Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It seems it is OK to use chemical weapons as long as you only do it a little bit.
What a surprise.
Blink and youll miss it, but President Obama just revised and extended his red line for stopping Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations, Obama said today, per Reuters Jeff Mason. It was Obamas first comments about what he acknowledged was a potential game changer since his White House acknowledged yesterday that U.S. intelligence considers reports of chemical weapons use in Syria credible.
The key word in that statement is systematic. The surprise White House acknowledgement, in a letter to senators yesterday, said that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, particularly sarin gas on a small scale. Danger Room reported that the evidence underlying the U.S. intelligence assessment included blood samples that indicated the effects of sarin. Behind the scenes, as Danger Room has earlier reported, the Obama administration has spotted Assad prepping its chemical stocks for use last year, and attempted to block shipments of precursor chemicals.
The statement gives the president wiggle room something Obama has wanted to preserve throughout the two-year Syrian civil war. Combined with Obamas call for to investigate and substantiate the assessment of the chemical use, Obama has now implied it would take a widespread use of the chemicals to prompt the U.S. to involve itself more deeply in the rebel effort to overthrow Assad, which is the stated objective of U.S. Syria policy. Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell suspected yesterday that it would take a much larger use of chemical weapons by Assad to spur a U.S. military response. But even systematic use of chemical weapons begs the question of how much sarin and other deadly gasses Assad can use before Obama feels compelled to stop him.
Obama Unveils New 'Red Line' for Syria's Chemical Weapons | Danger Room | Wired.com
You dumb schmuck
The Syrian Opposition is Entirely Run by Al Qaeda
"Nowhere in Rebel-Controlled Syria is There a Secular Fighting Force to Speak Of"
in an astounding admission, the New York Times confirms that the so-called Syrian opposition is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states:
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
This comes from the New York Times and its not an opinion piece. The admission of what we knew all along should put to rest any more nonsense about backing secular rebel forces in Syria to keep the Islamists from taking over.
There are no secular forces. Even the New York Times has finally admitted it. When the media talks about secular forces, it means the militias controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/wo...anted=all&_r=0
So now out rightarded dumb f***s Want the United States to help Al Quida!
Actually, the problem is with the chain of custody concerning the soil samples. The need to have a good chain of custody proving those weapons were used rather than going off half cocked into another war based on bad intel.
Remember Iraq and the supposed WMD's that were there? Instead of going after Hussein, we should have kept after OBL.
At least Obama is willing to wait for verified proof before shipping us into another war.
Of course, Republicans who are so concerned for the Debt/deficit, want us to rush right in and help. But, help who? The Muslims fighting Assad? But don't Republicans hate Muslims? Don't Republicans want less government intervention?It seems it is OK to use chemical weapons as long as you only do it a little bit.
What a surprise.
FYI:
The Orthodox patriarch in Syria, Ignatius IV Hazim, has said he supports the Assad regime and opposes any intervention in the country, saying it would be harmful to both Christians and Muslims.
Who?s fighting whom in Syria?
This isn't about republicans, butthead.
You have a very limited vocabulary, which amounts mostly to name-calling, typical of know-nothings.
And why isn't it about Republicans? Aren't Republicans the ones that are whining that we need to do something? And if Obama had chosen to do something, you all would be whining that we need to cut the debt/deficit?
Most of the whining sounds like butt-hurt to me.
Quick question.........................how are we going to mount an attack in Syria? Are we going to raise taxes to do it?
Don't know.Quick question.........................how are we going to mount an attack in Syria? Are we going to raise taxes to do it?
Better question(s)....Why did Boiking shoot his mouth off about a "red line" if he wasn't really going to do anything?...Why write a check with your cake hole that your ass isn't willing to cash?
Why are liberoidals like you giving him a pass on that one?
He hasn't done anything yet, because there isn't a good, verifiable, chain of custody concerning the proof that they have right now.
However................once that is taken care of (and they're working on it right now), then we will have proof and can proceed as required.
I'd much rather have him wait for verified, undeniable proof before lobbing bombs and rockets at the people over there.
Bombs and missiles cost money. Lots of money.
It seems it is OK to use chemical weapons as long as you only do it a little bit.
What a surprise.
Obama Unveils New 'Red Line' for Syria's Chemical Weapons | Danger Room | Wired.comBlink and youll miss it, but President Obama just revised and extended his red line for stopping Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations, Obama said today, per Reuters Jeff Mason. It was Obamas first comments about what he acknowledged was a potential game changer since his White House acknowledged yesterday that U.S. intelligence considers reports of chemical weapons use in Syria credible.
The key word in that statement is systematic. The surprise White House acknowledgement, in a letter to senators yesterday, said that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, particularly sarin gas on a small scale. Danger Room reported that the evidence underlying the U.S. intelligence assessment included blood samples that indicated the effects of sarin. Behind the scenes, as Danger Room has earlier reported, the Obama administration has spotted Assad prepping its chemical stocks for use last year, and attempted to block shipments of precursor chemicals.
The statement gives the president wiggle room something Obama has wanted to preserve throughout the two-year Syrian civil war. Combined with Obamas call for to investigate and substantiate the assessment of the chemical use, Obama has now implied it would take a widespread use of the chemicals to prompt the U.S. to involve itself more deeply in the rebel effort to overthrow Assad, which is the stated objective of U.S. Syria policy. Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell suspected yesterday that it would take a much larger use of chemical weapons by Assad to spur a U.S. military response. But even systematic use of chemical weapons begs the question of how much sarin and other deadly gasses Assad can use before Obama feels compelled to stop him.
You dumb schmuck
The Syrian Opposition is Entirely Run by Al Qaeda
"Nowhere in Rebel-Controlled Syria is There a Secular Fighting Force to Speak Of"
in an astounding admission, the New York Times confirms that the so-called Syrian opposition is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states:
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
This comes from the New York Times and its not an opinion piece. The admission of what we knew all along should put to rest any more nonsense about backing secular rebel forces in Syria to keep the Islamists from taking over.
There are no secular forces. Even the New York Times has finally admitted it. When the media talks about secular forces, it means the militias controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/wo...anted=all&_r=0
So now out rightarded dumb f***s Want the United States to help Al Quida!
Like the rest of the Oboingo pom-pom squad, he can't wrap his little pink head around the idea of the Hegelian dialectic.It seems it is OK to use chemical weapons as long as you only do it a little bit.
What a surprise.
Obama Unveils New 'Red Line' for Syria's Chemical Weapons | Danger Room | Wired.com
You dumb schmuck
The Syrian Opposition is Entirely Run by Al Qaeda
"Nowhere in Rebel-Controlled Syria is There a Secular Fighting Force to Speak Of"
in an astounding admission, the New York Times confirms that the so-called “Syrian opposition” is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states:
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
This comes from the New York Times and it’s not an opinion piece. The admission of what we knew all along should put to rest any more nonsense about backing “secular” rebel forces in Syria to keep the Islamists from taking over.
There are no secular forces. Even the New York Times has finally admitted it. When the media talks about secular forces, it means the militias controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/wo...anted=all&_r=0
So now out rightarded dumb f***s Want the United States to help Al Quida!
Can you point out where I said we should support anyone in Syria?
I didn't think so.
So....Obama says "Don't use chemical weapons or you'll be sorry". A few weeks later, Assad uses chemical weapons. A few days later, Obama finally takes time out of his busy (golf) schedule to say "Well, maybe i was too harsh in saying 'you'll be sorry'. Just...don't do it again!"
We have a chickenshit pussy for a President.
Quick question.........................how are we going to mount an attack in Syria? Are we going to raise taxes to do it?
Who the fuck wants to attack Syria?
Quick question.........................how are we going to mount an attack in Syria? Are we going to raise taxes to do it?
Who the fuck wants to attack Syria?
Which is it..................are you blind.....................stupid.....................or, retarded?
Syria is the nation that a whole bunch of Republicans want to invade, because they're suspected of having chemical weapons (namely, Sarin gas).
I guess the QuantumBlowjob is missing some of the latest news.
Who the fuck wants to attack Syria?
Which is it..................are you blind.....................stupid.....................or, retarded?
Syria is the nation that a whole bunch of Republicans want to invade, because they're suspected of having chemical weapons (namely, Sarin gas).
I guess the QuantumBlowjob is missing some of the latest news.
I started this thread, and I am not a Republican. That means you are full of shit.
Which is it..................are you blind.....................stupid.....................or, retarded?
Syria is the nation that a whole bunch of Republicans want to invade, because they're suspected of having chemical weapons (namely, Sarin gas).
I guess the QuantumBlowjob is missing some of the latest news.
I started this thread, and I am not a Republican. That means you are full of shit.
Oh uh! Another one that acts like a Republican, talks like a Republican, thinks like a Republican, but isn't a Republican!
That he isn't acting stooopid like Doofus is smart! I thought you were one of the ones that want to reduce the debt/deficit? How you going to do it if you want to start another war?Right...Shooting off your big fucking flapper when you really have no intent on doing anything is the new "smart"!Because he's not stoopid like the Doofus we had before.Better question(s)....Why did Boiking shoot his mouth off about a "red line" if he wasn't really going to do anything?...Why write a check with your cake hole that your ass isn't willing to cash?
We're trying to catch up to all the passes rightwads gave Doofus, but we'll never catch up!Why are liberoidals like you giving him a pass on that one?
Looks to me you're the idjit, because you want Obama to act like the idjit Booooosh!And this still isn't about BOOOOOOSH!, idjit.
Because he's not stoopid like the Doofus we had before.Better question(s)....Why did Boiking shoot his mouth off about a "red line" if he wasn't really going to do anything?...Why write a check with your cake hole that your ass isn't willing to cash?
We're trying to catch up to all the passes rightwads gave Doofus, but we'll never catch up!Why are liberoidals like you giving him a pass on that one?
