1 posted on
08/30/2013 5:04:21 AM PDT by
Kaslin
To: Kaslin
When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned poison gas against the rebels and their families, everyone could agree that even in a civil war -- where passions burn hottest -- that's inhumane, and it's not forgivable. Also not proven, so far. Why would Assad, who was supposedly winning, risk the ire of the world for using chemical weapons?
I'm skeptical he did. It is the "revolutionaries" (AlQaida) who has everything to gain from breaking a few eggs...
2 posted on
08/30/2013 5:11:06 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: Kaslin
“When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned poison gas against the rebels and their families...”
And the author makes a statement of fact with NO facts on which to base such an erroneous claim. This is yellow propaganda in its most putrid form.
3 posted on
08/30/2013 5:13:08 AM PDT by
MestaMachine
(My caps work, You gotta earn them.)
To: Kaslin
My gut feeling is that the rebels or somebody else did this. Not Assad.
4 posted on
08/30/2013 5:15:30 AM PDT by
McGruff
(Strange times are these in which we live...)
To: Kaslin
"The clarity of hindsight exposes many errors in the president's thinking about the world and America's place in it, but no error is so clear now as his refusal to aid the Syrian rebels before their ranks were swollen with radicals and terrorists nobody can trust. "Talk about a schizophrenic paragraph. Does she think we should go after assad or not? If the rebels are 'swollen' with terrorists nobody can trust" what they hell would we help them for?
5 posted on
08/30/2013 5:17:50 AM PDT by
Mr. K
(Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
To: Kaslin
“When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned poison gas against the rebels and their families, everyone could agree that even in a civil war — where passions burn hottest — that’s inhumane, and it’s not forgivable.”
This sentence, stated as a fact is nothing but a bald faced lie. There is proof Assad did not do it, no proof he did do it, although obama would have bombed them based on a lie which he knew to be a lie.
6 posted on
08/30/2013 5:18:10 AM PDT by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: Kaslin
Images of battlefield chemical terror from long ago and “photographs” and reports of ‘intercepted’ one-sided communications are not proof of use with the verifiable specificity I'd want to commit the lives, or our resources to, if that were even my predilection.
Frankly, I could give a crap what one Muslim does to another. Interfering in their petty squabbles is not worth the life of one American Soldier or the cost of a simple bullet.
10 posted on
08/30/2013 5:25:32 AM PDT by
Gaffer
To: Kaslin
“...but no error is so clear now as his refusal to aid the Syrian rebels before their ranks were swollen with radicals and terrorists nobody can trust.”
I’ve been trying to make this point for 2 yrs.
Not helping the rebels in the beginning left them desperate for help as time went on. The mb & alqaeda were glad to fill the vacuum.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
12 posted on
08/30/2013 5:29:58 AM PDT by
nuconvert
( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
To: Kaslin
"But if an Assad victory would be awful, a rebel triumph might eventually be worse... Rough seas lie ahead." -Suzanne FieldsMs. Fields' conclusion is absolutely correct today, and was also correct at the onset of Syria's civil war. Assad is a bad actor, but his secular dictatorship is much preferable to the chaos of the irrational Islamists who would inevitably replace him.
To: Kaslin
“Let Allah sort it out”
Sarah Palin
22 posted on
08/30/2013 6:05:11 AM PDT by
Sir Francis Dashwood
("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson