US is funding Al-Qaeda in Syria

[behindmydesk]

So let me get this straight... Some of the same people that fight against us when we are attempting to dominate the middle east are fighting against Assads governement, who is attempting to dominate the people in a country of the middle east? Well DUH kids. At least we are not pulling a Russia and placing stability over freedom for their people. (though in the end I think we will end up supporting the replacement of one type of oppression for another).

Yes I think we should stop giving or selling weapons around the world. No I don't think Terrorism is necessarily bad, these peoploe fighting against Assad tanks are going to use improvised explosive devices... what the hell else they going to do. When faced with an adversary with superior numbers, and superior fire power, Guerrilla and terror tactics are pretty much what there is. The US has used them when we were not superior and they have been used against us. They are not any more inherently evil than any other military tactic.

To add to this, and I agree with the top and the bottom, I agree that it's over blown what's happening, but I also agree I wish it wouldn't happen. But American's platform seems to be the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a vicious cycle, and I'm not sure how to stop it honestly. Wish it would

[nastynice]

Yea because so many people stay in there place.

I'm not talking about little blips here and there. If a true revolution starts to form, and truly starts to get momentum, and a true threat to the current power structure is generated, I promise you those people will be marks.

I got to ask who am I suppose to fear

Wall Street?
Democrats?
Rotchchilds?
Illuminit?
Bush?
Democrats?
Kony?
Aids?
Syria?
US government?
UN?
Soros?
Koch Brothers?

ur not supposed to fear anyone, ur just supposed to be aware (if you choose).

Another question if the rich own the government and the government owns the people, and the people make the rich, rich, which then feeds the government, then why will the government kill off people, thus costing the rich, and the government income, and people to rule?

now ur getting it!!

[nastynice]

what the hell else they going to do. When faced with an adversary with superior numbers, and superior fire power, Guerrilla and terror tactics are pretty much what there is. The US has used them when we were not superior and they have been used against us. They are not any more inherently evil than any other military tactic.

truth

[nastynice]

To add to this, and I agree with the top and the bottom, I agree that it's over blown what's happening, but I also agree I wish it wouldn't happen. But American's platform seems to be the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a vicious cycle, and I'm not sure how to stop it honestly. Wish it would

Why IS assad the enemy? I don't know much about Syria, I'm pretty ignorant about the situation in general, but what is this all about? how did they come out of nowhere and turn into the "enemy"?

[flips333]

Why IS assad the enemy? I don't know much about Syria, I'm pretty ignorant about the situation in general, but what is this all about? how did they come out of nowhere and turn into the "enemy"?

Simple story. He attacked unarmed protesters with tanks. And has oppressed his population with violence for decades.

The long story... well honestly no matter how smart BMD is he's probably not the right person to give you a history lesson on the subject. And as nice as the internet is at providing information, it's also filled with hoey. I would suggest instead go to a library, and ask a librarian to help you pick out a book on the history of dicatorship as well as US involvement in the middle east.

[The Schmooze]

To add to this, and I agree with the top and the bottom, I agree that it's over blown what's happening, but I also agree I wish it wouldn't happen. But American's platform seems to be the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a vicious cycle, and I'm not sure how to stop it honestly. Wish it would

Why stop it when it's so profitable for corporations, and the politicians that represent them?

Worst case scenario is arming the enemy of the enemy of our friend leads to war, and these same people make even more money off it.

[nastynice]

Simple story. He attacked unarmed protesters with tanks. And has oppressed his population with violence for decades.

The long story... well honestly no matter how smart BMD is he's probably not the right person to give you a history lesson on the subject. And as nice as the internet is at providing information, it's also filled with hoey. I would suggest instead go to a library, and ask a librarian to help you pick out a book on the history of dicatorship as well as US involvement in the middle east.

Ok, if this is indeed the extent of the story, what's so different from what he's doing than let's say what Pinochet did? Why wasn't Pinochet ever the enemy? There are political leaders doing this other places in the world, why are we not campaigning to the same degree against them?

I'm not saying what ur saying is wrong, but I think its logical to assume there's got to be more to it than his mistreatment of his population

[flips333]

Ok, if this is indeed the extent of the story, what's so different from what he's doing than let's say what Pinochet did? Why wasn't Pinochet ever the enemy? There are political leaders doing this other places in the world, why are we not campaigning to the same degree against them?

I'm not saying what ur saying is wrong, but I think its logical to assume there's got to be more to it than his mistreatment of his population

All this why wasn't this person the enemy BS is silly. Why is that logical? We supported Mubarek for years because he supported our interests, but when his people rose and said no more we stood by the people... which it could be argued was both against the interests of our country and representative of the better part of America's nature. Are you suggesting we have a secret plan in egypt?

To say why is this person our enemy when that person wasn't is kind of silly, and to use it as an example isn't logical. Just because we failed to do what was right in one situation doesn't mean we should fail to do what is right again. Our involvement with pinochet came out of a fear of communism... we could make the same mistake today our of fear of islamo-facism. Or we can support governments that allow for free elections around the world, regardless of their elections turning out not so favorably for us, without handing people guns. Do that long enough then who's going to be left who hates us?

[nastynice]

All this why wasn't this person the enemy BS is silly. Why is that logical? We supported Mubarek for years because he supported our interests, but when his people rose and said no more we stood by the people... which it could be argued was both against the interests of our country and representative of the better part of America's nature. Are you suggesting we have a secret plan in egypt?

To say why is this person our enemy when that person wasn't is kind of silly, and to use it as an example isn't logical. Just because we failed to do what was right in one situation doesn't mean we should fail to do what is right again. Our involvement with pinochet came out of a fear of communism... we could make the same mistake today our of fear of islamo-facism. Or we can support governments that allow for free elections around the world, regardless of their elections turning out not so favorably for us, without handing people guns. Do that long enough then who's going to be left who hates us?

Its logical to ask because if there is no answer for it then that means there is a major hole in the reasoning. I'm just trying to understand the situation. To say the sole reason they have intervened in syria or libyia is to protect the voice of the people is extremely naive. This is abc's, I don't see how this can even be argued.

I don't know what's going on in egypt. However, I do know that at least on surface level the u.s. never sided with the egyptian people until it was obvious that mubarak's overthrow was going to happen no matter what. To me it just seemed more of a pr campaign than anything. Are we overthrowing the governments of saudi? bahrain?

These are legit questions. Without having answers for these questions, it is reasonable to assume there is more to the situation that what appears on the surface.

[flips333]

Its logical to ask because if there is no answer for it then that means there is a major hole in the reasoning. I'm just trying to understand the situation. To say the sole reason they have intervened in syria or libyia is to protect the voice of the people is extremely naive. This is abc's, I don't see how this can even be argued.

I don't know what's going on in egypt. However, I do know that at least on surface level the u.s. never sided with the egyptian people until it was obvious that mubarak's overthrow was going to happen no matter what. To me it just seemed more of a pr campaign than anything. Are we overthrowing the governments of saudi? bahrain?

These are legit questions. Without having answers for these questions, it is reasonable to assume there is more to the situation that what appears on the surface.

So if you have a lack of understanding read a book.

[Your Daddy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxqYn...layer_embedded

Of course if any one of us donated to Al-Qaeda we'd be imprisoned, and if any one of us refused to pay our taxes because of this we'd also be imprisoned.

Furthermore... this is the type of **** that got us into this Middle East mess to begin with... when are the people of this country going to decide enough is enough?

The U.S. has a long history of funding whoever we believe will most protect our interests regardless of how virtuous or dubious they are. If we think we'll be better off with a homicidal maniac running a foreign country, we will make it happen. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we were trumping up the involvement of Al Queda in Syria as an excuse to intervene and promote our preferred end game in the country.