NationStates Jolt Archive

Different sources, including Iraqi officials, are now saying they have documentation that Syria is the nation providing arms and troops and cash to the terrorists operating in Iraq. President is not ruling out the use of force. Officials are now saying that convoys heading into Iraq but that are still in Syria could now be subject to US air attack.
More info when I find it.

and this suprises you?

I'm wondering why you have a ! in your post title. This was predicted by how many people back in July?

I would support the Iraqi rebels if I was the Syrian President, they are the only thing keep keeping the Americans from invading Syria.

Are these the same sources that said Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes?

The same sources that said Iraq was close to having a n00k?

The same sources that said "He [Saddam Hussein] recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa?"

Don't believe everything you hear. :rolleyes: If it's anything from the Bush administration, they destroyed their credibility with Iraq. If it's from Rush Limbaugh or other hate radio sources, I have a present for you. A steaming hot pile of skepticism.

Are these the same sources that said Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes?

The same sources that said Iraq was close to having a n00k?

The same sources that said "He [Saddam Hussein] recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa?"

Don't believe everything you hear. :rolleyes: If it's anything from the Bush administration, they destroyed their credibility with Iraq. If it's from Rush Limbaugh or other hate radio sources, I have a present for you. A steaming hot pile of skepticism.
I would assume that some of the rational these sources are using would be material picked up in Fallujah, as well as various terrorist safe houses that have been found.

I would assume that some of the rational these sources are using would be material picked up in Fallujah, as well as various terrorist safe houses that have been found.

And I can't judge the credibility of a source that hasn't been cited or otherwise given to me...like I said, I have a steaming hot pile of skepticism for you.

Now, when I have a source, I can 1)read the source for myself, and 2)research that source's credibility.

Edit: Your speculation seems oddly like "defectors" named in the now-infamous 2003 State of the Union Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html).

this is like saying "the US supports the eating of food"

Syria is the nation providing arms and troops and cash to the terrorists operating in Iraq.

Johnny-come-latelys. What nations haven't supported terrorists in Iraq in the past 20 years?

And I can't judge the credibility of a source that hasn't been cited or otherwise given to me...like I said, I have a steaming hot pile of skepticism for you.

Now, if you care to cite something, I can 1)read the source for myself, and 2)research that source's credibility.

Edit: Your speculation seems oddly like "defectors" named in the now-infamous 2003 State of the Union Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html).
This is not an academic debate. You don't have the same stringent requirements in the political world that you do in school.

This is not an academic debate. You don't have the same stringent requirements in the political world that you do in school.

I'm not writing, or for that matter, grading, a paper here. But until you can corroborate your claim, I'm not going to believe it.

If I claimed that Bush was giving money to Planned Parenthood, you would probably want me to corroborate my claim too.

Syria don't only support the Iraqi terrorists, they also fund the Palestinian terrorists.

"the terrorists operating in Iraq".
Isn't Iraq occupied by a forreign nation? In France or Yugoslavia between 1939 and 1945 for example, terrorists were called "partizans" or "the resistance"

"the terrorists operating in Iraq".
Isn't Iraq occupied by a forreign nation? In France or Yugoslavia between 1939 and 1945 for example, terrorists were called "partizans" or "the resistance"
The insurgents in Iraq are not native iraqis. So no, they are not the resistance, they are also invaders.

Not surprised at all.

I remember listening to some BBC guy walking down some street in Damascus and he was talking about which terror group was in each building his passed.

The current King is not like his old man. He can't do anyting even if he wanted....

Isn't Iraq occupied by a forreign nation? In France or Yugoslavia between 1939 and 1945 for example, terrorists were called "partizans" or "the resistance"

Now, in france, what was considered a "resistant" was either :

- a communist, or
- someone who didn't sell his neighbors to the gestapo

Now, we know how peaceful those iraquis are, and you can understand their point of view, but don't believe that they would protect jewish children from harm, for example.

I'm not writing, or for that matter, grading, a paper here. But until you can corroborate your claim, I'm not going to believe it.

If I claimed that Bush was giving money to Planned Parenthood, you would probably want me to corroborate my claim too.
Well, yes, but the unlikelyhood of him personally giving money to PP makes it so such a claim would be extremely hard to accept. Very different really.

And I can't judge the credibility of a source that hasn't been cited or otherwise given to me...like I said, I have a steaming hot pile of skepticism for you.

Now, when I have a source, I can 1)read the source for myself, and 2)research that source's credibility.

Edit: Your speculation seems oddly like "defectors" named in the now-infamous 2003 State of the Union Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html).
Interestingly enough, Saddam had the exact aim of making us think he still had copious supply of WMD. Sooo, unless the originators of the documents intend us to think they have actually funded the terrorists when they haven't the situations are not nearly the same.

Wow...I just fell off my sit in shock....cos Syeria just looooves the US and we all know how much Iraqi insurgents just loves those boys representing the red white and blue. Offer to sell george bush to them and they might behave

Wow...I just fell off my sit in shock....cos Syeria just looooves the US and we all know how much Iraqi insurgents just loves those boys representing the red white and blue. Offer to sell george bush to them and they might behave

Not terrorists - the resistance. And they have as much right funding them as they the UK had when they were helping out the French resistance.

But then again, the US has no credibility left. They lost it all in Iraq, alongside with any possible pretence to claimin the "good guy" role (hello Guantanamo and Al-Ghraib...).

God bless the Iraqi Resistance, let us hope they kill as many AmeriKKKan marines as possible. Truly if they could drive the US out it would be a great achievement.

Remember, Ameriscum are evil people who support 'their god given president' whatever happens, they are marginalized, atomized and they have no public institutions so the corporate media does it for them. You invade Syria, and Bold Europe will send troops to assist Syria in their defence.

Not terrorists - the resistance. And they have as much right funding them as they the UK had when they were helping out the French resistance.

But then again, the US has no credibility left. They lost it all in Iraq, alongside with any possible pretence to claimin the "good guy" role (hello Guantanamo and Al-Ghraib...).
If you can point out those situations and say we ain't the good guys the real world escaped your radar long, long ago.

The question is whether the terrorists are coming from Syria, with support from within Syria, or whether it's actually the government supporting them and sending them in. It makes a big difference although both could be referred to as "Syria supports terrorists".

If you can point out those situations and say we ain't the good guys the real world escaped your radar long, long ago.
What makes those situations good? Is violating human rights a good thing? Aren't we supposed to be "better" than the terrorists we are fighting? Torturing prisoners and not giving them the rights US citizens expect when in similar situations does not make us the "good guys".

I really hope the 100,000 marines die in Syria, that would be great.

stop press! USA supports terrorists in Northern Ireland! (and many other places)

countries support terrorists everywhere, get over it

I really hope the 100,000 marines die in Syria, that would be great.
You don't speak for Europe. Be quiet if you have nothing constructive to say.

stop press! USA supports terrorists in Northern Ireland! (and many other places)

countries support terrorists everywhere, get over it

Yeh if we had to list dictatorial regimes and terrorist groups like the Contras that the Ameriscum have supported then we would be here all day!

You don't speak for Europe. Be quiet if you have nothing constructive to say.

You dont speak for Europe, a recent poll showed that 64% of Germans 'were dissapointed the Iraqi Army didn't put up a better fight against AmeriKKKa'.

You are a right winger so get out of Europe, we have no need for conservatives in Europe.

You dont speak for Europe, a recent poll showed that 64% of Germans 'were dissapointed the Iraqi Army didn't put up a better fight against AmeriKKKa'.

You are a right winger so get out of Europe, we have no need for conservatives in Europe.
'Scuse you? Right-winger? Just because I'm not radical left doesn't mean I'm not liberal. The reason I'm telling you to shut up is because you give real left-wingers a bad name, and I don't want to be associated with idiots like you. Besides, last time I checked, Germans still hate the idea of involving themselves militarily in the conflict, and that would include "protecting Syria". Your definition of the left is seriously skewed and needs to be adjusted.

EDIT: Besides, though I may not like it, the largest political faction in the European Parliament is still the Conservatives. If you're European, you should know that by now.

What makes those situations good? Is violating human rights a good thing? Aren't we supposed to be "better" than the terrorists we are fighting? Torturing prisoners and not giving them the rights US citizens expect when in similar situations does not make us the "good guys".
No, but that is an isolated incident and said people are being court-martialed. Not many beheaders are being court-martialed.

'Scuse you? Right-winger? Just because I'm not radical left doesn't mean I'm not liberal. The reason I'm telling you to shut up is because you give real left-wingers a bad name, and I don't want to be associated with idiots like you. Besides, last time I checked, Germans still hate the idea of involving themselves militarily in the conflict, and that would include "protecting Syria". Your definition of the left is seriously skewed and needs to be adjusted.

EDIT: Besides, though I may not like it, the largest political faction in the European Parliament is still the Conservatives. If you're European, you should know that by now.

Yes but most Continental Conservatives are still pro European (it's the English racist Conservatives who aren't).

And I'm sorry but we have to do something if they try and declare War again, we can't just sit around. We have to do something to try and stop them.

No, but that is an isolated incident and said people are being court-martialed. Not many beheaders are being court-martialed.
Don't justify wrong with other wrong. We're supposed to be "better", remember? Besides. Denying all prisoners the right to a lawyer is not an "isolated" incident. Besides, it's not proven that the torturing is an isolated incident. It might be, but I personally doubt it. (but that's just my opinion).

Don't justify wrong with other wrong. We're supposed to be "better", remember? Besides. Denying all prisoners the right to a lawyer is not an "isolated" incident. Besides, it's not proven that the torturing is an isolated incident. It might be, but I personally doubt it. (but that's just my opinion).
Thus the court-martial, the only way to get people to stop that behavior is to punish it. Which we are doing. The only way it could have been better is if it didn't happen at all but it did and so we try and deal with it as best as possible.

Thus the court-martial, the only way to get people to stop that behavior is to punish it. Which we are doing. The only way it could have been better is if it didn't happen at all but it did and so we try and deal with it as best as possible.
Bush isn't being court martialed. It was him that struggled to prevent the supreme court from hearing the matter of legal representation. It took THREE YEARS for the supreme court to finally rule it unconstitutional. We've been denying prisoners these standard American rights with the justification that they're not American and don't have such rights (which might be true, but should be worked against if it is the case). They've been being held without a trial, meaning only a small ammount of people, namely those responsible for the arrest, got to choose between guilt and innocence of the accused. No one is being court-martialed for that, and what's more, Bush was defending that policy.

Bush isn't being court martialed. It was him that struggled to prevent the supreme court from hearing the matter of legal representation. It took THREE YEARS for the supreme court to finally rule it unconstitutional. We've been denying prisoners these standard American rights with the justification that they're not American and don't have such rights (which might be true, but should be worked against if it is the case). They've been being held without a trial, meaning only a small ammount of people, namely those responsible for the arrest, got to choose between guilt and innocence of the accused. No one is being court-martialed for that, and what's more, Bush was defending that policy.
Oookay, the Abu Ghirab bit is being court-martialed. In Guantanamo the torture seems pretty much to be stuff that really isn't all that harmful, although I suppose blasting bad pop music really loud could damage someone's psyche. And at least seven of the ones already released from there have, whadda you know, been found in Iraq. They ain't guilty of anything at all.

War? Wasn't that what the European left was against? Seeking a peaceful solution? You don't sound left, you just sound anti-American.

Anti American is a negligible phrase, it means nothing. What does mean something is this.

http://members.internettrash.com/idsa/flag.gif

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/themes/imperialism/images/trmonroecart.jpg

One glorious day AmeriKKKa will fall.

Anti American is a negligible phrase, it means nothing. What does mean something is this.

http://members.internettrash.com/idsa/flag.gif

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/themes/imperialism/images/trmonroecart.jpg

One glorious day AmeriKKKa will fall.

To go back to my theory, I believe that people kill because they like to. And any justification that comes out of their mouth is a smoke screen for the real reason.

I killed in Iraq because I liked it. That's why I went. At least I'm honest.

I believe that USE likes to kill, also, but he's frustrated because he hasn't gotten the chance yet. Maybe because he hasn't kidnapped any old British women working for charitable organizations, who make easy fodder for newly minted terrorists with a video camera, some rags on their heads, and a new knife from Hoffritz...

To go back to my theory, I believe that people kill because they like to. And any justification that comes out of their mouth is a smoke screen for the real reason.

I killed in Iraq because I liked it. That's why I went. At least I'm honest.

I believe that USE likes to kill, also, but he's frustrated because he hasn't gotten the chance yet. Maybe because he hasn't kidnapped any old British women working for charitable organizations, who make easy fodder for newly minted terrorists with a video camera, some rags on their heads, and a new knife from Hoffritz...

No, I could never pull the trigger on someone and thats the Gods to honest truth. I couldn't just go and dehumanize myself to the point you have that I enjoy killing people, thats disgusting, I could never pull the trigger on somebody, they probably have a family, friends and so on.

People like you are sick, you are the people who constitute the US Marine Corps, and I'm glad people like you are dying over there.

No, I could never pull the trigger on someone and thats the Gods to honest truth. I couldn't just go and dehumanize myself to the point you have that I enjoy killing people, thats disgusting, I could never pull the trigger on somebody, they probably have a family, friends and so on.

People like you are sick, you are the people who constitute the US Marine Corps, and I'm glad people like you are dying over there.

US Army. I guess that's why you would justify nuking America. You would never pull the trigger on someone, or dehumanize yourself.

I, on the other hand, at least admit it. And although I play the rules and look for a "justification", I'm not going to actually believe it.

To go back to my theory, I believe that people kill because they like to. And any justification that comes out of their mouth is a smoke screen for the real reason.

I killed in Iraq because I liked it. That's why I went. At least I'm honest.

I believe that USE likes to kill, also, but he's frustrated because he hasn't gotten the chance yet. Maybe because he hasn't kidnapped any old British women working for charitable organizations, who make easy fodder for newly minted terrorists with a video camera, some rags on their heads, and a new knife from Hoffritz...


The people with the camera, knife and old woman - they are Al Queda and probably sponsored out of Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is America's friend so just forget about that.

The people with the camera, knife and old woman - they are Al Queda and probably sponsored out of Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is America's friend so just forget about that.

Exactly. They needed a "justification", when all they really wanted to do was scare the crap out of an old woman and kill her.