No thread on Syria's chemical/gas attack massacre...

[Kritic]

I've explained my views enough times now for you to know I'm against any military strikes without concrete evidence that Assad was responsible, so I'm not exactly sure where you're getting the idea that I want war from. That kinda just makes the rest of your post unnecessary.

It's just natural for me to see multiple angles depending on multiple variables. Just because I entertain and contemplate them doesn't mean I support any of them, actually. I've just always felt it's essential to be as intellectually well-rounded as possible in regards to a given subject before developing an honest opinion. So, when I see something that is kinda right, but a little too vague for me, I elaborate (for the original author and those that read the post). Also, what's surprising about the phrase, "go as advertised?" You do realize that's just a popular American idiom, right? Plus, as I said, our scenario with Syria literally would not qualify as a war categorically in terms of politics and foreign policy. Any time there's a huge fight with people dying, though, of course it's generally considered a war. I've already said that, though.

As far as this conversation being dead, that's fine. Just please don't purposely misrepresent what I'm saying in discussions, debates, and so forth. I try my hardest to remain as intellectually honest as I possibly can in regards to the things I post and when paraphrasing someone else's thoughts on here, so please do the same in return. Nothing I've posted came close to endorsing a war on Syria (and I'm sure you knew that), but that didn't stop you from claiming that I "want war" and/or that I "want to be convinced to go to war." I'll say this again: without concrete evidence that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack(s), the U.S. should not take any military action; also, in the event that proof is provided, the U.S. should still try diplomacy through the U.N. before taking any military action. If we garnered no support, unilateral action at that point would be a real decision worth contemplating; unlike this current one.

you come off a nice guy but this world is full of evil people. this isn't the movies where good guys win. in reality evil people always win and they're the ones that run the world. it takes too much time to get the truth. there's no truth in the middle east. it's chaos over there. these guys make things up and act fast.

all in all your ignorant of who your dealing with. even ignorant of the recent history of the us govt. ways.
when guys like you come with all that evidence sh1t to justify a strike. you ignore international law and even us law. not only should syria be inspected, israel too should be inspected of what chemical weapons they posses.
it's more likely that syria has been hit by terrorist attacks by saudia arabia with the help of the uk and united states.

 

[Dyce25]

you come off a nice guy but this world is full of evil people. this isn't the movies where good guys win. in reality evil people always win and they're the ones that run the world. it takes too much time to get the truth. there's no truth in the middle east. it's chaos over there. these guys make things up and act fast.

all in all your ignorant of who your dealing with. even ignorant of the recent history of the us govt. ways.
when guys like you come with all that evidence sh1t to justify a strike. you ignore international law and even us law. not only should syria be inspected, israel too should be inspected of what chemical weapons they posses.
it's more likely that syria has been hit by terrorist attacks by saudia arabia with the help of the uk and united states.

Yeah, I'm sure of one of three things now when it comes to you: either you're purposefully misrepresenting my thoughts, you're a conspiracy nut, or you lack comprehension. I don't know how I can be any clearer than the ending of the post you just quoted; which is the exact same stance I've had the entire time, and this thread has the proof. As for Israel, I agree, but I don't see anything in our discussion to justify an obscure reference to them as if I'm a Zionist or something. I actually stand very firmly with the Palestinians and against Israelis in most instances. Unless you're extremely intelligent, logical, and methodical in your everyday thought processes, then it's probably a mistake to make such presumptions about a person's beliefs on such little info. I disagree slightly with the wording of your last statement, too. I don't think it's "more likely," in terms of the chemical weapons, but I do think it's just AS likely as Assad having used them. There's no evidence either way.

You know, I'm as verbose as I am out of a trained habit of wanting to supply enough detail to squelch any vagueness of interpretation. I take care to cover a great many nuances and angles in my responses to people on topics like this (blame it on the attorney in me), and I have to admit that it's a little annoying when something is so specific, yet still misunderstood or not fully comprehended. With people like you, especially online, it's hard to tell the difference between someone just trolling and someone having legitimate difficulty understanding.

 

[Saka]

yeah, if the appearances by obama's former "employees" were taken out of context and conflated with the particulars of bush's run up to iraq and afghanistan. youd be right!

NYT had a great editorial on sunday that outlined the intellectual dishonesty of anyone trying to paint obama's prosecution of a syrian intervention as evidence of warmongering. obama's opposition to bush's wars and his pursuit of a militaristic response to syria's use of chemical weapons are not mutually exclusive, no matter how many times brain dead flunkies like you contend they are. he is obligated to marshal a coalition of support to address syria's abuse of international statute, violations that pose a threat to our national security. it is part of his job as president. the ones who are undermining the execution of his duties are:

a) russia
b) china
c)presumably the republican party, assuming they vote against intervention
d)gutless democrats

political posturing is interfering with what is a wholly justifiable reaction to the acts committed by syria. i have problems with how he's handled his second term, but obama isn't at fault in this scenario.

all of what you said reads like some poorly written white house speech, you do realize it doesn't matter if the president is democrat or republican, black or white, when it's time for the military industrial complex to look towards another business venture the talking head on the screen has no choice but to march.

Also i can name many nations (some of them US allies) that have violated many international statues and agreements, yet i don't see a call for US intervention in those situations. Lets face it the US only plays this global enforcer role as a means to masquerade it's warmongering.

 

[Kritic]

whatever nicca. i won. you're still a nice guy...

 

[kermit da hustla]

all of what you said reads like some poorly written white house speech, you do realize it doesn't matter if the president is democrat or republican, black or white, when it's time for the military industrial complex to look towards another business venture the talking head on the screen has no choice but to march.

Also i can name many nations (some of them US allies) that have violated many international statues and agreements, yet i don't see a call for US intervention in those situations. Lets face it the US only plays this global enforcer role as a means to masquerade it's warmongering.

i'm not concerned with that "military industrial complex" spiel. i'm simply addressing any idiocy that tries to draw a similarity between what bush did and what obama is attempting. the comparison ends, when you look at the facts. bush had no justification for what he did, while obama has plenty.

the rest of that alex jones babble is something you and other conspiracy theorists can discuss among yourselves.

 

[IGSaint12]

you're right. barack the master gawd thought of this whole thing that if he used chemical weapons on innocent civilians it would force the syrian govt to give up their sh1t..

Well they weren't going to give it up if obama didn't do shyt or do I have to remind you that american citizens didn't want to do shyt. Congress didn't want to do shyt about syria either. It was because of obama's determination to actually follow through even if that meant impeachment from republicans that brought about this concession from syria and russia. Obama won this shyt hands down. I don't see how you can spin this as a russian win.

 

[kermit da hustla]

Well they weren't going to give it up if obama didn't do shyt or do I have to remind you that american citizens didn't want to do shyt. Congress didn't want to do shyt about syria either. It was because of obama's determination to actually follow through even if that meant impeachment from republicans that brought about this concession from syria and russia. Obama won this shyt hands down. I don't see how you can spin this as a russian win.

certain people on here are delusional in their dislike of obama. obviously, this is a huge win for obama. his pursuit of congressional authority was a gambit that put all of those opposing him on the defense, which is why syria now finds itself making this concession.

@ some of the smart-dumb negros in higher learning.

 

[Kritic]

if you think the homie assad isn't moving weight right now. he has them thangs just didnt use them. by the time the inspectors go in.... i am not a crook

 

[Jello Biafra]

yeah, if the appearances by obama's former "employees" were taken out of context and conflated with the particulars of bush's run up to iraq and afghanistan. youd be right!

NYT had a great editorial on sunday that outlined the intellectual dishonesty of anyone trying to paint obama's prosecution of a syrian intervention as evidence of warmongering. obama's opposition to bush's wars and his pursuit of a militaristic response to syria's use of chemical weapons are not mutually exclusive, no matter how many times brain dead flunkies like you contend they are. he is obligated to marshal a coalition of support to address syria's abuse of international statute, violations that pose a threat to our national security. it is part of his job as president. the ones who are undermining the execution of his duties are:

a) russia
b) china
c)presumably the republican party, assuming they vote against intervention
d)gutless democrats

political posturing is interfering with what is a wholly justifiable reaction to the acts committed by syria. i have problems with how he's handled his second term, but obama isn't at fault in this scenario.

Your problem is that you have your head so far up Obama's ass that you are incapable of looking at things like an adult and can only see everything in a black and white way. Saying that Obama's flunkies are coming across eerily similar to the Bush flunkies from the early 2000s doesn't mean anyone thinks that the entire Syria situation is built on lies like the push for Iraq was. What is meant (at least by me) by discussing how similar it seems is the desperation and politicized zeal that the surrogates are showing in every appearance. To a man none of the Obama surrogates are discussing things in regards to Syria in any way that goes to the heart of the matter that this action has hardly any support at home or worldwide and treats it like the serious situation that it is but instead they are taking an "us against them" stance which treats going to war the same way they treated the healthcare debate.
So the similarity, for the short bus contingent, is that Obama's surrogates are looking like just as big a bunch of a$$holes now as the Bush surrogates did back then in how they approach their surrogacy. You are discussing Obama's justifications for attacking Syria in comparison to Bush's justifications for attacking Iraq and that was not brought up by me at all.

 

[Kritic]

link courtesy to the homie @The HONORABLE SKJ
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-...is-because-it-owes-no-debt-to-the-imf.146011/

 

[kermit da hustla]

Your problem is that you have your head so far up Obama's ass that you are incapable of looking at things like an adult and can only see everything in a black and white way. Saying that Obama's flunkies are coming across eerily similar to the Bush flunkies from the early 2000s doesn't mean anyone thinks that the entire Syria situation is built on lies like the push for Iraq was. What is meant (at least by me) by discussing how similar it seems is the desperation and politicized zeal that the surrogates are showing in every appearance. To a man none of the Obama surrogates are discussing things in regards to Syria in any way that goes to the heart of the matter that this action has hardly any support at home or worldwide and treats it like the serious situation that it is but instead they are taking an "us against them" stance which treats going to war the same way they treated the healthcare debate.
So the similarity, for the short bus contingent, is that Obama's surrogates are looking like just as big a bunch of @ssholes now as the Bush surrogates did back then in how they approach their surrogacy. You are discussing Obama's justifications for attacking Syria in comparison to Bush's justifications for attacking Iraq and that was not brought up by me at all.

so, if it's not built on lies and there appears to be some justification for attacking syria, why are you so bothered that obama's "flunkies" are dismissive of those who disapprove? the heart of the matter is that we are living in times when people craft policy by committee and focus groups and other metrics that go against our gut instinct. america is the most powerful nation in the world. syria is massacring its citizens (please, don't mention rwanda) and more than likely used chemical weapons, a violation of international law. obama already has already appealed to world leaders, all of whom - except france and israel - are too cowardly to do anything.

i think obama IS treating this like the serious situation it is. as the leader of the free world, it is incumbent upon him to act if no one else will. i don't think he has a choice. he placed the ball in russia and congress' court. you notice that russia didn't just ignore the threat of a strike. you see that syria did flinch. obama's leadership won out in this round. i don't see how acknowledging that makes me an apologist.

by the way, the ones making this a black and white issue are democrats and former obama supporters who scream, "NO WAR!!"

 

[Rapmastermind]

The American People have Spoken. Congress is definitely not on board. It's a wrap. Let it go Barack. Should of never even tried to get involved. This whole thing is cool to me cause he shows that it was the America People are fed up with this government using our tax dollars for useless military interventions that have done nothing but put our economy in the mess it's in now. Maybe some of those War Billions can be spent on America for a change to help out our struggling economic situation. If it isn't a threat to the U.S. then we need to stay out of it. I've supported Barack from day 1 and will continue to support him. But I will never give him a pass when I think he's doing something wrong. This was wrong and I'm glad it's backfiring.

 

[newarkhiphop]

obezzy stutning on syria with wolkf bitlzer wolf asked him about the threats asad made obama said


"syria has the capabilities of a kid"

lol even said Hezbollah is more of a danger than asads army

 

[Rapmastermind]

Obama to speak to the American People on Syria AGAIN tonight. Goes to show he doesn't have the support.

 

[Kritic]

obezzy stutning on syria with wolkf bitlzer wolf asked him about the threats asad made obama said


"syria has the capabilities of a kid"

lol even said Hezbollah is more of a danger than asads army

whatever nicca

israel got them thangs too but wont do it themselves why they need barack?
comes off immature if you ask me.

Well they weren't going to give it up if obama didn't do shyt or do I have to remind you that american citizens didn't want to do shyt. Congress didn't want to do shyt about syria either. It was because of obama's determination to actually follow through even if that meant impeachment from republicans that brought about this concession from syria and russia. Obama won this shyt hands down. I don't see how you can spin this as a russian win.

take it as a "win" but the syrian ppl are the one's who really won here they had everything to lose... sohh always comes up with the dumbest arguments for barack winning. i swear you niccas appear to have some type of mental retardation the way you come up with this sh1t...

i still firmly believe barack is gonna go in.