Obama admits that even if the US armed terrorists in Syria, Alasad will still win

[Syrian Lion]

That's right, there is no "moderate rebels" or a "moderate opposition", there is only the ISIS and the Obama is denying his country had anything to do with them.

there would be no strong ISIS is Obama didn't support chaos in Syria... Obama had everything to do with them, since he supported chaos and war... compare Syria before and after "democracy"...

 

[Cheetah786]

Again Mr Syria Lion, the title is giving the notion that the US did not arm ISIS. Victory will come when the war is over. However, at the moment the tyrant is still busy dropping barrel bombs on civilian populations in his own country.

LoL what do u expect him to shower the terrorist with rose pedals. And the American president to openly admit that they armed and trained terrorist against Syria and lost . It isn't exactly that big of secret who was behind FSA and other terrorist in Syria.

 

[British Muslim]

LoL what do u expect him to shower the terrorist with rose pedals. And the American president to openly admit that they armed and trained terrorist against Syria and lost . It isn't exactly that big of secret who was behind FSA and other terrorist in Syria.

I wonder had your family been living in a refugee camp in Syria and Assad was indiscriminately dropping barrel bombs on them, which side you would support?

 

[Cheetah786]

I wonder had your family been living in a refugee camp in Syria and Assad was indiscriminately dropping barrel bombs on them, which side you would support?

Was your family in the refugee camp when it was bombed.

99 % of people of Pakistan are supporting Pakistan armed forces to bomb and kill terrorist where ever the hide in Pakistan.only ones upset are the terrorist and their sympatizers

 

[British Muslim]

Was your family in the refugee camp when it was bombed.

99 % of people of Pakistan are supporting Pakistan armed forces to bomb and kill terrorist where ever the hide in Pakistan.only ones upset are the terrorist and their sympatizers

I wonder had your family been amongst the 300,000 refugees fleeing the Waziristan region, what would be your opinion? Well, first of all you probably wouldn't be tip, tapping away on a computer so comfortably.

Makes me wonder why 300,000 refugees did not flee Waziristan while the Taliban were living amidst them but they've had run for their lives as soon as the pious soldiers have come to save them?

 

[That Guy]

you better read the article again...

at least this part

"I think this notion that somehow there was this ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat [Syrian President Bashar] Assad is simply not true, and, you know, we have spent a lot of time trying to work with a moderate opposition in Syria," the president said in the interview taped Friday.

Plus how am I misleading people, when I provided the source, it would be misleading if I didn't provide source... changing the title is not that big of deal, since it means the same thing, Alasad would not be defeated, Alasad will still win.. no difference...

You're the one who is butt hurt, since you're trying to focus on something meaning less ( the title) while the main thing from this article is that Obama arming terrorists will not defeat Alasad as Obama himself said it...

and what hypocrisy? I said Obama did an interview with that tv station, even if he did with Israeli tv I would have posted, this is not about the tv station or the source it is about what Obama is saying, so stop worrying about childish things such as the title or the with whom did Obama conduct an interview with..

I've read the article multiple times, trying my best to see how you could come to your conclusion, but I can't see it at all.

I think you need to read the article yourself. Let me break the quote you provided, down for you?

"I think this notion that somehow there was this ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat [Syrian President Bashar] Assad is simply not true, and, you know, we have spent a lot of time trying to work with a moderate opposition in Syria," the president said in the interview taped Friday.

He's not saying that the FSA will lose, and Assad will win, what he's saying is that they're under trained and under-equipped, they don't have the capabilities that Al-Assad has (at least in the beginning), which is completely true. He's also saying that simply giving them weapons won't do any good, because if they don't have the training to use them, the weapons are nothing more than door stops.

Now, providing a source, and misrepresenting what it says is misleading, or it shows that you're incompetent. Either way, it doesn't look good on you. Changing the title is a big deal, because it doesn't mean the same thing as what the article says, NOWHERE does it say that Assad will win; it says that the opposition don't have the capability to overthrow him. It means a stalemate, not a victory by Assad. A stalemate doesn't mean a defeat.

He's also saying that there are so many rebel groups, with many of them being extremist, that it's hard for the moderate forces to gain large enough numbers to counter the extremists, and Assad at the same time. Again, read the damn article, BEFORE you post.

You're purposefully changing the title to suit your interests, this is especially dishonest when the title is a misrepresentation of the article's content. By denying this basic truth, and treating the members on the forum as children, you show just how intellectually dishonest you are.

As for the Hypocrisy, I've pointed this out before, but you seem to ignore it. You're using western sources that you say shouldn't be trusted, you've also claimed that Obama is a liar in the past, so why are you using this as evidence? This is a double standard on your part.

Show me where it say in the article that Assad will win? One single place, that's all I ask. If you do, I'll admit I'm wrong. In fact, I'll save you the trouble of doing it. Nowhere in the article does it say that Assad will win, and the opposition will lose, not one place. This is either intellectual dishonesty on your part, or sheer incompetence.

I wonder had your family been amongst the 300,000 refugees fleeing the Waziristan region, what would be your opinion? Well, first of all you probably wouldn't be tip, tapping away on a computer so comfortably.

Makes me wonder why 300,000 refugees did not flee Waziristan while the Taliban were living amidst them but they've had run for their lives as soon as the pious soldiers have come to save them?

Because there was no military operation going on, so they could afford to stay without having to worry about fighting between the Taliban and the military. Once fighting starts, people leave, if it's peaceful, the people don't care who's in charge, as long as it doesn't affect their daily lives.

You're a moron, and if I were a mod, I'd have you banned permanently.

 

[Cheetah786]

I wonder had your family been amongst the 300,000 refugees fleeing the Waziristan region, what would be your opinion? Well, first of all you probably wouldn't be tip, tapping away on a computer so comfortably.

Makes me wonder why 300,000 refugees did not flee Waziristan while the Taliban were living amidst them but they have run for their lives when the pious soldiers come to save them?

You sound upset that terrorist are being sent to hell . Your love of terrorist makes one wonder .

 

[Syrian Lion]

@That Guy the article title says it... do you know what the word fantasy means??

and you seem to not understand anything.. Obama conducted the interview with that tv station, thus that was only way to post it here, he didn't conducted with the Syrian tv, with Russian tv, and etc... so get over it... plus this is not a report to say it is propaganda, it is an interview where obama admits that F$A winning is a FANTASY... get it over it... and the title in my opinion make perfect sense, not defeating Alasad means Alasad winning... Obama didn't even mention the word stalemate... and read the article again, you asked where did he say Alasad is winning, he said Alasad will not be defeated... so now you show me where Obama said stalemate...

 

[That Guy]

@That Guy the article title says it... do you know what the word fantasy means??

Read the fucking title yourself...
Obama: Notion that Syrian opposition could have overthrown Assad with U.S. arms a "fantasy"

Stop lying to everyone, god damn it. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You continue to misrepresent what the article says, and you continue to misrepresent what the title of the article says. It does NOT say that Assad would win, it does NOT say that the opposition would lose, it's giving you a conditional situation, nothing more! Fucking go back to school, if you can't even be bothered to use your damn critical thinking skills.

and you seem to not understand anything.. Obama conducted the interview with that tv station, thus that was only way to post it here, he didn't conducted with the Syrian tv, with Russian tv, and etc... so get over it... plus this is not a report to say it is propaganda, it is an interview where obama admits that F$A winning is a FANTASY... get it over it... and the title in my opinion make perfect sense, not defeating Alasad means Alasad winning... Obama didn't even mention the word stalemate... and read the article again, you asked where did he say Alasad is winning, he said Alasad will not be defeated... so now you show me where Obama said stalemate...

I don't seem to understand anything? You keep fucking misrepresenting the article, you keep lying, when I've clearly shown evidence of your lies or sheer incompetence. This is why I don't like talking to you, because you can't fucking admit when you're wrong. I feel like I'm talking to a teenager, who knows nothing about the real world, but likes to pretend he does. Stop taking things out of context, stop misrepresenting other people's quotes, start using critical thinking skills, and start being honest.

God damn it, I'm done.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Read the fucking title yourself...
Obama: Notion that Syrian opposition could have overthrown Assad with U.S. arms a "fantasy"

Stop lying to everyone, god damn it. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You continue to misrepresent what the article says, and you continue to misrepresent what the title of the article says. It does NOT say that Assad would win, it does NOT say that the opposition would lose, it's giving you a conditional situation, nothing more! Fucking go back to school, if you can't even be bothered to use your damn critical thinking skills.


I don't seem to understand anything? You keep fucking misrepresenting the article, you keep lying, when I've clearly shown evidence of your your lies or sheer incompetence. This is why I don't like talking to you, because you can't fucking admit when you're wrong. I feel like I'm talking to a teenager, who knows nothing about the real world, but likes to pretend he does. Stop talking things out of context, stop misrepresenting other people's quotes, start using critical thinking skills, and start being honest.

God damn it, I'm done.

hey little kid, cursing and swearing will not help you.... now show me where Obama said stalemate... again OBAMA SAID THE OPPOSITION WILL NOT DEFEAT ALASAD... THAT FOR ME MEANS ALASAD WILL WIN... unless you don't know what the word defeat means.. my title says Obama admits even if USA armed terrorists in Syria, Alasad will still win, the original title says

Obama: Notion that Syrian opposition could have overthrown Assad with U.S. arms a "fantasy"
So Alasad will not be overthrown or defeated by the US Arms... which is something you are refusing to accept... and you can deny that the US trained the F$A terrorists

and if you are mad about the title tell the mods they will change it... it will still mean the same thing...

 

[That Guy]

hey little kid, cursing and swearing will not help you.... now show me where Obama said stalemate... again OBAMA SAID THE OPPOSITION WILL NOT DEFEAT ALASAD... THAT FOR ME MEANS ALASAD WILL WIN... unless you don't know what the word defeat means.. my title says Obama admits even if USA armed terrorists in Syria, Alasad will still win, the original title says

Obama: Notion that Syrian opposition could have overthrown Assad with U.S. arms a "fantasy"
So Alasad will not be overthrown or defeated by the US Arms... which is something you are refusing to accept... and Obama admits that he trained the F$A terrorists

and if you are mad about the title tell the mods they will change it... it will still mean the same thing...

AGREEING TO ONE THINK DOESN'T MEAN YOU ENDORSE THE OPPOSITE! I CAN HATE ORANGES, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN I AUTOMATICALLY LIKE APPLES!

Use your brain. Obama didn't say Assad will win, he said that the opposition wouldn't be able to overthrow Assad, that's not a fucking endorsement for Assad's victory. This means stalemate, it means statemate in every sense of the term, do you not understand this basic concept? WAR IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE!

I'm mad at your lying ***, I'm mad that the mods can tolerate your constant troll posts, and your constant misrepresenting articles. I couldn't give two shits about your title, what pisses me off is that you're so blinded by your worship of Assad, you fail to look at other people's perspective.

Now I know what "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." truly means.

You've successfully proven how true this quote is, kudos. I'm done, your sheer incompetence has beaten me into submission. You're no smarter than Homer Simpson, when he's drunk.

 

[Syrian Lion]

AGREEING TO ONE THINK DOESN'T MEAN YOU ENDORSE THE OPPOSITE! I CAN HATE ORANGES, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN I AUTOMATICALLY LIKE APPLES!

Use your brain. Obama didn't say Assad will win, he said that the opposition wouldn't be able to overthrow Assad, that's not a fucking endorsement for Assad's victory. This means stalemate, it means statemate in every sense of the term, do you not understand this basic concept? WAR IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE!

I'm mad at your lying ***, I'm mad that the mods can tolerate your constant troll posts, and your constant misrepresenting articles. I couldn't give two shits about your title, what pisses me off is that you're so blinded by your worship of Assad, you fail to look at other people's perspective.

Now I know what "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." truly means.

You've successfully proven how true this article is, kudos. I'm done, your sheer incompetence has beaten me into submission. You're no smarter than Homer Simpson, when he's drunk.

and show me where Obama said stalemate, and I myself will close this thread...

again you're pissed at the title because it says the truth.. so it is okay for you to say that not defeat Alasad means stalemate but it is not okay for me to say not defeat Alasad means Alasad winning... double standard much?

again why is it okay for you to "interpret it" as stalemate, but for some one else not to interpret it as winning or etc is not allowed??

again like I said if you're mad about the title I will tell the mods to fix.. @WebMaster please fix the title...

it would still mean the same thing...

and if I wanted to lie or mislead people I would not have posted the source... they can easily look at the source and see the original title...

 

[That Guy]

and show me where Obama said stalemate, and I myself will close this thread...

again you're pissed at the title because it says the truth.. so it is okay for you to say that not defeat Alasad means stalemate but it is not okay for me to say not defeat Alasad means Alasad winning... double standard much?

again why is it okay for you to "interpret it" as stalemate, but for some one else not to interpret it as winning or etc is not allowed??

again like I said if you're mad about the title I will tell the mods to fix.. @WebMaster please fix the title...

it would still mean the same thing...

and if I wanted to lie or mislead people I would not have posted the source... they can easily look at the source and see the original title...

Because the US's stance is clear, they've said it multiple times, Obama's office has made it clear that Assad cannot win, so that only leaves one logic conclusion. How about previously available information to base an opinion? This is why I'm calling you intellectually dishonest, because you pick and choose what you want to show to prove your point, but when someone else points out the mistakes in your entire argument, you proceed to not only disagree, but continue to hammer in those mistakes, until the other person just gives up.

This isn't a double standard, what is a double standard is you calling Obama and his administration full of liars, and western media as nothing more than propaganda, but you (again) cherry pick certain articles to try and hammer across your (completely false) points.

It is not about me interpreting something, it's about coming to a logical conclusion, based on known facts. Critical thinking is important in this regard, but you continue to completely ignore this. You don't base your theory on facts, instead, you cherry pick so that you don't have to change your theory.

Nowhere did Obama say that Assad will win, and considering his previous statements, one can only bring up the last possible conclusion as to his way of thinking. Besides, he's right, what do you think is happening in Syria? Has Assad won like you claimed he would? No, it's pretty much a stalemate. He would have lost by now if it weren't for Hezbullah, and Iran.

This is my last reply, I don't care anymore. You've driven me past the point that I've given up on trying to show you your mistakes.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Because the US's stance is clear, they've said it multiple times, Obama's office has made it clear that Assad cannot win, so that only leaves one logic conclusion. How about previously available information to base an opinion? This is why I'm calling you intellectually dishonest, because you pick and choose what you want to show to prove your point, but when someone else points out the mistakes in your entire argument, you proceed to not only disagree, but continue to hammer in those mistakes, until the other person just gives up.

This isn't a double standard, what is a double standard is you calling Obama and his administration full of liars, and western media as nothing more than propaganda, but you (again) cherry pick certain articles to try and hammer across your (completely false) points.

It is not about me interpreting something, it's about coming to a logical conclusion, based on known facts. Critical thinking is important in this regard, but you continue to completely ignore this. You don't base your theory on facts, instead, you cherry pick so that you don't have to change your theory.

Nowhere did Obama say that Assad will win, and considering his previous statements, one can only bring up the last possible conclusion as to his way of thinking. Besides, he's right, what do you think is happening in Syria? Has Assad won like you claimed he would? No, it's pretty much a stalemate. He would have lost by now if it weren't for Hezbullah, and Iran.

This is my last reply, I don't care anymore. You've driven me past the point that I've given up on trying to show you your mistakes.

again why is it okay for you to interpret something the way you like, however you don't accept other interpretations?
It doesn't matter what you think US stance is, Obama admitted that arming the terrorists in to win (overthrow) against Alasad is FANTASY.... OBAMA HIMSELF SAID IT.....Obama said terrorists will not topple Alasad thus that easily could be interpreted as Alasad winning... however, your stalemate conclusion comes from no where what Obama said, or even relate to what he is saying...

You're always butt hurt when it comes to Syria.... look my friend go complain to Obama, he said it...

 

[That Guy]

again why is it okay for you to interpret something the way you like, however you don't accept other interpretations?
It doesn't matter what you think US stance is, Obama admitted that arming the terrorists in to win (overthrow) against Alasad is FANTASY.... OBAMA HIMSELF SAID IT.....Obama said terrorists will not topple Alasad thus that easily could be interpreted as Alasad winning... however, your stalemate conclusion comes from no where what Obama said, or even relate to what he is saying...

You're always butt hurt when it comes to Syria.... look my friend go complain to Obama, he said it...

Stop repeating yourself, and read my comment. I've already addressed all this. This is why no one likes to argue with you, because you refuse to acknowledge the presence of other people's comments.