Yeah, but it wasn't something I was sure you'd know about, so I figured I should check. You know: truth n' sech.
What? I'm just extrapolating your basic political partisanship. Am I wrong?
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Yeah, but it wasn't something I was sure you'd know about, so I figured I should check. You know: truth n' sech.
What? I'm just extrapolating your basic political partisanship. Am I wrong?
That's known as "corruption" and it's a problem in virtually every institution of power anywhere on the globe. Does not mean the US is conspiring with Israel to control the Middle East, nor would they even have the power to do such without reinstituting the draft, switching to a war economy and engaging in a mass extermination campaign that would probably end in an apocalyptic nuclear exchange. My primary smell test as far as determining reliable sources of fact involves first ascertaining whether they have a political or moral agenda related to the issue they're discussing, and taking that agenda into account when reading what facts they choose to include, what facts they choose to ignore, what sources they cite in turn and what conclusions they draw. If you take everything printed on the web and other forms of media at face value, you might as well get all your global facts from Cliff Clavin at the local tavern.
Secondly, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Alex Jones conspiracy types look at a bunch of coincidental events, decide with their armchair expertise that they know for a fact the events in question couldn't possibly be coincidences, and then construct conspiracy theories which both conveniently suit their existing claims and beliefs while requiring us to swallow a vastly more absurd and implausible string of coincidences. For instance, men like Alex Jones would have us believe that the US government is genius enough to murder 3000 of its own citizens on 9/11 without a single smoking gun appearing in the 12 years since, but too incompetent to smuggle a nuclear warhead into Iraq and bribe a couple of moustachioed Iraqi scientists into testifying that they helped build it for Saddam.
I suppose you're familiar with the old Art Bell radio show and how he'd take you seriously even if you called in to report a ghost haunting your toilet? Play an audio tape of Halloween ghost sounds in the background for extra credibility. That's the level of critical thinking and investigation that goes into most of these US government coverup NWO conspiracy theories. Alex Jones, his followers and colleagues are collectively convinced with 100% certainty that the US government and its Zionist Illuminati masters were behind 9/11, and that the facts prove they did it in 100 different ways.
I found this link, and with the exception of wiki which I don't turn to that for 'news,' I'd say some of these are pretty spot on. Reuters is pretty unbiased, as far as I can tell.
http://blog.debate.org/2012/08/24/a-quest-for-truth-a-list-of-the-top-8-unbiased-news-sources/
Despite the swell of Russian arms and other aid into his coffers, Assad's forces were looking very underpowered on the battlefield and rapidly losing vital territory. Even now with all the extra assistance, they still struggle to capture or hold territory even adjacent to their own capital, and they find themselves resorting to mass bombardments and chemical attacks in desperation. Earlier this summer Hezbollah and Iran bailed him out big time, otherwise Damascus would have probably fallen by now based on the pace of events prior to the surge in Iranian involvement. I very much doubt they will be tolerating a return to how things were before the rebellion, given that Assad's secularist government failed to maintain control of the country in the first place, and the amount of blood and treasure his allies had to sacrifice in order to keep him in power. Hezbollah is already recruiting and training thousands of Syrian Shiites to serve in militias under its command; I wonder what sort of ideals these young men are being taught to carry into the fight? Furthermore, there's no longer any need to maintain pretexts of pluralism under the old caste system because the Sunnis have now made their interests abundantly clear, and it's a quick drop from the loss of pluralism to a theocracy.
To summarize, I believe the only possible secular future for Syria lies with the secularists of the Free Syrian Army, as difficult/impossible as it might be to separate them from all the Sunni extremist chaff.
I think with sufficiently strong international cooperation, it can be possible to both remove Assad from power along with Iran's grip on the region without empowering Sunni extremists in their place, but I doubt it's something the US can accomplish on its own. At least as you note we have a positive development in Kurdistan, which has spent far too long carved up amongst the regional imperialists much like Poland prior to WWI.
This might be slightly off the beaten path...but inherently, I don't imagine any one of us here 'supports' violence, as a means to resolving conflicts within and with other countries. How do you stay 'true' to your own ideals, but also 'wish' to see your own country prevail in a war? (without seeming like you are pro-war?)I'm not sure if I'm articulating this properly, but do you know what I mean? Does anyone wrestle with the philosophical side of all of this, deep within your hearts?
It's a moral dilemma which troubles me all the time, but I'm a firm believer from both history and personal experience that the world is filled with plenty of crazy fanatics who will resort to violence when it suits their ambitions, regardless of how you might try to pacify and compromise. There was never even a remote chance of serenading fascist Japan and Germany with love songs. There will always be goons and bullies looking for an easy fight, and the only functional defense is to make sure that it's anything but easy for them.
CptBork, after reading and re-reading this (Post #362) and your Post #349 - I must humbly and regrettably(to myself at least) admit that my response in my Post #353 was probably an understatement.
I cannot, CptBork, begin to, honestly, tell you how much the information and facts you have brought up, have changed my views on not only the subject of this Thread, but my perception of the total political climate of the current world - I just cannot...
I am not even myself sure that I believe it, when I tell you that my brain has been a chaos of thoughts, since yesterday afternoon, that I could have been so...I guess, I could not, honestly,...say that...I have to admit...as hard as it is to use the word, wrong...
I am just...sorry...but, honestly, you made so much...so perfectly clear.
Thanks for that. That looks like a good list.
No-one has recommended a US newspaper. The silence speaks loudly.
I am a reader of the UK "Sunday Observer". I can recommend that highly.
The mighty London "Times" is now a Murdoch rag.
Last edited:
The Christian Science Monitor used to be a good source for news but not sure anymore.
I'm going to search for Sunday Observer, to see.
You are a credible source Kremmen, so I'll take your word for it that it's reliable.
I like this pub, actually.
I have to wonder if democracy can work at this time in the Middle East given the history, culture and dominate religion. Perhaps it is foolish to promote democracy there even though some portion of the population would like to see it come about. i often ask myself this unpopular question, " Is a Strongman the only way to oppress the sectarian violence and ultimately the people?" Do all of these Arab states involved in the Arab Spring, eventually come under control of the most organized of all groups, The Muslim Brotherhood?
So is that how you explain all of the many things you have been wrong about? Is that the best you can do...a grade schoolyard excuse? Unfortunately, I think it is the best you can do. LOL, you are funny. Are all your other factual errors and errors in logic schoolyard tests too? The facts are you wouldn’t know the truth or a fact if it hit you in the face. Your posts have consistently demonstrated your factual errors in addition to your errors of reason and logic. How about doing something radical Geoff? How about stop making up grade school schoolyard excuses to explain your many errors of fact and reason? How about for once getting your facts straight? How about for once constructing and argument is not a dump of fallacious argument and contains a few facts? Impress me, get your facts straight just once and construct a logical argument just once.
Last edited:
Ok, now it's my turn to ask some questions, because I'm somewhat uninformed and confused. I hear a lot of talk that this whole Arab Spring thing and Obama's intervention in Libya has somehow turned into a colossal failure, but I just don't see it. Was the country really so much safer when Gadhaffi was in power, beating his citizens, stoking militancy, cutting deals with corrupt British officials to release one of the chief perpetrators of the Lockerbie airplane bombing over Scotland? Are the people marching in the streets chanting "death to America" now? I've heard plenty of thank you's for America's assistance, where are all the death marches?
Yes, 4 CIA operatives were killed in Libya a year ago; let's just ignore that local Benghazi residents promptly chased out local Islamic militant groups from their camps immediately after the attack in retaliation. How does 4 dead Americans imply the total failure of a government transition in a country of millions? Sounds like a political smearjob if ever I did see one, looking for chinks in Obama's armour and the opportunity for Tea Partiers and Republican opportunists to take cheapshots at his policies, as if it were even deserving of being mentioned in the same sentence as their hero Bush's Iraq catastrophe. Did anyone honestly expect the Arabs to follow the path of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson overnight? And what of Tunisia, have they opened a new head office for global jihad there? Yes there is now turmoil in Egypt; you think it was any different when that crook Mubarak was running the show, turning his head to look the other way every time a Coptic church was bombed or militants would smuggle troops and missiles into Gaza to start yet another fight with Israel?
And what of Afghanistan, are we going to call that a colossal defeat as well? The Taliban can hide in remote countryside backwaters all they want, do you really think there's any indication that they're strong enough to win back Kabul as soon as we leave? Have any significant terrorist attacks against US targets been planned and mounted from Afghanistan since NATO went in to clean the place out? If the "stability" we "enjoyed" prior to the Arab Spring was so desirable and sustainable, it wouldn't have fallen to pieces in the face of the almighty Facebook.
I look forward to seeing what Republicans do when they get back to Washington. This should get real interesting.
So....President Obama is off playing golf? Wow. I'm not anti-Obama in the slightest, but that's poor judgment on his part. :/
Meanwhile, back in Syria.....................
This is a good development. Obama taking some time is really a smart move. No matter what the Syrian leadership may say, there are still 5 warships off the coast capable of delivering massive destruction on the Syrian state in an instance. And the Syrian targets despite what you may hear cannot not be folded up and put into a hardened bunker or some cave somewhere. Syria can hide its men, but it cannot fold up airports and stick them in some cave. They cannot fold up their missile launch sites and stuff them into some cave either. Those military sites and bases are not going anywhere and will remain vulnerable to American attack. And there are only so many men you can stuff in a cave and keep indefinitely. Those underground men need food and water and other supplies.
Additionally, the US now has in its inventory a new category of weapons, the bunker busters which were specifically designed to destroy hardened underground storage and defense facilities. Obama still has the power to launch a military attack without congressional approval. This move gives Obama more time to bring in allies like Turkey and allies in the Arab States to do something more definitive and more effective. And it also puts his Republican nemesis in congress in an awkward position. Republicans have to go on the record. They will have to work with Democrats. They have to give Obama a victory or reverse their positions on national defense and the defense of Israel. It’s a masterful stroke on Obama’s part.
Republicans must now bear some accountability for the outcome of their decision on this issue. As others have so aptly stated, Republicans are now the dogs that finally caught the car. If Republicans vote against intervention, they have the Jewish lobby to contend with. They wouldn’t want to look weak on the defense of Israel. And Republicans have the Republican neocon hawks to contend with as well. If Republicans vote against intervention and those chemical weapons subsequently wind up in the hands of terrorists and used in places like Israel, Western Europe or the US, who are the American people going to blame? Will it be Obama who wanted to intervene or will they blame the party in congress which obstructed intervention?
Cool heads must prevail in Syria. Syria and the Middle East has been the victim of too many irrational acts for too many years. Adding more irrational acts to the bucket isn’t going to change the outcome in a good way. What are needed, are not more rash acts of violence, but rather some well thought out long term rational policies. The problems in Syria are many and they are not going to be solved with a few military attacks. Syria’s problems are long term and they need long term effective and permanent solutions and not another temporary bandage.
I know I've already replied to your quote, but I wanted to focus on this particular sentence. How often does a foreign-backed strongman's repression lead to an actual decline in the hostility and resentments of the repressed population? What happens to a boiling pot when you leave the lid on? As just one simple example, think back to the joint British-American overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, for nothing more than cheap oil and keeping Iran from getting too friendly with the USSR. If they hadn't overthrown Mossadegh and reinstalled the Shah in his place, and hadn't supported the Ayatollah over the communists when the Shah was ultimately overthrown, imagine how much better Iranian-Western relations would have looked today.
It's nice that you fight the media war and tell us the words of your cornel...but the "massive destruction" is a bluff, to say the least. Over 900 units of Syrian mobile Surface-to-air-Missiles systems and 4000 units of modified anti-aircraft systems will take care of the US's 60th operational group of 6th fleet with 5 warship destroyers with Tomahawk missiles.
Oh, let me say...I don't disagree completely with how Obama handled this situation. For a time, I was very supportive of his hesitancy. But, the issue I have now is, he hesitated for a while, then passed the decision to Congress...THEN, takes time off to play golf. He's not a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and now the Board meeting is over, so everyone can go play golf for the weekend. lol He should at least give the appearance of caring as to what may happen next. :/ But, I digress....
To your post....
Not for nothing, but you are bringing parties into the mix, as if this is a repub/democrat issue. This is a United States issue...a humanitarian issue...and while I understand your points, this shouldn't be a party war, and it should definitely not boil down to a political war. This potential 'war' if it takes place, should be about the US' desire to help fight against terrorism, and tyrannical governments. No one party or administration should ever take the fall for everything that goes wrong, nor should any one party/administraton take the credit for everything that goes right.
I'm just not understanding why you are focusing on parties so much for this discussion now?
If only the mighty Syrian army could devote some of its Earth-shattering resources to killing ragtag gunmen who've never heard of squad tactics.
Al-Quida than amounts to no threat, from that perspective.
Than why is Pentagon investing billions in eradicating them?