterans = extremist nutters - WTF are we doing arming these types ?

If you did not realize the rebels had affiliations with Al Qaeda an Al Nusra you need to come out of the cave you have been living in as this was front page news for a long time.

"Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...ls-tied-to-al-qaeda-play-key-role-in-war.html

That was from the NYT which is a completely "pro US biased source".

Go read some real reporting from a legitimate source and the rebels are "Extremists". Sure, later on when the Obama started to bring its arming and supporting the insurrection above board ... all of a sudden we have rebels with their hands out claiming to be moderates.

That was not the case in first years of the war.

I can post hundreds of articles ... As I said it was no secret back in the early days of the war that the rebels were extremists.

It only "became a secret" something that was not ignored previously but, all of a sudden became conveniently ignored to keep the raging masses ignorant as these facts conflicted with the "moderate rebel" story the WH was trying to paint in order to cover butt.

 

Supporting any evil doesn't result in any good.

Perhaps if the regime gave an inside view of their detention centers, you'd think differently. But all you see is a clean-shaven individual wearing a nice suit.

 

Aaaaand your second best evidence that Obaba is supporting Al Qaeda and Al Nusra is another article that also doesn't as much as even mention Al Qaeda and Al Nusra. What a joke.

 

I think slow learners acknolwedged the fact that the U.S support radical Sunni Muslims in the Middle East, Syria in particular. It's that obvious. But hey, some still deny it. If it wasn't for thousands and thousands slaughtered innocent Christians and others religous groups which didn't fit into Takfiri/Wahabi world it would be hilarious. The U.S sided with those lunatics before, the U.S is doing it again.

Syria: As al-Qaeda Defeats ‘Moderate’ US Allies, Will US Ally with al-Qaeda?
by Juan Cole

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...eats-moderate-us-allies-will-us-ally-al-qaeda

 

This is not about claiming that Assad is somehow a good guy. It is about the lesser of two evils.

 

The jihadists are scum, but they're not far worse than that mass-murdering scumbag Assad.

From the UN Human Rights Council:

 

So I give you and article from the New York Times Titled " Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...ed-to-al-qaeda-play-key-role-in-war.html?_r=0

And you claim that Al Qaeda is not mentioned. Now if anything, that is a Joke.

Certainly no point in beating this dead horse any further.

Good day to you Sir.

 

Please don't take this personally, G, but that's a fool's errand.

 

But this is a problem because of several reasons.

First, there are plenty of dictators and autocrats in the world. The West cannot take on all of them. So we have to pick and choose our battles. Targeting the worst of them, such as ISIS, makes sense. But the rest, and that includes Assad, is simply a lesser evil, where an all out war is not worth it. Not yet, at least.

Second, do you realize that many people, both Western and Arabs, are still complaining about the Iraq war and consider it a big mistake (and IMHO, rightly so)? In light of that, there is simply zero political and popular will to get involved in yet another world policing adventure, this time against Assad in Syria.

Third, radical islamists are usualy even worse than Assad. You can reason with someone who is merely interested in money and power. You cannot reason with someone who is religiously devoted to oppose your interests in every way imaginable.

The best case scenario is for both the Assad and the radical islamists to be defeated and the moderates and secularist leaning rebels (who the West does support currently) taking charge of Syria, leading it into a prosperous future. But we both know that is not likely to happen.

The second best case scenario is for the radical islamist opposition to be defeated and Syria being ruled by Assad, with some human rights abuses, but also with relative stability and peace, and without extremely religious elements being in power.

The worst case scenario is for the radical islamist rebels to win and establish an ISIS like state in Syria. That cannot be allowed.

Take your pick.

 

I, of course, was referring to your evidence given second from the top billing, the daily mail article you took the time to edit out of my quoted post, so you could pretend to here have a relevant point.
And of course your NY Times piece directly REFUTES your claim

So that your top two sources of evidence arent even relevant to your claims as they dont even mention AlQaeda and Al Nusra. And your 3rd source directly refutes the claim. Delusions in action.

 

Talon. What are you talking about ? Are you suggesting that giving arms and support to extremist Islamic wing nuts (including Al Qaeda and Al Nusra) is a good thing ?

 

What claim of mine has been refuted ? You do not even state what claim of mine you are claiming to refute ?

Who is delusional ?

 

Even Talons commondreams article refutes gitedone's claim that Obama supported Al Qaeda and Al Nusra. Al Qaeda and Al nusra are fighting AGAINST those rebels supported by Obama.

 

The Jihadists are worse than Assad. You know as well as I that once a war starts the gloves come off.

It I not like those living in many of the sections controlled by the rebels are not supporting the rebel movement. In Syria this falls along religious lines.

For example, there were no Christians being rounded up and tortured by the Syrian Government. Give one example ? No it was the rebels that were cutting off the heads and committing acts of Genocide against the Christians.

Do I agree with the barbaric tactics of Assad in some cases ? Not really but what do you think would happen if there was an equivalent rebellion here in the US ?

Really ... speak up. What happened in WWII. Who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and how many "innocent" civilians were killed bombing Germany.

There would be areas controlled by the rebels that would get bombed. The reason is because these would be areas where there was strong civilian support for the rebels.

When some woman cry's ... "they are bombing near my house". What she doesn't mention is and yeah .. my husband and son are fighting for the rebels an I myself am an extremist religious nutter who believes in strict sharia.

I disagree with Israel when they drop 1000 lb bombs in the middle of crowded neighborhoods because one bad guy happened to go in to that neighborhood. This is far worse in fact than Assad shelling an area because it is an active war zone.

Even so I do not think Israel is worse than Hezbollah. No way.

The fact of the matter is that these military operations by Assad would not be happening if the extremist insurgents did not take up arm against Syria and the Syrian people.

Go listen on youtube to the Christians living in Syria. The people of Syria did not much like Assad, this is true, but the were terrified of the rebels who, right from the outset were religious extremists who wanted strict sharia. The Christians were especially terrified. I knew this before the conflict ramped from a friend of mine who had just come back from Syria.

His words rang true when as soon as the armed insurrection started the rebels started going after Christians. Go listen to the Christians in Syria. They were living in peace in a Secular Syrian Regime prior to this conflict as they had been for centuries.

It was not Assad who changed this. Think about it. Why is it that the vast majority of Christians support Assad ?

Why is it that you have go to Russian TV to hear this ? to hear Republican US Senator who wrote a letter thanking Assad for rescuing Christians from the extremists and who questions why the US is supporting Al Qaeda and the extremists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZofTUssIcw

Here is a Christian nun in Syria complaining about the biased media coverage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_v79ZJrdEk

Are these the Checkpoints your article is talking about ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQIrSR6tKJg

 

The Christians in Syria support Assad ... not the extremists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A6ICOXDFFQ

 

I see two evils that need to be done away with. I'm not interested in the whole "lesser of two evils" crap.

 

The West had its chance to help the moderates in the beginning. Their inaction (and Obama ' s ineptitude) is the primary cause of the current situation on the battlefield.

With regards to your scenarios, Assad will never control Syria (or what' left of it) as was the case in the past. His only allies are Persia and Russia. The best scenario now is to divide the region along sectarian lines and get it over with.

 

That's pretty unintelligent statement. By the way, no one cares what you're interested in. ISIS is the only side capable of fighting against the legitimate Syrian regime. Assad loses out, ISIS wins, Lebanon is next. Anyway ISIS taking over Lebanon is probably what would make people like you happy.