Skip to comments.Hezbollah, Iraqi militia capture Damascus suburb: opposition
Posted on 10/09/2013 6:31:57 PM PDT by nuconvert
Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'ite militia backed by Syrian army firepower overran a southern suburb of Damascus on Wednesday, opposition activists said, in a blow to Sunni Muslim rebels trying to hold onto strategic outskirts of the capital.
At least 20 rebels were killed when Hezbollah guerrillas and Iraqi militiamen captured the town of Sheikh Omar under cover of Syrian army artillery and tank fire and aerial bombardment, the activists said, with tens of Shi'ite fighters killed or wounded.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Read it and weep, Obama.
But, I thought he was for the "rebels".
Yep. It says that the army helped Shiite “militia” drive out Sunni rebels.
What if you want both teams to lose?
This is an utter disaster unfolding. This war will bleed on indefinitely.
Coming to your church soon if anti-christian muslim dog Obummer doesn`t get impeached soon.
So many players in this war...hard to keep them straight.
And I have no idea who to root for.
Maybe they can just keep killing each other and we can make money selling them weapons...
Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'ite militia backed by Syrian army firepower...
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]
Here's the passage at issue:In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Pauls Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]
>>>>the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets’ ultimate loss of the Cold War.<<<<
Total nonsense invented by people seeking to justify their involvement on part of Sunni terrorists. It was a socialism that crippled the Soviets.
I think overall Soviet losses in Afghanistan added just a little bit to regular military losses taken in regular training for the same period of time. Not to mention their withdrawal in 1989 was planned some 5 years earlier and the fact that pro-Russian secular government in Afghanistan outlived the Soviet government for years and could still hold power if Russians could afford to supply them. Soviets did just fine militarily. Terrorists were hiding crapping bricks in caves most of the time during Russian occupation. There weren’t such things as massive shootings or car bombings in major cities.
Last time I’ve check Shias aren’t that intolerant to Christians and Jews. Being a persecuted minority and a ‘fake muslims’ by a majority Sunni Islam they are doing just fine with any other minority persecuted by ‘real’ Moslems, with little exceptions.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Good news for the dogs