BLOCKBUSTER! Syrian Rebels Take Responsibility For Chemical Attack...

[Vox]

Assad is horrible, no doubt. The opposition is also horrible. An alliance with either side is unthinkable and unworkable. The US should keep its nose out of this conflict. The so called line in the sand should be use of Chemical weapons against our forces or those of our allies. If the Syrian government or rebels use these weapons against one another, so be it. Not a reason to involve our military.

Exactly. Unfortunately, I believe Obama is only looking for the least amount of justification to invade yet another country and make it look "good." It's so sad.

yes, he is.

he needs a war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Assad and Syria have not earned our love, or hate. It's not even about that. It's their Country. It's their Civil War. There is no valid justification for our involvement. Period, end of story.

The point is this: you support people who poison gas children.

We've been over that already. Obviously, you know it's not true.

We have already gone over that, and, yes, you know that is true.

You are no different than a bed wetting liberal.

 

[paulitician]

Those of you who are so bloodthirsty for War, simply head on over and kill ya some Syrians. Spend your own money and blood. Many Americans don't want your War. So either put up or shut up. No one has to be forced to support your War follies. You wanna kill Assad and Syrians, then man or woman-up and head on over. Good luck and God Bless.

 

[R.C. Christian]

And you're a 9 percenter. You must be proud. That was for Jerk Stuckey ^^^

 

[JakeStarkey]

It isn't known for certain which side used these weapons. By attacking, you may in fact be aiding and abetting the very people who did this. Secondly, how is a military attack going to benefit the children? Thirdly, how is it any of our business? We weren't attacked. Neither were our allies.

The US doesn't have to throw its weight around every time some despot sneezes. If the people of Syria or the middle East want democracy or change, they will have to fight for it themselves.

No, you don't get "just one more time." Beyond moral certainty we know that the Assad regime used poison gas on civilians.

Beyond moral certainty we know that you support the Assad regime and his communist backers.

And by supporting the opposition you are siding with Al Qaeda and Islamists. This is a snake pit. If you kill one of the snakes, the other snakes will bite you. Best strategy is to not step in the pit.

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you're a 9 percenter. You must be proud. That was for Jerk Stuckey ^^^

So you have all the inner quality of a bed wetting liberal, R. C.

 

[tinydancer]

The point is this: you support people who poison gas children.

It isn't known for certain which side used these weapons. By attacking, you may in fact be aiding and abetting the very people who did this. Secondly, how is a military attack going to benefit the children? Thirdly, how is it any of our business? We weren't attacked. Neither were our allies.

The US doesn't have to throw its weight around every time some despot sneezes. If the people of Syria or the middle East want democracy or change, they will have to fight for it themselves.

No, you don't get "just one more time." Beyond moral certainty we know that the Assad regime used poison gas on civilians.

Beyond moral certainty we know that you support the Assad regime and his communist backers.

What Jake? You're a UN chemical weapons expert now? Are you going to give us the Official UN report today?

Where's your proof?

It was just in March that Carla Ponte (I think that's her name) from the UN Inspector team had already determined that the rebels used Sarin in small doses before.

No report is in. Your war monger in chief is just trying to save face. More chest thumping.

 

[g5000]

Wow. This is some seriously funny shit.

Bush jails citizens without habeaus corpus, waterboards detainees, spies on tens of millions of Americans, starts two wars, creates a massive new Cabinet level department, grows the size of the federal government, doubles the national debt, and creates a massive new entitlement program. The faux conservatives defended and apoligized for ALL of that shit from beginning to end, while simultaneously screaming for war with Iran.

This very day, the same people bitch and whine about Obama tossing a couple missles at Syria, and tremble over the propsect of an imaginary war in their minds.

This brings hypocrisy to a whole new level.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It isn't known for certain which side used these weapons. By attacking, you may in fact be aiding and abetting the very people who did this. Secondly, how is a military attack going to benefit the children? Thirdly, how is it any of our business? We weren't attacked. Neither were our allies.

The US doesn't have to throw its weight around every time some despot sneezes. If the people of Syria or the middle East want democracy or change, they will have to fight for it themselves.

No, you don't get "just one more time." Beyond moral certainty we know that the Assad regime used poison gas on civilians.

Beyond moral certainty we know that you support the Assad regime and his communist backers.

What Jake? You're a UN chemical weapons expert now? Are you going to give us the Official UN report today? Where's your proof? It was just in March that Carla Ponte (I think that's her name) from the UN Inspector team had already determined that the rebels used Sarin in small doses before. No report is in. Your war monger in chief is just trying to save face. More chest thumping.

No "just once more", this is over. The strikes will occur before midnight would be my surmise.

 

[Synthaholic]

Meet our new Allies folks.....

WARNING: VIDEO VERY GRAPHIC!

This is an article and you don't have to view the video

*WATCH* US backed Syrian rebels behead Christian bishop (NSFW)

I don't need to see that in order to point out that the video of abortion doctor George Tiller's murder at the hands of a Christian extremist was very graphic also.

Bad people do bad things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow. This is some seriously funny shit.

Bush jails citizens without habeaus corpus, waterboards detainees, spies on tens of millions of Americans, starts two wars, creates a massive new Cabinet level department, grows the size of the federal government, doubles the national debt, and creates a massive new entitlement program. The faux conservatives defended and apoligized for ALL of that shit from beginning to end, while simultaneously screaming for war with Iran.

This very day, the same people bitch and whine about Obama tossing a couple missles at Syria, and tremble over the propsect of an imaginary war in their minds.

This brings hypocrisy to a whole new level.

You expose the moral decay that rots the far reactionary right.

 

[Borillar]

No, you don't get "just one more time." Beyond moral certainty we know that the Assad regime used poison gas on civilians.

Beyond moral certainty we know that you support the Assad regime and his communist backers.

And by supporting the opposition you are siding with Al Qaeda and Islamists. This is a snake pit. If you kill one of the snakes, the other snakes will bite you. Best strategy is to not step in the pit.

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And by supporting the opposition you are siding with Al Qaeda and Islamists. This is a snake pit. If you kill one of the snakes, the other snakes will bite you. Best strategy is to not step in the pit.

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

Then if Russia ships in new stuff, we can take it to the UN.

 

[dilloduck]

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

Then if Russia ships in new stuff, we can take it to the UN.

right after we're done ignoring their findings ?

 

[tinydancer]

No, you don't get "just one more time." Beyond moral certainty we know that the Assad regime used poison gas on civilians.

Beyond moral certainty we know that you support the Assad regime and his communist backers.

And by supporting the opposition you are siding with Al Qaeda and Islamists. This is a snake pit. If you kill one of the snakes, the other snakes will bite you. Best strategy is to not step in the pit.

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

No it is you that is supporting the rebels using poison gas. This has been determined by UN inspectors earlier in the year.

Hey if you want to wrap your little arms around AQ go right ahead. But I think you're seriously fucked in the head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TD, you sound like the Bushie bedwetters.

No, there is no question the Syrian regime did this, and the regime will pay for it, and we may get Assad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

Then if Russia ships in new stuff, we can take it to the UN.

right after we're done ignoring their findings ?

No, there is no "just once more." This is over, and the strikes will happen tonight.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

dilloduck, why is it you love Assad and the Baathists and the commies?

Assad and Syria have not earned our love, or hate. It's not even about that. It's their Country. It's their Civil War. There is no valid justification for our involvement. Period, end of story.

The point is this: you support people who poison gas children.

It's not perfect, great or even good for everybody, but destroying Syria will be a titanic destabilization of the Middle East and guarantee many thousands of more deaths in Syria in just the short-term. It will also greatly increase the likelihood or reality of CW there in the future.

Every Muslim with the least amount of rebel in his blood can buy in to any movement and cause trouble with the realistic idea that if they cause enough trouble and more people begin to die, the U.S. will certainly bail them out too.

This cycle has already begun with Libya.

 

[Borillar]

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

Then if Russia ships in new stuff, we can take it to the UN.

1. I never called it an invasion or a war. But the military is a broadsword. Maybe they will get the chemical weapons, maybe not. After all, a massive invasion of Iraq didn't result in destruction of WMD stockpiles. How will lobbing a few bombs in Syria solve anything?
2. We all know how effective the UN is, don't we?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

If major war and not just civil war breaks out in Syria, it is an act of war.