Recommended Posts

Smells like a psyop. An excuse for war. It would not be the first time.

OK JTS, a little specificity please?

Spanish-American War?

Gulf of Tonkin event?

A...

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 and the necessary thing was to take down Saddam Hussein.

--Brant

There were weapons of mass destruction.

However, that was it.

Responsible for 911 - highly improbable. However, he did train some external terrorist.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Smells like a psyop. An excuse for war. It would not be the first time.

OK JTS, a little specificity please?

Spanish-American War?

Gulf of Tonkin event?

A...

Another term is false flag. A google search turns up a whole shitload of information. Even wiki says false flags have been used to start a war.

A false flag means you do something dirty and then blame the other guy. Usually a false flag is secret, otherwise it wouldn't work. Operation Northwoods is an example of a false flag that they planned but didn't do.

Governments are crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly. Never trust any government more than you need to. In war, the first casualty is truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another term is false flag. A google search turns up a whole shitload of information. Even wiki says false flags have been used to start a war.

A false flag means you do something dirty and then blame the other guy. Usually a false flag is secret, otherwise it wouldn't work. Operation Northwoods is an example of a false flag that they planned but didn't do.

Governments are crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly. Never trust any government more than you need to. In war, the first casualty is truth.

"Even wiki says..." does not work for me.

Give me a specific example in the Northern Hemisphere.

Mexican American War?

Pearl Harbor?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smells like a psyop. An excuse for war. It would not be the first time.

OK JTS, a little specificity please?

Spanish-American War?

Gulf of Tonkin event?

A...

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 and the necessary thing was to take down Saddam Hussein.

--Brant

There were weapons of mass destruction.

However, that was it.

Responsible for 911 - highly improbable. However, he did train some external terrorist.

A...

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. Pakistan had/has nuclear bombs. In Paris they just used AK-47s. Syria used/uses chemical weapons. The War on Terror was exploiting through nationalistic emotional catharsis out of 9/11 to augment Federal executive power in the name of security aka another oil war. If only Pakistan had a lot of oil. Nope, they only had Ben Laden. We got that, uh, him, supposedly. (I never believed that story [where's the body?].)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. Pakistan had nuclear bombs. In Paris they used AK-47s. Syria used/uses chemical weapons.

--Brant

Yep, I believe that they were loaded into Russian cargo planes and flown to Syria and the Baaka Valley.

And it was a really poor choice.

I thought with the combined effort in Afghanistan we were effectively surrounding Iran for a long term containment tactic.

I was astounded that they had absolutely no plan for reconstruction after winning.

Amazingly short sighted.

We need a "MacArthur" type with a deep understanding of that fucked up culture over there. Remember, Japanese women could not vote and one of the first sweeping changes he made was extending the right to vote to women.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were weapons of mass destruction.

However, that was it.

Responsible for 911 - highly improbable. However, he did train some external terrorist.

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. P

Brant, are you saying that Saddam Hussein sent his (or some of his) chemical weapons to Syria? If that is what you are saying, what year, and what kinds of weapons, and where did you get this information?

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. Pakistan had nuclear bombs. In Paris they used AK-47s. Syria used/uses chemical weapons.

Yep, I believe that they were loaded into Russian cargo planes and flown to Syria and the Baaka Valley.

And it was a really poor choice.

Adam, are you saying you believe that Saddam's chemical weapons (or some of them) were transported to Lebanon and Syria?

If so, what year, what type of weapons, and what forms the basis for your beliefs?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, it was one of many items I read about back then. Only it wasn't airplanes but semi-tractor trailers. Sorry, there are no eye witnesses that could ever be deemed credible. There are other reports about ancillary things to WMS supposedly found in Iraq. It is true, however, that there was a river of disinformation and it was obvious 12 years ago nothing was going to stop Bush.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were weapons of mass destruction.

However, that was it.

Responsible for 911 - highly improbable. However, he did train some external terrorist.

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. P

Brant, are you saying that Saddam Hussein sent his (or some of his) chemical weapons to Syria? If that is what you are saying, what year, and what kinds of weapons, and where did you get this information?

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. Pakistan had nuclear bombs. In Paris they used AK-47s. Syria used/uses chemical weapons.

Yep, I believe that they were loaded into Russian cargo planes and flown to Syria and the Baaka Valley.

And it was a really poor choice.

Adam, are you saying you believe that Saddam's chemical weapons (or some of them) were transported to Lebanon and Syria?

If so, what year, what type of weapons, and what forms the basis for your beliefs?

As to "type," I would have check. Blister gas was mentioned.

Even terrorist groups that were part of the Syrian rebels had no problem identifying the weapons as coming from Iraq. Interestingly, US military leaks indicated that American forces found some of Saddam’s WMDs during the last several years of the Obama administration.

The UN report on Syria’s chemical weapons noticed the delivery system had writing indicating it was Russian in origin. Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile is thought to be about 1,000 tons of nerve and blister agents. Now that Russia has brokered a deal for Syria’s chemical weapons to be given up, questions about their source are once again resurfacing.

One of the reasons that I "believe" this is that it makes complete sense. Additionally, I have heard directly from folks who were either in theatre there, or, from friends of mine who live in "the neighborhood" and corroborated tiny bits and pieces that fit the time lines and locations.

http://www.inquisitr.com/959826/syria-chemical-weapons-iraq-wmds-taken-by-russia-to-assad-and-back-again/

Wiki, which as we both know, can only be "trusted" when verified, has this:

In January 2004, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who moved to Western Europe, said in a letter to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that he knows the three sites where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are kept inside Syria. According to Nayuf's witness, described as a senior source inside Syrian military intelligence he had known for two years,[16] Iraq's WMD are in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria, in the village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp, and in the city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city. Nayouf also wrote that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assef Shawkat, Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.[17] U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to this accusation by saying "I don't think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened. But obviously we're going to follow up every lead, and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were weapons of mass destruction.

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse.

Brant, are you saying that Saddam Hussein sent his (or some of his) chemical weapons to Syria? If that is what you are saying, what year, and what kinds of weapons, and where did you get this information?

Oh, it was one of many items I read about back then. Only it wasn't airplanes but semi-tractor trailers. Sorry, there are no eye witnesses that could ever be deemed credible.

Fog of war, maybe, or at least fog of war reporting.

Here's the thing: Syria is an ally of Iran. Syria fought with Arab forces (and the US coalition) in the first Gulf War -- against Iraq. It wasn't until 2006 that they exchanged ambassadors after earlier dustups.

In addition, you know that Israel has no compunction about bombing missile convoys inside Syria (since the civil war happened, six times) on their way to Hezbollah in Lebanon. I would expect them to have tracked and attacked any movement of CW across the border to Syria, should the fogged reports be true.

Syria of course had its own chemical and biological weapons programme (which chemicals and precursors have been taken out of country and destroyed under OPCW rules) and its own production facilities -- the Syrians hopped quickly to join the international convention and disarm after the atrocity in Damascus August 21 2013.

In any case, if you have the time or interest, Wikipedia has a decent short article on Iraq's CW programme. See also their page on Syria's CW programme.

If you don't have the time for dry compendiums, I can recommend an article from Kris Alexander at Wired, "No, Syria Doesn’t Have Saddam’s Chemical Weapons."

Sample:

As if warped by some giant conspiratorial black hole, any discussion of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons inevitably bends back in time and space to Iraq in 2003. Remember the meme that Saddam Hussein transferred his deadly weapons to Syria ahead of the U.S. invasion? If not, you can bet you’ll hear it if Bashar Assad follows through on his threat to use chemical weapons against a foreign incursion. But this retroactive justification for the Iraq invasion will be just as bogus as every other time it’s come up in the last 10 years.

I’ve already debunked one of the rumors about Iraq’s WMD. I’m not buying this one. Here’s why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, are you saying you believe that Saddam's chemical weapons (or some of them) were transported to Lebanon and Syria?

If so, what year, what type of weapons, and what forms the basis for your beliefs?

As to "type," I would have check. Blister gas was mentioned.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, before President Obama proposed military actions some thought Syrias chemical weapons were Saddams missing WMDs from Iraq. Even terrorist groups that were part of the Syrian rebels had no problem identifying the weapons as coming from Iraq. Interestingly, US military leaks indicated that American forces found some of Saddams WMDs during the last several years of the Obama administration.

The UN report on Syrias chemical weapons noticed the delivery system had writing indicating it was Russian in origin. Assads chemical weapons stockpile is thought to be about 1,000 tons of nerve and blister agents. Now that Russia has brokered a deal for Syrias chemical weapons to be given up, questions about their source are once again resurfacing.

One of the reasons that I "believe" this is that it makes complete sense.

Hmmm. Maybe you could expand on that, incorporating the existence of an independent CW programme in Syria, and fishing out the details from the UN/OPCW mission reports on Syria's weapons.

Wiki, which as we both know, can only be "trusted" when verified, has this:

In January 2004, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who moved to Western Europe, said in a letter to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that he knows the three sites where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are kept inside Syria. According to Nayuf's witness, described as a senior source inside Syrian military intelligence he had known for two years,[16] Iraq's WMD are in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria, in the village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp, and in the city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city. Nayouf also wrote that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assef Shawkat, Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.[17] U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to this accusation by saying "I don't think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened. But obviously we're going to follow up every lead, and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

There is conjecture, sure enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought with the combined effort in Afghanistan we were effectively surrounding Iran for a long term containment tactic.

I was astounded that they had absolutely no plan for reconstruction after winning.

Amazingly short sighted.

A...

Interestingly, we were, according to the Long War Journal, containing Saudi Arabia and Syria by moving into Iraq which is the post WW II John Kennan doctrine of Containment against global Communism.

Link lwj-print-icon-2.jpg ShareThis

The Keystone State

By Bill RoggioDecember 7, 2004

A common misconception about the Global War on Terror is that Iraq is completely unrelated to the war effort, that it is a distraction. This could be seen in polling questions during the presidential election. When pollsters asked about the issues most important to voters, the "War on Terror" and "Iraq" was listed as two separate issues. Despite the vast resources available to the mainstream media, they have failed to properly analyze the situation in the Middle East and grasp the strategic significance of Iraq in relation to the Global War on Terror.

Part of this problem is the liberal notion that the Global War on Terror should be fought against al Qaeda as retaliation for the attacks on 9-11. The problems with this worldview are that it fails to address underlying problems of global terrorism: state sponsorship of terrorist entities, cooperation between terrorist organizations and the failed authoritarian political system of the Middle East. To reduce the threat of terror attacks against the United States and her allies, each of these problems must be addressed. This requires a radical reshaping of the Middle East.

Much to the consternation of a vast majority of the Democratic party, the war did not end with the removal of Afghanistan as a base of operations for al Qaeda. We could not fall back into a police enforcement role and reasonably expect to be safe from future acts of terrorism. President Bush recognized the overarching problems in the Middle East that contribute to the terror threat: state sponsorship of terrorism by Iran and Syria; support of radical Islamists within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; the failure of maintaining the status quo with respect to kingdoms, theocrats and dictators; the proliferation of WMD materials and knowledge throughout these failed states.

After the success in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, the focus of the war moved to the heart of the Middle East: Iraq. Despite the absence of stockpiles of WMD, the administration had a strong case to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq not only achieved the objective of removing the strategic threat Saddam represented in the Middle East, but it had the added bonus of acting as a magnet for international terrorist, drawing al Qaeda's resources away from other areas of operations, demoralizing the jihadis and stretching their logistical chain, exposing A.Q. Khan's WMD distribution network and frightening Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, so much so that he divulged and surrendered his WMD program (which was more advanced than thought) to the United States and Britain.

Invading Iraq also accomplished another very important objective: establishing a beachhead in the Middle East. The significance of Iraq in the War on Terror is twofold. The establishment of democracy in the heart of the Middle East places political pressure on neighboring states to reform from within. Iraq can serve as a base of operations against terror sponsoring states of Syria and Iran if diplomatic and political options fail, as well a base of operations against Saudi Arabia if it is overtaken by an Islamist revolution or is complicit in another terrorist attack.

As mentioned yesterday in A New Containment, the occupation of Iraq has completed the encirclement of Saudi Arabia. A look at the map of the Middle East will show that an American presence in Iraq also has the same effect on Syria and Iran. With American forces in Iraq, the line of communications between Syria and Iran has been severed. Syria is now surrounded by nations with an American military presence, and none of them are particularly friendly; Turkey to the north, Israel to the south, Jordan and Iraq to the east, and the United States Navy's 6th Fleet to the West in the Mediterranean.

Excellent website...http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2004/12/the_keystone_st_1.php#ixzz3OICRxrzY

Not sure I understand about what you want me to try to "expand" on, precisely.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought with the combined effort in Afghanistan we were effectively surrounding Iran for a long term containment tactic.

I was astounded that they had absolutely no plan for reconstruction after winning.

Amazingly short sighted.

A...

Interestingly, we were, according to the Long War Journal, containing Saudi Arabia and Syria by moving into Iraq which is the post WW II John Kennan doctrine of Containment against global Communism.

Link lwj-print-icon-2.jpg ShareThis

The Keystone State

By Bill RoggioDecember 7, 2004

A common misconception about the Global War on Terror is that Iraq is completely unrelated to the war effort, that it is a distraction. This could be seen in polling questions during the presidential election. When pollsters asked about the issues most important to voters, the "War on Terror" and "Iraq" was listed as two separate issues. Despite the vast resources available to the mainstream media, they have failed to properly analyze the situation in the Middle East and grasp the strategic significance of Iraq in relation to the Global War on Terror.

Part of this problem is the liberal notion that the Global War on Terror should be fought against al Qaeda as retaliation for the attacks on 9-11. The problems with this worldview are that it fails to address underlying problems of global terrorism: state sponsorship of terrorist entities, cooperation between terrorist organizations and the failed authoritarian political system of the Middle East. To reduce the threat of terror attacks against the United States and her allies, each of these problems must be addressed. This requires a radical reshaping of the Middle East.

Much to the consternation of a vast majority of the Democratic party, the war did not end with the removal of Afghanistan as a base of operations for al Qaeda. We could not fall back into a police enforcement role and reasonably expect to be safe from future acts of terrorism. President Bush recognized the overarching problems in the Middle East that contribute to the terror threat: state sponsorship of terrorism by Iran and Syria; support of radical Islamists within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; the failure of maintaining the status quo with respect to kingdoms, theocrats and dictators; the proliferation of WMD materials and knowledge throughout these failed states.

After the success in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, the focus of the war moved to the heart of the Middle East: Iraq. Despite the absence of stockpiles of WMD, the administration had a strong case to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq not only achieved the objective of removing the strategic threat Saddam represented in the Middle East, but it had the added bonus of acting as a magnet for international terrorist, drawing al Qaeda's resources away from other areas of operations, demoralizing the jihadis and stretching their logistical chain, exposing A.Q. Khan's WMD distribution network and frightening Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, so much so that he divulged and surrendered his WMD program (which was more advanced than thought) to the United States and Britain.

Invading Iraq also accomplished another very important objective: establishing a beachhead in the Middle East. The significance of Iraq in the War on Terror is twofold. The establishment of democracy in the heart of the Middle East places political pressure on neighboring states to reform from within. Iraq can serve as a base of operations against terror sponsoring states of Syria and Iran if diplomatic and political options fail, as well a base of operations against Saudi Arabia if it is overtaken by an Islamist revolution or is complicit in another terrorist attack.

As mentioned yesterday in A New Containment, the occupation of Iraq has completed the encirclement of Saudi Arabia. A look at the map of the Middle East will show that an American presence in Iraq also has the same effect on Syria and Iran. With American forces in Iraq, the line of communications between Syria and Iran has been severed. Syria is now surrounded by nations with an American military presence, and none of them are particularly friendly; Turkey to the north, Israel to the south, Jordan and Iraq to the east, and the United States Navy's 6th Fleet to the West in the Mediterranean.

Excellent website...http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2004/12/the_keystone_st_1.php#ixzz3OICRxrzY

Not sure I understand about what you want me to try to "expand" on, precisely.

A...

First you invade Iraq then an apologist writes an article dedicated to your geo-political genius.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rumsfeld said he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. And we invaded Iraq to get 'em. And we spent a trillion dollars and a few lives to do it.

So now we learn the weapons somehow just slipped across the border when the sun set. Well, hell, shouldn't we invade another country to get 'em? Screw the cost. Surely there's an extra trillion lying around somewhere in Washington. Has anybody checked under the sofa cushions at Treasury?

It's like any shell game. You gotta play it more than one to guess where the pea is.

And if it turns out there are no WMD's under the Syrian shell, we'll just go another round, boys. Our military needs the exercise to keep the flab off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we learn the weapons somehow just slipped across the border when the sun set.

[...]

And if it turns out there are no WMD's under the Syrian shell, we'll just go another round, boys. Our military needs the exercise to keep the flab off.

WMD is a kind of weasel word now. Weapons of Mass Destruction can mean many things to different people, but we generally understand it to mean nuclear, chemical and biological arms.

It isn't "now we learn," it is rather "some have claimed ..." and the date stamp is best before, ie, stale, old, contested, debunked, unwarranted, specious -- or at the very least subject to doubt and re-analysis.

Re 'WMDs under the Syrian shell," this could mean a few things: that Syria did not declare to the OPCW its entire holdings of chemical and biological weapons; that Syria did not transport them out of country, that the US and allies did not incinerate or otherwise destroy or render harmless the tonnes of chemicals shipped for destruction.

It's disappointing that Objectivish folks sometimes swallow whole unproven canards -- without doing the diligent work of testing the claims, canards, bullshit, conspiracy tales ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you post here you too are "Objectivish."

Your generalization is too universal to particularize as special to that one hypothetical group. You do much better when calling individuals out when they post. I like it when the ad hominem is more blatant and obvious when indulged in making it less likely and easier to deal with right up front.

--Brant

some prefer wishy-washy and others washy-wishy--all from the smorgasbord of choices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you post here you too are "Objectivish."

Your generalization is too universal to particularize as special to this one group. You do much better when calling individuals out when they post. I like it when the ad hominem is more blatant and obvious when indulged in making it less likely and easier to deal with right up front.

--Brant

some prefer wishy-washy and others washy-wishy--all from the smorgasbord of choices

No, Brant, I am 'objective-ish" ... to the limits of my ability. I could not make proper sense of the rest of your garble. If you had some backing for your repeated claims about France becoming majority Muslim, I am fairly confident you would have put it forward by now. You might even be in the midst of a larger inquiry to find confirmation or falsification. I don't know.

I think there is a limit to what one can figure out from one's armchair without consulting 'pro' and 'anti' evidence, without consulting the larger work of folks dedicated to upturning truth on a given issue. I expect, perhaps foolishly, that those who make claims can follow up with evidence supporting those claims. I am sure that the object for both of us it to get as close to the truth as we can -- on particular and general matters. We might differ in reason for giving weight to this evidence or that argument.

We are both, I would suggest, on the same general 'seeking objective facts' side, seeking truth, seeking reliable knowledge. If it turns out that your claims have no warrants, then I expect you will tend to put them aside as unfounded.

If I said you were shit, that would be ad hominem, or at least an insult (George H Smith has explained the difference). But if I said that your argument is shitty ... you might want to pay attention not to the nasty word, but to the implication that you don't know what you are talking about (on this particular issue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone, I would hope, is aware that there are "no go zones" in France.

Apparently, in 2006, France had some 751 "no go zones:"

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweden is even worse Adam..

How so?

With all those Nordic, statuesque blonds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No go zones, 6000+ rapes/year..

I had no idea it was that bad.

Well there goes the neighborhood ...

'Every single French Jew I know has left Paris': Editor of Britain's Jewish Chronicle claims people are fleeing terror-hit French capital."

Jews are fleeing terror-hit Paris because of growing anti-Semitism in France, one of Britain's most influential Jewish journalists said today.

Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, spoke out after an Islamic terrorist took six people hostage and held them captive in a Kosher supermarket in the French capital.

This afternoon police ordered all shops in a famous Jewish neighborhood in central Paris to close.

The mayor's office in Paris announced the closure of shops along the Rosiers street in Paris' Marais neighborhood, in the heart of the tourist district and less than a mile away from the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo where 12 people were killed on Wednesday.

Hours before the Jewish Sabbath, the street is usually crowded with French Jews and tourists alike.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903600/Every-single-French-Jew-know-left-Paris-Editor-Britain-s-Jewish-Chronicle-claims-people-fleeing-terror-hit-French-capital.html#ixzz3OOktgliL

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Is it possible that these Europens do not see that they have been down this road before?

The Moors almost succeeded.

The Battle of Tours followed 21 years of Umayyad conquests in Europe which had begun with the invasion of the Visigothic Christian Kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula in 711. These were followed by military expeditions into the Frankish territories of Gaul, former provinces of the Roman Empire. Umayyad military campaigns had reached northward into Aquitaine and Burgundy, including a major engagement at Bordeaux and a raid on Autun. Charles's victory is widely believed to have stopped the northward advance of Umayyad forces from the Iberian peninsula, and to have preserved Christianity in Europe during a period when Muslim rule was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires.[40]

This is not going to be good.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903600/Every-single-French-Jew-know-left-Paris-Editor-Britain-s-Jewish-Chronicle-claims-people-fleeing-terror-hit-French-capital.html

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we learn the weapons somehow just slipped across the border when the sun set.

[...]

And if it turns out there are no WMD's under the Syrian shell, we'll just go another round, boys. Our military needs the exercise to keep the flab off.

WMD is a kind of weasel word now. Weapons of Mass Destruction can mean many things to different people, but we generally understand it to mean nuclear, chemical and biological arms.

It isn't "now we learn," it is rather "some have claimed ..." and the date stamp is best before, ie, stale, old, contested, debunked, unwarranted, specious -- or at the very least subject to doubt and re-analysis.

Re 'WMDs under the Syrian shell," this could mean a few things: that Syria did not declare to the OPCW its entire holdings of chemical and biological weapons; that Syria did not transport them out of country, that the US and allies did not incinerate or otherwise destroy or render harmless the tonnes of chemicals shipped for destruction.

It's disappointing that Objectivish folks sometimes swallow whole unproven canards -- without doing the diligent work of testing the claims, canards, bullshit, conspiracy tales ...

In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, a newspaper editor says, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Most Americans believed that there were weapons in Iraq. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice all said so. Isn't that good enough?

A lot of loot, a lot of blood got poured into desert sands because of that claim. Why go and get everyone upset by reminding us that the WMD warehouses all turned up empty? Better to have folks thinking that the the chemicals and bugs and nukes are now in the pocket of another evil dictator--than to have them enraged that they got snookered. Better to preserve the legend that Junior and Sis died fighting to preserve our semi-laissez-faire way of life, than to have then suspect that that the guys in the White House were fools or liars.

If folks start getting suspicious of our elected officials, how easy do you think it'll be to mobilize the country into another war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now