Dude?, sorry, my bad...though seriously...Dude?
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Dude?, sorry, my bad...though seriously...Dude?
lol @ "on a more serious note"
Seriously?
Super, duper, ultra serious. :itold: Well not really, but not entirely disingenuous either. Legalizing drugs and porn would have given the USSR an edge on the West with respect to the liberties their people were most upset about not having. Wouldn't have solved all their problems, but it probably would have been enough to keep a lid on the unrest long enough for Gorbachev to complete his broader political and economic reforms. Worst case scenario, couldn't be much worse than the vodka and heroine nightmare they're facing these days anyhow.
Yep...
Preach it, mah brutha!
The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.
~W. E. B. Du Bois
Relaxxxx
wegs, what is meant by the little purple "Embarrassment" icon thingamajig ?
I apologized to ElectricFetus, just do not understand why he referred to me as "Dude".
From - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dude -
1 : a man extremely fastidious in dress and manner : dandy
2 : a city dweller unfamiliar with life on the range; especially : an Easterner in the West
3 : fellow, guy —sometimes used informally as a term of address <hey, dude, what's up>
Examples of DUDE
<a dude given to sporting expensive suits and flashy jewelry>
<OK, dude, whatever you say.>
Synonyms :beau, Beau Brummell, buck, dandy, fop, gallant, jay, lounge lizard, macaroni, pretty boy, toff [chiefly British]
Related Words : coxcomb, fancy Dan, popinjay; blade, cavalier, dasher; clotheshorse, exquisite, swell
Near Antonyms : slob, sloven
wegs, what is embarrassing about being relaxed?
Lol dmoe
I can't speak for electric fetus as to how "dude" was meant, but when I say it in offline life, it's said in a sarcastic way to male friends who are trying to get me to agree with them on a particular topic, and I get tired of their badgering. Example...I will say..."You're SO right, dude." That's the only time I use it.
Relating to the pink emoticon, I don't use it to indicate "embarrassment." I tend to use it when I want the recipient to know I'm saying my comment kindly.
Why do you post capital letters in the middle of words, when replying to some posters, at times?
I can't speak for electric fetus as to how "dude" was meant, but when I say it in offline life, it's said in a sarcastic way to male friends who are trying to get me to agree with them on a particular topic, and I get tired of their badgering. Example...I will say..."You're SO right, dude." That's the only time I use it.
Relating to the pink emoticon, I don't use it to indicate "embarrassment." I tend to use it when I want the recipient to know I'm saying my comment kindly.
Why do you post capital letters in the middle of words, when replying to some posters, at times?
wegs, when I hover my "mouse pointer" over the "pink emoticon", the displayed tag reads "Embarrassment".
Capital letters...just tried to address similar question in this thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136092-Are-the-laws-of-physics-based-on-magic/page10
Same answer - the overnight "cocktails" that Nurse Wratchett gives me here in ICU, seem to inhibit my physical abilities before my mental ones - all hail, the wonders of pharmaceutically induced health care.
In conclusion, whoever wants the piece of the pie, making their own conclusions. UN found that chemical weapons were used in Syria. What conclusions did West make out of it? They pulled their conclusions out of their ass and said Syrian government used those chemical weapons. Did UN find out who exactly used the chemical weapons? No. Where did they pull out those conclusions? their ass.
thats the conclusion.
Interesting who provided the chemical weapons to Syria , was the east or the west , perhaps bot sides were the suppliers that is why they resolved the non aggression
aw. why are you in the ICU?
wegs, not really important that you should know.
There is a kind of Irony though, that you asked in this particular thread.
wegs, unless you really have to know...let me just say that I have been in and out of hospitals for the last 8 years due to a severe Degenerative Lymphoma that I...acquired while performing my duties in a previous..."job".
wegs, not a biggie, cannot change anything now...so...meh!
Heck, wegs, would have not gotten to "virtually meet" so many wonderful people (?!) on this forum if not for a person I met about 5 years ago who was "lap-topping", as he called it, from the shared room I was in on that particular "vacation" to "Club (American) Med(icine)".
So...head up...chin high...think happy thoughts...and maybe...p-oke a little sm-ot...for me...Okay!
Last edited:
I watched the videos a couple of days ago. Poor Iranians, they're never gonna get the job done if their soldiers and TV crews keep getting captured every time they try to document their crimes. For weeks I've been saying the Iranians have troops on the ground in Syria, and the allegations have existed almost from the beginning of the civil war. I think the Iranian commander's explanation for his presence is most telling- apparently in his eyes this war is about Allah vs. democracy.
I have my doubts, personally. International eyes are focussed on them at the moment, it wouldn't be smart to be seen colluding with Assad in such a fashion. Do I believe they would do it if they thought they could actually get away with it? Hell ya. I hope this conflict at least wisens the world up a bit about the genuine threat posed by radical Shias, and that Al Qaeda's far from the only source of terrorism in the region. Enough with the pretenses that Iran and its allies are simply defending themselves from Zionist encroachment, today they're the ones seeking to expand their domains and doing all the things they project onto their enemies.
It will not be popular in the west to say so, but every couple of decades, Israel expands. The current expansion is via the "defensive wall." It pushes deepest into Arab land (up to 20Km) where there are good wells. For more than 2000 years Iran / Persia has not been able to expand* like it did earlier:
* They were , however good at defenses - Kept the Ottomans from taking their land.http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Wars/ said:
I don't buy your claim about Israel's expansions, it's also contracted too, by much greater amounts. Yes work must be done to get Israeli settlers out of the West Bank, but they did pull out their limited settlements from Gaza, indicating they don't actually want the territory. More importantly they ceded the captured Sinai peninsula back to Egypt in 1978 in exchange for a peace treaty and to bring Egypt out of the Soviet sphere and into the American sphere, an area roughly equal in size to all of Israel proper. None of Israel's actions legitimize what Iran, Hezbollah or Assad are doing in the region, the threats they make against the West or the civilians they kill to retain or seize power.
Iran attempted to expand in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war, this isn't ancient history. The border fighting prior to the war was two-sided, and after Saddam's failed offensive led to the first major Iranian counterattack, Saddam offered to surrender with a massive Saudi-backed reparations plan which Iran rejected because it insisted on an Ayatollah taking charge of Iraq- they could have cut the war short by 6 or 7 years if they had wanted. In the time since, Iran has continually attempted to stretch its influence in both Afghanistan and Iraq, they're trying to prop up their ally in Syria at the expense of millions of civilians, and they're close to completing a violent, authoritarian military takeover of Lebanon through their Hezbollah proxies. India was never annexed to Britain but it was still very much part of the British Empire, and you wouldn't say Britain wasn't expansionist just because India had no representatives in Parliament.
Just look at official maps of Israel over several time-spaced intervals over the last 60 years.
Also I posted long ago Israel's own map of the "mountain aquifer" system and one of the defense wall route showing that even in Arab regions were few lived but where there were water resources, that was where the wall went deepest into the Arab land.
I agree, but feel compelled to at least note that the Kill ratio rarely is less than 25 to 1 in Israel's favor.* I think that there is an argument for resisting the Israeli forces that took the home and olive trees your grand father built and planted, without any payment or the Bedouin Lands also by forced re-settlement, into "enclosures" (Israel's translation into English of their Hebrew name) where soil is the worst in all the Negrif Desert and all ground water is saline.
Some of the Bedouins had old (issued decades before Israel existed) Ottoman Empire deeds to their land. They were offered tiny sums to renounce their claim, so small that few did. Bedouin men of military age, can escape from the re-settlement camps by joining the IDF. That is why the birth rate of Bedouin woman is only about 2o% of what is was prior to forced re-settlement. The largest of the three main settlements now produces, according to BBC special I watched about four years ago, less than one school bus load of students. In one more generation the eradication of the Bedouins will be complete. Percentage wise, only considering Bedouins who originally lived in desert lands now controlled by Israel (not for example Egyptian Bedouins) Israel's Bedouin extermination program is already doing better than Hitler's did but is decades slower and has no unprovoked active killing.
I'm not singling out Israel - all advanced powers, who find primitive people living on land they want do the same. Certainly earlier Americans and Brazilians did much more violently with unprovoked active killing.
* That only counts those killed in battle or Israeli air strikes, not those who die of disease due to lack of drugs or periodic lack of power that forces raw sewage to be dumped into the streets, etc. Israel is also guilty of War Crimes, but has favorable press coverage in the West - that only hides the facts - does not eliminate them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, the only expansion at this point, including water resources, is in the West Bank, as I agreed. But to claim that every couple of decades Israel has expanded is false; they gave up half the territory under their control in 1978, including massive oil deposits. Some might claim that Israel was forced to give up the land for peace or else face imminent defeat from Egypt, but if Egypt's military performed so well in the 1973 conflict that led to the peace talks, I don't see why the USSR was threatening to invade with Russian troops when the Egyptian and Syrian armies neared collapse.
..and now back to reality. Who is it that claims Israel is giving up land? the same people who claimed WMDs in Iraq?
all meanwhile continuing their expansion and killing Palestinians. all sanctioned by UN.
No, it would actually be the same people who claimed America invaded Iraq- you know, historians, cartographers, etc. Apparently Egypt thought they got a bunch of land back in exchange for peace, but instead I guess they got badly suckered.
all meanwhile continuing their expansion and killing Palestinians. all sanctioned by UN.
7,000 Palestinians dead over 13 years in a two-way conflict. I always wondered why hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians over 2 years of civil war were considered a low priority, but thank you for providing the explanation.