jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (104 posts)

The gas attack came from the rebels?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image77
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    How come my president is prompter to believe takfiri dogs/criminals versus Assad? Any interests involved? Your opinion. I've noticed that not many people are concerned on the subject. Fear of a potential retaliation from the NSA?
    Satellites showed the ambassadors that the missiles were shot from the rebels' fief. Finally the truth. When the weapons (satellites) they made to watch the world turn against them, it is an agreeable sensation, isn't it?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That strikes me as conspiratorial baloney.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What is false?

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It came from a gov controlled zone and hit a rebel controlled zone.  That seems self-explanatory to me.  I don't love the rebel side, but I doubt they would sneak deep into the gov controlled, launch multiple strikes undetected, and wipe out their own people.  For a start, they don't have that level of skill.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks, psycheskinner.

          2. lone77star profile image89
            lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And you believe everything the government tells you? How naive.

            The US supports the rebels. Doesn't the US have the capability. Don't be an idiot.

            The US government has a long track record of lies and deception. And they have a track record of destroying democracies when it suited them. Making the world safe for democracy? What a crock! CIA finally had to admit to destroying a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953.

            The CIA and US military have a history of false flag operations and yes, conspiracies, to do criminal (Black Ops) acts.

            You can hide your head in the sand, but it won't make War Crimes by American presidents go away. Obama even recently gave immunity to Bush and gang for their war crimes so he couldn't easily be sued by foreign nationals who had already started to file suit.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjN9KtEHny0

            Syria is a direct extension of 9/11. That dark day continues to be used by this administration, as did the last, as an excuse to do all kinds of crimes -- like attacking a country that has done nothing to America (first Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Libya, and now Syria). Madness. WMDs? Lies! And if you attack someone on false pretenses and then continue to occupy their pockets, you are the criminal. America did not apologize and leave. They stayed and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq. Now, they want to do it to Syria. Pelosi invoked the name of her grandson in favor of attacking Syria. Have her put her grandson in Damascus and see if she wants to attack.

            You guys make me sick with your dismissively smug attitude and lack of critical thinking -- using labels to demonize or marginalize.

            9/11 was an inside job. That is a fact. We now have lots more information that point to the real culprits.
            www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8

            For more than a decade, I went along with the official conspiracy theory. I changed my mind. I was wrong. There really was a conspiracy, but not the Osama Bin Laden conspiracy. The Kroll, AIG, Stratesec, Carlysle Group, Marsh & McLennan, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and likely many others.

            Thanks to whistleblowers like Lindauer, Drake, and others, we're learning of the government's crimes and just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

            If you still don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, then try your intelligence on these simple facts:

            Fact: WTC7 collapsed at perfect free fall for 8 floors.

            Fact: Free fall means zero resistance.

            Fact: Solid steel never offers zero resistance.

            Fact: WTC7 was built of solid steel.

            Fact: Office fires cannot remove solid steel to the point where they offer zero resistance (instantaneously melt or vaporize).

            Conclusion: Controlled demolition which can only be set up after months of preparation. Thus 9/11 was an inside job.

            And now we have a corrupt government which uses 9/11 as a reason for all manner of crimes, including destroying the Constitution of the United States.

            When the president of the United States tells us that prisoners in Gitmo should stay there forever, even if found innocent, you have a president who has committed Treason against the Constitution for which he swore an oath to protect.

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Could you possibly stay on topic?  We are discussing the gas attack and the information on it I got from BBC World, which is not the US government.

            2. maxoxam41 profile image77
              maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Psycheskinner is VERY naïve. Too much to deal with for my rationalism.

            3. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hello LoneStar.

              The folks who told you about Gitmo must not have mentioned the following facts so I thought it appropriate that I should.

              January 2009…
              On his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order to review the disposition of prisoners and to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year. {1}

              May, 2009…
              Congress withholds funds needed for closing Guantanamo Bay from a war-funding bill. “But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wasted no time in coming up with another Guantanamo amendment, ensuring that the issue will continue to be debated as consideration of the second fiscal 2009 supplemental spending bill resumes Wednesday.” {2}

              September 2009…
              President Obama was unable to find satisfactory destinations for the approximately 240 prisoners held at Guantanamo. “The administration must also win congressional funding for the closure process, find host countries for detainees cleared for release, and transfer dozens of inmates to federal and military courts for prosecution.” {3}

              October 2009…
              President Obama continued to battle for congressional approval and won funding from the House of Representatives to allow some prisoners to be transferred to the United States for prosecution. “The 307 to 114 vote removes one of many roadblocks the Obama administration faces as it tries to empty the internationally condemned prison by January.” {4}

              January 2010…
              After a year of stop and go progress and an October signal from Congress in favor of funding efforts to move prisoners to Thomson, IL, the GOP voiced public opposition to the Presidents plans to close the facility. “Guantanamo remains the proper place for holding terrorists, especially those who may not be able to be detained as securely in a third country,” according to Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell. “He urged Obama to revisit his decision to shutter the prison.” {5}

              May 2010…
              Despite facing a cool Congress, the President’s Guantánamo Review Task Force submitted a report giving lawmakers, for the first time, an outline for determining what do with each detainee. Specifically, the report called for transferring 126 detainees to their home countries or to a third country, prosecuting 36 in federal court or a military commission and holding 48 indefinitely under the laws of war. {6}

              January 2011…
              It is clear that President Obama really wants to close Gitmo but the Congress really does not. The New York Times noted “President Obama signed a major defense bill on Friday that includes strict new limits on the government’s ability to transfer detainees out of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He sharply criticized those restrictions, but did not claim that he had the constitutional authority to disregard them.” {7}

              May 2013…
              In a second term speech before the National Defense University, President Obama renewed this pledge to close the facility forever. “As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States… Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.” {8}

              August 2013…
              Two Algerians were released from Guantanamo Bay prison and returned to their homeland. “Their release, the first from Guantanamo in nearly a year, followed a pledge by President Barack Obama to renew efforts to close the prison on the U.S. base in Cuba, an initiative that has been thwarted by Congress,” reports the Associated Press. “[Mutia Sadiq Ahmad] Sayyab was cleared for release years earlier but stayed at Guantanamo because of congressional restrictions on transfers,” the report goes on to say. So far, 606 prisoners have been transferred and 164 still remain at Gitmo. {9}{10} [Emphasis added]

              Therefore, LoneStar, after five years, it appears the President is still working on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo. The facts reveal reasons beyond his control. While he may not succeed before 2019, it will not be because he did not try. Obviously, he has not given up on his pledge even if some uninformed critics have not been paying attention. 
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off … acilities/
              {2} http://www.rollcall.com/news/73886-1.html
              {3} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 93_pf.html
              {4} http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/idUSN15311213
              {5}  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … &pos=9
              {6} http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_9/-48 … e_friendly
              {7} http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/po … .html?_r=0
              {8} http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off … rack-obama
              {9} http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir … o-20104310
              {10} http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo

              1. profile image83
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                When the POTUS was elected, he controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Why was he unable to shut Guantanamo Bay when he controlled Congress?  Are you saying that he couldn't even garner enough support from his own political party?

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi EA.

                  Actually, EA, the President was not able to garner enough support from either party, which proves the folly in your claim “he controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives when elected in 2008.” I trust you will remember this the next time someone here in forum tries to argue that President Obama controlled both houses of Congress during his first two years. smile
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Quill, once again you are factually correct, Pres. Obama did not control both chambers in his first two years.

                    But before taking EA to the wood shed, perhaps you might consider that contextually he might be right. And I believe the intent of his, (and others that make the same claim), comments were contextual.

                    As in; the 2008 110th Congress was composed of a Democrat majority in both chambers, (source), and the President is the leader of his party - so numerically Pres. Obama did have majority control of Congress from 2008 - 2010. (excepting of course "super Majority" issues)

                    The fact that the party could not garner enough internal support to exercise that control does not negate the truth of EA's claim. Maybe it's just a case of semantics.

                    GA

                  2. profile image83
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    GA Anderson is correct when he says that this is semantics.  It's also spin. 

                    Democrats had a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Despite this reality, President Obama wasn't able to garner enough support, during the honeymoon period of his presidency, to get Guantanamo Bay closed.  Is he a poor leader?  Was his plan not well received?  Was his plan hokey?  Did he use all his political capital on other issues?  That's up for debate, but what you are doing is spinning this into some kind of ludicrous positive for Obama, a way to defend him and make it look like nobody supported him.  The truth is quite different.  He failed.  Let's call it what it is, a failure.

            4. Ranzi profile image85
              Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you Lone77star, couldn't have said it better myself. No point trying to convince the blind who are in love with lies and fairy-tales.

          3. maxoxam41 profile image77
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't have the same information. In fact, it contradicts yours.

      2. lone77star profile image89
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why, Ralph?

        You don't think there have been any conspiracies in the history of humanity? That's a bit naive. And to dismiss something based on your shallow label (or anyone else's) is the height of lunacy.

        Turkish investigators found sarin gas in rebel held territory some time ago.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't say that I think there have "never been any conspiracies in the history of humanity." I just don't buy your theories about 9-11 or the Syria poison gas attacks.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image77
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            For a scientist, where is your rationale? Or are you from the same breed than the ones who also believe in God? If it is so I understand but don't lecture us, then!

        2. maxoxam41 profile image77
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And more interesting what is the source of this sarin gas! But everybody shuts up.

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In your first sentence you call the opposition to the Assad regime "takfiri", "dogs" and "criminals" which suggests you're not entirely impartial, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong. So what is the evidence that missiles were shot by the rebels?

      And looking at the alternative view, is it possible that the Assad regime could have calculated that they might be able to get away with using sarin if they confuse the issue just enough, particular at a time when various revelations about the NSA are causing people to distrust the official line on things? If so I'm not sure Assad would have made that calculation himself. I think a certain President Putin might have been whispering in his ear.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        An Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak said that "Syrian" rebels just acknowledged their involvement in the chemical attack stating that it was an accident. Also Russia gave to the UN investigators satellite pictures of the launching of the missiles.
        It would be inconceivable that a president that is supported by the majority of the people be engaged in a killing that would damage his popular image. You have to remember that he is still fighting, contrary to the real dictators that flew Egypt, Tunis. I read several of his interviews and I admire his love for his country. As Obama gave up on us, Assad stands still by his people and carried by his people!
        I wish that I would once in my lifetime carry my president but, it would be illusory.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That doesn't constitute evidence. If you can point to the evidence that Dale Gavlak has that supports his claim, that would be useful.



          That's more useful. Do you know if those images been independently verified?



          Really? You don't think laying down artillery barrages on residential areas could be something that might "damage his popular image"? And Assad can't be that popular if the number of people willing to take arms against him is significant enough to cause a civil war that drags on for two years.

          1. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly...I cannot imagine that shelling residential areas and hospitals is the stuff of popularity---even in Syria. I am sure, that like in Iraq or in ANY dictatorship, the people in the streets are not there of their own free will; not there because they are exercising political freedom of speech. They are there in the streets waving the pro-Assad signs and chanting pro-Assad words because if they don't the next bomb drops on their house.

        2. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          In what imagined universe does a dictator who kills his people in order to retain his power and his wealth become the exemplar of the leader standing by his country and his people?

          1. maxoxam41 profile image77
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Dictator to the eyes of who? Westerners? In what way Bush wasn't a dictator when he decided that he would avoid congress to take a decision? And so did Obama. Did you send our army to overthrow him? Then why are you more lenient towards our governments versus others?
            Once again a NATO stated that more than 70% of the population are behind him? In the name of who do we condemn Channing and Snowden of being traitors because they showed us the wrongdoings of our government? Is it the example of democracy that we want for the rest of the world?

    3. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Since as of this morning (10 September 2013) Mr. Assad has agreed in principle to a yet undisclosed Russian plan to turn over Syria's chemical weapons under some sort of Russian "supervision", it is highly likely that is was, in fact, the Assad Regime who used chemical weapons on its own people.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Let's say that this little trick will allow us not to loose face given that we ridiculed ourselves in thinking that we would reiterate the lies we said in our past middle eastern invasions.

  2. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 3 years ago

    And to commemorate the anniversary of the brutal murder of nearly 3,000 Americans by Al Qaeda terrorists, this September we should give military aid to Al Qaeda backed Syrian rebels lead by a psychopathic maniac who literally eats the hearts of his enemies on television.
    And why not have some icing on our cake with a nice million Muslim march on DC.
    https://sphotos-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1233501_10201454425909923_461351345_n.jpg

    1. crazyhorsesghost profile image87
      crazyhorsesghostposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree 100 percent.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image77
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Who were the Jews dancing watching the towers collapse? They were not involved them, were they? STOP THE DISINFORMATION!

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh boy, more unprovable conspiracy theories. I couldn't find any actual footage of Jews dancing but I did see some Muslims dancing.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-GzAQWTsRI
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-p1LEBAujE
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCrKnO6jKw
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoY-hdxMkz4
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmo64fcvKs0\
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX17oIPKubA

        So lots of Muslims celebrating, not so many Jews. Are you a holocaust denyer as well? Ha!

        1. maxoxam41 profile image77
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The truth is my limit. I don't see why I would deny the holocaust since it happened as much as those jews celebrating the killing of 3000 people. As I said both information are factual. You wish I were an idiot therefore you could stamp me not only as a conspiracy theorist (what I am proud of since it means to be on the side of the truth) but also as a denier (which you failed). You wish I were an anti-Semite but I am only an anti-Zionist.
          If you didn't find anything it means you didn't look and therefore you become a liar and unworthy to argument with. As for your dancing muslims, they don't interest me since they didn't participate in the destruction of the towers. Three countries were involved in the attack, the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the rest is a lie!

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry dude but you need a little more than wishful thinking to lay the blame on Israel. I know you wouldn't be interested in thousands of Muslims celebrating the deaths of Americans because you want to believe that three or four Jews that were nowhere near the crash sight did it! No evidence required.

            1. maxoxam41 profile image77
              maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Don't dude me, I am not your friend and proud not to be given your reasoning.
              What is it with Americans supporting Zionists who would attack us if they had to? America is my only country. Israel is for Israelis. An American woman witnessed it. You are telling that you won't believe a compatriot but will believe a Zionist? Most of the American jews at the head of our government are Zionists, meaning people who are working for the interest of Israel over the US interest, are you conscious of this fact? Why do they have a double passport if they are Americans?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because the law allows them to?

                Many people other than Israelis and Americans these days have double passports.

                1. maxoxam41 profile image77
                  maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You mean people we were not born in the US?

                  1. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Any American can and do possess dual citizenship.

                    One does NOT need to be born outside of the US to have dual citizenship with the US and another country. One simply needs to qualify for citizenship in the US and in whatever other country they are seeking citizenship.

                    While there are some restrictions, the US government (basically) no longer actively works to restrict US citizens---including those who are "natural born" citizens, from seeking secondary citizenship.

                    The most common dual citizenship among Americans: Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Great Britain,Germany, Japan Israel. In fact, many Americans born to parents who are living abroad at the time of their birth hold dual citizenship.

              2. Onusonus profile image86
                Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well I'm sure you would rather see jihadists in charge of America over a few Jews in office. Which is probably why you want to go with the unprovable stuff rather than actual facts. But it's totally plausable that some random lady's opinion trumps atual facts. I had a neighbor who said she saw a UFO once. No proof, just plenty of cocktails.
                So relax buddy, and have some more Kool Aid...

                1. maxoxam41 profile image77
                  maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What about Americans who care for America, is it too much to ask for?
                  You seem to enjoy discrediting the truth, however it still remains the truth.
                  Don't flatter yourself, I need more to lose my "cool" as you said it.

                  1. Onusonus profile image86
                    Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    like I said in order to posit an accusation one needs evidence which your theory is severely lacking.
                    https://sphotos-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1185499_157736981091522_785833764_n.jpg

                2. Ranzi profile image85
                  Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Jihadists will be in charge of America soon, you know why? Because your sick joke of a government is supporting them in Syria. The world knows that and the world knows that they have trained them for years.

                  1. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If the US government is, as you claim, a "sick joke", then what exactly is a government that gasses its children and bombs its hospitals?

                    Why so much hatred for America and its government?

  3. sannyasinman profile image59
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    What you see on CNN is pure propaganda. Its lies, lies and more lies. Its Iraq all over again. They will say anything to attempt to justify military action. It has nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons. This is just a pretext for intervention –and you can be sure that it will not stop at a few missiles. . . .

    If you care to know, here are some other viewpoints on the situation in Syria


    http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/05/u … -in-syria/

    Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading the public on Syria & Weapons Inspectors
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … AUByw#t=81

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09 … -from.html

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-wh … ck/5347542

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-supp … eda_092013

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/03 … us-record/

    http://www.infowars.com/twitter-flooded … -on-syria/

    Did you believe what they told you about WMDs in Iraq? It was all lies.
    Do you believe what they are telling you about chemical attacks in Syria? Do you?

    1. Ranzi profile image85
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks you! another person who is not a blind sheep

  4. crazyhorsesghost profile image87
    crazyhorsesghostposted 3 years ago

    Thank you Ralph. I don't buy it either. I truly believe that the Syrian President ordered the gas attack on his own people. And it was Muslim Extremists that carried out 9-11. And if we ever let down our guard they will do it again. I will never forget what was done to us on 9-11. I say to hell with the Muslim extremists. We don't need another smoking hole in New York or any other American city. We should attack Muslim extremists where ever they are found and we should never rebuild any country we destroy. If we would do what God says they would leave us along. Its time for America to stop trying to be politically correct. I don't buy the wild conspiracy theories either.

    1. sannyasinman profile image59
      sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      . . regarding 9-11. Would you be interested in what the  Architects and Engineers who design and construct buildings like the WTC and building 7 have to say? Would you be interested in their opinion? These are professionals, surely they know what they are talking about . . .

      http://rethink911.org/

      What they say is not theory, it is hard EVIDENCE which would probably stand up in a court of law . . please read it

  5. sannyasinman profile image59
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    Gas attacks in Syria? Whats really going on?
    The evidence is here . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 8jpk#t=684

    1. Ranzi profile image85
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks just finished watching. A must watch for all

  6. Ranzi profile image85
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    Wow I never thought that I will see the day when USA is supporting a Jihad. The next September 11th that happens, I blame all the ignorant American people who are blind and support corrupt criminals who are fighting for evil terrorists trying to overtake Syria. When Syria becomes a extreme muslim sharia country overtaken by jihadists, I blame you! When the jihadists turn their backs on America and start to over take Israel, blame yourselves. And when these jihadists eventually call for a world jihad and overtake the world, I blame you!  I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him. Except for Kennedy who was okay, but oh they had to get rid off him because he didn't have a criminal corrupt mind.  Assad is a man of principle, he loves his country and people. He is a victim of US propaganda, painting him as a tyrant evil killer, where in fact he is not. I have many friends in Syria who tell me he has more support from his people than your president Obama. You people are all media zombies, wake up and  from your BS fairytale and love for a government that has been deceiving you and destroying the world. When the world someday gets its revenge on the innocent, gullible and free Americans, I BLAME YOU!

    This video shows the support Syrian people have for their president, I can never imagine Americans doing that for their president http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 9gqq-FFgJM

    1. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You say about a man who gases his OWN people---his own country's children and who bombs hospitals: "I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him."

      There is no possible response to such a sentiment. None.

      1. HollieT profile image88
        HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You say about a man who gases his OWN people-

        Here we go again! Where is the irrefutable evidence? And even, even, if it is Assad, why do you believe that military action will help those poor people in Syria? There is no shame in Obama's admission that strikes would be about the punishment of Assad's govt. Get your head out from your ass and realise that this should be about preventing further atrocities! Atrocities like 9/11, and the west should stop arming and funding those types- types like the rebels.

    2. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of a man who used chemical weapons on his country's own children and who bombed hospitals you say: "I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him."

      There is truly no response to such an ill-timed and uninformed statement. Truly none.

      1. Ranzi profile image85
        Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Get your facts straight, before you make accusations. Oh I forgot you must believe everything mainstream media tells you. There's more proof that the rebels did it, this is who your government is funding after all. The fact that your government was so quick to point the finger and start world war III says it all. Plus although I'm not into conspiracy theories, there's more proof pointing that your government is to blame for September 11th than there is for Assad gassing his own people,

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So are multiple United Nations reports and multiple intelligence reports---some even coming from Assad's allies, complete frauds?

          What exactly and specifically is the source of your information?

          What documentary evidence can you direct readers to that clearly proves that the rebels alone are responsible for all war crimes in Syria?

          What documentary evidence can you direct readers to that clearly proves that the US government is funding anti-government rebels in Syria?

          And finally, on this 12th anniversary of the murder of some 3000 Americans by Al Qaeda terrorists, what documentary evidence can you direct readers to  that clearly proves that the US government is to blame for the attack?

          1. Ranzi profile image85
            Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Are you not the one that made the accusation of Assad gassing his own people without proof?

            http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence- … not-assad/

            In the 2 years I've been on hubpages I never went on forums as they are time wasting, however the US painting Assad as a tyrant and all these sheep believing is sickening I have many friends and family in Syria and they tell me straight out how it is there, how they are been terrorised by rebels, how those rebels are not even syrian, how Assad is uniting the people and they are finally waking up that US is funding terrorists. I'm sure your mind is already closed and are not even bother looking at the link. I added it anyway for all those with an open mind and are sick of being spoon fed by the mainstream  media as well, sick of being told what to think/believe.

        2. HollieT profile image88
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of a man who used chemical weapons on his country's own children and who bombed hospitals you say: "I have more respect for Bashar Al Assad than I ever will for that joke you call a president Obama, and all the others before him."

          We still need irrefutable proof that it was Assad. But tell me, why do you continue to support presidents that refuse to hold Israel to account for their use of white phosphorus against Palestinian people? What is the difference?  Funny, I was listening to a former US diplomat on British TV last night, she didn't want to answer that question either. And when she was asked what the difference was between chemical weapons, drones and air strikes, she said that that the latter represented "humane warfare"

          You really couldn't make this sh*t up. All kill! And many presidents and prime ministers are responsible for this murder.

          Why would you defend any of them?

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

      Vladimir Putin's op-ed in today's NYTimes:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini … n&_r=0

      1. Ranzi profile image85
        Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wow thanks for this Ralph. Strong speech, even Putin sounds more sane than Obama.

      2. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So far the Pope Francis wrote a personal letter to him to act in the name of peace, if he was whoever charlatan why would the pope credit him of such power? The world is behind him. The world has enough of our meddling!

    4. Ranzi profile image85
      Ranziposted 3 years ago

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8368020_f248.jpg

      1. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It is time that our boys speak up for themselves because the government won't. They are expendable to them!

    5. Reality Bytes profile image92
      Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

      Troops oppose strikes on Syria by 3-1 margin

      To the list of skeptics who question the need for air strikes against Syria, add an another unlikely group — many U.S. troops.

      “I haven’t heard one single person be supportive of it,” said an Army staff sergeant at Fort Hood who asked not to be identified by name.

      A Military Times survey of more than 750 active-duty troops this week found service members oppose military action in Syria by a margin of about three to one.

      The survey conducted online Monday and Tuesday found that about 75 percent of troops are not in favor of air strikes in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to kill civilians in that country.

      A higher percentage of troops, about 80 percent, say they do not believe getting involved in the two-year-old civil war is in the U.S. national interest.

      The results suggest that opposition inside the military may be more intense than among the U.S. population at large. About 64 percent of Americans oppose air strikes, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll published Monday.

      The Military Times survey is an unscientific sampling of Military Times readers and reflects the views of many career enlisted members and officers.

      For many troops, money is a key consideration. Troops question the cost of bombing Syria at a time when budget cuts are shrinking their pay raises, putting their benefits package at risk and forcing some of their friends to separate involuntarily.

      “We don’t have money for anything else but we have a couple hundred million dollars to lob some Tomahawks and mount an expensive campaign in Syria?” said Army Sgt. 1st Class Chris Larue, a 39-year-old maintenance expert at Fort Eustis, Va., referring to the precision-guided missiles that are likely to be used in any strike.

      http://www.militarytimes.com/interactiv … 3-1-margin

      1. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If the military industrial complex wants to wage wars, fine with me, at their own risks and costs. The Syrian army will handle them. Then they will have to face the UNO. Our men don't have to kill and be killed for their interests.
        It is good that the American army opposes Obama's decision. The more they will be involved in wars the more likely men will die. Let's preserve them for a real case scenario when a foreign army will step on our land. Meanwhile let's remain skeptical as for their justifications to send our boys offshore.

        1. b.crowe profile image59
          b.croweposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We will need them. I know how i would feel if other nations we sending their military to my country. We have gone to far. What next, Iran?

      2. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well look at it this way, at least our new found friends at Al Qaeda will be advocating attacks on Americans to bleed out our economy.
        You gotta love this president, he makes all the right friends in the right places. roll

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G3atWsQCyU

        1. maxoxam41 profile image77
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Al-Qaeda were our friends under the Bush administration too, didn't you know? Ignorance is bliss!

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            In case you didn't hear, they aren't now. Ignorance must be bliss.

        2. b.crowe profile image59
          b.croweposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are we this blind? This administration? Go back several years, many Presidents before Obama. This has been going on in BOTH parties for many, many years. Lets just finally admit it, America rapes and plunders at will. Why? Slave labor, cheep oil.
          Our military is spread out all over the world. How can we so easily miss the obvious? This is not rocket science.

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you don't care that we want to help out the same group of people that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11th, or that their leaders do this;
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4wcuvhLDXo

            And this;
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYTkttBBIfs

            And this;
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vc48uAlpGw

            It's not usually as clear who the bad guys are as it is in this case. Clearly the bad guys are on both sides.
            https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/533770_361610790638772_2011026961_n.jpg

    6. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

      Since when is the army a democracy?

      1. Ranzi profile image85
        Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Are you against the army opposing an invasion on Syria?

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The army is fundamentally never supposed to be a political force.  That is a fundamental part of the US civic system.  It is part of what protects us from situations like the ones in Syria, and Fiji, and Libya. Politics, religion and the military stay *out* of each other's business in terms of lobbying--they pass only information--not agendas.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image77
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            According to Psyche the army has to obey and shut up. And this is democracy. Which situation is it? Protect against who? Enemies that we create? You need to revise your books, your knowledge seems limited.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That would be correct.  Shut up and follow orders.

              Allow your army to decide whether they want to attack based on how much they're being paid (apparently a big consideration) and you won't have an army.  Allow them to be the moral compass, attacking based on what they personally feel is right (or, more likely, won't get them killed) and you won't have an army.

              Is that so hard to understand?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That we can agree on.

            2. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So long as their actions are not illegal under national or international law, of course they do.  That's the whole point of an army.  They do what they are told.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image92
                Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You do realize there is a contingency that the military is responsible for reigning in an rogue government?

                It almost occurred during the FDR administration and was emboldened by JFK's creation of the special forces.  I am not saying it should happen, yet, but we are almost at the point that it is blatantly obvious that the federal government is not representing the will of the people or obeying the Constitution.  Above all, the military owes it allegiance to the document and the people.  Should it be determined that the government is operating in an illegal manner, it is the duty of the military to take action.

                NDAA-Patriot Acts, yeah, we are pretty much there!

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Should it be determined that the government is operating in an illegal manner, it is the duty of the military to take action."

                  Based on what? Who would make the determination that the government is operating "in an illegal manner,"? The Tea Party?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who will make the determination that a govt is or isn't operating illegally?

                    Come on, Ralph - it's never the losers! The winner of the coup or revolution will make that call!

                    Or am I just too dark and gloomy today?

          2. b.crowe profile image59
            b.croweposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The US armys job is to protect us from Syria? What the hell is Syria doing to us?

      2. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Since the government gave up on its people to the benefit of the oligarchs.

    7. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

      This sounds like very good news!!

      "U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Secure Syria's Chemical Arms"

      GENEVA — The United States and Russia have reached an agreement that calls for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world … p&_r=0

      1. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If we destroy Syria's chemical weapons (that it did not use against civilians), we may as well push bellicose Israel to imitate Syria. After all, if Syria represents a danger why not Israel that invaded and bombed Lebanon few weeks ago?

    8. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

      A military coup is never a good idea in the long run.  because they are like potato chips, you never have just one.

    9. Ranzi profile image85
      Ranziposted 3 years ago

      http://www.sott.net/article/266240-Vide … sad-full-i

      The First Bashar Al-Assad Interview with an American news outlet since 2011. He made the Puppet journalist look like a big idiot. Even if you hate Assad you can watch it for entertainment purposes just to see this idiot Charlie Rose play emotional detective

     
    working