Syrian Plot Thickens

OK, now there is a purported video of the ones who used the Sarin Gas.  The poor-quality videos show men standing around an artillery vehicle, wearing what appear to be gas masks, with the cannon's barrel draped in large black flags bearing Islamic symbols and the name of rebel group Liwa al-Islam. 

In the video, the men chant "Allahu Akbar", or "God is great".  Liwa al-Islam eventually released a statement declaring the videos to be "completely fabricated" and blaming the Assad government which, it says, is the only force in Syria in possession of the weapons shown in the video.  “The videos contain jihadist paraphernalia which is perhaps a little too obvious, such as the large black flags and constant chanting," said BBC Monitoring's Mohamed Madi.

OK, so we have a staged boast film, or a real boast film.  In either case, it raises issues as to who was responsible for the gas, and why no rebels were among the dead.

Now the question is… IS THE VIDEO LEGITAMITE?

Those who want to bomb Syria will yell NO; those don’t want to bomb will yell YES; those with open minds will want to err on the side of caution – right now there is seems to be a stalemate and bombing Syria sides with the Rebels.  Is it that America want to side with Jihadists?

For those who want to bomb – as Bill Maher pointed out, for the past decade, we have been using drones to bomb Yemen, and they haven’t done a damned thing.  Americans like to murder people, and murdering Arabs is every bit as religiously correct now as it was a thousand years ago – be good Christians, murder as many people as possible.  If the Judgment period begins in 2034/5, then better get it out of your system now … Koran says Islamists are going to kill the “BAD CHRISTIANS” … “Saint Paul’s Joke” … eat pork and kill innocents … and you’re among the ones HE isn’t going to know, even though they claim to come in HIS name.

Of course, “Saint Paul’s Joke” might be wrong … after all, you are betting your life on your right to violate THE LAW.

THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE

IT IS THE CONSERVATIVE WAY

more Syrian fun and the Machiavellian scheme

While those,who want to bomb are pointing to UN REPORT indication probability of Syrian government responsibility, nobody is explaining why no rebel fighters were among the casualties. If it were a government attack the rebels would have been the target. But, if it were a jihadist attack, the killing of civilians would fit their normal MO... As seen in the marketplace, mosque and other terrorist attacks. Makes sense fir them to stage a sarin attack on civilians to use for the propaganda value against Assad.

In the USA, Syria is a Machiavellian scheme situation -- if we attack Assad, that makes the Rebel victory the result of American actions... they owe us an it will be hard for the Jihadist forces to turn the true Syrian populist rebels against us. The Republicans know that, if we refuse to help, when the rebels win they will attribute it to the majority Jihadist force among the rebels -- that allows the Jihadist elements to rally the people against America ... thus ensuring widespread war... First in Lebanon, and against Turkey ... with eventual attacks on Israel -- when Egypt is stable enough to join in.

The second part of the scheme is to nominate Ted Cruz for President in 2016. This will precipitate a Constitutional Crisis in which the candidate is undeniably a Canadian by birth, who spent the first four years of his life as a Canadian citizen. The specific language of the Constitutional qualification clause will come into play if Cruz is either the Presidential, or vice-Presidential, candidate (or worse, nominee elect). That could paralyze the "Commander-in-Chief" position long enough to ensure an opening for the Jihadists to wage their war.

Chemical Weapons – reality

It’s not that chemical weapons are more lethal than conventional ones, they’re just more grisly and less discriminate.  Chemical weapons are poorly targeted and subject to the vagaries of the wind and so are inherently a threat to civilian populations – or, to be more specific in terms devised during their early use in WW1, they come back on your own troops.  Thus, the civilian population argument is one which masks the reality of the potential damage they can do tot those who use them.

If you intend to use chemical weapons, you must use them on civilians and the enemy … while making sure your forces are far far away.

If you are a Western Power, and the “enemy” is Middle Eastern or Asian, the idea is to use conventional weapons and say “opps” when they kill the civilians.

As has been said, “The ban on chemical weapons, in other words, is proof that humanity can make war a little more decent. Consequently, its continued success is vital to all future efforts to make war a little more decent. There is a kind of beauty in that, but much less so when you recall the 100,000 Syrians killed by nonchemical weapons.”  [Washington Post, 9/7/13] Which went on to say, “we should imagine that “it’s 2035, and this-or-that dictator is thinking of using chemical weapons. Do you want them to say Assad used them on a large scale in August of 2013, nothing happened, …””

Gee 2035 cited in the Washington Post … where have we seen that date before … could it be in the posts below, or maybe in “Saint Paul’s Joke”?

As the WP concedes, we have a bit of a problem with the use of chemical weapons by Syria: “almost every country on Earth has signed the treaty against the use of chemical weapons; Syria is a rare holdout.”  If Syria has NOT signed the accord, then we have no legal grounds for holding them to the terms of the accord.  They are not part of the treaty system and are therefore free to use any weapon they wish INSIDE THEIR OWN BORDERS!

To use any weapon outside their borders is would be an act of war against the nation whose territory they are used on.   If any nation attacks Syria, they are declaring war on a sovereign state – they are the aggressor.  I am reminded of the ancient Oracle: “The first one into the war will lose.”  That is, the nation who attacks is the one who will ultimately lose the war.  Doubt that?  Look at Korea, or Vietnam.  Look at Germany in the first and second world wars.  Pick the point in history you wish to focus on – how many times has the aggressor ultimately won?

2035 – the year when Judgment Day begins.  Do we make it happen, or do we work to avoid causing that stupid calculation to be correct?

For now, it seems we are doing all in our power to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Does it matter that it is based on math that is three thousand years old?   Or the math as interpreted by Sir Isaac Newton?  Or the math displayed in “Saint Paul’s Joke”?

THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE

IT APPEARS TO BE THE HUMAN WAY OF LIFE

LOOK AT THE RED – STAY CLEAR OF THEM… THEY DIDN’T SIGN.

Kill Arabs or Help average Americans?

The Bush Regime never had respect for the Constitution -- which specifies that Congress Declares War.
Call it a "WAR" and Congress has to authorize it.
Being "Commander-in-chief" and running that "war"kicks in after that declaration.
America has no business "punishing" the rulers of other nations -- of course, if we wish to assume that role, then we MUST apply that authority to ALL nations.  Selective application of arbitrary rules of morality are, in themselves, immoral.
The only consistent aspect between Iraq and Syria is that American military action serves only to aid Jihadists and al Qaeda.  It in no way has, or will, aid the average person within those nations.
Moreover, this intervention pulls resources from those things which most serve people -- things mandated by the the Text which is supposed to govern western religions.
Limited action in Syria will cost one BILLION dollars every two days ... what if that, apparently available to waste, money were directed to rural educational needs, or to ObamaCare (or a better medical program of Republican choice), or to making Social Security stronger?
Or, since the budget has that money to waste, why not a BILLION dollars every two days to reduce Income taxes for either the very rich, or by raising the low end amount where tax liabilities kick in?  After all, we seem to have the money to spend to kill Arabs -- why not use it to make life for the average American better?