patrick.net

Straw Man says

B.A.C.A.H. says

A taxicab driver from Pakistan told me he walked across the border in the desert southwest.

Try this with an army and see what happens.

I think a terrorist with WMD will not need an army.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/J2LG-ASco6o

Straw Man says

we don't really have a predator of our size on our continent and oceans are still pretty good obstacle for predators from other continents to reach us.

SoftShell says

Assad and nerve gas?? I see.....

Rebel factions are splintering, infighting, and losing ground. Assad is in no danger of losing at this point.
So he does the ONE thing that will guarantee foreign intervention??? I see….

Sorry, this lie is one to many. I don't think the American people believe it either, if that is what accounts for their overwhelming ennui re: Syria.

No...apparently you don't.
But thanks for playing....

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-western-intervention-draws-nearer-a-918667.html

a well-known poison gas expert voiced his suspicion in an off-the-record conversation that minimal use of chemical weapons was seen as the best way get the West used to its deployment

Robert Sproul says

So he does the ONE thing that will guarantee foreign intervention??? I see….

Straw Man says

B.A.C.A.H. says

I think a terrorist with WMD will not need an army.

You can't carry enough WMD on your back to make a significant difference. And once you have number of carriers in tens at least one of them is bound to be caught with his load prompting the border to be sealed for real (it's not as difficult as our pro-amnesty politicians tells us, if your really mean to do it). Anyhow, what Quigley meant by defensible is that we don't really have a predator of our size on our continent and oceans are still pretty good obstacle for predators from other continents to reach us.

I hope you are right. A few million illegals already here is proof till now that it can be done.

Ah yes, Red Dawn, the documentary that dared report what the MSM didn't want you to see. Those brave heroes, Charlie Sheen and C.T. Howell and the late Patrick Swayze, saved us all.

Oceans are also no defense against Godzilla. Only Captain Marshmallow can defend us:

?1

It wouldn't take millions of persons. Millions of nano grams of certain contraband substances would be quite effective.

Straw Man, if you say so.

For all we know, the terrorists with their vials already walked across our most defensible border; standing by awaiting instructions.

So you would bet on a marshmellowman versus a fire breathing anything??
Ever go camping??

curious2 says

Oceans are also no defense against Godzilla. Only Captain Marshmallow can defend us:

SoftShell says

But thanks for playing....

Ouch. You play internet too rough.

"Thanks for playing" That's what all the Internet B Boys were slinging in about 2001

Well, anyway, I guess if your expert is in Spiegel, Check and Mate!

Sorry. Didn't know you were that sensitive....

Robert Sproul says

SoftShell says

But thanks for playing....

Ouch. You play internet too rough.

Not my expert.
Just backing up common sense conclusions.

Robert Sproul says

Well, anyway, I guess if your expert is in Spiegel, Check and Mate!

SoftShell says

So you would bet on a marshmellowman versus a fire breathing anything??

Ever go camping??

If I were betting my own money, no, but government is increasingly about making everyone buy stuff that no rational person would buy if given a free choice. I wouldn't buy multi-million dollar ordnance to drop on Syria, either, but here we are.

Makes sense. Why else would US get involved into this war if there is no financial incentive?

bgamall4 says

Quit being stupid and diverting from what we know about 9/11. What we know we know and 93 doesn't impact that at all.

= words of a real "Troofer".... So the '93 bombing didn't matter because a 'neo-con' wasn't president. Ahhh, OK, got it....

And this week, we'll dovetail BG's hypocricy w/ Biden's and Obama's 2007 speeches on how Bush didn't get UN approval to go to war, somehow missing the most obviously important fact of getting Congress' approval, which I doubt Obama will ask for when he starts a'bombing.... Hmmm, let's see. Direct or imminent threat to the US? nope. Where's Code Pink when you need 'em? Oh yeah, I forgot; a democrat is in the White House. My bad. Their silence is deafening...

SoftShell says

Just backing up common sense conclusions.

This is one of the phrases that you hear a lot from the credulous as they lap up the provided narrative and regurgitate it as "common sense" conclusions.

ttsmyf says

Recent Dow day is Wednesday, August 28, 2013 __ Level is 94.7

You Big Bad Spammer you! ...can't you tell you're starting to get under others skin...
But I won't be fooled!

Bubbabear says

ttsmyf says

Recent Dow day is Wednesday, August 28, 2013 __ Level is 94.7

You Big Bad Spammer you! ...can't you tell you're starting to get under others skin...

But I won't be fooled!

These two overwhelmingly important USA track records are serial herd behaviors, replete with the coming & going of irrationality.
http://www.showrealhist.com/RHandRD.html
Timing was VERY important! Keeping these histories out of sight of the people FOOLS the people!
CITIZEN ASK YOURSELF: Do you know folks who had kids to have somebody to sell high to?

bgamall4 says

but Iran has not invaded anyone for hundreds of years

Hold up now.
That is not part of our pre-packaged, pre-approved, opinion forming, information.
We are looking to "back up some common sense conclusions" ala the great common sense slingers Bush/Rumsfeld/Rice in '03.
Some good ol' common sense that a guy can believe in.

It makes it sound like the Jewish people have a superiority complex ?

Its Britain's fault, no it's Israelis' fault, no it's the neocons fault, no wait it's Bush's fault....anyone but the Commander and Chiefs' fail if we go to war with Syria. This is a serious case of denial, even for the Obama's biggest of fanboys. Have you thought about seeing a psychologist(if you aren't currently seeing one already).

that was then. this is now.
I base my opinion not on talking heads at fox, but on the public statements of the leadership of Iran.
things change.

bgamall4 says

SoftShell says

In the hands of sane people.

In the hands of religious fanatics, all bets are off... ( Iran )

I used to believe that, but Iran has not invaded anyone for hundreds of years. They just don't do it. Iraq invaded Iran.

The provided narrative is coming from the leadership of Iran.
To sit, look at them and do nothing as they ramp up to 54000 spinning centrifuges is to perform a Neville Chamberlain redux.

It's not the neocon talking heads spouting irrationally about the holocaust, proclaiming the near future destruction of Israel, coupled with world domination of the oil industry.

But that is what you get with today's 'internet B grade liberalism', a bunch of whacko drugged up pussies intent on burying their heads in their crackpipes denying that there is, and always will be people in power on earth intent on dominating and/or destroying you and your country.

And when the facts don't match their version of nirvana, they blame the messengers. Yes Robert, you are right. It's O'Reilly's fault that the centrifuges are spinning at ultrasonic speed as the cracked crusty sandblasted fingernails of the iranian worker assemble and activate the dogs of war. ( disclaimer: another 2001 internet B boy phrase )

Robert Sproul says

as they lap up the provided narrative and regurgitate it as "common sense" conclusions.

Why don't the jews leave those fun loving peaceful arabs alone already.

curious2 says

I wouldn't buy multi-million dollar ordnance to drop on Syria, either, but here we are.

I wouldn't either.

But remember, our whole economy is based on war. It has been since the end of WW2.

War creates jobs. And profits.

I've lost track here of whether you are justifying killing Syrians or Iranians. Or maybe the brainwashed Neocon doesn't really care as long as we are engaged in some illegal foreign military adventure for your Fox produced televised enjoyment.

I notice that you admit here
SoftShell says

domination of the oil industry.

that it is about controlling other sovereign's resources.

You O'Reilly groupies have a megalomaniac view of world domination.
I hope it doesn't ruin your chicken hawk fantasies to realize that your imaginary nemesis Syria has a GDP equivalent to Memphis TN while the great boogyman Iran's is equivalent to Pennsylvania.

I wish the rest of us could vote on Texas Secession so that you micro-phallic, overcompensating, paranoiacs could go off on your own and declare war on Mexico or something.

why does the form of murder rate higher on the "we got to do something" scale?

Millions of Christians that were living in muslam infested lands have had their heads ripped off or bashed in. Women, babies, and men are being murdered by muslams without a peep from the lib media, the left, or the admin in DC.

Thousands of beheadings in Mexico ... and we dont go bomb the snot out of the drug gangs .... instead we let them invade and set up shop in Detroit and Chicago. Where they are busy doing the work that American whites would not do .... rape, murder, drug productions and distribution, brides for political hacks, .... awesome.

Whoever thinks we "must" do something by helping the rebel terrorrists has refused to factor in the lies of the arabs, and the possiblity that the gas was self inflected to gain support. Yes, that stuff is "ok" according to their god book.

Bap33 says

muslams

You mean the "A-rabs"?

curious2 says

if given a free choice. I wouldn't buy multi-million dollar ordnance to drop on Syria, either,

I've always preferred the more cost effective carpet bombing methods, like we used in WW2.

Well, Saddam's threats of WMD's was just 'talk', and look where it got him.
Countries should not make idle threats.
Other countries will err on the safe side and take them out.

If Iran was concerned about the so called 'yinon plan', they should just say it and use that as justification for their pursuit of nukes. ( see NK ).

But denying reality ( no holocaust existed ) and threatening to blow israel off the face of the earth at the first chance they get, and supplying hezbollah with arms to shell israel...these are substantive things that require a real response.

bgamall4 says

SoftShell says

I base my opinion not on talking heads at fox, but on the public statements of the leadership of Iran.

things change.

It is just talk. Iran is fully aware of the Yinon plan and knows that Israel's goal is to break up every middle east nation and send them back to the dark ages:

http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/2013/08/jewish-zionism-is-false-religious.html

I agree.
And they are the most dangerous not because of some obtuse plan, but because they are the most threatened.
Experience Las Vegas being shelled on a daily basis for decades...see if that doesn't put you on edge....

bgamall4 says

Truth of the matter that the most dangerous nation on the face of the earth is Israel

Well, the grandchildren are another subject. They are fucked regardless of who does what...this planet only has so many resources and the population keeps growing astronomically. At some point it will all come crashing down. Inevitable.

bgamall4 says

SoftShell says

these are substantive things that require a real response.

No, you are still wrong. Russia is sending a lot of warships and this is where Putin will make his last stand. Pray for your grandchildren.

bgamall4 says

Russia is sending a lot of warships and this is where Putin will make his last stand. Pray for your grandchildren.

ROTFLMAO. Russia's surface fleet is a fucking joke. And they know it. Putin is not suicidal, he doesn't need his own Tsushima (and all the internal political consequences which come with it), so no, he's not "making his last stand". When shit hits the fan Russian navy will be nowhere near the action, mark my words.

That's because I have not advocated either of your choices. It's hard to keep track of things that don't exist.
Robert Sproul says

I've lost track here of whether you are justifying killing Syrians or Iranians.

Since when does an entity's GDP have anything to do with it's ability to wage nuclear war. ( See N.K. )
Again, you've lost track of what's really important.

Currently 8 countries have the ability to wage nuclear war.
If Iran gets the bomb, other arab states will be required to follow.
Add enough countries to the nuke list, and nuclear war is inevitable.

Robert Sproul says

I hope it doesn't ruin your chicken hawk fantasies to realize that your imaginary nemesis Syria has a GDP equivalent to Memphis TN while the great boogyman Iran's is equivalent to Pennsylvania.

They have fortified themselves.
They have only responded to the shellings in self defense.
Yet the shellings continue. The fortifications are not impregnable.

What do you suggest they do to stop the shellings? The people pulling the trigger will not stop until israel is destroyed.

bgamall4 says

SoftShell says

And they are the most dangerous not because of some obtuse plan, but because they are the most threatened.

No, they could have fortified themselves, acted only in self defense, and the world would support them. But the world does not support or trust Israel anymore. And that could have been avoided but for Yinon.

Nuclear war means everybody dies, if not by direct hit, then by the fallout.
Your statement below does not hold water.

bgamall4 says

The Greater Israel people want a nuclear war

So if Larry says it, it must be true.
I see.....

bgamall4 says

And Larry Eagleburger, a neocon for Greater Israel, also believed nukes would be exchanged. He wanted it and stated they would be exchanged on Larry Kudlow.

bgamall4 says

freak80 says

But remember, our whole economy is based on war. It has been since the end of WW2.

War creates jobs. And profits.

Nuclear war will not allow profits. At some point war gets too dangerous.

And this is why the US gets so upset by the possibility of Iran having nukes. Because then we could never go to war with them! Honesty, between North Korea and Iran, which would you rather see a nuclear power? And N. Korea already is one. So is Pakistan, whose citizens supply the Taliban and al quaida soldiers to fight us. They haven't even bombed India yet! And if there is any religion they hate worse than Christians it's Hindus. Then again maybe that's by true. Hinduism can never compete on a worldwide stage because you can't covert to it, you can only be born a Hindu. So Christianity is a bigger threat because it can spread.

SoftShell says

Since when does an entity's GDP have anything to do with it's ability to wage nuclear war.

You think you are a hard-nosed realist, but yours is a comic book, Dallas Cowboys vs the evil Oakland Raiders, version of national diplomacy where America is Hopalong Cassidy versus the nameless Black Hatted arch-nemesis.
A foolish, adolescent, world view that the Neocons play to.

Meanwhile Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, contemplate a future where "Western special interests can invade with impunity, WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT, or even the tenuous semblance of justification being necessary."

I don't believe these people want to "wage nuclear war" with whatever punk ass weapon that they manage to cobble together. They are terrified and want a rape repellant.

Robert Sproul says

I don't believe these people want to "wage nuclear war" with whatever punk ass weapon that they manage to cobble together. They are terrified and want a rape repellant.

It doesn't work unless you have enough of it to do real harm. And it takes big GDP to be able to pull it off.

PS. Interestingly, NK's "rape repellent" is massive concentration of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul. For them nukes are more of a bargaining chip to get more cargo from the West.