Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[mapuc]

It's very important to understand that we are getting lots of information and disinformation regarding the crisis in Syria

About an hour ago I saw on the danish news a short video of a Russian warship

It looked a lot like the slava class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_class_cruiser

I'm not sure if it was this ship they showed* on the video and I don't know, if it is one of these two they are sending to Mediterranean

*Those tubes(guess it's ASM) was in same position as the warship above.

Markus

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Alex

Once again still very happy at making it look ridiculous and all, how old is that guy...

Can we talk about an Israeli implication when it comes to the last developments of the Syria matter ?

I'd say of course we can, cause if we start thinking about what happens there, there are 2 determinations ongoing there : the Occident, dominated by speculative banking power, goes to war to hide some economic crisis its system is ultimately responsible for, and secondly, I mean the second beneficiary for that strategy of chaos, in addition to the international comprador bankers, can't be anything else than the state of Israel that is finally embracing that logic supposed to destroy all its opponents in the area, dividing up all Arab countries still resisting its domination there, in order to get itself assigned to the particular role of cowboy in the area in that global conflict, annexing more territory supposedly for safety and defence purposes.

That is why the only coherent project we can see in all that ****, finally is the salvation through chaos of the global banking power, and the Great Israel project, and if you really think about the current world order... Those 2 projects just are one and only.

Originally Posted by mapuc

It's very important to understand that we are getting lots of information and disinformation regarding the crisis in Syria

About an hour ago I saw on the danish news a short video of a Russian warship

It looked a lot like the slava class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_class_cruiser

I'm not sure if it was this ship they showed* on the video and I don't know, if it is one of these two they are sending to Mediterranean

*Those tubes(guess it's ASM) was in same position as the warship above.

Markus

Russia's foreign minister said yesterday or the day before that they are not going
to go to war with anyone over Syria.

[August]

[Oberon]

I doubt Russia or China would do anything militarily...buuuuut...

It was doubted that China would intervene in North Korea until they did

It was doubted that the death of an Archduke would start World War One, until it did.

So I can't say anything with much certainty, but rationally, it would not make sense for either of them to do so...but equally, rationally, it would not make sense for us to launch military attacks on Syria, nor for Assad to have used the chemical weapons in the first place. So rational thinking is not necessarily in popular demand amongst the powerful at this time.

[eddie]

Like I said before Oberon, I'm completely against this strike. But, if they are stupid enough to carry it out, I hope they take out a bunch of the Iranian Guards who are serving over there. Sending them back to the Ayatollah in pine boxes wouldn't bother me at all.

Lets just hope they don't go through with this!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by eddie

Like I said before Oberon, I'm completely against this strike. But, if they are stupid enough to carry it out, I hope they take out a bunch of the Iranian Guards who are serving over there. Sending them back to the Ayatollah in pine boxes wouldn't bother me at all.

Lets just hope they don't go through with this!

I wouldn't shed any tears, but it might just give the Ayatollah an excuse to do something stupid, and the last thing that we need is an expansion of any military action. Although some think it inevitable, this from a economist in the House of Lords:

"We are going to intervene sooner or later," he tells peers, "because this war is going last for much longer than we think. It is not just a Syrian civil war. This is part of a 40-year crisis of the Muslim Middle East... It's not just a Shia-Sunni war, this is sort of a rehearsal, like the Spanish civil war, of the bigger conflagration which is about to come".

[Ducimus]

You know, as we sit here, on the precipice of another god damn war, I suddenly find great humor in this:



Really? This has to be the biggest damn joke of the year, if not the decade. On the global stage, it doesn't really seem like much has changed at all does it? What's even funnier is this asshat got the Nobel peace prize for not being Bush. I wonder what the liberal progressives think of their chosen one now. Oh wait, he went after them crazy backwords rednecks and wackodoo NRA physco's and their gunzzzz!!! So he's probably still aces with them.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Russia's foreign minister said yesterday or the day before that they are not going
to go to war with anyone over Syria.

I confess that I got a bit nervous when I heard the news about these two warship.

You have to understand that Syria is to Russia, what Israel is to USA

Let us hope that's the case that they are just there as told.

Markus

[vienna]

I've been hearing that one since the day it happened. They didn't impeach Clinton for lying or for sex. They impeached Clinton for the crime of being a Democrat. It was a Right-Wing witchhunt from the start, and they used whatever they could get on him, much the same as the Oliver North trial was a Left-Wing witchhunt attempting to hang something on Reagan. It was political game-playing and nothing more.

On the Oliver North reference:

1. North was indicted on several charges, including perjury in sworn testimony before Congress;

2. North openly and boastfully admitted his perjury;

3. North was tried by a properly conducted Federal court and conviceted on three counts including the perjury charge;

4. North's conviction was overturned, not because he was "not guilty" or innocent, but because of a technicality of law and not evidence or testimony;

5. The overturning of the conviction was due to the efforts of that well-known "far-right extremist" organization, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU);

Just like you, Steve, I like to see the facts straightly given and you are correct about the nature of Clinton's "crime"...


EDIT:

I would also wish to point out Oliver North committed perjury while wearing his full uniform as a Marine Corps. officer, something very much frowned upon by fellow officers who felt he brought shame and dishonor to the Corps. ...


<O>

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vienna

On the Oliver North reference:

1. North was indicted on several charges, including perjury in sworn testimony before Congress;

North was approached by a Congressional Committe and asked questions, which he answered. North then agreed to appear before congress on the condition that he would be granted immunity.

2. North openly and boastfully admitted his perjury;

In Congress, under oath, North boastfully admitted that he had lied to the Committee. He was not under oath when he answered the Committee's questions.

3. North was tried by a properly conducted Federal court and conviceted on three counts including the perjury charge;

North's convictions:

1. Accepting an illegal gratuity.

2, Aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry.

3. Ordering the destruction of documents via his secretary, Fawn Hall.

No, he was not convicted on the perjury charge.

4. North's conviction was overturned, not because he was "not guilty" or innocent, but because of a technicality of law and not evidence or testimony

His conviction was overturned by a Court of Appeals because the testimony against him was possibly tainted by the prosecution witnesses' exposure to the immunity trial.

5. The overturning of the conviction was due to the efforts of that well-known "far-right extremist" organization, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

The ACLU supplied lawyers and did research. Is there something wrong with that?

I would also wish to point out Oliver North committed perjury while wearing his full uniform as a Marine Corps. officer, something very much frowned upon by fellow officers who felt he brought shame and dishonor to the Corps.

And I would point out that Oliver North did not commit perjury. He was tried but not convicted, so legally he is indeed "not guilty".

They have?

Oberon
Do you recall the "surrender monkeys" topic where MH was insisting that nothing much was really happening in the DMZ?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oberon
Do you recall the "surrender monkeys" topic where MH was insisting that nothing much was really happening in the DMZ?

Vaguely. I do remember posting in it too, but can't remember what I said or why.

[Mr Quatro]

If Obama is a fence sitter as proven by his past actions and Iran is bluffing that they will strike back at Israel (if Syria is attacked) and if President Obama does what he says he will do, which is just fire a warning shot across Syria's bow ...

then what is to stop Iran from funding an air attack by missiles from who knows where, that will be blow to smithereens' by the dome in Israel's defense network and if these missiles contain harmful ingredients it will spread the harmful agent everywhere the debris fall.

Leaving a solid message to leave Russian/Iranian assets alone

[vienna]

1. North was given immunity on the basis of his willingness to tell the truth; this willingness to testify truthfully is the basis of any immunity deal, so technically he violated his agreement and could have been prosecuted for that alone;

2. The "aiding and abetting" charge did cover his perjury since his actions (perjury) did aid and abett. Also consider the well known legal concept that perjury is very difficult to prove in a court of law, particularly in front of a jury. The law may not get you specifically on perjury, but in can use your perjury as a facet of a greater crime. Of course, North could have done a "Reagan" and just plain said he "forgot" all about what happened. Instead he went out of his way, flaunting the truth and other evidence to place obtacles to the investigation and prosecution of possible guilty parties and derail his conviction;

3. The overturn of the conviction, as you noted, was due to the legal technicality, not testimony or evidence that in any way exonerated him of his crimes for which he was convicted in a proper court of law. The overturn was in now way a vindication of his innocence or a finding of not guilty. The evidence was the evidence, a verdict was reached, and nothing in the overturn frees him of guilt;

4. There is nothing wrong with the participation of the ACLU. I just find it interesting those on the far right who vilify and denigrate the ACLU as an "extreme" left organization seem to have no qualms when they aid their less than ethical or honest "poster boys". To defend the rights of those who need defending is the purpose of the ACLU and they have labored long and well to maintain their integrity, even when those whose political or social philosophies are thwarted seek to shout them down. I don't always agree with some of the ACLU's cases, but I respect their consistency of purpose;

5. North escaped futher prosectution or even a retrial not because there was no evidence to support the charges, but because he, along several other Iran-Contra figures, were given Presidential pardons by G. H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992 as one of Bush's final acts as President. This, like the Ford pardon of Nixon, stopped any further legal action against North. The pardon neither decalred him "not guilty" or "innocent": it only rendered him "untouchable" (like Nixon) to the long arm of the law;

6. Evading conviction on a "technicality" is not the absolute proof of innocence or lack of guilt: it is rather like a guy who get royally soused in a bar, leaves, gets into his car and is stopped, arrested and convicted for DUI and then has his conviction overturned on a "technicality". Overturning the verdict does not mean he did not drive while drunk, it does not mean he is not responsible for his hazardous actions, and it does not mean he is morally or ethically "pure". All it usually means is he got legal counsel smart enough to find the "loophole" through which the worm could squirm;

North was, is, and always will be a "skater" who, threough smarm, guile, prevarication, and duplicity has skated through life, much like others such as O. J. Simpson (also not guilty?).


<O>