Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Feel free to call everyone terrorists if it makes you feel like you are 'winning' an argument.
I agree with Finn_Jarber, it is unfair to call ISIS terrorists. They are freedom fighters for Allah as Muhammed dictates and moderate rebels in the face of an extreme Assad, who should be removed to create another power vacuum. Assad stands for extreme principles like intolerable religious freedom.
It is important that we keep funding/supplying ISIS or at least get something in exchange for stopping. I think Finn_Jarber made a good point that we should make Russia guarantee that they leave ISIS alone.
Thanks for proving my point. Even your article says ISIS captured the weapons from Iraqi army, and the rebels. So, your claims about "US funds ISIS" are dishonest.
Thanks for proving my point. Even your article says ISIS captured the weapons from Iraqi army, and the rebels. So, your claims about "US funds ISIS" are dishonest.
Whatever gets you through the night
Have a nice day.
That makes people feel better. They are all the same groups.
I haven't heard one military leader that thought this was a good idea, at least not from our country. We should have received something in return, what happened to all the supposed negotiation skills.
I'm not sure why you are LOL. Your link contains no evidence of US aid in chemical attacks on the Kurds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
I posted over a dozen links showing that under Obama we armed ISIS and Al Qaeda frequently.
Are you really that big of a sheep? Are you really denying that we did this under Obama?
You ignored that Carter started the arming of Afghan rebels, you deny Obama arming ISIS and Al Qaeda in his pursuit for "moderate rebels." Use your brain - Partisan sheep are ruining this country.
Please explain specifically how the Obama-Bush doctrine of removing Muslim leaders in unstable areas is beneficial. Who will fill the void in places like Libya? Syria? Iraq? How many civilians die as we remove leaders that battle terrorist groups and then pour in weapons?
Are you proud that ISIS and Al Qaeda are using US weapons courtesy of Obama to collect and rape sex slaves, kill gays for being gay, kill religious minorities, etc... The US is the biggest arms dealer on planet earth (some of which goes to radical Muslim terrorists free of charge)...
How many people resent the US, because ISIS and Al Qaeda are given US weapons to terrorize them and then we drone them from the skies...collateral damage...
Your links do not show that Obama armed ISIS and Al Qaeda. Your premise is flawed because you don't have evidence.
The program to fund Afghan Jihadis was initiated when Carter was President, but the funding was just $20M per year in 1980, the last year of Carter's Administration. In 1987, the funding level was almost $700M per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
I assume by war crimes you mean the Aleppo campaign. Guess what? The war over Aleppo is over, or would you rather have the meat grinder slowly but surely continue today. Hiroshima was bombed to finish it once and for all. You do what you have to do.
Aleppo is far from the only war crime committed by Syria and its Russian ally.
Have you heard about Fallujah, or Mosul where Iraqis slaughtered ISIS using US arms. Yes, there were times where they were overran, and ISIS was able to capture some of the US made weapons, but that sometimes happens in war. Some Viet Cong also carried M-16s. To twist that into "US is arming ISIS" is dishonest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.