Syria

Out of context: Reply #96

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 253 Responses
  • ukit20

    "i think assisting the rebellion without actually arming them isn't out of the interest of humanity. with a small engagement from airstrikes, the US could deal a blow to assad's militarism on innocent civilians without risking much at all in the way of US casualities or costs."

    What everyone seems to be missing is that we ARE arming and funding the rebels. Obama authorized covert action to overthrow the Assad regime around a year ago.

    This is the new paradigm. Instead of a full-on invasion, which Iraq showed is costly and disastrous, we go to war largely using proxy armies. Then when needed, call in the cavalry in the form of U.S. airstrikes in order to finish things ff. The people on the ground think they are fighting for sectarian or religious purposes, but are really serving the interests of powers like the U.S.

    There are CIA training camps in Jordan and Turkey where the U.S. has been teaching the rebels to fight, providing them with weapons, and sending them out onto the battlefield. This is not conspiracy theory but well reported in the mainstream press:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013…

    And then there is the role of Qatar and Saudi Arabia who are providing billions in funding and weapons for the rebels. Qatar is the location of U.S. Central Command in the Middle East, obviously it's not exactly happening without our knowledge or permission.

    So now we're supposed to believe we need to take action to stop the bloodshed...in a war we have helped create and perpetuate. Anyone see the slight contradiction there?

    • i thought we ceased arming them?colin_s
    • Why would we do that?
      http://www.jpost.com…
      ukit2
    • comon colin, do you think they're in for the syrian children? go reread the wiki links and connect the dots to the present warsGeorgesIV
    • the present wars and conflicts around the world, have you ever heard the term the "long con"GeorgesIV

View thread