Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Monty with due respect Russia and prior to it the Soviet Union, and before it Nazi Germany were the outside colonial powers influencing and meddling with Syria not the US. Syria was never an ally to or close to the US. I am not sure what history books you have been reading if any. Syria was a Picot agreement creation by Britain and France. France tried to meddle and control it and were not successful at all and then Nazi Germany was the primary colonial influence to the point that the government was run by the Nazis during and after WW2 and former Nazis thrive in Damascus running its armed forces, mukbarat, communications ministry until the end of the mid 60's when the KGB took over.

The Baath partyf of Syria was a Nazi party clone.

How you selectively skip the above to make it seem the US was the only "meddler' in Syria is hilarious. Your selectivity is blatant.

By the way Where were you when Putin built its navy port in Syria? Wait don't tell me you were in Jordan watching the Americans train Isis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The West is the centre of the world's enlightenment and far more advanced in its human rights and treatment of other nations than anywhere else. It is, in fact, the freest, kindest, most enlightened s

I agree that if big business is the only beneficiary of action then it should not be done.

I can't believe people posting and opposing attack on Bashir Assad's bases!!!!. Wake up people who are claiming to defend the defenseless. Responsible for chemical attacks or not, Bashir Assad is a pr

Monty with due respect Russia and prior to it the Soviet Union, and before it Nazi Germany were the outside colonial powers influencing and meddling with Syria not the US. Syria was never an ally to or close to the US. I am not sure what history books you have been reading if any. Syria was a Picot agreement creation by Britain and France. France tried to meddle and control it and were not successful at all and then Nazi Germany was the primary colonial influence to the point that the government was run by the Nazis during and after WW2 and former Nazis thrive in Damascus running its armed forces, mukbarat, communications ministry until the end of the mid 60's when the KGB took over.

The Baath partyf of Syria was a Nazi party clone.

How you selectively skip the above to make it seem the US was the only "meddler' in Syria is hilarious. Your selectivity is blatant.

By the way Where were you when Putin built its navy port in Syria? Wait don't tell me you were in Jordan watching the Americans train Isis.

Good points! You're picking up on the tactics of b_c in his defence of the US. And every time he does it I tell him that quoting the wrongs of others doesn't square it for the US. In his case he's criticizing Canada because he thinks he can get away with it with me.

So point 1. You haven't excused the US with anything you have said.

point 2 which can be further discussed. Is Russia's or the Soviets involvement in Syria on the same level as a crime, compared to the US use of force and arming of revolutionary entities that are intent in overthrowing Assad's regime. Considering too that in one case it doesn't result in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions of refugees, while in the other case it obviously does. And is!

What I'm saying is that I'm asking you to provide evidence of Russian force against Syria that did in fact cause so many deaths and suffering.

I'll accept Afghanistan if you would rather make the comparisons there.

Just try to understand that I'm not going to stand 'for' evil, no matter if it's even Canada that is responsible for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points! You're picking up on the tactics of b_c in his defence of the US. And every time he does it I tell him that quoting the wrongs of others doesn't square it for the US. In his case he's criticizing Canada because he thinks he can get away with it with me.

The US doesn't require any such defense for policies past, present, or future. It is a nation state that will act in its own interests or the collective interests of allied nations. Highlighting the "wrongs of others" only serves to confirm this geopolitical reality, regardless of any moral and often irrelevant judgements by individuals or partisan rhetoric.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Once again, the U.S. government is lying to go to war in order to feed the military industrial complex.

As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

Link

Edited by marcus
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Khorasan Group, which nobody outside of the USA had ever heard of was a very convenient target for the USA. Since there was an “imminent” danger to the USA (interesting this group had that power) then the USA had legal coverage for the attacks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/legal-basis-for-us-war-in_b_5900984.html

Some others feel that this attack, and the convenient presence of the Khorasan allowed the current American administration to hide behind the AUMF (Authorization of the Use of Military Force) of 2001.

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

I wonder how many other “imminent attacks” are being planned by unknown terrorist groups in Iran, Syria and any nation that does not join the coalition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US government didn't need the khorsan group to justify their actions in Syria. ISIS is enough of one to justify their actions. Why go through the trouble of fabricating this story, just to do what they already had the support to do?

What's the justification? And what is the reason they ignored this threat (that has been rising for about two years) until now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US government didn't need the khorsan group to justify their actions in Syria. ISIS is enough of one to justify their actions. Why go through the trouble of fabricating this story, just to do what they already had the support to do?

It avoids having to face the fact that ISIS is the result of their...oh never mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The premises of this thread is based on the subjective accusation of someone whose sole agenda is to come on this forum and denigrate anything to do with Israel, the US or the West and apologize for terrorists.

Another day another diatribe from Marcus, Muhammed, whatever.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't. As has been pointed out, the US already has motivation to strike ISIS - what is the plan behind creating a new group ?

I think that the ongoing problem is a population which is having less and less trust in those in government and the military hierarchy. Maybe 50 years ago, we could initiate conflict with someone because the "intelligence" gathered had indicated a "clear and present danger" to the country. Since that time, we have had numerous examples where in retrospect, the population was lied to so that a small circle in government could proceed with their own hidden agenda. From the danger of communism overrunning the earth through Vietnam to the takeover of Africa in Somalia to the non existent WMD's in Iraq.

Now we had a previously unheard of Al Queda group in Iraq which was reportedly ready to attack the USA. A very convenient excuse that would try to legitimize the war in which a coalition will soon attack the sovereign country of Syria.

Does anybody really believe what their government is telling them?

I certainly no longer do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Rue going around calling people vermins and anyone criticizing the U.S. for creating a fake terror threat a Muslim? Why is Rue so aggressive and why is someone like him given the opportunity to post in here?

- - -

How many times should we in the West fall for the false narrative, then despite finding out about it, we fall for another one again? Why can't we move to the next level and live in an honest world where we expect honesty from our government, instead of settling and accepting the opposite.

Just in this thread, there are people who are brushing aside and even apologizing for yet another a lie by a Western government. Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have a silent majority and the yapping loud minority who will do and say as they are told. I don't think majority believe or excuse their actions. Generally speaking, we have grown indifferent and are too occupied with fantasy football and celebrities.

Not to mention, hockey season is here woohoo! Go nuck's go!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been some days since this claim that the group was faked and I've seen nothing on it in any serious media. Only the conspiracy nut sites seem to be playing it up. Having read the article in question it seems rife with suspicions but no actual evidence. It quotes a journalist and an ex-cia official saying they'd never heard of the group, but that's pretty much the totality of the evidence.

Which is probably why none of the more responsible media have even bothered to repeat any of this.

To my mind no one's word is necessarily reliable. However, to gain at least a better idea of whether the government is lying you have to take into account motivations and risks. The US government already had a pretty clear path to bombing, with fairly widespread support. It didn't need to invent a new group to justify it. Faking the group was adding an IMMENSE political risk, in that if it could be proven the group was fake the repercussions would be huge. So why exactly would the administration take such a huge and needless risk? I don't buy it for that reason alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...