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.

(Gawker)   US intel agents intercepted phone calls FALSE FLAG from the Syrian Ministry of Defense FALSE FLAG asking their chemical weapons unit who in the fark told them FALSE FLAG to launch a chemical attack on a suburb full of civilians   (gawker.com) divider line 549
    More: Obvious, chemical warfares, Syrians, Syrian Ministry, syrian ministry of defense, special agents, chemical weapons unit, Secretary of State John Kerry, phone calls  
•       •       •

10869 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Aug 2013 at 8:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-28 11:02:45 AM

BullBearMS: Obama lied us into a war for oil by claiming "humanitarian reasons" just like Bush lied us into a war for oil claiming WMD's.



Which war was that?
I don't recall us invading a third country.
 
2013-08-28 11:03:26 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Dude.........they've expressly stated that American involvement in their countries is why they want us dead


Lack of involvement is what created the Jihad movement Tat, our complete abandonment after the Soviet collapse and their interest and power in the region waned. Their shiat was farked up and we had promised them aid and help in rebuilding, we walked away.

I'd be righteously pissed as well.

Perhaps though after stopping the killing of civilians by crushing a ruthless dictator we step in and assist in rebuilding, not dictate how they run their shiat then maybe just maybe they'll like us again?

I think we're missing the bigger point though, we're missing a chance here to post more chocolate covered breasts
 
2013-08-28 11:03:59 AM

vygramul: Tat'dGreaser: IdBeCrazyIf: And once things are settled down, we'll help them rebuild. We're doing the same thing in Libya. We blew up the asshole who was causing shiat, took a step back and said "Hey, we're here when you want us"

Look up, Libya was no success

We accomplished precisely what we set out to do: get Gaddhafi killed for all the crap he's pulled over the years.


That was never our goal until he threatened to tear up western oil firm's contracts, kick them out of Libya, and nationalize their oil wells.

Western nations had already forgiven him for terrorist bombings that killed Americans and gotten the terrorist behind the killings released from prison.

The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans.

The admission came after American legislators, grappling with the controversy over the company's disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, called for an investigation into BP's actions in the case of the freed man, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.

The former Libyan intelligence agent was released and allowed to return to Libya last August after doctors advised the Scottish government that he was likely to die within three months of advanced prostate cancer. But nearly a year later, he remains alive, and free, in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.
 
2013-08-28 11:04:27 AM

Tat'dGreaser: vygramul: We accomplished precisely what we set out to do: get Gaddhafi killed for all the crap he's pulled over the years.

So we're in the business of assassination now?

IdBeCrazyIf: Surely there must be some reason these people want us dead......maybe if we addressed that concern this stupid global war on terror can be put down like a rabid dog

Dude.........they've expressly stated that American involvement in their countries is why they want us dead


We've always been in that business and anyone who thinks we haven't done so in the past, through Dem/GOP administrations alike for the last...forever...is either naive or stupid.

Governments do what is in their best interests, plain and simple.  Such things transcend moral standards, and while that sounds callous, it's also realistic.  Driving Daffy and his inner circle out of power as the best thing to do for the US and many other nations 'and' it was more moral than turning our backs and letting him squash the rebels.

And just to remind you, we didn't kill Daffy.  The new Libyan government did.  And I heard it was a painful and messy death out in the desert, too.
 
2013-08-28 11:04:44 AM

Tatterdemalian: lordjupiter: Why are other people able to succeed despite taxes, but not Republicans?  Either the system is rigged against the middle class and the wealthy elite have advantages the rest of us don't have REGARDLESS of tax breaks, or the rank and file GOP anti-government echo stations are just incapable of doing what everyone at the top has figured out how to do.

Which is it?  Is the system wide open for anyone regardless of taxes and regulations, or are wealthy elites controlling everything and tricking you into thinking what's good for them is good for you?

Third option: nobody is able to succeed despite taxes, only those with special personal exemptions to the taxes are able to succeed. You're just pretending that success is possible without exemptions because you're disingenously trying to pretend crony capitalism is the same as all capitalism, much like the Romans tried to make Jesus drink gall while insisting it was water.

/Detroit was the first to burn
//it will not be the last, due in part to your actions
///keep on deflecting, you'll only die in the fires you set, while the people you hate will survive and rebuild from the ashes


Could you paraphrase that?  I'm unclear how you feel about this.
 
2013-08-28 11:07:20 AM

Infernalist: Diplomats don't use unequivocal terminology without very very very very good reason. Smoking-gun levels of proof, even.


Like that lie that we were going into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction that never turned up?

Or the lie that we were forcing a regime change in Libya for "humanitarian reasons".

Or all those recent lies about the NSA spying on Americans?
 
2013-08-28 11:07:48 AM

BullBearMS: vygramul: Tat'dGreaser: IdBeCrazyIf: And once things are settled down, we'll help them rebuild. We're doing the same thing in Libya. We blew up the asshole who was causing shiat, took a step back and said "Hey, we're here when you want us"

Look up, Libya was no success

We accomplished precisely what we set out to do: get Gaddhafi killed for all the crap he's pulled over the years.

That was never our goal until he threatened to tear up western oil firm's contracts, kick them out of Libya, and nationalize their oil wells.

Western nations had already forgiven him for terrorist bombings that killed Americans and gotten the terrorist behind the killings released from prison.

The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans.

The admission came after American legislators, grappling with the controversy over the company's disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, called for an investigation into BP's actions in the case of the freed man, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.

The former Libyan intelligence agent was released and allowed to return to Libya last August after doctors advised the Scottish government that he was likely to die within three months of advanced prostate cancer. But nearly a year later, he remains alive, and free, in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.


Let me be completely frank:  Who cares?

I don't give a damn as to the underlying causes for the oil market instability that provoked Western involvement.  It happened, we got involved, and we were faced with two choices: Support Daffy or support the rebels.

We chose to support the rebels, thank god.  For the first time in a very long time, our military was 'cheered' by the people of the Middle East for doing the right thing and defying a dictatorship and helping them to reclaim their nation.
 
2013-08-28 11:08:53 AM

dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: So, as I have said in since being a college kid during the Clinton years... why do we want any part of the Middle East? It's a cluster fudge of insanity. Why don't we just buy our oil and wish them good luck? Either they will work it out eventually or finally blow up the whole damn place, correct?

Because they can cut that oil off if they want to.   Just like they did in the 1970s.

In fact, entire wars have started because of oil embargoes.


Japan knew it was going to go to war with us long before we embargoed their oil.
 
2013-08-28 11:09:56 AM

Infernalist: We chose to support the rebels, thank god. For the first time in a very long time, our military was 'cheered' by the people of the Middle East for doing the right thing and defying a dictatorship and helping them to reclaim their nation.


Seeing thousands of people cheering in the streets waving American flags was something amazing too see.
 
2013-08-28 11:10:01 AM

give me doughnuts: Frederick: Since I dont know a lot about this situation I'd first ask "what was gained by a chemical attack?"


Dead enemies and fearful survivors. The same in every kind of attack.


It makes me wonder, were they calling the U.S. bluff using a scapegoat within the syrian army (after all, with this "intelligence call", it sounds as though they have someone ready to blame)?  If they got away with this without any intervention (US or others), would that not inspire real fear in the rebels and the rest of the population?

Time to bow down for good. No one will help you.
 
2013-08-28 11:11:29 AM

LasersHurt: jpbreon: Few things warm the heart more than the fact that Americans hold the entity subjugating them as completely dishonest, and believe not a word that exits their mouth. The US government has absolutely ZERO credibility.

How's that peace President doing for you? Guess he doesn't care what Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution says, either. When did Syria attack the United States?

When did he attack Syria?


August 17th, with the first wave of approximately 300 FSA (Free Syrian Army) rebels crossing the border into Syria from Jordan. Now, you ask, what were FSA rebels doing in Jordan? Well, they were being trained and equipped by approximately 300 US Marines and a lot more Jordanian special forces troops. Another group, sent in August 19, was trained in Turkey with CIA assistance.

We call this a proxy war, and it's been going on a lot longer than August 17th. In fact, there is a good chance the Benghazi 'consulate' that was attacked was a CIA operation to funnel weapons from Lubya to Syrian al-Nusra Front via Turkey.
 
2013-08-28 11:12:00 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: Diplomats don't use unequivocal terminology without very very very very good reason. Smoking-gun levels of proof, even.

Like that lie that we were going into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction that never turned up?

Or the lie that we were forcing a regime change in Libya for "humanitarian reasons".

Or all those recent lies about the NSA spying on Americans?


As much as I wish the State Dept was filled with people that stayed and maintained a respect across the administrations that come and go, that isn't the reality.  Each administration stocks the State Dept with their own peoples, so while the GOP administrations are quick to lie to the American people and the world at large in order to get us into quagmire occupations of other nations, the Democrats don't seem to be in a rush to do so.

And yes, there were humanitarian reasons behind stopping Daffy and toppling him, but the alternative was ignoring the rebels and letting him squash them.  Now if you're hung up on the 'humanitarian' thing, that's your right, but if you think we shouldn't have gone in there and toppled him, then you're just messed up, bro.

Sometimes, the best option is also the morally superior option, too, on very rare wonderful occasions.
 
2013-08-28 11:12:32 AM

jpbreon: Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution


Article 2 only has four sections.
 
2013-08-28 11:12:50 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Infernalist: We chose to support the rebels, thank god. For the first time in a very long time, our military was 'cheered' by the people of the Middle East for doing the right thing and defying a dictatorship and helping them to reclaim their nation.

Seeing thousands of people cheering in the streets waving American flags was something amazing too see.


Aw, yeah, right?! Totally super awesome, just like the liberation of Paris! If there's anything that makes going to war worthwhile it's those cheering civilians. Why wait for an existential threat or an attack on Americans or our allies? I mean it's the 21st century for cripes sake.
 
2013-08-28 11:13:38 AM
Okay, so if we EMP the entire country...would that satisfy any of you people?  No death.  Just a nice step back in time.  A simpler time.  A biblical era...so to speak.
 
2013-08-28 11:14:21 AM

liam76: vygramul: They also don't hand them out to lower-level field commanders who could be bribed by the Mossad to maybe lob one in the opposite direction.

they coudl be handed out to higher level or completely trusted commanders who weren't good at hiding them.  nobody is saying it must eb a Mossad plot.


I didn't say it WAS a Mossad plot, but what Assad would worry about, and why he wouldn't just hand authority to lower-level officers. And his generals have some of the same interests. Under tyrannies, militaries tend to horde authority, not distribute it in greater amounts. They don't give as much access to REGULAR ammo as other nations do, not to mention special weapons.

vygramul: Yes, but our controls are not, nor do not have to be, as strict. Our president is not scared of our military. Tyrannies tend to be. That's why their militaries tend not to practice much, lest they be effective enough to take power, have watchers, like the Republican Guard, who also have watchers, like the Special Republican Guard... people who do that don't just hand out their regime-ending weapons to lower-level field commanders to use on their own volition.

I am sorry, but you are mkaing a good case for them farking up.

There are only so many places they could hide them, and in ammo depots for conventioanl weaposn is a great place in many aspects.


I don't see why you have to hide them. The lower-level officers just wouldn't be given the keys. Post an SS corporal at a door and a Wehrmacht general isn't getting past.

vygramul: There's a difference between losing something and giving a lower-level field commander authority.

I think we just aren;t going to agree here, but to be clear I am not sayingt hey were handed out and given to commaders to do with as they wished.  I think they were given out "for safe keeping" and whoever had them farked up (or somebodey below them did).

vygramul: (And Egypt has a lot of social classes involved in their militaries. A colleague did a study of why F-16s underperform so much in their hands

I only worked in the oil field, but my father was involved in FMS with soem arab countries.  He had some hilarious/sad stories abotu piltos who were there because of their family vice skill.


There are parts that are sold in packs of 10, but have to be kept sealed. Their maintenance crews frequently open a pack for a new part, but don't seal them. They know this, so the next part requires opening another pack of 10. Some of their maintenance costs are an order of magnitude more JUST for that reason alone.
 
2013-08-28 11:15:47 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: IdBeCrazyIf: Infernalist: We chose to support the rebels, thank god. For the first time in a very long time, our military was 'cheered' by the people of the Middle East for doing the right thing and defying a dictatorship and helping them to reclaim their nation.

Seeing thousands of people cheering in the streets waving American flags was something amazing too see.

Aw, yeah, right?! Totally super awesome, just like the liberation of Paris! If there's anything that makes going to war worthwhile it's those cheering civilians. Why wait for an existential threat or an attack on Americans or our allies? I mean it's the 21st century for cripes sake.


The instability in Libya was threatening the recovery of the Western European economy.  They had to stabilize the oil market one way or the other.  They had to choose a side and settle the country down to bring oil prices back down and continue their recovery.

On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.
 
2013-08-28 11:16:05 AM

jpbreon: LasersHurt: jpbreon: Few things warm the heart more than the fact that Americans hold the entity subjugating them as completely dishonest, and believe not a word that exits their mouth. The US government has absolutely ZERO credibility.

How's that peace President doing for you? Guess he doesn't care what Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution says, either. When did Syria attack the United States?

When did he attack Syria?

August 17th, with the first wave of approximately 300 FSA (Free Syrian Army) rebels crossing the border into Syria from Jordan. Now, you ask, what were FSA rebels doing in Jordan? Well, they were being trained and equipped by approximately 300 US Marines and a lot more Jordanian special forces troops. Another group, sent in August 19, was trained in Turkey with CIA assistance.

We call this a proxy war, and it's been going on a lot longer than August 17th. In fact, there is a good chance the Benghazi 'consulate' that was attacked was a CIA operation to funnel weapons from Lubya to Syrian al-Nusra Front via Turkey.


You are not supposed to talk about how things work or might work, only crazy people do that. Stuff just happens, who you gonna call?
 
2013-08-28 11:16:14 AM

give me doughnuts: jpbreon: Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution

Article 2 only has four sections.


Hopefully you can forgive the typo.
 
2013-08-28 11:16:17 AM

Tat'dGreaser: vygramul: We accomplished precisely what we set out to do: get Gaddhafi killed for all the crap he's pulled over the years.

So we're in the business of assassination now?


What do you think Bush tried to do time and again with B-1s loitering with weapons earmarked for dropping anywhere we even THOUGHT Saddam was?
 
2013-08-28 11:16:57 AM

Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: IdBeCrazyIf: Infernalist: We chose to support the rebels, thank god. For the first time in a very long time, our military was 'cheered' by the people of the Middle East for doing the right thing and defying a dictatorship and helping them to reclaim their nation.

Seeing thousands of people cheering in the streets waving American flags was something amazing too see.

Aw, yeah, right?! Totally super awesome, just like the liberation of Paris! If there's anything that makes going to war worthwhile it's those cheering civilians. Why wait for an existential threat or an attack on Americans or our allies? I mean it's the 21st century for cripes sake.

The instability in Libya was threatening the recovery of the Western European economy.  They had to stabilize the oil market one way or the other.  They had to choose a side and settle the country down to bring oil prices back down and continue their recovery.

On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.


That's wonderful. What is the existential threat from Syria?
 
2013-08-28 11:17:31 AM

Infernalist: Let me be completely frank: Who cares? No matter what Obama does I will make lame ass excuses for his actions


Yes, we all understand that Obama shills will make excuses for him no matter what.

The problem is that the rest of us don't like being lied into constant never ending wars.

How much money did we blow forcing a regime change in Libya over oil profits?
Meanwhile, BP is poisoning the whole Gulf.
 
2013-08-28 11:18:11 AM

LasersHurt: jpbreon: Few things warm the heart more than the fact that Americans hold the entity subjugating them as completely dishonest, and believe not a word that exits their mouth. The US government has absolutely ZERO credibility.

How's that peace President doing for you? Guess he doesn't care what Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution says, either. When did Syria attack the United States?

When did he attack Syria?


There's also no Article 2, Section 8. I think he's referring to Article I, Section 8. Congress should probably assert control rather than rolling over, if they're so sure this is a violation.
 
2013-08-28 11:19:46 AM

jpbreon: give me doughnuts: jpbreon: Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution

Article 2 only has four sections.

Hopefully you can forgive the typo.


Just this once. Do'nt let it happen again.

/snrk
 
2013-08-28 11:20:06 AM

vygramul: LasersHurt: jpbreon: Few things warm the heart more than the fact that Americans hold the entity subjugating them as completely dishonest, and believe not a word that exits their mouth. The US government has absolutely ZERO credibility.

How's that peace President doing for you? Guess he doesn't care what Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution says, either. When did Syria attack the United States?

When did he attack Syria?

There's also no Article 2, Section 8. I think he's referring to Article I, Section 8. Congress should probably assert control rather than rolling over, if they're so sure this is a violation.


His example was also the training of some rebels, which isn't by any definition I'm aware of a violation of the section he intended to mention. Unless he's being absolutist about military action in a very broad sense.
 
2013-08-28 11:20:12 AM
I'm still wary on intervention. I'm still scratching my head why Assad, who was previously on the ropes but managed to comeback and retake important territory taken by the rebels and is now winning the war, would risk Western intervention on a non-strategic target.

On another point, if North Korea gassed its people would we attack them? Probably not. Why? They have a large, albeit, outdated military and possibly have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. So if a nation doesn't want foreign military intervention, they need to have deterrence and nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are probably less expensive than equipping, training, and maintaining a modern military on par with the US.
 
2013-08-28 11:20:36 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: IdBeCrazyIf: Infernalist: We chose to support the rebels, thank god. For the first time in a very long time, our military was 'cheered' by the people of the Middle East for doing the right thing and defying a dictatorship and helping them to reclaim their nation.

Seeing thousands of people cheering in the streets waving American flags was something amazing too see.

Aw, yeah, right?! Totally super awesome, just like the liberation of Paris! If there's anything that makes going to war worthwhile it's those cheering civilians. Why wait for an existential threat or an attack on Americans or our allies? I mean it's the 21st century for cripes sake.

The instability in Libya was threatening the recovery of the Western European economy.  They had to stabilize the oil market one way or the other.  They had to choose a side and settle the country down to bring oil prices back down and continue their recovery.

On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.

That's wonderful. What is the existential threat from Syria?


At this point, nothing as far as I can see.  Which is why I've been steadfastly against any involvement whatsoever.  My solution would be to step back, do nothing and when there's a clear winner, THEN we send the UN in to see if the winners engaged in war crimes/atrocities and deal with it along the normal channels in the UN.

I see little reason for any involvement at all and the MOST that I would be even marginally okay with would be a no-fly zone for all parties involved and the targeting of any KNOWN and VERIFIED CW units.
 
2013-08-28 11:21:29 AM
I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.
 
2013-08-28 11:23:23 AM

netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.


If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.
 
2013-08-28 11:23:28 AM

LasersHurt: His example was also the training of some rebels, which isn't by any definition I'm aware of a violation of the section he intended to mention. Unless he's being absolutist about military action in a very broad sense.



It's also an unproven assertion.
 
2013-08-28 11:24:16 AM

I_C_Weener: Okay, so if we EMP the entire country...would that satisfy any of you people?  No death.  Just a nice step back in time.  A simpler time.  A biblical era...so to speak.


Ak47s don't need batteries last i checked
 
2013-08-28 11:24:35 AM

Infernalist: vygramul: Infernalist: vygramul: Infernalist: tirob: All right, *now* I'm confused.

Is this a case of:

a)  

or

b) 

or

c) Something else?

If I had to guess, I'd say:

c) Some lower ranking field officer made the horrible mistake of using CWs on his own volition.

That's highly unlikely. Or the Assad regime is packed full of morons.

You say that as if that's an unlikely prospect.

Long-term dictators don't tend to make the fundamental mistake of putting the authority of using regime-changing WMDs in the hands of lower-level field officers.

The calls indicate otherwise.  As has been noted in the past, the US has straight up LOST nuclear weapons in past.  And that was without the pressure of a violent civilian insurrection to stress things up.

The possibility of CWs being used by mistake by some lower level flunkies is entirely possible and even probable, as it would allow both sides to right at the same time.


I doubt that a lower level flunky could have done this, but I would buy the idea that a particularly incompetent lieutenant colonel could have--say, for example, someone who could be Assad's wife's cousin, who got his job through family connections.  But we're all speculating at this point.
 
2013-08-28 11:24:40 AM

Infernalist: And yes, there were humanitarian reasons behind stopping Daffy and toppling him, but the alternative was ignoring the rebels and letting him squash them. Now if you're hung up on the 'humanitarian' thing, that's your right, but if you think we shouldn't have gone in there and toppled him, then you're just messed up, bro.


If we didn't continually support regimes that brutally torture and murder their own people, but are sufficiently obedient to our commands, you might have a point.

Torture and police abuse under the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak were one of the main causes of the protests that have engulfed the country for more than a week, Human Rights Watch said.

The 95-page report, entitled "Work on Him Until he Confesses: Impunity for Torture in Egypt," documents dozens of cases of torture and death in custody, the New-York-based organisation said in a report released today.

"The Egyptian government's foul record on this issue is a huge part of what is still bringing crowds onto the streets today," Joe Stork, deputy director of the group's Middle East and North Africa division.


meanwhile, the Secretary of State is spouting bullshiat like this:

I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States."

"Humanitarian reasons" my ass.

Obama lied us into another war for oil.
 
2013-08-28 11:25:27 AM

give me doughnuts: LasersHurt: His example was also the training of some rebels, which isn't by any definition I'm aware of a violation of the section he intended to mention. Unless he's being absolutist about military action in a very broad sense.


It's also an unproven assertion.


It's probable, all the same.  Such things are designed to be very hard to be proven.  If they're easily proven, then that proxy war has a very distinct chance of becoming a real war.
 
2013-08-28 11:25:52 AM

Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.


Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.
 
2013-08-28 11:26:05 AM
You are not supposed to talk about how things work or might work, only crazy people do that. Stuff just happens, who you gonna call?

Haha, I know, right? I once asked in a thread how these people can ignore the evidence of what's going on. It isn't hidden; the US government is not half so good at keeping its secrets, and the evidence is all there for people who want to see it.

I had one person respond that it might have happened, but until they saw it on CNN then it was conspiracy theory crap. It was then and there I realized that these people revel in their ignorance. They wrap it about themselves like Linus' blanket. If you never go looking, then the narrative Obama/Bush/whatever feeds the media, and you, stays intact. You can always be the righteous force, with altruistic motives, and nothing but humanitarian goals if you simply try hard enough to stay blind.
 
2013-08-28 11:28:09 AM

Launch Code: So we're going to war AGAIN! Where are the anti war protestors? Where's the code pink nuts? I guess biden and almost all the other demahippocrates are ok with this fight. Most democrats won't speak out against barry or his policies because they fear the almighty jackboot of liberal scorn, political suicide, death threats cold shoulders at dem gatherings etc. Does anyone on the left have the intestinal fortitude to question anything at all that this guy does?

barry is a known narcissist. Are you sure he's not doing this because he's tired of being laughed at by the other world leaders for being soft, wishy washy and not understanding how the rest of the world works? Is it possible that in his circle of advisors, hollywood friends, news outlets, can't do so I teach educators and other obamorons, that he believes he solved the worlds hatred of America with some really hip speeches? He's about to provide some very heavy ordnance to rebel fighters. Some of these same rebels are terrorists. Has he forgotten what happened a little over a decade ago to America? barry doesn't fit the Bush cowboy mo. He's more of the guy in charge of the Apple Dumpling gang, but do you really want him invading another country just because his feelings are constantly hurt at world leader meetings or so he can support his rebel (hint, they really hate Americans) friends? It wouldn't surprise me if the whole reason for this invasion is because Syria had lots of sunlight and its windy. No Blood For Green Energy!


Might wanna check the expiry date on your meds..
 
2013-08-28 11:28:15 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: And yes, there were humanitarian reasons behind stopping Daffy and toppling him, but the alternative was ignoring the rebels and letting him squash them. Now if you're hung up on the 'humanitarian' thing, that's your right, but if you think we shouldn't have gone in there and toppled him, then you're just messed up, bro.

If we didn't continually support regimes that brutally torture and murder their own people, but are sufficiently obedient to our commands, you might have a point.

Torture and police abuse under the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak were one of the main causes of the protests that have engulfed the country for more than a week, Human Rights Watch said.

The 95-page report, entitled "Work on Him Until he Confesses: Impunity for Torture in Egypt," documents dozens of cases of torture and death in custody, the New-York-based organisation said in a report released today.

"The Egyptian government's foul record on this issue is a huge part of what is still bringing crowds onto the streets today," Joe Stork, deputy director of the group's Middle East and North Africa division.

meanwhile, the Secretary of State is spouting bullshiat like this:

I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States."

"Humanitarian reasons" my ass.

Obama lied us into another war for oil.


Well, we have to start somewhere, don't you think?  Pointing to the rest of our well-documented sins doesn't detract from the moral rightness of the Libyan conflict and the role we played in it.

In short, we're still bastards, but we were on the sides of the angels for once.

Also saying "The US did bad things in Egypt, therefore Obama lied to get us into a oil war" just sounds silly.  I wanted you to know that.
 
2013-08-28 11:28:53 AM

I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.


I'm right there with you, buddy.  WOLVERINES
 
2013-08-28 11:29:29 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: I_C_Weener: Okay, so if we EMP the entire country...would that satisfy any of you people?  No death.  Just a nice step back in time.  A simpler time.  A biblical era...so to speak.

Ak47s don't need batteries last i checked


Vehicles to transport ammo do.
 
2013-08-28 11:30:51 AM

Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: IdBeCrazyIf: Infernalist: We chose to support the rebels, thank god. For the first time in a very long time, our military was 'cheered' by the people of the Middle East for doing the right thing and defying a dictatorship and helping them to reclaim their nation.

Seeing thousands of people cheering in the streets waving American flags was something amazing too see.

Aw, yeah, right?! Totally super awesome, just like the liberation of Paris! If there's anything that makes going to war worthwhile it's those cheering civilians. Why wait for an existential threat or an attack on Americans or our allies? I mean it's the 21st century for cripes sake.

The instability in Libya was threatening the recovery of the Western European economy.  They had to stabilize the oil market one way or the other.  They had to choose a side and settle the country down to bring oil prices back down and continue their recovery.

On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.

That's wonderful. What is the existential threat from Syria?

At this point, nothing as far as I can see.  Which is why I've been steadfastly against any involvement whatsoever.  My solution would be to step back, do nothing and when there's a clear winner, THEN we send the UN in to see if the winners engaged in war crimes/atrocities and deal with it along the normal channels in the UN.

I see little reason for any involvement at all and the MOST that I would be even marginally okay with would be a no-fly zone for all parties involved and the targeting of any KNOWN and VERIFIED CW units.


I'mokwiththis.jpg

Really though, I think and hope that this is more or less how things play out. Do we really need another few decades of proxy wars with Russia? The cynic in me says "duh" or how else could we continue to justify the ridiculously bloated state of our military.

I'm really sick of these retarded military misadventures where we confirm to the world that we are, in fact, a bunch of thick-browed gunslinging idiots that can be made the world's tool with amazingly little provocation. Not to mention the opportunity cost in human suffering we could be alleviating instead of dropping bombs.
 
2013-08-28 11:32:11 AM

Infernalist: On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.


In this case, there were no threats to our nation. Only threats to oil company profits if Gaddafi carried out the threats we know he made thanks to leaks of State Department cables by Manning.
 
2013-08-28 11:32:47 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: I'm really sick of these retarded military misadventures where we confirm to the world that we are, in fact, a bunch of thick-browed gunslinging idiots that can be made the world's tool with amazingly little provocation. Not to mention the opportunity cost in human suffering we could be alleviating instead of dropping bombs.


Maybe do the propaganda thing.  Just fly over Syria all day long dropping satellite photos of where the rebels and Assad forces are, are moving to, and what their forces consist of.  Just constantly give intel  to both sides and the public.
 
2013-08-28 11:32:49 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.

In this case, there were no threats to our nation. Only threats to oil company profits if Gaddafi carried out the threats we know he made thanks to leaks of State Department cables by Manning.


He posted right after that that is why he doesn't support military action in Syria.
 
2013-08-28 11:33:29 AM

I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.


It would be Al Qaida's tactic but backed by Russian might. Honestly if we invade Syria and Russia responds by invading a Western interest (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) we'd be unable to respond.
 
2013-08-28 11:34:08 AM

I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I'm really sick of these retarded military misadventures where we confirm to the world that we are, in fact, a bunch of thick-browed gunslinging idiots that can be made the world's tool with amazingly little provocation. Not to mention the opportunity cost in human suffering we could be alleviating instead of dropping bombs.

Maybe do the propaganda thing.  Just fly over Syria all day long dropping satellite photos of where the rebels and Assad forces are, are moving to, and what their forces consist of.  Just constantly give intel  to both sides and the public.


You are one sick puppy.
 
2013-08-28 11:34:17 AM

jpbreon: You are not supposed to talk about how things work or might work, only crazy people do that. Stuff just happens, who you gonna call?

Haha, I know, right? I once asked in a thread how these people can ignore the evidence of what's going on. It isn't hidden; the US government is not half so good at keeping its secrets, and the evidence is all there for people who want to see it.

I had one person respond that it might have happened, but until they saw it on CNN then it was conspiracy theory crap. It was then and there I realized that these people revel in their ignorance. They wrap it about themselves like Linus' blanket. If you never go looking, then the narrative Obama/Bush/whatever feeds the media, and you, stays intact. You can always be the righteous force, with altruistic motives, and nothing but humanitarian goals if you simply try hard enough to stay blind.


It's worse than that, like children hoping for presents, they expect to get paid.
 
2013-08-28 11:36:05 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.

In this case, there were no threats to our nation. Only threats to oil company profits if Gaddafi carried out the threats we know he made thanks to leaks of State Department cables by Manning.


You're right, there was no real threat to the US, but we're not alone in the world.  Our allies in Western Europe needed our help in this and we took a secondary role once the first waves of aerial attacks were done.  We supplied our military infrastructure and communications and military advice once the French and other nations had their aircraft in the air and working.

That's part of having allies, helping them when they need it.
 
2013-08-28 11:36:43 AM

netweavr: I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.

It would be Al Qaida's tactic but backed by Russian might. Honestly if we invade Syria and Russia responds by invading a Western interest (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) we'd be unable to respond.


China laughs and counts yuans all day.
 
2013-08-28 11:37:24 AM
His example was also the training of some rebels, which isn't by any definition I'm aware of a violation of the section he intended to mention. Unless he's being absolutist about military action in a very broad sense.

Nearly any nation, if not all, takes the instigation of armed conflict by a foreign power to be an act of aggression. We'd be fooling ourselves to think that if Russia started arming and training far right-wing insurrectionists that the US government wouldn't respond as if that was an act of war. There's also the historical precedent of using rebels or funding rebel groups prior to an actual invasion to soften up the target and create disruptions that benefit the invasion force.

I'm not saying that Obama will be foolish enough to send in the Marines to Damascus, though I've been wrong before about how brazen these interventionists can be. He is very much an interventionist, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 549 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report