Objectively pro ISIS
Digby on the dumbass drums for war:
He simply raises the question rhetorically, dontcha know. I mean, somebody’s got to ask it, amirite? Why aren’t we arming ISIS? (Well, we are actually, but only because they’ve managed to seize tons of weaponry we left in Iraq after foolishly invading the country to, as Friedman famously said, teach those silly middle easterners that we had to the power to shove a gun in their mouth and tell them to “suck on this.”)
This is the nonsensical point of view that Marco Rubio was throwing out there when he suggested to John Kerry that the administration was making a “bad deal” with Iran because of ISIS. Evidently, it’s simply impossible to walk and even breathe at the same time with these people. Asking them to chew gum at the same time would likely put them into a coma.Like him, Friedman apparently is of the belief that we are foolishly siding with the medieval beheaders. (Kerry did patiently explain to Rubio that the nuclear arms deal exists separate and apart from any concerns about ISIS because they are trying to avoid a fucking nuclear war.)
I know it’s hard to believe, but maybe it would be better if we concentrate on not arming anyone in the region for a while —- or blowing anything up, or “advising” anyone or putting boots on the ground or anything else.
One of the people I trust most to read the opposition in the middle East also agrees with Digby:
“Let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS?” Let me just toss back an answer: no. http://t.co/TEFK1NXx1s