obama successfully reaches across to Republicans.

[BlueWolf47]

US involvement will only make the situation worse. Nothing good can come out of this. These rebels are backed al-qaida and will implement strict Islamic sharia law. Why is obama stupid enough to help them?

How is it possible that you can be completely uninformed on every single topic that you decide to comment on. By mere statistical probability, you should have accidentally made a statement that resembles reality by now.

The rebels are not backed by al-qaida and syria is predominantly a secular country. There are how ever extremist groups present and battles have sometimes erupted between these groups and the rebels. By saying the rebels are backed by terrorists you are making yourself once again, look completely retarded.

By now, someone should have contacted a mental institution because clearly you shouldn't be allowed to leave your house with out medical assistance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Have you watched John Kerry's testimony? According to his testimony

Assad may be responsible, however "according to his testimony" isn't convincing to me. According to testimony there were mobile chemical weapons rolling around in Iraq. There were WMDs in and around Tikrit.

When the UN has a determination of what happened let me know. Until then I remain less than completely accepting of something said by someone who has a dog in the fight. "But Obama and Kerry aren't Bush and Rumsfeld" also isn't a sufficient argument, although I don't think you personally would say that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If casualties can be kept to an absolute minimum and the focus is the chemical weapons or the tools used to deploy them then I think an attack is ok but it really needs to be approved by the international community. Anything short of that is a waste of time and will most likely be a quagmire #2.

The main difference between what is happening now and Iraq was that we know for 100% fact that chemical weapons are being used now. The Iraq war was sold as saddam had WMD's with little to no evidence if that and he certainly wasn't using them at that point (when he was using them he was using them with the blessing of the US government, disgusting I know). The other big difference, of course, is that Iraq was sold to the American people has a quick invasion/overthrow, the proposed Syria action has no "boots on the ground" and is being mandated a short term conflict.

You get me that international support and a consensus on action and intelligence that doesn't depend on Kerry or Obama and then we'll discuss a strike.

I do know that it's a rare thing for the ME to accept our bombing of their area as a beneficent and selfless act. I do know one thing, and that is war is never as predictable a thing as we are reassured of. Yes it is war, however it may be sold. In fact it's insulting to be told it's not. We may attempt to control the fallout but once the match is lit there will be consequences that are not foreseen.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

How is it possible that you can be completely uninformed on every single topic that you decide to comment on. By mere statistical probability, you should have accidentally made a statement that resembles reality by now.

The rebels are not backed by al-qaida and syria is predominantly a secular country. There are how ever extremist groups present and battles have sometimes erupted between these groups and the rebels. By saying the rebels are backed by terrorists you are making yourself once again, look completely retarded.

By now, someone should have contacted a mental institution because clearly you shouldn't be allowed to leave your house with out medical assistance.

Bullshit.

Syria has been secular because the regime fighting there has kept it secular for many decades. Remove that regime and what do you end up with? A power vacuum waiting to be filled by the biggest, meanest, SOBS who can kill enough people to win over hearts and minds along with power. Deny it all you want but the Middle-East is a prime example of this adherence to the ideology of force. Of which is routinely used to gain and cement political power and religious/social power.

Additionally rebels elements do indeed have sympathizers with direct and indirect ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist sunni groups. This is in the end just as much a religious civil war (one that has been ongoing since the death of Muhammad back in 625 AD) as it is a political civil war. Which is why you have Iran and Hezbollah backing Assad and the Shiites in Syria (along with Syrian Christians supporting Assad because they fear what the Sunnis will do to them) there and Al Qaeda and other Sunni terrorist groups siding with some of the Syrian rebels against the regime.

Al-Qaeda Links Cloud Syria as U.S. Seeks Clarity on Rebels

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...yrian-war-as-u-s-seeks-clarity-on-rebels.html

Christian village in Syria besieged by rebels with Al Qaeda ties


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/christian-village-besieged-syrian-rebels-article-1.1446060

 

[Incorruptible]

How is it possible that you can be completely uninformed on every single topic that you decide to comment on. By mere statistical probability, you should have accidentally made a statement that resembles reality by now.

The rebels are not backed by al-qaida and syria is predominantly a secular country. There are how ever extremist groups present and battles have sometimes erupted between these groups and the rebels. By saying the rebels are backed by terrorists you are making yourself once again, look completely retarded.

By now, someone should have contacted a mental institution because clearly you shouldn't be allowed to leave your house with out medical assistance.

How is it possible that you can be completely uninformed on every single topic that you decide to comment on. By mere statistical probability, you should have accidentally made a statement that resembles reality by now.

Congratulations! You already lost the debate and made a fool out of yourself.

There are some secular rebels but as in previous cases al-qaida will fight for control. Syria is secular because Assad kept it that way, under him Christians had rights and women also had rights. You let the rebels take over and all of that goes away.

Of course since these rebels are killing Christians you have no problem with obama backing them because you have shown yourself to look completely retarded. The US has no business going in there. Take out Assad and let the rebels take over?

Syria is zero threat to the US and you would have a different view if this was bush and not your piece of shit obama. Gotta love liberal hypocrisy.

Here are your terrorists in action

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eheaded-jihadist-fighters-cheering-crowd.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533

By now, someone should have contacted a mental institution because clearly you shouldn't be allowed to leave your house with out medical assistance.

Keep acting like an internet toughguy.

 

[dank69]

Yes, michal is greedily drinking the conservative talk Kool Aid, while Matt isn't a cultist. Matt seems to be open to the lengths of his comprehension. But that length seems to be the shortest of anyone here. Others are limited in what they can think by the ruts they have made for themselves, while Matt seems to be hitting the physical bounds of his mind's ability.
michal is married to his ridiculous bag of conservatard memes which limits his conclusions to ones that align or at least don't conflict. But if you look at his operation within his allowed area, you can see premise, inference, and conclusion. He can run things back and forth. He sees the need for support, and he has the basic tools to give it a go. That he's totally hemmed in by bias doesn't make him |dim|, it's just that his light is confined to a very limited area.
He's not bright within that area, but from what I can see he can bring more to bear than Matt can.

Matt has intellectual openness but lacks capacity. michal has greater capacity but lacks the openness. The openness is a great wisdom (when come about as a realization of its benefits over closed-mindedness), so Matt has that waaaaaaaaaay over michal; but when we're talking about the overall power that a person can bring to bear on a problem, I'd say Matt is severely lacking in that department.
Others are wasting their lives shoring up lies while Matt is at least giving it an honest go, but I'm afraid Matt's "go" ain't gonna take him to any heights. He's forever going to be climbing a small hillock.
But I suppose there's honor in that. A person can't do any more than be the best they can possibly be at any one moment.

I have never seen Michal offer support that didn't amount to a complete non-sequitur. He rarely draws his own inferences and conclusions, he parrots the ones he finds on extremist sites, and when he does attempt to draw his own they are so stupid they are painful to read. I think you vastly overestimate his capacity.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that Matt fully understands all of these concepts but is limited by apathy. His life experience proves to him time and time again that conservative policies are righteous and liberal policies are wicked, because that is what he wants to see. He seeks out confirmation and dismisses contrary evidence because that's what people do, especially conservatives. However, because he is reasonably intelligent, he can't avoid all of the contrary evidence all of the time. More and more often he sees the writing on the wall and every time that happens, the bitterness grows. The bitterness combined with apathy leads to posting shit without first vetting it. As soon as he sees something new that supports his views he has to post it because the liberals are winning and he needs to even the score. That leads to incidents like the onion type article.

 

[palehorse]

How is it possible that you can be completely uninformed on every single topic that you decide to comment on. By mere statistical probability, you should have accidentally made a statement that resembles reality by now.

The rebels are not backed by al-qaida and syria is predominantly a secular country. There are how ever extremist groups present and battles have sometimes erupted between these groups and the rebels. By saying the rebels are backed by terrorists you are making yourself once again, look completely retarded.

By now, someone should have contacted a mental institution because clearly you shouldn't be allowed to leave your house with out medical assistance.

While it's true that many of the groups in Syria are fighting amongst themselves, and that the FSA is not affiliated with AQ, two of the most powerful insurgent factions in Syria that are also fighting to topple the Assad regime -- ISIL and the al-Nusra Front -- are, indeed, al-Qaeda factions.

Of note: the original FSA leader was assassinated by AQ agents who infiltrated his ranks.

Also worth noting: ISIL and al-Nusra don't get along either.

And, of course, this: AQ-affiliated rebels in Syria just wiped out an Assad-controlled Christian village yesterday.

 

[sportage]

Obama is pretty focused on stuff like this.
I assume he will do the strikes, and that's will be that.
If some want a long costly engaged war with troops and American casualties, you'll have to rely on the next president for that.
The next chapter will be republicans crying that not enough was done after this Obamawar terminates.
The error here is with people like McCain thinking pentality is not enough.
He and others believe this is the opportunity for pressing full democracy in the region.
Which always leads to never ending war involving troops and high casualties.

 

[ivwshane]

You get me that international support and a consensus on action and intelligence that doesn't depend on Kerry or Obama and then we'll discuss a strike.

I do know that it's a rare thing for the ME to accept our bombing of their area as a beneficent and selfless act. I do know one thing, and that is war is never as predictable a thing as we are reassured of. Yes it is war, however it may be sold. In fact it's insulting to be told it's not. We may attempt to control the fallout but once the match is lit there will be consequences that are not foreseen.

We shall see if Obama can get that support at the summit that's coming up.

I hear what you are saying with regards to the rest of your post and that's why I was very specific. I look at it as an act of sabotage. If we can pull it off then great, do it, otherwise don't bother.

 

[BlueWolf47]

While it's true that many of the groups in Syria are fighting amongst themselves, and that the FSA is not affiliated with AQ, two of the most powerful insurgent factions in Syria that are also fighting to topple the Assad regime -- ISIL and the al-Nusra Front -- are, indeed, al-Qaeda factions.

Of note: the original FSA leader was assassinated by AQ agents who infiltrated his ranks.

Also worth noting: ISIL and al-Nusra don't get along either.

And, of course, this: AQ-affiliated rebels in Syria just wiped out an Assad-controlled Christian village yesterday.

Ya, I just get pissed by blanket statements that all the rebels are supporters of the extremist factions. Its used to scare people instead of making a rational argument.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Bullshit.

Syria has been secular because the regime fighting there has kept it secular for many decades. Remove that regime and what do you end up with? A power vacuum waiting to be filled by the biggest, meanest, SOBS who can kill enough people to win over hearts and minds along with power. Deny it all you want but the Middle-East is a prime example of this adherence to the ideology of force. Of which is routinely used to gain and cement political power and religious/social power.

Additionally rebels elements do indeed have sympathizers with direct and indirect ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist sunni groups. This is in the end just as much a religious civil war (one that has been ongoing since the death of Muhammad back in 625 AD) as it is a political civil war. Which is why you have Iran and Hezbollah backing Assad and the Shiites in Syria (along with Syrian Christians supporting Assad because they fear what the Sunnis will do to them) there and Al Qaeda and other Sunni terrorist groups siding with some of the Syrian rebels against the regime.

Al-Qaeda Links Cloud Syria as U.S. Seeks Clarity on Rebels

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...yrian-war-as-u-s-seeks-clarity-on-rebels.html

Christian village in Syria besieged by rebels with Al Qaeda ties


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/christian-village-besieged-syrian-rebels-article-1.1446060

Of course some of the rebels have alquida and other extremist ties. But to say the entire rebel army supports them is a disingenuous.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I have never seen Michal offer support that didn't amount to a complete non-sequitur. He rarely draws his own inferences and conclusions, he parrots the ones he finds on extremist sites, and when he does attempt to draw his own they are so stupid they are painful to read. I think you vastly overestimate his capacity.

There's no doubt he's swimming in Kool-aid and seeks only to convince himself that his Kool-aid is the only "true ocean," but his vocabulary seems richer and his bullet-point -type posts seems to indicate that there is logical activity present.

I'm not saying he's |smart|. If this is me:

...michal is pretty much:

It may not be much in an absolute sense and he won't get anywhere the way he's currently using it, but at least there's the possibility of getting an appraising *ting ting ting* out of the tool.


This is how I see Matt:

He gets more out of it than michal does from his because he uses it better. But going by the feedback from his tool he's always gonna be fuzzy on the details.

It's quite possible that michal will do nothing but fortify the house of lies he's made for himself, hiding cognitive dissonance in shadows and contrasting paint schemes such that he will die a small-minded, bitter man; and so Matt will have achieved more up to the point he is now than michal will have in his entire life; but if we're talking about potential, I'd rate michal's higher.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that Matt fully understands all of these concepts but is limited by apathy.

I see stupidity where you see apathy. Intelligence can't help but peek out occasionally. A smart person just can't help but put things together, and this comes out in what they say and how they say it. Even if their premises are fiction they're still working at a high level to assemble them. Matt? I detect no peaks. Just constant output at an elementary school level.
Matt isn't limited to partisan thinking so there's a wider range to his output; but height? He never goes above some very low platforms, and remains baffled that there's anything higher even when you break out the kindergartners' stepladder.

 

[boomerang]

<snip>

I can tell you spent a lot of time on that post and I want you to know that it's something you and your pony friends can be very, very, proud of. I do have a question for you though. Do you anticipate feeling better about yourself soon? I ask because you're showing everyone the depths of your illness in a very public place. Much of this would be better shared with professionals that can both counsel and prescribe.

I know you're a troubled young lady and I hope with the right treatment you can one day feel better about yourself. But this is a forum dealing with politics and news and it's not the place for you to repeatedly deride others in the same thread in an attempt to make you feel better about yourself.

 

[Genx87]

Felt this was appropriate given our bastardization of phrases and words.

 

[dank69]

There's no doubt he's swimming in Kool-aid and seeks only to convince himself that his Kool-aid is the only "true ocean," but his vocabulary seems richer and his bullet-point -type posts seems to indicate that there is logical activity present.

...

I'm not sure why you think Michal's vocabulary is richer. There is a 90% chance that each thread he starts will contain at least one spelling error. I understand that one's vocabulary isn't necessarily linked to one's ability to spell all the words one knows, but correlation can't be too far off.

...

It's quite possible that michal will do nothing but fortify the house of lies he's made for himself...

I'd say it's more of a certainty than a possibility. I honestly think the guy has trouble reading. Even if he doesn't, his comprehension is awful. Truly awful. He routinely says links say things that they do not say, and infers things that are in no way implied. For God's sake I have seen Incorruptible call Michal out for being retarded, and Incorruptible was spot on.

Whether you or I are right about Matt won't make a whole lot of difference.

 

[Dannar26]

Holy derail batman! You two have a raging hard-on for these Matt and Michael fellows. You guys puff yourselves up as if possession of leftist ideologies requires deep intellectual abilities not yet evolved by those "chimps" on the right. It really comes off as pompus. You're not even trying to have an honest debate.

You hammah sooo beeeg! Conservative hammah so small...

 

[Dannar26]

So, Russia is backing this Assad fellow. Is it possible that if we go to war with Syria, that we'll end up with much more than just a fight with a small country in the middle east?

 

[palehorse]

So, Russia is backing this Assad fellow. Is it possible that if we go to war with Syria, that we'll end up with much more than just a fight with a small country in the middle east?

That's possible given the millions of various things that could happen or go wrong; however, it's highly unlikely that this will extend beyond the ME unless we REALLY fuck something up (ie. we sink a Russian ship, or shoot down a Russian plane).

Again, though, it's certainly possible... especially since we're pretty good at screwing up. 🙁

 

[dank69]

So, Russia is backing this Assad fellow. Is it possible that if we go to war with Syria, that we'll end up with much more than just a fight with a small country in the middle east?

Yes, clearly this will lead to World War III.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, Russia is backing this Assad fellow. Is it possible that if we go to war with Syria, that we'll end up with much more than just a fight with a small country in the middle east?

Russia and Assad have been close allies for some time now. Russia is currently assembling warships in the Mediterranean. The unfortunate deaths of approximately 1,400 Syrians may be trivial when this is over and done with.

 

[fskimospy]

Russia and Assad have been close allies for some time now. Russia is currently assembling warships in the Mediterranean. The unfortunate deaths of approximately 1,400 Syrians may be trivial when this is over and done with.

You don't really think the Russians would risk a military engagement with the US over Syria do you? That seems extraordinarily unlikely.

 

[Dannar26]

You don't really think the Russians would risk a military engagement with the US over Syria do you? That seems extraordinarily unlikely.

Well if they take the same stance that we are, going to war to back up a threat we made, then I'm not sure.

I'm not trying to fortell doom here, but it's worth thinking about all the ramifications of our engagement here.

At the very least Putin will make things hard for Obama at the summit.

 

[fskimospy]

Well if they take the same stance that we are, going to war to back up a threat we made, then I

They wouldn't. We can afford to go to war to back up our threats because we will win the military engagement. Russia would lose, and lose badly. They would also lose the diplomatic engagement, as they have few friends.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You don't really think the Russians would risk a military engagement with the US over Syria do you? That seems extraordinarily unlikely.

I don't know what will happen...I guess we'll just have to hope for the best (whatever that is).

 

[dank69]

Well if they take the same stance that we are, going to war to back up a threat we made, then I

Attacking the US is suicide. WTF is wrong with you people?