Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: No Fly Zone for Syria now

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 16, 2012, 9:52 a.m. EST by mjbento (74)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

No Fly Zone for Syria now! How many more Azazes, Aleppos, and Homs it takes for our West leaders to hear the Syrian people's cries? Stop the butchery sponsored by Russia and Iran! How much more blood we need to see, how many more mothers we need to see crying their lost sons, huspbands, brothers-in-law, sisters, uncles, cousins, grandparents & grandsons.

How many of those images we need to continue see? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/201281651250103232.html

Stop it. Enough tears and suffering.

100 Comments

100 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Syrian Christian Nun: Western Media Coverage a "Fake"

The Mother Superior at the Syrian monastery of St. John the Mutilated in Qaram, says there are very few Syrians among the Syrian "rebels," and she charges that Western news media coverage of ongoing violence in Syria has been "partial and untrue." The news coverage is a "fake," which "hides atrocities committed in the name of liberty and democracy," Mother Agnes Mariam said on video interview posted by the Irish Times.

She said that in Aleppo, foreigners came in, and went into civilian areas, and then they claimed that the Syrian army is bombing civilian areas. "We don't want to be invaded, as in Aleppo, by mercenaries, some of whom think they are fighting Israel. They bring terror, destruction, fear, and nobody protects the civilians," she said. She described one situation where rebels cut a man's finger off, and then beheaded him. She said that abuse of young girls, beheadings, and abductions by the rebels, are common.

Christians make up about 10 percent of Syria's population, and the Assad regime does not favor them, she said. "It is a secular regime based on equality for all, even though in the constitution it says the Koran is the source of legislation." But, she said, "Christians are less put aside than in other Islamic countries, for example Saudi Arabia." She added, "The social fabric of Syria is very diverse, so Christians live in peace."

The majority of Muslims in Syria are moderate and open to other cultural and interfaith elements, she said, but "Wahhabism is not open." There are "very few Syrians among the rebels," she said, adding, "Mercenaries should go home."

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Give me the link to this interview. Give me the link on the Irish times. How can I know you are not making up things without giving a link to your source?

After all, Assad is a saint who sends his Mig-angels to do angelic work......

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Protect the innocent people being slaughtered by Syria with the help of Russia & Iran.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, if you want to commit atrocities, at least do it in the name of liberty and democracy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't want to commit atrocities. Just protect the innocent. Do you think we should protect the innocent?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, but in this case the people whom the innocent should be protected from are foreign mercenaries supported by western propaganda, not Syrian freedom fighters.

Its an old scam, for centuries "popular uprisings" have been financed by foreign aggressors seeking regime change.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh ok. Are you saying there really aren't innocent civilians in Syria to protect.?

If that's the case then I wouldn't support protecting them.

But if there were innocent civilians being slaughtered in Syria or anywhere else would you support protecting them?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

When you previously asked "Do you think we should protect the innocent?" I answered "Yes". What is it about that "Yes" which you don't understand?

Of course I support protecting the innocent. The questions is "Whom" do we protect them from? I do believe there are innocent civilians in Syria to protect, and that the ones they need to be protected from are foreign mercenaries, of the Al Qaeda variety, who are being supported by western propaganda, not authentic Syrian rebels.

The objective of the western financial oligarchy is world domination. This means that the only existing super powers which could stand up to the western oligarchs, Russia and China, must submit. If they refuse, their supporters among west Asian and African nations must be gradually eliminated through regime change.

This may have something to do with the reason why Russian and China oppose regime change in Syria.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaaah. So Russia and China is fighting against the Al Qaeda foreign mercenaries who are supported by western (our) propaganda. And we are doing this to achieve world domination.

I get it. We are the bad guys in that scenario. And China and Russia are the good guys. So maybe you believe we should protect the innocent civilians from us?

I guess China, and Russia aren't interested in the oil, or world domination?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

When you say "our" propaganda, do you include yourself as a member of the western financial oligarchy? If so, you may be disappointed to find out that they would be quite unlikely to admit you into their club, it is rather exclusive.

I don't believe that "we" meaning you, me and other people in this forum want to achieve world domination. But that the wealthiest people in our society do indeed wish to achieve world domination, including domination over you, me, the people in this forum, the Russians and Chinese, as well as everybody else in the world who is not a member of their exclusive club.

Innocent civilians do need to be protected from "us" to the extent that we take sides with and support our financial oligarchy in its efforts to dominate those innocent civilians.

I don't believe that the Russians or Chinese are interested in world domination these days. They are mostly just interested in raising their poor people out of poverty. China, for example, has brought 100 million people out of the deepest poverty over the last 30 years, according to the world bank.

China does need oil and other resources to achieve economic development, and generally assists in the development of the infrastructure of those developing countries that are willing to exchange resources for assistance.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wow those Chines are just great. If only we lived there. Hey wait a minute your login says Guangzhou, Guangdong, is that China.?

You aren't a little partial now are you.

Say do you think that they jets and tanks blowing up hospitals in Syria are supported by America or Russia/China/Iran.?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'm an American citizen living in China. I teach English here, wanting to improve the relationship between our countries. We could do much to solve the western financial crisis and eliminate poverty in China by increasing reciprocal trade. But this is hindered by the western financial oligarchy which would prefer to profit from conflict between China and the US.

My guess is that there is probably a lot of propaganda surrounding the issue of jets and tanks blowing up hospitals in Syria.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaaah so it ain't happening. Wow. propaganda is a powerful thing man. But you do believe there is fighting there right. I mean you did say Al Qaeda fighters are there being supported by western propaganda. So you must believe there is fighting there. And if so they must be fighting the Syrian military right? Just stop me if I'm spewing western propaganda.

So if our Al Qaeda fighters are fighting the Syrian military are you suggesting that the Syrian military is not using tanks and jets? Are you saying that is western propaganda?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I believe the Al Qaeda fighters are engaged in terrorism against the Syrian civilian population. It stands to reason that the Syrian government would use tanks and jets against Al Qaeda.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thank you so much. You Wanna remove Pres Obama from office.

Good luck in all you good efforts.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thank you,

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

ok so it isn't western propaganda as you said a moment ago? Syrian govt is using the jets and tanks against the Al Qaeda fighters (who do not have jets and tanks) and not killing civilians with those jets and tanks?

Thats an amazing feat. We can't even do that with our targeted remote control drones. And nobody does it better than us baby.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I didn't say it wasn't happening, I said that there is probably a lot of propaganda around the issue. Read all about it:

The Syria Crisis: Massacres and Information Warfare

U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson is reported to have been the first to say, "The first casualty, when war comes, is truth." That was in 1917, but now, in the Information Age, truth must be killed as a prerequisite for going to war. In the case of Syria, this principle is documented in spades in two articles, a July 12 article published by Asia Times, and the second posted by Russia Today, on July 14. The Russia Today article makes the case that massacres happen in Syria just as the UN Security Council is about to take up a new resolution. Dr. Guenter Meyer, a Middle East expert at the University of Mainz in Germany, speaking to RT in an interview, described the Houla massacre of three weeks ago as an example of "massacre marketing, which means that rebels on purpose kill as many people as possible in order to incite worldwide public opinion and to promote invasion from abroad into Syria in order to oust Bashar al-Assad." In the beginning, he said, the government was responsible for killing peaceful protesters, but the situation has completely changed. Meyer argued that the Western governments, the Gulf Arab states, Turkey and a large part of the opposition have no interest in a peaceful solution. They want to get rid of Assad, but to make this happen, they need to ensure that the military intervention from abroad takes place. That's why, Meyer said, "whenever an action of the United Nations Security Council is going to start, then these atrocities are being reported," Meyer said.

The Asia Times article, by one Aisling Byrne, is a lengthy study of the methods of information warfare that are being brought to bear on international opinion regarding the conflict inside Syria. "What we are seeing is a new stage of information war intentionally constructed and cast as a simplistic narrative of a struggle for human rights and democracy so as deliberately to exclude other interpretations and any geostrategic motivation," writes Byrne. "But it is a narrative based on distortion, manipulation, lies and videotape." Byrne then goes on to document the case, including the fact that the Syrian insurgents aren't just getting arms and combat training from the Western countries, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but also training and equipment for psychological warfare, which then becomes the basis for the "news" reports coming out of Syria that are provided by the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Much of what Byrne reports is already known to readers of LaRouche publications, but it's worth noting that Byrne indicts major news media organizations, U.S. Senator John McCain, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and even human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. She quotes former CIA official Paul Pillar noting the parallels between the anti-Syria campaign and that against Iraq in 2003. He said that the neo-con case for arming the Syrian opposition "is a continuation of the same patterns of neo-conservative thinking that led to Bush's war [on Iraq]. There is the same wishful thinking substituting for careful analysis about consequences."

In fact, just in the past few days, another alleged massacre near Homs has been finally revealed to have been no massacre at all, but a pitched battle between armed rebels and government forces, in which an estimated 100 combatants were killed. The Syrian Observatory in London had blasted word that the battle was a government massacre in which 250 innocent and unarmed civilians were killed by the Syrian Army—all total lies.

Indeed that is true, but there is also murderous intent behind the information war machine. It isn't just aimed at war on Syria, but also Iran and ultimately, nuclear confrontation with both Russia and China, which have so far fiercely resisted the information war campaign. But, the only way it can be stopped is by the Constitutional removal of Barack Obama from the Office of the President. Only then will the British finger be taken off the U.S. nuclear trigger.

http://larouchepac.com/node/23347

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

no fly zone = war

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

fuck off. hands off out of Syria.stop supporting te%%orism gangs in Syria! you are brainwashed Pigeons who been followed by western media. paid bots!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 2 years ago

"Stop the butchery sponsored by Russia and Iran!"

Lest we forget CHINA.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I agree and no more NATO bombing. navy shelling or drones

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Do we shoot down the Syrian Jets as the "no fly Zone" implies?

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

No let me guess... Why not allow them to fly over civilians and start carpet bombing everything? Limbs, legs, blood and probably some human heads could fly as a result of the bombings.., unless you put pilles of rubble buildings on top of them, in which case limbs will not fly... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8s2PRFOZgg

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am with you boss. We should blow the shit out of Assad military Jets, & tanks. We should be the army of good. Russia & China & Iran be damned.!

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

and Hezbollah, don't forget :)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Iranian backed Hezbollah! Drone bomb there sorry asses.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

and NATO bombers

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nato should shoot down nato bombers? I don't understand.

Syrian jets are bombing the civilian population. Should we enforce a no fly zone which would mean shooting down Syrian jets with Nato bombers.

No good?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is a paid political hack and this pro-war post proves it:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-fly-zone-for-syria-now/#comment-807615

VQkag2 is no part of the 99% or OWS. Loretta26 tells it like it is:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-806967

Poster Madinusa sees VQkag2 for the poser he is as well:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-807894

This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, VQkag2!

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Put your lies about other people somewhere else. Like your ass, it's full of hitler's shit.

[-] 0 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is a paid pro-regime spinmeister (liar for hire) and this pro-war post proves it:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-fly-zone-for-syria-now/#comment-807615

VQkag2 is no part of the 99% or OWS. Loretta26 tells it like it is:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-806967

Poster Madinusa sees VQkag2 for the poser he is as well:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-807894

This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, VQkag2!

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is entitled to be part of what he wants. We are in a free society so advocate your hate mongering and fanaticism in other forums. Users like you stain the idea of FREEDOM. GET A LIFE AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF OCCUPY YOU FASCIST PIECE OF SHIT!

He's entitled to think what he wants and this is NO FUCKING BUSINESS OF YOURS. I believe in a democratic society so go pray your hitler views on another forum. VQkag2 the world is full of trolls but that doesn't mean we believe them :)

If you want to make accusations against VQkag2 why don't you show your real troll face, piece of shit!

[-] 0 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is a paid political hack (liar for hire) and this pro-war post proves it:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-fly-zone-for-syria-now/#comment-807615

VQkag2 is no part of the 99% or OWS. Loretta26 tells it like it is:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-806967

Poster Madinusa sees VQkag2 for the poser he is as well:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-807894

This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, VQkag2!

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Put your lies about other people somewhere else. Like your ass, it's full of hitler's shit.

[-] 0 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is a paid Obamapology spinmeister (professional liar) and this pro-war post proves it:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-fly-zone-for-syria-now/#comment-807615

VQkag2 is no part of the 99% or OWS. Loretta26 tells it like it is here:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-806967

Poster Madinusa sees VQkag2 for the propagandist poser he is as well:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-807894

This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, VQkag2!

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

You had it coming. You keep posting lies and insulting other people. You just got permalinked. If you keep posting the same thing all the way, I'll just permlink you again, because people like you DO NOT COMPREENDE english.

[-] 0 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is a paid political spinmeister (read liar for hire) and this pro-war post proves it:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-fly-zone-for-syria-now/#comment-807615

VQkag2 is no part of the 99% or OWS. Loretta26 tells it like it is here:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-806967

Poster Madinusa sees VQkag2 for the propagandist poser he is as well:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-807894

Learn more about his slimey tactics here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-15-rules-of-web-disruption/

This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, VQkag2!

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

What about Assad bombing his people every minute? tank sheling and shabiha?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the military should not be bombing people

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Perhaps we can bomb just the jet!

Would that be ok?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

bombs are area of effect

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Huh? Should we bomb the jets or not?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not if they're on the ground

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But if we bomb the Jets on the ground we might be able to preempt the death they might perpetrate onto the civilians, and we might be able to destroy them without killing the pilot.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

death of another should be no ones decision

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Right. so if we get the jets on the ground we may able to prevent the jets from killing Syrian civilians without killing anyone. just destroying the jets.

Hows that?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

may unnecessary cause the deaths of others

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok then we destroy the jets when they are in the air?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if they are bombers

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Then who. No one? The hell w/ those civilians?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Then who will protect the civilians like in Syria and the congo.?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

certainly not NATO bombers

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You mean Nato bombing killing civilians? I agree

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

NATO bombing ability should be dismantled

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Right Matt. We're talkin about Syrian Jets bombing the civilian rebels.

Cool. You 'da man.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

as should any NATO bomber

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is a paid regime propagandist (professional liar) and this pro-war post proves it:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-fly-zone-for-syria-now/#comment-807615

VQkag2 is no part of the 99% or OWS. Loretta26 tells it like it is:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-806967

Poster Madinusa sees VQkag2 for the poser he is as well:

http://occupywallst.org/article/s17-follow-money-all-roads-lead-wall-street/#comment-807894

This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, VQkag2!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It is horrible. We should not be afraid to use out military to protect innocent civilians from brutal dictators.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

So much blood, where is dignity? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8s2PRFOZgg

[-] 0 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Bashar, you will burn in hell along with Putin and the Chineese Comunist Party. FREE SYRIA, FREE PUSSY RIOT, FREE CHINA!

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

and free America from Rep

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

nice a pro war thread, and a bunch of hate filled dip-shts jumping in,. . dumb, dumb, dumb.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh no protecting the civilians from the Assad dictator slaughtering his people? No good?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

yes bomb the world to peace?
the non-logic of your motivation is astounding.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Be nice!

logic? = destroy the jets & tanks!

motivation? = protect the civilians.

So no policing of the world? is that what your sayin'?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I am saying you can not BOMB the world to peace. simple.

Perhaps if the corporate-bankster-military government you support, with your endless calls for submissive "voting" did not prop up these dictators, and arm them, all over the world,. these issues would not arise? or is that just too much thought for you?

you are calling for bombing of yet another country,. more invasion,. more war. It is disgusting. If you wanted PEACE that is what you would be pushing not this stupidity. Your warmongering is sickening.

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Well if you are saying you canot BOMB the world, why do you want to let Assad BOMB his people? You have hate-banners ready for NATO but as soon as we talk about the daily butcheries of Assad, you stfu. It is just disgusting you like to see syrian mothers and child just DIE under Russian Mig jets AND DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HUMAN LIVES! YOU PIECE OF SHIT!

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

lol,. you are clearly an idiot. Thanks for degrading the debate to school age name calling, are you 7 years old?

America is the worlds warmonger/arms dealer/resource exploiter, not the worlds policeman. We do not attack these troubled places out of concern for the people there, but out of self interest. You do not bomb people to help them.

When I was at university it was the beginning of Bush Sr.'s invasion of Iraq,. we had a Kurdish professor at the school,. I recall clearly how one of my prof. invited him into our lecture to talk about the situation. If you can recall Saddam was being accused of terrible atrocities against the Kurds, and this one one of the big 'selling points' of the warmongering at that time as well. This man made it clear that no good would come from an outside foreign army invading to 'free' his people from oppression, and that they did not want such a thing, knowing full-well that it woulds only devastate their land further, destroy many buildings and kill many people. At that time as now there was a strong campaign of mis/dis-information being waged by the warmongers,. as always the cries are "we have to save the civilians" and as always this is the furthest thing from the truth. When I asked him about the news reports of oppression and atrocities, his reply was the people in the region would deal with their problems in their own way in their own time,. that out side interference would only make matters worse, not better. I was young and had not experienced this type of propaganda campaign and had difficulty understanding why he would not want us to 'help' his people,. after witnessing the results and the fact that we are still killing people and destroying the land in that area, I now understand; war is never to help anyone but the military's budget demands, political power plays, and the bankers/corporatist making money from exploiting the situation. Never to help the people.

Recall; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

I have vivid memories of this story, on the nightly news, on all the major networks at the time. However when it was reviled to be a lie, concocted my an advertising PR firm to "sell" the war,. the was no coverage of that news at all,. the moral of the story is that when your military and its government backers decide they want to invade, they concoct all manner of propaganda to sell their war,. and you are simply engaging (knowingly or not) in that endeavor. No good comes from war not ever. peace.

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

While you wrote your mumbo-jumbo, Assad is curently carying shelling and bombing over civilians in Aleppo and Azaz. Assad is BOMBING his people right now and you come talking about peace? Peace to your lying ass!

You're not just hyprocrit, you're scinical and you would rather take the discussion to conspiracy theories giving a DAMN SHIT OF REAL PEOPLE, civilians - people like YOU AND ME - being KILLED under Bashar tank shelling and mig-figters.

If I am an idiot call idiots to all the syrians being BUTCHERED by Assad. You're such a Trash!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Protect the civilians from dictators!

We're the only country who can do it.

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

I agree with you there. Problem is I think some leaders don't have balls to do what's right. They will be judged for not helping people suffering in their time of need, they will be remembered as cowards.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It is criminal. The geopolitics of the day is considered too heavily. The only concern should be for the innocent victims of govt brutality.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

the rebels are filled with Al Qaeda and Hamas. Not only that but it's not right to choose sides in a civil war. Believe it or not Assad still has support of many citizens in the country, Hillary Clinton says that too.

You should listen to Hilary Clinton speak about the issue.

I say NO MORE WAR

A huge problem with US intervention is the FACT that there is HIGH levels of CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.

Don't let the media brain wash you into a war.

Why don't you speak on behalf of the people that were raped and killed in Congo? Over a million people killed in Congo in the past 10 years.

Could it have a lot to do with what the tv says?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So then no policing the world? No protecting civilians from the dictator Assad?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm saying the picking and choosing is solely based on the war plan outlined by the Bush administration.

Saddam was a dictator... did you agree with the war in Iraq?

Also covert operations run deep.

Why Syria and not Congo? Why Libya and not Yemen?

In 2007 way before this shiz started the Bush administration put together a list of 7 countries. It turns out Bush wanted to take out Libya too.

Wes Clark and the neocon dream: In 2007, the retired General described a necon "policy coup" aimed at toppling the governments of 7 countries

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called “a policy coup” engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon’s plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the “coup” being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called “a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century”:

Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?”

He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

Clark said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”

read more - http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

Also if you're going to ask me if we should invade foreign countries you can assume my answer is NO. We shouldn't be involved with any country unless their government attacks us. That's also part of international law. Which is one of the issues that made Iraq a war crime.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah yeah. I know this, I've known about the "project for a new american century" for years, I do not doubt list of 7 countries and all that. I don't doubt the MIC which is neocon controlled whatever party is on power is continueing the mission.

So with that said it may be that Syria, (Lidia before is part of their plan, but not the islamist govt right) is part of that plan. But! Assad IS a dictator who slaughters his civilian population like his father. And! We are not invading. Ain't gonna invade. Ain't talkin about it, ain't planning it. If there are alqueada, or Taliban among the rebels what are we gonna do choose who joins the rebels. No! We must choose a side. Or at least let regional groups do so. The UN can do so. We are the only country that can be the police of the planet.

We have the responsibility, Congo. Let's police it, Yemen, hands up!

Go ahead make me day. Who is gonna do it if not us.

I'm sure we disagree. Please don't yell at me. I am anti war, anti drone bombs Not a pacifist. and pro protecting civilians against dictators.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

One cannot preach for war and say they are anti-war

One cannot say lets take the Libya route and say they do not support bombs.

Trying to be the police of the planet is also called trying to be an empire. Empires build enemies and then the enemies hate you so much they kill themselves along with others just to show it.

Let's not build another Taliban like Reagan, congress, and the CIA did in the 1980's. Let's not reuse failed Reagan era policies.

Doing so proves Americans have learned nothing.

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Unlike Taliban my little friend, this is a Syrian people genuine revolution. Talibans FROM THE START wanted to impose te most radical interpretation of Islam, destroy anything relating to modern culture. ON THE OPPOSITE, The Syrian People now making the revolution want to create a FREE, DEMOCRACTIC, LAW-ABIDING STATE Syria. A Syria were they elect their chief of state, with a real elected parliament by and for the people, a Syria without social inequalities, a Syria with institutions, with Courts deciding according to the Law, Justice, and a State were they can freely express their opinions, voices, thoughts, religious views and peacefuly assemble. This is what they ask.

The Arab spring IS NOT made from taliban but from PEOPLE protesting for their HUMAN RIGHTS&DIGNITY to be respected by the State their live in.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

HIlary Clinton explains Syria

"Al Qaeda and Hamas and those on our terrorist list for sure" - "Many citizens still support Assad" - "No UN approval" - "Difficult but necessary" to watch it play out. HIllary Clinton explains Syria - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17170775

Stop preaching for US war. Saddam was a dictator who killed his own people. Now suddenly Iraq is a good idea.

Everyone forgets about the massive civilian casualties from US intervention

[-] 0 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Your link is a February interview. Clinton has reviewed her positions. Citizens don't support Assad. In fact I tell you those who support Assad: Putin, Iran, Hezbollah. It's not possible to support a leader who spends the entire time BOMBING your houses, your families; what is possible is that you will do EVERYTHING, everything - I repeat - to see him dead.

Meanwhile some people seem to forget syrian woman and children are being carpet bombed by Assad MIg's and rusian made helicopters in aleppo, azaz and homs. Sure NO ONE MENTIONS whatsoever casualties of Bashar's "intervention" or should I say slaughter

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please don't tell what I can or cannot do.

I don't want to create another taliban. We can be police without creating terrorists, and without being imperialist.

Police must be controlled but we all accept that police are necessary locally and internationally. Sorry. We disagree.

My position does not conform to a simplistic black and white definition.

We are the only military that can do it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Our military is bankrupting the government.

Also I must add to keep in mind the large numbers of civilian casualties from US intervention as well as destroyed cities and towns.

Neocons agree! Take out Syria.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who will protect the innocent people of Congo, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain being brutalized by their own governments?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The US will only do it if there's ways to profit

sad but true

Neocon agenda only... that's the US warpath.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't support that motivation. I'm talkin about, and I support providing US military for use by UN, regional orgs to police/protect innocent people from brutal dictators.

We disagree? Do you think something should be done for the innocent people being brutalized be dictators? What should be done? Lets find common ground?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

There's better ways to create peace. Bombing people and violating international law is not the solution.

How about spending a trillion dollars directly helping the refugees instead of spending a trillion bombing cities and causing high levels of casualties? More use of diplomacy.

People need to think about the future. Bombs need to be a thing of the past.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How about someone destroy the army that is slaughtering the civilians? let someone else drop a trillion on the refugees.

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (2124) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

LOL-if you could bomb the world into peace they'd stop doing it immediately!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We stopped nazi violence with violence. Does that count?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Bombing the world to peace is your ridiculous idea. To suggest I want that or am suggesting that betrays the weakness of you ability to argue the issue with facts.

Police are a necessary evil. We accept them in our local communities (although we must be dillegent in overseeing them) and we must accept policing internationally.

Protecting innocent people being brutalized by dictators seems like the best use of this massive US military (after we cut 50% fr budget) We could also extract fees from UN, regional & individual countries.

What do you suggest we do for the innocent civilians being brutalized by dictators around the world?

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (2124) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

I am referring to the song by Burning Spear-"You Can Bomb The World to Pieces(But You Can't Bomb The World INTO Peace)****I am no expert on managing and controlling violence,but trying to control violence with more violence seems illogical and does not seem to have a history of being effective.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28495) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The thing is - The MIC is for all of it - Good/Bad/Indifferent.

They supply and profit off of arms - Uniforms, Field Rations, 1st Aid Kits, Knives, Pistols. Rifles, RPG's, SAM's, Drones, Air to Air and Air to Ground Missiles, Bombs, Mines, Mercenaries, Jets - fighter and Bomber, Helicopter - attack and troop carriers, Transportation - armored and un-armored - personal carriers - supply transport, Tanks, Assault vehicles etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

The MIC does not care who gets slapped as long as there are customers. Resupplying/outfitting a country that has just recently gotten it's ass handed to them is gr8 revenue/income/profit for the MIC.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Watching the war machine, it was suddenly so clear. The machine won't stop. It 's not going to get drunk or say it was too busy to spend time with you on the weekends. It would always be there.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28495) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We have got to get people to see that exporting peace is a vital as well as a good thing to do. Shut down the MIC and get them manufacturing products for peace and prosperity for domestic use as well as for foreign.

Green technology for every environment - supplying clean water and electricity and transportation.

End the reasons for strife.

OK - for the blind greedy then - SHEESH - MAKE GOOD MONEY AND HAVE A GROWING CONSUMER BASE.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

T2?

very good. That's where we're headed.

No more drone assassinations, End the war on terror! No more oil wars.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

lol I'm glad someone got the Terminator 2 reference

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Maybe not so glad it was me. LoL

[-] -1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

Oh yeah.... sigh