Syria pick 'em: A-holes vs D!ckhead

Syria - Would both sides please lose

Obama Administration to supply arms to Syrian rebels

The best thing that can possibly happen in Syria is for both sides to continue fighting and killing each other. There is no 'good' side in this conflict. Assad is your typical Middle East brutal tyrant and most of the opposition is now aligned with al Qaeda. We have no way of controlling where our military aid will wind up if we assist the rebels. They will likely be used against Western targets at some point in the future. As bad as Assad is, at least he had been contained. He was a domestic problem. If his regime falls it will be Israel that will be at greatest risk. Since the Obama administration has already participated in the destabilization of Israel's relatively stable neighbor, Egypt, would it be too much to ask for Obama not to arm dangerously unstable enemies on Israel's northern border? Under Obama's watch we have abandoned Iraq to sectarian violence, encouraged the overthrow of a supportive regime in Egypt, helped known al Qaeda-backed rebels come to power in Libya and are now going to provide military aid to rebels in Syria. If the Obama Administration's plan was to undermine Israel's security, this is how you would do it. And to top it off, Obama just named Samantha Power, an academic who proposed military occupation of Israel to enforce a 'peace plan', to be our next ambassador to the United Nations. Israel is the only true democracy in that region. Israel has been a strong ally of the United States. They deserve better than this. We have, in a few short years, turned what was a relatively stable regional power balance into a boiling cauldron that threatens to engulf Israel and endanger Western Europe and the United States. That is not smart and it is not the course of action that a president would take if he had the best interests of the United States and our allies at heart.


Most successful Syrian rebel groups affiliated with al Qaeda

I am appalled by the utter foolishness and ignorance of those saying that we should provide military aid and support to the Syrian rebels. This is an emotionally driven position that doesn't stand up to the most cursory of reality checks. Just as with Libya, the Syrian rebels include groups that are allied with al Qaeda. As with Libya, the al-Qaeda-allied rebels are the most effective, as their ranks are salted with veterans of jihad in other conflicts (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan). As with Libya, only the al Qaeda-allied rebels are driven by a motivation that will outlast the overthrow of the Assad regime. As with Libya, the al-Qaeda-allied rebels will have a pre-existing organisation that can transition to governance after victory. These are facts. We already know these facts. Just as we knew that 20% of all foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans and that they formed the core of the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi. We knew that a significant percentage of the Libyan rebels were jihadis who had fought against the United States and who would bring their Islamist fanaticism to the rebellion. We knew that al-Qaeda would gain a foothold in post-Gaddafi Libya and yet we still armed and trained the rebels and used US/NATO air power to aid in their victory. what was the result? Well, the Eastern half of Libya is now run by al-Qaeda and they attacked our consulate, killing four Americans. You would think that would be enough of an example to dispel any thought of supporting the Syrian rebels. No. Because we have idiots in office who can't think beyond tomorrow morning's headlines, we will support the Syrian rebels. Just as with Libya, we will be seeking the overthrow of a relatively stable, contained regime and encouraging the formation of an Islamist state. This is destabilizing to say the least. If the al-Qaeda-backed al Nusrah Front wins they will have control of Syria's chemical weapons inventory. Is that what we want. Do we want to arm al-Qaeda-backed jihadis with chemical weapons. That is madness. The best course of action is to allow Russia to continue arming Assad's forces and have the fight continue as long as possible. An extended civil war in Syria to continue to draw ideologically driven Islamist jihadis; reducing the number that will be available to launch attacks elsewhere. It will also ensure that the Assad regime will be weakened for at least a decade. Those are both positives for the US, Europe and Israel. Sometimes we have to make hard decisions. There is no good course of action in this situation; just that which will hurt us the least.


FSA arming al Qaeda-affiliated rebels

Kind of makes you wonder why the Obama Administration and the media like to waste so much time on unimportant domestic issues like Trayvon Martin, women's 'reproductive health care' and gay marriage. It really keeps the attention off the fact that they are arming ANOTHER Muslim rebellion with strong ties to Islamist terrorist organizations.


"They treated us like infidels"

This sums up why I don't really give a rat's ass who wins in Syria, Egypt, Libya or any other Islamic sh!thole. The only thing that should concern us is our own national interests. And when even the 'moderates' hate us, why should we do a damned thing to help them if it isn't in our interests?


Al Qaeda kills FSA commander

The Obama Administration is arming Syrian rebels. They tell us that they are only arming the 'good' rebels and ask us to believe that the arms won't fall into the hands of the al Queda-backed rebels. At this point you would have to be an idiot to believe the Obama Administration when it comes to Middle East policy......or just about anything else. Either this administration is the most ignorant and incompetent group of fools ever to come together in Washington D.C. or they seriously want to support the spread of violent Islamism throughout the world.......and, no, those two options are not mutually exclusive.