Last time I checked the U.S. is not discussing a full scale invasion of another country right now, so no, I don't think it's 2003 and Iraq all over again.
True, back in 2003 Iraq was mainly attacked because they allegedly possessed WMD's. It turned out Iraq didn't have any. Now in Syria the situation is completely different: not only is it an established fact that Assad has WMD's, he has even used them on multiple occasions. He does so everytime he is threatened by rebels advancing in Damascus. So he will likely use them again!
Then why is almost no one in this thread talking about how batshitcrazy Assad is?
Because he isn't. He's evil, not crazy, and there's a big difference between the two.
Assad can be counted on to act rationally and protect his interests, as vile as they are at this point. Gaddafi might have done anything at anytime and there was no predicting one way or the other.
I think what you really don't get is that until Russia and China agree to act against Assad, nothing we do will matter. Any help we give the 'rebels' (and I'm not at all convinced you can speak of them as a unified group) will be matched or exceeded by Putin aiding Assad.
Until we get that little matter ironed out, there isn't a hell of a lot of effective actions to be taken.
LMAO Gaddafi crazier than Assad? You say Gaddafi might have done anything at anytime and there was no predicting one way or the other, yet think Assad is somehow more rational and restrained?
So explain this then, why did Gaddafi not fire his SCUD arsenal on his own cities, like Assad has done? Assad has fired over 200 SCUDS on his own people already, wiping out whole towns at once.
Gaddafi was in the possession of chemical weapons, mustard gas to be specific, yet he never used it on his own population. Assad on the other hand has and killed thousands of Syrians already in doing so!
Oh but no, Gaddafi must be crazier because he dressed funny, collected more sunglasses than Rick Ross, surrounded himself by Amazonian guards like some villain from a 70's blaxploitation movie, and held hourlong fiery eccentric anti-American speeches.
Assad on the other hand dresses in a suit and tie, uses an Apple computer and even has his own instagram account! Must be a swell guy. Kinda like Adolf Eichmann, who was ordering genocide behind his desk over his morning coffee everyday.
Then why is almost no one in this thread talking about how batshitcrazy Assad is?
Because he isn't. He's evil, not crazy, and there's a big difference between the two.
Assad can be counted on to act rationally and protect his interests, as vile as they are at this point. Gaddafi might have done anything at anytime and there was no predicting one way or the other.
I think what you really don't get is that until Russia and China agree to act against Assad, nothing we do will matter. Any help we give the 'rebels' (and I'm not at all convinced you can speak of them as a unified group) will be matched or exceeded by Putin aiding Assad.
Until we get that little matter ironed out, there isn't a hell of a lot of effective actions to be taken.
LMAO Gaddafi crazier than Assad? You say Gaddafi might have done anything at anytime and there was no predicting one way or the other, yet think Assad is somehow more rational and restrained?
So explain this then, why did Gaddafi not fire his SCUD arsenal on his own cities, like Assad has done? Assad has fired over 200 SCUDS on his own people already, wiping out whole towns at once.
Gaddafi was in the possession of chemical weapons, mustard gas to be specific, yet he never used it on his own population. Assad on the other hand has and killed thousands of Syrians already in doing so!
Oh but no, Gaddafi must be crazier because he dressed funny, collected more sunglasses than Rick Ross, surrounded himself by Amazonian guards like some villain from a 70's blaxploitation movie, and held hourlong fiery eccentric anti-American speeches.
Assad on the other hand dresses in a suit and tie, uses an Apple computer and even has his own instagram account! Must be a swell guy. Kinda like Adolf Eichmann, who was ordering genocide behind his desk over his morning coffee everyday.
Personally, I'm tired of being the Planet Police who are expected to save the world and get criticized for doing it every time. I didn't want to go into Iraq, Afganhistan, Libya(etc.) or now Syria. But when our government did decide to get involved, fighting barbarians who chop the heads off their prisoners, we get trashed for dunking said barbarian POW's heads underwater. Screw that, let all these scumbags kill each other, pull all of our business interests out of their godforsaken countries, fix our own damn country and drill for oil here like a mofo.
(Catnip for a slow day at the office....entertain me)
When they include using tear gas you know that list is crap. Plus they ran out of chemical attacks at the end and had to add things things like depleted uranium shells. High school science classes must not have been their strength to determine what is chemical and what is not.
Motown
Why are you riding so hard for action on Syria?
You haven't figured out that the U.S. is basically divided into two "teams" and there are mindless sheep that will support whatever their "team" does and trash whatever the other "team" does.
They're not really against death and destruction as long as it's THEIR death and destruction.
You haven't figured out that the world is basically divided into two "teams" and there are mindless sheep that will support whatever their "team" does and trash whatever the other "team" does.
They're not really against death and destruction as long as it's THEIR death and destruction.
Motown
Why are you riding so hard for action on Syria?
You haven't figured out that the U.S. is basically divided into two "teams" and there are mindless sheep that will support whatever their "team" does and trash whatever the other "team" does.
They're not really against death and destruction as long as it's THEIR death and destruction.
Watch "Idiocracy" for more details.
I know of the two teams and their rabid adherence to whatever nonsense provided they win.
But the initial vote seemed include some crossing of affiliation.
So I conclude that Motown dude is either rooting some action because either he thinks it morally right, or he must follow his party.
If the first case I want to know if and why he cherry picks this particular issue over any other
If the second, I want to read his posts with the image of a sheep in mind
If there's a third way, speak on it.
Motown
Why are you riding so hard for action on Syria?
You haven't figured out that the U.S. is basically divided into two "teams" and there are mindless sheep that will support whatever their "team" does and trash whatever the other "team" does.
They're not really against death and destruction as long as it's THEIR death and destruction.
Watch "Idiocracy" for more details.
I know of the two teams and their rabid adherence to whatever nonsense provided they win.
But the initial vote seemed include some crossing of affiliation.
So I conclude that Motown dude is either rooting some action because either he thinks it morally right, or he must follow his party.
If the first case I want to know if and why he cherry picks this particular issue over any other
If the second, I want to read his posts with the image of a sheep in mind
If there's a third way, speak on it.
I like Motown.....seems like a really good and honorable dude......but you can't ignore the fact that when Bush was Prez he posted TONS of material on a weekly basis about our involvement overseas and why it was wrong...since Obama has been in office, and we have continued to kill folks in the same name of War, Crickets......until this recent support.
If the first case I want to know if and why he cherry picks this particular issue over any other.
This idea that because this country didn't act in the exact same way on past incidents as some want to on this one, therefore we shouldn't act, is childish.
I suppose that lawyer training and the live version involves plenty of arguing for prosecution when you know the defendant is innocent, and also defending those you know are guilty.
So I guess you become expert in portraying certainty on the face of contrary evidence, and as a worst case, slip into a world of self delusion in order to execute the job better.
While studying Egyptian media for this report on Barack Obama???s half-brother, Malik Obama, a distinct difference between how Egypt???s government is dealing with their Muslim Brotherhood problem and how the U.S. is doing the same, emerged. While U.S. media, politicians, and military generals debate things like whether Al-Qaeda, Ansar Al-Sharia, the Jamal Network, or a combination of them and others were involved in the Benghazi, Egypt???s new government doesn???t play that game ??? both groups are Muslim Brotherhood.
In Egyptian newspaper reports on Malik Obama???s alleged membership with the Muslim Brotherhood, a similar premise is established. The Islamic Da???wa Organization (IDO) that Malik is known to belong to, is itself an arm of the Brotherhood. Instead of going on the wild goose chase of determining what motivates groups like the IDO, Egypt skips ahead several paces and lumps it in the Muslim Brotherhood pot and??? voila! They???re ahead of the game.
Safi and ISNA President Mohamed Magid in white cap (Obama recently praised ISNA and Magid in video)
Obama administration officials and members of Congress who support attacks on the Assad regime in Syria are either hopeless dupes in this regard or they are dupers. During questions at a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry said the following, via Reuters:
???I just don???t agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That???s not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ??? Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.
???There is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Idriss is running the military arm of that,??? Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Increasingly, he said, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are funneling assistance through Idriss.???
If Kerry were correct, one should be able to assume that spokesmen and other leaders for the rebels would represent a majority of what Kerry would refer to as ???moderates??? or ???good guys???. That leads us to a guy named Louay Safi, who has a history with both the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The common denominator of these two groups is that they are both Muslim Brotherhood. Following Egypt???s example, they are the same and thereby, members of both are easier to??? dare we say it??? profile.
When the main Syrian opposition group speaks, it is often through a longtime U.S. resident whose ties to Islamist extremists were detailed in a 2010 Dallas Morning News report.
The Syrian-born man, Louay Safi, has made big news twice recently. Last month, at a coalition news conference in Turkey, he accused Syria???s government of using chemical weapons. A few days ago, he called President Barack Obama???s consultation with Congress about attacking Syria a ???failure of leadership.???
Safi used to work occasionally on U.S. Army bases, teaching soldiers about his Islamic faith. But as we reported in 2010, he was suspended shortly after the Fort Hood massacre and subjected to a military criminal investigation.
Earlier this week, Barack Obama praised the ISNA and its President Mohamed Magid by name in a video.
So if the vast majority of the rebels are moderates, why do they have a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman with ties to terrorists?
The Morning News introduces another figure into this equation later in the article:
Early this year, Safi successfully endorsed longtime Collin County telecom executive Ghassan Hitto to lead the Syrian National Coalition, the main group of opposition exiles. Hitto quit after a few months ??? amid complaints, The New York Times reported, ???that he was a favorite of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and of its main foreign backer, Qatar.???
As we reported this past March, via GMBDR, Hitto served as a leader with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
In 2002, U.S. media identified Mr. Hitto as the Vice-President of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas Fort-Worth Chapter (see Note 1). A Hudson Institute report identifies CAIR as part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas support infrastructure in the U.S.
Check out this video of an exchange between Kerry and MSNBC???s Chris Hayes, in which a defensive Kerry refers ???our friends in Turkey??? while chronicling his rather short list of allies on Syria:
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
Seems to me that during the Iraq war Motown posted lots of well researched factual information.
That is mostly what I have seen him doing here.
During the Iraq war some other people took the position that the President has better information and we should always support the president.
Now some of those people have changed their tune.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
"Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully, likely with premeditation part of the mix. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder."
Seems to me that during the Iraq war Motown posted lots of well researched factual information.
That is mostly what I have seen him doing here.
During the Iraq war some other people took the position that the President has better information and we should always support the president.
Now some of those people have changed their tune.
Conspicuously absent for the last 5 years.
b/w
The Congress are the folks who either do or don't support the President and his information to go to War.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
"Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully, likely with premeditation part of the mix. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder."
This is not a war that America is in to authorize deadly force.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
"Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully, likely with premeditation part of the mix. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder."
This is not a war that America is in to authorize deadly force.
I hear you....but based on that definition supporting War is not the same as supporting Murder.
I suppose that lawyer training and the live version involves plenty of arguing for prosecution when you know the defendant is innocent, and also defending those you know are guilty.
So I guess you become expert in portraying certainty on the face of contrary evidence, and as a worst case, slip into a world of self delusion in order to execute the job better.
Yep, those dead bodies and testimony by the doctors who examined them and the injured sure is contrary testimony.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
"Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully, likely with premeditation part of the mix. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder."
Gassing innocent people falls into the murder category.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
"Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully, likely with premeditation part of the mix. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder."
Gassing innocent people falls into the murder category.
Are you suggesting innocent people don't get killed in War or that the deaths are separated between innocent and not innocent?
That definition(which is not mine btw) states that people killed in War are not murder victims. I assumed that meant ANYONE killed in War.
Motown
Why are you riding so hard for action on Syria?
I'm not. If you read my earlier post I said I was indifferent about any attack on Syria. Because Obama doesn't want to tip the scales in the war I'm not sure how much of "message" any strike would deliver.
That being said, I think 90% of the posts in this thread are knee jerk reactions. If the U.S. was not considering a strike I'm sure people would be talking about the chemical attack and what a crime it is. But now that the U.S. is thinking about attacking the response is, #1 the government must be lying, #2 it's about WMD so it's Iraq all over again. I can't stand stupid arguments and that's what a lot of this thread is devolving into.
Comments
True, back in 2003 Iraq was mainly attacked because they allegedly possessed WMD's. It turned out Iraq didn't have any. Now in Syria the situation is completely different: not only is it an established fact that Assad has WMD's, he has even used them on multiple occasions. He does so everytime he is threatened by rebels advancing in Damascus. So he will likely use them again!
LMAO Gaddafi crazier than Assad? You say Gaddafi might have done anything at anytime and there was no predicting one way or the other, yet think Assad is somehow more rational and restrained?
So explain this then, why did Gaddafi not fire his SCUD arsenal on his own cities, like Assad has done? Assad has fired over 200 SCUDS on his own people already, wiping out whole towns at once.
Gaddafi was in the possession of chemical weapons, mustard gas to be specific, yet he never used it on his own population. Assad on the other hand has and killed thousands of Syrians already in doing so!
Oh but no, Gaddafi must be crazier because he dressed funny, collected more sunglasses than Rick Ross, surrounded himself by Amazonian guards like some villain from a 70's blaxploitation movie, and held hourlong fiery eccentric anti-American speeches.
Assad on the other hand dresses in a suit and tie, uses an Apple computer and even has his own instagram account! Must be a swell guy. Kinda like Adolf Eichmann, who was ordering genocide behind his desk over his morning coffee everyday.
Lmhat
What are you going to do about it? Post on a rekkid site?
Personally, I'm tired of being the Planet Police who are expected to save the world and get criticized for doing it every time. I didn't want to go into Iraq, Afganhistan, Libya(etc.) or now Syria. But when our government did decide to get involved, fighting barbarians who chop the heads off their prisoners, we get trashed for dunking said barbarian POW's heads underwater. Screw that, let all these scumbags kill each other, pull all of our business interests out of their godforsaken countries, fix our own damn country and drill for oil here like a mofo.
(Catnip for a slow day at the office....entertain me)
When they include using tear gas you know that list is crap. Plus they ran out of chemical attacks at the end and had to add things things like depleted uranium shells. High school science classes must not have been their strength to determine what is chemical and what is not.
Crash and burn baby.
Why are you riding so hard for action on Syria?
Fixed
You haven't figured out that the U.S. is basically divided into two "teams" and there are mindless sheep that will support whatever their "team" does and trash whatever the other "team" does.
They're not really against death and destruction as long as it's THEIR death and destruction.
Watch "Idiocracy" for more details.
I know of the two teams and their rabid adherence to whatever nonsense provided they win.
But the initial vote seemed include some crossing of affiliation.
So I conclude that Motown dude is either rooting some action because either he thinks it morally right, or he must follow his party.
If the first case I want to know if and why he cherry picks this particular issue over any other
If the second, I want to read his posts with the image of a sheep in mind
If there's a third way, speak on it.
I like Motown.....seems like a really good and honorable dude......but you can't ignore the fact that when Bush was Prez he posted TONS of material on a weekly basis about our involvement overseas and why it was wrong...since Obama has been in office, and we have continued to kill folks in the same name of War, Crickets......until this recent support.
This idea that because this country didn't act in the exact same way on past incidents as some want to on this one, therefore we shouldn't act, is childish.
So I guess you become expert in portraying certainty on the face of contrary evidence, and as a worst case, slip into a world of self delusion in order to execute the job better.
In Egyptian newspaper reports on Malik Obama???s alleged membership with the Muslim Brotherhood, a similar premise is established. The Islamic Da???wa Organization (IDO) that Malik is known to belong to, is itself an arm of the Brotherhood. Instead of going on the wild goose chase of determining what motivates groups like the IDO, Egypt skips ahead several paces and lumps it in the Muslim Brotherhood pot and??? voila! They???re ahead of the game.
Safi and ISNA President Mohamed Magid in white cap (Obama recently praised ISNA and Magid in video)
Obama administration officials and members of Congress who support attacks on the Assad regime in Syria are either hopeless dupes in this regard or they are dupers. During questions at a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry said the following, via Reuters:
???I just don???t agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That???s not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ??? Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.
???There is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Idriss is running the military arm of that,??? Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Increasingly, he said, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are funneling assistance through Idriss.???
If Kerry were correct, one should be able to assume that spokesmen and other leaders for the rebels would represent a majority of what Kerry would refer to as ???moderates??? or ???good guys???. That leads us to a guy named Louay Safi, who has a history with both the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The common denominator of these two groups is that they are both Muslim Brotherhood. Following Egypt???s example, they are the same and thereby, members of both are easier to??? dare we say it??? profile.
When the main Syrian opposition group speaks, it is often through a longtime U.S. resident whose ties to Islamist extremists were detailed in a 2010 Dallas Morning News report.
The Syrian-born man, Louay Safi, has made big news twice recently. Last month, at a coalition news conference in Turkey, he accused Syria???s government of using chemical weapons. A few days ago, he called President Barack Obama???s consultation with Congress about attacking Syria a ???failure of leadership.???
Safi used to work occasionally on U.S. Army bases, teaching soldiers about his Islamic faith. But as we reported in 2010, he was suspended shortly after the Fort Hood massacre and subjected to a military criminal investigation.
Earlier this week, Barack Obama praised the ISNA and its President Mohamed Magid by name in a video.
So if the vast majority of the rebels are moderates, why do they have a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman with ties to terrorists?
The Morning News introduces another figure into this equation later in the article:
Early this year, Safi successfully endorsed longtime Collin County telecom executive Ghassan Hitto to lead the Syrian National Coalition, the main group of opposition exiles. Hitto quit after a few months ??? amid complaints, The New York Times reported, ???that he was a favorite of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and of its main foreign backer, Qatar.???
As we reported this past March, via GMBDR, Hitto served as a leader with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
In 2002, U.S. media identified Mr. Hitto as the Vice-President of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas Fort-Worth Chapter (see Note 1). A Hudson Institute report identifies CAIR as part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas support infrastructure in the U.S.
Check out this video of an exchange between Kerry and MSNBC???s Chris Hayes, in which a defensive Kerry refers ???our friends in Turkey??? while chronicling his rather short list of allies on Syria:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
Link to somewhat graphic image: http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/09/06/syria-video-turns-the-debate-on-u-s-intervention/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1378458744714.cached.jpg
That is mostly what I have seen him doing here.
During the Iraq war some other people took the position that the President has better information and we should always support the president.
Now some of those people have changed their tune.
Yes, if we are talking Murder that is true.
"Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully, likely with premeditation part of the mix. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder."
Conspicuously absent for the last 5 years.
b/w
The Congress are the folks who either do or don't support the President and his information to go to War.
This is not a war that America is in to authorize deadly force.
I hear you....but based on that definition supporting War is not the same as supporting Murder.
Yep, those dead bodies and testimony by the doctors who examined them and the injured sure is contrary testimony.
Good grief.
Gassing innocent people falls into the murder category.
Are you suggesting innocent people don't get killed in War or that the deaths are separated between innocent and not innocent?
That definition(which is not mine btw) states that people killed in War are not murder victims. I assumed that meant ANYONE killed in War.
I'm not. If you read my earlier post I said I was indifferent about any attack on Syria. Because Obama doesn't want to tip the scales in the war I'm not sure how much of "message" any strike would deliver.
That being said, I think 90% of the posts in this thread are knee jerk reactions. If the U.S. was not considering a strike I'm sure people would be talking about the chemical attack and what a crime it is. But now that the U.S. is thinking about attacking the response is, #1 the government must be lying, #2 it's about WMD so it's Iraq all over again. I can't stand stupid arguments and that's what a lot of this thread is devolving into.