obama successfully reaches across to Republicans.

[dank69]

I said I was "merely interested" not "genuinely interested" in how Code Pink was reacting to Syria involvement. Your apparent lack of reading comprehension skills isn't going to help you win any Mensa awards...just saying. I also see that you have a keen ability to dishonestly twist my words in such a way as to insinuate that I'm being somehow hypocritical. Oh...so clever of you!

For the record, I was "genuinely" happy to hear that Code Pink was protesting and weren't being hypocrites (even though I was beginning to suspect otherwise). dank69, you're trying so damn hard to smear me in any way possible and, in the likely case you haven't figured this out by now, you're making yourself look like a complete idiot in the process...just saying.

Believe me Doc, it isn't hard to poke holes in your posts here and I'm sorry if that makes it seem like I'm "trying to smear you." Everyone knows you and your MO around here which is practically identical to many other posters. This entire thread is full of posters just like you trying desperately to call out any and all liberal hypocrisy, whether imagined or not. Face it: you tried to pile on, eskimo pointed out that you failed miserably, and now you are trying desperately to avoid admitting it. All of the diversion to the irrelevant "photogate," as the unfortunate event will here-to-fore be known, is also laughable. Your point, even if you deny it, was that Code Pink protested Bush and isn't protesting Obama. Eskimo pointed out that they are protesting. It doesn't matter what picture he linked because it doesn't change the fact that they ARE protesting.

I'm not looking for any Mensa awards but my reading comprehension is just fine, at least in this case. I know you didn't say you were genuinely interested. I am laughing at your attempt to portray your motive as any kind of "interest" because I know, we ALL know, that it isn't genuine. You posted with one motive: to smear liberals. Maybe you are genuinely happy that Code Pink is protesting now that you have been informed that they are. I don't know, which is why I'm not calling you out on that, but I do know for certain that you weren't interested in them for anything other than a smear job at the time of your post. If you really were interested in them, you would have at least looked them up before posting here.

 

[Genx87]

You do realize that there are Muslims that exist outside of Syria, right? And I'm sure you also realize how effective propaganda is considering its been used by our government on us and it's used by various groups that try and push their agenda on the American people every day.
So how dumb do I think these Muslims are to fall for propaganda? About as dumb as Americans.

This may surprise you but in the Middle East they have televisions, and several news networks that will show our bombing campaign. While somehow we are to be delivering propaganda that will tell them we are doing this for the sake of Muslims. Right after they see all of that another segment will come on about how we dropped a bunch of missiles on suspected terrorists killing a wedding party. I dont think you have thought this one through. They arent that effing stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

This may surprise you but in the Middle East they have televisions, and several news networks that will show our bombing campaign. While somehow we are to be delivering propaganda that will tell them we are doing this for the sake of Muslims. Right after they see all of that another segment will come on about how we dropped a bunch of missiles on suspected terrorists killing a wedding party. I dont think you have thought this one through. They arent that effing stupid.

Lol, Americans have tv's and the Internet and yet they fall for the same kind of shit. I guess Americans are just dumber than middle easterners.

 

[Genx87]

Lol, Americans have tv's and the Internet and yet they fall for the same kind of shit. I guess Americans are just dumber than middle easterners.

The shit you are trying to spread is difficult because Muslims can look out their windows and often times see the result of American ME policy. It would be like the federal govt telling Americans they are attacking radicals in Chicago for the good of Americans while the feds have been bombing all over the country for a decade and killing thousands. Americans wouldnt believe it any more than Muslims would believe us bombing muslims is for the sake of helping muslims.

 

[ivwshane]

The shit you are trying to spread is difficult because Muslims can look out their windows and often times see the result of American ME policy. It would be like the federal govt telling Americans they are attacking radicals in Chicago for the good of Americans while the feds have been bombing all over the country for a decade and killing thousands. Americans wouldnt believe it any more than Muslims would believe us bombing muslims is for the sake of helping muslims.

No but they do believe that the chemical attack in Syria was a false flag operation, there are some that also believe that 911 was also a false flag attack. There are some that still think Obama is a Muslim, there are people in congress that think the Obama admin has been infiltrated by the Muslim brotherhood.
There are Americans that think racism doesn't exist. We have Americans that think racial profiling works.

I could go on and on but the point remains; people are stupid and they are unwilling to "look out their window".

The message is used to move the focus from US intervention (which has been the bane of the middle east for about 70 years) to that of a message about Muslim on Muslim violence. That message could have a small or huge impact on the number of Muslims seeking to join a jihadist movement.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Believe me Doc, it isn't hard to poke holes in your posts here and I'm sorry if that makes it seem like I'm "trying to smear you." Everyone knows you and your MO around here which is practically identical to many other posters. This entire thread is full of posters just like you trying desperately to call out any and all liberal hypocrisy, whether imagined or not. Face it: you tried to pile on, eskimo pointed out that you failed miserably, and now you are trying desperately to avoid admitting it. All of the diversion to the irrelevant "photogate," as the unfortunate event will here-to-fore be known, is also laughable. Your point, even if you deny it, was that Code Pink protested Bush and isn't protesting Obama. Eskimo pointed out that they are protesting. It doesn't matter what picture he linked because it doesn't change the fact that they ARE protesting.

The point of my initial post was that I wanted to know what was going on with Code Pink as I hadn't seen them in the media. Yes, I was wondering at the time if Code Pink was being hypocritical and that's why I asked the question. And I immediately conceded this possibility to eskimospy in Post #125 even though the picture he previously posted was misleading. Did you not read or understand my posts to eskimospy?

I'm not looking for any Mensa awards but my reading comprehension is just fine, at least in this case. I know you didn't say you were genuinely interested. I am laughing at your attempt to portray your motive as any kind of "interest" because I know, we ALL know, that it isn't genuine. You posted with one motive: to smear liberals. Maybe you are genuinely happy that Code Pink is protesting now that you have been informed that they are. I don't know, which is why I'm not calling you out on that, but I do know for certain that you weren't interested in them for anything other than a smear job at the time of your post. If you really were interested in them, you would have at least looked them up before posting here.

My posts have been totally upfront...I was interested...that's why I asked. Why is this so fucking hard for you to understand? Seek help.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Nope. I've seen Matt concede points when reasoned with.

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.

 

[Fern]

Lol. The Syrian conflict is Muslims against Muslims, and that's not very common at all.
-snip-

So you've managed to miss the whole Iraq and Afghanistan thingies?

Here's a small sample: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...10284797/Baghdad-hit-by-wave-of-bombings.html

Fern

 

[bshole]

Ok, who exactly are Matt and michal?

 

[Fern]

If Obama was smart he would use this issue and it's subsequent response as a PR move to the Muslim world. His response should be that, although the Syrian conflict doesn't have anyone we can clearly call an ally, and it's a civil conflict, he feels that all life should be protected including Muslims, including those that may wish to ham us. I think he should turn this into a "don't needlessly kill Muslims" message as opposed to just a "no WMD" message. Not only will it be embraced by other Muslims throughout the world in my opinion but it would also create/strengthen Muslim US sympathizers and maybe even weaken the anti US sentiment.

Pardon me, but that's just stupid.

Ever heard of drones?

Here's a small sample: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/12/318333/us-drones-kill-civilians-yemen-alqaeda/

Even if "don't needlessly kill Muslims" is a good message, Obama ain't the one to promote it. He'd look like a fool.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Are conservatives really this ideologically driven. After Libya conservatives declared he was a dictator for not going to congress before providing military support.

Now that he finnaly went to congress for approval conservatives claim hes trying to "hide" behind congress.

I have never seen a political party trying so hard to appear completely retarded.

LOL

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

To add even more to my posts (this should really get your blood flowing), Obama should be appealing to Iran. Why? For several reasons; first, Iran's history involves the use of chemical weapons on its people. 2nd, Iran's newly elected president has stated that he wants to get away from being an isolated nation. And lastly Iran is assads closest ally and has a real potential to influence him.

Crazy stuff, I know.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Ok, who exactly are Matt and michal?

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=1535512
http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=1535515

 

[ivwshane]

So you've managed to miss the whole Iraq and Afghanistan thingies?

Here's a small sample: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...10284797/Baghdad-hit-by-wave-of-bombings.html

Fern

Do you understand the difference between sunni's and shiite's? When I say Muslim on Muslim violence I'm referring to apples vs apples, or Christians vs Christians, Catholics vs Catholics, as in sunni's vs sunni's.

 

[ivwshane]

Pardon me, but that's just stupid.

Ever heard of drones?

Here's a small sample: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/12/318333/us-drones-kill-civilians-yemen-alqaeda/

Even if "don't needlessly kill Muslims" is a good message, Obama ain't the one to promote it. He'd look like a fool.

Fern

Yeah, you aren't getting it.

 

[etrigan420]

My posts have been totally upfront...I was interested...that's why I asked. Why is this so fucking hard for you to understand? Seek help.

Oh jesus christ get over yourself...

You were "interested"? And your first inclination was to ask ATPN? Not Google, not the CodePink website, not any number of valid news organizations, but AT mutha fuckin' PN?

:thumbsup:

You're either full on "IQ < 70" retarded, or just an idiot.

You sought hypocrisy where you were *just sure* there would be some and got your dick knocked in the dirt. No amount of "no but gais i wuz genyoueyenlee interdasted" can save you now.

Take your medicine and walk on home boy.

...or don't. Either way this thread delivers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To add even more to my posts (this should really get your blood flowing), Obama should be appealing to Iran. Why? For several reasons; first, Iran's history involves the use of chemical weapons on its people. 2nd, Iran's newly elected president has stated that he wants to get away from being an isolated nation. And lastly Iran is assads closest ally and has a real potential to influence him.

Crazy stuff, I know.

He can appeal to whomever he wants. He'll still bomb who he wants.

So anyone yet demonstrated that this wasn't the rebels other than O'le "I have to lie to Congress" guy?

 

[ivwshane]

He can appeal to whomever he wants. He'll still bomb who he wants.

So anyone yet demonstrated that this wasn't the rebels other than O'le "I have to lie to Congress" guy?

I don't think it matters who did it so long as we can destroy their deployment capabilities or the weapons themselves.

Again, I think taking any side in this conflict is a bad idea.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think it matters who did it so long as we can destroy their deployment capabilities or the weapons themselves.

Again, I think taking any side in this conflict is a bad idea.

I'm thinking that bombing is as bad an idea as it was when Bush did it. I haven't followed you enough to get what you are driving at, but I do recall that people where supposed to throw flowers at us. Didn't work out that way. People are funny in that they really don't like it when we bomb them for the best of reasons.

 

[Fern]

Do you understand the difference between sunni's and shiite's? When I say Muslim on Muslim violence I'm referring to apples vs apples, or Christians vs Christians, Catholics vs Catholics, as in sunni's vs sunni's.

WTH?

Sunnis and Shias are both Muslim.

And Christian versus Christian? Do you have any idea of how many different groups of Christians there are? There are far more than 2, as in Sunni and Shia.

More importantly, much of that violence had nothing to do with a difference in sects, but some Muslims enforcing a more strict version of Sharia law on their Sunni or Shia brothers/sisters.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I'm thinking that bombing is as bad an idea as it was when Bush did it. I haven't followed you enough to get what you are driving at, but I do recall that people where supposed to throw flowers at us. Didn't work out that way. People are funny in that they really don't like it when we bomb them for the best of reasons.

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.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

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.

And we "knew" there were WMDs back then. It was all over the news for weeks, CONFIRMED wmds.



SOS different POTUS.

 

[fskimospy]

He can appeal to whomever he wants. He'll still bomb who he wants.

So anyone yet demonstrated that this wasn't the rebels other than O'le "I have to lie to Congress" guy?

Have you watched John Kerry's testimony? According to his testimony none of the rockets landed in Assad controlled territory and all of the rockets fired came from within Assad held territory. Additionally, Assad's forces were cautioned ahead of time to utilize gas masks. German intelligence has intercepted a call between Hezbollah and the Iranian embassy where the Hezbollah agent talked about Assad's use of chemical weapons as a 'huge mistake'.

Whether or not you think bombing Syria is a good idea, the evidence seems fairly strong that Assad's government was responsible for its use here.

EDIT: Intelligence communities never say anything is a certainty, they use terms like high confidence and low confidence. It is certainly possible that Assad was not behind the use of these weapons and that will almost certainly never be known 100%. (it is silly of people to use that sort of language). It seems highly likely he was behind it however.

 

[ivwshane]

WTH?

Sunnis and Shias are both Muslim.

And Christian versus Christian? Do you have any idea of how many different groups of Christians there are? There are far more than 2, as in Sunni and Shia.

More importantly, much of that violence had nothing to do with a difference in sects, but some Muslims enforcing a more strict version of Sharia law on their Sunni or Shia brothers/sisters.

Fern

They aren't simply both Muslim. There has been fighting between Sunni and Shiite, specifically for their religious differences, for hundreds of years. Fighting between Sunni and other Sunnis is not that common.

But if you know all this then why did you post unrelated conflicts?

 

[ivwshane]

And we "knew" there were WMDs back then. It was all over the news for weeks, CONFIRMED wmds.



SOS different POTUS.

Lol!

I told you guys propaganda works, case and point^