It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russell Brand: Fox News is ‘fanatical, terrorist, propagandist’ and ‘more dangerous than ISIS

page: 15
82
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
well there you have it ,

they want him beheaded now how quickly that was turned around they want him to go there and die
the media just gets worse by the day

they also said he was rambling on and incoherent, he didnt really sound incoherent but whatever !



wow.....and as usual, they twist what he said, to fit their version of reality...and imply he said things he didn't say...

and see how i said it's much easier to minimize him as "just a comedian", and attack his character, and diminish his credibility?

there it is, at work......complete idiot propaganda in action.....and the braindead morons who hang on EVERY word FOX broadcasts, will lap this garbage up, and regurgitate it as the gospel...
edit on 6-27-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Isn't it legal in the US for propaganda to be used on it's citizens, didn't the US senate allow this for the government to use it on its people?
I remember reading it on here so if its good for the government then why cant the media do it ?

In any case its absolute rubbish and shouldn't be classed as a news network of information and facts just propaganda and nothing more


The big difference between MSNBC and Fox is that MSNBC still claims to be a news organization. Fox went to court and successfully argued it's entertainment and shouldn't be held to journalistic standards.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: nenothtu




They're not there because the US bombed Iraq, they are there because the US killed Saddam Hussein, so he ain't around to put the brakes on it any more.


Yes there are there because of that. If a power vacuum had not been created this would not be happening now..


Precisely. The US is very good at that sort of thing. They did the same to Afghanistan in the wake of the Soviet War there, and look how well THAT turned out!



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

The funny thing about identifying those that need to be dead, each person's list will contain different names. The trick is getting everyone to agree who needs to die, or doesn't. Good luck with that one.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TownCryer

what would be better is to agree that it's not our place to decide who "needs to die", and we stay out of the affairs of other countries.

if our government spent even HALF time it wastes worrying about, and meddling with other countries, worrying about, and working on defending, and improving THIS country, we would be a lot better off...



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

You said you wanted to behead people's families as an initial response. Perhaps you need to delve into your own psyche and the problems within before you start accusing other people. Beheading people's families is as far from my first reaction to anything as the farthest galaxy. Perhaps you project your own violent and sadistic tendencies onto others. You repeatedly make these extreme statements and then follow up with "I didn't mean that." That you keep fling that demonstrates a really dark place in your subconscious and you really need help.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Shrug. You were the only person in this thread talking about beheading people.
edit on 27-6-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
You only kinda like me? It's ok I am a realist not everyone is going to find this old guy appealing.


what do you want? you're not my favorite person in the world, but i also don't absolutely despise you...we agree on some things, and not on others...hence, i kinda like you...

if you're looking for "bromance" you're barking up the wrong tree, lol



Anyway there was no lying, look at 3.41 and you will see people just under the compass carrying rifles that appear to AK's. At 4.05 someone peeks around the corner of the wall and clearly knows the helo is there. At 4.09 at the same corner the same person produces what looks like a RPG as he looks at the helo. They never said in the video hey that reporter has an AK.

Replay it and check for yourself.



even though i've literally seen the vid dozens of times, i went back, and watched it again (still sickening, by the way), just to make absolutely sure...

at time index 341, you have 3-4 people....one of them appears to be carrying something...based on the reflection when he turns, and it's size, it does appear to be an RPG..can't be sure, but it DOES look like one...however, he's not aiming it at anyone. it could be an RPG, it could be something else...it's difficult to tell. he is the only one of them who is carrying anything. i see no rifles.

at time index 405 someone does indeed appear to be peeking around the corner, and by time index 409 he appears to have something...POSSIBLY an RPG, but at that range, it's doubtful, he'd actually hit the apache with it, if that's what it was....you hafta take into account that the apache was not right on top of them....they were quite a distance away at the time..

by time index 446, they have now circled back around, and are able to fully view the crowd....the individual from time index 405 and 409, who appeared to MAYBE have an RPG is now nowhere in sight, and the people are now congregated around the two Reuters employees, talking to them, and to each other...there are no apparent weapons, and no visible immediate threat present. despite this, they say "let's shoot", and begin firing on them.

at time index 319, the crosshair is over one of the Reuters employees as "that's a weapon" is said... they are all either mistakenly, or falsely said to have weapons. "we have 5-6 individuals with AK-47s, request permission to engage"



I don't remember BW employees shooting into homes.


well,i couldn't find a link for that, but here's them randomly killing people, and shooting at cars...and one of them even hits a pedestrian....and then keeps right on driving..... www.informationclearinghouse.info...

and then there's the much publicized case where they opened up on a bunch of people for no reason, and killed 17..even the FBI determined that "at least 14 were shot without cause"



I do remember 4 hanging from a bridge.


i remember that too...i also remember when the MSM falsely claimed for years, that those were american soldiers...they used it, along with other lies, to whip everyone into a froth, to support the invasion..



I am not a fan of BW they have done a few distasteful things in this country. As I said in my post it did appear overboard.


at least we agree on this...i hate Blackwater/Acedemi/XE/WTFever....they're scumbags. and yes, "overboard" is one way of putting it, i suppose....



I guess what made the jihadis is walking down the street with reporters carrying rifles, why else would reporters be there.


i guess we'll never know what they were documenting, because they're dead.

and again, i saw no rifles...but even if they did have rifles, EVERYONE has rifles over there...it's like shooting a guy for having pants....it's something everyone's got...



As I said on my post as a reporter you take your life into your own hands in a war zone, why else would US reports wear vest and helmets.


war is dangerous...very much so, for the combatants on each side, but even more so for journalists, because they hafta put themselves in more physical jeopardy, in order to document events properly...plus, there's the whole civilian, not trained for combat, bullet magnet thing....



I guess my interpretation of a free fire zone is when you still have bleeding people on the ground just after being shot up and you are johnny on the spot bringing your kids to the rescue. Again how were the pilots supposed to see this? Go back to 3.41 and since you're knowledgeable about weapons tell me what you see, do those look like cameras to you? You're whole premise of a lie is based on no firearms, check again. And go to youtube where you can see it larger.


they stopped to help a hurt man on the ground...there hadn't been any firing from the apache in a couple of minutes....it's possible they weren't sure WHAT had just happened....only that there were hurt people on the ground. i see nothing sinister, or stupid, or bad about that....it's one human, trying to help another...the van posed NO threat, they were not armed, not collecting any non-existent weapons...they just wanted to engage, because they wanted to engage..there was NO need...

and no, they don't look like cameras, but they don't look like rifles either...hell, they could have been bags, for all you can tell from the video...



And I kinda like you to, did you look at the ISIS video for comparison thats what the post from purplemer was about. They can't compare. Watch both.


why thanks, lol....

no, i didn't watch the isis vid, because:

i don't have an entire hour to sit and watch it.

i don't speak the language, so i can't be sure the subtitles are correct.

searching for it has probably landed me on a terrorist watch list now, because it's basically a recruitment video..thanks for that, marlin...i thought you liked me.

and, i simply don't care...their ways may seem backward, and stupid to us, but who are we to judge? if the people don't want to live under their rule, it is for them to rise up, and kick them out...it's not our job. it's none of our business..america should be focused on fixing and helping america first....THEN we see if there's anything we can do to help others....but only if they WANT our help..
edit on 6-27-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
You only kinda like me? It's ok I am a realist not everyone is going to find this old guy appealing.


what do you want? you're not my favorite person in the world, but i also don't absolutely despise you...we agree on some things, and not on others...hence, i kinda like you...
if you're looking for "bromance" you're barking up the wrong tree, lol

Anyway there was no lying, look at 3.41 and you will see people just under the compass carrying rifles that appear to AK's. At 4.05 someone peeks around the corner of the wall and clearly knows the helo is there. At 4.09 at the same corner the same person produces what looks like a RPG as he looks at the helo. They never said in the video hey that reporter has an AK.
Replay it and check for yourself.



even though i've literally seen the vid dozens of times, i went back, and watched it again (still sickening, by the way), just to make absolutely sure...

at time index 341, you have 3-4 people....one of them appears to be carrying something...based on the reflection when he turns, and it's size, it does appear to be an RPG..can't be sure, but it DOES look like one...however, he's not aiming it at anyone. it could be an RPG, it could be something else...it's difficult to tell. he is the only one of them who is carrying anything. i see no rifles.

at time index 405 someone does indeed appear to be peeking around the corner, and by time index 409 he appears to have something...POSSIBLY an RPG, but at that range, it's doubtful, he'd actually hit the apache with it, if that's what it was....you hafta take into account that the apache was not right on top of them....they were quite a distance away at the time..

by time index 446, they have now circled back around, and are able to fully view the crowd....the individual from time index 405 and 409, who appeared to MAYBE have an RPG is now nowhere in sight, and the people are now congregated around the two Reuters employees, talking to them, and to each other...there are no apparent weapons, and no visible immediate threat present. despite this, they say "let's shoot", and begin firing on them.

at time index 319, the crosshair is over one of the Reuters employees as "that's a weapon" is said... they are all either mistakenly, or falsely said to have weapons. "we have 5-6 individuals with AK-47s, request permission to engage"



I don't remember BW employees shooting into homes.


well,i couldn't find a link for that, but here's them randomly killing people, and shooting at cars...and one of them even hits a pedestrian....and then keeps right on driving..... www.informationclearinghouse.info...

and then there's the much publicized case where they opened up on a bunch of people for no reason, and killed 17..even the FBI determined that "at least 14 were shot without cause"



I do remember 4 hanging from a bridge.


i remember that too...i also remember when the MSM falsely claimed for years, that those were american soldiers...they used it, along with other lies, to whip everyone into a froth, to support the invasion..



I am not a fan of BW they have done a few distasteful things in this country. As I said in my post it did appear overboard.


at least we agree on this...i hate Blackwater/Acedemi/XE/WTFever....they're scumbags. and yes, "overboard" is one way of putting it, i suppose....



I guess what made the jihadis is walking down the street with reporters carrying rifles, why else would reporters be there.


i guess we'll never know what they were documenting, because they're dead.

and again, i saw no rifles...but even if they did have rifles, EVERYONE has rifles over there...it's like shooting a guy for having pants....it's something everyone's got...



As I said on my post as a reporter you take your life into your own hands in a war zone, why else would US reports wear vest and helmets.


war is dangerous...very much so, for the combatants on each side, but even more so for journalists, because they hafta put themselves in more physical jeopardy, in order to document events properly...plus, there's the whole civilian, not trained for combat, bullet magnet thing....

they stopped to help a hurt man on the ground...there hadn't been any firing from the apache in a couple of minutes....it's possible they weren't sure WHAT had just happened....only that there were hurt people on the ground. i see nothing sinister, or stupid, or bad about that....it's one human, trying to help another...the van posed NO threat, they were not armed, not collecting any non-existent weapons...they just wanted to engage, because they wanted to engage..there was NO need...

and no, they don't look like cameras, but they don't look like rifles either...hell, they could have been bags, for all you can tell from the video...


And I kinda like you to, did you look at the ISIS video for comparison thats what the post from purplemer was about. They can't compare. Watch both.


why thanks, lol....

no, i didn't watch the isis vid, because:

i don't have an entire hour to sit and watch it.

i don't speak the language, so i can't be sure the subtitles are correct.

searching for it has probably landed me on a terrorist watch list now, because it's basically a recruitment video..thanks for that, marlin...i thought you liked me.

and, i simply don't care...their ways may seem backward, and stupid to us, but who are we to judge? if the people don't want to live under their rule, it is for them to rise up, and kick them out...it's not our job. it's none of our business..america should be focused on fixing and helping america first....THEN we see if there's anything we can do to help others....but only if they WANT our help..



bromance? Not Even...

At 3.41 two of the 4 looked to be carrying AK47 with folding stocks, the reporters were shown just before that. I wasn't making any judgements at all. I am just saying to purplemer that this is nothing compared to the ISIS video.

So common sense should tell you if they shoot people carrying guns from helicopters why in the world would you be carrying a folding stock AK47 if you know a helo is overhead? Your t-shirt might as well have a bullseye. Here's your sign.

I got news for you if there is shooting going on from a apache with a 30mm chain gun in the neighborhood and my kids are in the car.. I am outta of there the bromance is over you are going to bleed to death.

If you're on a terrorist watch list for that, then your picture is on someones wall for being a member of ATS. And it's next to mine. Do some research on BW after Katrina hit, dirty tricks for sure.

If we are to be focused on America first you must really be ticked over the illegals entering the country courtesy of the president, and his administration. What a mess that is. Watch the ISIS vid, you don't have to see all of it, and start 10 minutes in past the recruitment part.
If you end up on a list I will run across the road over to Camp perry and have a talk with them. bromance.... ha... did I tell you I like guns?



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Watch the ISIS vid, you don't have to see all of it, and start 10 minutes in past the recruitment part.
If you end up on a list I will run across the road over to Camp perry and have a talk with them. bromance.... ha... did I tell you I like guns?




Dude! Don't go to The Farm for ANYTHING! We may never hear from you again! Peary is Spook Central - it's where they have their obstacle course, and tire swings, and everything!

If you simply HAVE to, then at least stay outside the wire, and shout "LET MY PEOPLE GO!" at them. It helps to have sandals and a robe, so that you can make a convincing defense of insanity...



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I once saw an anti-war banner that said, "Bombing for peace is like f***ing for virginity".

I think Brand might be onto something.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Watch the ISIS vid, you don't have to see all of it, and start 10 minutes in past the recruitment part.
If you end up on a list I will run across the road over to Camp perry and have a talk with them. bromance.... ha... did I tell you I like guns?




Dude! Don't go to The Farm for ANYTHING! We may never hear from you again! Peary is Spook Central - it's where they have their obstacle course, and tire swings, and everything!

If you simply HAVE to, then at least stay outside the wire, and shout "LET MY PEOPLE GO!" at them. It helps to have sandals and a robe, so that you can make a convincing defense of insanity...



LOL yep I know what it is and where it is. But don't wear robes and sandals .no no no not a good idea. I haven't figured out how to breath water yet.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu
Yes - and more than a few things came together to create this one - plenty of blame to go around
How Syria’s Assad Helped Forge ISIS

Mohammed Al-Saud is under no illusions. “In 2011, the majority of the current ISIS leadership was released from jail by Bashar Al Assad,” he said. “No one in the regime has ever admitted this, or explained why.” Al-Saud, a Syrian dissident with the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, left Syria under threat of arrest in 2011.


Alghorani is convinced that members of ISIS were released strategically by Assad. “From the first days of the revolution (in March 2011), Assad denounced the organisation as being the work of radical Salafists, so he released the Salafists he had created in his prisons to justify the claim ... If you do not have an enemy, you create an enemy.”


It's a perfect storm


edit on 6/28/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
This man should be dropped off with ISIS then.Stupidest comment ever.How do people get this dumb and how in the world do people not understand you critisize your leaders not media.
edit on 28-6-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

He or she was not talking about negative fallout or contradiction or contrary viewpoints being "consequences."

Neither am I

:-)

Consequences...Dick Cheney in chains - war crime trial - you know, that sort of thing. Consequences

She/he has been trying very hard to explain what they meant - in a round about way. This thread is not specifically about free speech - it was redirected a while back

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - free speech?

We went to war based on this exact kind of mindless ranting and fear mongering last time around - it was everywhere. Some places more than others. We have freedom of speech in this country - and FOX obviously can say what they want - and they do. I wouldn't call it journalism - but, hey - maybe that's just me :-)

Obama wanted to take on Syria - but that was a no no, no go situation - because it was coming from Obama? And now, we have ISIS...and FOX is promoting what? To who? For who?

Fox News is ‘fanatical, terrorist, propagandist’ and ‘more dangerous than ISIS

Words aren't boots on the ground - or guns - but they're usually in the vanguard on the way to war

Like I said - that interview was interesting. Something somewhere has shifted - maybe. Hopefully



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

Obama wanted to take on Syria - but that was a no no, no go situation - because it was coming from Obama? And now, we have ISIS...and FOX is promoting what? To who? For who?



Well, to be fair, Obama wanted to take on Assad ON BEHALF of ISIS, the FSA, and associated cohorts. He wanted to make a Syria safe for radicalism. THAT was why I fought against that tooth and nail, not merely because it came from Obama. It was a civil war, and I was all for letting Syria sort it out themselves, for Syrians, without US input.

As it turned out, without active US involvement, only surreptitious "support" for the radicals, the radicals are having their asses handed to them in Syria, and so it has spilled over into easier, softer targets for them - in this case Iraq.

I dunno what Fox is promoting, or for whom, since I don't watch TV, and that includes Fox. Back when I did watch TV, Fox was all about showmanship rather than straight journalism, and so I presume they still are.

As for your other post, about Assad releasing ISIS leadership from Prison in 2011, there is something illogical there that doesn't make sense as presented, so I'll have to ponder it further before making comment. One thing is certain to me, and that is that Assad didn't need any more enemies, and therefore had no logical cause to make more as insinuated by Alghorani. That makes his assessment suspect to me.

Propaganda flies free in the Middle East, on all sides, and it's hard to sort out hard fact from invented and imaginative fictions sometimes.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu


Well, to be fair, Obama wanted to take on Assad ON BEHALF of ISIS, the FSA, and associated cohorts. He wanted to make a Syria safe for radicalism. THAT was why I fought against that tooth and nail, not merely because it came from Obama.


That's one way of looking at it :-)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. In that mixed bag of malignant hot heads there were also a lot of innocent Syrian citizens caught in the crossfire - who, while protesting their situation, may have slept with some pretty strange bedfellows - or maybe their movement was hijacked?

:-)

Sorting out white hats from black - and figuring out motives? Well - I should know better than to even mention Obama...


One thing is certain to me, and that is that Assad didn't need any more enemies, and therefore had no logical cause to make more as insinuated by Alghorani. That makes his assessment suspect to me.


I'm suspicious of everyone's take on this one - but the quotes I pulled are relating events that happened in 2011. There is no proof - just this guy saying so - and he admits it's his opinion. So, yes - all of it is suspicious

But, 2011 was the beginning of a sequence of events that have us looking with disbelief (kinda) at all that's going on now. Assad never wanted for enemies - true - but he did need an end to justify his means


Propaganda flies free in the Middle East, on all sides, and it's hard to sort out hard fact from invented and imaginative fictions sometimes.


True enough - it's enough to make me believe in the end times. Almost :-)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Sure, we can agree to disagree, and no harm done. My perspective is from looking at who the US attempted to support, and who they opposed. They opposed Assad who, whatever other faults he may have, at least guaranteed the religious freedom of Syrians. That appears, in fact, to be one of the very things that set the Muslim Brotherhood and their cohorts off. They are all for religious freedom, too, just as long as it's the right religion, and the right subset of that religion. From where I sit, that looks a lot more like religious intolerance, but maybe that's just me. THAT was what the US was attempting to support, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood et al.

I'm not sure which "innocent Syrians" you are referring to. Innocents got caught in the crossfire to be sure, but which innocents were protesting that Assad allowed them too much religious freedom? If they were not protesting that, then they were not in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

In any event, it was a purely internal squabble in which the US had no business interfering either way, in my opinion. Now that it has spilled outside Syria's borders (under orders?), the US may attempt interference again, with more justification this time... after all, it's no longer purely internal to Syria, is it? How convenient is THAT for US involvement? It's a lot like the Bush regime and their entry into Iraq - excuses, excuses, any old excuse will do!

I'm not sure there ARE any "white hats" in Syria. Maybe only hats with a thick enough layer of desert dust to make them appear lighter - until they get dusted off.

Out of curiosity, what do you believe Assad's desired end was, that he needed even MORE enemies to justify the means to it, and the former list of his enemies just wasn't enough?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu
Absolutely. Always a pleasure to have a real discussion

My perspective is from looking at who the US attempted to support, and who they opposed.

And mine stems from humanitarian concerns - that is not to imply that yours does not. At this point I could give a rat’s ass who supported who or why - this cluster * is beyond the point where trying to understand how it happened matters. Let’s just agree it’s evolved (or devolved) - from a variety of circumstances and influences

They opposed Assad who, whatever other faults he may have, at least guaranteed the religious freedom of Syrians.

Whatever faults he may have - I would argue (if I felt like arguing - which I really don’t) that he never guaranteed anything that didn’t suit his needs. This idea that it was a secular country is not exactly true - just true in a relative way

I don’t see the point in arguing for or against the Muslim Brotherhood - that argument usually leads down one path - just as making a similar argument in our own country usually takes on a life of it’s own. We have our own traditionally religious folk here that would like to run things their way as well. At least we have what you could call a functionally democratic process in place to work out the differences (I think)

That appears, in fact, to be one of the very things that set the Muslim Brotherhood and their cohorts off. They are all for religious freedom, too, just as long as it's the right religion, and the right subset of that religion. From where I sit, that looks a lot more like religious intolerance, but maybe that's just me. THAT was what the US was attempting to support, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood et al.

And this is where we will disagree. Not about the Muslim Brotherhood - obviously. It’s popular to make this current administration out to be crazy - but I don’t see any attempt to involve ourselves in this early on as some kind of ideological support for the Muslim Brotherhood

It’s fairly clear that there’s a fight for control, but in earlier 2011 the protests began as a call for democracy - and change. It wasn’t exactly a secular slice of heaven living there under Assad. Moderate Muslims (by all appearances) kicked this all off - even if they were sparked by other groups with bigger ideas

It’s a mess - agreed. But - in that mess are people just like anywhere - hoping for a better future and wanting change. Moderates (for want of a better word) trapped in a whole bunch of crazy that was about to catch fire

I'm not sure which "innocent Syrians" you are referring to. Innocents got caught in the crossfire to be sure, but which innocents were protesting that Assad allowed them too much religious freedom? If they were not protesting that, then they were not in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They were asking for democracy - and an end to a regime that was/is quite obviously unjust and brutal. When things hit the fan some obvious lines were drawn - and you were either on one side or the other after that. Here in the west all we can see is the Brotherhood or Al-Qaeda. Or ISIS. No one else even shows up on our radar - it's not convenient

In any event, it was a purely internal squabble in which the US had no business interfering either way, in my opinion.

As a pacifist I find myself in the uncomfortable and awkward position of wishing we would use what we have in certain situations - like that horrific response to an initially peaceful uprising. I realize that that usually never really works out very well outside of my imagination - but I can’t help but wonder that if it had happened then - would we now be gearing up for round two of something that will be just as big or bigger - and never ending

Now that it has spilled outside Syria's borders (under orders?), the US may attempt interference again, with more justification this time... after all, it's no longer purely internal to Syria, is it? How convenient is THAT for US involvement? It's a lot like the Bush regime and their entry into Iraq - excuses, excuses, any old excuse will do!

Couldn’t agree more

I'm not sure there ARE any "white hats" in Syria. Maybe only hats with a thick enough layer of desert dust to make them appear lighter - until they get dusted off.

There are always white hats - or neutral hats at least. Survival forces peoples hands sometimes - and sometimes it just doesn’t matter. All hell has broken loose, there is no sign of the cavalry - and there you are…with your kids, your aging parents - and yourself. Just people

Out of curiosity, what do you believe Assad's desired end was, that he needed even MORE enemies to justify the means to it, and the former list of his enemies just wasn't enough?

He didn’t need more enemies - he just needed the enemies he could count on to hit the streets and do their job. It’s a tough sell killing peaceful protesters - especially protestors with a point, that were probably not going to just give up after a while and go home. So much easier to market a brutal response when you can come down on actual terrorists. Everybody in the world hates those guys

(Ahem)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Also - Nenothtu - I'm out of here in a bit. If you reply (and I imagine you will) - it might be a bit afore I get back to it

:-)



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join