We feel your pain.... not
1 posted on
08/30/2013 11:54:45 AM PDT by
Nachum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...
2 posted on
08/30/2013 11:55:15 AM PDT by
Nachum
(I am Breitbartacus!)
To: Nachum
Give him a boat and a rifle and send him over there.
3 posted on
08/30/2013 11:55:23 AM PDT by
headstamp 2
(What would Scooby do?)
To: Nachum
Maybe Kerry should pull out his notes from his anti-war testimoney back during Vietnam.
4 posted on
08/30/2013 11:56:28 AM PDT by
LetsRok
To: Nachum
Lurch being combined with emotion is like equating vomit with fine food.
5 posted on
08/30/2013 11:57:41 AM PDT by
Mastador1
(I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
To: Nachum
"Never do an enemy a small injury."
6 posted on
08/30/2013 11:58:29 AM PDT by
DJ Taylor
(Once again our country is at war, and once again the Democrats have sided with our enemy.)
To: Nachum
“The question is whether we we collectively what are we and the world going to do about it?”
Every creep in the Hussein administration wants America to sacrifice itself for “the world.”
Screw them and screw “the world.”
7 posted on
08/30/2013 11:59:37 AM PDT by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
To: Nachum
I just cruised DU and everyone is against getting involved in Syria.
Looks like the administration is out on a limb by themselves.
8 posted on
08/30/2013 11:59:51 AM PDT by
oldbrowser
(We have a rogue government in Washington)
To: Nachum
Good thing he used emotion instead of logic. otherwise he might have lost support of the democrats
9 posted on
08/30/2013 11:59:53 AM PDT by
WayneS
(Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
To: Nachum
President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelinesYeah,, like taking more than 9 MONTHS to make a decision on troop surge, all the while our men & women in uniform were being shot at. FUBO!!!
12 posted on
08/30/2013 12:01:46 PM PDT by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
To: Nachum
https://www.facebook.com/AllenWestRepublic/posts/514223375320562
Allen West
Listening to Sec. of State Kerry address the Syria chemical attack incident, and he is not convincing at all in his bloviating diatribe. What is the strategic, operational, and tactical objective? If we are not going for regime change, then what is the purpose? If we are just going to fire off some missiles — and understand Assad has already shifted his resources since we told him what the targets are — what is the purpose? A year ago President Obama fired off his mouth and now he wants to fire off missiles. To borrow his own words, he “acted stupidly.” If Obama launches an attack against Syria, a series of unintended consequences shall ensue over which he will have no control. Obama’s strategic incompetence was evidenced when there was no Status of Forces agreement to keep a residual force presence in Iraq. Now we see the consequences from that faux pas.
13 posted on
08/30/2013 12:02:40 PM PDT by
sheikdetailfeather
(Yuri Bezmenov (KGB Defector) - "Kick The Communists Out of Your Govt. & Don't Accept Their Goodies.")
To: Nachum
What would Kerry get emotional about? Is he being forced into something against his better knowledge or will he loose something big if there is no war? I think whatever is going on is for John Hanoi Kerry’s run for president against Hillary.
16 posted on
08/30/2013 12:05:14 PM PDT by
mountainlion
(Live well for those that did not make it back.)
To: Nachum
Could we possibly have a better gauge of how far the US has fallen than when we consider Sec. State John Foster Dulles and John Kerry. If you are too young to know the admirable Dulles, check him out at the arlingtoncemetery.net site. Sadly, we will never know his kind again.
To: Nachum
Hey John, don’t let the double-dog-dare of some 11 year old kid on Facebook cloud what little judgment you have left.
To: Nachum
EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.
By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013
This article is a collaboration between Dale Gavlak reporting for Mint Press News and Yahya Ababneh.
Ghouta, Syria As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last weeks chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.
The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assads guilt was a judgment
already clear to the world.
However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry, said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a tube-like structure while others were like a huge gas bottle.
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regimes heartland of Latakia on Syrias western coast, in purported retaliation.
They didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them, complained a female fighter named K. We didnt know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.
When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them, she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named J agreed. Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material, he said.
We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions, J said.
Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.
The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.
Saudi involvement
In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandars role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.
Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.
Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russias naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russias Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord, Ingersoll wrote.
I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, Bandar allegedly told the Russians.
Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise, Ingersoll wrote.
Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy, he added.
According to U.K.s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandars intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was serious about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.
They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldnt: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout, it said.
Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabias top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan. The newspaper reports that he met with the uneasy Jordanians about such a base:
His meetings in Amman with Jordans King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. The king would joke: Oh, Bandars coming again? Lets clear two days for the meeting, said a person familiar with the meetings.
Jordans financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.
Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.
But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as al-Habib or the lover by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.
Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washingtons rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called limited strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:
Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.
It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.
Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates .
Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and has reported from Amman, Jordan, writing for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC. An expert in Middle Eastern affairs, Gavlak covers the Levant region, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com
Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a masters degree in journalism, He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.
20 posted on
08/30/2013 12:06:29 PM PDT by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Nachum
All wars should be based on emotions. /s
21 posted on
08/30/2013 12:07:08 PM PDT by
EEGator
To: Nachum
Lurch needs a war in order to refresh his treason credentials.
22 posted on
08/30/2013 12:07:24 PM PDT by
immadashell
(The inmates are running the asylum.)
To: Nachum
It included claims that the U.S. has a moral duty to respond to the attack with cold-blooded statements that the U.S. would act on its own interests. And what interests exactly are we acting on?
To: Nachum
Mr. Credibility Make Impassioned Plea For Cambodian Syrian Intervention "I'm John Forbes Kerry but my men called me Captain Fury!
It was cold, it was wet, it was Christmas Eve 1968 and it was Cambodia.....
28 posted on
08/30/2013 12:13:46 PM PDT by
Iron Munro
("You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime" - Lavrentiy Beria [and Eric Holder])
To: Nachum
The statement mixed [phony]
calls for international solidarity with declarations that the U.S. would decide its own actions. Funny how J F'ing Kerry (and his sidekick SanFranNan) are speaking 180 degrees from how they saw an identical issue about going to war against Iraq in 2013 ...
Kerry ... ultimately boils it down to a technical point, which is correct, but nevertheless one that he's had a hard time explaining ever since, which is "I [as a U.S. Senator] am not being asked to vote for war. This is not a declaration of war. I am being asked to give the President of the United States the authority to go to war if he sees fit, down the road, after a set of assurances that he's made to us and the Congress, to the American people, to the world community, that he will only use force as a last resort. I'm authorizing him to use force and the threat of force to backup very, very intense diplomacy.
Um .... johnny .... how come you and your boss are IGNORING the U.S. House, Senate, American people and the "world community" this time?
Pelosi, first elected to Congress in 1987, focused her remarks on foreign policy and security issues. Bush, she said, "has pursued a go-it-alone foreign policy that leaves us isolated abroad and that steals the resources we need for education and health care here at home." "The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition," she added. "As a nation, we must show our greatness, not just our strength. America must be a light to the world, not just a missile."
I detest lying, partisan hack hypocrites who don't have a single honest bone in their entire bodies.
To: Nachum
Hey! Take it easy on the guy. He served in Vietnam and is a Purple Heart decorated vet you know
32 posted on
08/30/2013 12:26:20 PM PDT by
llevrok
("It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words....." - Geo. Orwell)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson