It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Wants Authority to Arm Syrian Rebels, but GOP Is Wary

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Had we never invaded Iraq IS would not exist.

What's stupid is this, the weapons that were already sent to "moderate" fighters in Syria have already fallen into the hands of IS. We don't need to look back to the 1980s to learn from our mistakes.

So either our military and political leaders are complete morons or there is a conspiracy here.
edit on 10-9-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills




Had we never invaded Iraq IS would not exist.


Yes it would.



Wahhabism (Arabic: وهابية‎, Wahhābiyyah) or Wahhabi mission[1] (Arabic: ألدعوة ألوهابية‎, al-Da'wa al-Wahhābiyyah ) is a religious movement or sect or form[2] of Sunni Islam[3][4][5] variously described as "orthodox", "ultraconservative",[6] "austere",[2] "fundamentalist",[7] "puritanical"[8] (or "puritan"),[9] an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship",[10] or an "extremist pseudo-Sunni movement".[11] Adherents often object to the term Wahhabi or Wahhabism as derogatory, and prefer to be called Salafi or muwahhid.[12][13][14]





Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[15] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Nejd,[16] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry, impurities and innovations in Islam.[4][17] Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad bin Saud offering political obedience and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement, would mean "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men."[18] The movement is centered on the principle of Tawhid,[19] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[17] The movement also draws from the teachings of Medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyyah and early jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal.[20] It aspires to return to the earliest fundamental Islamic sources of the Quran and Hadith,[20] rejecting traditional Islamic legal scholarship beyond the first three generations of Muslims as an unnecessary innovation.[




Estimates of the number of adherents to Wahhabism vary, with one source giving a figure of 5 million Wahhabis in the GCC region.[23] According to Columbia University, the majority of the GCC's Wahhabis are from Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.[23] 46.87% of Qataris[23] and 44.8% of Emiratis are Wahhabis.[23] 5.7% of Bahrainis are Wahhabis and 2.17% of Kuwaitis are Wahhabis.[23] Wahhabis are the "dominant minority" in Saudi Arabia.[24] There are 4 million Saudi Wahhabis since 22.9% of Saudis are Wahhabis (concentrated in Najd).[23] The alliance between followers of ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud's successors (the House of Saud) created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—where Mohammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab's teachings are state-sponsored and the dominant form of Islam[2][25]—and continues to this day. With the help of funding from petroleum exports[26] (and other factors[27]), the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...

AQ:



al-Qaeda (/ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KY-də; Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʿidah, Arabic: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ], translation: "The Base" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamist and Wahhabist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam,[24][25] and several other militants,[26] at some point between August 1988[27] and late 1989,[2


en.wikipedia.org...

Some people need to open up a history book.

They were killing each other over there in the name of ALLAH long before the US ever existed as a country.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Well, I'll support this when someone can show me the difference between a moderate rebel and an extremist rebel. I would also like to know how we can ensure these weapons don't fall into the hands of IS/ISIS/ISIL.

Seems to me that once these weapons get into Syria, they will be taken by the IS rebels or maybe even another more extremist group and used against...everyone.

We are getting into the middle of a religious war and it ain't good. I hope they can get the other ME countries to support whomever it is we are supporting this week but why do I think it will be the West doing all the dirty work. The Saudi's hands are tied. If they go against IS then they face possible revolution in their country and they've grown accustomed to a high standard of living.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Feltrick




Well, I'll support this when someone can show me the difference between a moderate rebel and an extremist rebel.


There is none:



A spokesman for Steven Sotloff's family told CNN the journalist was captured by "so-called moderate rebels" in Syria then sold to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).


They sell journalists.

What's to say they won't sell their arms?

thehill.com...

There is nothing stopping them.




We are getting into the middle of a religious war and it ain't good.


We have been there for over 4 decades.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
If the West had armed and trained the FSA from the start they would have been able to hold both Assad and ISIS off and things would not be as bad in Syria. However, at the time the FSA was doing pretty well and nobody thought that ISIS and Assad would stop fighting each other to gang up on them. Most people thought the FSA and radicals would fight after the fall of Assad.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Agree to disagree. I'm well aware of what Wahhabism is so please enough with the wiki copy and paste. Had we not invaded Iraq and created the terrorist hell hole it became IS clearly would not exist. Sure, Wahhabism & their extremist followers would continue to exist but they wouldn't be called IS and they wouldn't be as powerful as they are now. You can thank your favorite administration for creating this problem, and Congress of course. If you think Sadam would let this group exist under his rule you're insane. They're born out of fighting the US forces, look it up on wiki, it's all there.

It's clear the US & friends have an agenda for destabilizing the ME and that plan is in for full swing.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills




Agree to disagree. I'm well aware of what Wahhabism is so please enough with the wiki copy and paste.


No.




Had we not invaded Iraq and created the terrorist hell hole it became IS clearly would not exist


The invasion isn't what created it. The current administration cutting, and running, and doing deals with them created the current cluster eff there.

As evident in the op.




You can thank your favorite administration for creating this problem, and Congress of course


Administration ?

Clearly IGNORED THE OP.

That was a certain congressman from Texas in the 80s that created the problem.




If you think Sadam would let this group exist under his rule you're insane.


Comments like that shows just how effed up the situation has become.

When brutal dictatorships are seen as a 'better' option.

The Gadaffis,the Assads,the Saddams.




They're born out of fighting the US forces, look it up on wiki, it's all there.


They are born out of radical Islamic theocracies. Which is the entire ME is made up of.


edit on 10-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
What we fail to realize is that once Assad is toppled you get a more ruthless dictatorship in it's wake.

And it won't be secular.

Plus the smaller marginalized militias will begin a new campaign against this new government, and in that vacuum another terrorist group forms and repeats the process.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: yourmaker




What we fail to realize is that once Assad is toppled you get a more ruthless dictatorship in it's wake.


They sure do.

It will be a puppet regime of the Shia sect of Islam.

And no it won't be secular.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No.. by giving weapons to insurgents in Libya, and then Syria (who split up and formed the actual real life isis - as opposed to the previous online incarnations).



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No is right. Shockingly, you blame this all on Obama. Ignoring the OP? Well from your wiki links I found this,




ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—later commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 1999, which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[67][70] During the 2003–2011 Iraq War, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council and consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI /ˈaɪsɪ/).[70][71] At its height it enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city.[72][73][74][75] However, the violent attempts by the Islamic State of Iraq to govern its territory led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis and other insurgent groups circa 2008, which helped to propel the Awakening movement and a temporary decline in the group.[70][76]


So let me ask you, the Bush administration is at no fault for the creation of IS but Obama is?

Shocking.

Btw, as sad as it is Iraq was better off with Sadam than the terrorist state it has become. Sadam is another story all together, who put him into power? The ME is where it's at with much help from the west over the past century.
edit on 10-9-2014 by Swills because: Typing on a smart phone is hard



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

That would be impossible though. These militants were switching partners and allegiances like swingers at a key party.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Yes, lets arm them, so we can have a second tier of ISIS
I love it when our government spends our tax money to fund our enemies.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Agreed! The truly sad thing is, I long for the days of brutal dictators. Seemed somewhat safer. Then we had to go mucking around, bringing Democracy and peace not understanding that, for the most part, they want neither.

Now we've become too war-weary to try and restore order. God help the Yazidis because no one else really wants to.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Oh now someone wants to read the supplied links.
Alrightie then:


A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia


Why do people IGNORE THIS ?


the Peshawar Seven and the Tehran Eight.


Then WHY DO THEY IGNORE THAT ?


The Peshawar Seven insurgents received military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[9] as well as weapons and billions of dollars from the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and other countries


Seems to me that was before ole GW's time.



al-Qaeda (/ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KY-də; Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʿidah, Arabic: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ], translation: "The Base" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamist and Wahhabist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam,[24][25] and several other militants,[26] at some point between August 1988[27] and late 1989,[2


Then THEY IGNORE THAT.


Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden.[68] By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians.[69] Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.[68] A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[70]


And then they IGNORE THAT.

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess some people would hate WIKI since it blows holes in the false narrative of 'it's Bush's fault.

Of course they are CLEARLY ignore the Iraq war resolution:

That gave ole GW congressional approval and listed MANY Reasons:

Among them are



Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.




Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.




Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.




The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them




The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.




The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.


And this one that was linked earlier that quite a few IGNORED because it didn't fit the GD false narrative some people are claiming because the US is behind everything wrong in the ME.,



The civil war in Syria, whose Alawite regime Saudi Arabia's Sunny monarchy has long plotted against, and the prospect of a war with Shiite Iran over its reported drive to acquire nuclear weapons, preoccupy Riyadh while, Abdallah, Canute-like, strives to keep the democratic wave from breaking on its shores. Read more: www.upi.com...


Bin Laden was Saudi.

AQ and ISIS that just changed it's GD name hell that was linked for all to read earlier too but hell IGNORE it anyway.



Since its formation in early 1999; as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ), the group has had a number of different names, including some that other groups use for it.[10][70] In October 2004, the group leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and changed the name of the group to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers," more commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).[10][83] Although the group has never called itself "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", this name has frequently been used to describe it through its various incarnations.[12] In January 2006, AQI merged with several smaller Iraqi insurgent groups under an umbrella organization called the "Mujahideen Shura Council." This was little more than a media exercise and an attempt to give the group a more Iraqi flavour and perhaps to distance al-Qaeda from some of al-Zarqawi's tactical errors, notably the 2005 bombings by AQI of three hotels in Amman.[84] Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006, after which the group direction shifted again. On 12 October 2006, the Mujahideen Shura Council joined four more insurgent factions and the representatives of a number of Iraqi Arab tribes, and together they swore the traditional Arab oath of allegiance known as Ḥilf al-Muṭayyabīn ("Oath of the Scented Ones").[85][86] During the ceremony, the participants swore to free Iraq's Sunnis from what they described as Shia and foreign oppression, and to further the name of Allah and restore Islam to glory.[c][85] On 13 October 2006, the establishment of the Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah, "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI) was announced.[10][87] A cabinet was formed and Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi became ISI's figurehead emir, with the real power residing with the Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri.[88] The declaration was met with hostile criticism, not only from ISI's jihadist rivals in Iraq, but from leading jihadist ideologues outside the country.[89] Al-Baghdadi and al-Masri were both killed in a US–Iraqi operation in April 2010. The next leader of the ISI was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the current leader of ISIS. On 8 April 2013, having expanded into Syria, the group adopted the name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", also known as "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham."[90][91][92] The name is abbreviated as ISIS or alternately ISIL. The final "S" in the acronym ISIS stems from the Arabic word Shām (or Shaam), which in the context of global jihad (e.g. Jund al-Sham) refers to the Levant or Greater Syria.[93][94] ISIS was also known as al-Dawlah ("the State"), or al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State"). These are short-forms of the name "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" in Arabic; it is similar to calling the United States of America "the States".[95] ISIS's detractors, particularly in Syria, refer to the group as "Da'ish" or "Daesh", (داعش), a term that is based on an acronym formed from the letters of the name in Arabic, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham.[96][97] The group considers the term derogatory and reportedly uses flogging as a punishment for people who use the acronym in ISIS-controlled areas.[98][99] On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.[97] The debate over which acronym should be used to designate the group, ISIL or ISIS, has been discussed by several commentators.[94][95] On 29 June 2014, the establishment of a new caliphate was announced, and the group formally changed its name to the "Islamic State".[5][100][101][d] In late August 2014, a leading Islamic authority Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah in Egypt advised Muslims to stop calling the group "Islamic State" and instead refer to it as "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", due to the militant group's un-Islamic character.[103][104]

edit on 10-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No one ignores Saudi's role, or Qatar, or any other ME nation supporting terrorism. Should we ignore that Bush and friends love the Saudi's? Why did we invade Afghanistan after 9/11 when all but 1 hijacker was Saudi? Saudi is definitely a problem but so are their friends. And by Bush I definitely include his father but if it makes you feel better we can blame Clinton as well because I know how much you love to blame democrats.

Fact is IS was born out of fighting US forces in Iraq. Argue and misdirect all you want but facts are facts.
edit on 10-9-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills




Should we ignore that Bush and friends love the Saudi's?


Guess I will since certain people are IGNORING what I have said.

FURTHERMORE they can IGNORE that relationship with Saudi BEGAN LONG BEFORE GW was ever elected.

Hell it started with FDR, and has been 'cultivated' by every Potus since.



During his crisis meeting with King Fahd last weekend, Cheney recalled, the Saudi king had spoken of the two countries' historic relationship dating back to a meeting between his father, King Abdulaziz ibn Saud, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt.


articles.latimes.com...

www.ameu.org...

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
edit on 10-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


ETA:



Ibn Saud had conquered most of the Arabian peninsula and consolidated it into one kingdom with the help of the fanatically religious Wahhabi Bedouins, who believed, among other things, that dying in battle was a ticket to paradise, that all images, from pictures to statues, had to be destroyed, that drinking and smoking and singing and dancing were sins punishable by whipping, and so forth.


articles.baltimoresun.com...

1945.




Sound familiar?


Sure does, but hey it's all 'Bush's fault'!
edit on 10-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I love that everything is easily all Obamas fault but Bush, in your world, is never at any fault. Bush and friends, along with congress, are at complete fault for invading Iraq, an invasion IS was born out of. But you blame IS on Obama...

It easy to ignore what you said, just as it's easy for you to ignore what others have said. That all said, I haven't ignored anything, you just assume I do because I don't respond with lengthy, exhausting posts full of copy and paste. I do wish I had the time to respond to you in such a manner but I'm not in front of a computer but rather on my smart phone posting while on the go.

So as always, agree to mostly disagree.

But on the topic of IS and Saudi, this just broke.

Saudi Arabia Indicates It Will Grant U.S. Request for Anti-ISIS Training Program


mobile.com...


AMMAN, Jordan — Saudi Arabia has indicated that it would agree to an American request to provide bases to train moderate Syrian opposition fighters, American officials said on Wednesday. Saudi willingness to host a training program comes as Secretary of State John Kerry is preparing to fly to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Thursday morning for a high-level strategy session on how to counter to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

edit on 10-9-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills




I love that everything is easily all Obamas fault but Bush, in your world, is never at any fault. Bush and friends, along with congress, are at complete fault for invading Iraq, an invasion IS was born out of. But you blame IS on Obama...


Your GD right I do.

Between the asinine ROES since he took over.

Him arming,and funding the muslim brotherhood in Egypt.

His asinine 'we came we saw Gadaffi died' 'action' in Libya.

Trading terrorists for 1 deserter.

Unilaterally sticking his head in the sand and declaring the war on terror over.

The current administration OWNS the current problems in the middle east.

Because it can't decide if it wants to fight them, arm them, or trade with them.

At least with Bush the guy invaded to countries to KILL them.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'll probably take a lot of flak for this, but the right course of action (as far as fighting IS goes), is to work WITH Assad, not against him. Reach an agreement with him as far as a strategy to stamp out ISIS. Without the Syrian government's cooperation, it will be impossible. If you eradicate them from Iraq, they will scurry back to Syria like the cockroaches they are.

Work with Assad, work with Iraq, even Iran. Stamp out this "Islamic State" once and for all. Set about killing them all, from the lowliest grunt on up to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Worry about the situation in Syria once the dust settles.

My personal opinion (and it has been since the situation in Syria descended into chaos) is that Assad, however wicked, pales in comparison to the islamic militants he is fighting in Syria. Does anyone remember the "moderate" who ate the heart of a Syrian soldier? It's time to face the facts: There ARE NO MODERATES LEFT. The FSA is a shadow of it's former self, with most of it's members either having been killed, or defected to more extreme groups. These militants switch allegiances like underwear (or loincloths or whatever it is they wear).

We've seen intelligence reports that have indicated the very "moderate" militants being clandestinely trained in Jordan by U.S forces in anti-tank warfare turned around and joined ISIS shortly after.

Assad is no angel, but in this case it is better the devil you know. If you want to stamp out ISIS, there is only one way to do it, and it's to restore order to Syria and to work with Assad to target ISIS positions. The situation will only get worse if the U.S decides to do it themselves through opposition channels.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join