Alex has this article up, it's from yesterday, that is really stupid. It details how the United Nations will ban guns here in America and I'm getting fucking tired of these idiots calling my house and telling me of the "danger" of gun control. This is a bunch of bullshit, like always, and I'll show you how it i bullshit. I'll go one by one down the line on this article pointing out the bullshit. Now, let's get to it.
---------
The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month. The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations. Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away– it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic. Look at all the uncovered martial law revelations: Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions.
---------------
"The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month."
Too bad it's already been Snoped, huh? If it's already been snoped, you've already lost. Even better, the snopes article on this treaty has been updated only a few days ago on July 9th.
"The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations."
Did Alex ever say who these "Globalist" are or is this just a figment of his imagination which he has sold to the people that listen to this goofy shit.
"Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away (...)"
Yeah, you should see Europe. Blood and gore everywhere....oh, wait! So, how the hell is taking away guns a bad thing? What, you'll have to go up to the person to hit him a couple of times instead of the usual shooting from 50 or 60 feet? Shooting someone, to me, sounds like a pussy move, unless you're in a war, of course.
"(...) it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic."
Once again, you should see Europe...
"Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), (...)"
Um...no. The gun confiscation after Hurricane Katrina was done by the NOPD (New Orleans Police), so you're wrong. Troops may have been trained to handle protests and rioting but not that...I don't think.
"(...) while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions."
I'm not that sure which politicans you have been talking to, but they can't offically take away all firearms because of the law that the NRA despises, know as Reid v. Covert, that was handed down in 1957. In this, it states that any United Nation law can't bypass the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. I said that the NRA despises this law, not because it states that the UN can't bypass our laws, but because if people actually knew about this law, this type of scare tactic to get people to by more firarms (yes, this type of fear mongering conspirarcy theory works) would not work at all.
(*** Please Note: The next part of this artcle comes from a website known as the JPFO, or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. It is not by Alex Jones, but I will go over it because, for some reason, Alex has mirrored the whole article of "Death of Gun Control" on to his website. Thank You. ***)
------
Why must all decent non-violent people fight against "gun control"? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.
-------------
The new book is known as: Death by "Gun Control". I'm pretty sure it's as stupid as this article from the JPFO is.
I'm going to skip two paragraphs because they're stupid.
-----
The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.
----------
Here's my question. If all the people are disarmed, how do criminals have weapons and you don't? What, you can't hit someone with a broomstick if they come in to rob you with, what, maybe a knife? They would need to get at least 4 or 5 inches to you to stick the knife in you. If you had a broomstick, or something to that effect, you could keep him at bay and maybe knock the knife out of his/her hand. You can't be that fucking stupid to say that you wouldn't have a weapon...anything could be a weapon.
"When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, (...)"
You're in the United States in 2012, not Germany in 1933. This person though does have a point. That point is when someone is saying something really terribly bad about one group of people (like Hitler talking to people about how the Jews caused the destruction of the banking system) you shouldn't vote for him. Just the idea of blaming a whole group of people for something that was out of their control seems stupid enough. It's like saying all the Christians are accountable for the Norway shooting and bombing. It's just ridiculous.
-----
Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.
-----------
Yeah, because people armed is way safer...
-----
What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." It’s the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.
----------
"What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." "
Um....not really. The idea of gun control just gets more people to buy into the NRA and buy more weapons. So, you're wrong.
------
Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.
-----------
So, what did you nut jobs fin...oh good, it's a chart! Wonderful. Let's take a look at it.
So, the first box on "Gun Control" is about the Armenian Genocide which killed 1 to 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 - 1917. The "Gun Control" laws are as follows from the JPFO: "Article 166, Penal Code, 1866 and 1911 Proclamation, 1915" That's exactly what it states in the box for "Gun Control laws". It's really funny, I looked up all of those "Laws"...and I couldn't find a single god damn thing on those "laws"
But, I did find something. I looked up the Armenian Genocide and guess what I found? This:
---
In addition to other legal limitations, Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law; they were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses; their houses could not overlook those of Muslims; and their religious practices were severely circumscribed (e.g., the ringing of church bells was strictly forbidden). Violation of these statutes could result in punishments ranging from the levying of exorbitant fines to execution.
---
"Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: (...) they were forbidden to carry weapons (...)"
Because the Armenians were not Muslim (they were mostly Christians) they couldn't own a firearm. It wasn't gun laws, it was bigoty and religious intolerance. And anyway, that didn't really stop the Armenians from getting weapons, like in the fight for, or seige of, Van.
So, the idea that Gun Control had in anyway played a part in this is half right and half wrong. Half right because there were laws against Christians, who were not Muslims, to not be able to buy weapons. Half wrong because it wasn't for the whole Ottoman Empire, only for those who were Christians, and even then they got weapons to fight back against the Genocide of their people.
The second one is about the Soviet Union. The "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart the JPFO has: Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926.
I looked up the "1918 Decree" There's a list of decrees from the Soviet Union in 1918, none of them gun laws.
The text in the box on the JPFO page says that the Article 59 and 182 was in July 12, 1920, but then this makes no sense. The only times the Constitution of Russia / Soviet Union were called to change were in 1918, 1924, 1936 and 1977. This makes no damn sense. There is an Article 59, but it's in the Constitution of 1936 in which it states:
---
"Article 59: Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship."
---
It would be nice if the JPFO would just put down some of the things that they say exist and show it, instead of just putting it down and saying it's true.
But, once again, I found something. This:
---
Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929, and the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.
---
It's at the end of the "Resisting Governance" part.
The next one, of course, is Nazi Germany. The JPFO state that the "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart on the site: Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928, Weapon Law, March 18, 1938, Regulations against Jews, 1938
The first one (Firearms and Ammo 1928) comes in before the Nazi's even rise to power and is in the Weimar Republic years, so, I'll skip over that one.
The 1938 Weapons law dosen't do what you think it does and it does do something that you think it wouldn't do. Seeing that I can't find the origanal text, and most of the website I look up are propaganda for the gun lobbiest or redneck dumbasses who get their facts from Limbaugh or the JPFO website, here's a more independent look at that "Gun Control" law.
---
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichbaun Railways were exempted.
* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
---
And that leaves us with the Regulations Against Jews in 1938. That was because of intolerance and hated toward the Jewish Community...so, that's two gun laws, this one and the 1938 law, that forbids the Jews to have weapons. Hey, good news JPFO, you finally got me...on this one thing, only for the Jewish people through.
They also have, on the chart on the JPFO site, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. The box that says the "Gun Control" "laws" says this: Article 322-328, Penal Code Royal Ordinance 55, 1938.
I have looked up 1938 with all of that other crap, and I didn't find one piece of evidence that this is even truthful. I can't find anything on this whatsoever, unless if you want to call this same propaganda on other sites as evidence, there is no evidence of this. Maybe the JPFO can find it and show it on their website instead of just doing this.
On the same chart they had the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. They blame the genocide on a law in 1979 known as Decree 12/79. Here are the Gun laws in Rwanda as of right now. The 1979 law, whatever the hell that is, doesn't have any effect on the genocide in 1994. What happened was that the Hutu, which was the majority, presdients plane was shot down in 1994, which the majority suspected that the minority, the Tutsi tribe, was the ones who were responsible. The Hutu had a bunch of extremist who had went out and killed people who were of Tutsi orgin. A war had started automaticlally after the presidental plane was shot down. Maybe someone needs to tell the JPFO to research these things a little more instead of pulling stuff out of their asses.
That's it for today.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Showing posts with label Genocide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genocide. Show all posts
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Ron Paul: Kosovo Genocide and Syria Massacre Are Propaganda For War.
I thought it would be a good idea to do two posts in one day. So, here's the second post in one day.
So, Ron Paul went crazy yet again while I wasn't reporting on him for a month or two. This time Ron Paul states that the massacre in Syria is propaganda and perpertrated by the rebels that are fighting against the Army of Syria and Al-Assad. And, in the first article we're going to go through, that Ron Paul acutally says that the Kosvo Genocide was propaganda and that it didn't happen. I wonder what he thinks about the holocaust. Yes, as you might have noticed, I'm doing two articles on Ron Paul, mostly on the same thing which is Syria. The next one will be up tomorrow. So, let's get started with the first one known as "War Drums For Syria?"
----------
War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.
---------------
Yeah...what? We don't look for UN approval? What a bunch of bullshit. Look at this article from the Washington Post:
---
"(...) the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval."
The U.N. Security Council opened negotiations Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions aimed at breaking the diplomatic gridlock over Syria as violence continued to rack the country.
----
"(...) Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions (...)"
Look, we didn't look for UN Approv...oh, wait!
And if you think this was a once and a lifetime thing we did, guess again. From the UN Website S(ecuirty)C(ouncil)/10403 on Oct. 4th 2011.
---
The Security Council this afternoon failed to adopt a resolution that would have condemned "grave and systematic human rights violations" in Syria, and would have warned of options for action to be considered against the Government of President Bashar al-Assad if the unfolding situation warranted, including measures under the section of the United Nations Charter that allowed sanctions.
The text, which was defeated due to the negative votes of two permanent Council members (China, Russian Federation), drew 9 votes in favour with 4 abstentions (Brazil, India, Lebanon, South Africa). It would have demanded an immediate end to violence and urged all sides to reject extremism, expressing "profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children"
(...)
The representative of the United States expressed outrage over the Council’s failure to take minimum steps to protect civilians in Syria after long, hard negotiations. She warned that, after today’s veto, the people of Syria could see who supported their aspirations for freedom and democracy and who chose to prop up "desperate, cruel dictators".
----
Yeah, guess we didn't do anything, eh, Ron Paul? More from Ron Paul:
-----------
It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation – unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.
------------------
"With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation (...)"
This part of the sentence makes me so pissed off. It's like saying if your friend was doing hard drugs, and you knew he/she was, would you step in right after the 'full investagtion' of your friends body finds that your friend died of (hard drug here) OD? Because, according to Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
-----------
There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.
-----------------
"There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas?" Ok, fine. How about the United Kingdoms media. Wait, that's from the BBC (It's a corperation after all). How about The Guardian, the newspaper that uncovered Rupert Murdoch's scandle. There you go, read that.
"It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false (...)"
Execuse me!
---
In a statement, the council demanded an immediate end to the violence and said Libya's rulers had to "address the legitimate demands of the population".
At least 300 people have been killed so far in the uprising.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi urged his supporters to attack the "cockroaches" and "rats" protesting against his rule.
Anyone who took up arms against Libya would be executed, he warned.
(...)
Standing outside the Bab al-Aziza barracks in Tripoli, damaged by a US air strike in 1986, he vowed: "I am not going to leave this land. I will die here as a martyr. I shall remain here defiant."
He also called on his supporters to "cleanse Libya house by house" until the protesters surrendered.
"All of you who love Muammar Gaddafi, go out on the streets, secure the streets, don't be afraid of them. Chase them, arrest them, hand them over," he said.
He portrayed the protesters as misguided youths who had been given drugs and money by a "small, sick group", and blamed "bearded men" - a reference to Islamists - and Libyans living abroad for fomenting the violence.
"The hour of work is here, the hour of onslaught is here, the hour of victory is here. No retreat, forward, forward, forward. Revolution, revolution," he shouted at the end of the speech, pumping both fists in the air.
(...)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Col Gaddafi's speech was "very, very appalling" and "amounted to him declaring war on his own people".
In New York, Mr Dabbashi said he had received information that the Libyan leader's supporters had started attacking people in all western cities.
"The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people. It just started a few hours ago. I hope the information I get is not accurate but if it is, it will be a real genocide," he told reporters.
-----
Gaddaffi did this to himself, we didn't do it for him. Gaddaffi made that speech, not the US Gov. Back to Ron Paul.
----------------
Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.
---------------------
"(...) for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs."
Um...Iraq had drones!?
----------------
Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.
-----------------------
"Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo (...)"
You better be joking motherfucker. Just in case if you're not...
Here is the US State Department account of the Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo.
And here's the report of the Atrocities (on April 2, 1999) of the Ethinic Cleansing of Albainans in Kosovo by the Serbs.
And here's your photograpic evidence ( Please Note: Clicking on the "photograpic evidence" link will take you to a site with links to the photos).
What does genocide mean? The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
Looks like Serbs killing Albaians in Kosovo is a genocide. So, no, it was not a lie.
" (...) that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there."
Not really. The killings stopped so, that's good. Back to Ron Paul.
------------------
The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.
---------------------------
"First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives."
Looks like Ron Paul can't put it together, doesn't it? Ok, so there is shelling first, and then the group of Al-Assads' military come in there and killed people who didn't die in the shelling. You get it now?
"No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details."
Yeah, because that couldn't be taken as, like, a warning to the others if they keep protesting and going after the military people of Al-Assads regime that that will happen to them, could it?
"No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories."
I think the people that benifits from these real life horror stories that is happening in Syria are the people that are against Al-Assad's violent regime, because if it was up to you, Ron Paul, we would just listen to Al-Assad, not giving one thought to those people on the ground that are dieing for their on freedom from Al-Assad.
-----------------
We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.
We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
-------------------------
"Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals."
Um...this wouldn't be considered a war in the first place. It would be known as an intervention, which we don't need Congress's approval, but the UN's approval to go and help out the people of Syria, kind of like what we did with Libya. And you want to know something...we didn't lose one guy in the intervention in Libya.
" (...) fast track to war against Syria."
No. It's an Intervetion.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
So, Ron Paul went crazy yet again while I wasn't reporting on him for a month or two. This time Ron Paul states that the massacre in Syria is propaganda and perpertrated by the rebels that are fighting against the Army of Syria and Al-Assad. And, in the first article we're going to go through, that Ron Paul acutally says that the Kosvo Genocide was propaganda and that it didn't happen. I wonder what he thinks about the holocaust. Yes, as you might have noticed, I'm doing two articles on Ron Paul, mostly on the same thing which is Syria. The next one will be up tomorrow. So, let's get started with the first one known as "War Drums For Syria?"
----------
War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.
---------------
Yeah...what? We don't look for UN approval? What a bunch of bullshit. Look at this article from the Washington Post:
---
"(...) the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval."
The U.N. Security Council opened negotiations Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions aimed at breaking the diplomatic gridlock over Syria as violence continued to rack the country.
----
"(...) Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions (...)"
Look, we didn't look for UN Approv...oh, wait!
And if you think this was a once and a lifetime thing we did, guess again. From the UN Website S(ecuirty)C(ouncil)/10403 on Oct. 4th 2011.
---
The Security Council this afternoon failed to adopt a resolution that would have condemned "grave and systematic human rights violations" in Syria, and would have warned of options for action to be considered against the Government of President Bashar al-Assad if the unfolding situation warranted, including measures under the section of the United Nations Charter that allowed sanctions.
The text, which was defeated due to the negative votes of two permanent Council members (China, Russian Federation), drew 9 votes in favour with 4 abstentions (Brazil, India, Lebanon, South Africa). It would have demanded an immediate end to violence and urged all sides to reject extremism, expressing "profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children"
(...)
The representative of the United States expressed outrage over the Council’s failure to take minimum steps to protect civilians in Syria after long, hard negotiations. She warned that, after today’s veto, the people of Syria could see who supported their aspirations for freedom and democracy and who chose to prop up "desperate, cruel dictators".
----
Yeah, guess we didn't do anything, eh, Ron Paul? More from Ron Paul:
-----------
It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation – unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.
------------------
"With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation (...)"
This part of the sentence makes me so pissed off. It's like saying if your friend was doing hard drugs, and you knew he/she was, would you step in right after the 'full investagtion' of your friends body finds that your friend died of (hard drug here) OD? Because, according to Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
-----------
There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.
-----------------
"There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas?" Ok, fine. How about the United Kingdoms media. Wait, that's from the BBC (It's a corperation after all). How about The Guardian, the newspaper that uncovered Rupert Murdoch's scandle. There you go, read that.
"It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false (...)"
Execuse me!
---
In a statement, the council demanded an immediate end to the violence and said Libya's rulers had to "address the legitimate demands of the population".
At least 300 people have been killed so far in the uprising.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi urged his supporters to attack the "cockroaches" and "rats" protesting against his rule.
Anyone who took up arms against Libya would be executed, he warned.
(...)
Standing outside the Bab al-Aziza barracks in Tripoli, damaged by a US air strike in 1986, he vowed: "I am not going to leave this land. I will die here as a martyr. I shall remain here defiant."
He also called on his supporters to "cleanse Libya house by house" until the protesters surrendered.
"All of you who love Muammar Gaddafi, go out on the streets, secure the streets, don't be afraid of them. Chase them, arrest them, hand them over," he said.
He portrayed the protesters as misguided youths who had been given drugs and money by a "small, sick group", and blamed "bearded men" - a reference to Islamists - and Libyans living abroad for fomenting the violence.
"The hour of work is here, the hour of onslaught is here, the hour of victory is here. No retreat, forward, forward, forward. Revolution, revolution," he shouted at the end of the speech, pumping both fists in the air.
(...)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Col Gaddafi's speech was "very, very appalling" and "amounted to him declaring war on his own people".
In New York, Mr Dabbashi said he had received information that the Libyan leader's supporters had started attacking people in all western cities.
"The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people. It just started a few hours ago. I hope the information I get is not accurate but if it is, it will be a real genocide," he told reporters.
-----
Gaddaffi did this to himself, we didn't do it for him. Gaddaffi made that speech, not the US Gov. Back to Ron Paul.
----------------
Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.
---------------------
"(...) for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs."
Um...Iraq had drones!?
----------------
Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.
-----------------------
"Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo (...)"
You better be joking motherfucker. Just in case if you're not...
Here is the US State Department account of the Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo.
And here's the report of the Atrocities (on April 2, 1999) of the Ethinic Cleansing of Albainans in Kosovo by the Serbs.
And here's your photograpic evidence ( Please Note: Clicking on the "photograpic evidence" link will take you to a site with links to the photos).
What does genocide mean? The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
Looks like Serbs killing Albaians in Kosovo is a genocide. So, no, it was not a lie.
" (...) that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there."
Not really. The killings stopped so, that's good. Back to Ron Paul.
------------------
The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.
---------------------------
"First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives."
Looks like Ron Paul can't put it together, doesn't it? Ok, so there is shelling first, and then the group of Al-Assads' military come in there and killed people who didn't die in the shelling. You get it now?
"No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details."
Yeah, because that couldn't be taken as, like, a warning to the others if they keep protesting and going after the military people of Al-Assads regime that that will happen to them, could it?
"No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories."
I think the people that benifits from these real life horror stories that is happening in Syria are the people that are against Al-Assad's violent regime, because if it was up to you, Ron Paul, we would just listen to Al-Assad, not giving one thought to those people on the ground that are dieing for their on freedom from Al-Assad.
-----------------
We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.
We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
-------------------------
"Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals."
Um...this wouldn't be considered a war in the first place. It would be known as an intervention, which we don't need Congress's approval, but the UN's approval to go and help out the people of Syria, kind of like what we did with Libya. And you want to know something...we didn't lose one guy in the intervention in Libya.
" (...) fast track to war against Syria."
No. It's an Intervetion.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)