Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

  On 9/7/2013 at 9:44 PM, ambermonk said:

Politicians who beat the war drum are too chickenshit to go fight themselves, yet they have no qualms about sending young men and women to die, like they're expendable pawns in their greedy, dirty game. Fuck them.

 

Those who do not know their history...

its not just the politicians who do that. refer to post #1.

It's so hard to determine what the truth is these days, especially now propaganda has become so sophisticated (remember the Kony campaign). I'll be surprised if we get to the bottom of this before bombs are dropped and more innocent people are killed. By then of course it will be too late. In the minds of the all powerful rulers of the world, life is very cheap indeed.

  On 9/7/2013 at 10:21 PM, MadameChaos said:

It's so hard to determine what the truth is these days, especially now propaganda has become so sophisticated (remember the Kony campaign). I'll be surprised if we get to the bottom of this before bombs are dropped and more innocent people are killed. By then of course it will be too late. In the minds of the all powerful rulers of the world, life is very cheap indeed.

this.

i suppose from the top, we look like either "good batteries" or "bad batteries" to them. nothing is as it seems, and the intrigue runs deep.

its odd how obama wants to get through this and still "look good" after he's finished. especially since everybody has learned the american government is a sham from experiencing the Bush dynasty.

someone said "theres one born every minute" so there's little hope of witnessing any moments of sanity any time soon (such as health care, education, prison, welfare, etc reform) in the "richest country" on earth.

  On 9/7/2013 at 10:21 PM, MadameChaos said:

It's so hard to determine what the truth is these days, especially now propaganda has become so sophisticated (remember the Kony campaign). I'll be surprised if we get to the bottom of this before bombs are dropped and more innocent people are killed. By then of course it will be too late. In the minds of the all powerful rulers of the world, life is very cheap indeed.

...i think i'm gonna have a Kubrick night tonight.

  On 9/7/2013 at 10:54 PM, xox said:

  On 9/7/2013 at 10:21 PM, MadameChaos said:

It's so hard to determine what the truth is these days, especially now propaganda has become so sophisticated (remember the Kony campaign). I'll be surprised if we get to the bottom of this before bombs are dropped and more innocent people are killed. By then of course it will be too late. In the minds of the all powerful rulers of the world, life is very cheap indeed.

 

 ...i think i'm gonna have a Kubrick night tonight.

You're my kinda guy. ;)

  On 9/7/2013 at 10:33 PM, skibby said:

 

especially since everybody has learned the american government is a sham from experiencing the Bush dynasty.

 

It started way before that.

  On 9/7/2013 at 11:08 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/7/2013 at 10:33 PM, skibby said:

 

especially since everybody has learned the american government is a sham from experiencing the Bush dynasty.

 

 

 

It started way before that.

 

maybe people within America, other populaces have been increasingly wary ever since McKinley.

fascinating interview entirely in English conducted by Charlie Rose with Assad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdeatW1cuQ

So, what are your thoughts?

the US president is on his hands and knees begging the people to let him go to war

this is probably a normal thing throughout history but it seems like usually the government goes to war when and where it wants

I think Russia is playing an interesting role, now that they've come up with a possible solution. But before you degrade the actions of the US government, please notice how this solution only came about after the US threatened to bomb Assad from the sky. And not before.

The US government might be incredibly lucky (and not smart) or brilliant negotiators (knowing exactly when to push which buttons how)... Most likely: both.

so you think someone can be both 'not smart' and 'brilliant' at the same time?

godel, that's 'brilliant'.

btw is there anything obama's done that you didn't think was super rad? under the previous admin, threatening to strike a country without congressional or UN approval would have been considered a war crime. likely even by you and others who are like-minded. i mean, it wouldn't even have to happen before people would be crying and peeing in their pants and acting like we were in 'nam all over again. you aren't supposed to draw a weapon on someone unless you are prepared to use it. i would think the same logic would apply to threats of strikes on foreign countries. if the public and england hadn't shown distaste for his wanting to strike, he probably would have done it. how could he have got out of it otherwise? biden said a president doing that (taking such an action without congressional approval) would be impeachable. and i'm pretty sure O himself said it was wrong not too long ago (of course under a different admin).

i said the government, not obama. those two are not the same.

edit:

i can talk about numerous things about o missing a beat. interested?

you can say whatever you want. it was obama who had the plan to strike. it was obama who just gave a speech saying that HE decided to allow congress to have a say in the issue, even though HE had authority to blow up whoever HE wanted to. 'the government' didn't draw a line then erase it. obama did. before congress was brought into it, the whole talk about a strike was because of obama. whether you want to admit it or not, you were talking about obama.

and this is beside the question of how the government (but really obama since you were talking about things that he did/caused), could be both 'not smart' and 'brilliant' at the same time.

?

sure, let's cut away all the people working for him. he's just the general manager of a company that is called " the white house" or " the administration".

what do you think happens in that company BEFORE he (=O) tells "we the people" on national TV that he (=O) made the decision? And does that actually means he made the decision, or is it just rhetoric? what would happen if he said on national TV "well, i actually have no idea, but someone in my administration apparently did, so we're just going to do that". I'm sure "we the people" will fall onto their knees to praise the lord for his unimaginable decisiveness.

hmmm...why would the gop talk about O being a bad leader. that leadership is lacking?....hmmm interesting...and could it be possible the result is the crappy rhetoric from the government about O making decisions? Remember that talk when Bin Laden was shot? In no time O was presented as the ultimate decision maker and what not. All rhetoric mumbo jumbo.

Assad has a lovely melodious soft voice

godel do you understand the basics of american government? there are 3 different branches. obama is the boss of the executive branch. neither the judicial branch nor the congressional branches were involved in the talk of a strike, before congress was brought in. so that leaves the one branch which obama is in charge of. his advisers advise him. he makes the call. he is the only one in that branch with the authority to make threats or to launch strikes. if you don't understand this, then i feel dumb for even talking to you this much already.

i mean what the hell was that last post you just made? is that meth inspired poetry? are you throwing poetry at me? i don't understand a damn word of that last post. i'm talking in plain english about specific things involving the workings of government and you are throwing beatnick poetry at me. wtf godel?

I find it depressing and infuriating that Putin and Assad seem so much more candid and rational than the American president and politicians. Watching that video, when Rose asks "so you have hezbollah fighters supporting you" and Assad answers "no, only along the border with Lebanon, where the terrorists attacked them, and hezbollah retaliated. And this is where we have cooperation [with hezbollah], and that's good." His expression when he says that is so much more matter-of-fact than most of the bullshit that comes from US politician's mouths. "yeah, hezbollah support us when it's in their interests too, and that's good." I like the way he speaks.

  On 9/11/2013 at 9:00 AM, MisterE said:

godel do you understand the basics of american government? there are 3 different branches. obama is the boss of the executive branch. neither the judicial branch nor the congressional branches were involved in the talk of a strike, before congress was brought in. so that leaves the one branch which obama is in charge of. his advisers advise him. he makes the call. he is the only one in that branch with the authority to make threats or to launch strikes. if you don't understand this, then i feel dumb for even talking to you this much already.

 

i mean what the hell was that last post you just made? is that meth inspired poetry? are you throwing poetry at me? i don't understand a damn word of that last post. i'm talking in plain english about specific things involving the workings of government and you are throwing beatnick poetry at me. wtf godel?

just talking about processes how "decisions" are being made. inside any organisation. be it the white house or some company.

remember i said something on government (intending to mean administration - not all those branches, which created some confusion) and you were like no no it's obama (probably also meaning the administration and not the entire government...which i interpreted as O in person..).

*takes another shot of meth.*

i'm not necessarily defending o, perhaps i just don't like the "blame o" thing. in the end, o is just an average general manager with a good set of rhetorical qualities. just like most presidents are average general managers. (one of the facts of life) now, is that a defense of o or criticism?

  On 9/11/2013 at 9:14 AM, lumpenprol said:

I find it depressing and infuriating that Putin and Assad seem so much more candid and rational than the American president and politicians. Watching that video, when Rose asks "so you have hezbollah fighters supporting you" and Assad answers "no, only along the border with Lebanon, where the terrorists attacked them, and hezbollah retaliated. And this is where we have cooperation [with hezbollah], and that's good." His expression when he says that is so much more matter-of-fact than most of the bullshit that comes from US politician's mouths. "yeah, hezbollah support us when it's in their interests too, and that's good." I like the way he speaks.

i think it's logical the US or the UN seem more emotional when people are being attacked with chemical weaponry. it should be more disturbing that a presidents whose country is in a civil war for a couple of years is "candid" and "rational". (he was mostly talking bullshit, btw).

would you expect a normal person (in the emotional sense) to be candid and rational when he knows his country in internal civil war? he might be candid and rational because he thinks he's actually getting away with what he has been doing for the past years.

politicians always talk bullshit. no matter how candid and rational they seem.

  On 9/11/2013 at 9:14 AM, lumpenprol said:

I find it depressing .....and that's good." I like the way he speaks.

ha yeah, i hate to say that putin almost comes off as the more believable one here. i don't trust that guy at all, and i pretty much assume that he's murdered people in cold blood without flinching. so i think really his whole act is just a carefully calculated facade, but it seems a lot more believable than O's desperate and frustrated 'i wanted to blow stuff up and you guys didn't support me! (but i still have the authority so nyah!) so we'll do things your way but just remember that if it doesn't work out, it's everyone's fault but mine. if it does work out i get the credit. as usual.'

a guy called into cspan after the brilliant speech, and posed what i thought was a good point.

kerry and obama both have been making cases that Assad is a terrible murderous maniac who likes to gas people, and who will do it again. they've claimed that they have solid proof it was him and not the syrian rebels which are at least partly composed of terroristy extremist types, if not largely. but now, they are willing to use diplomacy. and this is only because of putin. but they are going to act like that was the plan all along.

but diplomacy means negotiating. negotiating with a man they just previously argued was a genocidal gas murdering monster, and who would do it again. does a genocidal maniac make a suitable party for negotiations? can you trust someone like that? how exactly is this a 'brilliant' play, that now our president is negotiating with a guy who in his own characterization is a genocidal maniac? on the other hand, previously he wanted to bomb the guy out of town to allow a bunch of terrorists to take over (who would then have access to syria's gas assuming they already don't and weren't actually the ones behind the gas attack), which almost seems to be his middle-eastern strategy if you look at libya and egypt. i've seen at least one poll strongly indicating that the middle-easterners hate america now more than they did under bush. has any one of these countries he has meddled in over there actually seen an improvement in their society or at least less turmoil and terrorist activities under his reign? it seems like every one of them he got involved in has turned into chaos. syria is far from over. to be honest, i'm afraid of how it might end. what's so brilliant about any of this?

  On 9/11/2013 at 9:25 AM, goDel said:

i'm not necessarily defending o, perhaps i just don't like the "blame o" thing. in the end, o is just an average general manager with a good set of rhetorical qualities. just like most presidents are average general managers. (one of the facts of life) now, is that a defense of o or criticism?

ultimately the president takes responsibility for actions that only the president can authorize. with O it seems that people are quick to give him credit for all of the actions that work out in a positive way, then to shield him from it if it's not a pretty turnout. he's the president. there's only one president. and he is it. he's responsible for his advisers. he's responsible for his cabinet. everyone in his administration. if they are caught doing something wrong, he (or she) needs to cut them loose. that's how it is. the president hand picks those people. but none of those people can call for a strike on a foreign country. it's pretty absurd that you are for some reason trying to protect him from the responsibility for that decision. what possible external pressures could there have been? i mean, the hideously evil right-wingers are just a bunch of racists who wouldn't care about a bunch of middle easterners being gassed anyway, right? and liberals who always claim to be against war... actually were consistent for once and *mostly* seem to be against the strike. the idea of the strike turned out to be hugely unpopular with pretty much everyone, everywhere. england wanted no part of it. there was no real pressure on him to make that decision. but he did anyway. and you don't think it was 'his fault'. OK. this is about as much of a clear cut case of a US president just putting himself out there, waffling, drawing then erasing lines, and bumbling, as you may have in the history of the presidency.

completely agree with all of your post, well said.

also it's worth mentioning that Obama looks like a lifeless zombie husk who has been drained by the illuminati or lizard people. Wouldn't surprise me if the NSA have his balls in a vise with footage of him dipping his dogs in the Dixie Chick's bathtub(s) or something. I'm only half joking.

Anyway the only bright spot in this whole mess is how wary the US public seem of more foreign wars. I'm not sure it's based on any higher thought processes (ie., "my god...what if...our government lies because they are beholden to special interests and the military industrial complex??"), but at the very least they seem to have war and bullshit fatigue, and that can only be a good thing.

Personally I'm just fine with erring on the side of allowing some human rights atrocities to happen in another country, in the interests of getting our own shit together. We were never elected the world's policeman, and we've certainly ignored abuses in the past in non-strategically-important countries.

also when was the last time a US politician, let alone president, sat down with a hostile interviewer for a 50 minute chat! Assad has balls of steel and this interview raised him in my estimation. As you say he's basically a dictator, like Putin, but that doesn't mean he's an out-of-control tyrant. He's clearly a rational actor who understands how to wield his power, and explain it at length in a very reasonable sounding way. Which is more than I can say for Obama and probably most of those in the US govt. And what he says is entirely true, I'd much rather have him than a chaotic incubator for a slew of new al qaeda folks. That is, until there is a groundswell of legitimate internal opposition to oppose him.

  On 9/11/2013 at 9:32 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 9/11/2013 at 9:14 AM, lumpenprol said:

I find it depressing and infuriating that Putin and Assad seem so much more candid and rational than the American president and politicians. Watching that video, when Rose asks "so you have hezbollah fighters supporting you" and Assad answers "no, only along the border with Lebanon, where the terrorists attacked them, and hezbollah retaliated. And this is where we have cooperation [with hezbollah], and that's good." His expression when he says that is so much more matter-of-fact than most of the bullshit that comes from US politician's mouths. "yeah, hezbollah support us when it's in their interests too, and that's good." I like the way he speaks.

 

i think it's logical the US or the UN seem more emotional when people are being attacked with chemical weaponry. it should be more disturbing that a presidents whose country is in a civil war for a couple of years is "candid" and "rational". (he was mostly talking bullshit, btw).

 

would you expect a normal person (in the emotional sense) to be candid and rational when he knows his country in internal civil war? he might be candid and rational because he thinks he's actually getting away with what he has been doing for the past years.

 

politicians always talk bullshit. no matter how candid and rational they seem.

 

I have no doubt he's spinning, I can feel it somewhat even if I don't know the specifics, *however* I feel he's also speaking a bunch of truth bullets, for example when he tells Rose "you think I'm just receiving external support, but no government can remain in power without internal support" - of course he's right!

I get the feeling from his periodic kind of smug smiles, and his comment of "have you ever heard of a soft war?", that the guy tries to crush his opponents pretty hard. But I can't say anything beyond that. Can't say if he used or did not use chemical weapons. And even if he did, I kind of don't give a shit. If 1,500 people died from chemical weapons, but the bodycount for the civil war so far is 200,000, it's kind of a drop in the ocean (so far). Unfortunately everyone has to make these kinds of ruthless evaluations.

Also I think given the US' "collateral damage" in Iraq and Afghanistan it's highly hypoctritical to get morally outraged for this. Troubled, maybe, but not outraged.

As far as "i think it's logical the US or the UN seem more emotional when people are being attacked with chemical weaponry.", see my comment immediately above. I don't think we should be emotional, once you've been "around the block" politically speaking it's not like anyone should be surprised by bad shit going down on the world stage. To think that Obama and his supporters are acting solely from moral outrage is probably the height of folly. Also generally speaking I prefer leaders who are more sober-minded and not obviously emotional (or given to excessive rhetoric and bullshit, either). Assad seems pretty plain spoken, with a dash of spin, and a touch of reticence to discuss topics he doesn't want to discuss. I can easily see myself acting similarly if put on the spot like that.

Edit: he doesn't strike me as the same as Hussein, either. He seems more like a technocrat in the Eastern european mold. Just a feel, I'm basing most of my opinion on "true feels" but whatever.

  On 9/11/2013 at 6:31 AM, goDel said:

So, what are your thoughts?

just an amazing watch overall, to see one of our 'adversaries' speaking english, very calmly and making Charlie Rose look like a fucking idiot in the process for an entire hour.

just for the luls