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 21
    More: Scary, chemical weapons, Bashar al-Assad  
•       •       •

4253 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-29 09:33:00 PM
4 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: The refusal to believe Obama isn't absolutely perfect is INSANE.


I like how you think believing this crap from Infowars makes you sane.
2013-01-29 09:02:58 PM
4 votes:
The Daily Mail sourcing Infowars? That's dividing the derp by zero.
2013-01-29 10:10:15 PM
3 votes:
So let me get this straight: A barely legitimate news source cites a single, completely unreliable news source which claims that it received a hacked E-mail from a British contractor which claims that they were offered a shady deal by a Qatari organization which totally promises it has authority from "Washington" (not naming the US government specifically) to deliver chemical weapons to Syria.

www.eeew.net
2013-01-29 09:34:50 PM
3 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: The refusal to believe Obama isn't absolutely perfect is INSANE.


When this gets picked up by Al Jazeera, Reuters, AFP, NPR, or BBC as a legitimate story I'll listen.
2013-01-30 08:09:21 AM
2 votes:
You mean like Ronald Reagan selling chemical weapons to Iraq, with Donald Rumsfeld brokering the sale so Saddam could gas the Kurds?
2013-01-30 01:14:01 AM
2 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: doyner: No. If you already have the moral authority to act you don't need to compromise your position to do so.

That in itself is already a weird situation. If the rest of the world has the moral authority to act, why haven't they? Is a man less dead because he's killed with a bullet instead a nerve agent? How many lives can be taken with conventional weapons before the world community steps in, compared to how many can be taken with chemical weapons? Children are being tortured to death on a regular basis. Moral authority took a smoke break a few months ago.


We don't have the moral authority to act; or rather, the act we can take is circumscribed by that very moral authority.

Imagine that you live next door to a man you know is abusing his family. You can hear through the walls every night as he beats his wife, whips his children, kicks the dog, yells, screams, until he drops into bed in a drunken stupor. You've seen the wife and kids stagger out of the house every day covered in bruises and bloody welts and god knows how many dogs you've buried. Now: Do you have the moral authority to kick down his door some night and murder him in his bed because of his awful acts? No.

You can't argue that nobody would miss him--certainly not his beaten wife and kids; that this guy is an awful person and society is better off without him. Your authority stops at his door. You CAN call the cops, offer support to his wife and kids, testify against him at court, do all the things a civilized society lets you do. But you can't unilaterally break into his home and kill him because YOU, personally, find his acts repugnant and even illegal.

It's the same thing in the international community. Yes, Assad has done awful, murderous things. He's killed his own people, tortured them, probably worse. But if we call ourselves a moral society, we have no right to invade another country (kick the door down, so to speak) because WE say his acts are too awful to let stand. We can offer support to his people, offer intervention if they ask us to (like France did in Libya), help bring Assad and his ministers before the International Court. But if America or any other nation unilaterally invades to unseat Assad, things will turn out no better than they did in Iraq. And for the same reasons.
2013-01-30 01:31:43 PM
1 votes:
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 09:47:39 AM
1 votes:
so a recursive false flag, false flag, false flag,.....
2013-01-30 09:16:06 AM
1 votes:
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 08:06:39 AM
1 votes:
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?
2013-01-30 06:47:52 AM
1 votes:
Infowars claims that hackers claim that Britam claims that Qataris claim that the scheme is Washington-approved.

I think we're truely ready to impeach now.
2013-01-30 01:39:40 AM
1 votes:
I Feel Like I'm Fixin To Die ...
For it's 1...2...3 what are we fightin' for...
We supported Iraq when they attacked Iran to cut off Iran's oil
We spanked Iraq when they attacked Kuwait for angle drilling under Iraq to steal Iraq's oil.
We attack Afghanistan for not kicking al Qaeda out, even though 16 of the 19, September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, then spend 12 years trying to kick al Qaeda out...unsuccessfully only 3257 American soldiers died because they hated our freedoms
We then invade Iraq with "ginned up" intelligence killing over 120,000 civilians(according to our own documents released by WikiLeaks) and allowing 4488 American soldiers to die.
We are using drone aircraft to kill foreigners AND American citizens with 5 civilians dying for every 1 "suspected terrorist" killed.
t3.gstatic.com
Remember the Maine
Gulf of Tonkin
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
WMDs in Iraq
Read about "Operation Northwoods" if you don't believe America is capable of committing a False Flag attack
2013-01-30 12:25:54 AM
1 votes:

doyner: NewportBarGuy: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: How many lives can be taken with conventional weapons before the world community steps in

Many, many, many, many, many... As long as it is their own people. We really don't give a sh*t. This is what I've learned.

I call this the Morality Hawk Down Doctrine.


I call it the "Overextension of So-Called Morality by Chicken Hawks in the 2000s that Leads to Morality Hawk Down Doctrine Via Exhaustion" Doctrine.
2013-01-30 12:25:04 AM
1 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: doyner: I spoke of moral authority, not the will to act.

Another interesting situation. Is it more important to have moral authority or to prevent children from being tortured to death as political leverage?


Can you adopt every dog from the pound before they're put down?  Can you donate enough blood to ensure everyone gets a needed transfusion?
2013-01-30 12:22:06 AM
1 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: How many lives can be taken with conventional weapons before the world community steps in


Many, many, many, many, many... As long as it is their own people. We really don't give a sh*t. This is what I've learned.
2013-01-29 11:50:19 PM
1 votes:
so, 'approved by Washington' means the white house and Obama?

1. could have been bullshiat and not approved
2. could have been from his boss in washington
3. could be total bullcrap and completely made up

I'm going with 3 alex
2013-01-29 11:44:31 PM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: The refusal to believe Obama isn't absolutely perfect is INSANE.


You are literally one of the most retarded people I have ever seen on the planet. I consider it a miracle that you have managed to survive living on this planet for as long as you have and are able to figure out how to utilize a computer to get yourself onto the internet. In short, your existence has convinced me that God does in fact actually exist and that he is a sadistic bastard with a sick sense of humour.

/not constructive.
//needed to be said anyway.
2013-01-29 11:39:20 PM
1 votes:
Seriously though, why can't so many Republicans dislike someone's politics WITHOUT assuming they're farking supervillains?
2013-01-29 11:08:09 PM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: The refusal to believe Obama isn't absolutely perfect is INSANE.


So, the options are either

1) I believe Obama is absolutely perfect, or
2) I believe he's threatening chemical warfare?

Are you sure those are the only options?
2013-01-29 10:23:17 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-29 09:00:36 PM
1 votes:
Seems legit.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report