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.

(CNN)   France has decided that if Syria used chemical weapons, that the U.S. should do something about it   (cnn.com) divider line 215
    More: Obvious, Israel Radio, Ahmet Davutoglu, U.S., 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, chemical weapons, United Nations Security Council, international humanitarian law, information minister  
•       •       •

4982 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 8:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-22 04:28:29 PM

Amos Quito: Do you know WHO ELSE has been lobbing missiles into Syria this year?


JOOOOOOOOOOOS
 
2013-08-22 04:33:14 PM

simplicimus: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: simplicimus: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: 

US public will buy in hook, line, and sinker.  MSM is emphasizing "Syria bad" by showing gassed children ad infinitum to tug at the heartstrings.   Thankfully, US military has saddled its white horse to save the day yet again.

Eh, not so much:
"

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the conflict in Syria a "complex sectarian war," and he warned in explicit detail that virtually every option involving the use of military force is staggeringly expensive and might not work.

Military officials also warned against action in Iraq.  My guess is that tactics will change this time around and intervention will be a collaborative effort through the UN .  The US has spent too much time fishing to suddenly cut bait.

Pretty sure Russia and China would veto any UN action.


Well, there will be some some kind of intervention.  Either NATO or lone wolf US.
 
2013-08-22 04:42:22 PM
Article is BS, France didn't ask Belgium if it was allowed to comment.

Belgium... gods... the stuperpowar is based in Belgium.
 
2013-08-22 04:42:59 PM
Here's the gist of the matter, Islamic countries are pretty much screwed up. The ones who practice Sharia law the worst. Whenever one of these countries gets in trouble and starts a civil war like in Syria, they look to the civilized countries (which just happen to be Christian based) for help. Please help us Christian heathens, save us from ourselves. How often do you hear of a non Western world country coming to the aid of these poor Islamic countries? The League of Arab States is a joke. They'll write a strongly worded letter at the most.

Personally, I'm fed up with the Western countries coming to the aid of Islamic problems and then getting dumped on for helping. If any one organization should help it would be the UN but that won't happen anytime soon because they'll have to debate it until the cows come home then send a sharply worded letter. It is time to realize that the Western countries have no obligation to be the policemen of the world.

It has been proven time and time again that foreign intervention does not work. Time must run it's course and the problems must be worked out by the locals.

Since I'm bashing Islam, if Islam is so great, why do so many want to immigrate to Western countries? I don't know of too many that want to go to Islamic countries....
 
2013-08-22 04:44:42 PM

PsiChick: I didn't know that, so yes, that does change the situation, and in that case...yup, we should intervene, provided it won't send us into another recession.

/Our last recession had global implications, let's not do that again, mmmkay...


Like I said...basically pull an Iron Man. Destroy Assad's ability to wage war remotely which we easily can do, and then turn to the Syrians and tell them it's all theirs. No mass murders or we come back for seconds mmkay.

AngryDragon: Let the UN do something if there is world consensus. If the world doesn't want us to police it when things are quiet then we shouldn't be doing so when things are chaotic either.


Sovereign nations can act when its obvious things needed acting on. See France in Mali, the fact off the matter unfortunately is that we are the only nation on the planet that can project the power required in this situation (remote drones, cruise missiles, carrier groups, logistical support, etc..)

Sometimes, someone has to step up and do something lest we all stand to the sidelines. It sucks being that person sometimes, but it's gotta get done.

And this is coming from someone who is generally a pacifist
 
2013-08-22 04:47:54 PM
This thread's pretty much dead so time to get back to real life.

I ran across this and thought it too funny not to share:

www.newscorpse.com
 
2013-08-22 05:01:30 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: Sovereign nations can act when its obvious things needed acting on. See France in Mali, the fact off the matter unfortunately is that we are the only nation on the planet that can project the power required in this situation (remote drones, cruise missiles, carrier groups, logistical support, etc..)


Then those nations don't deserve their sovereignty. I am farking sick and tired of Americans acting as if we are the only country that sovereignty actually applies to. I say we gather up all of you motherfarkers and ship you over there to do the fighting that you are pushing so hard for.
 
2013-08-22 05:10:51 PM

blanchae: It has been proven time and time again that foreign intervention does not work. Time must run it's course and the problems must be worked out by the locals.


Odd for an American to make that observation when it's France talking about doing the intervening.
 
2013-08-22 05:20:56 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: This thread's pretty much dead so time to get back to real life.

I ran across this and thought it too funny not to share:

[www.newscorpse.com image 250x350]


I believe most of the stories about the massacres committed by the Syrian government over the past two years to be true even though the mainstream media says they are.

In this connection, I do recall asking you some time back where you got your information about the Syrian civil war.  Care to tell me?
 
2013-08-22 06:27:43 PM

tirob: Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Show me where I jumped to any conclusion about who gassed those people.



So you are saying that you don't believe AssadCo is the culprit? He's already been convicted in the media, you know.


tirob: Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

From a knee-jerk conclusion? Or from an intervention against the armed forces of the Syrian government?



Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastically obtuse - but I now see that your obtuseness was sincere and genuine.

Let me clarify: Who stands to benefit from the (alleged) gas attack - and especially from the international reaction in the aftermath?

Is that better?
 
2013-08-22 06:28:46 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Do nothing: supportin' evil
Support Assad/Egypt's militar government: supportin' evil
Support rebels/Muslim Brotherhood: you better believe that's supportin' evil


Kill them all and let God sort it out?

Hey, at least we wouldn't be supporting evil.
 
2013-08-22 06:30:59 PM

vygramul: Amos Quito: Do you know WHO ELSE has been lobbing missiles into Syria this year?

JOOOOOOOOOOOS



Correct - The Zionist State - more precisely. And that little snowball in hell has an interest in what transpires in Syria - and in who gains power in the wake of the Assad regime, don't they?
 
2013-08-22 07:06:55 PM

Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Show me where I jumped to any conclusion about who gassed those people.

So you are saying that you don't believe AssadCo is the culprit? He's already been convicted in the media, you know.


I don't know whom to believe yet.  Since we talked last, I have read a (secondhand) source who has asserted that the Syrian government has blocked UN inspectors from entering the gassed area, and that it has followed that up by bombing the area with conventional weapons.  As the Syrian government has so far not troubled to deny these assertions, I confess that I am starting to lean toward a belief that Assad had something to do with it.  But I'm staying tuned.

Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

From a knee-jerk conclusion? Or from an intervention against the armed forces of the Syrian government?

Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastically obtuse - but I now see that your obtuseness was sincere and genuine.

Let me clarify: Who stands to benefit from the (alleged) gas attack - and especially from the international reaction in the aftermath?

Is that better?


Yes.

1.  Nobody benefits from a gas attack.  As for your use of the word "alleged," I have seen no source that asserts that one didn't happen, not even the article you linked here.

2.  Lots of people stand to benefit from an international campaign of some sort against the Syrian government--most of Syria's Sunni Muslim population, the Syrian opposition and their supporters everywhere and especially in Lebanon (read:  most Lebanese Sunni Muslims), Turkey, Jordan, and probably Israel too, which country I suspect would like to see a hostile (Sunni) state set up athwart the supply road between Iran and the Hizbullah authorities in southern Lebanon.  However, I have seen nothing (other than your innuendo) that would suggest to me that any of these people or governments were behind the gas attack.
 
2013-08-22 07:38:41 PM

SDRR: Just like 'Nam?


For the Foxbots, yes.  Heads the Libbie POTUS stays out and gets called a wimpy appeaser or even enemy sympathizer, and tails he jumps in a war he can't win, with Real Americans clucking about quagmires in places without oil not vital to our national interests.
 
2013-08-22 07:50:37 PM

tirob: Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Show me where I jumped to any conclusion about who gassed those people.

So you are saying that you don't believe AssadCo is the culprit? He's already been convicted in the media, you know.

I don't know whom to believe yet.  Since we talked last, I have read a (secondhand) source who has asserted that the Syrian government has blocked UN inspectors from entering the gassed area, and that it has followed that up by bombing the area with conventional weapons.  As the Syrian government has so far not troubled to deny these assertions, I confess that I am starting to lean toward a belief that Assad had something to do with it.  But I'm staying tuned.



Wait, does the Syrian government control that area? If so, why would they be gassing and bombing it? If not, how can they "block inspectors" from entering the area?

Maybe you can help me make sense of these seeming inconsistencies? Smells bad.


tirob: Yes.

1. Nobody benefits from a gas attack.



Least of all AssadCo. Remember, they have been under close scrutiny  - having been earlier accused of a similar attack - and then there's the Obama "RED LINE" speech. So while AssadCo's enemies may not benefit directly from staging such an attack, they would most certainly benefit if the the OUTRAGED World Police (US) were to roll up its sleeves and kick Assad's ass, wouldn't they?


tirob: As for your use of the word "alleged," I have seen no source that asserts that one didn't happen, not even the article you linked here.


There seems to be a consensus that a CW attack occurred - though, from what I have seen, no one has confirmed what type of CW may have been used, though many have recklessly claimed that it was Sarin. Even so, all fingers are pointing at AssadCo, aren't they?


tirob: 2. Lots of people stand to benefit from an international campaign of some sort against the Syrian government--most of Syria's Sunni Muslim population, the Syrian opposition and their supporters everywhere and especially in Lebanon (read: most Lebanese Sunni Muslims), Turkey, Jordan, and probably Israel too, which country I suspect would like to see a hostile (Sunni) state set up athwart the supply road between Iran and the Hizbullah authorities in southern Lebanon. However, I have seen nothing (other than your innuendo) that would suggest to me that any of these people or governments were behind the gas attack.



What seems painfully obvious (to me) is that the party that would have the most to lose from such an attack would be AssadCo - as both media and government figures quickly (and predictably) blamed the Syrian government. I'm pretty sure that this entirely predictable reaction was NOT been lost on the enemies of the Assad regime.

Here's a quote that might help to emphasize how third-parties can indirectly benefit from tragedies suffered by others:

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel

QUOTE:

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

END QUOTE

I hope that illustrates the point.

AssadCo would have nothing to gain and much to lose by committing such an atrocity - OTOH, their enemies would have much to gain by carrying out such an attack IF they could be reasonably sure that AssadCo would be blamed.

And the latter is pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?
 
2013-08-22 08:59:21 PM
Sometimes the only sensible thing you can do is stay out of the way.
 
2013-08-22 09:07:49 PM
Amos Quito:
I don't know whom to believe yet.  Since we talked last, I have read a (secondhand) source who has asserted that the Syrian government has blocked UN inspectors from entering the gassed area, and that it has followed that up by bombing the area with conventional weapons.  As the Syrian government has so far not troubled to deny these assertions, I confess that I am starting to lean toward a belief that Assad had something to do with it.  But I'm staying tuned.

Wait, does the Syrian government control that area? If so, why would they be gassing and bombing it? If not, how can they "block inspectors" from entering the area?


I can't help you make sense of what you believe to be inconsistencies.  All I can do is cite my source:

http://blogues.lapresse.ca/hetu/2013/08/22/syrie-une-ligne-de-moins- en -moins-rouge/

And pardon my French.

candela 22 août 2013 17h10

Si Assad voulait prouver son innocence, pourquoi refuse-t-il que les inspecteurs se précipitent sur les lieux pour enquêter ? Au lieu de cela, il en a profité aujourd'hui pour envoyer un déluge de bombes sur cet en droit. Camouflage.

"If Assad wanted to prove his innocence, why does he refuse to let the inspectors get to the [gassed] areas to investigate?  Instead of that, he took advantage of the situation today by flooding the district with bombs.  Camouflage."

From a blog I participate on at La Presse in Montreal.  I think it safe to assume that Candela gets his news from Radio-Canada, a source I believe to be reliable.

I will also quote another participant on the same blog:

basel 22 août 2013 10h21

Pourquoi alors, si le régime dit vrai (que c'est les rebelles qui gazent les civils), ne pas laisser entrer les secours à la population? Pourquoi ne pas mettre les drapeaux en berne? Où est le président pour dénoncer ce massacre des enfants de SON PEUPLE? Pourquoi les médias du régime nient même l'existence du massacre?

Depuis quand les rebelles ont des lance missiles? Depuis quand ont il les moyens de manipuler et lancer du chimique? On nous prends pour des cons?  Ceux qui innocentent le régime sont complices du meurtre d'enfants. Point final. Je suis syrien et je suis outré par ce manque incroyable d'humanisme. J'ai les photos des enfants morts et je peux vous assurer qu'ils ressemblent en tout point aux enfants Québecois, qu'ils sont aussi beaux et innocents. Honte aux apologistes.
Basel Al-Kana

"Why then, if the regime is telling the truth (that it's the rebels who are gassing the civilians), doesn't it permit the population [affected] to get help?  Why doesn't it order flags to be flown at half-staff?  Why doesn't the President [Assad] denounce the massacre of his OWN PEOPLE'S children?  Why does the regime's media deny that a massacre even took place?

Since when do the rebels have missile launchers?  Since when do they have the ability to handle and deliver chemical weapons?  Do they take us for idiots?  The people who are defending the regime are accomplices of child killers.  Period.  I am Syrian and I am outraged by this incredible lack of empathy.  I have pictures of the dead kids, and I can assure you that they resemble Quebec kids in every respect in their beauty and innocence.  Shame on the apologists.
Basel Al-Kana"

I will answer the balance of your post separately.
 
2013-08-22 09:32:11 PM
tirob:

Again, Assad doesn't have control over the area. How can he even verify that gas was in fact used? If he sends in his people, they'll be attacked by the rebels.

Why doesn't Assad "allow" inspectors to enter? For the same reason that Obama and France and Britain don't "allow" inspectors to enter - he doesn't control the area.

Read this Guardian article that illustrates the insanity of the international position - on the one hand the author is saying it's Assad's responsibility to "allow the inspectors" into the area, but at the same time, he echoes what I have been saying citing the insanity of the very IDEA that Assad should launch such an attack.

WTF?

This is a clusterfark - I am more convinced than ever that this was a false-flag setup by Assad's enemies, and we're being fed bullshiat by the media just like in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Fark this shiat.
 
2013-08-22 09:39:48 PM

Amos Quito: 1. Nobody benefits from a gas attack.

Least of all AssadCo.


Assad may not necessarily see it that way.  After all, it's a few hundred of his enemies dead, and a lesson to the rest of them.

Amos Quito: while AssadCo's enemies may not benefit directly from staging such an attack, they would most certainly benefit if the the OUTRAGED World Police (US) were to roll up its sleeves and kick Assad's ass, wouldn't they?


Yes.  They have said as much openly.

http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/crise-dans-le-monde-ar ab e/syrie/201308/22/01-4682247-washington-sous-pression-pour-intervenir- en-syrie.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cy berpresse_lire_aussi_4682298_article_POS4

The caption of the picture describes the young man holding the sign as a Syrian living in Beirut.

Amos Quito: tirob: As for your use of the word "alleged," I have seen no source that asserts that one didn't happen, not even the article you linked here.

There seems to be a consensus that a CW attack occurred - though, from what I have seen, no one has confirmed what type of CW may have been used, though many have recklessly claimed that it was Sarin. Even so, all fingers are pointing at AssadCo, aren't they?


I now see that I overlooked a source (the Syrian government media) that claimed that no chemical attack occurred.  See my previous post.  Otherwise, you are correct that practically everyone else we're hearing from now says that a chemical attack occurred, and I agree that fingers (mine not excepted) are starting to point at Assad.

Amos Quito: What seems painfully obvious (to me) is that the party that would have the most to lose from such an attack would be AssadCo - as both media and government figures quickly (and predictably) blamed the Syrian government.


This is more obvious to you than it is to me.  As I mentioned before, from Assad's point of view, it's several hundred of his enemies dead and an object lesson to the rest of them.

Amos Quito: Here's a quote that might help to emphasize how third-parties can indirectly benefit from tragedies suffered by others:

I hope that illustrates the point


I'm sorry to accuse you of deliberate ambiguity again so soon, but which point do you mean?

Amos Quito: OTOH, their enemies would have much to gain by carrying out such an attack IF they could be reasonably sure that AssadCo would be blamed.

And the latter is pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?


Again, I detect an ambiguity in your question.  I'll go so far as to say this, though:  I think that Assad's enemies would only carry out a false-flag attack if they were *completely* sure that Assad would be blamed for it.  And with all the radar monitoring the eastern Mediterranean these days, I don't think that Israel would even try to get away undetected with throwing a large rock across the border with Syria, much less a rocket with a chemical warhead.
 
2013-08-22 09:50:10 PM

Amos Quito: tirob:

Read this Guardian article


I read it.  According to the writer, there are 20 UN inspectors on the ground in Damascus.  Do you really think that it is beyond Assad's power to make sure that 20 foreigners don't get to try to enter any areas that Assad doesn't want them to see?

Amos Quito: I am more convinced than ever that this was a false-flag setup by Assad's enemies


If you have made up your mind, why trouble to refute any points I make?
 
2013-08-22 09:54:21 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: Sovereign nations can act when its obvious things needed acting on. See France in Mali, the fact off the matter unfortunately is that we are the only nation on the planet that can project the power required in this situation (remote drones, cruise missiles, carrier groups, logistical support, etc..)

Sometimes, someone has to step up and do something lest we all stand to the sidelines. It sucks being that person sometimes, but it's gotta get done


Sorry, I can't agree with you.  35 years of trying to help in that geographic cesspool has only ended up with us being the butt of jokes and the target of hostility and animosity.  There are entire nations who's power base is founded on resisting "American Imperialism".  Fine.  You want us out?  We're out.

fark em.  Let them sort their own shiat out this time.
 
2013-08-22 10:53:31 PM
You know, it would really help these discussions if people would switch from generic Muslim and see the situation as it is, Sunni Muslims vs. Shia Muslims. Think there's no distinction? Check up on the 30 years war in Europe, Catholic nations vs. Protestant nations. From a certain perspective, a distinction without a difference. From another, cause for massive death and destruction.
 
2013-08-22 11:35:41 PM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: Do you know WHO ELSE has been lobbing missiles into Syria this year?

JOOOOOOOOOOOS


Correct - The Zionist State - more precisely. And that little snowball in hell has an interest in what transpires in Syria - and in who gains power in the wake of the Assad regime, don't they?


Yep. You know who else they wanted removed? Hitler. But they didn't invade Poland to do that, now, did they? It turns out bad people do things without any help all the time. Some day you'll figure that out.
 
2013-08-22 11:38:09 PM

Amos Quito: Here's a quote that might help to emphasize how third-parties can indirectly benefit from tragedies suffered by others:

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel


So you admit Israel's a third party, and this isn't a false-flag, and that your opposition is based on the perception that Assad is worse for Israel than his replacement, not any actual justice.
 
2013-08-22 11:55:47 PM

tirob: Amos Quito: 1. Nobody benefits from a gas attack.

Least of all AssadCo.

Assad may not necessarily see it that way.  After all, it's a few hundred of his enemies dead, and a lesson to the rest of them.

Amos Quito: while AssadCo's enemies may not benefit directly from staging such an attack, they would most certainly benefit if the the OUTRAGED World Police (US) were to roll up its sleeves and kick Assad's ass, wouldn't they?

Yes.  They have said as much openly.

http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/crise-dans-le-monde-ar ab e/syrie/201308/22/01-4682247-washington-sous-pression-pour-intervenir- en-syrie.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cy berpresse_lire_aussi_4682298_article_POS4

The caption of the picture describes the young man holding the sign as a Syrian living in Beirut.



Then why deny the possibility?


tirob: I now see that I overlooked a source (the Syrian government media) that claimed that no chemical attack occurred. See my previous post. Otherwise, you are correct that practically everyone else we're hearing from now says that a chemical attack occurred, and I agree that fingers (mine not excepted) are starting to point at Assad.


1. I see no link
2. With no access to the area, how would Assad know whether and actual attack occurred - rather than just propaganda? Is he psychic?
3. You're STARTING to point the finger at Assad? LOL!


tirob: Amos Quito: What seems painfully obvious (to me) is that the party that would have the most to lose from such an attack would be AssadCo - as both media and government figures quickly (and predictably) blamed the Syrian government.

This is more obvious to you than it is to me. As I mentioned before, from Assad's point of view, it's several hundred of his enemies dead and an object lesson to the rest of them


Sorrry tirob, but what you just said can only be described as bone stupid. First, "several hundred"? That's a paltry number in this conflict. Second, "his enemies"? The collateral damage of such an attack (women, children, non-combatants) likely outnumber "rebels" by far, and Third, "teach them a lesson??? You realize that you're saying that he 1. gassed his own people, 2. denied that any gassing took place, and 3. claims that if it DID take place, he had nothing to do with it. WHAT KIND OF A "LESSON" IS THAT???

Your "logic"- it isn't logical.

Also, From the Guardian article:

"However, it is also important to note that, analytically and strategically, his alleged use of such weapons defies logic. Beyond the nature of the attack itself, therefore, there are other questions the international community needs to ask.

First, why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons on such a scale while there is a strong team of UN inspectors in Damascus? That would be foolish and reckless.

Second, why would the Syrian army use non-conventional arms when it had already gained the upper hand in Ghouta, a strategic suburb, in the past nine months? The town has been besieged and under constant attack by the Assad forces - they have recently launched a major assault to recapture on the suburb. A few days ago the Syrian National Coalition released a public statement naming Ghouta mintaqa mankuba [a disaster area] and calling on the international community to pressure Assad to allow food and medicine to be delivered to the besieged neighbourhoods.

Third, why would Assad utilise chemical weapons at this stage and bring about a potential western military intervention? His decision to allow the UN to investigate the earlier alleged chemical attacks was designed to neutralise the opposition's calls for direct western intervention.

END QUOTE

Everything points to a false-flag op. Everything.


tirob: Amos Quito: Here's a quote that might help to emphasize how third-parties can indirectly benefit from tragedies suffered by others:

I hope that illustrates the point

I'm sorry to accuse you of deliberate ambiguity again so soon, but which point do you mean?



Bolded for you above.

False flag ops and false intel ops (such as WMD's in Iraq) can be extremely valuable if well played - especially if you have a cooperative media. I'm not saying that Israel is necessarily the culprit - but I'm not saying they aren't either. The CIA, Mossad and others have been up to their eyeballs in this mess - and in the other "spontaneous Arab Spring uprisings" from the get-go.

Did you learn NOTHING from the Iraq scam?


tirob: Amos Quito: OTOH, their enemies would have much to gain by carrying out such an attack IF they could be reasonably sure that AssadCo would be blamed.

And the latter is pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?

Again, I detect an ambiguity in your question. I'll go so far as to say this, though: I think that Assad's enemies would only carry out a false-flag attack if they were *completely* sure that Assad would be blamed for it. And with all the radar monitoring the eastern Mediterranean these days, I don't think that Israel would even try to get away undetected with throwing a large rock across the border with Syria, much less a rocket with a chemical warhead.



What makes you think that the attack would necessarily have been launched from Israel?  That sounds like a pretty far-fetched scenario to me, tirob.

You think that the Palestinians are clever enough to sneak in missiles, munitions and rockets into Gaza, but there is NO WAI that interested parties with vastly greater resources could POSSIBLY sneak a chemical weapon into the middle of the Syrian chaos?

Bullshiat. The weapon need not have even been fired. It could have been smuggled in and detonated on site.

I've told you before that I have you Farkied as "tirob the honorable", because I saw you make a 180 degree change your position when evidence was properly presented. But that was in the Zimmerman case - perhaps you see this as a bit more personal? Because I'm have a hard time accepting the notion that you are this gullible / dense.

But don't feel bad, most people are buying the bullshiat, just like you - just like they bought the SADDAM HAS WMD's lies that took us into Iraq.

But hey, at least Iraq was "good for Israel", no?
 
2013-08-23 12:02:04 AM

Amos Quito: But hey, at least Iraq was "good for Israel", no?


Israel probably didn't benefit much. Iraq had potential for war against Iran again, which could have ended nuclear, with prevailing winds causing fallout in Iran. I'd say Israel was better off with Saddam in power.
 
2013-08-23 12:04:21 AM

tirob: According to the writer, there are 20 UN inspectors on the ground in Damascus.  Do you really think that it is beyond Assad's power to make sure that 20 foreigners don't get to try to enter any areas that Assad doesn't want them to see?



You're right about that.

They have to get permission to go and check it out - permission from Assad.  He's already bombing those same neighborhoods, so now it's a war zone and 'too dangerous' for UN inspectors.

He's did it (used poison gas) just to rub in everyone's faces.  Obama's 'red lines' don't mean anything to anybody.  His use of chemical weapons isn't a 'game changer', either.  All it does is set a new precedent that any dictator can use them now and not worry - unless you try to use them on Israel.

As far as the Obama Doctrine (i.e. 'the duty to protect'), that only mattered before the last election when they needed some good 'Commander in Chief' headlines to dominate the news.  The Obama Doctrine has since been quietly discarded...


/expect more chemical weapons attacks
 
2013-08-23 12:32:50 AM

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: Do you know WHO ELSE has been lobbing missiles into Syria this year?

JOOOOOOOOOOOS


Correct - The Zionist State - more precisely. And that little snowball in hell has an interest in what transpires in Syria - and in who gains power in the wake of the Assad regime, don't they?

Yep. You know who else they wanted removed? Hitler. But they didn't invade Poland to do that, now, did they?



LOL! Israel didn't exist at the time that Hitler invaded Poland - but Zionism sure did:

"On 17 September, sixteen days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union did so from the east. The invasion ended on 6 October 1939 with the division and annexing of the whole of the Second Polish Republic by Germany and the Soviet Union"

History is more complicated than you think, vygramul.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to have any understanding of the decisive role that Zionists played during WWI - the backroom deals, the Balfour Declaration, "stab in the back" once Russia was on the ropes, the ousting of the Czar, the Bolshevik Revolution and the formation of the Soviet State - that's all some pretty heavy shiat - way over your head lad.

tirob and I have discussed the matter briefly, so he may have an inkling, but you? I'll not waste my time - save to say that pretty much everything you THINK you know is wrong.

Mmmkay?
 
2013-08-23 12:59:31 AM

vygramul: Amos Quito: Here's a quote that might help to emphasize how third-parties can indirectly benefit from tragedies suffered by others:

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel


So you admit Israel's a third party,


Yes, a VERY INTERESTED third party.


vygramul: and this isn't a false-flag,



Why should Israel being an interested third party preclude this from being a false flag?


vygramul: and that your opposition is based on the perception that Assad is worse for Israel than his replacement,



Apparently Israel believes that they can work to oust Assad and that they, with the help of Uncle Sugardaddy, can install a "friendly puppet" regime (see Mubarak) in his place, and THAT will be "good for Israel". Why else would they be (effectively) supporting "the rebels", many of whom are reportedly linked to serious "terrorist" organizations?

You need to take a deep breath, step back and try to envision the bigger picture, lad.
 
2013-08-23 02:51:28 AM
As a former NYCer that now lives in Jerusalem, I just had my weekend plans interrupted because lebanon decided to shoot rockets an hour away from where I was planning on going and now I have to change my plans or risk getting a rocket in the face. It would be nice if the US got involved but I understand why they wouldn't want to.
 
2013-08-23 03:02:50 AM

Hobodeluxe: Zeb Hesselgresser: "Nothing practical, significant, has been done in the last two years in order to stop the continuing massacre of civilians carried out by the Assad regime," he said. "I think that the investigation of the United Nations is a joke."
                                                               - Yuval Steinitz, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs
[i1199.photobucket.com image 200x150]

so what has Israel done about it?  Have they sent in their planes, tanks and bombs to rid the world of Assad?


If we did everyone would find a reason to hate us (Israel) for it and it would start WW3. You should know by now that Israel can't do anything without everyone getting their panties in a twist because zomg zionists joos at it again!!! Omg they shot a rocket into a school that had asad in it even though it only broke a window we have to be outraged because now children won't be able to learn with a broken window!!!11
 
2013-08-23 03:14:12 AM

EsteeFlwrPot: As a former NYCer that now lives in Jerusalem, I just had my weekend plans interrupted because lebanon decided to shoot rockets an hour away from where I was planning on going and now I have to change my plans or risk getting a rocket in the face. It would be nice if the US got involved but I understand why they wouldn't want to.



Do yourself a favor and GTFO, EsteeFlwrPot.

What in the HELL possessed you to move into the middle of an artificially contrived HORNET'S NEST to begin with?

I mean, DAMN, girl!!!

Zionism was a BAD IDEA clear back when Herzl was masturbating in the dark over 100 years ago. Hell, back then you had to PAY Jews to move there - and even then, very few were STOOPID enough to take the plunge.

Have things gotten any better? SRSLY???

Oh sure, you're "protected" thanks to Uncle Sugardaddy and his handouts - but at the same time, your "brethren" have been working to KILL the font of all things good, and what do you suppose Izzy's fate will be when the US is dead and buried???

Who will become your NEW protector-in-chief? China? India? It won't be the Russians, that's for sure. Worn out welcome and all that.

Why anyone would even CONSIDER associating with - let alone MOVING TO a Pariah State that spends all of its free time making enemies and / or cutthroating "friends" is beyond me.

But there you are, aren't you?

Bit of advice: When considering your new destination, remember that Israel fully intends to take out as much of the rest of the world with it as possible when it falls (see the Samson Option), so you may wish to examine wind patterns for potential fallout. The US and Europe would probably NOT be good choices. Maybe Australia or Argentina?

Good luck and godspeed, EsteeFlwrPot.
 
2013-08-23 03:25:08 AM

Amos Quito: EsteeFlwrPot: As a former NYCer that now lives in Jerusalem, I just had my weekend plans interrupted because lebanon decided to shoot rockets an hour away from where I was planning on going and now I have to change my plans or risk getting a rocket in the face. It would be nice if the US got involved but I understand why they wouldn't want to.


Do yourself a favor and GTFO, EsteeFlwrPot.

What in the HELL possessed you to move into the middle of an artificially contrived HORNET'S NEST to begin with?

I mean, DAMN, girl!!!

Zionism was a BAD IDEA clear back when Herzl was masturbating in the dark over 100 years ago. Hell, back then you had to PAY Jews to move there - and even then, very few were STOOPID enough to take the plunge.

Have things gotten any better? SRSLY???

Oh sure, you're "protected" thanks to Uncle Sugardaddy and his handouts - but at the same time, your "brethren" have been working to KILL the font of all things good, and what do you suppose Izzy's fate will be when the US is dead and buried???

Who will become your NEW protector-in-chief? China? India? It won't be the Russians, that's for sure. Worn out welcome and all that.

Why anyone would even CONSIDER associating with - let alone MOVING TO a Pariah State that spends all of its free time making enemies and / or cutthroating "friends" is beyond me.

But there you are, aren't you?

Bit of advice: When considering your new destination, remember that Israel fully intends to take out as much of the rest of the world with it as possible when it falls (see the Samson Option), so you may wish to examine wind patterns for potential fallout. The US and Europe would probably NOT be good choices. Maybe Australia or Argentina?

Good luck and godspeed, EsteeFlwrPot.


Because i'm a Jew and I feel more at home here than I felt in NY, where I was born and raised my entire life. We have commandments-you can look them up in your bible if you want- that can only be done in the land of Israel. This is where our forefathers are buried, this is where our ancestors lived thousands of years ago back to the times of King Solomon. This is where so much of our culture, traditions and torah came from. I belong here, I live here, god willing i'll have a family here and i'll die here. This is my home, this is where I belong and rockets from gaza or syria won't change that.

By the way, the apartheid state thing is total crap. Arabs and Jews literally live side by side here-of course there are Jewish neighborhoods and arab neighborhoods, same as there are italian and spanish neighborhoods in America, but usually it's all mixed up. Arabs/Palestinians own hostels, restaurants, stores, you name it, and they get all sorts of customers, even Jewish customers and it's all good. I've been here for quite some time and i'm STILL wondering where the apartheid is because I haven't seen it AT ALL and i've literally been all over the place.
 
2013-08-23 06:00:01 AM

Amos Quito: Then why deny the possibility?


I haven't denied the possibility.  I have said that I have not yet seen any evidence that anyone other than Assad was responsible for the gas attack.  And you haven't provided any here.

Amos Quito: 1. I see no link


Secondhand source, Mr. Al-Kana's post at La Presse that I reproduced in my 9:07 post.

Amos Quito: 2. With no access to the area, how would Assad know whether and actual attack occurred - rather than just propaganda? Is he psychic?


Mr. Al-Kana didn't assert that Assad claimed not to know about any chemical attack.  He asserted that Assad flatly denied that any massacre took place at all in the area where the chemical attack was reported.

You seem sure that Assad has no way of getting information from the area affected.  Al-Kana appears to think that Assad claims to know what happened in the area.

Amos Quito: Sorrry tirob, but what you just said can only be described as bone stupid. First, "several hundred"? That's a paltry number in this conflict. Second, "his enemies"? The collateral damage of such an attack (women, children, non-combatants) likely outnumber "rebels" by far, and Third, "teach them a lesson??? You realize that you're saying that he 1. gassed his own people, 2. denied that any gassing took place, and 3. claims that if it DID take place, he had nothing to do with it. WHAT KIND OF A "LESSON" IS THAT???

Your "logic"- it isn't logical.


Come now.  Are you so sure that, when it comes to his enemies, and given the history of the Syrian civil war since 2011, Assad always troubles to distinguish women and kids from men in arms?

The lesson would be this:  Oppose me and I'll kill you and your kids indiscriminately.  Assad's done it before with conventional weapons.

Amos Quito: False flag ops and false intel ops (such as WMD's in Iraq) can be extremely valuable if well played - especially if you have a cooperative media.

Theoretically, yes.  We don't know that this episode in Syria was either of those things, and you have provided no evidence here that it was either of those things.

As for Iraq, it was known that the government of that country possessed chemical weapons as early as 1988.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

So that intel about WMDs in Iraq wasn't entirely false, then, was it?

Amos Quito: What makes you think that the attack would necessarily have been launched from Israel? That sounds like a pretty far-fetched scenario to me, tirob.


It does to me, too.  I thought that was what you meant, inasmuch as you alluded earlier to the fact that Israel has lobbed missiles into Syria recently.

Amos Quito: You think that the Palestinians are clever enough to sneak in missiles, munitions and rockets into Gaza, but there is NO WAI that interested parties with vastly greater resources could POSSIBLY sneak a chemical weapon into the middle of the Syrian chaos?

Bullshiat. The weapon need not have even been fired. It could have been smuggled in and detonated on site.


Hamas is sneaking their ordnance into a (by and large) friendly territory where their members have friends and family.  I assume by "interested parties with vastly greater resources" you mean Israel.  A theoretical Israeli smuggling operation would be through hostile territory where the theoretical smugglers have no contacts at all, and where locals would instantly recognize an outsider, and where at least some of the locals would report that outsider at once to the Baathist authorities who are still in place in much of Syria.  I don't know about "no wai," but your scenario sounds just as far-fetched to me as the false flag missile scenario that you dismiss.

Amos Quito: I saw you make a 180 degree change your position when evidence was properly presented. But that was in the Zimmerman case


You have presented no evidence here, just conjecture.

Amos Quito: But hey, at least Iraq was "good for Israel", no?


I'm sure the Israelis don't miss Saddam Hussein one bit.

Amos Quito: tirob and I have discussed the matter briefly, so he may have an inkling, but you?


We have discussed it, and for the record I buy very little of what you assert on any of the subjects you mention.
 
2013-08-23 06:54:49 AM
tirob, just a little background information about Fark's resident anti-semite Amos Quito:

he's a rabid anti-semite sack of shiat who blames "the jews/zionists/Israel" on things ranging from conspiracies about JFK's murder, the Holocaust, the revolution in Egypt, you name it.

Of course he does it in his "*wink* *wink* i'm only asking questions here but.. you saif it! not I!" technique like a retarded child which makes it more hilarious when he is caught lying about it.

He's "hinting" here Amos Quito(tm) style that Israel is behind the WMD attacks in Syria.. ? ahha..hahahaha!
 
2013-08-23 06:59:55 AM

TappingTheVein: makes it more hilarious when he is caught lying about it.


Did you just link to your own attempted zinger on a fellow Farker?

More like TappingTheVain.
 
2013-08-23 07:05:23 AM

The Muthaship: Did you just link to your own attempted zinger on a fellow Farker?

More like TappingTheVain.


You mean a links to his quotes, his posts, as in undeniable proof including a post where he was caught lying about it ?
Hmmm.. I wonder what made you post such a stupid comment.
 
2013-08-23 07:09:55 AM

TappingTheVein: The Muthaship: Did you just link to your own attempted zinger on a fellow Farker?

More like TappingTheVain.

You mean a links to his quotes, his posts, as in undeniable proof including a post where he was caught lying about it ?
Hmmm.. I wonder what made you post such a stupid comment.


I didn't read it other than what you said about him lying.  Conceding entirely your point that you caught him lying and he is the anti-semite you say he is, you still look pathetic for linking to your own "outing" of him.

So wonder no longer.

/I think AQ is a moron as well
//mainly for his nonsense in the Dorner threads.
 
2013-08-23 07:11:25 AM

TappingTheVein: tirob, just a little background information about Fark's resident anti-semite Amos Quito:

he's a rabid anti-semite sack of shiat who blames "the jews/zionists/Israel" on things ranging from conspiracies about JFK's murder, the Holocaust, the revolution in Egypt, you name it.

Of course he does it in his "*wink* *wink* i'm only asking questions here but.. you saif it! not I!" technique like a retarded child which makes it more hilarious when he is caught lying about it.

He's "hinting" here Amos Quito(tm) style that Israel is behind the WMD attacks in Syria.. ? ahha..hahahaha!


I have had many discussions with AQ here.  On the occasions when he sets off my bullsh*t detector--he's done it now and again--I try to call him on it, as I have done on this thread.
 
2013-08-23 07:18:14 AM

The Muthaship: didn't read it other than what you said about him lying.  Conceding entirely your point that you caught him lying and he is the anti-semite you say he is, you still look pathetic for linking to your own "outing" of him.


Um, so you're saying you missed the actual posts, written by him, where he states his anti-semitic bullshiat ?..
Try following the links of him posting his deranged anti-semitic conspiracies bullshiat in his own words, If you need a hand finding his posts i'll gladly help.
 
2013-08-23 07:19:39 AM

tirob: I have had many discussions with AQ here.  On the occasions when he sets off my bullsh*t detector--he's done it now and again--I try to call him on it, as I have done on this thread.


No problem, i enjoy calling him on his anti-semitic conspiracy bullshiat as well.
 
2013-08-23 07:22:00 AM

TappingTheVein: The Muthaship: didn't read it other than what you said about him lying.  Conceding entirely your point that you caught him lying and he is the anti-semite you say he is, you still look pathetic for linking to your own "outing" of him.

Um, so you're saying you missed the actual posts, written by him, where he states his anti-semitic bullshiat ?..



No, I didn't miss anything relevant to my point.
 
2013-08-23 07:24:29 AM

The Muthaship: No, I didn't miss anything relevant to my point.


So exposing him as an anti-semitic douche offended you ? sorry if it did. I enjoy doing it.
 
2013-08-23 07:27:36 AM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: Do you know WHO ELSE has been lobbing missiles into Syria this year?

JOOOOOOOOOOOS


Correct - The Zionist State - more precisely. And that little snowball in hell has an interest in what transpires in Syria - and in who gains power in the wake of the Assad regime, don't they?

Yep. You know who else they wanted removed? Hitler. But they didn't invade Poland to do that, now, did they?


LOL! Israel didn't exist at the time that Hitler invaded Poland - but Zionism sure did:

"On 17 September, sixteen days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union did so from the east. The invasion ended on 6 October 1939 with the division and annexing of the whole of the Second Polish Republic by Germany and the Soviet Union"

History is more complicated than you think, vygramul.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to have any understanding of the decisive role that Zionists played during WWI - the backroom deals, the Balfour Declaration, "stab in the back" once Russia was on the ropes, the ousting of the Czar, the Bolshevik Revolution and the formation of the Soviet State - that's all some pretty heavy shiat - way over your head lad.

tirob and I have discussed the matter briefly, so he may have an inkling, but you? I'll not waste my time - save to say that pretty much everything you THINK you know is wrong.

Mmmkay?


Ah, yes, the old canard that the Soviet Union was a Zionist state. How cute. Take that shiat to Stormfront.
 
2013-08-23 07:28:06 AM

TappingTheVain: So exposing him as an anti-semitic douche offended you?


Not a bit.


I'm just not big on the "Look at me!" stuff.


Carry on.
 
2013-08-23 07:30:04 AM

Amos Quito: History is more complicated than you think, vygramul.


Oh, and blaming everything on one antagonist is not demonstrating history's complexity, it's an attempt to make it more simple because simple minds couldn't handle a world with independent, separate actors, each with their own set of incentives and motivations.

More complex? You're so transparent it's pathetic.
 
2013-08-23 07:33:38 AM

TappingTheVein: tirob, just a little background information about Fark's resident anti-semite Amos Quito:

he's a rabid anti-semite sack of shiat who blames "the jews/zionists/Israel" on things ranging from conspiracies about JFK's murder, the Holocaust, the revolution in Egypt, you name it.

Of course he does it in his "*wink* *wink* i'm only asking questions here but.. you saif it! not I!" technique like a retarded child which makes it more hilarious when he is caught lying about it.

He's "hinting" here Amos Quito(tm) style that Israel is behind the WMD attacks in Syria.. ? ahha..hahahaha!


He pretends it's all about Zionists, but he mysteriously ends up in every thread about Jews. His "information" is always negative, even when he's frying bigger fish, like his obsession over Zimmerman's Jewish ancestry.
 
2013-08-23 07:36:10 AM

The Muthaship: TappingTheVain: So exposing him as an anti-semitic douche offended you?

Not a bit.


I'm just not big on the "Look at me!" stuff.


Carry on.


If the best example of outing him that you have is your own post, why would you avoid it?
 
2013-08-23 07:42:30 AM

vygramul: If the best example of outing him that you have is your own post, why would you avoid it?


Because it makes you look like an obsessed douche, and a bit "internet: serious business" to boot, Sir vygramul.
 
2013-08-23 07:51:58 AM

The Muthaship: vygramul: If the best example of outing him that you have is your own post, why would you avoid it?

Because it makes you look like an obsessed douche, and a bit "internet: serious business" to boot, Sir vygramul.


Well, since you rushed in here to white knight for the anti-Semite, I thought I'd suit up, too.
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report