As I’ve previously mentioned in other posts, these so-called rebels are more accurately described as jihad warriors, which is what many of them proclaim themselves to be.
The rebel forces are rife with al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, including groups such as al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. These jihadists are among the rebel’s most effective fighters, so much so that the purportedly “moderate” commanders have threatened to quit the “Free Syrian Army” — the group Washington elitists and Obama would have us support.
Obama’s waiver of statutory prohibitions against aiding terrorists is now supporting Al-Quaeda. Obama claims that the waiver is a valid exercise of the president’s authority under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and thus gives him the right to support the Syrian rebels. In fact, Obama and his supporters say that the waiver is necessary to provide the Syrian “rebels” with equipment that will protect them from what is alleged to be the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons; and (b) that since the AECA applies to Syria only since the waiver is designed not to help Hezbollah but to help the rebels that is fighting both Hezbollah and Assad.
As my previous posts have mentioned, I believe that Obama wants to support the terrorists and Muslim Brotherhood (White House visit, support of Egypt downfall, etc).
These rationalizations that I’ve mentioned above fail for several reasons.
1. The waiver is illegal under the terms of the AECA. In addition, I contend that Obama is also violating “prohibitions in federal law” against aiding terrorists.
2. Well know fact that Syria has a history of supporting and providing safe harbor for Hamas which is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian terrorist branch, which also happens to be allied with the “rebels” in the Syrian civil war.
3. In point of fact, AECA prohibitions apply to countries, such as Syria, not regimes that govern countries. A recent example would be Libya — thanks to Obama’s unauthorized war. The weapons distributed to and purloined by jihadists have fueled Al-Qaeda’s operations in North Africa and may well have contributed to the BENGHAZI massacre. This is another reason why Obama is trying to cover up BENGHAZI. I can only say, REMEMBER BENGHAZI AND THE 4 American deaths including the Ambassador and how Hillary Clinton joined in the cover up (What does it matter)!
4. The president can waive the AECA prohibitions only in certain conditions. A waiver is valid only if the aid in question is “essential” to U.S. “national security” interests. The national security interests Syria do not exist.
Supplying materials to Syrian rebels is NOT essential to American national security. If American national security was at risk, we would be invading Syria with our own forces, not arming the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda.
In fact, in the case of Syria, it is more likely that withholding equipment and arms is essential to American national security. Afterall, there are, reports detailing chemical-weapons manufacturing, procurement, and use by al-Qaeda-affiliated groups that are systematically incorporated into the operations of the Syrian opposition.
My final thought on this arming is, should not using terrorists as tools to provoke wars in other countries be considered an act of war by the countries financing and supporting them. The USA is now a State Sponsor of Terrorism much like Iran, Syria and the others. Although, under Obama, what does it really matter since he is a LIAR and CHEAT! If the USA wants stability in the region they should stop this tactic, not promote it.