Guest skibby Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Mods: I didn't want to post in a hot headed thread that starts off on a blood thirsty note. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate explains who the rebels in Syria really are, and who's backing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Araungzeb Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Interesting, but the major question obviously is how would these rebel groups have access to chemical weapons?Alex Jones is a complete moron, but once in a while he makes some decent points. I haven't had time to comb over all of the sources he gives, but here is some food for thought/research: http://www.infowars.com/yes-the-syrian-rebels-do-have-access-to-chemical-weapons/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xox Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 nothing new. same tactics all over again to fool us, the western people...to gain our approval for war. like obama don't know this...c'mon. it's part of the game. nothing works better then a cia-terrorist marriage when they need those loonies for their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amen Lare Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Obama doesn't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 they give peace prizes out like candy and they are pretty clearly given to support agendas. it's kind of ironic that a video (which admittedly i haven't watched) that apparently is trying to call into question the justification of the US doing a strike on syria uses the speaker's status as a nobel prize laureate to support her cred, when the president who almost pulled the trigger on what wouldve been his 2nd dethroning of a foreign gov without congressional support (and this time without the UN), and who has dramatically ramped up drone strikes and has possibly gotten america even MORE hated by the arab nations according to a few polls out there, is also a laureate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 ^ Libya wasn't a US operation, it was a NATO operation led by France, because the Obama administration insisted on not leading it. Here's the unclassified intelligence report on the August 21 chemical attack released by the US this past Friday. Although it's not definitive about the blame, it makes it seem very likely that Assad carried it out. The lady in that video appears to be mistaken about the United States arming the rebels, as this Wall Street Journal article from yesterday says that to date the rebels have not received arms from the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Interesting, but the major question obviously is how would these rebel groups have access to chemical weapons? Alex Jones is a complete moron, but once in a while he makes some decent points. I haven't had time to comb over all of the sources he gives, but here is some food for thought/research: http://www.infowars.com/yes-the-syrian-rebels-do-have-access-to-chemical-weapons/ hey, even a stopped clock.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xox Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 lol Yes, they're known as 'very honest people' when comes to foreign politics. One thing is OFFICIAL politics and totally another is CIA-under-the-hood politics. Have you forget the last 50 yrs of the game?a ^ Libya wasn't a US operation, it was a NATO operation led by France, because the Obama administration insisted on not leading it. Here's the unclassified intelligence report on the August 21 chemical attack released by the US this past Friday. Although it's not definitive about the blame, it makes it seem very likely that Assad carried it out. The lady in that video appears to be mistaken about the United States arming the rebels, as this Wall Street Journal article from today says that to date the rebels have not received arms from the US yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 @very honest -but he still participated in it. what exactly is the point of the us president insisting not to lead something but still participating in it? how close did he come to pulling the trigger on syria? how was that even an option, and how could he have actually been considering doing it and you still think he's a swell peace lovin guy? how about those drone strikes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 lol Yes, they're known as 'very honest people' when comes to foreign politics. One thing is OFFICIAL politics and totally another is CIA-under-the-hood politics. Have you forget the last 50 yrs of the game?a ^ Libya wasn't a US operation, it was a NATO operation led by France, because the Obama administration insisted on not leading it. Here's the unclassified intelligence report on the August 21 chemical attack released by the US this past Friday. Although it's not definitive about the blame, it makes it seem very likely that Assad carried it out. The lady in that video appears to be mistaken about the United States arming the rebels, as this Wall Street Journal article from today says that to date the rebels have not received arms from the US yet. ha rite. we're talking about the guy who campaigned with promises of 'transparency' that will make us shit our pants and who's white house recently went to court to resist having to make public its visitation logs. our president doesn't want the public to know who comes to see him. seriously. and some people are still drinking his hope and change kool-aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xox Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 oh my god! I didn't know this. Where is this world heading?! If that's happening in the US what the rest of the world can hope for... ha rite. we're talking about the guy who campaigned with promises of 'transparency' that will make us shit our pants and who's white house recently went to court to resist having to make public its visitation logs. our president doesn't want the public to know who comes to see him. seriously. and some people are still drinking his hope and change kool-aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 lol Yes, they're known as 'very honest people' when comes to foreign politics. One thing is OFFICIAL politics and totally another is CIA-under-the-hood politics. Have you forget the last 50 yrs of the game?a ^ Libya wasn't a US operation, it was a NATO operation led by France, because the Obama administration insisted on not leading it. Here's the unclassified intelligence report on the August 21 chemical attack released by the US this past Friday. Although it's not definitive about the blame, it makes it seem very likely that Assad carried it out. The lady in that video appears to be mistaken about the United States arming the rebels, as this Wall Street Journal article from today says that to date the rebels have not received arms from the US yet. ha rite. we're talking about the guy who campaigned with promises of 'transparency' that will make us shit our pants and who's white house recently went to court to resist having to make public its visitation logs. our president doesn't want the public to know who comes to see him. seriously. and some people are still drinking his hope and change kool-aid. the united states will never be some hippy pascifist state. with great power comes great responsibility, like spiderman. obama ended the iraq war and began the transition out of afghanistan. it's disturbing how minor things about Obama are griped over so vitriolically when, if you can see the big picture, he is shaping up to be one of the best US presidents in history. *destroys thread, sorry skib* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 how is not keeping any of his promises shaping him up to being one of the best ever? and we already had this discussion once, but the troops were withdrawn from iraq in accordance with the timetable signed by bush, with the last troops leaving a few weeks from the schedule to the date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xox Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 @very honest ah ok. now i know where are you coming from. >>> you're living in a bubble my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 with great power comes great responsibility to whom much is given, much is required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 lol Yes, they're known as 'very honest people' when comes to foreign politics. One thing is OFFICIAL politics and totally another is CIA-under-the-hood politics. Have you forget the last 50 yrs of the game?a ^ Libya wasn't a US operation, it was a NATO operation led by France, because the Obama administration insisted on not leading it. Here's the unclassified intelligence report on the August 21 chemical attack released by the US this past Friday. Although it's not definitive about the blame, it makes it seem very likely that Assad carried it out. The lady in that video appears to be mistaken about the United States arming the rebels, as this Wall Street Journal article from today says that to date the rebels have not received arms from the US yet. ha rite. we're talking about the guy who campaigned with promises of 'transparency' that will make us shit our pants and who's white house recently went to court to resist having to make public its visitation logs. our president doesn't want the public to know who comes to see him. seriously. and some people are still drinking his hope and change kool-aid. the united states will never be some hippy pascifist state. with great power comes great responsibility, like spiderman. obama ended the iraq war and began the transition out of afghanistan. it's disturbing how minor things about Obama are griped over so vitriolically when, if you can see the big picture, he is shaping up to be one of the best US presidents in history. *destroys thread, sorry skib* you cannot be serious about this. EVEN if you approved of some of his policies, there's no way Obama comes even close to one of the greatest U.S. presidents. Do you know who he would be going up against in those terms? Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skibby Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 hurr, durr, i haven't watched the video but this is what i think about it....FAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Araungzeb Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 lol Yes, they're known as 'very honest people' when comes to foreign politics. One thing is OFFICIAL politics and totally another is CIA-under-the-hood politics. Have you forget the last 50 yrs of the game?a ^ Libya wasn't a US operation, it was a NATO operation led by France, because the Obama administration insisted on not leading it. Here's the unclassified intelligence report on the August 21 chemical attack released by the US this past Friday. Although it's not definitive about the blame, it makes it seem very likely that Assad carried it out. The lady in that video appears to be mistaken about the United States arming the rebels, as this Wall Street Journal article from today says that to date the rebels have not received arms from the US yet. ha rite. we're talking about the guy who campaigned with promises of 'transparency' that will make us shit our pants and who's white house recently went to court to resist having to make public its visitation logs. our president doesn't want the public to know who comes to see him. seriously. and some people are still drinking his hope and change kool-aid. the united states will never be some hippy pascifist state. with great power comes great responsibility, like spiderman. obama ended the iraq war and began the transition out of afghanistan. it's disturbing how minor things about Obama are griped over so vitriolically when, if you can see the big picture, he is shaping up to be one of the best US presidents in history. *destroys thread, sorry skib* The big picture: Unconstitutional warrant-less droning of American citizens, largest and most efficient domestic spying program in US history, Guantanamo Bay still open, $6 Trillion increase in debt, failed to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell even though 78% of the country wanted him to... Yeah, really puts him up there with TJ and Abe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jimmy McMessageboard Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 very honest is one of those CIA bots trying to convince internet users that the US is good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I have to admit it's quite remarkable and shocking that after the Snowden leak and the 2nd war under Obama's administration that someone could actually seriously type out " he is shaping up to be one of the best US presidents in history." It's almost offensive to see someone have that low of an opinion of their own privacy rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian trageskin Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 from what i understand, the war in Syria is a war by proxy led by the US, with the assistance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan. NATO has a radar station in Kisecik, and an air force base in Incirlik, Turkey. according to former FBI employee Sibel Edmonds, the Incirlik base was used to import arms into Syria, and as a training camp for "rebels". her website: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/ Thwaiba Kanafani, an FSA soldier, also claims the rebels get military training at turkish secret training camps: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19124810 the so-called Syrian opposition is basically an aggregate of various foreign "jihadi" factions: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/23/syria-foreign-fighters-joining-war etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I have to admit it's quite remarkable and shocking that after the Snowden leak and the 2nd war under Obama's administration that someone could actually seriously type out " he is shaping up to be one of the best US presidents in history." It's almost offensive to see someone have that low of an opinion of their own privacy rights what was the first war? libya? not a war, a no fly zone. not obama's, as pointed out on this page of this thread. and what was the second war? syria? not a war, a proposed limited strike. it hasn't happened yet, but whether or not it happens, the fact that obama appeared to want to carry out the strike is an important success, because it sends out the message to those who would use chemical weapons on civilians that they may not get away with it. i am against the blanket data collection that was begun under bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 lol Yes, they're known as 'very honest people' when comes to foreign politics. One thing is OFFICIAL politics and totally another is CIA-under-the-hood politics. Have you forget the last 50 yrs of the game?a ^ Libya wasn't a US operation, it was a NATO operation led by France, because the Obama administration insisted on not leading it. Here's the unclassified intelligence report on the August 21 chemical attack released by the US this past Friday. Although it's not definitive about the blame, it makes it seem very likely that Assad carried it out. The lady in that video appears to be mistaken about the United States arming the rebels, as this Wall Street Journal article from today says that to date the rebels have not received arms from the US yet. ha rite. we're talking about the guy who campaigned with promises of 'transparency' that will make us shit our pants and who's white house recently went to court to resist having to make public its visitation logs. our president doesn't want the public to know who comes to see him. seriously. and some people are still drinking his hope and change kool-aid. the united states will never be some hippy pascifist state. with great power comes great responsibility, like spiderman. obama ended the iraq war and began the transition out of afghanistan. it's disturbing how minor things about Obama are griped over so vitriolically when, if you can see the big picture, he is shaping up to be one of the best US presidents in history. *destroys thread, sorry skib* The big picture: Unconstitutional warrant-less droning of American citizens, largest and most efficient domestic spying program in US history, Guantanamo Bay still open, $6 Trillion increase in debt, failed to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell even though 78% of the country wanted him to... Yeah, really puts him up there with TJ and Abe. DADT is over. 1 trillion of the debt was the stimulus that stemmed the world economy's collapse. he transferred almost half of guantanamo's detainees until congress amended a resolution not to allow him to in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 IMO you have to have pretty low standards to be impressed by any president in, say, the last 40-50 years. They've all pretty much been genocidal terrorists. (dear NSA: of course I'm joking of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 very honest, on 03 Sept 2013 - 3:20 PM, said: John Ehrlichman, on 03 Sept 2013 - 1:18 PM, said: I have to admit it's quite remarkable and shocking that after the Snowden leak and the 2nd war under Obama's administration that someone could actually seriously type out " he is shaping up to be one of the best US presidents in history." It's almost offensive to see someone have that low of an opinion of their own privacy rights what was the first war? libya? not a war, a no fly zone. not obama's, as pointed out on this page of this thread. and what was the second war? syria? not a war, a proposed limited strike. it hasn't happened yet, but whether or not it happens, the fact that obama appeared to want to carry out the strike is an important success, because it sends out the message to those who would use chemical weapons on civilians that they may not get away with it. i am against the blanket data collection that was begun under bush. you would rather play semantics than admit that both of those constitute a type of warfare? Rarely ever will you hear our actual leaders call things like Afghanistan or Iraq a 'war', and you would never hear anybody official even speak aloud about them being occupations and invasions, which is exactly what they are. Libya was a NATO effort, but so was Serbia under Clinton and historically looking back at it, it's clear now it was a mainly US driven effort that used NATO. Just because France and the UK go along with our horrible foreign policy doesn't make Obama own any less of it. And yes i define both Libya and syria as 'wars' according to the general definition. When we fund rebels, to me that also constitutes as engaging in warfare. You could call it a proxy war, or funding a rebellion but it effectively is designed to do the same thing as a traditional war. The UN and NATO are highly influenced by the judgements of the United States. What's weird to me is when people see them as some sort of moral standard it almost implies that IF Saddam had chemical weapons programs then the Iraq occupation would have been valid, but the prevailing anti Iraq war argument is simply that they lied about the weapons, but if they hadn't the UN would have authorized it. Doesn't make the UN seem very good to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.