War With Syria

I'll p.m. you about it since it's going off topic here.

 

Here's a novel idea: be straight forward and put your fucking cards on the table, and stop being this nagging voice trying to pry conflicting statements out of other posters and similar fucking psychological games.

Do you always have to do that? Or can you simply just insert your fucking opinion?

 

I don't understand this...

Why do people have to get so angry and upset because they don't agree over this?

Lightbulb going off** We don't all HAVE to agree and that's okay.

Relax...everyone! Now, this is silliness.

 

You don't have to believe the U.S gov'.
'They' seem to be certain - but prefix it with 'we believe'.
I guess they have not said 'we don't believe' - so...
But, you know you don't have to believe the US gov'.
All that leads to is saying 'they made my mind up for me', doesn't it?

What would convince you?
Obviously not the UN inspectors.
I don't think anybody else is looking, are they?
Maybe somebody else should.

What should I have said?

I do.

Thank You.

 

What would convince me? Good question. Yeah, not the UN.
Maybe a video? nah, it would probably be photoshopped.
Odon, I'm just a skeptical person. I'm not saying WHO did it... I'm saying I wasn't there. I don't know though. It's a good question that I don't have the answer to. (I don't believe much of anybody in authority and what they say anymore..my first thought is "and what is their purpose in saying this?"... I don't like being that cynical, but, alas, I am)

 

Hahaha, that literally made me laugh. Thank you for your heartfelt summary of me as a poster Meagain.

For the record that original post was directed toward sunfighter, the guy who wants to ban all guns and sees no need for personal defense. Yet wants to bomb and kill innocent Syrians simply because his democratic lord Obama is calling for it. I think you have silly views toward carbines but I know you are not totally anti gun, and you are definitely too naive for me.. for lack of a better word. Is that better than liberal?

I don't even know Aristartle's opinion on guns, although I know she lives in Toronto where my mom just lived for 2 years so I can assume she is not too tolerant of private ownership. But that is not here nor there.

I don't get overly emotional, I am simply not afraid to express my opinions. When I think someone has a stupid opinion I will tell them. And I will label as I see fit, especially when 'liberals' are the ones who label themselves to me far before I label them as such.

Additionally, I'm not sure where you got me bragging about my willingness to use guns to inflict violence. Can we not sensationalize here? I know it's hard for your type, but me being prepared to repel violence is far from bragging about willingness to inflict. I've never started a fight in my life, never killed an animal. So please point me to where I have said this. After this tirade I feel you have no basic understanding of how I feel about violence.

And as far as deleting posts, I didn't attack anyone. I responded to a post by a troll designed to instigate. And I did not call any names or degrade character, I simply stated my opinion of said poster based on their openly expressed opinions. If that doesn't fit in line with your views, sorry, that doesn't make it a personal attack.

 

I don't write other peoples posts.
I do find it difficult to sit back and read certain comments, with out asking a couple of questions.
Perhaps that is a fault of mine.
It's not meant to be psychological games.
It's meant to be - I dunno. Better than spouting off?

Somebody has to.

 

That's ok...but I can't ask a few 'fair enough' questions? Strange.

 

AmericanTerrorist


Ask the chap who says 'all the evidence points to...' -

 

Odon loves authority... a model citizen of the New World Order.

 

But is he suggesting we strike missiles at the rebels? No, I don't think so. That's the difference.

 

Not really the point...

...he's off on another tangent now, so we'll never know about this overwhelming evidence.

 

What other tangent? I even checked his recent posts and he's not talking about anything?

Anyways, you and PR are funny. :sunny:

 

You don't have to go that far back. I know he's not talking about anything.

 

Yes, I suppose somebody has to. That's why I appreciate you but at the same time you are one of the more annoying people on here.

You and a few other people's posts are similar to this to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04"]Charlie Brown Teacher Speaking - YouTube

 

Ask all you want. But do me a favor and try to be more concise if you want an accurate and tolerant answer. Deciphering a prodding poster to me is on par with a steel splinter being jammed into my finger.

 

I have said it many times perhaps on other websites. Obama, Bush, Clinton, whatever face you put on the puppet the purpose is one, divide the region and create a new global enemy a new world war. By installing proxy Islamist governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and so far unsuccessfully in Syria, they are hoping to create an alliance against Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. A sunni alliance loyal to the US falling empire against a shiite alliance in Iran essentially.
Why? well I don't know , look at the US before getting involved in WW2, and the gains it made after winning the war. Perhaps also the US government does not intend to pay its debts off and is preparing for the worst.
Yeah and I guess 9/11 was a side effect of making a deal with the devil, but hey it doesn't seem to be stopping the government from going on with the program.
The war on terror is nothing but a joke, damage control if you will.

 

Well, I didn't ask you. And the post was pretty clear, imho.
It doesn't matter now because that particular question (the original one to PR) isn't going to be answered by anybody anytime soon.

...

:coffee:


Good morning.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/syria-strike-push-hits-hurdles/#ixzz2dQpLnHoj

Not the best interests of the Syrian people ?



Is a U.S. Attack on Syria in America's national interest?
President Obama is trying build support for a strike on Syria. He's raising the possibility of the Assad regime's chemical weapons changing hands and being used against the United States. Chief NationalCorrespondent John King compares this to the Bush Doctrine. General Michael Hayden warns there is narrow space for the Obama administration to punish Assad for the chemical attacks, without regime change. It was all part of Anderson's discussion with a panel that also included Chief International Correspondent Christianne Amanpour, and National Security Analyst Fran Townsend.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/...ericas-national-interest/?on.cnn=1&hpt=ac_bn2

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nIzBnrTQAEQ

This guy has allot of valid points about what's going on in his youtube vids.