To hell with that...where is the disgust and outrage over me not having my own stash of chemical weapons.
The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
To hell with that...where is the disgust and outrage over me not having my own stash of chemical weapons.
You do. Check out what you have under your kitchen sink. Along with other cleaning supplies.
Which gives a little credence to the old adage............"Screw you Jack, I'm alright".
It's okay. China will build them industries to work at and the infrastructure to move the good like they are doing everywhere else in Africa. Jobs bring education and consumerism. Everybody loves consumerism.
Remember Goober.....Africa can produce two crops of grain a year compared to other producing regions, all the fresh veg, fruit and meat the world can handle. Just like in South America. They need lebensraum.
No way. I want the really toxic stuff like what they put in fruit loops and processed cheese.
Is there any cheese in processed cheese? Crap looks like the plastic wrap it comes in.
I was once in a little take-away that offered crab. In teeny tiny letters at the bottom of the sign, I noticed that it said it was "a crab-like food substance." No joke.
I ran. Fast as I could.
what 8O you don't like that nice flat 1 centimeter perfectly cut orangey square with the lovely sheen? what's a wrong fer you eh?
I think most of that stuff they throw on sammiches is all crab like...real crab meh, not so much
Up to just a few months ago the Republicans and wannabes on this forum condemned Occupy Wall Street and called them a bunch of loonies and worse for daring to challenge Obama and the warmongering system that benefits the elites. Now they are saying even worse things than OWS said!
First off, I like the idea of Occupy Wall Street, when it was in NYC. When they started to franchise the idea to other cities, I lost interest in the cause.
Personally, my dream is dump The Free Trade Agreement NAFTA and start trading with other nations besides the USA..
I know it's convenient for Canadians to trade with a population just across the line, but I think Canada needs to distance ourselves from the USA..
I'd also like to see Canadian and US Citizens alike be required a Visa to travel between countries.. slow down the cross border shopping and keep the jobs and money in Canada.
( of course dual citizens exempt
)Jack Layton Appears on Lou Dobbs - YouTube
So now with all that said, what's all that got to do with Syria??
Oh, blaming Obama for lying again!!! Benghazi, NSA, Syria.. blaming Assad for Siran Gas that killed 1400 people, Children, Assd Soldiers and 200 Christians.. sounds more like Al Qaeda.
Western Backed Syrian Rebels Firing Siran Gas Shells - YouTube
Western Backed Syrian Rebels Firing Siran Gas Shells
Wouldn't it be funny if OWs and the Tea Baggers had rallies side-by-side to protest against the war?
USA says it does not use chemical weapons or manufactures them..
O.K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umatilla_Chemical_Depot
Oh yeah, another one located North of Las Vegas, Nevada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_Army_Depot
O.K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umatilla_Chemical_Depot
Oh yeah, another one located North of Las Vegas, Nevada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_Army_Depot
Last edited:
No one is disagreeing that Chemicals of some sort were used, we just haven't been given enough evidence as to who used them.......
Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?
Let's compare a couple of accounts of the mass deaths apparently caused by chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21. One account comes from the U.S. government (8/30/13), introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry. The other was published by a Minnesota-based news site called Mint Press News (8/29/13).
The government account expresses "high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack" on August 21. The Mint report bore the headline "Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack." Which of these two versions should we find more credible?
The U.S. government, of course, has a track record that will incline informed observers to approach its claims with skepticism–particularly when it's making charges about the proscribed weapons of official enemies. Kerry said in his address that "our intelligence community" has been "more than mindful of the Iraq experience"–as should be anyone listening to Kerry's presentation, because the Iraq experience informs us that secretaries of State can express great confidence about matters that they are completely wrong about, and that U.S. intelligence assessments can be based on distortion of evidence and deliberate suppression of contradictory facts.
Comparing Kerry's presentation on Syria and its accompanying document to Colin Powell's speech to the UN on Iraq, though, one is struck by how little specific evidence was included in the case for the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. It gives the strong impression of being pieced together from drone surveillance and NSA intercepts, supplemented by Twitter messages and YouTube videos, rather than from on-the-ground reporting or human intelligence. Much of what is offered tries to establish that the victims in Ghouta had been exposed to chemical weapons–a question that indeed had been in some doubt, but had already largely been settled by a report by Doctors Without Borders that reported that thousands of people in the Damascus area had been treated for "neurotoxic symptoms."
On the critical question of who might be responsible for such a chemical attack, Kerry's presentation was much more vague and circumstantial.
This humility about the difficulty of reporting on a covert, invisible attack in the midst of a chaotic civil war actually adds to the credibility of the Mint account. It's those who are most certain about matters of which they clearly lack firsthand knowledge who should make us most skeptical.
more
Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?
Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?
Let's compare a couple of accounts of the mass deaths apparently caused by chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21. One account comes from the U.S. government (8/30/13), introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry. The other was published by a Minnesota-based news site called Mint Press News (8/29/13).
The government account expresses "high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack" on August 21. The Mint report bore the headline "Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack." Which of these two versions should we find more credible?
The U.S. government, of course, has a track record that will incline informed observers to approach its claims with skepticism–particularly when it's making charges about the proscribed weapons of official enemies. Kerry said in his address that "our intelligence community" has been "more than mindful of the Iraq experience"–as should be anyone listening to Kerry's presentation, because the Iraq experience informs us that secretaries of State can express great confidence about matters that they are completely wrong about, and that U.S. intelligence assessments can be based on distortion of evidence and deliberate suppression of contradictory facts.
Comparing Kerry's presentation on Syria and its accompanying document to Colin Powell's speech to the UN on Iraq, though, one is struck by how little specific evidence was included in the case for the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. It gives the strong impression of being pieced together from drone surveillance and NSA intercepts, supplemented by Twitter messages and YouTube videos, rather than from on-the-ground reporting or human intelligence. Much of what is offered tries to establish that the victims in Ghouta had been exposed to chemical weapons–a question that indeed had been in some doubt, but had already largely been settled by a report by Doctors Without Borders that reported that thousands of people in the Damascus area had been treated for "neurotoxic symptoms."
On the critical question of who might be responsible for such a chemical attack, Kerry's presentation was much more vague and circumstantial.
This humility about the difficulty of reporting on a covert, invisible attack in the midst of a chaotic civil war actually adds to the credibility of the Mint account. It's those who are most certain about matters of which they clearly lack firsthand knowledge who should make us most skeptical.
more
Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?