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  
•       •       •

4981 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 8:05 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-22 08:08:17 AM
All,

No thank you.  We've had enough of foreign entanglements for a while.  This one is all you.  Looking at you UN.

Sincerely,

The American People
 
2013-08-22 08:08:20 AM
The Koch brothers have decided that if Obama pretends Syria used chemical weapons, your taxes should do something about it.
 
2013-08-22 08:10:49 AM
This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.
 
2013-08-22 08:11:58 AM
Just walk back the red line.  How important is our word anyway?
 
2013-08-22 08:13:48 AM
Russia and China will block anything to do with Syria, they can do as they please.
 
2013-08-22 08:13:53 AM

rubi_con_man: This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.


I agree. There is nothing that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar or Iran have that we could possibly want.

How about we just stop doing business ...
Stop flying planes ...
stop issuing visas to anyone ...
deny all immigration  ...
Stop trading ...
Cut off the Internet  ...
 
2013-08-22 08:13:54 AM
You have two choices:

Not do anything

Create a new Iraq/Afghanistan
 
2013-08-22 08:14:36 AM

The Muthaship: How important is our word anyway?


Now, now, you wouldn't want America to lose any ...

tamsonweston.com

... "international credibility"
 
2013-08-22 08:15:51 AM
Just like 'Nam?
 
2013-08-22 08:15:55 AM

macadamnut: "international credibility"


Haha!  Good point.
 
2013-08-22 08:16:06 AM

gorgon38: Russia and China will block anything to do with Syria, they can do as they please.


This.  As such, I nominate Russia to do something about Syria, or not.  But having seen the latest photos and video, Christ you can't un-see children who are the victims of chemical warfare.  I wish this one had an easy answer, because it's about as jacked as a situation can be.
 
2013-08-22 08:17:34 AM
When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.
 
2013-08-22 08:18:39 AM

SDRR: Just like 'Nam?


Oh, snap.
 
2013-08-22 08:19:04 AM
""If the U.N. Security Council cannot do it, decisions will be made otherwise," Fabius said. But, he said, sending ground troops to Syria is out of question. "

Dear France, grow a pair or STFU.
 
2013-08-22 08:19:22 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.


Won't someone please think of the children?
 
2013-08-22 08:22:17 AM
This is still a no-win for the US, we either prop up a sociopathic dictator who's family has been nothing but a problem for three generations or we install alQaeda as the legitimate government of Syria.
 
2013-08-22 08:22:29 AM
It really makes no sense that Assad used chemical weapons again with UN inspectors in the country and while winning the war
 
2013-08-22 08:22:48 AM
I love how the US is expected to be the world's policeman until it's not. "Come give us aid and do our dirty work, but get the fark out and go to hell when it's resolved." You can't have it both ways, so which is it?
 
2013-08-22 08:23:08 AM
What do they expect us to do, surrender?
 
2013-08-22 08:23:54 AM
France pulled their forces out of NATO 50 years ago, so let them break out their own white flag this time.

If it's UN forces, then they might look pretty good in baby blue.
 
2013-08-22 08:24:26 AM

Outrageous Muff: You have two choices:

Not do anything

Create a new Iraq/Afghanistan


Its going to be an iraq/ afghanistan whether we go in there or not.

France can go fark themselves.  Now they want us to intervene with a middle eastern country with chemical weapons?  fark off.

Obama is looking really weak right now with Egypt and Syria.  You don't even hear him condemning them.  The Middle East is a mess right now and he isn't doing a damn thing.  He/ we are allowing evil forces to win.  Evil is killing innocents in Egypt.  Evil is gassing innocents in Syria.  We are allowing evil to spread, to win.  If you allow evil there, don't be surprised when it shows up on your block too.
 
2013-08-22 08:24:29 AM

I_C_Weener: IdBeCrazyIf: When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.

Won't someone please think of the children?


We need to kill to make sure those that are killing are killed.
 
2013-08-22 08:25:52 AM

pag1107: This is still a no-win for the US, we either prop up a sociopathic dictator who's family has been nothing but a problem for three generations or we install alQaeda as the legitimate government of Syria.


Let them kill each other until they are all gone?
 
2013-08-22 08:27:21 AM
The US, Russia, and China need to get on the same page. We all should agree that whoever is responsible for this needs to be ended.
 
2013-08-22 08:27:22 AM

pag1107: This is still a no-win for the US, we either prop up a sociopathic dictator who's family has been nothing but a problem for three generations or we install alQaeda as the legitimate government of Syria.


France and England have everything to do with that. Their game of empire in the Middle East has been a root cause of a lot of the problems in the Middle East this last century.

T E Lawrence called it.
 
2013-08-22 08:27:23 AM

SlothB77: Obama is looking really weak right now with Egypt and Syria.  You don't even hear him condemning them.  The Middle East is a mess right now and he isn't doing a damn thing.  He/ we are allowing evil forces to win.  Evil is killing innocents in Egypt.  Evil is gassing innocents in Syria.  We are allowing evil to spread, to win.  If you allow evil there, don't be surprised when it shows up on your block too.


Yup. He's so weak by not spending billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on a war that solve nothing and put people in power that we can't control.
 
2013-08-22 08:29:22 AM
IdBeCrazyIf:

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.

The US doesn't exactly have the greatest track record in picking new governments in the Middle East.
 
2013-08-22 08:30:29 AM

SlothB77: Let them kill each other until they are all gone?


Yes. And deal with whatever is left.
 
2013-08-22 08:32:50 AM

The Muthaship: Just walk back the red line.  How important is our word anyway?


For this administration? Since they'll call anyone who refuses to believe their promises a "racist," not very important at all. Like the Palestinians, the Obama Administration can make literally any promise they want and break them in the very same sentence, and honestly feel justified in doing so because keeping promises is something only their enemies in the evil white patriarchy would do, or expect anyone else to do, and they don't want to be the same as the people they hate.

/better make sure we never have a white male president again, because if we do, all the impossible promises Obama made will be collected on
 
2013-08-22 08:33:06 AM
Syria is not Lybia for several reasons. 1: Russia. 2: Israel 3: The rebels are at best the worst of the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist at the worst. It is a mess, and if anything is done it should be done through the UN. Sorry to say that, but no thank you. It isn't that I'm unsympathetic, its that there is no clear outcome even if we do do something by ourselves except a bigger mess.
 
2013-08-22 08:33:31 AM
We have done something! barry has given several very strong "red line" speeches. If Syria wants to keep using these weapons they can expect a very harsh scolding via teleprompter probably from a golf course.
 
2013-08-22 08:34:31 AM
Aren't there enough countries in the immediate vicinity that are armed to the teeth with American military hardware who can do this?
 
2013-08-22 08:35:09 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: The US doesn't exactly have the greatest track record in picking new governments in the Middle East.


Who said we had to pick, just make it well known that when kids and families are dying those responsible are going to find out what an 18 pound thermobaric warhead can do
 
2013-08-22 08:35:45 AM
The article says that?
 
2013-08-22 08:36:46 AM
"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
 
2013-08-22 08:37:08 AM

bearcats1983: You can't have it both ways, so which is it?


We're reaching the point where we can't always be DOING the help everyone with their shiat thing (not that we help most places we fark up with our awesome weapons, but hey... Korea I guess?) so it hardly matters.  They won't be able to have it at all soon.
 
2013-08-22 08:37:23 AM
Standard rule is that the "international community" loves American power when it is used to protect their interests and concerns (ie escorting oil tanker that bring them their oil through the Persian Gulf -less than 5% of US oil imports come by that route, The Balkans, Somalia, Desert Storm) and it saves them from having to do any of the heavy lifting (The US flew 80% of the combat missions over Kosovo). But when the US acts in its own interests they tend to get their collective panties in a wad and snivel about unilateralism.

My rule is when you bring a proportionate share of resources/risks to the table (relative to population, economy etc) you get and equal say in how we do things until then STFU.

Lead , follow or get the hell out of the way.

/OF course what our interests are is always up for debate.
 
2013-08-22 08:37:46 AM

bearcats1983: I love how the US is expected to be the world's policeman until it's not.


I love how the US always pretend it's all about them.
France: "We think the international community should do something." USA: "Oh noes, they want the USA to do everything in the world!"
France didn't say anything about the US in particular. UN. Not US.
 
2013-08-22 08:37:47 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: IdBeCrazyIf:

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.

The US doesn't exactly have the greatest track record in picking new governments in the Middle East.


We have a long history of that. Jefferson and Paine didn't waste any time fixing France.
 
2013-08-22 08:38:12 AM
I stopped reading the news long ago and am much happier for it, except for the occasional fark excursion.

It's silly to assume you have any personal say in international affairs so might as well focus your time and energy on things you can personally improve.
 
2013-08-22 08:39:02 AM
Syria? That's Russia's problem. They wanted the ball. They've got it.
 
2013-08-22 08:40:29 AM
You can't be Syrias.
 
2013-08-22 08:40:31 AM

Oakenshield: The article says that?


Not exactly, but do you seriously think the French could pull something off by themselves? The only reason Lybia was successfulish is because the US did all the ground work and then supplied everybody with intelligence/support etc.
 
2013-08-22 08:41:40 AM

bbfreak: Oakenshield: The article says that?

Not exactly, but do you seriously think the French could pull something off by themselves?


They did in Mali. And by the way: there are more countries in the world than the USA and France.
 
2013-08-22 08:41:48 AM

Klopfer: France didn't say anything about the US in particular. UN. Not US.


Except invariably what often happens is we're there to do the heavy lifting either through materials and logistical support or direct action.

I will give France credit where credit is due though, and they did full blown stop Al Qaeda taking over ten buck two
 
2013-08-22 08:41:56 AM
So Syria loaded up an airliner with chemical weapons and smashed it into one of their buildings?
 
2013-08-22 08:43:48 AM

rubi_con_man: This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.


Because dead dinosaurs.
 
2013-08-22 08:46:13 AM
This didn't use to be hard. Two or three dozen cruise missiles to make the cost of x higher than the price and move along with our lives. You don't have to beat them to a pulp, take them to the hospital, help them through physical therapy, find them a good job, and then have them knife you in the back.

Give them a good black eye and walk off. If they offend us by beating their wife in public again, repeat. If they actually hurt us directly in some way, go full Libya on them and then - this is key - walk the fark off. You break it you buy it isn't a hard and fast rule in international diplomacy. We don't need their oil, Israel can stick up for itself, fark them.
 
2013-08-22 08:49:08 AM

badhatharry: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: IdBeCrazyIf:

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.

The US doesn't exactly have the greatest track record in picking new governments in the Middle East.

We have a long history of that. Jefferson and Paine didn't waste any time fixing France.


quizzical_dog.jpg
 
2013-08-22 08:49:21 AM

Surpheon: You break it you buy it isn't a hard and fast rule in international diplomacy. We don't need their oil, Israel can stick up for itself, fark them.


Exactly, you go full Iron Man. Bust all their pretty shiny toys, rough em up a little bit and then drop them in the middle of town square and proclaim they are all theirs do as you wish.
 
2013-08-22 08:49:29 AM
Somebody damned well should. During my entire time in the Army, it was impressed strongly upon me that NBC weapons were a real game changer, and that once they got used things would ramp up like crazy.  It seems that I was decieved.

If the UN can't agree that this warrents the use of strong military force, I will lose confidence in the institution.  Frankly, I would rather see this done as a UN thing, because it really IS one of those "crimes against humanity" things.  The US going in alone, even for the best of reasons, never seems to work out for us in the long run.
 
2013-08-22 08:49:32 AM

Fista-Phobia: rubi_con_man: This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Because dead dinosaurs.


Nah... we've got plenty of their goo right here.
 
2013-08-22 08:50:59 AM
Of course Russia is blocking any action in Syria.  They have enough problems at home dealing with Islamic extremists.  They have absolutely zero interest in keeping Islamic extremists from being wiped out abroad.  They are quite content to allow them to keep killing each other in Syria.
 
2013-08-22 08:52:16 AM

Klopfer: bbfreak: Oakenshield: The article says that?

Not exactly, but do you seriously think the French could pull something off by themselves?

They did in Mali. And by the way: there are more countries in the world than the USA and France.


Yes, I am aware that there are more countries in the world than the US and France. Like Russia, which has supplied weapons to Syria and has ties with the government there. Last I checked the last time France was in Syria they got thrown out. Yet here they are basically saying that if the UN doesn't act, they will.

As for Mali, that was small potatoes compared to Syria. They are welcome to try though.
 
2013-08-22 08:52:57 AM

SlothB77: Outrageous Muff: You have two choices:

Not do anything

Create a new Iraq/Afghanistan

Its going to be an iraq/ afghanistan whether we go in there or not.

France can go fark themselves.  Now they want us to intervene with a middle eastern country with chemical weapons?  fark off.

Obama is looking really weak right now with Egypt and Syria.  You don't even hear him condemning them.  The Middle East is a mess right now and he isn't doing a damn thing.  He/ we are allowing evil forces to win.  Evil is killing innocents in Egypt.  Evil is gassing innocents in Syria.  We are allowing evil to spread, to win.  If you allow evil there, don't be surprised when it shows up on your block too.


BSABSVR. Boring. So tired of necon logic.
 
2013-08-22 08:55:06 AM
.
Sigh.
.
 
2013-08-22 08:55:10 AM
We've all heard of preemptive attack, I guess it would be France that invents preemptive surrender.
 
2013-08-22 08:55:27 AM

Click Click D'oh: Of course Russia is blocking any action in Syria.


They can only block UN action, not unilateral US action. And at the moment, pissing off Russia would be a feature not a bug of the US making things go boom in Syria.
 
2013-08-22 08:56:17 AM

Klopfer: bearcats1983: I love how the US is expected to be the world's policeman until it's not.

I love how the US always pretend it's all about them.
France: "We think the international community should do something." USA: "Oh noes, they want the USA to do everything in the world!"
France didn't say anything about the US in particular. UN. Not US.


And who do you think the UN goes to when they need something done militarily?  Russia?  China?  The European powers?  In Desert Storm, the US made up 75% of all forces. In Kosovo is was almost everything.

We're good with not intervening, The American people have had enough of conflict overseas.  Just remember that you said you didn't want our help when you start getting bodybags back by the hundreds.  No whining about American isolationism then.
 
2013-08-22 08:58:24 AM

Fista-Phobia: rubi_con_man: This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Because dead dinosaurs.


Exactly.  This something I think is so funny about the national security crowd: they are the last ones to support getting us off of fossil fuels.  It's almost like there is a large oil field services company, that is also a military contractor, lobbying politicians.

Criminy, I hate to give credit to any politician, R or D, but Eisenhower was right:

 "In the councils of government,we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. "
 
2013-08-22 09:00:31 AM

1nsanilicious: I stopped reading the news long ago and am much happier for it, except for the occasional fark excursion.

It's silly to assume you have any personal say in international affairs so might as well focus your time and energy on things you can personally improve.


i kinda see what you're saying.

i don't read 'news' per se because the press can diaf frankly, but when ones fellow man is being royally bent over in far off lands im not sure how human it is to say 'don't wanna know'.

im not critisicing you, just articualting a thought process I have had myself recently
 
2013-08-22 09:02:18 AM

jakrabit: Fista-Phobia: rubi_con_man: This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Because dead dinosaurs.

Nah... we've got plenty of their goo right here.


I hear ya. The powers that be seek to make a profit and our government is more than happy to pick up the cost of doing business. The profiteers don't care about where it is.
 
2013-08-22 09:02:23 AM

fireclown: Somebody damned well should.
.


How about Turkey?  They're right next door, they have a modern military, and Assad's troops would be scared to death of them.
 
2013-08-22 09:02:40 AM
I think we just found those WMD that went missing from Iraq.
 
2013-08-22 09:05:31 AM
Syria is in Asia.
Let's not go there.
 
2013-08-22 09:08:37 AM

vudukungfu: Syria is in Asia.
Let's not go there.


blogs.oc.edu
 
2013-08-22 09:08:37 AM

brimed03: .
Sigh.
.


Right? They don't even realize it, either.
 
2013-08-22 09:09:58 AM

StrikitRich: France pulled their forces out of NATO 50 years ago, so let them break out their own white flag this time.

If it's UN forces, then they might look pretty good in baby blue.


Yeah, about that...France rejoined full membership in 2009.
 
2013-08-22 09:10:02 AM

tirob: fireclown: Somebody damned well should.
.

How about Turkey?  They're right next door, they have a modern military, and Assad's troops would be scared to death of them.


This. Russia and Turkey should handle this. Too bad they're on opposing sides. Anyone want to replay 1828-29? How about 1878-79?
 
2013-08-22 09:16:42 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.


So the military is a-okay when they're bombing people you don't like?

Got it.
 
2013-08-22 09:22:25 AM

verbaltoxin: So the military is a-okay when they're bombing people you don't like?


No, when they are bombing people who are killing people. Justified and rational response is that if you cannot NOT kill those around you then perhaps breathing should be difficult during your daily life.
 
2013-08-22 09:26:44 AM

SlothB77: Obama is looking really weak right now with Egypt and Syria.  You don't even hear him condemning them.  The Middle East is a mess right now and he isn't doing a damn thing.  He/ we are allowing evil forces to win.  Evil is killing innocents in Egypt.  Evil is gassing innocents in Syria.  We are allowing evil to spread, to win.  If you allow evil there, don't be surprised when it shows up on your block too.


So what would you do?  Condemn their actions verbally and do nothing?  Wouldn't that look weak?  Would you pick a side in Egypt or Syria?  You say "evil" is gassing innocents in Syria, so would you take the side of Al-Qaeda?  You say "evil" is killing innocents in Egypt, so would you support the Muslim Brotherhood there?  If Obama picked the sides you're calling "innocent," you'd be on here ranting about how he's using American military might to support Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  If he did the opposite, we'd all hear about how Assad and Egypt's military gov't aren't legitimate.

SlothB77: Let them kill each other until they are all gone?


Oh, so you'd ALSO do nothing---the exact same thing Obama is doing right now.  Didn't you just describe this exact strategy as "allowing evil to win?"  Or are you just oversimplifying an incredibly complex foreign policy situation (that has no good outcomes and which US intervention really can't do anything but exacerbate) and criticizing any course of action because you don't like the president's party affiliation?

Do nothing: supportin' evil
Support Assad/Egypt's militar government: supportin' evil
Support rebels/Muslim Brotherhood: you better believe that's supportin' evil
 
2013-08-22 09:29:01 AM

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


Yeah, but we gotta be in there fighting and kicking ass because ... because ... Murka looks weak! They look weak because people are dying over there!
 
2013-08-22 09:31:51 AM

Fista-Phobia: jakrabit: Fista-Phobia: rubi_con_man: This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Because dead dinosaurs.

Nah... we've got plenty of their goo right here.

I hear ya. The powers that be seek to make a profit and our government is more than happy to pick up the cost of doing business. The profiteers don't care about where it is.


While  "we" may have plenty of goo the rest of world ie. Europe and Asia do not.  Since the economy is global  you might want to think the impact to our own economy should theirs suffer an oil shock.

Yes we still make and export stuff-it helps to have people who can buy it:

management.curiouscatblog.net


www.mapsofworld.com

Contrary to what the Ron Paulistas would have you believe we have never existed in economic isolation.  In fact, per capita, our population was more dependent on foreign trade in 1776 that in 2013.
 
2013-08-22 09:33:16 AM

vudukungfu: Syria is in Asia.
Let's not go there.


Foreign policy decisions should definitely be based on quotes from 80's movies.
 
2013-08-22 09:41:42 AM
I'm confused, why are we worried about Syria?

They are not even top 20 in oil reserves
 
2013-08-22 09:42:24 AM

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: vudukungfu: Syria is in Asia.
Let's not go there.

Foreign policy decisions should definitely be based on quotes from 80's movies.


It's OK the original quote "Never fight a land war in Asia" isn't from an 80s movie it was from General Douglas MacArthur to President Kennedy in 1961.  Seeing as MacArthur was Chief of Staff of the US Army and Supreme Commander of all Allied forces in the Second World War, we may want to take heed.
 
2013-08-22 09:46:17 AM

HMS_Blinkin: SlothB77: Obama is looking really weak right now with Egypt and Syria.  You don't even hear him condemning them.  The Middle East is a mess right now and he isn't doing a damn thing.  He/ we are allowing evil forces to win.  Evil is killing innocents in Egypt.  Evil is gassing innocents in Syria.  We are allowing evil to spread, to win.  If you allow evil there, don't be surprised when it shows up on your block too.

So what would you do?  Condemn their actions verbally and do nothing?  Wouldn't that look weak?  Would you pick a side in Egypt or Syria?  You say "evil" is gassing innocents in Syria, so would you take the side of Al-Qaeda?  You say "evil" is killing innocents in Egypt, so would you support the Muslim Brotherhood there?  If Obama picked the sides you're calling "innocent," you'd be on here ranting about how he's using American military might to support Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  If he did the opposite, we'd all hear about how Assad and Egypt's military gov't aren't legitimate.

SlothB77: Let them kill each other until they are all gone?

Oh, so you'd ALSO do nothing---the exact same thing Obama is doing right now.  Didn't you just describe this exact strategy as "allowing evil to win?"  Or are you just oversimplifying an incredibly complex foreign policy situation (that has no good outcomes and which US intervention really can't do anything but exacerbate) and criticizing any course of action because you don't like the president's party affiliation?

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


tell me what to do. I don't know what to do. i'm not kidding
 
2013-08-22 09:49:17 AM

AngryDragon: The First Four Katy Perry Albums: vudukungfu: Syria is in Asia.
Let's not go there.

Foreign policy decisions should definitely be based on quotes from 80's movies.

It's OK the original quote "Never fight a land war in Asia" isn't from an 80s movie it was from General Douglas MacArthur to President Kennedy in 1961.  Seeing as MacArthur was Chief of Staff of the US Army and Supreme Commander of all Allied forces in the Second World War, we may want to take heed.


you don't need to fight a land war to set up a no-fly zone.
 
2013-08-22 09:52:27 AM
My 2 cents? Punitive expedition. Go in hard, fast, and heavy. Kill people. Break things. Don't bother with civil affairs, rebuilding, or trying to set up a friendly government. After a fixed period of time (30,60, or 90 days), pull out and let their neighbors do all the muddling work of rebuilding their country and setting up a new government.

If the world want us to act like their cop, we should oblige and do things a cop does. A cop stops the trouble and hands over the perpetrator to someone else. Let the Arab League take on the headaches of fixing the mess they wanted us to take care of. Maybe instead of buying solid-gold toilets and building mile-high skyscrapers with their petro-dollars, they can clean up their own messes.
 
2013-08-22 09:59:45 AM

dumbobruni: you don't need to fight a land war to set up a no-fly zone


Opposition activists said that more than 1,000 people were killed after government forces launched rockets with toxic agents into the Damascus suburbs in the Ghouta region early on Wednesday.  A no-fly zone helps how now?
 
2013-08-22 10:00:09 AM

Lady J: HMS_Blinkin: SlothB77: Obama is looking really weak right now with Egypt and Syria.  You don't even hear him condemning them.  The Middle East is a mess right now and he isn't doing a damn thing.  He/ we are allowing evil forces to win.  Evil is killing innocents in Egypt.  Evil is gassing innocents in Syria.  We are allowing evil to spread, to win.  If you allow evil there, don't be surprised when it shows up on your block too.

So what would you do?  Condemn their actions verbally and do nothing?  Wouldn't that look weak?  Would you pick a side in Egypt or Syria?  You say "evil" is gassing innocents in Syria, so would you take the side of Al-Qaeda?  You say "evil" is killing innocents in Egypt, so would you support the Muslim Brotherhood there?  If Obama picked the sides you're calling "innocent," you'd be on here ranting about how he's using American military might to support Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  If he did the opposite, we'd all hear about how Assad and Egypt's military gov't aren't legitimate.

SlothB77: Let them kill each other until they are all gone?

Oh, so you'd ALSO do nothing---the exact same thing Obama is doing right now.  Didn't you just describe this exact strategy as "allowing evil to win?"  Or are you just oversimplifying an incredibly complex foreign policy situation (that has no good outcomes and which US intervention really can't do anything but exacerbate) and criticizing any course of action because you don't like the president's party affiliation?

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

tell me what to do. I don't know what to do. i'm not kidding


Drink some coffee (or tea). Work. Spend time with your family and friends. Donate to causes you believe in. And accept that people sometimes engage in mortal conflict and their ain't sh*t you can do about it.
 
2013-08-22 10:08:50 AM
Nadie_AZ:
Drink some coffee (or tea). Work. Spend time with your family and friends. Donate to causes you believe in. And accept that people sometimes engage in mortal conflict and their ain't sh*t you can do about it.

The human condition.  Kinda sucks, doesn't it?
 
2013-08-22 10:08:56 AM

JohnCarter: I'm confused, why are we worried about Syria?

They are not even top 20 in oil reserves


Paging Tatsuma.
 
2013-08-22 10:09:04 AM
Park a carrier group off the coast.  Mail a letter with a proposed cost to the UN.  Offer to take care of the problem if they will just put a $1 billion retainer on a card.  Make sure that the Sec. of the UN signs a personal guarantee.  Then establish a no-fly zone where our pilots can practice their anti-radar attacks and stuff.
 
2013-08-22 10:12:45 AM

mbillips: tirob: fireclown: Somebody damned well should.
.

How about Turkey?  They're right next door, they have a modern military, and Assad's troops would be scared to death of them.

This. Russia and Turkey should handle this. Too bad they're on opposing sides. Anyone want to replay 1828-29? How about 1878-79?


I concur.  If this can be handled as a regional problem, it should be.  The Russians have been really standoffish about Syria, but the Turks would be almost ideal.  They have a strong military, they understand the region, and most importantly they aren't a bunch of invading American crusader types.
 
2013-08-22 10:15:09 AM
Odd as this sounds, I think we should sink their navy and clear cut their naval infrastructure. Come right out and say ' you used a WMD and this is our measured response penalty, you want to double down?'  It is something that would hurt the
Syrian government and the military establishment without getting involved in the no good options civil war, it would inconvenience the Russians who want to use the facilities, there isn't a lot to their naval branch so we could do it in a weekend, and the cost of a few munitions would be offset by the field test real world data it would provide- it would be the neatest thing we've done since the Spanish American War.
 
2013-08-22 10:16:41 AM
The US will be more than happy to intervene in the rebellion they created and have been funding since the beginning.  And US citizens will fall for the same tired "cleanin' up the world's evil" propaganda that they trot out time after time.
 
2013-08-22 10:17:00 AM

hasty ambush: Fista-Phobia: jakrabit: Fista-Phobia: rubi_con_man: This is going to sound really sad, but I am ready to just walk away from the Middle East.

How about we just stop doing business there...
Stop flying planes there ...
stop issuing visas to anyone there ...
deny all immigration from there ...
Stop trading there ...
Cut off the Internet top-level routing there ...
Screw 'em. I am sick of caring about pretty much anything or anyone between Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan.

Because dead dinosaurs.

Nah... we've got plenty of their goo right here.

I hear ya. The powers that be seek to make a profit and our government is more than happy to pick up the cost of doing business. The profiteers don't care about where it is.

While  "we" may have plenty of goo the rest of world ie. Europe and Asia do not.  Since the economy is global  you might want to think the impact to our own economy should theirs suffer an oil shock.

Yes we still make and export stuff-it helps to have people who can buy it:

[management.curiouscatblog.net image 700x356]


[www.mapsofworld.com image 800x600]

Contrary to what the Ron Paulistas would have you believe we have never existed in economic isolation.  In fact, per capita, our population was more dependent on foreign trade in 1776 that in 2013.


I agree with your assessment. I was not implying that isolationism is the solution. My point was that oil is the most profitable industry to date, yet the US always seems to pick up the cost of business (death of  our soldiers, war, failed states, spills, pipeline breaks, etc).
 
2013-08-22 10:17:29 AM

HMS_Blinkin: SlothB77: Obama is looking really weak right now with Egypt and Syria.  You don't even hear him condemning them.  The Middle East is a mess right now and he isn't doing a damn thing.  He/ we are allowing evil forces to win.  Evil is killing innocents in Egypt.  Evil is gassing innocents in Syria.  We are allowing evil to spread, to win.  If you allow evil there, don't be surprised when it shows up on your block too.

So what would you do?  Condemn their actions verbally and do nothing?  Wouldn't that look weak?  Would you pick a side in Egypt or Syria?  You say "evil" is gassing innocents in Syria, so would you take the side of Al-Qaeda?  You say "evil" is killing innocents in Egypt, so would you support the Muslim Brotherhood there?  If Obama picked the sides you're calling "innocent," you'd be on here ranting about how he's using American military might to support Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  If he did the opposite, we'd all hear about how Assad and Egypt's military gov't aren't legitimate.

SlothB77: Let them kill each other until they are all gone?

Oh, so you'd ALSO do nothing---the exact same thing Obama is doing right now.  Didn't you just describe this exact strategy as "allowing evil to win?"  Or are you just oversimplifying an incredibly complex foreign policy situation (that has no good outcomes and which US intervention really can't do anything but exacerbate) and criticizing any course of action because you don't like the president's party affiliation?

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


www.miataturbo.net
 
2013-08-22 10:20:38 AM

JohnCarter: I'm confused, why are we worried about Syria?

They are not even top 20 in oil reserves


We need olives for the political prisoners terrorist detainees at Guantanamo.
 
2013-08-22 10:22:17 AM

I_C_Weener: Park a carrier group off the coast.  Mail a letter with a proposed cost to the UN.  Offer to take care of the problem if they will just put a $1 billion retainer on a card.  Make sure that the Sec. of the UN signs a personal guarantee.  Then establish a no-fly zone where our pilots can practice their anti-radar attacks and stuff.


Are you crazy?!  This is...actually...a reasonable idea.  Huh.

We should go mercenary.  We'll come in and do the heavy lifting as a subcontractor.  We bill them for the full cost plus profit and leave when done.  We're so fond of outsourcing to countries that have "expertise we don't have", let's provide outsourcing for what we do better than anyone in the history of the world.
 
2013-08-22 10:22:34 AM
Sorry but Syria is a muslim nation, if you look at the recent history of the middle east, screw them.
 
2013-08-22 10:27:08 AM
 After a fixed period of time (30,60, or 90 days), pull out and let their neighbors do all the muddling work of rebuilding their country and setting up a new government.

I think I see the flaw in your cunning plan...
 
2013-08-22 10:34:42 AM

Misconduc: Sorry but Syria is a muslim nation, if you look at the recent history of the middle east, screw them.


Indeed. Just screw them.
 
2013-08-22 10:41:12 AM

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?
 
2013-08-22 10:43:00 AM

Nadie_AZ: Misconduc: Sorry but Syria is a muslim nation, if you look at the recent history of the middle east, screw them.

Indeed. Just screw them.


I'd rather just give them all chemical weapons, and send in people to film it (we have a nice prison population, give them time served) - this way we can sell it on paper view to replace the cost of the bombs. Now let the killings begin!
 
2013-08-22 10:46:20 AM
The sad truth is the best possible outcome is an Assad/secular rebels agreement on reforms and alliance under Russian supervision; unless you think the order provided by an Islamic theocracy is better. But that's the entire range of choices here, so we can't very well be dropping a drone on the palace.
 
2013-08-22 10:46:27 AM

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


Sadly, this is what it boils down to. There is no right answer, and nothing we can do that will result in fewer kids killed over time.

As someone once said to me, when faced with multiple solutions that won't work, pick the cheapest.

Stay the fark out and complain via the world's equivalent of the on-line petition, the UN Security Council. And for humanity's sake, start shipping medical supplies and food. (Yes, I know it'll all wind up on the black market & in the hands of "terrorists" but y'know, at least it has a chance of helping someone along the way.)
 
2013-08-22 10:53:08 AM
Let someone else take care of it this time.

I've had enough endless war today.
 
2013-08-22 10:57:29 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: Let someone else take care of it this time.

I've had enough endless war today this century.


Yes, going on two decades into the 21st century and we have been involved in some kind of armed conflict almost the entire time.

Enough.
 
2013-08-22 11:06:07 AM
The thing is, BOB should have gotten involved in this on day one supporting the rebels. Perhaps getting Assad tossed out early on and injecting some stability to the country. Now, Assad is fighting more Crazy Islamists than anything else and I say let them kill each other.Yep, a lot of innocents are going to suffer, but it's the price you pay for allowing your country to be run by dictators.
 
2013-08-22 11:11:56 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.


By that logic, we should be doing that to every single war going on right now. You wanna go look at them, count 'em up for me? Where do you think the money for that is coming from? And what makes you think we have the moral right to interfere in someone else's conflict?

Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends  very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.
 
2013-08-22 11:12:44 AM
Syria is not about oil, it's about natural gas, specifically where pipelines for Middle Eastern NG supplies should go. Syria and Iran (Shia) support a pipeline that would allow Russia to gain even greater market share in NATO countries, which scares the US because it fears NATO could shatter over resource shortages.
So the US is supporting the Syrian rebels (our good Sunni friends) who want to build a friendlier to our interests pipeline to Europe, passing from Qatar to Iraq to Turkey and Israel(?). The CIA is helping our good friends Al Qaeda in the revolution against the Syrian government.
This was covered in yesterday's 2nd Al Jazeera thread by some informed farker. I'll dig up his links if anyone cares.
 
2013-08-22 11:13:35 AM
It's a civil war.  No good endings there.  Those international agreements on the "rules of war" were originally conceived by big Western countries to limit the scopes of their engagements with each other.  It may have been a mistake to attempt to extend them to civil wars - it sounds good but it takes the practical application of solutions into a very different sphere.  Instead of assisting or jumping into the fight along side of an existing sovereign nation resisting a hostile (and dirty) opponent, you're forced to jump into the midst of a civil war where one country's people are killing themselves.

"we can't tolerate chemical weapons use" sounds great on paper.  How do you stop it without full-on invasion?
 
2013-08-22 11:15:31 AM

PsiChick: Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.


The rebels were repeatedly asking for US intervention in the institution of a No Fly Zone. I think when a conflict is occurring and one side has kids dying and asks for help, then we are morally obligated to do something. Like I said, obliterate the military power through strategic strikes that are easily done using cruise missiles and drones, institute a No Fly Zone, send aid to the refugee camps and tell the Rebels that it's your country, you do what you want just no killing kids with mass destruction weapons.
 
2013-08-22 11:23:13 AM
Really if the entire country and all of the people in it died in a big flash today... it would have no serious impact on the US. Europe maybe but not us. Getting involved would have a big impact and not a positive one. No matter which side we support we'll end up regretting it because they are equally craptasticly bad. Long term resources in natural gas has some impact but really, we don't need anyone alive in there to pull that resource out. In fact the more desperate they are the better.

Someone hand me a fiddle, I'll play it for them so they can get back to the shooting.
 
2013-08-22 11:26:10 AM
Here the pipeline info from yesterday:

cirrhosis_and_halitosis:

Not really a battle with Russia over sales but more control of ME gas.  Euro countries (a large part of NATO) are heavily dependent on Russia for gas and oil.  Qatar wants to build a pipeline that will end in Turkey (another NATO member).  US isn't happy about Iran building a different pipeline to Pakistan and India.  Basically, Syria and Iran are in the way of US and NATO interests.
Here is a better link:
The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian "Opposition" Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline
 
2013-08-22 11:30:09 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: PsiChick: Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.

The rebels were repeatedly asking for US intervention in the institution of a No Fly Zone. I think when a conflict is occurring and one side has kids dying and asks for help, then we are morally obligated to do something. Like I said, obliterate the military power through strategic strikes that are easily done using cruise missiles and drones, institute a No Fly Zone, send aid to the refugee camps and tell the Rebels that it's your country, you do what you want just no killing kids with mass destruction weapons.


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...
 
2013-08-22 11:38:05 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: The US will be more than happy to intervene in the rebellion they created and have been funding since the beginning.  And US citizens will fall for the same tired "cleanin' up the world's evil" propaganda that they trot out time after time.


Yeah, but even so, it's kind of sad that the Syrian government has found it necessary to kill tens of thousands of deluded marionettes of US imperialism of all ages, sexes, and conditions while all this has been going on, and to create refugees of a million more of them, don't you think?
 
2013-08-22 11:39:42 AM
We keep trying to save everyone when we should just allow natural selection to happen. Let them kill each other, decrease the population over time, wall ourselves and our interests in and let nature take over. War and violence is a symptom of being human, I say treat it like any other disease and let it do it's job, not go about curing it.

Although the images are horrible and as a parent it kills me to see dead children, every time we become entangled, we lose in the end. I've had enough.
 
2013-08-22 11:44:40 AM
It's always fun when people who generally make a living complaining about US interference in the world always look in our direction when they want something interfered with. Must be nice to be able to shout down to us Americans to do their dirty work from way up there in the clouds of the moral high ground.
 
2013-08-22 11:48:50 AM

Sentient: As someone once said to me, when faced with multiple solutions that won't work, pick the cheapest.

Stay the fark out and complain via the world's equivalent of the on-line petition, the UN Security Council. And for humanity's sake, start shipping medical supplies and food. (Yes, I know it'll all wind up on the black market & in the hands of "terrorists" but y'know, at least it has a chance of helping someone along the way.)


feels like a fail, but you're probably right. you'd think we could do better in 2013 wouldnt you.
 
2013-08-22 11:54:42 AM
What was that movie? Hellraiser? Just give all of them a goddamn straight-edge razor and let them go to town on themselves, stupid, sick, farked-up dipshiats.
 
2013-08-22 12:10:58 PM
If you want to re-settle some Palestinians, I hear there are some openings up there.
 
2013-08-22 12:17:47 PM

macadamnut: The Koch brothers have decided that if Obama pretends Syria used chemical weapons, your taxes should do something about it.


So in addition to producing PBS's NOVA they are also ventriloquists?
 
2013-08-22 12:18:47 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: The rebels were repeatedly asking for US intervention in the institution of a No Fly Zone. I think when a conflict is occurring and one side has kids dying and asks for help, then we are morally obligated to do something. Like I said, obliterate the military power through strategic strikes that are easily done using cruise missiles and drones, institute a No Fly Zone, send aid to the refugee camps and tell the Rebels that it's your country, you do what you want just no killing kids with mass destruction weapons


No, we really aren't.

Kids die all over the world every day.  Thousands of them.  Many to violence in the ongoing conflicts that never seem to stop.  This just seems more horrible because it was a chemical weapons attack.  They are still dead though as much as if it had been by fire, explosion, bullet, or cruelty.

We should not meddle in the internal affairs of nations.  The Syrian rebels are a conglomeration of resistance groups in the nation now.  Those groups include some of the people we have already been fighting for 10 years.  You want to now go in and help them because of one event?

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.
 
2013-08-22 12:23:15 PM
tirob:  Yeah, but even so, it's kind of sad that the Syrian government has found it necessary to kill tens of thousands of deluded marionettes of US imperialism of all ages, sexes, and conditions while all this has been going on, and to create refugees of a million more of them, don't you think?

I'm sure that Assad's military has some blood on its hands, civil wars tend to get messy.  But the numbers and atrocities have been grossly misrepresented to further US interests.  The CIA inflamed tensions and armed the opposition from the beginning, most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.  Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens, especially when UN weapons inspectors just landed in town.

What I'm asking is for US citizens to do a little research of their own before accepting the US gov't at its word and signing off on America Fark Yeah yet again.  The Bush and Obama administrations have been shown time and again to be less than truthful, even willfully deceptive.  Kind of similar to Iraq.

I only care because the US march across the Middle East is nearing its end.  NATO (US) military intervention in Syria will unleash holy hell as many players that have been sitting on the sidelines enter the game.  And it's gonna get uglier than anything seen before.

US motivation in the ME has never been about rounding up the bad guys.  It's oil.  And gas.  And control of oil and gas.
 
2013-08-22 12:24:12 PM
AngryDragon

Yes, going on two decades into the 21st century and we have been involved in some kind of armed conflict almost the entire time.

Enough.


Since the end of WW2 we've been involved in nearly continuous armed conflict. Gen. Mac Author told the President at the end of WW2 to turn and hit Stalin before he could recover, but he was ignored and later fired. He knew Stalin was going to be a pain in the arse and he was right.

Almost as soon as the smoke cleared, Stalin was grabbing for what he could get, spreading communism as fast as possible while the Allie's were still regrouping.

The cold war started nearly immediately. Since then, we've hop-scotched the globe, getting involved in conflict after conflict and after Communism fell, their massive amount of surplus weapons went to arming assorted rebel groups. Armed with modern weaponry, nations just up from cooking over camel dung fires decided they had balls and promptly started slaughtering each other.

Stalin knew about our nukes even before we got one to work and he was supposedly an ally. He had the US infested with spies as we were preoccupied fighting the Axis Powers.

Since WW2, there have been more people killed in these 'little squabbles' than were killed in the entirety of the war itself. Several nations have taken Hitler's genocidal tendencies and 'final solution' to a whole new level for themselves, only terming it 'Ethnic Cleansing'.

After WW2, we captured and killed off the majority of the Nazi's involved in the holocaust, but today many of the people involved in their own Ethnic Cleansing's not only are still free but walking around proud of their actions.

'Brother #3' of the Khmer Rouge that started the Vietnam War, successfully fought prosecution for his war crimes that made Hitler look like a choirboy until he died of old age!

Actually, when you think about it, we've been involved in battles since WW1. From the Spanish Civil War to the Cuban Revolution, the Korean War and Vietnam. Apartide (sp) turned Africa into a mess and Saudi Arabia with OPEC enabled the Islamic World to start showing their arses.

Pretty much, ever since WW1, everyone has been squabbling with everyone else. The US has either jumped or been sucked into the majority of these armed disputes. In a few, thanks to Stalin and his cold war tactics, the US managed to even trigger some in an effort to fight communism.

Stalin died before the cold war became the Cold War but his successors were out and out crazy, while he was insane. They pushed it more into the behind the scenes thing.

We haven't made it even a century without some sort of global war going on for the last couple of hundred years.

Maybe that's why we haven't heard from any real outer space aliens. Humans are damn good at making war.
 
2013-08-22 12:26:49 PM
Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.
 
2013-08-22 12:34:31 PM
It makes no difference. No matter what the US dose its going to be all our fault.
 
2013-08-22 12:38:21 PM
Just like with Libya, this is none of our business.  This is an internal matter.  If the UN decides to do something, fine, we might help.  Otherwise, stay out of it.
 
2013-08-22 12:45:23 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: tirob:  Yeah, but even so, it's kind of sad that the Syrian government has found it necessary to kill tens of thousands of deluded marionettes of US imperialism of all ages, sexes, and conditions while all this has been going on, and to create refugees of a million more of them, don't you think?

I'm sure that Assad's military has some blood on its hands, civil wars tend to get messy.  But the numbers and atrocities have been grossly misrepresented to further US interests.


Or so you say.  The UN has been talking about 100,000 killed, the vast majority of them on the rebel side.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.

Or so you say.  The estimates I have seen are that five percent of them are.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens


As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: The Bush and Obama administrations have been shown time and again to be less than truthful


They have that in common with most of the governments of the world, the Syrian government not excluded.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: NATO (US) military intervention in Syria will unleash holy hell as many players that have been sitting on the sidelines enter the game. And it's gonna get uglier than anything seen before.


Would you describe the current situation in Syria as "pretty?"

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: US motivation in the ME has never been about rounding up the bad guys. It's oil. And gas. And control of oil and gas.


I'll buy that.  Which makes it OK for the Syrian government to kill tens of thousands of innocent people, right?
 
2013-08-22 12:50:53 PM
If France doesn't care for what Syria is doing, I suggest they team up with Israel (who also seem to dislike Syria) and have a go at them. Both France and Israel are nuclear powers with decent military forces, so I'm sure they can clean up what is left of the Syrian forces fairly quickly. We here in the US are done with blowing up stuff halfways across the planet, it's time we worried about fixing our economy and not spilling blood and treasure in yet another potential quagmire.
 
2013-08-22 12:55:19 PM

tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.

Or so you say. The estimates I have seen are that five percent of them are.



"Five percent" is "most"?


tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens

As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.



Oh yeah, go ahead and set up your no-fly zones - bomb the shiat out of us, send in your tanks, rake us across the coals and hunt us down like dogs, UN!

See if WE care!!!

NEENER NEENER NEENER!!!


/Are you trollin' tirob?
 
2013-08-22 01:02:42 PM
Who doesn't love the occasional proxy war? This sounds like a GREAT idea!

/America FARK YEAH!
 
2013-08-22 01:08:40 PM

Amos Quito: Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.


Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?
 
2013-08-22 01:15:14 PM

HMS_Blinkin: So what would you do? Condemn their actions verbally and do nothing? Wouldn't that look weak? Would you pick a side in Egypt or Syria? You say "evil" is gassing innocents in Syria, so would you take the side of Al-Qaeda? You say "evil" is killing innocents in Egypt, so would you support the Muslim Brotherhood there? If Obama picked the sides you're calling "innocent," you'd be on here ranting about how he's using American military might to support Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. If he did the opposite, we'd all hear about how Assad and Egypt's military gov't aren't legitimate.


You don't make speeches about "red lines" when you aren't planning to follow through. I'm not upset that he hasn't followed through though. I'm upset that he opened up his pie-hole about it in the first place.
 
2013-08-22 01:16:33 PM

vygramul: Amos Quito: Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.

Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?



I agree because their assessment makes sense.

/That it happens to be Russians making the assessment is incidental
 
2013-08-22 01:27:35 PM

umad: You don't make speeches about "red lines" when you aren't planning to follow through. I'm not upset that he hasn't followed through though. I'm upset that he opened up his pie-hole about it in the first place


He does seem to have a habit of speaking before he knows all the facts, doesn't he?
 
2013-08-22 01:34:31 PM

Offog: Odd as this sounds, I think we should sink their navy and clear cut their naval infrastructure. Come right out and say ' you used a WMD and this is our measured response penalty, you want to double down?'  It is something that would hurt the
Syrian government and the military establishment without getting involved in the no good options civil war, it would inconvenience the Russians who want to use the facilities, there isn't a lot to their naval branch so we could do it in a weekend, and the cost of a few munitions would be offset by the field test real world data it would provide- it would be the neatest thing we've done since the Spanish American War.


THIS IS PURE GENIUS.

I haven't been so impressed with a comment on Fark since the original "26 minutes" thread.

/Lurked for years.  I love Fark.
 
2013-08-22 01:36:24 PM

tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: 

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens

As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.


I will only comment on this one item since it's obvious that we get our information from vastly different sources.

Assad's forces are close to restoring order without outside intervention.  What does he have to gain by using chemical weapons and rolling out the red carpet for a UN (US) intervention (invasion)?
 
2013-08-22 01:37:04 PM

Amos Quito: tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.

Or so you say. The estimates I have seen are that five percent of them are.


I think you may have misunderstood me.  c and h asserted that half of the anti-Assad fighters weren't Syrian.  According to what I have read, five percent of them are not Syrian.  I was *disagreeing* with c and h.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Amos Quito: Oh yeah, go ahead and set up your no-fly zones - bomb the shiat out of us, send in your tanks, rake us across the coals and hunt us down like dogs, UN!

See if WE care!!!


c and h was conjecturing.  So was I.  So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.

Since 2011, who has been bombing the sh*t out of Syria, sending tanks into populated areas, and hunting people down like dogs?  The UN?
 
2013-08-22 01:39:26 PM

PsiChick: IdBeCrazyIf: When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.

By that logic, we should be doing that to every single war going on right now. You wanna go look at them, count 'em up for me? Where do you think the money for that is coming from? And what makes you think we have the moral right to interfere in someone else's conflict?

Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends  very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.


#winning is you.

Let's leave this one alone.
 
2013-08-22 01:41:18 PM
umad:
You don't make speeches about "red lines" when you aren't planning to follow through. I'm not upset that he hasn't followed through though. I'm upset that he opened up his pie-hole about it in the first place.

Setting out the principle that using weapons of mass destruction is a crime against humanity is definitely the right thing for the President of the world's only super power to do. And the President doesn't really have a pie hole, he's the voice of the Free World.

it's possible the covert boots on the ground know someone besides the Assad government did this. And, it's possible that coming out and saying it was a rebel false flag operation would give world support and legitimacy to Assad.

With so many players of geo-political intrigue involved in Syria the general public will not know what the truth is.
 
2013-08-22 01:42:41 PM
vygramul:  Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?

I agree, the original Red Dawn is far superior to the crappy the remake.  Choose your propaganda wisely.
 
2013-08-22 01:45:39 PM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.

Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?


I agree because their assessment makes sense.

/That it happens to be Russians making the assessment is incidental


Yeah, well, anyone who says "false flag" is automatically right in your book.
 
2013-08-22 01:46:22 PM

AngryDragon: Kids die all over the world every day. Thousands of them. Many to violence in the ongoing conflicts that never seem to stop. This just seems more horrible because it was a chemical weapons attack. They are still dead though as much as if it had been by fire, explosion, bullet, or cruelty.


That, and because for some reason this particular story is all over the news media that happen to be owned by the same corporate entities that will hugely profit from violent US intervention, which would incidentally kill thousands of children by fire, explosion, bullet, and cruelty, but that's not important right now.
 
2013-08-22 01:48:11 PM

Wangiss: #winning is you.

Let's leave this one alone.


Actually, we were asked to go in, I was wrong about that. Since we were, we do actually have some obligation to at least take a position on it. That said, my position is still 'stay the fark out' because both sides are freakin' terrorists.
 
2013-08-22 02:11:22 PM

tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.



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

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.
 
2013-08-22 02:14:31 PM

Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


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

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.


Benefit? Europe, Turkey, the Saudis, Qatar, the US. Not the Syrian government.
 
2013-08-22 02:29:38 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens

As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.

I will only comment on this one item since it's obvious that we get our information from vastly different sources.

Assad's forces are close to restoring order


"Restoring order" in the loosest possible sense of the term, that is.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: What does he have to gain by using chemical weapons and rolling out the red carpet for a UN (US) intervention (invasion)?


Street cred within Syria.  As for the possibility that the UN/US will intervene, Assad has managed to do a lot of dirty work in the past two years while simultaneously avoiding such an intervention.  He may think by this time that his lucky streak will continue.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I will only comment on this one item since it's obvious that we get our information from vastly different sources.


Your "source" wouldn't be Michel Chossudovsky, by any chance?

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.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?


From a knee-jerk conclusion?  Or from an intervention against the armed forces of the Syrian government?
 
2013-08-22 02:30:14 PM

Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


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

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.


Well, Assad knows you can't be fooled, so rather than wait for the false flag, he launched the attack, knowing that the false flag crowd would give him cover.
 
2013-08-22 02:31:35 PM

simplicimus: Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


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

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.

Benefit? Europe, Turkey, the Saudis, Qatar, the US. Not the Syrian government.


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.
 
2013-08-22 02:37:53 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: simplicimus: Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


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

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.

Benefit? Europe, Turkey, the Saudis, Qatar, the US. Not the Syrian government.

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.

On training and advising the rebels, Dempsey said:

Risks include extremists gaining access to additional capabilities, retaliatory cross-border attacks, and insider attacks or inadvertent association with war crimes due to vetting difficulties.

Bomb Syria? Said Dempsey:

The costs would be in the billions. ... There is a risk that the regime could withstand limited strikes by dispersing its assets. Retaliatory attacks are also possible, and there is a probability for collateral damage impacting civilians and foreigners inside the country.

Establish a no-fly zone? Says Dempsey:

We would require hundreds of ground and sea-based aircraft, intelligence and electronic warfare support, and enablers for refueling and communications. Estimated costs are $500 million initially, averaging as much as a billion dollars per month over the course of a year.

And he concluded:

Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.

 http://www.thenation.com/blog/175400/top-us-general-questions-syr ia-wa r#
 
2013-08-22 02:48:19 PM

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.
 
2013-08-22 02:58:20 PM

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.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

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



Yep, you're trollin'.


vygramul: Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


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

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.

Well, Assad knows you can't be fooled, so rather than wait for the false flag, he launched the attack, knowing that the false flag crowd would give him cover.



Do you know WHO ELSE has been lobbing missiles into Syria this year?
 
2013-08-22 03:01:58 PM

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.
 
2013-08-22 03:16:37 PM

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.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

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

Yep, you're trollin'.


Well, you don't have to answer any of my questions if you don't want to, of course.  But whether you think so or not, they were honest questions.
 
2013-08-22 03:40:51 PM

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.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

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

Yep, you're trollin'.


I will add that your question was ambiguous, which is why I asked you to clarify it.  And in my experience arguing with you here, I have noticed that you go in quite often for ambiguous (or leading) statements and questions.  I therefore hope that you will forgive my caution in this case.
 
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.
 
2013-08-23 07:54:24 AM

vygramul: like his obsession over Zimmerman's Jewish ancestry


Seriously ? this is great stuff. Got a link ?
 
2013-08-23 08:22:41 AM

TappingTheVein: vygramul: like his obsession over Zimmerman's Jewish ancestry

Seriously ? this is great stuff. Got a link ?


Alas, no, and I didn't bother looking for it because there are so many goddamn zimmerman threads I didn't want to root through them all to find it.
 
2013-08-23 08:38:39 AM

TappingTheVein: vygramul: like his obsession over Zimmerman's Jewish ancestry

Seriously ? this is great stuff. Got a link ?


Found it:

Underlined and in all-caps to make sure no one missed it.
 
2013-08-23 08:48:35 AM

vygramul: Found it:

Underlined and in all-caps to make sure no one missed it.


The guy is an endless source of amusement, thanks!
 
2013-08-23 10:44:05 AM

vygramul: Well, since you rushed in here to white knight for the anti-Semite


I was strictly pimping the guy who is his own hero.  As I stated earlier, I have no use for AQ.
 
2013-08-23 11:17:22 AM

The Muthaship: 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.


Oh, by all means, PLEASE DO click on Tappy's links - and see where they go - usually they link to MORE of Tappy's own posts with MORE links that go to still MORE of Tappy's own posts  (etc) and if you ever DO manage to get to the center of Tappy's Russian Doll, you'll find that his accusations were baseless lies.

Click here for a preview. of the Fappy Tappy Show, LOL!
 
2013-08-23 11:51:22 AM

vygramul: 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.



LOL, putz, I was a strong supporter of Zimmerman from day one - while you were cheer leading for having him strung up

Where's your anti-Semitic conspiracy theory now?

You and Tappy should get a room - you seem to enjoy the mutual fapping.
 
2013-08-23 11:54:28 AM

The Muthaship: vygramul: Well, since you rushed in here to white knight for the anti-Semite

I was strictly pimping the guy who is his own hero.  As I stated earlier, I have no use for AQ.



That's it. G-d forbid that you be accused of agreeing with someone who's been accused of (GASP) anti-Semitism!!!11

/Oh the humanity!!!
 
2013-08-23 12:26:32 PM

tirob: 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.



Earlier you berated me for calling the attack "alleged". Well, guess who said what:

Obama: Syria chemical weapon claim a 'grave concern'


"US President Barack Obama has said the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria in an attack on Wednesday is a "big event of grave concern".

Mr Obama said the US was still seeking confirmation such weapons were used, but if proved true the situation would "require America's attention".

Meanwhile, Syria's main ally Russia has said there is growing evidence that Syrian rebels were behind the attack.



How do you like your crow?


tirob: 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.


We don't know one way or another - yet - but all circumstantial and motivational evidence points to my being correct.


tirob: 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.



What makes you think it would necessarily have been Israeli nationals who would have done the smuggling?


tirob: 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.



NO ONE has presented any evidence yet. It is ALL conjecture.

It just so happens that my line of reasoning is far more in sync with reality than the hand-waving and bullshiat that the Western pundits have been spewing - and that you have subscribed to.

/Crow is served
//Enjoy
///Care for desert?
 
2013-08-23 12:57:06 PM

Amos Quito: Oh, by all means, PLEASE DO click on Tappy's links - and see where they go - usually they link to MORE of Tappy's own posts with MORE links that go to still MORE of Tappy's own posts  (etc) and if you ever DO manage to get to the center of Tappy's Russian Doll, you'll find that his accusations were baseless lies.


Keep lying to yourself, anti-semite shiatstain. Anyone who knows how to click on a link can see that my posts lead to your own posts spewing your anti-semitic conspiracy bullshiat.
 
2013-08-23 01:37:06 PM

Amos Quito: Earlier you berated me for calling the attack "alleged". Well, guess who said what:

Obama: Syria chemical weapon claim a 'grave concern'

"US President Barack Obama has said the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria in an attack on Wednesday is a "big event of grave concern".


What I said was this:

"As for your use of the word "alleged," I have seen no source that asserts that [a gas attack] didn't happen, not even the article you linked here."

As of now, the only *denial* that I know of so far has come from the Syrian government, which has denied that any massacre of any kind took place at Ghouta.

You have up to this point provided no evidence that my source Basel Al-Kana is mistaken when he claimed that a gas attack occurred; indeed, you have refrained from answering a single one of his points here.

Amos Quito:  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.

We don't know one way or another - yet - but all circumstantial and motivational evidence points to my being correct.


I stand by what I wrote.  You have up to this point provided nothing to back your "correct" claim except surmise, innuendo, "would have," and "could have."

Amos Quito: What makes you think it would necessarily have been Israeli nationals who would have done the smuggling?


More "would have," but I'll try to answer your point anyway.  I referred to your hypothetical phantom smugglers as "outsiders," and I did so on purpose to include non-Israelis that the Mossad hypothetically could have recruited.  In other words, you missed my point.

Amos Quito: NO ONE has presented any evidence yet. It is ALL conjecture


As I stated above, Basel Al-Kana has made charges backed by evidence that you have chosen thus far not to respond to.  See my post of 9:07 yesterday.  And one thing about Mr. Al-Kana is for damn sure--he wasn't trying to influence the United States; people who write in French don't do so with an American audience in mind.

Amos Quito: It just so happens that my line of reasoning is far more in sync with reality than the hand-waving and bullshiat that the Western pundits have been spewing - and that you have subscribed to.


A lecture on reality from a writer who builds a case for a false flag/false intel operation based exclusively on surmise.  I'll make a note of that.
 
2013-08-23 01:49:11 PM

Amos Quito: That's it. G-d forbid that you be accused of agreeing with someone who's been accused of (GASP) anti-Semitism!!!11


Nothing to do with that at all.
 
2013-08-23 06:02:19 PM
time stamp
 
2013-08-23 06:48:46 PM

tirob: Amos Quito: Earlier you berated me for calling the attack "alleged". Well, guess who said what:

Obama: Syria chemical weapon claim a 'grave concern'

"US President Barack Obama has said the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria in an attack on Wednesday is a "big event of grave concern".

What I said was this:

"As for your use of the word "alleged," I have seen no source that asserts that [a gas attack] didn't happen, not even the article you linked here."

As of now, the only *denial* that I know of so far has come from the Syrian government, which has denied that any massacre of any kind took place at Ghouta.

You have up to this point provided no evidence that my source Basel Al-Kana is mistaken when he claimed that a gas attack occurred; indeed, you have refrained from answering a single one of his points here.



What? You want me to provide "evidence" that your source is "mistaken"? LOL!  As for the "unanswered points", I believe I addressed every one. Be specific.


tirob: Amos Quito: 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.

We don't know one way or another - yet - but all circumstantial and motivational evidence points to my being correct.

I stand by what I wrote. You have up to this point provided nothing to back your "correct" claim except surmise, innuendo, "would have," and "could have."



And you (or your "source") have provided WHAT EVIDENCE, exactly? Nothing. Nada. Kaput - just raw, baseless accusations that Assad MUST be the culprit.

What do you want?


tirob: Amos Quito: What makes you think it would necessarily have been Israeli nationals who would have done the smuggling?

More "would have," but I'll try to answer your point anyway. I referred to your hypothetical phantom smugglers as "outsiders," and I did so on purpose to include non-Israelis that the Mossad hypothetically could have recruited. In other words, you missed my point.



Maybe you need to sharpen your points?

Jerusalem Post:

Report: Syrian rebel forces trained by West are moving towards Damascus


QUOTES:

"Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.
Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

"The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

"The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

END QUOTES

Looking more and more possible all the time, isn't it?


tirob: Amos Quito: NO ONE has presented any evidence yet. It is ALL conjecture

As I stated above, Basel Al-Kana has made charges backed by evidence that you have chosen thus far not to respond to. See my post of 9:07 yesterday.



What evidence? Here, I'll repost his entire screed - you highlight the "evidence", okay?

tirob (from above)

"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"


You keep claiming he provided "evidence"? WTF are you talking about?

You show me "evidence", and I'll respond.

Deal?

(Time stamp?)
 
2013-08-23 07:56:38 PM

Amos Quito: You show me "evidence", and I'll respond

What? You want me to provide "evidence" that your source is "mistaken"? LOL!  As for the "unanswered points", I believe I addressed every one. Be specific.


Al-Kana made several claims in his post.  They are, in order:

1. The Syrian government permitted no medical help to reach the survivors of the attacks in the Damascus suburbs.

2. The Syrian government did not order flags flown at half staff after the attacks occurred.

3.  The Syrian government did not denounce the perpetrators of the attacks.

4.  The Syrian government denied that any kind of attacks occurred.

5.  The rebels have no missile launchers.

6.  The rebels have nobody trained to handle and deliver chemical weapons.

In addition, the other (non-Syrian) poster I cited asserted:

7.  The Syrian government has refused to permit UN inspectors to visit the areas affected by the attacks.

8.  The Syrian government followed up the gas attacks by bombarding the affected areas with conventional weapons, this to conceal what they had done.

Of these eight points, you have addressed only the seventh, and that one not fully.

Do you believe any of these claims to be false?  Why?  And the reason I ask is that the six of the assertions were made by a writer who says that he is Syrian, the source is not from the mainstream media that you are so fond of blaming for pointing fingers at Assad, and neither of the writers is addressing Americans.  I think their assertions deserve a better response from you than "screed," "baseless," and "raw," particularly in the context of your repeated claims here that your own theories on this issue are factual and correct.

Amos Quito: Looking more and more possible all the time, isn't it?


Yep.  The chances went from 1/100th of 1 percent to 1/99th of 1 percent.  From your link:

"In June, the Los Angeles Times reported that CIA operatives and American special operations units have been training Free Syrian Army soldiers with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons since late 2012."

No evidence in your link that the FSA guerrillas that were sent into Syria were trained to handle and deliver chemical weapons.  Or that they were ever provided with any, or that they have ever had access to any.
 
Displayed 215 of 215 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report