BOMBSHELL: Germany; Assad did not use chemical weapons!

[TemplarKormac]

All of your links reference the same story printed by Bild, the German version of the National Enquirer.

Having multiple websites reference the same story doesn't verify it.

Are you worried that the veracity of this story may be proven?

Actually, I don't really give a shit about this story, or whether it's true or false.

I don't support military action either way, and the chemical weapons nonsense is nothing more than nonsense. This is about gas pipelines, not chemical weapons.

Whatever the case may be... if you don't give a shit, why are you feeling compulsed to comment on it?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

All of your links reference the same story printed by Bild, the German version of the National Enquirer.

Having multiple websites reference the same story doesn't verify it.

You can spew all the shit you want kid.

Can you read and speak German, do you read Germans newspapers regularly? On what evidence do you rest that argument upon, that the Bild is the National Enquirer of Germany?

Fragen Sie nach Buße, Dämon​

It's not a secret. They're a supermarket tabloid.

They print photographs of topless girls on the cover of every issue.

Link.
Also, topless women are common in Europe, they are not as sexually repressed.

Fragen Sie nach Buße, Dämon​

 

[The T]

@Vox

Reuters, Guardian.uk and other links added.

it does not matter.

it's none of our business.

and, more important - it's none of our INTEREST.

we should not get involved.

we don't benefit from that pipe

Maybe NOT...but isn't John F'ing Kerry over in the EU now trying to drum up support?

He will fail.

 

[Vox]

@Vox

Reuters, Guardian.uk and other links added.

it does not matter.

it's none of our business.

and, more important - it's none of our INTEREST.

we should not get involved.

we don't benefit from that pipe

Maybe NOT...but isn't John F'ing Kerry over in the EU now trying to drum up support?

He will fail.

f'king Kerry can go shit on himself.

I would really like to know are they that stupid to think it will be easy-breezy?

and what for?

I can understand the initial drive by obama for deflection from the inside disasters, but what does Kerry benefit from warmongering?
Does he really think it will help him in 2016?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You can spew all the shit you want kid.

Can you read and speak German, do you read Germans newspapers regularly? On what evidence do you rest that argument upon, that the Bild is the National Enquirer of Germany?

Fragen Sie nach Buße, Dämon​

It's not a secret. They're a supermarket tabloid.

They print photographs of topless girls on the cover of every issue.

Link.
Also, topless women are common in Europe, they are not as sexually repressed.

Fragen Sie nach Buße, Dämon​

Aktuelle Nachrichten - Bild.de

 

[The T]

it does not matter.

it's none of our business.

and, more important - it's none of our INTEREST.

we should not get involved.

we don't benefit from that pipe

Maybe NOT...but isn't John F'ing Kerry over in the EU now trying to drum up support?

He will fail.

f'king Kerry can go shit on himself.

I would really like to know are they that stupid to think it will be easy-breezy?

and what for?

I can understand the initial drive by obama for deflection from the inside disasters, but what does Kerry benefit from warmongering?
Does he really think it will help him in 2016?

Indeed. And flies in the face of his testimony before the Congress when he was a young pup...HE has been rewarded handsomely by the Progressives...and HE thinks we forgot...NOT gonna happen.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you worried that the veracity of this story may be proven?

Actually, I don't really give a shit about this story, or whether it's true or false.

I don't support military action either way, and the chemical weapons nonsense is nothing more than nonsense. This is about gas pipelines, not chemical weapons.

Whatever the case may be... if you don't give a shit, why are you feeling compulsed to comment on it?

Because being against military intervention in Syria doesn't somehow justify not using critical thinking when it comes to sources.

 

[The T]

Actually, I don't really give a shit about this story, or whether it's true or false.

I don't support military action either way, and the chemical weapons nonsense is nothing more than nonsense. This is about gas pipelines, not chemical weapons.

Whatever the case may be... if you don't give a shit, why are you feeling compulsed to comment on it?

Because being against military intervention in Syria doesn't somehow justify not using critical thinking when it comes to sources.

And does it matter that WE are the laughing stock all over the EU?

THAT is the point. Sorry YOU cannot see it...you really like being the butt of jokes at YOUR expense because WE have an inept leader?

WAKE UP.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Syrian forces may have used gas without Assad's permission: paper | Reuters

Bild said the radio traffic was intercepted by a German naval reconnaissance vessel, the Oker, sailing close to the Syrian coast.

LOL I had received orders to do that job in the Air Force to monitor Chinese air space. I was near completing my training, after graduating top of my Chinese class from the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC.edu - Home) in 1979.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you worried that the veracity of this story may be proven?

Read what I said above.

Also bear in mind that RW said that Martin Luther King was a Communist.

Why do you think that's some magic bullet that will somehow make you not full of shit?

I said that MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist - by the way. Not "RW"

Remember what I posted in response to that? An open condemnation of Communism by MLK.

The Challenge of Marxism

First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistc and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there is a creative personal power in this universe who is the ground and essence of all reality---a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.

Second, I strongly disagreed with communism's ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything---force, violence, murder, lying---is a justifiable means to the "millennial" end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.

Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism, the individual ends up in subjugation to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an "interim" reality in which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end. And if any man's so-called rights and liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.

This depreciation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.

Yet in spite of the fact that my response to communism was negative, and I considered it basically evil, there were points at which I found it challenging.

---Martin Luther King in "My Pilgrimage To Nonviolence" in his book, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story; Chapter Six, September 1st, 1958

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read what I said above.

Also bear in mind that RW said that Martin Luther King was a Communist.

Why do you think that's some magic bullet that will somehow make you not full of shit?

I said that MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist - by the way. Not "RW"

Remember what I posted in response to that? An open condemnation of Communism by MLK.

First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistc and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there is a creative personal power in this universe who is the ground and essence of all reality---a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.

Second, I strongly disagreed with communism's ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order there are no fixes, immutable principles; consequently almost anything---force, violence, murder, lying---is a justifiable means to the "millenial" end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.

Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism, the individual ends up in subjugation to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an "interim" reality in which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end. And if any man's so-called rights and liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.

This depreciation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.

Yet in spite of the fact that my response to communism was negative, and I considered it basically evil, there were points at which I found it challenging.

Martin Luther King in "My Pilgrimage To Nonviolence" in his book, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story; Chapter Six, September 1st, 1958

There's no question that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a supporter of the Soviets.

There's equally no question that Martin Luther King Jr. was incredibly far-left.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you guys would call him a communist, if he was alive today.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The agreement on chemical weapons only deals with one country's use of chemical weapons against another country.

Nothing internally.

America will still be seriously breaking international law if you go ahead and bomb Syria.

I can't wait for President Obama to be declared a war criminal. Long overdue.

international law?
Yeah, I want a bunch of crooked self absorbed UN do nothings to run anything.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why do you think that's some magic bullet that will somehow make you not full of shit?

I said that MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist - by the way. Not "RW"

Remember what I posted in response to that? An open condemnation of Communism by MLK.

First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistc and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there is a creative personal power in this universe who is the ground and essence of all reality---a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.

Second, I strongly disagreed with communism's ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order there are no fixes, immutable principles; consequently almost anything---force, violence, murder, lying---is a justifiable means to the "millenial" end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.

Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism, the individual ends up in subjugation to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an "interim" reality in which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end. And if any man's so-called rights and liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.

This depreciation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.

Yet in spite of the fact that my response to communism was negative, and I considered it basically evil, there were points at which I found it challenging.

Martin Luther King in "My Pilgrimage To Nonviolence" in his book, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story; Chapter Six, September 1st, 1958

There's no question that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a supporter of the Soviets.

There's equally no question that Martin Luther King Jr. was incredibly far-left.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you guys would call him a communist, if he was alive today.

No I wouldn't. You can't just sit there and make assumptions about me like that Doc. I never thought he was a communist to begin with! So are we changing our story now? First "he is a communist for all intents and purposes" becomes "well you guys would call him a communist, if he was alive today." I cannot stand when someone paints with such an overly broad brush, or when he moves the goalposts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Remember what I posted in response to that? An open condemnation of Communism by MLK.




Martin Luther King in "My Pilgrimage To Nonviolence" in his book, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story; Chapter Six, September 1st, 1958

There's no question that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a supporter of the Soviets.

There's equally no question that Martin Luther King Jr. was incredibly far-left.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you guys would call him a communist, if he was alive today.

No I wouldn't. You can't just sit there and make assumptions about me like that Doc. I never thought he was a communist to begin with! So are we changing our story now? First "he is a communist for all intents and purposes" becomes "well you guys would call him a communist, if he was alive today." I cannot stand when someone paints with such an overly broad brush, or when he moves the goalposts.

You're right, I shouldn't assign values and opinions to you. I apologize.

I'll re-word.

I feel that if he was alive today, MLK Jr. would be considered a "communist" using the same criteria that Obama is considered a "communist".

Because there's no question that MLK Jr. was miles to the left of Obama.

 

[Missourian]

At this point, what difference does it make? (pun intended)
Our war mongers are going to attack them anyways..
Besides, this is probably just another "bad source"
Unlike what comes out of this admin mouth

You mean like....WMD'S?

Bush, Hillary, Kerry, Clinton, Powell, Gore and a score of others around the world claimed Saddam had WMD's.

Saddam said he didn't have any WMD's

Bush, the military, Congress, the Brits, the Aussies and the U.N. didn't believe him and we went to war on bad intelligence.

Obama claimed for a month that Benghazi was the result of a youtube video.

We know that was categorically false.

Now he claims Assad authorized this attack.

Assad says he didn't.

The U.N. isn't convinced, the Brits aren't convinced, the Congress isn't convinced, and the American people aren't convinced.

So, based on your WMD argument...we should not bomb Syria.

Case closed

 

[Plasmaball]

Remember September 11 of last year Obama's intelligence sources blamed the Benghazi attack on a youtube video...

Hey remember how that didnt happen? Because I do.

 

[Plasmaball]

Whatever the case may be... if you don't give a shit, why are you feeling compulsed to comment on it?

Because being against military intervention in Syria doesn't somehow justify not using critical thinking when it comes to sources.

And does it matter that WE are the laughing stock all over the EU?

THAT is the point. Sorry YOU cannot see it...you really like being the butt of jokes at YOUR expense because WE have an inept leader?

WAKE UP.

Why? Youve never give a shit about europes opinion on us...you have repeatly told people we should leave the UN and kick them out of the usa.

Oh this is one of those " I can use it to bash obama" so fuck my own past statements, ill just contradict myself.

 

[AceRothstein]

I don't know who did it and I don't really care. I do know that we need to stay the fuck out of it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'll re-word.

I feel that if he was alive today, MLK Jr. would be considered a "communist" using the same criteria that Obama is considered a "communist".

Because there's no question that MLK Jr. was miles to the left of Obama.

You are correct that MLK was miles to the left of Obama, just like Gandhi, but neither MLK nor Gandhi are considered Authoritarian scum, like Obama.

Left and Right is not the measure of Communism,

Up and Down (Totalitarianism vs Anarchism) is the measure of Communism.

Communism is far-left Totalitarianism.

Fascism is far-right Totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, left and right don't even matter once you reach the singularity of Totalitarianism, it's just which color they're painted.

Totalitarianism is at the top of this spheroid; anarchism is at the bottom:

 

[LoneLaugher]

Because being against military intervention in Syria doesn't somehow justify not using critical thinking when it comes to sources.

And does it matter that WE are the laughing stock all over the EU?

THAT is the point. Sorry YOU cannot see it...you really like being the butt of jokes at YOUR expense because WE have an inept leader?

WAKE UP.

Why? Youve never give a shit about europes opinion on us...you have repeatly told people we should leave the UN and kick them out of the usa.

Oh this is one of those " I can use it to bash obama" so fuck my own past statements, ill just contradict myself.

Yes. Yes it is.