he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions? So in your eyes the president is above the law? |
|
|
|
We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.
But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.
Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.
Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.
I'm sure YOU will disagree on this though: The only policies that can work for the US in the middle east as a whole is back the most ruthless SOBs they can find, regardless of ideology, or stay the hell away from the politics. Trade with whoever is a worthy trading partner, and let Russia and Turkey start to take de facto control of the area. Mixing in the general brouhaha seems to be a disaster in the making. The former is the tried and tested methods of the last 70 years. The latter being what seems to be happening now. I don't disagree with anything that you've posted here, though I don't think that supporting "the most ruthless SOBs" is a sustainable practice or in our long run interest. Particularly in Saudi Arabia, which may very well be the next giant storm after this elder generation dies. |
|
|
|
|
We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.
But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.
Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.
Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.
|
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them. When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective. If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq. Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years." Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares? There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda It wasn't just Syria, it was Iran as well. Both had vested interests in seeing Iraq destabilized against the US coalition. But Syria's support of AQI (which is different from AQ) stems from its historic support of Kurdish militant groups against turkey, not only the PKK, but more specifically in northern Iraq with the Ansar al-Islam movement which is where Zarqawi traced his Iraq roots and which was one of the predecessors to AQI under Zarqawi. This group was also used in competition with Iraq. Syria also funded Fatah Al Islam in Lebanon which had Al Qaeda links as well. It was essentially an extension of the Syrian intelligence targeting Palestinians who had split with Fatah for use against Lebanon and Israel. But the predecessors aside, right as Saudi Arabia was recoiling from militant support in 2003, Syria was ramping it up. Pro Saddam militias, insurgents, and AQI depended on Syria as their main resource avenue for materials, money networks, and foreign fighters. While said resources came from all over, it was in Syria that AQI, with the tacit and sometimes active approval and assistance of the Assad Administration established their operational support infrastructure. This is also one of the main reasons why, when they turned against their historic backers in 2011 and 2012, that the ISI was able to expand so rapidly in Syria and become the ISIS, it's because their infrastructure was already there and they could control the flow of foreign fighters into Syria. They also had pre-existing weapons caches inside Syria, had communication infrastructure and networks already pre-established, and had the political and operational contacts needed for the dissemination of foreign material and funding. |
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them. When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective. If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq. Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years." Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares? |
|
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past. Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so. Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here. Syria has long been a major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran Is a pretty large supporter of external militant and terrorist organizations as well in both central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The other large one was Libya under Gaddafi. The role that many Gulf States like Qatar, the U.A.E. etc play tends to be different than Iran, and Syria. Saudi Arabia was a mix of the two strategies. A lot of money for terrorism is funneled through non-state actors in the Gulf. So the U.A.E. was a big staging point for funds for Al Qaeda Central, and a lot of Gulf Charities can redirect funds to terrorism organizations as well as individual financiers. Syria's role has been reported for years by the Combating Terrorism Center, IHS Janes, The Institute for the Study of War, the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, SITE intelligence, and the Long War Journal. It isn't really a secret or unknown aspect of the Assad regime's past state sponsoring of terrorism. We've also conducted several raids against AQI stationed in Syria long before the current civil war. Even now though Assad still funnels money to the ISIS in exchange for oil (as reported by the Terrorism Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation) even as they fight each other. I'd be happy to find more detailed sources for you when I have more time later, but here is one small article from the Long War Journal detailing one incident: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...an_officia.php |
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.
It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting. I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives. That's not unexpected. Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf. Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by. Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel. It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents. Because there are (was?) a greater disparity between Palestinian terror operatives residing in Syria-Damascus than AQI elements. Consider that Syria has provided support to AQI and allegedly other anti-coalition militias since approximately 2005. One has to speculate on the sudden political attitude adjustment. What political attitude adjustment? Fighting against ISIS? that was AQI's call. We didn't initiate the civil war in Syria. there really isn't much for us to have to "vindicate". |
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.
It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting. I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives. That's not unexpected. Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf. Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by. Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel. It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents. |
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.
It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting. I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives. That's not unexpected. Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf. Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by. |
|
|
|
|
Do you feel...
Capital gains and dividend income should be taxed at an earned income rate....
or
Stay at 15% so that more people will invest?
After answering the above question, post your own either/or question and the next person answers it.
|
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.
It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting. I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives. |
|
|
|
|
- there are flying ants. And overall, ants seem to have alot more going for them then flies.
Besides, though rigon has noted his distaste for mosquitoes, personally, given their, um, respective lifestyles, I would rather see a mosquito flying away from my food than a fly.
|
|
|
|
scavenger birds have the gift of flight and could prey on many things on the ground, same as flying insects. Of course the swarming number of cockroaches and ants are a mighty force, worms who can go under ground and feed on our rotting flesh. Many insects sacrifice themselves for the collective by nature, a big advantage, (except for the few libertarian insects who will be killed by the others). If they ever developed the consciousness to attack mankind we'd all be dead and an endless food source for them
overall flies and ants will end up the victors, they will form an alliance until some advance aliens discover our barren planet not realizing what awaits them as food for the ants and flies. More advanced species will come and have the same fate, until all intelligent life in the universe are consumed by the ants and flies
lolololol that made me laugh. As long as there's no mosquitos involved. Please add to the story of the alliance a crusade both species go on to wipe out the mosquito population of the world. Flies in aerial formation divebombings on mosquitoes...ants diligently filling up the marshes with landfill to choke off the areas where mosquitoes can reproduce... The mosquitoes died out due to lack of blood from humans and the larger animals. After awhile the flies and ants developed the instinct to save some of earths recourses to draw more food from outer space. They hide themselves long enough for their prey to become comfortable, then would attack small numbers of them while they slept, and hid again leaving the visitors in the dark of what was happening It will start off with the female mosquitoes (and no more eggs then), the males still being able to find food. But, they don't live very long anyway (and will have less motivation to do so with the females gone............). Unless they adapt - in some species apparently the females do not drink blood at all. |
|
|
|
Not a single coin, clay pot - nothing points to a 'palestinian' people.
there is so much archaeological evidence for the philistines / Palestinians.. that its not funny. its even written in the old testiment and the jewish version too. Isreali archaeologists lead the way when it comes to philistine archaeology. its like saying that the Canaanites and phonecians didn't exist either. how can you live in so much denial? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8n6PsRdhV4ok.they found an altar...where it says that was philistines altar? listen to the guy when he explains it to you he talks about it for 3 minutes...  maybe this one will help you.. its clearer.. and more detailed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaf7BDlY1cENo archaeological evidence exists that denies various groups of “sea people” were in Canaan long before the arrival of the main body in the early twelfth century B.C. (see Unger, 1954, p. 91; Archer, 1964, p. 266; Harrison, 1963, p. 32). To assume that not a single group of Philistines lived in Palestine during the time of Abraham because archaeology has not documented them until about 1190 B.C. is to argue from negative evidence and is without substantial weight. In response to those who would deny the Philistines’ existence based upon their silence in the archeological world before this time, professor Kitchen stated: “Inscriptionally, we know so little about the Aegean peoples as compared with those of the rest of the Ancient Near East in the second millennium B.C., that it is premature to deny outright the possible existence of Philistines in the Aegean area before 1200 B.C.” (1966, p. 80n). Likely, successive waves of sea peoples from the Aegean Sea migrated to Canaan, even as early as Abraham’s time, and continued coming until the massive movement in the twelfth century B.C. (Archer, 1970, p. 18). https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=671 |
|
|
|
European countries do not want the baboons running wild in the streets. They're already suffering with riots in the likes of France - where Muslim riots seem like an annual event.
I think most Israelis believe that a two state solution needs to be tried, but also believe that it won't be the end of the conflict.
The question is, how big a price will Israel have to pay to try this two state solution out - and if it proves to be disastrous with continued attacks on Israel, will they finally be vindicated? or will they (as I suspect) still get the blame in some measure.
.....and 13 Israeli Soldiers have died in an operation in Gaza.
You can thank Israeli conservatives for that. Meanwhile, the IDF is shelling Shajayea and has killed over 60 Palestinians there. |
|
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.
|
|
|
|
If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive. Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now. Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well. I don't think Assad's government was stable. The civil war itself would suggest otherwise. But Assad has also historically been an "enemy" of the US a bit like Gaddafi only much less annoying. Assad supported Hamas and Hezbollah which put the administration against Israel and thus us. They supported for a time AQI in Iraq when they were fighting US occupation, the regime itself was very meddlesome in regional politics (particularly in Lebanon), and it was highly undemocratic and abusive. It was more of a threat to us and our allies than Saddam had been in Iraq; especially with their chemical weapons program and contacts with the North Koreans in uranium enrichment. in other words its NEVER Obama's fault . Why would you blame President Obama or any outside force for that matter for the civil war in Syria? That would be like me blaming the Bush administration for the instability in western Sudan simply because it happened while he was in office. That's dumb. |
|
|
|
so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).
'palestinians' are a new creation/fabrication. A weapon to use against Israel. They are Arabs. If you look at their surnames, many of them betray their origin. Far from being a 'palestinan' people, one of the most common names in Gaza is "Al-Masri" which means "The Egyptian". I'm pretty sure that the people are actually real; if not Israel is bombing a bunch of empty land for no reason. That's like saying Hashemites aren't Hashemites because they are Arab. Or that Omar Bashir isn't Bedouin because he is Arab. that's a pretty shallow way of looking at Middle Eastern and North African identity structures. Nonsense.The Hashemites have a very long history and trace their roots back to the early stages of Islam.'palestinians' trace their roots back to the 1960's when an Egyptian became their leader. Someone is obviously unaware that the first Palestinian Congress was held long before Israel was even a state and aligned culturally more more closely with Syria and Lebanon than Egypt. Wasn't Palestine part of Greater Syria? In fact, I know that is how it was recently. But didn't the Romans, when they kicked the Jews out of Israel, after 70 AD, rename the region Syria-Palestina after the Jews' arch-enemies the Philistines? The Palestinian Congress had a much closer cultural heritage with Syria and Lebanon and one of the original ideas of the congress was to form a single country out of those three regions yes. They are all culturally Levantine Arabs, and the Syria region has a history of being connected to Egypt as well, particularly through the rule of Muhammad Ali of Egypt. |
|
|
|
|
It didn't turn out well largely because (speculation here since games of 'what if' are always off) we didn't act strongly enough / quickly enough and that gave room and time for the rebellion to be overrun by Islamists backed by outside interests. Assad also held off a lot longer and better than hoped. We have been able to pressure Turkey and some Gulf states to stop their funding of said groups, and have also gotten Syria to agree to give up its chemical weapons (a slow going process, but still). Not sure what more we could expect since the diplomatic efforts to intervene more heavily were frustrated earlier on with legislative votes. Or rather, i'm not sure what more we should be expected to do here?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
