The True Measure Of A Mans Character Is What He Would Do If He Believed He Would Never Be Caught
Monday, June 10, 2013
Question...Why are we Fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but Arming Al Qaeda in Syria?
Question...Why are we Fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but Arming Al Qaeda in Syria?
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted to send a bill to
the floor for a vote that authorizes “critical support to the Syrian
opposition through provision of military assistance, training, and
additional humanitarian support.”
The bill's official title is the Syria Transition Support Act,
and its two co-authors were Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator
Bob Corker (R-TN). Aside from providing weaponry and armamments, the
bill includes:
• “Creation of a $250 million transition fund each year through FY2015
drawn from funds otherwise appropriated for regional transition
support”;
• “Sanctions on arms and oil sales to Assad: Targeting any person that
the President of the United States determines has knowingly
participated in or facilitated a transaction related to the sale or
transfer of military equipment, arms, petroleum, or petroleum products
to the Assad regime.”; and
• “Amendment to the Syria Accountability Act: To allow for sanctions
removal once a transitional government is in place and certain terrorism
and WMD criteria have been met.”
That last one is important, and we'll return to it later.
The bill easily got through committee 15-3, and the only Senator to offer meaningful opposition was Senator Rand Paul ( R-KY).
“This is an important moment. You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda,” Paul said.
The biggest and most prominent armed factions in the Syrian resistance
are outright al-Qaeda affiliates like Jabhat al-Nusra and the Syrian
Free Army, which is a mixture of Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda
dominated factions. Even the new 'official' Syrian resistance groups
President Obama formed as a figleaf, the Syrian Opposition
Coalition,(SOC)and the associated Joint Military Council are dominated
by the Muslim Brotherhood.The leader of the SOC is one Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib,
former imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, a religious cleric
closely allied to the Damascus branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and
fairly hardline and radical himself.
Senator Paul tried to tack two amendments on to the bill, one that would
have forbidden the transfer of weapons to the radical Islamists of the
rebel forces and another that would have prevented the use of U.S.
military armed forces in Syria.
Both were voted down.
There were the usual pro-forma remarks from Paul's colleagues about
'oversight' and transparency' but in the end, there's nothing to stop
the Syrian rebels from simply telling us what we want to hear to get
weapons and our money, and then turning those guns on whomever they
wish...including us. The Qu'ran tells Muslims explicitly that any
promise made to kuffars (non-Muslims), any treaty or agreement is null
and void whenever it's convenient.
Anyone taken a look at what's happening in Afghanistan lately?
Just for the record, (not that it matters), the original Authorization
for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted after 9/11 specifically
called for finding and destroying al-Qaeda..and here we are a few years
later voting to supply arms to them!
What this is setting the stage for is a formalization of President's
Obama's desire to put Islamists in charge of yet another Muslim country.
What happened in Benghazi
was a failed Fast and Furious style covert attempt to purchase and
send weapons from Khaddaffi's arsenals to the Syrian rebels. That
failed, so now we're going to be doing it openly.
Americans traditionally rally behind a sitting president when there's a
foreign intervention or crisis, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a
U.S. intervention in Syria wasn't timed to head off the fallout from the
massive scandals the Obama regime finds itself entangled in of late.
No comments:
Post a Comment