Judge Jeanine Pirro - Obama, Are Syrian Children YOUR collaterol damage?

In this video, Judge Jeanine Piro discusses her stance on Syria. And once again she is straight on, 100%. I am trying not to make it a habit of posting Judge Jeanine's videos. But well, This time I could not resist.

Here is a quote from the video that compelled me to share this with you:

If you are so dead set against the killing of children that you are willing to send us into yet another conflict. Will you guarantee that the 1000 pound Tomahawk missiles that you will heap on Syria will not kill children? Or are they simply YOUR collateral damage?

Will the murders of those children be less significant then those we go to avenge?

I watched that yesterday, and all I could think of was the news anchors in North Korea. Over dramatic, clearly theater actors and not genuin.

But, I do agree with her, but the way she is presenting her stand on this situation is like seeing a person audition for a play. I can not take her serious at all, it doesnt sound like she mean it, with the constant shifting from smile to angry looks. I now this is mainly the name of the game for americans news anchors, thats is, over dramatic and theatrical. But something like this should be spoken from heart to be taken seriously.

reply to post by Nettlas


Take away the commercialized setting, the person doing the talking etc.. Everything is a valid point. I wish I could say that I hope Obama watches this. But why bother? Honestly, I feel that he thinks he knows better than the next person.

Judge Pirro also mentioned that approx 100,000 people have been killed in Syria. So are the 1400 killed by one method any more important than the 100,000 killed by another?

This above point also makes a lot of sense. Is using chemical weapons any worse than beheading a person? Or say maybe burning them alive?

Originally posted by Nettlas
I watched that yesterday, and all I could think of was the news anchors in North Korea. Over dramatic, clearly theater actors and not genuin.

But, I do agree with her, but the way she is presenting her stand on this situation is like seeing a person audition for a play. I can not take her serious at all, it doesnt sound like she mean it, with the constant shifting from smile to angry looks. I now this is mainly the name of the game for americans news anchors, thats is, over dramatic and theatrical. But something like this should be spoken from heart to be taken seriously.

That is why the news is such a joke to watch but that is expected when you expect to profit on the news. Why can't we have reporters like this anymore?

Originally posted by Nettlas
But something like this should be spoken from heart to be taken seriously.

Although I agree, here is what happens when someone speaks from the heart. Shortly after David Frost died, I shared this video. I feel this was one of the most provocative statements of all time during an interview. Not one single person commented and my thread disappeared into ATS nothingness.

reply to post by elouina

Is using chemical weapons any worse than beheading a person? Or say maybe burning them alive?

Yes it is. A chemical weapon is worse than the other two because once it is started it cannot be stopped and knows neither friend nor foe.

reply to post by elouina


In that video of Nixon, I totaly belive what he says. He is telling the truth no question about it.
Judge jeanine Pirro, allthough speaking the truth as she sees it, doesnt sound like she does mean it when she is so dramatic.

But enough of this about drama, I dont want to derail the thread.

What she says in this video is 100% spot on in my opinion. I agree with her to the fullest and I think many do.
The question she asks about the 1,4k dead by chemicals vs the 100k dead in "traditional warfare ways" makes you really think about this "red line" and what the difference is.

Why dying from a bullet or chemicals is better/worse than the other, you are still dead. And comparing 100k vs 1,4k dead is silly. This "red line" is a big nothing. If the world was to helt with a solution, we should have acted the moment 1,4k humans died in the first place, chemicals or not.

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by elouina

 

Is using chemical weapons any worse than beheading a person? Or say maybe burning them alive?

Yes it is. A chemical weapon is worse than the other two because once it is started it cannot be stopped and knows neither friend nor foe.

And if the US uses an airstrike will the end results be any different?

Plus how can you compare the death of 1400 CW deaths to 100,000 via all the other methods? Are those other deaths less important because they weren't from chemical weapons? The end result is still the same.

This is grand. What have people become. The media using TV judges because some people just trust what the TV tells them. They brought in Judge Alex for the GZ show.

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by elouina

 

Is using chemical weapons any worse than beheading a person? Or say maybe burning them alive?

Yes it is. A chemical weapon is worse than the other two because once it is started it cannot be stopped and knows neither friend nor foe.

And if the US uses an airstrike will the end results be any different?

Plus how can you compare the death of 1400 CW deaths to 100,000 via all the other methods? Are those other deaths less important because they weren't from chemical weapons? The end result is still the same.

edit on 9-9-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

You asked if CW was worse than the other ways of death. If you didn't want the answer then why did you ask the question? Of course the results will be different if the US strikes. Things will be even more messed up.

reply to post by buster2010


You make absolutely no sense in your response. You are saying that a chemical weapon death is worse than other ways.

You said:

Yes it is. A chemical weapon is worse than the other two because once it is started it cannot be stopped and knows neither friend nor foe.

My point is that any type of bomb or mortar also knows friend or foe and can't be stopped either. My other point is that 100,000 other deaths are just as important as only 1400 chemical weapon deaths. In fact even more important since the number of deaths is much higher.

It is my contention that the UN should have gotten involved with diplomatic solutions long before they even reached 100 deaths. The fist step would have been asking the Syrian people if THEY wanted help. And who they wanted help against. While continuing to ask this throughout their war. And not just when chemical weapons were used. And when help was to be provided, the people of Syria should have a choice in the methods used.

actually have never seen this woman before but i must say i like what she had to say, now we just need every single news caster out there to be honest and say the same thing on air and so much more.

reply to post by elouina


S&F

Thanks for posting this