Auschwitz 2014

[leewong]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, there are four ways in which a country can lose its sovereignty according to international law.

1. Irresponsible development of nuclear weaponry - violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit
2. The invasion of or aggression against other sovereign states
3. Violating the genocide convention
4. Giving refuge or acting as a host for terrorists

It's not about policing the world, but rather ensuring that rogue states don't end up harboring and exporting terrorism, and aren't allowed to commit war crimes against humanity. It's no secret that Saddam Hussein tried developing nukes. I think we can all imagine what the world would be like if Israel hadn't bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. He also used WMDs against Kurds, and was constantly trying to get more.

Right, blowback and hatred from those who want to murder innocent civilians, export terrorism, rape and throw battery acid on the faces of non-compliant women, kill people for apostacy, and hold neighboring countries - and eventually the world - in a perpetual state of hostage blackmail once they get their hands on nuclear arms. It's time to stand up to this hatred and stop cowering beneath it. Just because they hate our freedom, our secularism, our thriving society and quality of life doesn't mean we should stop standing up for human rights. Genocide - no matter where it happens - absolutely needs to be prevented by any means possible.

Kurdistan.

International law is laughable at best. The US constantly goes against UN and international policy but you dont hear France or Germany calling for all out war on the US.

"1. Irresponsible development of nuclear weaponry - violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit"

North Korea and Iran come to mind. Let's invade them too.

"2. The invasion of or aggression against other sovereign states"

When did Syria invade another country? Also, isnt the US guilty of this in dozens of countries? Never heard of Nicaragua or Columbia or Venezuela?

"3. Violating the genocide convention"
It remains to be proven that Assad has committed a genocide. Also, North Korea gets another check mark here. Two reasons to invade them now.

"4. Giving refuge or acting as a host for terrorists"
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran come to mind. 3 checks for North Korea but yet no one dare dreams of invading these countries.

Syria may be guilty of 1 of the 4 things you listed. It isnt for certain but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. North Korea is guilty of 3 and Iran 2. China has a pretty shitty track record too.

Why arent we invading all these countries and propping up "democracies"? I mean, the US has unlimited resources and it's young soldiers love being ripped apart by IDEs. I for one propose unending wars. It's not like we actually have to pay for this shit by borrowing money from China. You have it completely right. Who needs a strong economy, low unemployment, public infrastructure, schools, etc when you can spend the money on bombs?

"It's not about policing the world, but rather ensuring that rogue states don't end up harboring and exporting terrorism"

It is about policing the world. It is about grabbing countries for the rich to siphon off of. It is about reckless policy that has left this country bankrupt and hated around the globe.

Is Iraq more stable now than it was under Hussein? Absolutely not. Did a US invasion make Afghanistan more stable? NO. Vietnam? NO. Nicaragua? NO. Columbia? NO. Cuba? NO. Iran? NO. Cambodia? NO. Ghana? NO. Dominican Republic? NO. Venezuela? NO. Chile? NO. Guatemala? NO.

It's a really shitty track record and you have to be a complete asshat to think it is a good policy.

"Right, blowback and hatred from those who want to..."

Uh huh, that's exactly what is happening. Those darn terrorist hate freedom so they flew planes into buildings. It had NOTHING to do with soldiers being trained and armed by the US in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with the US propping up brutal dictators in those regions. They are simply freedom haters. /rolleyes

"Kurdistan"

Not even gonna touch this tripe.

[mitic]

The story started in Kuwait because of slant drills. Saddams invasion was just the reaction to this. So, who did those slant drills? It was not Kuwait.

The rest is history, 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, "mission accomplished".

[leewong]

Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad

"When I met President Assad, with a group of Australians, his manner was entirely consistent with the pre-2011 image of the mild-mannered eye doctor. He expressed deep concern with the impact on children of witnessing terrorist atrocities while fanatics shout ‘God is Great’. The man is certainly no brute, in the manner of Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush.

The key factor in Syria’s survival has been the cohesion, dedication and popular support for the Army. Syrians know that their Army represents pluralist Syria and has been fighting sectarian, foreign backed terrorism. This Army did not fracture on sectarian lines, as the Takfiris had hoped, and defections have been small, certainly less than 2%.

Has the Army committed abuses? Probably, but mainly against the armed groups. There is some evidence of execution of foreign terrorists. That is certainly a crime, but probably has a fair degree of popular support in Syria, at the moment. The main constraint on such abuses seems to be the army order from ‘Mr Soft Heart’, to save the lives of Syrian rebels.

However, despite the repeated claims by sectarian Islamists and their western backers, there is no convincing evidence that the Syrian Army has deliberately bombed and gassed civilians. Nor would there be a motive for it. Nor does the behaviour of people on the streets support it. Most Syrians do not blame their army for the horrendous violence of this war, but rather the foreign backed terrorists.

These are the same terrorists backed by the governments of the USA, Britain and France, hiding behind the fig-leaf of the mythical ‘moderate rebel’ while reciting their catalogue of fabricated accusations.

The high participation rate (73%) in June’s presidential elections, despite the war, was at least as significant as the strong vote (88%) Bashar received. Even the BBC could not hide the large crowds that came out to vote, especially those that mobbed the Syrian Embassy in Beirut.

Participation rates are nowhere as near in the US; indeed no western leader can claim such a strong democratic mandate as this ‘dictator’. The size of Bashar’s win underlines a stark reality: there never was a popular uprising against this man; and his popularity has grown."

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

International law is laughable at best. The US constantly goes against UN and international policy but you dont hear France or Germany calling for all out war on the US.

"1. Irresponsible development of nuclear weaponry - violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit"

North Korea and Iran come to mind. Let's invade them too.

"2. The invasion of or aggression against other sovereign states"

When did Syria invade another country? Also, isnt the US guilty of this in dozens of countries? Never heard of Nicaragua or Columbia or Venezuela?

"3. Violating the genocide convention"
It remains to be proven that Assad has committed a genocide. Also, North Korea gets another check mark here. Two reasons to invade them now.

"4. Giving refuge or acting as a host for terrorists"
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran come to mind. 3 checks for North Korea but yet no one dare dreams of invading these countries.

Syria may be guilty of 1 of the 4 things you listed. It isnt for certain but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. North Korea is guilty of 3 and Iran 2. China has a pretty shitty track record too.

Why arent we invading all these countries and propping up "democracies"?

First of all, I should've been more clear when describing the criteria any nation-state must meet before relinquishing its sovereignty - all four criteria must be met, not one or two or three but all four simultaneously. However, let's also be clear about what we mean when we say a nation is no longer a sovereign state - this simply means according to international law sanctioned by the United Nations that it can now be invaded and occupied.

All forms of intervention do not and should not require the invasion and occupation of foreign territory. I don't support the invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S. military forces, but I do believe intervention of some kind was - and still is - absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is about policing the world. It is about grabbing countries for the rich to siphon off of. It is about reckless policy that has left this country bankrupt and hated around the globe.

Your caricature of saving peoples' lives and providing humanitarian relief for those who are desperately in need of it is absolutely despicable. Never mind evacuating the oppressed, starving and dying Yazidis and Kurds from the top of Mount Sinjar - that costs too much money, we shouldn't be doing that. Meanwhile you conveniently ignore the reality of a modern day nuclear holocaust if people like Saddam Hussein weren't captured and executed, and managed to construct a nuclear warhead which absolutely would have happened without some kind of intervention.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Uh huh, that's exactly what is happening. Those darn terrorist hate freedom so they flew planes into buildings. It had NOTHING to do with soldiers being trained and armed by the US in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with the US propping up brutal dictators in those regions. They are simply freedom haters. /rolleyes

Oh right, and it's not because of a failed state created by Islamic backwardness, which turned into a rogue state because it can't blame itself for its own failure and then exports violence. That can't be it, it must be something we've done.

For someone who so coherently argues against religion, I don't know why I have to even point this out to you; the problem is the religion to begin with. The problem is the oppression that it promulgates, the violence that it preaches, the way that it denies rights to half of its citizens by virtue of their gender, the dreams of conquest that it inculcates into children, and so forth. We can't make that any worse by fighting it, just as we do not create jihad by resisting it - we simply don't resist it enough.

We should've taken care of this a long time ago. We need be training an army that is willing to fight in the most bizarre and unpredictable of circumstances, as we are doing. We need to be training an army that's ready to fight and kill in order to defend us. If you think this idea is more dangerous than the idea of an Iranian theocracy waltzing past the European Union, spitting its way through the United Nations, tearing up every treaty its every signed as it goes, sending death squads to kill our novelists and to blow up the Jewish community center of Buenos Ares, sending killers with impunity to Berlin to kill the Kurdish democratic leadership of Iran in a restaurant - doing all this, and never suffering a thing, meanwhile on the verge of becoming thermonuclear - then you have no concept of what a threat religion can really be.

[Pokesan]

hmm yes assad apologists ITT

good job RNF, you've lived up to your reputation

[Skittlez]

Originally Posted by Hurb [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everyone should just listen to me and whip their dicks out, solve everything.

my fav part about syria is that people like assad without knowing why there is a conflict: He cracked down on protests and let militias kill women and children. The people fought back. Welcome to present day, 1000's dead civilians and people still not willing to condemn assad but rather Obama for fighting him.

now LOOK AT MY DICK YA'LL

Whipping it.

Now, time for the helicopter.

[runlvlzero]

How long before Pizza Hut invades Syria?

[leewong]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

....

"all four criteria must be met, not one or two or three but all four simultaneously"

I dont see how that supports your argument at all. You originally were using it as a stressing point that Syria was no longer a sovereign nation according to international law. Which is why I stated Syria may only meet one of the requirements.

"All forms of intervention do not and should not require the invasion and occupation of foreign territory."

I agree. Using troops and bombs is the very last resort.

"I don't support the invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S. military forces, but I do believe intervention of some kind was - and still is - absolutely necessary."

I completely disagree. Saddam was not producing WMDs. It has been shown over and over again. No WMDs were ever found and the sanctions we had in place were working. The US saw a chance to seize the area and prop up a government after 911 and took it. Everything they said about refined uranium and aluminum rods have been proven 100% fabricated. The story later changed to "liberating the Iraqi people" only after the US cover story was blown.

"Your caricature of saving peoples' lives and providing humanitarian relief for those who are desperately in need of it is absolutely despicable."

I cant rescue everyone on the planet and neither can you. It would be nice but unlike you I live in reality. Come back when you want to invade China and North Korea too or else you are speaking empty words.

"Meanwhile you conveniently ignore the reality of a modern day nuclear holocaust if people like Saddam Hussein"

Lol, show me the WMDs. Saddam wasnt even close to producing a nuke.

"Oh right, and it's not because of a failed state created by Islamic backwardness, which turned into a rogue state because it can't blame itself for its own failure and then exports violence."

Islam is backwards as shit. I agree. Which Islamic rogue state are you talking about? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? UAE? Turkey? None of those? Iraq? You mean the country that had Saddam propped up by the US for decades? If you mean Afghanistan then I guess you missed that whole Russian invasion and US intervention in the 80s.

"For someone who so coherently argues against religion, I don't know why I have to even point this out to you; the problem is the religion to begin with."

I agree to a certain point. There is no doubt foreign powers like the US and Russia have stirred the pot until it boiled over though. We need the oil there and so does most of the world...I would say that is the largest component of this mess. Instead of spending money on bombs we should be researching new energy sources. How will the Saudis fund terrorism if they have no money?

[mitic]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Skittlez]

Here's more. Lot's of photo's being released very soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/exhibition-of-...220711714.html