Cypher me this one regarding evil dictators

How many times here and in the news have we brought up the record of murders of purportedly innocent victims in political battles at the hands of evil dictators?

And if said evil dictator is identified, the US mounts a strike on them and starts a war.

Bearing that in mind, who mounted a strike on Bill Clinton and Janet Reno when they ruthlessly murdered 80 people at Waco?

reply to post by lynxpilot


That was the American government that did the killing at Waco, they are clearly not subject to that kind of justice. You're obviously a crazy, subversive, anti-American for even entertaining such thoughts. /sarcasm

lynxpilot
How many times here and in the news have we brought up the record of murders of purportedly innocent victims in political battles at the hands of evil dictators?

And if said evil dictator is identified, the US mounts a strike on them and starts a war.

Bearing that in mind, who mounted a strike on Bill Clinton and Janet Reno when they ruthlessly murdered 80 people at Waco?

The America people should have rose up and handled the problem. We didn't we failed. We are very close to losing what little freedoms we have left because we still fail to act.

I'm trying to analogize this to current events. We keep hearing that Assad has "killed over 100,000 of his own people". Well, lessee, he's got a civil war going on, duh, and he's trying to preserve his country's sovereignty. Moreover, the unrest and violence in the country was promulgated by the CIA in the first place. What's he supposed to do?

How many were killed in the US civil war? Should somebody from a country that has no right nor vested interest in the sovereignty of the US have launched a strike on Lincoln?

I'm trying to imagine what world opinion would be if Putin started directing money and high tech weapons to people in the US who were discontented with the Obama administration. Furthermore, how would the Obama administration react if those people started using the weapons against established US federal institutions?

How can they be so obtuse?

lynxpilot
I'm trying to imagine what world opinion would be if Putin started directing money and high tech weapons to people in the US who were discontented with the Obama administration. Furthermore, how would the Obama administration react if those people started using the weapons against established US federal institutions?

How can they be so obtuse?

I don't think that would serve Putin's interest. He knows that Obama is an inept buffoon, why on earth would he want to run the risk of arming a group of people that opposed someone that clearly wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to get into a REAL war with Russia and/or China?

The people that truly oppose Obama are those that wish to return to a United States that has a strong foundation of personal liberty and an actual notion of what real justice is; those kinds of people wouldn't be amenable to bending over on the world stage for Putin the way the Obama administration is.

I'm not saying we should have gotten involved militarily in Syria, but a leader with any common sense wouldn't have allowed that particular scenario to have even arisen.

lynxpilot
How many times here and in the news have we brought up the record of murders of purportedly innocent victims in political battles at the hands of evil dictators?

And if said evil dictator is identified, the US mounts a strike on them and starts a war.

Bearing that in mind, who mounted a strike on Bill Clinton and Janet Reno when they ruthlessly murdered 80 people at Waco?

This is the hypocrisy argument, the "do as as I say not as I do problem." This argument is meant to be the smoking gun of some sort. The problem lies here:

1. The owner of the plantation doesn't have to explain $%^T to you. He does what he does for the good of the plantation and the right to print money makes him the owner. The owner is not the pres, he's the spokesman.

2. The prime directive is the problem. The Federal Reserve determines if wants the assets of Libya and it wants Libya to come into the IMF fold. The US is bound, by contract, to do the dirty work.

3. The dirty work is done via sophisticated marketing known as "engineering of consent" in which lies are told to get you to agree to what is needed. The action is determined first, then the lies are created. The lie is part of the marketing, not part of the bigger truth.

4. If these actions were not taken, our "dollar" situation would look like Zimbabwe's, the fact that we bomb those who are not IMF friendly keeps the dollar live for another day. The day they stop killing those who oppose the global bank - Iran and Syria are left, we're cooked.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


I'm not sure what you mean by "that scenario", but if it's the chemical weapons deal, that's almost certainly something the CIA had their hands in. CIA was also responsible for funneling other weapons into Syria, quite possibly from Benghazi, for use by the rebels, who it looks like now were actually the ones who did the chemistry.

It seems like any country that doesn't align itself to the profits of a select few corporations and so-called civilized countries has their leadership toppled, and almost every time, the toppling is at the hands of the CIA or their allies.

reply to post by lynxpilot


The 'scenario' that I was referring to was the one in which the U.S. was dragged into a potential military action in Syria.

A leader with common sense would not have allowed themselves and this nation to be put in that spot.

lynxpilot
Bearing that in mind, who mounted a strike on Bill Clinton and Janet Reno when they ruthlessly murdered 80 people at Waco?

Timothy McVeigh attacked a federal building in Oklahoma City.

The circumstances surrounding what happened at Waco versus those that occurred in Syria or Bosnia are so radically different that I, for a moment, considered not replying. I don't know your mental state and I wouldn't be terribly comfortable giving you any ideas.

Simply associating what Assad has done to what happened at Waco makes me question your logic.

Edit to add:

DarthMuerte
The America people should have rose up and handled the problem. We didn't we failed. We are very close to losing what little freedoms we have left because we still fail to act.

This is what I'm referring to when I have reservations about posting McVeigh's actions in response to Waco.

reply to post by links234


What the federal government did at Waco preceded what McVeigh did. It was an atrocity and McVeigh's is another case altogether. Relating what McVeigh did falls into the "two wrongs make a right" thingy at your apparent attempt to justify what the federal government did at Waco.

reply to post by lynxpilot

How many times here and in the news have we brought up the record of murders of purportedly innocent victims in political battles at the hands of evil dictators?

Purportedly? You deny in this day and age that Syrians are being killed? The US didn't attack Pol Pot, he certainly killed a bunch of folks. Do you think that evil people don't exist? I understand that you may things the US picks and chooses who it wants to focus on, but certainly you don't disagree that these folks are doing mad things right?

It seems like you are minimizing the deaths in Syria for some reason. That is a terribly slippery slope.


V

reply to post by Variable


OK, so then let's demonize Lincoln. He did the same thing.

reply to post by lynxpilot


Waco happened before OKC...exactly. McVeigh blew up the federal building as a response to what happened at Waco, among other reasons. I gave you asked for, namely:

who mounted a strike on Bill Clinton and Janet Reno when they ruthlessly murdered 80 people at Waco?

I'm not trying to justify either action.

reply to post by links234


I understand your point now, but it doesn't relate to what I was getting at. The CIA has been funneling arms into Syria in a concerted effort to overthrow Assad. What is he supposed to do? He may be no angel, but he's the executive in his country and rebels were shooting bullets at his police and army.

How would the US react if a foreign entity funded and incited violent action against the incumbent regime? Obama's minions (and probably his predecessor's) started this whole thing. Assad will be the villain no matter what. And anybody in the US that believes this horseradish we see on the news that makes him any more of a villain than our very own government has got their head in the sand.