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.

(Info Wars)   Syrian rebels admit using chemical weapons to "kill like Osama bin Laden said"   (infowars.com) divider line 364
    More: Interesting, Osama bin Laden, Syrian rebels, Paul Joseph Watson, Syrians, chemical weapons, Nadeem Baloosh, Free Syrian Army, Aleppo  
•       •       •

11676 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2013 at 8:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-06 12:30:48 AM  

Kuroshin: Mrtraveler01: Kuroshin: If it doesn't have an AM/PM designation (and isn't 24-hour), then it's still twice per day.

You have to be quite the cheap ass to get a digital clock that doesn't have the AM/PM designation.

What did you call me?  I'll have you know that I spent a good $50 for my stopped digital clock!  And it has neither AM nor PM designations!  You want to know whether it's morning or night?  Look out the window, pleb!

/should have bought a clock that wasn't stopped...


What the fark did you just farking say about me, you little biatch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fark out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my farking words. You think you can get away with saying that shiat to me over the Internet? Think again, farker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the  USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're farking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shiat. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your farking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shiat fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're farking dead, kiddo.
 
2013-09-06 12:32:15 AM  

Radioactive Ass: darth_badger: Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding the US to attack Syria. Sounds like war by proxy to me.

That sounds more like us being the biggest and baddest mercenary force in the history of all mankind. That might have an effect on enlistment and retention. You're going to have a hard time convincing people to go in or stay in if they think that the job isn't to fight for their country but instead to fight for whoever has the deepest pockets. Not at that paycheck size anyway. Real mercenaries for hire take in some serious cash. I knew one and he spent some time in a Rhodesian prison because of it. Sure he made a lot of money but he went through hell to get it. He strongly advised people not to get into that line of business.

He was also someone that you didn't want to piss off. He looked and acted pretty meek and soft but I saw him bounce someone out of his bar once and he wasn't nice about it, not at all.


Not mercenaries exactly but the US would be providing fireworks to the benefit of themselves and many other countries.
 
2013-09-06 12:33:03 AM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris. Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.


Can we agree it is not for the US's own behalf?  I know I am not threatened by Syria....
 
2013-09-06 12:33:37 AM  

spamdog: - The refusal of the western powers to wait for the UN's report on the attacks.


That's a bit of a red herring. The UN inspectors, as far as I can tell, aren't allowed to officially apportion blame for the attacks (unless their mandate has been changed recently, which I doubt). So the most they'll be able to do is determine that an attack did take place (which everyone already knows), and possibly a few other details that will add to the pile of circumstantial evidence (or corroborate existing evidence) against Assad, but either way it's understandable why this upcoming report isn't being treated as some kind of make-or-break milestone that everything hinges on.
 
2013-09-06 12:34:06 AM  

vygramul: I'm not sure what you're saying, but just in case, there's no dispute Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds.


Saddam and the Iraqi's sure dispute it.  They claim it was Iran.
 
2013-09-06 12:34:23 AM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris.



No, I have always said that it was always on the behalf of Israel. You're confused.


vygramul: Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.


Please try to focus.

Here, read this article.


/Squint if necessary
 
2013-09-06 12:34:49 AM  

Frederick: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris. Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.

Can we agree it is not for the US's own behalf?  I know I am not threatened by Syria....


No, we can't. The idea that chemical weapons are unacceptable is a useful concept for everyone, including you. It may not seem like it's likely now, but you never know.
 
2013-09-06 12:35:46 AM  

Frederick: vygramul: I'm not sure what you're saying, but just in case, there's no dispute Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds.

Saddam and the Iraqi's sure dispute it.  They claim it was Iran.


Considering the Iraqis had air superiority over Iran, that is a pretty unlikely claim. And the Iraqis don't deny it.
 
2013-09-06 12:36:26 AM  
Tyee

Are you under some kind of contractual obligation to work Benghazi conspiracy theories into every thread you post in?
 
2013-09-06 12:37:45 AM  

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris.


No, I have always said that it was always on the behalf of Israel. You're confused.


vygramul: Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.


Please try to focus.

Here, read this article.


/Squint if necessary


Strange, France backs a strike on Syria - their former imperial possession. Yet you don't even consider the possibility it's a proxy for France. I wonder why that might be?

/No I don't.
 
2013-09-06 12:37:46 AM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris. Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.


I don't think Israel wants any part of this but will defend themselves with extraordinary messures if attacked.

http://www.vanunu.com/uscampaign/photos.html
 
2013-09-06 12:41:16 AM  

vygramul: Tyee: Gyrfalcon: In this case, there's at least evidence that there was use of chemical weapons, so there's that.

Ah come on we know Saddam used the too, on the Kurds, lots of real evidence.  We just didn't find it when we got in there.  Could happen here in Syria too  Wouldn't that be a hoot!

I'm not sure what you're saying, but just in case, there's no dispute Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds.


Or Saddam using them against Iran with US satalite intel to make them more effective by using them on troops in the weakest part of the line to create a breach and gain ground.
 
2013-09-06 12:42:47 AM  
From another source:  http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-suppl i ed-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Both sides are as bad as each other.  Getting involved just makes it a 3 way shiatstorm.
 
2013-09-06 12:42:52 AM  

darth_badger: vygramul: Tyee: Gyrfalcon: In this case, there's at least evidence that there was use of chemical weapons, so there's that.

Ah come on we know Saddam used the too, on the Kurds, lots of real evidence.  We just didn't find it when we got in there.  Could happen here in Syria too  Wouldn't that be a hoot!

I'm not sure what you're saying, but just in case, there's no dispute Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds.

Or Saddam using them against Iran with US satalite intel to make them more effective by using them on troops in the weakest part of the line to create a breach and gain ground.


Maybe so, but that happened before I was able to vote, and I reserve the right to have different moral standards from the baby boomers.
 
2013-09-06 12:44:24 AM  

Biological Ali: Another one shooting the messenger, despite there being credible links to the BBC and Reuters in there.

Those links have nothing to do with what that article (and this thread) are about - i.e., the authenticity of this video. Moreover, those links are all about an attack that took place in March in Aleppo - and not the one that took place in August in Damascus, which is what's in the news now. It's not clear who carried out that attack (a small-scale attack that killed about 30 people, mostly soldiers) - there's a Russian report claiming that it was likely done by the rebels based on their, but there's also been news of a Syrian defector who says that it was carried out by Assad.

With the attack in Damascus, however - the one that killed over a thousand people, including more than 400 children - there is nothing to suggest the rebels carried it out. The idea this attack was carried out by anybody other than Assad's regime is farfetched to say the least, and there's a reason that the article's claims about the Damascus attack all link back to infowars.


I will simply point out to you that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 allow forces to respond to the use of chemical weapons with more chemical weapons.The prohibition is about being the first ones to use them. Link. If in fact the rebels used chemical weapons first then even if the Assad regime used chemical weapons on August 21st they were justified in doing so based upon the only treaty that they have signed regarding chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-06 12:45:30 AM  

Kit Fister: Calmamity: Nabb1: We shouldn't be taking sides at all. We're planning to be the Air Force for al Qaeda sympathizers against an insidious dictator. Saudi Arabia wants us to do something. Well, how about the incredibly wealthy Saudis put those fighter jets and M-1 Abrams tanks we sold them to good use. How about instead of the Saudis giving us lip service support for intervention, we offer them lip service support for intervention for a change? The Arab League should be equipped to handle this. Every time we intervene in Middle East conflicts, it seems like we win more enemies than friends. T. E. Lawrence was right.

Them and the French, who have been talking smack, should feel free to jump right in to this mess, if they think action is so important.

There are no good guys in Syria. There is no "winning" there.

Shhh. Anyone against the war must be a republitard derper. Duh.


...er...that's not the rhetoric by  any standards...

/What Politics tab are you lurking in?
 
2013-09-06 12:48:22 AM  

vygramul: Frederick: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris. Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.

Can we agree it is not for the US's own behalf?  I know I am not threatened by Syria....

No, we can't. The idea that chemical weapons are unacceptable is a useful concept for everyone, including you. It may not seem like it's likely now, but you never know.


So if someone on your block was murdered and the cops couldn't prove who did it, then would it would be OK to just execute one family ( you only mean to kill one of the neighbors but get his family in collateral damage) on your block, so people one block over wouldn't murder someone too?
 
2013-09-06 12:49:17 AM  

Biological Ali: Tyee

Are you under some kind of contractual obligation to work Benghazi conspiracy theories into every thread you post in?


Just the youtube video B/S part.   It's always bothered me why the stupid, obvious and blatant lie was told in the first place and then repeated for weeks.  Why everyone, I mean everyone isn't asking what the hell was that about befuddles me.  Why such a B/S lie was told and we still don't know why is curious.  And the people in the middle east know its BS too.  No credibility there after that.

Now this, and there is so much uncertainty with who perpetrated the CW attack with everyone but the state dept and Obama.  And he was in such a big hurry to bomb...
It doesn't add up.
 
2013-09-06 12:50:17 AM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris.


No, I have always said that it was always on the behalf of Israel. You're confused.


vygramul: Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.


Please try to focus.

Here, read this article.


/Squint if necessary

Strange, France backs a strike on Syria - their former imperial possession. Yet you don't even consider the possibility it's a proxy for France. I wonder why that might be?

/No I don't.


Back to lower LNG prices.
 
2013-09-06 12:53:21 AM  

Greymalkin: Both sides are as bad as each other. Getting involved just makes it a 3 way shiatstorm.


There are actually  a whole lot more than three sides in this. It's more of a gangbang shiatstorm where each guy has their own special STD and the chick spreads it around like a petri dish in an incubator.
 
2013-09-06 12:54:30 AM  

darth_badger: vygramul: Frederick: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris. Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.

Can we agree it is not for the US's own behalf?  I know I am not threatened by Syria....

No, we can't. The idea that chemical weapons are unacceptable is a useful concept for everyone, including you. It may not seem like it's likely now, but you never know.

So if someone on your block was murdered and the cops couldn't prove who did it, then would it would be OK to just execute one family ( you only mean to kill one of the neighbors but get his family in collateral damage) on your block, so people one block over wouldn't murder someone too?


If that was what was going on here, then you'd have a point.
 
2013-09-06 12:55:24 AM  

darth_badger: Back to lower LNG prices.


Amos doesn't think we're fighting for France because of going back to lower LNG prices? Wut?
 
2013-09-06 12:55:59 AM  

Tyee: Just the youtube video B/S part. It's always bothered me why the stupid, obvious and blatant lie was told in the first place and then repeated for weeks. Why everyone, I mean everyone isn't asking what the hell was that about befuddles me. Why such a B/S lie was told and we still don't know why is curious. And the people in the middle east know its BS too. No credibility there after that.

Now this, and there is so much uncertainty with who perpetrated the CW attack with everyone but the state dept and Obama. And he was in such a big hurry to bomb...
It doesn't add up.


imageshack.us
 
2013-09-06 12:58:07 AM  

Radioactive Ass: I will simply point out to you that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 allow forces to respond to the use of chemical weapons with more chemical weapons.The prohibition is about being the first ones to use them. Link. If in fact the rebels used chemical weapons first then even if the Assad regime used chemical weapons on August 21st they were justified in doing so based upon the only treaty that they have signed regarding chemical weapons.


This attack happened nearly six months after the first incident, in a completely different city, and was targeted at suburbs populated by civilians. Even if you assume for the sake of argument that the Damascus attack can be termed a "retaliation" to the Aleppo incident (itself a laughably massive stretch), something like this would violate other international norms, such as those relating to the targeting of civilians.
 
2013-09-06 01:01:19 AM  
There aught to be a fark regulation about info wars links... I clicked, saw the link...oh hell no.
 
2013-09-06 01:01:48 AM  

vygramul: darth_badger: vygramul: Frederick: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Somacandra: 2) fark this proxy war shiat.

Proxy war?


Yes, proxy war.

The US fighting on the behalf of Israel.

Proxy war.

Lol - a moment ago it was on behalf of the Saudis and Qataris. Why don't you and darth badger work out for whom we're fighting and get back to me.

Can we agree it is not for the US's own behalf?  I know I am not threatened by Syria....

No, we can't. The idea that chemical weapons are unacceptable is a useful concept for everyone, including you. It may not seem like it's likely now, but you never know.

So if someone on your block was murdered and the cops couldn't prove who did it, then would it would be OK to just execute one family ( you only mean to kill one of the neighbors but get his family in collateral damage) on your block, so people one block over wouldn't murder someone too?

If that was what was going on here, then you'd have a point.


You are right. There is much more than that going on here.

Attacking Syria for using chemical weapons is just the easiest way to justify launching cruise missles at them.
 
2013-09-06 01:05:55 AM  
Sergeant Grumbles:

OK Sarge, if you can give me a reasonable explanation for why they made up that story, I'll stop.
We all now know that they watch the attack in real time.  Never was a protest about a video and we even had the producer arrested.
I dropped it because I thought it was just to get through the election, now I'm not so sure.  But AQ knew who is lying and prolly why, I don't know why, do you?
 
2013-09-06 01:06:09 AM  

FlashHarry: infowars? yeah, right.

 
2013-09-06 01:10:05 AM  

skullkrusher: another question is why an administration which clearly does not want to bomb Syria would try to make up a reason to bomb Syria


Clearly? Obama has wanted Assad out for quite awhile.

spamdog: You don't think the fact that Sarin was used against Syrian army soldiers recently might constitute a valid reason to be doubtful that the Syrian government executed this most recent attack?


More importantly if Sarin was used against Syrian forces the only possible valid claim for using force against them for using them is gone, vanished, defunct, dead, has gone tits up, (I could go on). The treaty that Syria agreed to allows a like-response in chemical weapons use. That applies for all WMD type weapons. The entity that uses them first is the bad actor, not the entity that responds in kind.
 
2013-09-06 01:11:44 AM  

Biological Ali: Radioactive Ass: I will simply point out to you that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 allow forces to respond to the use of chemical weapons with more chemical weapons.The prohibition is about being the first ones to use them. Link. If in fact the rebels used chemical weapons first then even if the Assad regime used chemical weapons on August 21st they were justified in doing so based upon the only treaty that they have signed regarding chemical weapons.

This attack happened nearly six months after the first incident, in a completely different city, and was targeted at suburbs populated by civilians. Even if you assume for the sake of argument that the Damascus attack can be termed a "retaliation" to the Aleppo incident (itself a laughably massive stretch), something like this would violate other international norms, such as those relating to the targeting of civilians.



Obviously the key question is, "the targeting of civilians " by whom?

There are numerous entities that might have seen a mass-gassing outside of Damascus as benefiting their "cause".

AssadCo is not one of them.


/Why are we doing this, again?
 
2013-09-06 01:12:01 AM  
Yikes! Almost clicked on an InfoWars link!

Now I know what the guy who found the snake in the Starbucks toilet felt:  Shock, followed by a squirmy disgust and slightly unclean feeling.
 
2013-09-06 01:15:05 AM  

Kit Fister: Mike_LowELL: Thank you, Drew, for wiping the sweat from your brow and personally greenlighting this article.  This is a defining moment in our country and our voices must be heard.  If the United States goes to war on false pretense and bad information, it will be unprecedented.  The repercussions for our actions will come in the form of an ethical mushroom cloud, and we need to make sure the argument is a slam dunk before we choose to intervene.

TuteTibiImperes: FTFY

Yes, yes, you are correct.  Thank you, InfoWars, for keeping us infromed.

Notsureifserious.jpg


This post made me question if you were either really new here (OK I suck at remembering Fark posters who I don't find to be especially memorable; to be fair I doubt I've made much of an impression on Fark either) or really, how should I saw, neuro-atypical. Seeing as you've been here at least 2 years, I'm thinking it's time for Wapner.
 
2013-09-06 01:15:45 AM  

big pig peaches: Fark really needs to show the link source in the mobile version.


It does on m.fark.com. "{headline} 8240 clicks infowars.com". It's right under the headline, in gray.
 
2013-09-06 01:17:29 AM  
And if you ask what difference it makes, aka Hillary?
It makes a big, no huge difference both home and abroad with regards to credibility.  Obama lost so much credibility there in the Mideast and with countries like Russia who probably laugh their asses off.
 
2013-09-06 01:18:55 AM  
I have no doubt that the rebels were responsible for the gas, but this article doesn't sound credible. I don't think it went down the way this guy is saying. It is probably designed to be debunked later. That will provide the evidence to the logically challenged that the Syrian govt. did it.
 
2013-09-06 01:19:19 AM  
I don't farking care.  No amount of super scary warmongering is going to get me approving of bombing a country that poses zero threat to the US.  I hate that Obama has me agreeing with the goddamn Tea Party.  Seriously, what the fark is going on?
 
2013-09-06 01:19:28 AM  

skullkrusher: the President has the authority to order strikes on Syria


No. He. Does. Not.

He himself has said, back in 2007 when Bush was contemplating bombing Iran, that the president has to go to congress if there is no immediate threat to the nation or right after the nation has been attacked. Neither of these things are true here therefor he had to go to congress. Libya was a slightly different situation because NATO was involved which allowed the bypassing of congressional approval due to treaty obligations. If NATO hadn't been involved and it was just us then yes, he would have had to run it through congress first.

Just because other previous presidents have abused this "Right" doesn't mean that it is legal. Know the difference. Cops let people off with a warning all of the time, that doesn't mean that you weren't breaking the law, it just means that they hope that the warning message was going to be effective. 1 MPH over the limit will get you a ticket if the cop wants to give it to you.
 
2013-09-06 01:25:32 AM  

mrEdude: hey here's an idea:

USA lets brown people kill each other for free, spends your money helping Americans.

It's your tax money, your future social security, now being spent CONSTANTLY to murder brown folk overseas.


The "Ostrich" approach was already tried. FAIL
 
2013-09-06 01:29:38 AM  
Hmm, this video after the USMC website hack. But this video is way different.

dearblanksignedray.files.wordpress.com

However, Obama does now have to take action in Syria. If he doesn't he loses all his credibility on the world stage. It's just his dumb ass fault for putting a line out there think "sheet, this mutha farkers won't do this. I'm golden. I look tough and don't have to do squat". Then Syria called him on it and he has to play now.

If he was smart he would've kept his mouth shut to begin with and we wouldn't be here. Hopefully he learned.
 
2013-09-06 01:35:23 AM  

Amos Quito: Biological Ali: Radioactive Ass: I will simply point out to you that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 allow forces to respond to the use of chemical weapons with more chemical weapons.The prohibition is about being the first ones to use them. Link. If in fact the rebels used chemical weapons first then even if the Assad regime used chemical weapons on August 21st they were justified in doing so based upon the only treaty that they have signed regarding chemical weapons.

This attack happened nearly six months after the first incident, in a completely different city, and was targeted at suburbs populated by civilians. Even if you assume for the sake of argument that the Damascus attack can be termed a "retaliation" to the Aleppo incident (itself a laughably massive stretch), something like this would violate other international norms, such as those relating to the targeting of civilians.


Obviously the key question is, "the targeting of civilians " by whom?

There are numerous entities that might have seen a mass-gassing outside of Damascus as benefiting their "cause".

AssadCo is not one of them.


/Why are we doing this, again?


Let me guess the people who control banking and Hollywood? The 12 tribes of Israel?
 
2013-09-06 01:38:07 AM  

Biological Ali: This attack happened nearly six months after the first incident, in a completely different city, and was targeted at suburbs populated by civilians. Even if you assume for the sake of argument that the Damascus attack can be termed a "retaliation" to the Aleppo incident (itself a laughably massive stretch), something like this would violate other international norms, such as those relating to the targeting of civilians.


My point was that, if true, it opened the door and that door cannot be closed by time nor distance. The door can only be closed when the hostilities end. The treaty was intended to remove the tactic from the books and for over half a century it pretty much did just that. If Syrian forces were attacked by chemical weapons then the door is opened for them to do the same and it only closes when they either win or lose.

That being said it's still illegal for them to use these types of weapons against forces outside their borders that have not used them against them. That much is pretty clear. But in regards to the rebel forces, if the reports of rebel forces using them first are true, they are completely within the law to do so by international norms.

On an aside I always feel like I'm writing some sort of Star Wars fanfic when I type "Rebel Forces" and that because I do oppose them that I'm some sort of Sith apologist. Life is funny sometimes.
 
2013-09-06 01:38:14 AM  
mrEdude: hey here's an idea:

USA lets brown people kill each other for free, spends your money helping Americans.

It's your tax money, your future social security, now being spent CONSTANTLY to murder brown folk overseas.


It's murder now? Are we raping and pillaging as well? After the fall of Baghdad we let our troops have a free rape day like the Russians did after the fall of Berlin?

We needed to go to Afghanistan. We needed to take about 5x as many troops as we did. Boots on the ground do far more than drones and occasional patrols. We also needed to stay there for at least another 20 years to tell the enemy that they can't just lay low for a few years until we leave. To truly effect an ideology change. To understand that, look at Germany and Japan. We still have bases there. But we also need to stop blowing many like it was nothing. Ike was right about the military industrial complex and Afghanistan became the ultimate pork bill.

Iraq 2 was a retarded mistake. Thinking that Iraq had anything to do with Al Qaeda just shows ignorance of the Muslim religion, namely the Sunnis and shiates.
 
2013-09-06 01:44:45 AM  

Omahawg: assad gets to bang this every night. someone's winning in syria


That right there is why I went into ophthalmology- the chicks, man...

Oh, you mean it's because he's the despotic ruler of a country? Hmm, time for a career change, I guess.
 
2013-09-06 01:52:21 AM  

vygramul: ficklefkrfark: Klippoklondike: Farking Alex Jones, man.  You're more likely to get credible information from one of those plastic kids toy phones that make animal noises when you dial them

The sheep says baaaaa?

If by sheep you mean someone who just swallows what Alex Jones spoon-feeds them, then yes. Rejecting the mainstream line in favor of an ideologically satisfying fairy tale doesn't make you an independent thinker. It makes you gullible and willing to believe anything so long as it contradicts the mainstream narrative, regardless of whether that narrative is close to the truth.


Ummmmm....I was going for low hanging fruit to be a smartass.
Info wars and Alex jones are laughable at best, if any humans in the history of humans were capable of pulling off the twisted and convoluted plots they speak of, we'd be enslaved by them.

/oh f)ck! Maybe we are and don't even know it! Dun dun dahhhhhh!
 
2013-09-06 01:54:14 AM  

2wolves: The U.S. used willie pete in Iraq.  No ethical high ground in sight.


Willie pete is a chemical weapon like a hand grenade is a chemical weapon.

Chemical weapon is widely considered to mean nerve agents, or caustic agents.  WP is NOT a chemical weapon.
 
2013-09-06 01:59:13 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: I have no doubt that the rebels were responsible for the gas,


No doubt!
 
2013-09-06 02:07:06 AM  

Radioactive Ass: My point was that, if true, it opened the door and that door cannot be closed by time nor distance.


I'll give you points for creativity - this kind of thing would certainly be an interesting twist if this were a Tom Clancy novel.

In the real world, however, this just isn't a thing. Now, I don't know of it's been explicitly written into the Geneva convention or if it's just an international norm (I can't see any mention of it in the text), but the idea behind "respond in kind" exceptions is that, because weapons of mass destruction do give the user certain military advantages, the country they're being used against can reply in kind to negate that advantage rather than just rolling over. It certainly wouldn't cover somebody "retaliating" to a small-scale attack on a military target by launching an attack fifty times larger six months later, in a completely different city, targeted against civilian populations.

There's a reason why even Russia and Assad's regime, both of whom are accusing the rebels of carrying out the Aleppo incident, haven't made the argument that "Well, even if we did do it it would totally be okay because they started it". It's just not a thing.
 
2013-09-06 02:12:53 AM  

The Southern Dandy: Chemical weapon is widely considered to mean nerve agents, or caustic agents. WP is NOT a chemical weapon.


You will never convince these types of people otherwise. They think that WP or any other incendiary is the same as atomic bombs solely because of Tokyo and Dresden and the firestorms that they resulted in.

While I don't disagree that those weapons can unleash that particular type of hell it also requires a hell of a lot more than what we dropped in Iraq to get there. WP shells can do as much good as bad. For example pretty much every emergency flare shot off at sea has WP in it.
 
2013-09-06 02:25:59 AM  
How about this... just let them all kill themselves.
 
2013-09-06 02:37:44 AM  

Biological Ali: I'll give you points for creativity - this kind of thing would certainly be an interesting twist if this were a Tom Clancy novel.


I'm glad that you like my prose. Comparing me to Tom Clancy was an unusual twist but seeing as I have read his works it's not surprising that that was made I suppose. I was pretty critical of the book that made him though, he got a lot of things wrong but he did spin a good yarn (I was on US submarines at the time and he got things wrong while also giving away the things that we had right which muddied the situation). But that is an entirely different subject.

That aside this is truly a cold war comparison in light of what I said before. Once a type of weapon is used by one side when is the returned type of weapon supposed to be "Wrong"? In nuclear weapons we have a buffer of about 90 days which is the standard food duration of an SSBN. Where does it end in lesser conflicts where feeding the people shooting the weapons is more fluid?

This was my point. Doors opened through war cannot be closed by war. Doors can only be closed by diplomacy or domination. This is the logic that the Middle East works on. There is no "win" here. They have to work it out one way or the other on their own.
 
Displayed 50 of 364 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report