Oh that's right; I forgot.

No one here cares if Muslims kill Muslims.

Not quite right… people here are tired of American’s fighting for Muslims, who kill Muslims… and blame the USA, and Israel. Let them sort it out…

Actually I had a thought about it when I heard the news the other day. The announcer stated that there's a fear that the Sheeites and Sunies are about to kick off a conflict that could spread to all the countries in the mid east. My thought was Good, maybe they'll put an end to the problem for us.

I care. I just think it may be a crock. I believe (and am troubled by the fact that) people are dying. But I doubt the situation is much at all like we're told it is.

My bet? This is primarily about Iran (and Russia).

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Oh that's right; I forgot.

No one here cares if Muslims kill Muslims.

no ... just tired of the hypocrisy of the world is all. Syria's got nothing to offer the world, so no one's willing to spend any lives or bombs on them.

The UN and NATO got involved in Libya pretty quickly ... wonder why? Oh sure they said it was because of the killings of civillians ... but China's been killing civillians, North Korea is starving it's civillians, Iran killed hundreds of protestors ... and yet ... nothing ...

wonder why? If the UN and NATO and the US truely did believe in using force to end violence we'd be fighting half the world right now.

I think they should sort out their own mess.

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Oh that's right; I forgot.

No one here cares if Muslims kill Muslims.

?

I think the U.S. is sick of war. Why don't you Canadians handle this one?

This is as much about demonizing Iran's allies as anything else.

Obama will bomb Iran. You'll see. You are correct that this is all about sausage-making, and has nothing to do with humanitarian impulses beyond those of the paying/voting American audience. This latest masacre (if it happened at all) was just as likely committed by those who want NATO bombs dropping as it was likely the Syrian government.

btw, anyone else notice that the propagandists have decided not to call the Syrian rebels "rebels"? No, it seems that term is too freighted with ambiguity. We are to refer to them as "activists".

Obama will bomb Iran. You'll see.

The day before the election ?
Just a big ol tail wagging its dog

Originally Posted by debogus

The day before the election ?
Just a big ol tail wagging its dog

OB1 will not "bomb" Iran....

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Oh that's right; I forgot.

No one here cares if Muslims kill Muslims.

Wiki:

Warfare
Fragment of the Stele of the Vultures showing marching warriors, Early Dynastic III period, 2600–2350 BCAs city-states began to grow, their spheres of influence overlapped, creating arguments between other city-states, especially over land and canals. These arguments were recorded in tablets several hundreds of years before any major war—the first recording of a war occurred around 3200 BC but was not common until about 2500 BC. At this point, warfare was incorporated into the Mesopotamian political system, where a neutral city may act as an arbitrator for the two rival cities. This helped to form unions between cities, leading to regional states.[33] When empires were created, they went to war more with foreign countries. King Sargon, for example, conquered all the cities of Sumer, some cities in Mari, and then went to war with northern Syria. Many Assyrian and Babylonian palace walls were decorated with the pictures of the successful fights and the enemy either desperately escaping or hiding amongst reeds. A king in Sumer, Gilgamesh, was thought to be two-thirds god and only one-third human. His exploits were recorded in many poems and songs of the time.

Nothing new to see here....... move on people.

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Oh that's right; I forgot.

No one here cares if Muslims kill Muslims.

Many Moslems would doubt that the Alawite sect to which Assad belongs is indeed Moslem.

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Oh that's right; I forgot.

No one here cares if Muslims kill Muslims.

Nor do most people here seem to know or care that around 10% of Syrians are Christians, who mostly seem to support the Assad regime. Yet again, our leaders (US and allies) support the radical Muslims.

It's interesting that Israel seems to be keeping it's mouth shut on Syria. The only comment I read regarding Israel and the massacre in Syria was Netanyahu trying to implicate Iran.

Dusty

Originally Posted by rcposter

I care. I just think it may be a crock. I believe (and am troubled by the fact that) people are dying. But I doubt the situation is much at all like we're told it is.

My bet? This is primarily about Iran (and Russia).

I agree. Prince 'blundermouth' Andrew seems to think the same, although he understated the position of the US while overstating the position of the UK.

Speaking at a 2008 conference in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, the Duke of York, Prince Andrew, announced openly that “the United Kingdom, Western Europe and by extension you Americans too are now back in the thick of playing the Great Game.”

The Great Game refers to a period in history in which the British Empire (and their rivals in Russia) attempted to dominate Central Asia, and included a number of failed British attempts to occupy Afghanistan and the rest of the region.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/29/p...he-great-game/

The end of WW2 and the demise of the European powers left a power vacuum in the middle east which the US has been trying to fill ever since, and all the more aggressively since the fall of the USSR. The only allies in the middle east Russia has these days are Iran and Syria. While Syria doesn't count for much in the greater scheme of things, our leaders evidently think it is worth at least 'indirectly' supporting the 'activists,' whoever they might be, as that's what seems to be happening. What seems to be more important than who the 'activists' are, is that they're anti-Assad and therefore anti-Iran and anti-Russia.

btw, anyone else notice that the propagandists have decided not to call the Syrian rebels "rebels"? No, it seems that term is too freighted with ambiguity. We are to refer to them as "activists".

One thing's for sure, if they were 'active' in our countries they would be called 'terrorists,' as the Assad regime quite rightly calls them. I'm glad that at least someone here cares enough to say so about the people who are dying, because if enough of us cared, then so would our leaders. If law and order and therefore saving civilian lives was their priority, they would surely be supporting the Assad regime, not the 'activists.'

Dusty

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

I agree. Prince 'blundermouth' Andrew seems to think the same, although he understated the position of the US while overstating the position of the UK.



The end of WW2 and the demise of the European powers left a power vacuum in the middle east which the US has been trying to fill ever since, and all the more aggressively since the fall of the USSR. The only allies in the middle east Russia has these days are Iran and Syria. While Syria doesn't count for much in the greater scheme of things, our leaders evidently think it is worth at least 'indirectly' supporting the 'activists,' whoever they might be, as that's what seems to be happening. What seems to be more important than who the 'activists' are, is that they're anti-Assad and therefore anti-Iran and anti-Russia.



One thing's for sure, if they were 'active' in our countries they would be called 'terrorists,' as the Assad regime quite rightly calls them. I'm glad that at least someone here cares enough to say so about the people who are dying, because if enough of us cared, then so would our leaders. If law and order and therefore saving civilian lives was their priority, they would surely be supporting the Assad regime, not the 'activists.'

Dusty

Our views certainly overlap. I am no more a fan of the Assad regime by virtue of my questioning our involvement in Syria than I was a supporter of Saddam by virtue of my calling BS on our involvement in Iraq. But I dare say, the president I voted for seems to exhibit the same alacrity in deceiving the American people as did his putrid predecessor.

In March of 2011, as NATO (American) bombs were raining down on Libya, I wrote to a friend...

Think about it. The west is currently bombing an anti-islamist leader, and we are doing so on behalf of those who are clearly radical islamists. Will it work? Will we engender enough support from the Muslim world (especially Sunni) as to keep them subdued when, in mid to late '12, we bomb Iran (mostly Shia)? Look for further pro-Sunni initiatives in the next year while, at the same time, also looking for increased demonization of Iran. Then go vote for your wartime president. I'm not big on predictions. This one popped into my head when, after learning more about the true nature of the Libyan rebel movement, I realized there's GOT to be more to our bombing Libya than meets the eye.

...and nothing has changed my view. In fact, it has been reenforced. If anyone is under the delusion that we sent hundreds of cruise missiles into Libya for humanitarian reasons, they should ask what has happened to the black people of Libya. They should ask what has happened to the 30,000 people of Tawergha. They should ask why the media which so fervently pushed the "humanitarian" bombing of Libya have all but forgotten about the place. They should ask why Abdelhakim Belhadj, a veteran Al Qaeda terrorist responsible for countless American deaths in Iraq and likely behind the Madrid train bombings, is the head of the military in post-Gadaffi Tripoli. He's also heavily involved in Syria.

I hate to say it, but neo-liberals and neo-conservatives alike, across both the US and Europe, are quickly transforming "humanitarian" into a four-letter word.