We are going to war with Syria

Who couldn't see this coming? Iran you're next. Unconstitutional undeclared war here we come yet again to save the day. Truly unbelievable...

this will be the start of WW3

I heard a Sheik speak over 20 years ago and he told me first they will attack Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Syria and then Yemen. After they attack Yemen the anti-christ will arrive.

we've already been drone bombing Yemen for a while...

I believe the order is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran... then Russia and probably China after we attack Syria and Iran. All out world war with serious nuclear implications. The chemical attack in Syria was done by the rebels.

All the while drone bombing any other countries we want like Pakistan, Yemen, propping up dictators and authoritarians all over the middle east.

In Reuters poll 91% of americans are against attacking Syria.

I agree with you guys, but oggy you have no idea if the chemical attack was done by the rebels. Who gives a fuck if it was!? This isn't our war. We need to pull out of the Middle east like OU's daddy should've pulled out of his momma.



Freak, that sheik was wrong. No such thing as the anti-christ. PS. No such thing as Santa, Jesus, or the wizard of oz.

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I agree with you guys, but oggy you have no idea if the chemical attack was done by the rebels. Who gives a fuck if it was!? This isn't our war. We need to pull out of the Middle east like OU's daddy should've pulled out of his momma.



Freak, that sheik was wrong. No such thing as the anti-christ. PS. No such thing as Santa, Jesus, or the wizard of oz.

Prove it.

freakzilla wrote:

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I agree with you guys, but oggy you have no idea if the chemical attack was done by the rebels. Who gives a fuck if it was!? This isn't our war. We need to pull out of the Middle east like OU's daddy should've pulled out of his momma.



Freak, that sheik was wrong. No such thing as the anti-christ. PS. No such thing as Santa, Jesus, or the wizard of oz.

Prove it.

Don't muslims view jesus as a sort of prophet, but not the savior of man? If so what would the difference be between an anti-christ and an agent of the devil?

to be an anti-christ, there would first have to be a christ.

has it even been confirmed that chemical weapons were used yet or are they still in the process of sexing up the dossier? Call me cynical but our un-elected prime minister will have to call an election in 2014, nothing like an opportunistic war to drum up support from the right wing and distract everyone from the fact he's done precisely fuck all for the UK citizens he's supposed to represent.

let's make it clear. The FSA that Obama supports is filled with Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and other radical elements.

The rebels have been caught consistently burning churches to the ground, murdering Christians, jews, anyone who is in their way. These are supposedly the same group behind 911 and every other major terrorist attack. The same group that we are shredding the constitution to protect ourselves from, the same group that we began spying on our own citizens for, the same group that we are building an authoritarian police state to protect ourselves from....

and yet now they are the good guys? Now we are supposed to support them? Just because Obama says so?

WAKE THE FUCK UP. Please don't fall for this bullshit. Another war is the last thing this country needs. If you care at all about your future and your families future, speak out against this war and all unconstitutional undeclared wars from here on out. You may think if you just remain silent and mind your own business that this wont affect you, but you are wrong and complicit in what is happening if you do that.

Ron Paul: Syria Chemical Attack A ‘False Flag’

 

Mikael Thalen
August 30, 2013

During an interview on Fox Business’ Cavuto Wednesday, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) commented on the unfolding situation in Syria, specifically calling the recent chemical attack a ‘false flag’ likely carried out by the US backed Al Qaeda filled rebels.

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack


Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC.


The website on which the story originally appeared - Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.

Ludo wrote:

freakzilla wrote:

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I agree with you guys, but oggy you have no idea if the chemical attack was done by the rebels. Who gives a fuck if it was!? This isn't our war. We need to pull out of the Middle east like OU's daddy should've pulled out of his momma.



Freak, that sheik was wrong. No such thing as the anti-christ. PS. No such thing as Santa, Jesus, or the wizard of oz.

Prove it.

Don't muslims view jesus as a sort of prophet, but not the savior of man? If so what would the difference be between an anti-christ and an agent of the devil?

Jesus is one of the more important prophets next to Muhammad. He is not believed to the be son of God/Allah. I don't understand the connection in your two questions.

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I agree with you guys, but oggy you have no idea if the chemical attack was done by the rebels. Who gives a fuck if it was!? This isn't our war. We need to pull out of the Middle east like OU's daddy should've pulled out of his momma.



Freak, that sheik was wrong. No such thing as the anti-christ. PS. No such thing as Santa, Jesus, or the wizard of oz.

You can't depute that Jesus existed. He was a person that walked on this Earth. Dispute whether or not he was the son of God but you can't say Jesus never existed. The stories of his life might be untrue.

Kerry Misrepresents Syria Chemical War Dead

 

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013

During his State Department speech today, Secretary of State John Kerry grossly misrepresented the facts about the chemical attack at Ghouta near Damascus.

“The United States government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children,” Kerry said. “I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Read for yourself, everyone… the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already publicly available,” he added.

According to the international aid group Doctors Without Borders, however, 355 people were killed, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry.

Kerry said evidence of Syrian complicity in the attack remains classified and will not be shared with the American people.

The organization, along with the Red Cross, is deeply concerned the Obama administration and other proponents of military action against Syria are misrepresenting data to make the case for military intervention.

On Thursday, the Red Cross said a U.S. attack will aggravate civilian suffering. “Further escalation will likely trigger more displacement and add to humanitarian needs, which are already immense,” said Magne Barth, head of the International Red Cross delegation in Syria.

The establishment media has reported the government’s version of what happened in Syria without criticizing such discrepancies.

On Friday, we reported the so-called rebels, in fact al-Qaeda mercenaries supported by the CIA and Saudi Arabia, were responsible for the chemical attack Obama and the government, including many members of Congress, have attributed to Bashar al-Assad without providing evidence.

"From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak.

OU wrote:

Ludo wrote:

freakzilla wrote:

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I agree with you guys, but oggy you have no idea if the chemical attack was done by the rebels. Who gives a fuck if it was!? This isn't our war. We need to pull out of the Middle east like OU's daddy should've pulled out of his momma.



Freak, that sheik was wrong. No such thing as the anti-christ. PS. No such thing as Santa, Jesus, or the wizard of oz.

Prove it.

Don't muslims view jesus as a sort of prophet, but not the savior of man? If so what would the difference be between an anti-christ and an agent of the devil?

Jesus is one of the more important prophets next to Muhammad. He is not believed to the be son of God/Allah. I don't understand the connection in your two questions.

Well if Jesus of Nazareth isn't to Muslims what he is to Christians then how of what consequence is an Anti-Christ exactly to muslims?

it doesn't matter what religion you are, they all have a revelations type deal that talk of the world going to shit and the anti-Christ comes, world government, mark of the beast, famine, disease, earth shaking changes etc.

and do you guys have an opinion. Pro unconstitutional pre-emptive strike? Or not?

Ludo wrote:

OU wrote:

Ludo wrote:

freakzilla wrote:

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I agree with you guys, but oggy you have no idea if the chemical attack was done by the rebels. Who gives a fuck if it was!? This isn't our war. We need to pull out of the Middle east like OU's daddy should've pulled out of his momma.



Freak, that sheik was wrong. No such thing as the anti-christ. PS. No such thing as Santa, Jesus, or the wizard of oz.

Prove it.

Don't muslims view jesus as a sort of prophet, but not the savior of man? If so what would the difference be between an anti-christ and an agent of the devil?

Jesus is one of the more important prophets next to Muhammad. He is not believed to the be son of God/Allah. I don't understand the connection in your two questions.

Well if Jesus of Nazareth isn't to Muslims what he is to Christians then how of what consequence is an Anti-Christ exactly to muslims?

They technically don't use the phrase "anti-christ" they have their own version of it. It's believed that someone in the future will false represent himself as God and I'm not real sure on the details after that. I think some Prophet is suppose to defeat him or something along those lines.
Jews beleive Jesus to be a false prophet or false messiah and they have a more negative view of Jesus. They think he falsely portrayed himself as the messiah. But Muslims think very highly of Jesus like I mentioned before and if I'm not mistaken he is viewed as the 2nd most important prophet behind Muhammad.
But it's been a few years now since I really studied all that stuff, but some interesting views when it comes to Jesus.

We do believe the anti-Christ comes. In Arabic he is called the Dajjal. Jesus is the one that kills him.

freakzilla wrote:

We do believe the anti-Christ comes. In Arabic he is called the Dajjal. Jesus is the one that kills him.

See, I got the basic concept correct.

Is Obama the President … or the “Concluder”?

More than 150 Congress Members Demand Vote on Syria



Washington’s Blog
August 30, 2013


Politico notes:


Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.

Quite a few Congress members have pointed out that launching a war without Congressional approval is unconstitutional.

Britain – which didn’t pass the Constitution – let its Parliament decide.

Congressman Amash said today:


After the vote, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted that such a motion “would fail in Congress, too.” He later tweeted: “UK Parliament votes on going to war. Congress votes on critical things, too, like renaming post offices.”

The American people are as opposed to a strike on Syria as the Brits.

But in the same way that Bush called himself the “Decider”, Obama is now acting like the “Concluder” regarding war with Syria.

Indeed, Obama – like Bush – has proven that he’s not very interested in following the Constitution.








IMO whether or not Obama let's congress vote whether or not to strike determines whether we now have an authoritarian government where the executive branch thinks they are above the constitution, or whether there is still some resemblance, some hope, that this is still a constitutional republic, or democracy since so many people assume that is what we have.