Questions On The Forthcoming Syria Strike.

Logic suggests that the cause "Benghazi" incident cannot both have been a premeditated plot of terrorism as well as the result of spontaneous riots incited by a "youtube video". Therefore we can all agree it cannot be both.

I believe we can all also agree that the administration's direction and actions are directed by Obama. Obama would be a pretty ineffective president if his administration's actions were completely and utterly not of his intents.

Obama says something vague, his supporters give it whatever meaning they want that completes the picture that he is benevolent ("no act of terror"). Meanwhile his administration continues forward and promotes an entirely different direction ("youtube video")

The people paying close attention pick up on the idea that this is intentional and dishonest. While those who don't, find whatever vague positive reinforcement they require to simply give him the benefit of the doubt and continue onward not paying attention.

Fortunately for all of us, this standard of political theater seems to have hit a cord on a much larger sample of his key demographics (women and younger voters) who still remember their familiar "bush lied people died" rallies and cannot seem to peacefully return to their previously oblivious existence.

Let's just hope its not all a misdirection ploy to pass through amnesty while public opinion is focused elsewhere.

B-b-but...It ain't a thread unless it somehow wanders back to American domestic problems and/or problems within our government. Other countries?!? WHAT?

Welcome to American egoism at it's finest!

It isn't about us until it is about us.

Plus, most Americans don't have access to world news. And if we do have world news, it is usually about Mexico or Canada or whoever we just pissed off.

Most Americans don't have access to world news? The *** is the Internet then?

Everyone has a cellphone now. There is no excuse. Except just not giving a ***. That's an acceptable answer btw.

BBC world news airs on PBS as well.

dat ***'s free yo.

Fine, nobody gives a ***.

How's that?

Besides, who really reads world news on the internet? You are talking about the lowest information citizens on the planet...

I don't agree. I find your "logic" flawed. I find your "Therefore we can all agree" construction aggressively leading, rather like the "don't you think it reasonable that ...." construction of controlling egotists.

Terrorists are perfectly capable of planning an attack and holding off on it till a riot (spontaneous or not) can cover their actions.

Not claiming that there actually was a riot in Benghazi but there were riots in many Moslem countries at the same time.

If terrorists are planning an attack in advance and waiting for a riot to cover their tracks, then the attack was a premeditated act of terrorism, and not a spontaneous riot triggered by a "youtube video".

ok? So what? Nausi can't post without bringing up Benghazi. Don't waste your time with him. Its pretty much like Draylo not being able to post without saying FFXI is the best game of all time.

Incorrect, Kingnobody brought it up in this thread, Jassik responded to him, my comment was in response to Jassik to which Chanti responded to.

:-( China has joined Russia in opposing US action without UN approval in Syria, and you guys are worried about something that may or may not have happened months ago in Benghazi?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syria-china-russia-opposing-military-strikes

*years ago.

If Syria goes into meltdown you're gonna wish you had Benghazi to talk about when those jihadists turn the place into a funnel for terror for Israel and the West.

You know, the ones allegedly making/using Sarin gas.

Syria isn't in a meltdown right now? Hmm.

No. Assad is still alive and the country at least has some semblance of leadership. Civil war? Yes. Total meltdown? No. Remove Assad and the floodgates will open.

Guys a brutal murdering son of a *** but he's got most of the major cities under his control.

This is nothing but slight of hand. The fact that all you people take anything Obama or his administration says at face value is just baffling at this point.

If this contains anything legitimate and not purely political, it's probably consists of oil and energy interests throughout the middle east among the 3 largest superpowers. I hear that massive oil field in Saudi Arabia is close to running dry.

Yes, I'm sure Obama is politically going to benefit from air strikes into Syria.

I'm glad Republicans are against this measure though because in their rush to spite Obama, you'll be playing right into the hands of people like me who think this war is a sham.

That is his goal.

See, by pushing his decision to Congress, he can take the benefit of not making the decision if it goes south, but if it doesn't, he gets to say "I did this, because I'm the president!"


Or it could be that Republicans aren't eager to fight another war after what happened with Iraq....

You know, the decisions can't ALL be against Obama. I'm pretty sure that several opposing positions are just because it is a better idea or what the people want (usually both). But since liberals love to say "if you hate/disagree with Obama, YOU MUST BE RACIST!!!!!!1!!1oneone" it must be so.... >.>

You like to inject racism into these topics out of the blue. Have you ever considered that maybe you are just racist?

Just reporting what liberals only defense is when it comes to people disagreeing with them and their one and only savior

You making racist comments don't make people who dislike what you are doing apologists. If you make racist comments, you are racist.

It was long ago determined to be an act of terrorism. Why are we still on Benghazi?

You mean by Obama and his administration after they said it was a riot response to a YouTube video and pretty much lied to every American?

I believe that was our point, you know. Don't jump into an argument unless you know what the argument is first...

Who the *** cares about Benghazi, this is a thread on Syria. A situation where Obama is about to deploy force into a country currently engaged in a brutal civil war involving chemical weapons. Take your doses of Ritalin and bash the President on his desire to use force in Syria. I know the whole Middle East can look like one place full of brown people but this isn't Libya.

Obama let the ambassador die because he was weak on national security and probably laughed before going back to sleep after he got the phonecall because he's lazy and wants to see America fail. He also wasn't born in the US because black people in the US can't be smart, its impossible.

He hates this country so much he commit himself to bringing communism to us all and soon you'll have pictures of Obama in your house or you'll be carted off to a labor camp. Chairman Obama has our best interests at heart. Chairman Obama is the past, present and future. All hail Chairman Obama. Chairman Obama is watching you furiously masturbate to porn on the internet and he isn't amused. You didn't build that.

Happy? Now can we get back on topic.

Oh, and if you guys want actual investigative journalism on Syria, I recommend going to Al Jazeera instead of getting fed the same lines of "what the US intends to do" from the typical US media organizations.

1) No he can't... He is trying to make a case to allow for action so even if congress does approve it they can only help shoulder the burden of blame... Now if they stomp it out and he really didn't want to go then it allows him to save face while still responding strongly...

2)Boehner is supporting action in Syria... the Leading Republican in the house... so... yeah...

3)I've never heard anyone say that... not to say it hasn't been said but I don't think it's anywhere near as pervasive as you make it seem... Hell no one has ever said that here except for people telling liberals that it's what they do...

I'm not saying it isn't a good source but can you tell me why you think Al Jezeera is above the things that you accuse American outlets of doing?

Persecution complex? There's plenty of reasons to not like Obama, there's plenty of reasons to disagree with his politics, but you can't deny there is a large proportion of the anti-Obama crowd that (at least outwardly) justify it with piles of conspiracy crap. Obama is taking our guns, he's a marxist, etc. If someone has an irrational hatred of a person with no real reason, it's hard not to assume it's because he's black.

So we are labeling all conservatives (or anyone who disagrees with Obama) as racists now because of a select vocal trolling few?

You can't say that a large proportion of the anti-Obama crowd are all saying the things you are saying. I don't like the guy because he is a complete idiot, and his policies justify my opinion of the guy. That is not an irrational hatred of a person with no real reason, I have reasons why I don't like the guy, and that is because of his idiotic policies and principles.