Yay! now we'll be arming Al-Qaeda in Syria

[Spike]

U.S. to Arm Syrian Rebels

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama authorized his administration to provide arms to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, officials said Thursday, a major policy shift after the White House said it had confirmed that Damascus used chemical weapons in the country's civil war

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...387158806.html
--------------------------

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda

BEIRUT — A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ction/2075323/

----------------

then there's this...


Bill Clinton warns Obama he risks looking like a "wuss" if he doesn't act on Syria.

Former President Bill Clinton offered a stinging critique of President Barack Obama's inaction in Syria during a closed-press event this week, Politico reported, arguing that Obama's hesitance to get involved in the lengthy conflict could end up making him look like a "total fool" and a "wuss."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

---------------------

more hope and change for ya

[GoSlash27]

This is where I'd normally go into my "haphazard and counterproductive foreign policy" rant, but you folks already seem to be on board.

[Seven]

The only way getting involved with Syria in any manner makes sense is if we went in there and did the job ourselves. Otherwise, we're just riding the fence and injecting more confusion than help into the scenario. If we're getting involved, then let's fucking get involved. Send in units and take that government out and clean our hands of the situation. This half assed response is worse than invading or doing nothing. Personally, I'd choose the latter. But either is better than trying to do both.

[The Patriot]

This is where I'd normally go into my "haphazard and counterproductive foreign policy" rant, but you folks already seem to be on board.

Why do we care about the Syrian civil war? Other than, of course, humanitarian reasons. *cough cough*

[stillers4me]

I believe we have been arming them all along, and that's what is being covered up in the Benghazi mess.

[GoSlash27]

I believe we have been arming them all along, and that's what is being covered up in the Benghazi mess.

I believe you're right.

[stillers4me]

I believe you're right.

Scary.

[cold-hard-steel]

I believe you're right.

I believe that Israel has all the capability they need to handle the situation . If they do not , then God help them . Don't make me send in my Indian buddy's , that noone thinks about .

[ALLD]

Maybe they found new oil in Syria?

[Spike]

yeah, more arming of Islamic fundamentalist mujahideens....what could possibly go wrong......

[Spike]

here we go

Iran will send 4,000 troops to aid Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria

Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.

For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-8660358.html

[GoSlash27]

Looks like we'll finally be getting that war with Iran we wanted.

[Mach1]

Looks like we'll finally be getting that war with Iran we wanted.

And Russia.

[Seven]

Bush's fault.

[fansince'76]

Bill Clinton warns Obama he risks looking like a "wuss" if he doesn't act on Syria.

Former President Bill Clinton offered a stinging critique of President Barack Obama's inaction in Syria during a closed-press event this week, Politico reported, arguing that Obama's hesitance to get involved in the lengthy conflict could end up making him look like a "total fool" and a "wuss."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

This coming from the expert of "measured responses" that ultimately didn't do shit, like lobbing cruise missiles at aspirin factories in Sudan and empty tents in Afghanistan.

While only 15 percent of Americans said they'd back military action in Syria, according to a recent poll, Clinton spoke Tuesday during a question-and-answer session alongside Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and suggested that such support among the American public or Congress shouldn't have any bearing on Obama's decision.

Again, the irony. This guy was the very definition of a poll-driven president.

[GBMelBlount]

Holy Shiite!

[Mach1]

These are the people(and I use that word loosely) we'll be arming.

Only 11% of Americans want us to arm the rebels in Syria yet the Obama administration isn’t listening. But it’s not just the Democrats, progressives in both parties are pushing for U.S. involvement as evidenced by John McCain’s recent trip to Syria where he met with the rebels. Why is this a bad idea?

WARNING: Graphic Content in the video

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/06/17/...22top_left%22}

[43Hitman]

These are the people(and I use that word loosely) we'll be arming.



WARNING: Graphic Content in the video

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/06/17/...22top_left%22}

Oh my.

[cold-hard-steel]

It's not that close yet let them kill more of themselves before we move in . Sooner or later you gonna run out of people that want to blow themselves up .