Obama Inc. Will Give Syrian Terrorists Anti-Tank Missiles, the Saudis Will Give Them Anti-Aircraft Missiles


How convenient.

Obama Inc. has chosen not to provide anti-aircraft missiles to the Free Syrian Army’s Islamist militias, but conveniently the Saudis have stepped in to provide those.

The practical difference is minimal. The Saudis are deliberately using Euro weapons for the same reason that the UAE shipped non-American weapons into Libya. Obama Inc. knew what the UAE was doing, but asked them not to use American weapons. It’s called plausible deniability.

American officials say that the United Arab Emirates first approached the Obama administration during the early months of the Libyan uprising, asking for permission to ship American-built weapons that the United States had supplied for the emirates’ use. The administration rejected that request, but instead urged the emirates to ship weapons to Libya that could not be traced to the United States.

“The U.A.E. was asking for clearance to send U.S. weapons,” said one former official. “We told them it’s O.K. to ship other weapons.”

I would say that the odds are good that this is what just happened with the Saudis in Syria. That Obama didn’t want to be associated with any potential fallout from providing anti-aircraft weapons to the terrorists and let the Saudis do it instead.

Saudi Arabia plans to supply the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles to counter President Bashar al-Assad’s air force, German news weekly Der Spiegel reported Sunday.

The article, citing a classified report received by the German foreign intelligence service and the German government last week, said Riyadh was looking at sending European-made Mistral-class MANPADS, or man-portable air-defence systems.

Der Spiegel noted the shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles can target low-flying aircraft including helicopters and had given mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan a decisive edge against Soviet troops in the 1980s.

  • Texas Patriot

    The Saudis have been pulling the strings in Washington D.C. long before Obama. But there has never been a more obvious puppet.

    • Gee

      Yes the first Bush was totally own by the House of Saud

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Both Bush’s were duped badly. 0’Bama is owned by them and the MB, who rarely have conflicts over what they want from the USA in the short-term. They’ll fight each other for leadership once the black flag is flying here. In their dreams.

      • DogmaelJones1

        Gee: You’ve got to go back further, say, to FDR. During WWII, FDR said that Saudi Arabia, which nationalized private oil fields and assets, was important to the war effort. Then came Eisenhower, JFK, and every president since then. They were all “owned” by the Saudis. Read Diana West’s book, “American Betrayal.” It has the details. Obama is a Johnny-come-lately.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “You’ve got to go back further, say, to FDR. During WWII, FDR said that Saudi Arabia, which nationalized private oil fields and assets, was important to the war effort.”

          FDR was the first POTUS ultra-dupe of both the Saudis and the Soviets. Some presidents may have been duped as well, but they had programs in progress and a lot bigger fish to fry, mostly cleaning up after FDR’s disastrous strategic maneuvers.

          FDR has to be the most over-rated president in history.

          Only 0’Bama has exceeded FDR’s stupidity, but Carter is in the running if you consider his actions as POTUS till now. Clinton was also a major dupe with deadly foreign policy consequences.

          Both Bushes were dupes. but because of their conservative advisers didn’t do as much harm as the above mentioned super-dupes.

          • DogmaelJones1

            For more on FDR’s treason especially regarding the Saudis, go to Rule of Reason and read my column, “The Enemy Inside Our Gates.”

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Yes the first Bush was totally own by the House of Saud”

        Both Bushes probably thought they owned the House of Saud to a large degree. I think they’re both still duped. They both think that Islam is a “religion of peace.”

    • ziggy zoggy

      The Saudis Can manipulate international oil prices and try to boycott American markets so previous administrations kissed their unctuous a$$e$ but the “Kingdom” is a paper tiger and America could crush it without firing a shot – if Mitt Romney were President.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        The first Saudi king signed a deal with FDR and expected more than he got. FDR died soon after making his promises.

        IIRC, his son Faisal was representing the kingdom at the UN during the period when Israel was being established as a sovereign nation. The Saudis expected the USA to reject Israel’s acceptance based on their understanding of the agreement. Faisal was spitting mad when the USA voted to support Israel.

        As king, Faisal was on the throne during the Yom Kippur war. He was the driving force behind the OPEC embargo. I don’t think any POTUS since then ever forgot that.

        So it is complicated to look at from the evidence that we can glean. It’s not clear that any POTUS could rectify in one term what FDR started, given what’s happened in the mean time.

        Based on what I know, I would start a secret and comprehensive program to eliminate all dependence on OPEC. It’s the leftists that make this virtually impossible.

        Perhaps the best first step is educating people on the full scope of the risks of any dependence on their oil. We should embargo them.

        And here too dealing with regimes like Iran as we have makes it that much more difficult. We should treat sharia regimes just as we treated the Soviet regime. No quarter given or asked. The globe is not big enough for this situation to continue much longer and the leftist answers are based on pure fantasy.