by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 36,583 - 36,622 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
It doesn't matter if he is or he isn't. Being a war vet hardly makes you an expert on a region. Far from it.
It does matter. The evening news in America is brought to you by the medical industrial complex and in some instances literally owned by the military industrial complex. They sell war all over the world. The Republicans especially are a party of chickenhawks, i.e. they don't put themselves or their kids in harm's way, but they'll gladly put other kids in harms way because that's a politician's proven path to money and power. From the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to the phony Kuwaiti testimony that sold the Gulf War to the WMD in Iraq, it's the same story in every region. People who have actually been through it, somewhere, might possibly have a better chance of seeing through it.
No, it doesn't matter because being a grunt on the ground (somewhere) doesn't give you any special insight into an extremely complex region.
I was more wondering about what the conflict will do to our youth.
Ah, yes, the making of a stable nation.
Bigsby, I am with you on this one. Read my article:
Obama is the only one holding us back from a major middle east confrontation. Even France is hot for war, and the UK and Turkey!
You have no idea what you are talking about. Obama isn't holding back anything. The UK and France have done virtually nothing over the course of the civil war. They aren't hot for war and certainly aren't going to do anything now when it is clear the opposition have lost any semblance of leadership to the Islamists.
No, it doesn't matter because being a grunt on the ground (somewhere) doesn't give you any special insight into an extremely complex region.
But living in Monterey, CA does???
I don't live in Monterey. I own a home in Monterey. I live and work in Kuwait as I stated above. Always helps to actually read posts before responding. And as I said before, that is basically irrelevant as well. The ability to comment on a situation effectively is determined by how much you know about the situation and not whether you served there or live there.
Whether they're drafted or not, maybe he can share knowledge about the trade off to our kids to insinuate ourselves into a civil war. Like we did in Vietnam.
So Bigsby, you didn't read the email where there was to be a false flag? Don't you read before you comment?
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=8544
The only thing wrong with the story is that Qatar claimed the US was for this. There is no such proof.
I read it. What is your point? That I should automatically believe it?
And you now know what Qatar is, do you?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Obama isn't holding back anything. The UK and France have done virtually nothing over the course of the civil war. They aren't hot for war and certainly aren't going to do anything now when it is clear the opposition have lost any semblance of leadership to the Islamists.
Sorry, the UK and France are hot for war. They have indicated that any poison gas release is grounds for war. But of course, the UK company was caught in the false flag emails. Did you read the email Bigsby?
The UK and France have no intention of going to war with Syria. Are you deranged? They've blathered for months (is it years now?) about arming the opposition. Strange that they haven't even done that if they are so 'hot for war.'
Kuwait. Why must we prop up monarchies like that?
And the relevance of that comment is...?
I read it. What is your point? That I should automatically believe it?
I emailed the company. All I got was silence. I have seen no effort on the part of Britam Defense to deflect any blame. Just silence.
LOL
Whether they're drafted or not, maybe he can share knowledge about the trade off to our kids to insinuate ourselves into a civil war. Like we did in Vietnam.
?
LOL
You are a total jerk. But now that the false flag hit, or perhaps it was from Assad, there is still nothing from that company. No public articles at all saying they didn't do it. They didn't even dispute the email, Bigsby.
You have gone off the deep end, haven't you? Did you seriously think they would reply?
You have gone off the deep end, haven't you? Did you seriously think they would reply?
The point is they didn't dispute the email in the public press ever.
How many companies respond to moronic things said about them on fringe websites?
But hey, you never know, maybe they'll respond when the offices open on Monday/in the morning.
If you are too lazy to click on the link Bigsby, here is the email:
Phil, we’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved in Washington. We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell [sic] from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don’t think it is a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards,
David
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=8544#sthash.FZHR0ydS.dpuf
I know this is an idea that has never occurred to you but not everything you read on the internet is true. It's possible, very possible, that this email is not real. Say it ain't so joe.
So Bigsby,why did the Daily Mail pull the article instead of updating it? What are they hiding?
And why did they pull this article instead of pulling the article about Assad using sarin gas?
Oh, I don't know, maybe the Daily Mail actually decided to check the accuracy of the story for once.
And Bigsby, before you go away, the email in question was traced to the actual guy who works for Britam Defense:
Is that supposed to represent some sort of evidence?
And a right wing piece of drivel like The Daily Mail apparently publishes and then pulls this story and yet you don't think papers like The Guardian would be interested if the story had any veracity? Do me a favour.
How many companies respond to moronic things said about them on fringe websites?
The Daily Mail first published the story:
From the Daily Mail: "Earlier it was reported that Israel had granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy who’s shareholders include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild."
Rothschild? That is pretty much all we need to know.
Eh?
From the Daily Mail: "Earlier it was reported that Israel had granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy who’s shareholders include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild."
Rothschild? That is pretty much all we need to know.
Eh?
Motive.
Utter drivel.
Utter drivel.
Not at all. After all, the UK and BP were intimately involved in getting reserves in Iraq. The UK was in bed with the US from false flag to the war in Iraq for oil and the war in Afghanistan for the pipeline to Halliburton oil in the Caspian Sea.
What do you mean BP was intimately involved in getting reserves in Iraq?
And the real potential for shale oil in Israel is in the Shfela basin. They hardly need to go about further destabilizing one of the most unstable regions in the world through some ridiculously convoluted conspiracy with no clear ending.
And I'm sure Israel is jumping with joy at the prospect of Assad being replaced by a nation where Islamic fundamentalists could have free reign to do as they please.
You really need to stay away from the David Icke website, or at the very least think through your conspiracies with more balanced sources.
And you do realize that the potential for shale oil and fracking all around the world (see the UK and Japan for instance) actually lessens your conspiracy hand rather than strengthens it.
And Bigsby, before you go away, the email in question was traced to the actual guy who works for Britam Defense:
This was actually reported on in January this year and the company has already said it was a bit of spurious nonsense by the hacker(s) concerned, so I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply to your email. Of course you'll not believe that and instead believe the person/people who hacked a commercial private security company and the oh-so persuasive fact that infowars posted it up. No wonder the likes of The Guardian didn't run the story.
Yep, the Republicans could have won that election easily if they had a clue.
And Romney was probably the least wacky of the clowns they ran:
Newt Gringich
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Michele Bachman
Herman Cain
These are the choices we have and people wonder why the country is in deep shit.
Do they have a lot of oil, or a leader who got under our skin? No.
Americans are well skilled at changing the channel when images of nerve gassed children appear.
We should stay away and let both sides self-destruct..
America never misses a chance at a good war.
Why Would Syria Use chemical weapons To bring the United States in?
They could just as easily use bombs and bullets.
Something smells fishy.
To quote....me.....from another thread:
The ONE beyond the pale move that Assad could make, that would be indefensible to the entire international community, would be to use a (Oh Lawdy!) "WMD" on his people.
He can bomb 'em and shoot 'em to his heart's content, but no, he is going to make the completely alienating move of gassing them.
That would mean he is a very stupid man…….and he is not a stupid man.
The last time that chem weapons were used in Syria the UN Inspector thought it was probably by the rebels-
http://www.youtube.com/embed/sY_9SrIUVwU
So then why can't we elect a non-neocon Republican? Do you think Romney was a neocon? I don't. I would agree that there is a lot more to 911 than we are told but I am just not sure what it is.
Why would zimmerman start a fight to bring martin in??
he could just as easily have called the police...
Oh, that's right. He did.
Why Would Syria Use chemical weapons To bring the United States in?
They could just as easily use bombs and bullets.
Something smells fishy.
Why fly a plane into, why now just push the button at 10am on 9/11/01 and marvel at the implosion, while they blame Osama Bin Laden for it?
You couldn't do that. You have the operation northwoods MO in your mind if you are a neocon. There would be such doubt as to how Bin Laden could ever equip the towers with that much explosives. Especially since Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother, was in charge of security!
ahh yes, there's no way Bin Laden can equip the towers with that many explosives, yet somehow, the U.S. government managed to do it. Do you realize how many people were in and out of the trade center each day? Why didn't they ever notice someone lining the entire building with explosives. Maybe cuz, it never happened.
Why would zimmerman start a fight to bring martin in??
he could just as easily have called the police...
Oh, that's right. He did.
We are talking about a sovereign nation that has the backing of Russia, even to nuclear escalation. No need for gas. And there is much that points to the rebels using gas and that points to the UK being behind it.
Good grief. You sure know a lot for someone who doesn't even know what Qatar is. And why exactly would any Western country like to put boots on the ground? If they wanted to arm the rebels, they could have easily done that, but that option has clearly been getting less and less appealing as time goes by.
I also find it ridiculous people saying why would Assad's forces use chemical weapons. Probably because they've got away with doing pretty much everything else so far. But oh no, it has to be a false flag because according to Bgamall the US, UK... are desperate to invade. Except, they aren't.
Let's see how far Russia can be pushed before they push back. What fun!
And why exactly would any Western country like to put boots on the ground?
I am quite sure that Israel would love for the US to put boots on the ground. And the UK has an interest to replace Assad. Their wealthy fellows are investing in developing the Golan oil fields. This is why the UK wants false flags, and wants to get rid of Assad.
Israel is in violation of international law by granting this power to Rotshchild/Cheney/Murdoch, the major investors in the company responsible for developing Golan oil. Only thing is, Golan belongs to Syria.
Yes, yes the UK wants to invade Syria just to secure a bit of oil shale rights. Sure, sure. Explain to me why they need to invade Syria to secure this if another non-UK company has already been granted the exploration rights.
Not only does it have Jane Fonda in it (some conservatives just can't let go of how those Damn hippies were against the Vietnam war), but c'mon, the movie is also about a negro butler. No self respecting Rush Limbaugh listening OBama hating conservative wants to see that movie anyway.
I'm sure there's plenty of movies that guy has not played in his theater, if he thought they were for commies or faggots. Not sure why this one deserves any special attention.
Yes, yes the UK wants to invade Syria just to secure a bit of oil shale rights. Sure, sure.
Well, just have your bags packed in case someone does something stupid. Or get a good fan to blow the nuclear fallout away from your window.
You do understand that Israel has occupied the Golan Heights since 1967. They are simply taking advantage of Syria's weakness to find out what is there. If you then throw about invasion/UK etc.. randomly, you should at least have a rational argument to support it. All you have are 9 month old stories published on infowars that you've suddenly picked up on and that you have decided to use to formulate one of your typically ill-informed conspiracy theories.
You do understand that Israel has occupied the Golan Heights since 1967. They are simply taking advantage of Syria's weakness to find out what is there.
I know that is the company line. But if Israel could see a government installed that was sympathetic to their quest to develop the territory, it would go better for Israel. Of course, from here to there could involve nukes. That is something that nation should carefully consider.
Christ, you know nothing at all about the region. 'See a government installed that was sympathetic to their quest to develop the territory.' Ha, ha, ha. You are clueless.
It's about natural gas pipelines?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-25/guest-post-qatar-rich-and-dangerous
Christ, you know nothing at all about the region. 'See a government installed that was sympathetic to their quest to develop the territory.' Ha, ha, ha. You are clueless
I will just remind you that Larry Eagleburger, a famous neocon, state that Russia and the US will lob nukes at each other. He died not long after that, but he made his statement. And he was on the board of the think tank directed by Patrick Clawson. You know, the guy who called for a false flag against the United States.
You should try using a coherent argument rather than random conspiracy talking points.
You should try using a coherent argument rather than random conspiracy talking points.
Excuse me? I heard Eagleburger make the threat of nukes with my own ears, on Kudlow. Kudlow looked wild eyed for a minute and them moved onto something else.
Duh! Try posting something that actually has something to do with what is being discussed rather than going off on one of your typically irrelevant tangents. Do you see the point now?
« First « Previous Comments 36,583 - 36,622 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,237,579 comments by 14,795 users - Ceffer online now