ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

American al-Qaida

| Monday, Feb. 10, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

American al-Qaida

It wasn't too long ago that Russian President Vladimir Putin stopped the world from starting World War III over Syria.

President Obama and Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham were rattling swords to take down the legitimate government of Syria. It turned out that Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the people who planned and committed the Sept. 11 U.S. terrorist attack, wants the Syrian government deposed so it can run a new pipeline. Now newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is worried about American al-Qaida sympathizers aiding the so-called “extremists” trying to take out Syrian President Assad.

When Obama was threatening to bomb Syria without the approval of Congress, the Syrians rioting were called liberators. Now Johnson is calling them terrorists. Being that we have now admitted to arming and funding Syrian al-Qaida elements, what changed them from patriots to the evil terrorists Jeh Johnson now worries about? Or is this just more of Obama's convoluted logic?

We should be happy that extremist Muslims are going to Syria to overthrow Assad. The question is: Will we let them return to America? It will not be a security issue if we don't let them back in.

Joseph DuPont

Towanda, Bradford County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me