Syria Defends America!

LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
edited September 2006 in Strut Central
Syrian security forces repeled an armed terrorist attack against the US Embassy today. The terrorist were armed with automatic weapons, a car bomb and handgernades.Could it be that Syria does not support terrorist and the killing of Americans? If Bush was this wrong on Syria could he be wrong about Iran?

  Comments


  • Syrian security forces repeled an armed terrorist attack against the US Embassy today. The terrorist were armed with automatic weapons, a car bomb and handgernades.

    Could it be that Syria does not support terrorist and the killing of Americans? If Bush was this wrong on Syria could he be wrong about Iran?


    sure he could be wrong about Iran, but i think it's as foolish to take Ahmadinejad at his word as it would be to do the same for Bush. They're both radical extremists. Of course then if you assume he isn't telling the truth and Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, it of course follows to ask why they can't have 'em if we can? And that I can't really answer...

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts
    Syrian security forces repeled an armed terrorist attack against the US Embassy today. The terrorist were armed with automatic weapons, a car bomb and handgernades.

    Could it be that Syria does not support terrorist and the killing of Americans? If Bush was this wrong on Syria could he be wrong about Iran?

    a shocker to most Americans. Not every country is absolute in its thought.

    [O-dub]Only a Sith thinks in absolutes[/O-dub]

    I'm starting an internet rumor...I heard that not every American supports Bush



  • Could it be that Syria does not support terrorist and the killing of Americans? If Bush was this wrong on Syria could he be wrong about Iran?

    when has Bush been right on anything?

    fuck a bush.


  • although to be fair, if someone tried to blow up a mosque in the US and the cops stopped them, would that be legitimate proof that the US doesn't hate Muslims?

  • Syrian security forces repeled an armed terrorist attack against the US Embassy today. The terrorist were armed with automatic weapons, a car bomb and handgernades.

    Could it be that Syria does not support terrorist and the killing of Americans? If Bush was this wrong on Syria could he be wrong about Iran?


    sure he could be wrong about Iran, but i think it's as foolish to take Ahmadinejad at his word as it would be to do the same for Bush. They're both radical extremists. Of course then if you assume he isn't telling the truth and Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, it of course follows to ask why they can't have 'em if we can? And that I can't really answer...

    excellent moral equivalence. the reason we can have them and they cant, is that we don't cut peoples hands off for stealing or stone 17 year old girls becuase they dare to defend themselves from a rape. We also don't take hostages or support both financially and idiologically regimes that hide behind their children to fire rockets and cut off journalists heads.

    I'm sure you will find examples of all these things perpetrated by the Bush administration through further moral equivalence, so dont bother wasting both our time with it.

  • Sabadabada, do you know many Iranians/Persians or travelled much in that part of the world?

  • Sabadabada, do you know many Iranians/Persians or travelled much in that part of the world?


    i'm lebanese

  • We also don't take hostages





    or support both financially and idiologically regimes that hide behind their children to fire rockets and cut off journalists heads.




    "The United States provided many of the arms used by all the forces in Afghanistan."


    whoops!

  • Sabadabada, do you know many Iranians/Persians or travelled much in that part of the world?


    i'm lebanese

    That's wonderful. It doesn't, however, answer my question.





    In the interest of full disclosure, I think your statement is a real gross oversimplification of Iran and the Middle East. That's why I asked.

  • well you asked if i knew any persians and since there is no persia and you probably werent talking about cats, and Lebanon was once part of the persian empire, I figured that that was close enough for whatever you were getting at which was probably that since i didnt have first hand knowledge of any "persians" my opinions on matters concerning them couldnt possibly be valid, which if true would preclude about 95% of what is talked about on this board.

  • I was referring to the folks who are in/from Iran yet tend not to refer to themselves as Iranians but as Persians.

    Again though, you're ducking the overall thrust (pause) of my question, which tried to identify what exposure to Iran has informed your opinion of that country.

    More than anything your answers seem to imply "none".




  • sure he could be wrong about Iran, but i think it's as foolish to take Ahmadinejad at his word as it would be to do the same for Bush. They're both radical extremists. Of course then if you assume he isn't telling the truth and Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, it of course follows to ask why they can't have 'em if we can? And that I can't really answer...

    excellent moral equivalence. the reason we can have them and they cant, is that we don't cut peoples hands off for stealing or stone 17 year old girls becuase they dare to defend themselves from a rape.
    Sab's right. To place Ahmadinejad and Bush into the same category is some seriously morally bankrupt bullshit.

    I have zero patience for crap like this. You think Bush is an abomination? Go involve yourself in the process and work to change the country to your liking. You're an Iranian and think Ahadinejad is a bad guy? Oh sorry, you're shit of luck.

    It's wankery like this that leads to a third of Quebec believing that 9-11 was a conspiracy perpetuate by the lizar people.


  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts



    sure he could be wrong about Iran, but i think it's as foolish to take Ahmadinejad at his word as it would be to do the same for Bush. They're both radical extremists. Of course then if you assume he isn't telling the truth and Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, it of course follows to ask why they can't have 'em if we can? And that I can't really answer...

    excellent moral equivalence. the reason we can have them and they cant, is that we don't cut peoples hands off for stealing or stone 17 year old girls becuase they dare to defend themselves from a rape.

    Sab's right. To place Ahmadinejad and Bush into the same category is some seriously morally bankrupt bullshit.

    I have zero patience for crap like this. You think Bush is an abomination? Go involve yourself in the process and work to change the country to your liking. You're an Iranian and think Ahadinejad is a bad guy? Oh sorry, you're shit of luck.

    It's wankery like this that leads to a third of Quebec believing that 9-11 was a conspiracy perpetuate by the lizar people.


    He did not put both Ahmadinejad and Bush are in the same category. He called them both liars. A true statement.

    One difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iran, is only the US has used them against an other nation. And only the US says they are ready & willing to use them again. Only the US has said they want to build nuclear weapons that can be used on the battlefield. This has nothing to do with Bush or Ahmadinehad. It is about world awash in nuclear weapons.

    I don't believe either country should be allowed to have them.[/b]

    We live in a world where any country can build a nuclear bomb. I mean the science and technology are available to any country with the mean$. George Bush, for political reasons, has chosen one country to talk about. Iran. Don't doubt that there are lots of other countries moving forward with their nuclear programs. I have not done the research (I'm not motown67), but a few good guesses would be Indonesia (with the worlds 5th largest army) Nigeria, Japan, Turkey, North Korea (which most likely has them) Brasil. Not to mention countries like Ukraine that have likely maintained control over some old Soviet nuclear weapons and technologies.

    If we think the problem of nuclear proliferation is about one country with one scary leader we are making a huge mistake.



  • He did not put both Ahmadinejad and Bush are in the same category. He called them both liars. A true statement.

    One difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iran, is only the US has used them against an other nation. And only the US says they are ready & willing to use them again. Only the US has said they want to build nuclear weapons that can be used on the battlefield. This has nothing to do with Bush or Ahmadinehad. It is about world awash in nuclear weapons.

    I don't believe either country should be allowed to have them.[/b]

    We live in a world where any country can build a nuclear bomb. I mean the science and technology are available to any country with the mean$. George Bush, for political reasons, has chosen one country to talk about. Iran. Don't doubt that there are lots of other countries moving forward with their nuclear programs. I have not done the research (I'm not motown67), but a few good guesses would be Indonesia (with the worlds 5th largest army) Nigeria, Japan, Turkey, North Korea (which most likely has them) Brasil. Not to mention countries like Ukraine that have likely maintained control over some old Soviet nuclear weapons and technologies.

    If we think the problem of nuclear proliferation is about one country with one scary leader we are making a huge mistake.

    They're both radical extremists.

    I believe that's placing them both into the category of radical extremist.

    Until there are no nuclear weapons, I'd like them to stay in the hands of America and her allies. In that scenario I'm less likely to get nuked than if Iran and North Korea have a couple in their arsenal. That's what this has to do with: who's most likely to nuke my family in Europe, America, and Israel. It's not the US, no matter how trigger-happy you think it is.

  • it's so amusing when i hear people from one culture speak on how another culture should be living. there's a word for that, it's called ethnocentrism.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts


    He did not put both Ahmadinejad and Bush are in the same category. He called them both liars. A true statement.

    One difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iran, is only the US has used them against an other nation. And only the US says they are ready & willing to use them again. Only the US has said they want to build nuclear weapons that can be used on the battlefield. This has nothing to do with Bush or Ahmadinehad. It is about world awash in nuclear weapons.

    I don't believe either country should be allowed to have them.[/b]

    We live in a world where any country can build a nuclear bomb. I mean the science and technology are available to any country with the mean$. George Bush, for political reasons, has chosen one country to talk about. Iran. Don't doubt that there are lots of other countries moving forward with their nuclear programs. I have not done the research (I'm not motown67), but a few good guesses would be Indonesia (with the worlds 5th largest army) Nigeria, Japan, Turkey, North Korea (which most likely has them) Brasil. Not to mention countries like Ukraine that have likely maintained control over some old Soviet nuclear weapons and technologies.

    If we think the problem of nuclear proliferation is about one country with one scary leader we are making a huge mistake.

    They're both radical extremists.

    I believe that's placing them both into the category of radical extremist.

    Until there are no nuclear weapons, I'd like them to stay in the hands of America and her allies. In that scenario I'm less likely to get nuked than if Iran and North Korea have a couple in their arsenal. That's what this has to do with: who's most likely to nuke my family in Europe, America, and Israel. It's not the US, no matter how trigger-happy you think it is.

    Fair enough. I take a longer range more global view.

    This is from infoplease.com and seems accurate enough:
    Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States
    Unacknowledged: Israel
    Seeking: North Korea,1 Iran2
    Abandoned: South Africa???Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine???When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up.

    Of the acknowledged one country has been a constant ally, France.
    Britain has been an ally since about 1814, almost 200 years.
    China and Russia were recently adversaries who specifically made weapons to use on us. There is still lots of tension between China and the US especially as concerns Taiwan and Japan which we are protecting with our nuclear umbrella. Russia is very unstable.
    India should be an ally, but accept for under Clinton we have had a rather cold relationship with India.
    Pakistan is ruled by a military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected sectarian government. Musharraf holds on to power by torture, arrests, killings and repressing dissent and opposition parties. There is an extreme Islamic insurgency in Pakistan closely aligned with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Pakistan is a close US ally.
    Israel has always been a close US ally.
    The seeking countries are decidedly not on the side of the US, Europe or Israel, today. Like Russia, China and Pakistan their relationship could swing the other way. If they do achieve nuclear statehood the US and Israel may decide to make peace with them and embrace them in the fold of nations. It certainly worked for Pakistan.

    My point is that for the world at large, it does not matter which countries have nuclear bombs. What matters is that countries do have nuclear bombs and the sooner we get rid of them the better. But that is a view that goes beyond my immediate family and the immediate future.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts

    My point is that for the world at large, it does not matter which countries have nuclear bombs. What matters is that countries do have nuclear bombs and the sooner we get rid of them the better.

    While a nice thought, this is not happening.....it's too late.

    Thinking that this is still possible may prevent some folks from thinking past their hopes and understanding that these weapons will never be "extinct".

  • I don't think Bush is great, but putting him in the same boat as that Iran dude is wacked. I wouldn't want to live in Iran for five fucking minutes. I could put up with living in America, tho.

  • I don't think Bush is great, but putting him in the same boat as that Iran dude is wacked. I wouldn't want to live in Iran for five fucking minutes. I could put up with living in America, tho.


    i said i don't believe what either one of them says, and i said they're both extremists...where did i say living in Iran is comparable to living in the US??? we need a "putting words into mouth" graemlin.

  • Sabadabada, do you know many Iranians/Persians or travelled much in that part of the world?


    i'm lebanese

    That's wonderful. It doesn't, however, answer my question.





    In the interest of full disclosure, I think your statement is a real gross oversimplification of Iran and the Middle East. That's why I asked.


    Thats it. I'm calling fatwa on Johnny Paycheck.

    You wanna go for double fatwa?

  • DuderonomyDuderonomy Haut de la Garenne 7,788 Posts
    You think Bush is an abomination? Go involve yourself in the process and work to change the country to your liking.
    Still like to see some proof that Bush became President democratically. Take your 'conspiracist' moniker to John Pilger.

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts
    You think Bush is an abomination? Go involve yourself in the process and work to change the country to your liking.
    Still like to see some proof that Bush became President democratically. Take your 'conspiracist' moniker to John Pilger.

    hows about even having the ability to publicly question the election process? go ahead and try that Iran and see how well that works out



  • hows about even having the ability to publicly question the election process? go ahead and try that Iran and see how well that works out

    That's not Bush's doing.

  • Huh ?!?

    Syria Says US Behind Attack On Own Embassy

    September 13, 2006 6:03 a.m. EST

    Ryan R. Jones - All Headline News Middle East Correspondent
    Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - Senior Syrian government official
    have accused the US of being behind Tuesday's assault
    on its own embassy in downtown Damascus.
    A Baath party official, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
    told WorldNetDaily, "We in the government are 100 percent sure America
    was behind this attack, which is not the same as other attacks by Islamic groups."
    He explained, "Only the Americans can succeed in carrying out
    an attack just 200 meters from President [Bashar] Assad's residence
    in the most heavily guarded section of Syria."
    The official charged that Washington had orchestrated the attack
    to "prove Syria is filled with terrorists and to put us in a weak position"
    in order to extract political concessions. Following the attack,
    Bush administration officials said they hoped the incident had convinced
    Damascus of the dangers of Islamic terror and the need to cooperate
    with the West against the phenomenon.
    The US and several of its European allies have repeatedly demanded
    over the years that Damascus close down the local offices
    and training camps of several organizations hostile to Israel and the West.
    The identities of those who attacked the US embassy Tuesday
    have not been revealed. Three of the gunmen were killed by Syrian guards
    during the assault. A fourth was reportedly captured.

  • I could put up with living in America, tho.


    come through, H! no health care, but the food is good and cheap. and we got strippers down here, too.
Sign In or Register to comment.