If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Barack Obama to Bashar al-Assad: Using chemical warfare on your civilians is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE...unless we do it first   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 174
    More: Scary, chemical weapons, Bashar al-Assad  
•       •       •

4256 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jan 2013 at 11:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-30 09:05:29 AM

oryx: The refusal to believe the United States would conduct a false flag operation is INSANE.


I don't put it past them, has been proven in the past, but I just don't see a need here unless you think it's all one big conspiracy.

/I don't get my invite to the private security meetings to have enough information to decide one way or the other
//I'm sure it just go lost in the mail lol
///Still seems unlikely to me *shrug*
 
2013-01-30 09:07:24 AM

Kibbler: The Repeated Meme: Wasn't there some SS officer at Nuremburg who got off because he proved Allied forces carried out the same actions he was accused of? A war crime can be defined as "something we didn't do."

/getting bored of the Middle East
//looking forward to the Scramble for Africa reboot


No. "Tu quoque" did not fly at Nuremberg. Lawyers who tried it soon found that out.

You might be thinking of a different trial. There were no SS officers at Nuremberg unless you count Speer, who had been a kind of honorary SS officer since the early 30s. Something to do with a motoring club, as I recall.


He's probably thinking of Admiral Karl Donitz, who was prosecuted for unrestricted submarine warfare, and found guilty but not sentenced for that charge because the Allies had similar policies. There's a few things wrong with TRM's account though -- 1) Donitz was not an "SS officer" but a member of the regular military (he might not even have been a Nazi Party member, although Wikipedia is unclear on this); 2) IIRC, Admiral Chester Nimitz provided his testimony freely -- the Allies' conduct was not "proven" by the defense as suggested by TRM; 3) like I said, he was still found guilty, meaning unrestricted submarine warfare is still a war crime.

Link
 
2013-01-30 09:16:06 AM
National Enquirer is jealous.


i can't imagine even the U.S. doing something that stupid.

then again, History has shown we're pretty much capable of doing anything as long as we can be certain the spin is right.


we invaded Iraq by mistake which resulted in ~200,000 dead iraqi's


ooops.
 
2013-01-30 09:20:16 AM
The email doesn't say WHEN it was "approved by Washington."

Perhaps "approved by Washington" was a reference to Reagan's arming of Saddam Hussein and ignoring his use of chemical weapons on his own people.

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

Sounds legit.

It reads: 'Phil... We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

And if we can't trust the Qataris when they "swear" that they have a third party's approval, who can we trust?

www.atariage.com
 
2013-01-30 09:24:17 AM

fusillade762: Reading this book right now, so I'm getting a kick from these comments.

[www.american-buddha.com image 558x866]


Thanks for sharing - I'm ordering it right now.
 
2013-01-30 09:28:06 AM

oryx: The refusal to believe the United States would conduct a false flag operation is INSANE.


What about the belief that they are based on one unsubstantiated email that refers to a third party "swearing" that they have US approval?
 
2013-01-30 09:29:38 AM

Fail in Human Form: oryx: The refusal to believe the United States would conduct a false flag operation is INSANE.

I don't put it past them, has been proven in the past, but I just don't see a need here unless you think it's all one big conspiracy.

/I don't get my invite to the private security meetings to have enough information to decide one way or the other
//I'm sure it just go lost in the mail lol
///Still seems unlikely to me *shrug*


Why would you involve another country and these contractors? Why not just have, you know, THE FARKING CIA do it without risking multiple leaks?
 
2013-01-30 09:47:39 AM
so a recursive false flag, false flag, false flag,.....
 
2013-01-30 09:51:49 AM

Fail in Human Form: oryx: The refusal to believe the United States would conduct a false flag operation is INSANE.

I don't put it past them, has been proven in the past, but I just don't see a need here unless you think it's all one big conspiracy.


This. One must also consider the situations in which false-flag operations are typically used: the consequences of getting caught are very, very bad, so it's not something done lightly. The atrocities in Syria do not seem to be considered serious enough to be worth that risk: a fact which may itself eventually be considered a less-than-shining moment in US history, but there you have it. The US has no motive.
 
2013-01-30 10:53:27 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963. American armed forces leaders began to perceive Kennedy as going soft on Cuba, and the President became increasingly unpopular with the military, a rift that came to a head during Kennedy's disagreements with the service chiefs over the Cuban Missile Crisis.


Yeah it really sounds like his career was over at that point. Poor guy only became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO while Kennedy went on to even greater power and influence that year for bravely standing up to the military and intelligence agencies.
 
2013-01-30 11:35:33 AM
If this is true (assertions from the article) the Republicans might actually have their first real Obama political scandal to exploit.
 
2013-01-30 11:50:59 AM

Aldon: If this is true (assertions from the article) the Republicans might actually have their first real Obama political scandal to exploit.


If this is true (it's not), someone should be brought up on war crimes charges (they won't be because it's false)
 
2013-01-30 12:10:03 PM
So an email exchange between two people at a company that quotes a third party who claims it's true means Obama is a hypocrite?

"news"
 
2013-01-30 01:31:43 PM
This might be a good point to point out to non-British people that The Daily Mail is far, far more clever than you might think.

It's essentially two papers, one online, one off. They're entirely different in character. The off-line paper version is a stuffy, Little England, reactionist guff mid-brow tabloid that markets to people who don't realise they're midmarket and like to think of themselves as high-brow. It's aimed at your middle class elderly racist grandmother She doesn't go online. The on-[line version have a much different mix of stories, and has been designed as a perfect storm of click-bait. It's designed to shock and outrage for clicks. There's a reason that a parochial British mid-level tabloid has one of the most visited "newspaper" sites in the world.

This story is not in the actual paper.
 
2013-01-30 04:20:48 PM
guess it was a bad article cuz even the daily fail pulled it down.
 
2013-01-30 05:09:05 PM

randomjsa: You know, there's plenty of things this administration has done so catastrophically wrong that you really shouldn't need to make wildly unsubstantiated accusations that make no sense.

If we wanted an excuse to get involved in Syria do you really think we'd do something as silly as frame Assad with chemical weapons?


Name them. I bet you can' name one that is real and tangible.
 
2013-01-30 05:25:11 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: DrPainMD: fusillade762: The Daily Mail sourcing Infowars? That's dividing the derp by zero.

I've noticed that Drudge has been linking to Infowars a lot. But, in almost every case, a quick Google search can find verification of whatever the story is from multiple, legitimate sources. I've come to the conclusion that the powers-that-be use Infowars to sway people into believing that something that happened didn't happen. And it works. People refuse to believe a lot of things that can be easily verified, just because their first knowledge of it came from Infowars. No wonder the politicians treat us like idiots; for the most part, we are.

So, your conspiracy theory is the that the government is using conspiracy theorists to make us think legitimate stories are conspiracy theories.

[i.qkme.me image 625x415]


24.media.tumblr.com

Morris Fletcher: You guys are the Lone Gunmen, aren't you? You guys are my heroes. I mean look at the crap you print.

Byers: We uncover the truth.

Morris Fletcher: The truth? That's what's so great about you monkeys. Not only do you believe the horse pucky we create, you broadcast it as well. I mean look at this!

[headline reads: "Saddam testing mandroid army in Iraqi desert."]

Morris Fletcher: There is no Saddam Hussein. This guy's name is John Gillnitz, we found him doing dinner theatre in Tulsa. Did a mean "King and I." Plays good ethnics.

Ringo Langly: Are you trying to say that Saddam Hussein is a goverment plant?

Morris Fletcher: I'm saying I invented the guy. We set him up in '79. He rattles his saber whenever we need a good distraction. Ah... if you boys only knew how many of your stories I dreamed up while on the pot.
 
2013-01-30 06:04:12 PM

skullkrusher: Aldon: If this is true (assertions from the article) the Republicans might actually have their first real Obama political scandal to exploit.

If this is true (it's not), someone should be brought up on war crimes charges (they won't be because it's false)


You mean like faking intel to invade Iraq to get the WMDs?
 
2013-01-30 11:27:27 PM

Arkanaut: Kibbler: The Repeated Meme: Wasn't there some SS officer at Nuremburg who got off because he proved Allied forces carried out the same actions he was accused of? A war crime can be defined as "something we didn't do."

/getting bored of the Middle East
//looking forward to the Scramble for Africa reboot

No. "Tu quoque" did not fly at Nuremberg. Lawyers who tried it soon found that out.

You might be thinking of a different trial. There were no SS officers at Nuremberg unless you count Speer, who had been a kind of honorary SS officer since the early 30s. Something to do with a motoring club, as I recall.

He's probably thinking of Admiral Karl Donitz, who was prosecuted for unrestricted submarine warfare, and found guilty but not sentenced for that charge because the Allies had similar policies. There's a few things wrong with TRM's account though -- 1) Donitz was not an "SS officer" but a member of the regular military (he might not even have been a Nazi Party member, although Wikipedia is unclear on this); 2) IIRC, Admiral Chester Nimitz provided his testimony freely -- the Allies' conduct was not "proven" by the defense as suggested by TRM; 3) like I said, he was still found guilty, meaning unrestricted submarine warfare is still a war crime.

Link

Doenitz was most def a hard coreNazi.  He became Hitler's chosensuccessor after Borman, Goering and Himmler screwed up in their own dysfunctional ways and was the head of state after Hitler's death.  They all should have been shot. Especially Speer, "Oh I'm really sorry about that massive slave labor program I helped set up with Ley and Saukel that directly led to the deaths of millions, but here's my sad story about how Hitler hurt my feelings and my bullshiat memoir that even the most basic and cursory fact checking can debunk. don't kill me pls!"
If Keitel and Jodl got executed and they were regular military than Doenitz deserved it too.

Ernst Kaltenbrunner was chief of the SS Einsatzgruppen and later the whole camp system (i think) and he was tried and executed at Nuremburg.
Most of the other SS officers captured were tried in the countries their atrocities were committed in.

themoreyouknow.jpg
 
2013-01-31 12:06:43 AM

lohphat: skullkrusher: Aldon: If this is true (assertions from the article) the Republicans might actually have their first real Obama political scandal to exploit.

If this is true (it's not), someone should be brought up on war crimes charges (they won't be because it's false)

You mean like faking intel to invade Iraq to get the WMDs?


No I meant something different than that. See, I was referring to the use of WMDs to provide an excuse to invade a country. See? Different.
 
2013-01-31 05:20:32 AM

skullkrusher: lohphat: skullkrusher: Aldon: If this is true (assertions from the article) the Republicans might actually have their first real Obama political scandal to exploit.

If this is true (it's not), someone should be brought up on war crimes charges (they won't be because it's false)

You mean like faking intel to invade Iraq to get the WMDs?

No I meant something different than that. See, I was referring to the use of WMDs to provide an excuse to invade a country. See? Different.


I think I might be the only one on the internet who consistently understands you.  Holy sh*t, dude, maybe this is your limbo.
 
2013-01-31 10:39:42 AM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: DrPainMD: fusillade762: The Daily Mail sourcing Infowars? That's dividing the derp by zero.

I've noticed that Drudge has been linking to Infowars a lot. But, in almost every case, a quick Google search can find verification of whatever the story is from multiple, legitimate sources. I've come to the conclusion that the powers-that-be use Infowars to sway people into believing that something that happened didn't happen. And it works. People refuse to believe a lot of things that can be easily verified, just because their first knowledge of it came from Infowars. No wonder the politicians treat us like idiots; for the most part, we are.

So, your conspiracy theory is the that the government is using conspiracy theorists to make us think legitimate stories are conspiracy theories.

[i.qkme.me image 625x415]


It's not a theory. More often than not, you can find legitimate news outlets, or even official government web sites, running the same stories as Infowars. Try it and see.
 
2013-01-31 11:43:36 AM

thamike: skullkrusher: lohphat: skullkrusher: Aldon: If this is true (assertions from the article) the Republicans might actually have their first real Obama political scandal to exploit.

If this is true (it's not), someone should be brought up on war crimes charges (they won't be because it's false)

You mean like faking intel to invade Iraq to get the WMDs?

No I meant something different than that. See, I was referring to the use of WMDs to provide an excuse to invade a country. See? Different.

I think I might be the only one on the internet who consistently understands you.  Holy sh*t, dude, maybe this is your limbo.


I'm like a farking onion. Take a bite.
If you dare.

/taking a bite of an onion would be gross
 
2013-01-31 01:21:45 PM

DrPainMD: It's not a theory. More often than not, you can find legitimate news outlets, or even official government web sites, running the same stories as Infowars. Try it and see.


Maybe Infowars is really a government op to damage the credibility of mainstream news.
 
Displayed 24 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report