Yep, that's what Ron Paul states in this second part of the what does Ron Paul think about Syrias' civil war. You might rememeber yesterday that I had written a post about how Ron Paul thinks that the Kosovo Genocide didn't really happen and how he thinks it was just propaganda. So, here's the other part. Ron Paul enititles this one as "When Will We Attack Syria?" Propably never, if Russia and China doesn't stop sticking up for a dictator that is killing his own people because he's own people don't like him.
----------
Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.
-------------
What "war propaganda" are you talking about? What, the Homs shelling? No, that was real.
----------
This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.
---------------
WHAT? Holy Damn! So, Ron Paul thinks the US going into Iraq on actual false pretense of "WMD's in Iraq" is just like going into Libya, with the UN and NATO, intervening in a Civil War, under the real life pretenses, to stop Col. Gaddaffi from killing more of his own people. Wow, that's a hell of a leap you made!
--------
The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria.
---------------
Libya didn't cost that much because we didn't put troops on the ground, kind of like what the Republicans wanted to do to get Libyan oil. And there was no occupation of Libya, though they did thank the "Fantastic 4" for helping them take down Col. Gaddaffi.
---------
There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.
-----------------
Yeah, why would we want to go into Syria? Could it be because the dictator is killing thier own people? Well, if it is, we should really take notice of what Ron Paul had to say about WW2 and the Jews that were being killed in Nazi Germany. From the Daily Kos:
---
Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GPO's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."
"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."
----
So, to Ron Paul's own ideas, we shouldn't help the Jews during WW2. We propabaly shouldn't have even faught in WW2 with England and the Soviet Union to stop the Fascist. We should have just let them take over the world and killed whom ever they wanted, as long as they don't do anything to us, what should we care? Let's get back to Ron Paul.
-----------
We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent.
-----------------
"Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent."
Yeah, because the Arab Spring didn't pop up because of the opperesion people were under and those opperesed people wanting freedom, it was totally because of the US. Just like with Libya, Eqypt and Algeria and the starting country Tunisia. Wait, we weren't in Algeria, nor were we in Eqypt, and nor were we in Tunisia where the Arab Spring started. How does Ron Paul explain this?
----------
Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious Constitutional question: From where does a president get such authority?
------------
" (...) occupying it and setting up a new regime (...)"
I'm sorry, did we set up a new regime in Egypt? How about Algeria or Tunisia? Oh wait, we didn't play any part in that, execpt that we condeming the actions to put down the protestors by the Governments of those countries.
---------
Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don't object.
----------------
Really? Because the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (starting up the Vietnam War) was passed by Congress on Augest 7, 1964 and was repealed in January 1971.
--------
Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under UN Resolution and without Congressional approval.
-----------
I guess you forget, Ron Paul, that it was not the US who started the Korean War, it was North Korea, who stated the war, by over running the DMZ zone and attacking South Korea. The South Korean Army put itself under the UN. That's possibly the reason why we had a UN resolution instead of passing something through the Congress.
-------
And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria.
------------
" (...) we are about to engage in military action against Syria (...)"
If Russia and China would stop vetoing the resolutions, we might actually do something...
"(...) and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia."
What? I'm sorry...what? You know, Gramps, the Soviet Union fell in 1991. The "Cold War" hasn't been effective since then. So, what the hell are you talking about?
"We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria."
Um...not anymore.(?) When did the Cold War come back into play? So, how is Russia vetoing resolutions so they can make more money by giving Al-Assads Army more weapons, a greater threat then Syria killing it's own people be using weapons that come from Russia. Hey, Ron Paul, you forgot China.
--------
How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.
-------------
"How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border?"
Well, first of all, most of the violence is in Mexico, even if the news states that it's "along the US-Mexico border", it's mostly in Mexico. Second, the US Government overrules the UN. How do you think that "small guns ban", or whatever it was, never became law here? So, there's your answer.
--------
We are hypocritical when we condemn Russian for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria.
-------------
"There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria."
Who said we were picking sides? We are with the people who want to overthrow Al-Assad. How is that too hard for you to understand?
---------
Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.
-----------
Yeah, who cares about reality, just keep living in your own little world that isn't real.
"Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda."
What the fuck is this? What, you think the opposition people have all the Syrian tanks? What a bunch of bullshit! So, who killed al those people in Homs, Ron? Who killed those 30,000 people in Homs bakc in the 1980's Ron? Can you tell me? Let me guess. It's the people who rose up in opposition to Al-Assads father like it is no, right Ron? What a dumbass!
-------
Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neo-cons openly admit.
-------------
Ok, Ron Paul is right about the neo-con thing, but the neo-cons aren't in charge and everytime that the Obama Adminastration does something (passing resolutions and helping the people of Libya and Syria), some douch, like you, screams out that we're taking over their country, yet we don't do that at all. This is not the Bush Adminastration!
---------
"(...) just as we have done in Saudi Arabia (...)"
Um...we don't "control" the Saudi Arabian oil, the Saudis do (Yes we have companies over there but that doesn't mean we steal the oil). They give us oil in exchange for money. You know this, right? We're not taking it from them, we're paying them.
----------
War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy, and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia.
-----------------
"Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled."
Why? Wouldn't this be a good thing? Then we can get the military down to the size that we need instead of the bloated size it is now.
"Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
Oh, execpt for the Democrats who already got us out of Iraq...did you forget that Ron?
----------
This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore.
---------------
"This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation (...)"
Yeah, like Libya...oh wait!
-------
It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.
-----------
"It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship."
Because we never tried this before...
"We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire."
Tell that to Mitt Romeny.
-------------
Besides, we're broke, we can't afford it, and worst of all, we're fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.
------------------
Yeah, we're broke, but the rich aren't Tax the rich fat cats already. Of course, Ron Paul would stop all taxes so that no one will need to pay taxes. Have fun fixing the roads and all the other stuff that the Government does for you, with tax money, for free!
----------
It's time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity
-------------
Well, Ron Paul better have a really good jobs and educational bill for this nation if everyone is coming home from all the bases that we have. These guys will really want to get a job and a good education. Too bad that Ron Paul wants to cut things out of this Government that would be handy to do just that. Do you know how many people that would be? According to the number of military personel in 1998, that would be 519,742 people. I'm pretty sure there is more then that, but that was back in '98, so that will give you some what of a reference to how many will be coming home if Ron Paul wins.
-----------
This week I am introducing legislation to prohibit the Administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting – directly or indirectly – any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
-------------
Yeah, he said this on the House Floor. Don't worry, I don't really think anyone was listening.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Saturday, July 14, 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.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Alex Jones Thinks He's Anon Now.
Well, this is going to be a short one today. Alex Jones now has a new website for you to go to for all your gun toting, conspiracy needs know as 'Planet Infowars'. You may be asking, 'what is this, I don't even'. Yeah don't worry, I was like that too when I seen this...lol. Here's the link and the backstory.
1st paragraph - Alex Jones is proud to announce the official launch of Planet Infowars (BETA), a social network platform that will allow awakening minds to connect, organize and form pockets of resistance worldwide against the New World Order’s slow encroachment of total tyranny. Whether you are hoping to meet like minds for dating, form a group or accomplish preparation and training, Planet Infowars.com is YOUR latest and most powerful tool to break through the establishment’s media matrix deception. Learn the truth for yourself, then share it with others, all without Big Brother collecting and selling all your data like Facebook, Google, Twitter and other platforms do.
Also, the video that is on the infowars link...you can see what looks like a 'V' and 'You Are The Resistance' on the left side of the video without even starting it. The V is from the movie 'V for Vendetta' in which, the mask from 'V for Vendetta' is the same mask that Anon and 4Chan people wear. So, either A) Alex is an unorignal fat fuck who is now just cold copying off of people (btw, Anon really doesn't like Alex Jones), or B) He thinks he's totally orginal in his own way and doesn't know what's really going on. My biggest guess is that he'd say B, but I am more inclined to believe it's A. He really is an idiot.
"Learn the truth for yourself (...)"
It's only 19.99 to 'learn' the truth yourself...
"Whether you are hoping to meet like minds for dating (...)"
Yeah, if you're going on Alex Jones's site for dates...then something is wrong with you.
"(...) Planet Infowars.com is YOUR latest and most powerful tool to break through the establishment’s media matrix deception."
Just rememeber, listen to Alex Jones for 5 hrs and make sure to buy his Dvd's...he needs more money to make sure he can still have his house at 6601 Dogwood Creek Drive Austin, Texas 78746, which is a two storied home by the way. He is in real need of your money folks so, give him MOAR!
Well, that will do for today. Thank you for looking at this site.
Shydude89.
(*Please note: Any Anti-Semitic Comments WILL BE REMOVED*)
1st paragraph - Alex Jones is proud to announce the official launch of Planet Infowars (BETA), a social network platform that will allow awakening minds to connect, organize and form pockets of resistance worldwide against the New World Order’s slow encroachment of total tyranny. Whether you are hoping to meet like minds for dating, form a group or accomplish preparation and training, Planet Infowars.com is YOUR latest and most powerful tool to break through the establishment’s media matrix deception. Learn the truth for yourself, then share it with others, all without Big Brother collecting and selling all your data like Facebook, Google, Twitter and other platforms do.
Also, the video that is on the infowars link...you can see what looks like a 'V' and 'You Are The Resistance' on the left side of the video without even starting it. The V is from the movie 'V for Vendetta' in which, the mask from 'V for Vendetta' is the same mask that Anon and 4Chan people wear. So, either A) Alex is an unorignal fat fuck who is now just cold copying off of people (btw, Anon really doesn't like Alex Jones), or B) He thinks he's totally orginal in his own way and doesn't know what's really going on. My biggest guess is that he'd say B, but I am more inclined to believe it's A. He really is an idiot.
"Learn the truth for yourself (...)"
It's only 19.99 to 'learn' the truth yourself...
"Whether you are hoping to meet like minds for dating (...)"
Yeah, if you're going on Alex Jones's site for dates...then something is wrong with you.
"(...) Planet Infowars.com is YOUR latest and most powerful tool to break through the establishment’s media matrix deception."
Just rememeber, listen to Alex Jones for 5 hrs and make sure to buy his Dvd's...he needs more money to make sure he can still have his house at 6601 Dogwood Creek Drive Austin, Texas 78746, which is a two storied home by the way. He is in real need of your money folks so, give him MOAR!
Well, that will do for today. Thank you for looking at this site.
Shydude89.
(*Please note: Any Anti-Semitic Comments WILL BE REMOVED*)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)