• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fool me once .... Gas in Syria? I don't think so .. how about u ?

You think it was a gas attack

  • No

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Phoenix David

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
OC for ME said:
A senior administration official said Sunday there is “very little doubt” that a [strike]chemical[/strike] weapon of mass destruction was used by the [strike]Syrian[/strike] Iraq regime against civilians in an incident that killed at least 100 people last week, but added that the president had not yet decided how to respond.
Click to expand...

The President will respond after his [strike]vacation[/strike] intelligence briefing is over after [strike]18 holes[/strike] consulting with allies.
 
Running Wolf

Running Wolf

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
391
Location
Corner of No and Where
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Running Wolf said:
Where was this humanitarian administration back in May when Syrian rebels were suspected of using sarin gas?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-sarin-gas-attacks-blamed-Assads-troops.html

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/UN-strongly-suspects-Syrian-rebels-used-sarin-gas-312178
Click to expand...

Hey, the guy won a peace prize, remember? What a guy ... my role model.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...al-weapons-a-threat-to-u-s-national-security/

White House: Syrian Chemical Weapons a Threat to U.S. National Security


***********************

Well, there you go ... president can just make this claim and now he has authorization to start a war ...

Congress? Who needs congress. People of recent have been brainwashed.
 
Last edited:
Freedom1Man

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
davidmcbeth said:
Hey, the guy won a peace prize, remember? What a guy ... my role model.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...al-weapons-a-threat-to-u-s-national-security/

White House: Syrian Chemical Weapons a Threat to U.S. National Security


***********************

Well, there you go ... president can just make this claim and now he has authorization to start a war ...

Congress? Who needs congress. People of recent have been brainwashed.
Click to expand...


How many people do I have to kill to get the Nobel Peace prize?

I've killed fewer than the President, I should get a Nobel Peace prize too, unless it was a Nobel Piece prize that he was awarded.
 
F350

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
solus said:
Hurrah for your ability to provide a shock statement to gain attention to yourself. as I and others have pointed out F350, et al., genocide is genocide whether under the auspices of religion or whatever misguided concept you believe makes it acceptable.

It is not a viable concept in a civilized society and when we lower ourselves to this level then we are no better than those who might have instigated the problem initially.

ipse
Click to expand...

Not trying for attention; my honest opinion.

I learned everything I needed to know about Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular in 1972 and NOTHING they have done since has changed my opinion.

Col (ret) Ralph Peters was on FOX this morning and had it exactly right [paraphrase] Our enemies are killing each other, why should we intervene [/paraphrase]
 
Last edited:
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
JamesCanby said:
I am not going to hold law-abiding and tolerant Muslims responsible for the actions of radical Islamist jihadists. Their silence does not indicate assent for the actions of the radicals. While it would be great if mainstream Muslims would condemn the actions of the radicals, we must remember that the radicals treat fellow Muslims just as harshly as they treat "infidels." Mainstream Muslims have much to fear by speaking out.

As an counter-example, consider how mainstream Christians abhor, publicly, the actions of the radical Westboro Baptist members. We can so so with impunity because we have nothing to fear from those cretins.

There are enough radicalized Islamic jihadists in many communities here in the U.S. that a Muslim who speaks out does risk retribution.
Click to expand...
Condemnation is not the issue, it is acting to eliminate the threat of retribution. We here in America, even the "good' Muslims in America, can reasonably expect for a cop to get involved if we think that the WBBC, or some "bad" Muslims, resort to violence in retribution. In other words, the government would get involved to eliminate the threat of future violence.

Over there, these retribution incidents are wrapped in the Koran, justified if you will, and those governments will not get involved. Involvement would destroy the foundation upon which they derive their power to rule. When the government says that the Koran is the law of the land, and the Koran is cited as justifying "bad" Muslim behavior, then the "good" Muslims have painted themselves into a corner.

Nope, the "good" Muslims must unite and erradicate the "bad" Muslims because their government will not do this. The good Muslims are too blame for their plight.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Nightmare said:
Great point, the 1972 Olympics. That's when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad first came to public light.
Click to expand...

My spell checker broke ! Thanks nightmare ;)

I don't care myself about Syrians killing each other.

You want your kid over there for them? Nah....I pass on this one.

Still have not seen any evidence that gas was used by the Syrian gov't yet. Maybe they'll hire that Iraqi that duped everyone about WMD in Iraq. Everyone already knows him...
 
D

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Did they use chemical weapons? I don't care. Unless Assad is a threat to the US I don't care what he does. If he had as much oil as Iraq I would consider caring, but only consider. Why get involved if there is no oil and we don't get to keep the oil if there was any... that is the real question.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Well France is still with Obamalama

http://www.france24.com/en/20130830-france-hollande-syria-usa-uk-vote-francois


France stands firm on Syria despite shock UK vote


Get your brooms ready to sweep up all the guns that are dropped !


Germany says thanks but no thanks as well as UK.

The UK vote was not a "shock"...if congress were to vote it would also be a no.

I still have not seen proof of a chemical weapon attack even occurred ...
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Last edited:
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I think it is telling that on OCDO, a site full of skeptics, a large majority of those answering the poll believe that the Syrians gassed their people. I believe they did. The question is, even if they did, what compelling interest do we have in taking action. There have been much more egregious attacks by governments on citizens around the world that were essentially (and rightly) ignored.

Unless there is a national security interest, no use of force is justifiable. I wonder if this regime will get the Congress to go along. I hope that the "strange bedfellows" coalition that would likely form would be large enough to rebuke any such action: Dems who hate any war, Republicans who hate anything Obama does, and some of each who see not national security justification.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The troll is back.

Notice how he never participates in discussions.

He just shows up every few weeks and defecates.
 
The Donkey

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
Nightmare said:
Like we who speak out for our RKABA risk retribution. Sorry, even Sergi Bondarchuk's narrator in the film War and Peace knew, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." They do not get a free pass.
Click to expand...

Nightmare has the sentiment right -- talking about the responsibility of members of a faith community to denounce those who commit acts of terror in their name.

But we should also apply the same principle to a state actor's use of chemical weapons:

Winston Churchill said:
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
Click to expand...

eye95 said:
I think it is telling that on OCDO, a site full of skeptics, a large majority of those answering the poll believe that the Syrians gassed their people. I believe they did. The question is, even if they did, what compelling interest do we have in taking action. There have been much more egregious attacks by governments on citizens around the world that were essentially (and rightly) ignored.
Click to expand...
eye95 said:
. . .Unless there is a national security interest, no use of force is justifiable. I wonder if this regime will get the Congress to go along. I hope that the "strange bedfellows" coalition that would likely form would be large enough to rebuke any such action: Dems who hate any war, Republicans who hate anything Obama does, and some of each who see not national security justification.
Click to expand...


The US's compelling interest is deterring the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons by state actors who will calculate the use of these in the same way as any other weapons unless we act. The importance of swatting this down trumps all. Winston is also apt here:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top