What's new

U.S Admits supplying terrorists in Syria with Lethal weapons

Syrian Lion

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
7,264
Reaction score
3
Country
Syrian Arab Republic
Location
Syrian Arab Republic
Washington is providing both "lethal and non-lethal" support to members of the Syrian opposition, U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice said on Friday, according to Saudi-owned TV channel al-Arabiya.

Rice gave more details than are usually provided by Obama administration officials, who usually decline to specify the type of support provided to the moderate Syrian opposition forces.

Rice, who was speaking to CNN while traveling with President Barack Obama to the 70th anniversary celebrations of D-Day in Normandy, said the United States "has been the single largest contributor of humanitarian assistance, providing over $1.7 billion dollars.”

She said that the U.S. had "ramped up its support for the moderate, vetted opposition, providing lethal and non-lethal support where we can to support both the civilian opposition and the military opposition."

Rice's words echoed those of Obama, who said that the U.S. would "ramp up" support for rebels fighting President Bashar Assad during a major foreign policy speech last week.

Caitlin Hayden, Rice's spokeswoman, later declined to say whether Rice's openness on U.S. assistance reflected a new policy initiative.

"We're not in a position to detail all of our assistance, but as we've made clear, we provide both military and non-military assistance to the opposition," Hayden said.

Rice also told CNN that the U.S. was working with Syria’s neighbors to help alleviate the refugee situation, as well as to confront the threat of terrorism seeping out of Syria.

“We're working on the counterterrorism challenge because as we have seen there are increasingly emanating from Syria the threat of terrorism to the neighbors and beyond,” she said.

“Our efforts are increasing and why we'll remain very much engaged, both in trying to support the Syrian people and trying to support the Syrian opposition,” she said.

________________________________________________________________________________________
so no one can complain I'm providing you guys with reports from Anti-Syria outlets...:azn:... The west since the beginning has given weapons to those terrorists.. and those terrorists complain when they lose saying they don't have enough supports... they have the whole west supporting them with weapons and training they have gcc giving them money and terrorists and they are still losing...
U.S. admits supplying lethal aid to Syrian rebels - Middle East Israel News | Haaretz

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...aide-hints-at-lethal-aid-to-Syria-rebels.html
 
Well, it was obvious from the beginning that the US was giving weapons and training to opposition fighters. What's so surprising about that? It's not about pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian outlets, it's about facts.
 
Well, it was obvious from the beginning that the US was giving weapons and training to opposition fighters. What's so surprising about that? It's not about pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian outlets, it's about facts.
well some members here deny that the US gives support to the terrorists in Syria... now the US admits it does, and before it US only admitted of giving 'non-Lethal" aid...
 
Well, it was obvious from the beginning that the US was giving weapons and training to opposition fighters. What's so surprising about that? It's not about pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian outlets, it's about facts.


Not "opposition fighters", terrorists. The overwhelming majority of Syrians support Assad.
 
Not "opposition fighters", terrorists. The overwhelming majority of Syrians support Assad.
No, opposition fighters. I'm refraining from labeling every group opposed to Assad because many of them do have legitimate grievances. Besides, Assad is no better.

well some members here deny that the US gives support to the terrorists in Syria... now the US admits it does, and before it US only admitted of giving 'non-Lethal" aid...
I don't think anyone denied this, what they denied was the claim that Assad has legitimacy.
 
@Hazzy997 what are you going to say now? the west still supports Alasad :rofl:

I don't think anyone denied this, what they denied was the claim that Assad has legitimacy.
Alasad legitimacy comes from the Syrian people... when they have Syrian passports then they can speak... anyways you have members in the Syrian conflict thread keep denying the terrorists have any supports to justify their losses...

and the US never admitted it gave terrorists in Syria weapons, however now they admit it... and they are going to put an end to the media propaganda regarding terrorists are losing because of no support from the west, while in reality they are losing because no support from the Syrian people.. and the west always complained about Iran and Russia "Arming" Syrian army, however Iran and Russia are doing it under the UN and International laws...
 
@Hazzy997 what are you going to say now? the west still supports Alasad :rofl:


Alasad legitimacy comes from the Syrian people... when they have Syrian passports then they can speak... anyways you have members in the Syrian conflict thread keep denying the terrorists have any supports to justify their losses...

Who other then the US has supported the rebels? They mostly give non-lethal aid and little lethal aid to the certain rebel factions. We aren't ignorant, most of the support comes from private donors and Libyan militias.

The scale of the support is miniscule.

As I've posted before:
Israeli official: Syria's Bashar Assad preferable to Islamist takeover Israel News | Haaretz
Western diplomats said to seek Syrian help against al-Qaeda militants - The Washington Post

BEIRUT — A top Syrian government official said Wednesday that Western intelligence officials have visited Damascus to solicit cooperation against militants linked to al-Qaeda, a claim that appeared intended to buttress the regime’s attempts to win back international support in the name of fighting terrorism.

....................
 
@Hazzy997 what are you going to say now? the west still supports Alasad :rofl:


Alasad legitimacy comes from the Syrian people... when they have Syrian passports then they can speak... anyways you have members in the Syrian conflict thread keep denying the terrorists have any supports to justify their losses...

and the US never admitted it gave terrorists in Syria weapons, however now they admit it... and they are going to put an end to the media propaganda regarding terrorists are losing because of no support from the west, while in reality they are losing because no support from the Syrian people.. and the west always complained about Iran and Russia "Arming" Syrian army, however Iran and Russia are doing it under the UN and International laws...
Of course legitimacy comes from the people, but Assad doesn't have much support outside of a few bastions.

The US didn't admit it because it was a covert effort, and to be honest, Russia and Iran aren't technically going through legal routes. Right now, there is an arms embargo on Syria, so what Russia and Iran are doing is illegal, of course what the US is doing is illegal too, but wars rarely care about laws.

US is the number one terrorist nation of them all.
Actually, that would technically be Somalia, where more than half of the country is controlled by a terrorist organization.
 
Of course legitimacy comes from the people, but Assad doesn't have much support outside of a few bastions.

The US didn't admit it because it was a covert effort, and to be honest, Russia and Iran aren't technically going through legal routes. Right now, there is an arms embargo on Syria, so what Russia and Iran are doing is illegal, of course what the US is doing is illegal too, but wars rarely care about laws.

Arms embargo on Syria? arms embargo on Syria was put in place by the US and Europe, thus not internationally by the UNSC.. there is a big difference... so Iran and Russia are doing it under international laws, in addition Russia stopped supplying Syria with any offensive weapons, only defensive weapons...

and if Alasad had no support from the Syrian people he would have been gone long time ago...

Syria’s election shows depth of support for Assad - The Washington Post

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-arms-pipeline-to-the-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/w...bels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all
 
Arms embargo on Syria? arms embargo on Syria was put in place by the US and Europe, thus not internationally by the UNSC.. there is a big difference... so Iran and Russia are doing it under international laws, in addition Russia stopped supplying Syria with any offensive weapons, only defensive weapons...

and if Alasad had no support from the Syrian people he would have been gone long time ago...

Syria’s election shows depth of support for Assad - The Washington Post
There is no such thing as a defensive weapon, that's your first mistake right there. Second, international law is very clear that in case of a civil war, the nation in question becomes no go for weapons suppliers.

Yeah, the elections were a sham, nothing more. Even you have to realize just how difficult holding an election is during a civil war, when you barely control half the country. Besides, with no legitimate international observers, the elections lost their legitimacy as soon as they were announced.
 
There is no such thing as a defensive weapon, that's your first mistake right there. Second, international law is very clear that in case of a civil war, the nation in question becomes no go for weapons suppliers.

Yeah, the elections were a sham, nothing more. Even you have to realize just how difficult holding an election is during a civil war, when you barely control half the country. Besides, with no legitimate international observers, the elections lost their legitimacy as soon as they were announced.
Defensive weapons for example are anti-Aircraft missiles, transportation and etc... man you seem to know nothing... first the embargo and now about weapons...

The intentional law would be agreed on by the UNSC, so if it illegal then why does the west supply arms to terrorists?? the difference is Iran and Russia are supplying arms under the International laws to a UN member... nothing illegal about that until the UNSC says it is illegal, however the west are providing arms to terrorists whom are not members of the UN , and have no legitimacy among the Syrian people...

and the elections are legitimate, you just don't want to believe it because it might not fit your agenda... again I'm providing you with western sources from the AP
Syria’s election shows depth of support for Assad - The Washington Post

and please go check the Syrian conflict thread, you will see my posts of Syrians celebrating the elections....
now lets stay in topic here and discuss the US providing arms to the terrorists
 
Defensive weapons for example are anti-Aircraft missiles, transportation and etc... man you seem to know nothing... first the embargo and now about weapons...
Yeah, actually, I knew you would say that, and no, those don't just have a defensive purpose. Every weapon has a duel use, even when they've been limited by the supplier. It seems you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

The intentional law would be agreed on by the UNSC, so if it illegal then why does the west supply arms to terrorists?? the difference is Iran and Russia are supplying arms under the International laws to a UN member... nothing illegal about that until the UNSC says it is illegal, however the west are providing arms to terrorists whom are not members of the UN , and have no legitimacy among the Syrian people...

and the elections are legitimate, you just don't want to believe it because it might not fit your agenda... again I'm providing you with western sources from the AP
Syria’s election shows depth of support for Assad - The Washington Post

and please go check the Syrian conflict thread, you will see my posts of Syrians celebrating the elections....
now lets stay in topic here and discuss the US providing arms to the terrorists
Look, we've already been over this before, there is little point in arguing about it. I've said my piece, and as always, you and I will not agree.

Let's just move on, shall we?
 
Back
Top Bottom