On September 08 2013 00:30 arChieSC2 wrote: I must love how many of you are uninformed, saying things such as "the same sahira law" when on Assad regimes there is total religious freedom.
But it is even better to see people say things like "wow Assad's propaganda machine" they make people think America support jihadists, or even more that rebels are jihadists, Naaaaaaaaaaah, your government did never do that... because it is Assad and not your gov who is using media to make out propaganda and lie about everything concerning this "war".
You guys, are always on the good side, doesnt matter if that means switching sides every time your economic interests change.
You are aware that the Taliban did not exist in 1985 right? Okay guess not... most of the guys in that picture later created the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.
This is the kind of ignorant shit that gets thrown up against the USA all the time. Doesn't matter if it's total bullshit, a line like "doesnt matter if that means switching sides every time your economic interests change" is too stupid to pass up.
Oh really? damn... the US Gov may was too bussy creating Al qaeda at this short of time, roflmao, yea talibans didnt exist... you helped Northrend Alliance to take down communists and then suddenly Talibans were in control of the nation that was just... a surprise for everyone! But hey GOD BLESS AMERICA MAN AMERICA!
They did the same in the balkan conflicts, they even trained muslims to cause trouble. You know the main reason behind this? Because in countries like Kosovo there were rich albanian families that gave aid in the presidential campaign. You dont become president in america without having serious contacts.
I know this first hand from a trusted source (not from the internet, but obviously cannot disclose who)
On September 08 2013 22:01 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: This is not the first time america helped rebels.
They did the same in the balkan conflicts, they even trained muslims to cause trouble. You know the main reason behind this? Because in countries like Kosovo there were rich albanian families that gave aid in the presidential campaign. You dont become president in america without having serious contacts.
I know this first hand from a trusted source (not from the internet, but obviously cannot disclose who)
Reality isn`t always what it seems.
If you are interested more about the involvement of foreign mujahedin elements in Bosnia and what they brought upon all people in Bosnia, here is a non-biased Norwegian documentary about the conflict made by a Bosnian Muslim reporter:
On September 08 2013 17:48 sam!zdat wrote: the other communist countries were part of the soviet sphere of influence. That's what we were afraid of. The only exception is china after kruschev pissed them off and they distanced themselves from kremlin. and then we used that to establish rapprochement with china. It's not about ideology it's about imperial spheres of influence, it's just that each empire had an ideology that went along with it so a superficial analysis will say that it is a fight about ideology. It's no more about ideology than romans vs persians is about jupiter vs zoroaster. It's just the logic of empire.
Communist were natural allies of Russia, that is why cold war was at least also about ideology, this war is lacking that.
On September 08 2013 17:48 sam!zdat wrote:you said 'if this were like cold war the us would not support islamists'. My point is that the us supported islamist rebels against russia then, and it is supporting islamist rebels against russia now. So it's the same.
They weren't at war with Islamist or terrorist then, so it is completely irrelevant.
On September 08 2013 22:01 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: This is not the first time america helped rebels.
They did the same in the balkan conflicts, they even trained muslims to cause trouble. You know the main reason behind this? Because in countries like Kosovo there were rich albanian families that gave aid in the presidential campaign. You dont become president in america without having serious contacts.
I know this first hand from a trusted source (not from the internet, but obviously cannot disclose who)
Reality isn`t always what it seems.
Okay this is the stupidest thing I can imagine. If you can't provide proof of something like that, you really need to not say it. I have a source I trust that says the New York Yankees still have several people using steroids on their team, but if I'm not willing to prove it, I'm just spewing conspiracy nonsense, just like you.
Pentagon now wants a 3 day strike. Voting in congress on wednesday. A 3 day airstrike can never give the rebels the upperhand and win them the war, it will be a symbolic slap on the fingers for assad at best (if it goes through at all) and then its back to business as usual. In the mean time assads army has all the time they need to relocate the expected and important military targets.
On September 08 2013 22:01 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: This is not the first time america helped rebels.
They did the same in the balkan conflicts, they even trained muslims to cause trouble. You know the main reason behind this? Because in countries like Kosovo there were rich albanian families that gave aid in the presidential campaign. You dont become president in america without having serious contacts.
I know this first hand from a trusted source (not from the internet, but obviously cannot disclose who)
Reality isn`t always what it seems.
America is not that cheap that a few "rich" albanian familys (are there anny?) can buy their services. Have to admit that this seems extremely unlikely indeed to say the least.
the conceptual framework of democracy does have a significant blind spot, in that it is a pile level concept and thus disregards the actual composition of 'the people.'
before this whole situation blew up, most of what i know from syria are from liberal dissidents. their understanding of democracy is pretty much like that of any regular american (non southern variety anyway), and it would be crass to say that these people can't figure out democracy.
it is just that there is this other group that wants to establish god's kingdom on earth and see it as a divine mission and a destiny of a people. this sort of collectivity is just not going to work with a liberal one.
so at this point when a democracy(the naive, barebone concept anyway)'s operative idea of 'the people' breaks down, it no longer becomes productive to frame the conflict in that term. ratehr, look to encourage liberal ideas and whatnot in that region, cause mere democracy is not going to cut it. this does mean, preferably, eradication of the 'traditional' (read, often brutally suppressive and illiberal ideas) culture.
Communist were natural allies of Russia, that is why cold war was at least also about ideology, this war is lacking that.
Between 1945 and 1953, it was not so much "Communists" as much as "Stalinists" in Eastern Europe who were the natural allies of Russia. And "Stalinism" was not so much a discrete ideology as the existence of people who were completely subservient to Moscow. After 1956, the men who succeeded in establishing various degrees of domestic stability in the satellite states were not so much Stalinists but pragmatists, who governed their countries within limits acceptable to the Soviets. To some extent, this was also true of Finnish foreign policy along the Paasikivi-Kekkonen line.
A man like Imre Nagy, who was a more authentic Communist than either his Stalinist predecessor Rakosi, or his reformist successor Kadar, paid for his independence with his life.
On September 08 2013 22:01 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: This is not the first time america helped rebels.
They did the same in the balkan conflicts, they even trained muslims to cause trouble. You know the main reason behind this? Because in countries like Kosovo there were rich albanian families that gave aid in the presidential campaign. You dont become president in america without having serious contacts.
I know this first hand from a trusted source (not from the internet, but obviously cannot disclose who)
Reality isn`t always what it seems.
Okay this is the stupidest thing I can imagine. If you can't provide proof of something like that, you really need to not say it. I have a source I trust that says the New York Yankees still have several people using steroids on their team, but if I'm not willing to prove it, I'm just spewing conspiracy nonsense, just like you.
Well, you dont have to believe me. I know someone (i know him very well) who worked very close with the UN (and other organisations) in balkan countries as a conflict mediator.
I really dont feel any need to say more then this. But this person had more experience upclose with the american government then most of you had.
Sorry for not believing a random person on TL to have incriminating evidence that Albanians are buying US presidential elections to create Muslim rebels.
Shit typed that without my tinfoil hat on. Brb they are coming for me.
08 2013 17:48 sam!zdat wrote:you said 'if this were like cold war the us would not support islamists'. My point is that the us supported islamist rebels against russia then, and it is supporting islamist rebels against russia now. So it's the same.
They weren't at war with Islamist or terrorist then, so it is completely irrelevant.
On September 09 2013 01:52 Gorsameth wrote: Sorry for not believing a random person on TL to have incriminating evidence that Albanians are buying US presidential elections to create Muslim rebels.
Shit typed that without my tinfoil hat on. Brb they are coming for me.
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Like i said, take it for what it is, i dont give a shit. I bet you havnt even been in countries like kosovo. I have been there, in a UN jeep with this person i speak of. Why would i want to blatantly lie on the internet? Think i could really just make this up?
On September 08 2013 22:01 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: This is not the first time america helped rebels.
They did the same in the balkan conflicts, they even trained muslims to cause trouble. You know the main reason behind this? Because in countries like Kosovo there were rich albanian families that gave aid in the presidential campaign. You dont become president in america without having serious contacts.
I know this first hand from a trusted source (not from the internet, but obviously cannot disclose who)
Reality isn`t always what it seems.
America is not that cheap that a few "rich" albanian familys (are there anny?) can buy their services. Have to admit that this seems extremely unlikely indeed to say the least.
Same thing happened with the albanians in our country in 2001. They were helped by nato/usa and even were evacuated all from a village by nato with busses. 100% true
On September 08 2013 22:01 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: This is not the first time america helped rebels.
They did the same in the balkan conflicts, they even trained muslims to cause trouble. You know the main reason behind this? Because in countries like Kosovo there were rich albanian families that gave aid in the presidential campaign. You dont become president in america without having serious contacts.
I know this first hand from a trusted source (not from the internet, but obviously cannot disclose who)
Reality isn`t always what it seems.
America is not that cheap that a few "rich" albanian familys (are there anny?) can buy their services. Have to admit that this seems extremely unlikely indeed to say the least.
Same thing happened with the albanians in our country in 2001. They were helped by nato/usa and even were evacuated all from a village by nato with busses. 100% true
your story is so good it even has a wikipedia page.
On Sunday, the White House asserted on Sunday that "common sense" proved Assad's government was responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria as the US weighs military action. Chief of staff Denis McDonough told NBC's Meet The Press there was "no question in my mind" that Assad had ordered the 21 August attack, outside Damascus.
Obama will set out his case for a strike against Assad in a speech from the White House on Tuesday, amid signs that a majority in the House of Representatives are against intervention.
McDonough told CNN's State of the Union that the evidence available so far showed Assad was to blame. "The material was used in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, that have been controlled by the opposition for some time," he said. "It was delivered by rockets, rockets that we know the Assad regime has and we have no indication that the opposition has."
I can has youtube too. If I made a select playlist of 13 videos and told you that the only way legally you're allowed to ascertain the veracity of my claims is by me telling you it's absolute fact based of 'common sense' and it's not legal for you to research it further on your own, and illegal for you to discuss it with anyone else. Now we vote for 'limited warfare' on a humanitarian premise 10 years after Iraq. I seriously hope you would tell me to go F@#* myself.
EDIT: I have no idea if this video a troll or what. Just demonstrating the tight control on the narrative. Took a lot of effort for the administration to sink low enough to actually get caught in a he said/she said with The Daily Caller
The danger of the administration’s approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.”
The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, “it was clear that ‘the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.’ ”
I don’t know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public.
With all that in mind, consider the implications in this Alan Grayson op-ed. He explicitly reports the Administration has provided no more than a 12-page classified summary. He suggests the summary doesn’t refer to individual social media reports and, given the rules imposed by Mike Rogers, he would be unable to take notes on which social media reports it referred and cross-check them. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed. Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.
EPT![[image loading]](http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i60/2/1/30/frabz-Fuck-this-thread-0d0a40.jpg)
