Obama Recognizes Syrian Opposition Coalition (Al Qaeda) As The Legitimate Representative Of The Country's People

Open War? Obama Backs Syria Rebels 'Infiltrated With Terrorists' (Everybody Knows)

This is troubling.

It is troubling, and typical of this corrupt, degenerate White House.

Do either of you dimwits accept the proposition that the Syrian opposition is Al Qaeda, as the post implies? Or do you think maybe there are some folks in there that don't belong to that organization? Like 99.9%?

Do both of you geniuses really expect any reasonable person to believe that President Obama, who last year ordered the killing of the leader of Al Qaeda, is endorsing Al Qaeda?

I'm "troubled" by your posts.

You do realize, don't you, Timmy, that both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were once allies of the US? And do you think that the rebels will make sure any arms or aid given to them in their struggle will NEVER end up in the hands of Al Qaeda?

You really lack a sense of history. It's tough to be blinded by the Light we know as Lord Obama.

We regretted the arming of Hussein in the 1980s...we will come regret the arming of radical Islamist in Syria and Lybia and Egypt in 2012.

Carter blundered by pulling the rug out from under the Shah....we are still living with that disaster.

The arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan got us nothing but 9/11 and the aftermath of a 10-year war.

You would think Obama would have studied his history lesson. I think he did. And this fits nicely with his "America's chickens will come home to roost" upbringing. Sooner rather than later with an Obama presidency.

Either one of you knuckleheads want to take a shot at answering my questions?

Is President Obama endorsing Al Qaeda, as the OP implies? Was it just a mistake that President Obama ordered the killing of the leader of Al Qaeda last year?

Regarding arms, has Al Qaeda been lacking any? I think there are a few guns lying around Syria. And I missed the part of the interview with Obama where he indicated we would be supplying any arms to anybody.

You ask the dumb question; a better question is:

Is it wise policy to arm (or otherwise embrace) radical Islamist's in the region?

Answer: NO. We will regret it. Just like in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

You ask the dumb question; a better question is:

Is it wise policy to arm (or otherwise embrace) radical Islamist's in the region?

Answer: NO. We will regret it. Just like in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Newsflash pinhead: they are already armed. They have all the weapons they need...as evidenced by the fact that they have fought us to a stalemate in Afghanistan after 10 years.

Second, show me again where it says we will be arming anybody in Syria.

Do either of you dimwits accept the proposition that the Syrian opposition is Al Qaeda, as the post implies? Or do you think maybe there are some folks in there that don't belong to that organization? Like 99.9%?

Do both of you geniuses really expect any reasonable person to believe that President Obama, who last year ordered the killing of the leader of Al Qaeda, is endorsing Al Qaeda?

I'm "troubled" by your posts. Originally Posted by timpage

no they dont. and (sans reasonable) yes they do

Stevens (the benghazi consulate who Obama let die) was Obama's gun runner to the Syrian opposition. He was using the brother of one of Al Qaeda's top leaders as the go between. And you don't know your history. We were funneling guns to the mujhadeen in Afghanistan way before 9/11. It is the roots of the radicalization of OBL.

Newsflash pinhead: they are already armed. They have all the weapons they need...as evidenced by the fact that they have fought us to a stalemate in Afghanistan after 10 years.

Second, show me again where it says we will be arming anybody in Syria. Originally Posted by timpage

I thought the left wants OUT of all these foreign interventions?
I can go back and pull dozens of threads and quotes of you guys saying exactly that.

So why are you now OK with jumping into another one?

I thought the left wants OUT of all these foreign interventions?
I can go back and pull dozens of threads and quotes of you guys saying exactly that.

So why are you now OK with jumping into another one? Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

What evidence do you have that we are "jumping" into anything? Obama is against Assad, as any sane person would be. Why are you against that? Should we be for him?

Stevens (the benghazi consulate who Obama let die) was Obama's gun runner to the Syrian opposition. He was using the brother of one of Al Qaeda's top leaders as the go between. And you don't know your history. We were funneling guns to the mujhadeen in Afghanistan way before 9/11. It is the roots of the radicalization of OBL. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Fucking moron....your monumental stupidity and inability to recognize obviously recognized and well acknowledged facts defies belief. Yes, we were funneling weapons to the mujhadeen when they were fighting the Russians, our preeminent enemy during the cold war. I think the President that authorized all that was your hero President Reagan. Am I wrong about that dumbass?

Regarding arming the Syrian opposition to Assad...you oppose that? Speak up pinhead. You support Assad?

I support leaving Syria alone.