you better read the article again...
at least this part
"I think this notion that somehow there was this ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat [Syrian President Bashar] Assad is simply not true, and, you know, we have spent a lot of time trying to work with a moderate opposition in Syria," the president said in the interview taped Friday.
Plus how am I misleading people, when I provided the source, it would be misleading if I didn't provide source... changing the title is not that big of deal, since it means the same thing, Alasad would not be defeated, Alasad will still win.. no difference...
You're the one who is butt hurt, since you're trying to focus on something meaning less ( the title) while the main thing from this article is that Obama arming terrorists will not defeat Alasad as Obama himself said it...
and what hypocrisy? I said Obama did an interview with that tv station, even if he did with Israeli tv I would have posted, this is not about the tv station or the source it is about what Obama is saying, so stop worrying about childish things such as the title or the with whom did Obama conduct an interview with..
I've read the article multiple times, trying my best to see how you could come to your conclusion, but I can't see it at all.
I think you need to read the article yourself. Let me break the quote you provided, down for you?
"I think this notion that somehow there was this ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat [Syrian President Bashar] Assad is simply not true, and, you know, we have spent a lot of time trying to work with a moderate opposition in Syria," the president said in the interview taped Friday.
He's not saying that the FSA will lose, and Assad will win, what he's saying is that they're under trained and under-equipped, they don't have the capabilities that Al-Assad has (at least in the beginning), which is completely true. He's also saying that simply giving them weapons won't do any good, because if they don't have the training to use them, the weapons are nothing more than door stops.
Now, providing a source, and misrepresenting what it says is misleading, or it shows that you're incompetent. Either way, it doesn't look good on you. Changing the title is a big deal, because it doesn't mean the same thing as what the article says, NOWHERE does it say that Assad will win; it says that the opposition don't have the capability to overthrow him. It means a stalemate, not a victory by Assad. A stalemate doesn't mean a defeat.
He's also saying that there are so many rebel groups, with many of them being extremist, that it's hard for the moderate forces to gain large enough numbers to counter the extremists, and Assad at the same time. Again, read the damn article, BEFORE you post.
You're purposefully changing the title to suit your interests, this is especially dishonest when the title is a misrepresentation of the article's content. By denying this basic truth, and treating the members on the forum as children, you show just how intellectually dishonest you are.
As for the Hypocrisy, I've pointed this out before, but you seem to ignore it. You're using western sources that you say shouldn't be trusted, you've also claimed that Obama is a liar in the past, so why are you using this as evidence? This is a double standard on your part.
Show me where it say in the article that Assad will win? One single place, that's all I ask. If you do, I'll admit I'm wrong. In fact, I'll save you the trouble of doing it. Nowhere in the article does it say that Assad will win, and the opposition will lose, not one place. This is either intellectual dishonesty on your part, or sheer incompetence.
I wonder had your family been amongst the 300,000 refugees fleeing the Waziristan region, what would be your opinion? Well, first of all you probably wouldn't be tip, tapping away on a computer so comfortably.
Makes me wonder why 300,000 refugees did not flee Waziristan while the Taliban were living amidst them but they've had run for their lives as soon as the pious soldiers have come to save them?
Because there was no military operation going on, so they could afford to stay without having to worry about fighting between the Taliban and the military. Once fighting starts, people leave, if it's peaceful, the people don't care who's in charge, as long as it doesn't affect their daily lives.
You're a moron, and if I were a mod, I'd have you banned permanently.