Sarah Palin on Syria conflict: Let Allah sort it out
Options
Young_Chitlin
Members Posts: 23,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
By ASSOCIATED PRESS and DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has criticized the Obama administration’s decision to supply weapons to the rebels in the civil war in Syria, arguing that the U.S. should ‘Let Allah sort it out’ until there is a stronger leader in the White House. ‘Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We’re talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander and chief who knows what he’s doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren’t even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, “Allah Akbar,” I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out,’ Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference on Saturday.
The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against rebel forces. The use of weapons such as the nerve agent sarin crosses what President Barack Obama has called a 'red line' that would trigger greater American involvement in the crisis. Obama discussed the civil war in Syria with European leaders in a teleconference on Friday, and the issue is expected to dominate much of the conversation at next week’s G-8 Summit in Northern Ireland. The White House is now considering arming the opposition fighters and enforcing a no-fly zone that could cost an estimated $50 million a day.
The final speaker at the three-day Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference, former Alaska Gov. Palin rejected calls for an immigration overhaul that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally. ‘I think it’s kind of dangerous territory, territory to want to debate this whole one race’s fertility rate over another, and I say this from someone who’s kind of fertile herself,’ Palin said. ‘I don’t think that’s where we want to go in deciding how will we incentivize the hardworking responsible families who want to live in the light, follow the law, become Americans, versus those whose very first act on our soil is to break the law? There are different ways that we can debate this.’
As she warned the conservative crowd of ‘tyranny’ in government, Palin said that the recent scandals involving the Internal Revenue Service and the National Security Agency make the country feel ‘so Orwellian around here, you know, “1984.’”
Comments
-
This stupid ? , the NSA surveillance has been going on since the Patriot Act.
-
this dumb cracka actually has somewhat of a legitimate point
the US is wrong to get involved on any level -
I'm shocked to say this but I actually agree with Sarah Palin. America is an Orwellian police state now and we're looking stupid around the world supporting people with strong connections to Al Qaeda in Syria. America claims to want to take Al Qaeda out, so why are we giving weapons to closet Al Qaeda members?
-
This stupid ? , the NSA surveillance has been going on since the Patriot Act.
True NSA illegal spying was going on for a long time but few people knew how bad NSA surveillance was until now. Few people thought the govt was reading emails and online records of ALL Americans until Snowden spoke out. Only now is the govt trying to cover its ass on how it is blatantly violating the 4th amendment every day.....its lost all credibility, as the NY Times said not long ago -
I dont want to here ? this stupid ? says, she needs a ? in her mouth 24/7
-
Didnt read (except title) she right. Let Allah do his thing
-
Now she gets it.
-
Essentially what she's saying is don't do anything until we get a white guy back in office. This is nothing new.
Also to the people saying don't intervene... that's what Clinton did during Rwanda and he still considers it the biggest regret of his presidency (and that's the guy responsible for NAFTA and letting bin Laden get away the first time).
Once people start getting gassed somebody has to do something.
I think the most surprising thing about this and something no one is mentioning is the transparency in this case. Usually we arm rebel groups and wage proxy wars in relative secrecy. -
real talk tho I wanna smash Sarah Palin's crazy ass
I would love to flood her walls one time haha
but on a serious note we got no business trying to ? around in Syria
we should just be monitoring the situation on the ground for intel purposes...........but we shouldn't be choosing sides by spending taxpayer dollars on weapons going to our supposed enemies
regardless of who wins, they aren't/won't be fans of America -
Sneak Dissa wrote: »Essentially what she's saying is don't do anything until we get a white guy back in office. This is nothing new.
Also to the people saying don't intervene... that's what Clinton did during Rwanda and he still considers it the biggest regret of his presidency (and that's the guy responsible for NAFTA and letting bin Laden get away the first time).
Once people start getting gassed somebody has to do something.
I think the most surprising thing about this and something no one is mentioning is the transparency in this case. Usually we arm rebel groups and wage proxy wars in relative secrecy.
LOL @ transparency tho........cause you got to be naive if you don't think we have special forces on the ground in Syria already
there's nothing transparent when we've already been ? around in Syria on the low
Clinton claims Rwanda was a regret but he's just saying what people wanna hear............there were multiple opportunities for the US to get engaged in solving a crisis overseas.....however, Rwanda had nothing resource wise of interest to the US..........plus, ? in office were still shook cause of what happened in Somalia in '93
SMH @ Bush I at least being able to drum up a coalition before putting boots on the ground -
Sneak Dissa wrote: »Essentially what she's saying is don't do anything until we get a white guy back in office. This is nothing new.
Also to the people saying don't intervene... that's what Clinton did during Rwanda and he still considers it the biggest regret of his presidency (and that's the guy responsible for NAFTA and letting bin Laden get away the first time).
Once people start getting gassed somebody has to do something.
I think the most surprising thing about this and something no one is mentioning is the transparency in this case. Usually we arm rebel groups and wage proxy wars in relative secrecy.
Yeah but intervening in the Middle East lately does not work out for America. We're too hated over there for us to make much of a difference, look at Libya. We "helped" the rebels out and some months later our embassy gets burnt to the ground there by people with connections to Al-Qaeda. In fact, many of the rebels in Libya who took out Gaddafi had connections to Al-Qaeda, LOL.....
Many of these Syrians have connects to Al Qaeda as well, these are the people you wana fund? America supports Al-Qaeda now? -
blakfyahking wrote: »real talk tho I wanna smash Sarah Palin's crazy ass
I would love to flood her walls one time haha
but on a serious note we got no business trying to ? around in Syria
we should just be monitoring the situation on the ground for intel purposes...........but we shouldn't be choosing sides by spending taxpayer dollars on weapons going to our supposed enemies
regardless of who wins, they aren't/won't be fans of America
Exactly, we helped rebels out in Afghanistan back in the 80s and many of those same people later became members of Al-Qaeda, including Bin Laden. Until America stops being blatantly biased towards the apartheid state of Israel, people there will smile and accept American money, while secretly plotting to ? Americans once the weapons are received. It seems American politicians never learn a ? lesson. -
Since Obama likes to spy on computers and phones (we all got Obama phones now), I hope Obama sees this footage of Syrian rebel teens pledging allegiance to Al-Qaeda while openly stating how proud they are America was attacked on 9/11
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/syrian-rebel-teens-sing-al-qaeda-camp-we-destroyed-america-civilian-airplane
(CNSNews.com) - An al Qaeda video posted online in late May and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) shows masked Muslim teenage boys undergoing military training and indoctrination at an al Qaeda camp inside Syria.
The video shows the teenagers shooting handguns at a large photo of Syrian leader Bashar al-Asad. It also shows them stating that their leader is Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (the head of al Qaeda in Iraq), and then singing joyfully of their desire to overthrow both Asad and his sister Bushra, of the valor of al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri and of al Qaeda’s success in blowing up the World Trade Center towers.
"We destroyed America with a civilian airplane,” the young Syrian rebels sing. “The World Trade Center was turned into rubble. The World Trade Center was turned into rubble.
--And I'm supposed to be a fan of American govt now? Next time Obama talks about how much he wants to destroy Al-Qaeda I'm gona throw my TV out the window or shoot it
-
? people, stop encouraging Palin
the problem with your theory here remains that you're basically saying we LITERALLY helped the people who burned the embassy down. this is not likely true as claimedkingblaze84 wrote: »look at Libya. We "helped" the rebels out and some months later our embassy gets burnt to the ground there by people with connections to Al-Qaeda.
false. at best it's an oversimplification; at worst, it's straight-up false, because Bin Laden is NOT one of the people we helped out back in the 1980s. he did not need and did not get funded by the US. and, of course, the whole mess is far more complicated, blah blah blahkingblaze84 wrote: »Exactly, we helped rebels out in Afghanistan back in the 80s and many of those same people later became members of Al-Qaeda, including Bin Laden.
-
They need to send my ? Dennis Rodman over, he'd of been had this wrapped up...
-
? people, stop encouraging Palin
the problem with your theory here remains that you're basically saying we LITERALLY helped the people who burned the embassy down. this is not likely true as claimedkingblaze84 wrote: »look at Libya. We "helped" the rebels out and some months later our embassy gets burnt to the ground there by people with connections to Al-Qaeda.
false. at best it's an oversimplification; at worst, it's straight-up false, because Bin Laden is NOT one of the people we helped out back in the 1980s. he did not need and did not get funded by the US. and, of course, the whole mess is far more complicated, blah blah blahkingblaze84 wrote: »Exactly, we helped rebels out in Afghanistan back in the 80s and many of those same people later became members of Al-Qaeda, including Bin Laden.
If the rebels of Libya did not help burn down the embassy, then they have done a horrible job of finding and prosecuting the people that did it. After all this time, how come the Libyans still haven't caught them, despite all the surveillance and drones in the area? It's obvious the rebels of Libya have not been the most friendly to us, where was the protection for the Libyan embassy?????? With all the weapons America gave those (Al-Qaeda linked) rebels, they sure did a horrible job protecting the embassy. Hmm, I wonder why....oh and did I mention the rebels had links to Al-Qaeda? LOL....
As far as the rebels fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s, you are clearly fooling yourself if you're gona say many of them did not eventually become members of Al Qaeda. The CIA gave tons of money to the mujahadeen in the 80s, and many of the rebels fighting against the Soviets helped use that money to create Al-Qaeda. Read this link.....
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/20/the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/
Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is important for three reasons. First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.
“Not so,” says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action: “I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.” Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called “conspiracy theory.” To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories.
But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels.
One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue *in principle* that they would not use it again? We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).
Brzezinski and his protégé, Zalmay Khalilzad, set up a corporation in 1985, funded by the US congress, to train the mujahedeen to sell reporters the lie that the mujahedeen were freedom fighters and victims of aggression (Associated Press)
-
Them ? in Syria are wiling out...we need to jump in. They got like 50 lil ? with pistolsnober there.running the town. They are merking and and ? women and children
-
Janklow and anyone else in denial about the billions the CIA gave rebels in Afghanistan in the 80s, read this. Perhaps Janklow, you will stop living in LALA denial land and realize that the CIA helped fund Bin Laden and his buddies in the 80s.
http://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/
How The CIA Helped Create Osama Bin Laden
May 2, 2011
By Casey Gane-McCalla
During in the 1970s, when the Russia was the biggest threat to America and radical Islam was not as a concern of the USA’s, the USA began funding and training Islamic militants to fight our Russian enemies in Afghanistan.
These militants, known as the mujahideen would rebel the Russians out of Afghanistan and later become the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
One of the most prominent members of he mujahideen was a wealthy son of a Saudi Arabian businessman named Osama Bin Laden.
National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski visited Afganistan in 1979 and met with Bin Laden and even took a picture with him. Brzezinski would tell the mujahideen
We know of their deep belief in ? , and we are confident their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours, you’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again. Because your cause is right and ? is on your side.
Former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook said:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Several other authors, journalists and statesmen have all made the claim that Bin Laden was funded, armed and trained by the CIA to fight off the Russians.
After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly and CIA Paramilitary Officers played a big role in training, arming and sometimes even leading mujahideen forces.
The CIA trained the mujahideen in many of the tactics Al Qaeda is known for today, such as car bombs, assassinations and other acts that would be considered terrorism today.
-
evoljeanyes wrote: »Them ? in Syria are wiling out...we need to jump in. They got like 50 lil ? with pistolsnober there.running the town. They are merking and and ? women and children
You talking about the rebels? The ones killing and murdering people because they're not Muslim right? -
Ms. Palin was being fecetious, she knows Allah is a myth.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »Sneak Dissa wrote: »Essentially what she's saying is don't do anything until we get a white guy back in office. This is nothing new.
Also to the people saying don't intervene... that's what Clinton did during Rwanda and he still considers it the biggest regret of his presidency (and that's the guy responsible for NAFTA and letting bin Laden get away the first time).
Once people start getting gassed somebody has to do something.
I think the most surprising thing about this and something no one is mentioning is the transparency in this case. Usually we arm rebel groups and wage proxy wars in relative secrecy.
Yeah but intervening in the Middle East lately does not work out for America. We're too hated over there for us to make much of a difference, look at Libya. We "helped" the rebels out and some months later our embassy gets burnt to the ground there by people with connections to Al-Qaeda. In fact, many of the rebels in Libya who took out Gaddafi had connections to Al-Qaeda, LOL.....
Many of these Syrians have connects to Al Qaeda as well, these are the people you wana fund? America supports Al-Qaeda now?
Don't get me wrong... I agree that this is particularly stupid especially given our history with the blowback from engaging in these situations. I only have two real points... when regular people are being mass-murdered by their government - especially by way of chemical weapons - someone should do something about it. With that said, I'm not under any illusions that our engagement in this particular instance has anything to do with altruism.
My other point is simply that we shouldn't parse Sarah Palin's words; what she said she said very clearly (surprisingly enough)...I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander and chief who knows what he’s doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren’t even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, “Allah Akbar,” I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out,’
She agrees that basic human rights are being violated and while I'd like to interpret her invocation of Allah as her implying that it doesn't really matter since they're Muslim people being slaughtered I won't do that - but she does clearly say that we should do nothing simply because Obama is president. Notice she gives absolutely no opinion about his policy in this regard because she has none... if Bush did the same thing she'd agree with it. Also let's not pretend that if Obama did nothing she'd attempt to call him out for that as well.
In short, regardless of what you feel about US intervention in Syria... that's not what she was talking about... what she was talking about was "let's not let this guy do anything major while he's in office" which has essentially been the approach of congress since he was elected. -
Sneak Dissa wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Sneak Dissa wrote: »Essentially what she's saying is don't do anything until we get a white guy back in office. This is nothing new.
Also to the people saying don't intervene... that's what Clinton did during Rwanda and he still considers it the biggest regret of his presidency (and that's the guy responsible for NAFTA and letting bin Laden get away the first time).
Once people start getting gassed somebody has to do something.
I think the most surprising thing about this and something no one is mentioning is the transparency in this case. Usually we arm rebel groups and wage proxy wars in relative secrecy.
Yeah but intervening in the Middle East lately does not work out for America. We're too hated over there for us to make much of a difference, look at Libya. We "helped" the rebels out and some months later our embassy gets burnt to the ground there by people with connections to Al-Qaeda. In fact, many of the rebels in Libya who took out Gaddafi had connections to Al-Qaeda, LOL.....
Many of these Syrians have connects to Al Qaeda as well, these are the people you wana fund? America supports Al-Qaeda now?
Don't get me wrong... I agree that this is particularly stupid especially given our history with the blowback from engaging in these situations. I only have two real points... when regular people are being mass-murdered by their government - especially by way of chemical weapons - someone should do something about it. With that said, I'm not under any illusions that our engagement in this particular instance has anything to do with altruism.
My other point is simply that we shouldn't parse Sarah Palin's words; what she said she said very clearly (surprisingly enough)...I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander and chief who knows what he’s doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren’t even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, “Allah Akbar,” I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out,’
She agrees that basic human rights are being violated and while I'd like to interpret her invocation of Allah as her implying that it doesn't really matter since they're Muslim people being slaughtered I won't do that - but she does clearly say that we should do nothing simply because Obama is president. Notice she gives absolutely no opinion about his policy in this regard because she has none... if Bush did the same thing she'd agree with it. Also let's not pretend that if Obama did nothing she'd attempt to call him out for that as well.
In short, regardless of what you feel about US intervention in Syria... that's not what she was talking about... what she was talking about was "let's not let this guy do anything major while he's in office" which has essentially been the approach of congress since he was elected.
Even if Sarah is saying what she's saying for political reasons, she's still saying the right thing overall, let Allah sort it out. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for centuries, and Assad AND the rebels have been using cruel methods to ? and torture each other. If you wana give weapons to closet members of Al-Qaeda, that's on your conscience. Considering what happened in Afghanistan in the 80s (funding future terrorists) and what a disaster Iraq and Afghanistan still are, we gota leave that part of the world alone. Let another ? country take care of this, Americans need help here right now. Govt programs are being cut and meanwhile, we're playing captain save Al-Qaeda in Syria. FOH -
first off, i don't know why you keep talking about the "rebels of Libya" as if they're one group of identical people. they all, to a man, joined hands and burned down the embassy? of course not.kingblaze84 wrote: »If the rebels of Libya did not help burn down the embassy, then they have done a horrible job of finding and prosecuting the people that did it. After all this time, how come the Libyans still haven't caught them, despite all the surveillance and drones in the area?
of course you did, because you're heavily invested in oversimplifying it.kingblaze84 wrote: »oh and did I mention the rebels had links to Al-Qaeda?
is THAT what i said? or did i say the following: "false. at best it's an oversimplification; at worst, it's straight-up false, because Bin Laden is NOT one of the people we helped out back in the 1980s. he did not need and did not get funded by the US. and, of course, the whole mess is far more complicated, blah blah blah." because on this topic you do not read and you do not debate, you recite your talking points over and over.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as the rebels fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s, you are clearly fooling yourself if you're gona say many of them did not eventually become members of Al Qaeda.
again, you don't have a real debate, so you fall back to these one-size-fits-all remarks and a little shittalking. again, did i say we did not give anyone money? well, again, since you don't want to debate the topic, a large portion of what we gave was given to the ISI to funnel as they saw fit. the guys closest to the Taliban/al-Qaeda types you're talking about are the guys Pakistan liked and promoted for their personal reasons. and specific other amounts not running through the ISI didn't go to Bin Laden BECAUSE HE DID NOT NEED IT AND DID NOT WANT IT.kingblaze84 wrote: »Janklow and anyone else in denial about the billions the CIA gave rebels in Afghanistan in the 80s, read this. Perhaps Janklow, you will stop living in LALA denial land and realize that the CIA helped fund Bin Laden and his buddies in the 80s.
short version: if you're talking about how the "CIA created al-Qaeda" and you're NOT talking about groups like the ISI also having their favored guys in the mix, you're not really talking about this, you're pushing some agenda.
you keep the NewsOne article and i'll stick with the guys winning Pulitzers covering the topic, okay?
-
Janklow, Brezinsky, a former head official in American govt IS ON RECORD as saying the CIA gave money to future members of Al-Qaeda. HE SAID HIMSELF HE MET WITH BIN LADEN IN 1979....That's not someone who works at just lil ole Newsone....a news magazine that is actually very respected. Ignore evidence at your own peril and ignorance, but I am showing you evidence of what I'm saying....and meanwhile, the world will know more then you on this subject, unfortunately....and yes I know Pakistan was involved as well. But Pakistan is known for its closet support of Al Qaeda in many parts of the country, even in govt so that shouldn't be a surprise.
-
Anchor: Sarah Palin in 1987, when she presented a sports show on local TV and met the basketball star, who she is said to have spent the night with
Rice was a junior at Michigan playing in a college basketball tournament in Alaska.
At the time, Palin was known as Sarah Heath and was a sports reporter for the Anchorage television station KTUU-TV.
In Janet Maslin's review for the New York Times, she wrote: 'While Mr Rice avoids specifics and uses the words "respectful" and "a sweetheart," Mr McGinniss eggs him on with the kind of flagrantly leading question he seems to have habitually asked.
'In Mr. Rice's case: "So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?"'
The alleged affair happened just nine months before she would elope, pregnant, with her husband Todd.
With her unruly mullet and a stuttering style, the young anchorwoman, who would have been just 24 at the time, looks a far cry from the polished and controlled 'hockey mom' who would run for vice president two decades later.
The new book also claims Mrs Palin had a six month affair with one of her husband's colleagues while they were married, as well as snorting ? off a 55 gallon oil drum and separately smoking marijuana in secret liaisons with one of her college professors.
The revelations, which have shocked America, could strike a devastating blow to the controversial politician's hopes of joining the 2012 presidential race.
The book is written by Joe McGinniss, an author who moved in next door to the Palins in Alaska to dig dirt for his salacious biography.
In response, Todd Palin last night slammed the author as a 'stalker' who has a 'creepy obsession' with Mrs Palin.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037743/Glen-Rice-Sarah-Palin-sweetheart-respectful-says-NBA-star.html#ixzz2Wg9gYIcA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
This discussion has been closed.