• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

You seem to have dropped most of your statement.

I stand by what I said in that I don't care how Assad burns his own country to ash. I'm more concerned about fighting Al-Qaeda.

That Assad helps defend minorities and is the legitimate government is a bonus. Is there a reason why you're ok with the Rebels murdering children killing Christians?
 
Is there a reason why you're ok with the Rebels murdering children killing Christians?

Murdering children and killing Christians fills me with joy. :roll:


Is there a reason why you're ok with burning Syria to the ground?
 
Murdering children and killing Christians fills me with joy. :roll:


Is there a reason why you're ok with burning Syria to the ground?
It's a ****hole and Assad's the president. If he has a choice between letting your Al-Qaeda rebels taking over because he's being gentle with them and fighting with all of his military force then he's taking the right course of action by fighting hard. Like roaches or ants you have to take drastic measures when dealing with terrorists like Al-Qaeda. Terrorist sympathizers like yourself and John McCain would like nothing more than to have Al-Qaeda take over.
 
It's a ****hole and Assad's the president. If he has a choice between letting your Al-Qaeda rebels taking over because he's being gentle with them and fighting with all of his military force then he's taking the right course of action by fighting hard. Like roaches or ants you have to take drastic measures when dealing with terrorists like Al-Qaeda.

AlQ is not gonna take over Syria, get real.

Terrorist sympathizers like yourself and John McCain would like nothing more than to have Al-Qaeda take over.

haha
 
AlQ is not gonna take over Syria, get real.
Yes, thanks to Putin smacking down Obama and Kerry: plus McCain getting humiliated in local town hall meetings. Al-Qaeda will not be taking over Syria because the United States war machine has been stopped, however briefly.
 
AlQ is not gonna take over Syria, get real.



haha

Ya, because Alquaida has been caught doing past chemical attacks against civilians, and when they tried again, Obama and other traitors to this country.

And yes, by giving aid and comfort to an enemy during a time of war is treason by definition, and Obama is clearly, by arming an enemy that the country is at war with has committed treason, and anyone that still supports this move, especially under full knowledge of the situation is almost just as bad.

So, did you also support Alquaida destroying the world trade center?

How do you justify this ?? The ONLY answer to save face on this one is to let the sovereign nation handle this uprising of their own accord.

Giving the country to the terrorists we are at war with, even in a best case is horribly foolish and short-sighted... And look at the moral quandary you have made for yourself.
 
False on both counts. Assad has supportedly and enabled plenty of terrorists, and his main ally, Hezbollah, is probably one of if not the most deadly terrorist organization in the world. Assad is not invoved in a War on Terrorism - he is guilty of it himself, that is a propaganda point that has been captured and repeated by his enablers abroad. Nor did the U.S. kill 1-200K civilians in Iraq; that many probably died, but the vast majority were at the hands of the terrorist organizations that targeted them.









Iraqi casualties Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2003 3 2 3,977 3,437 547 594 651 796 561 520 488 528 12,104
2004 597 652 989 1,302 657 896 816 863 1,030 1,000 1,603 1,023 11,428
2005 1,176 1,268 854 1,114 1,323 1,296 1,520 2,260 1,414 1,294 1,461 1,134 16,114
2006 1,543 1,565 1,935 1,765 2,234 2,540 3,266 2,818 2,534 2,961 3,024 2,824 29,009
2007 2,924 2,589 2,675 2,486 2,798 2,168 2,658 2,400 1,292 1,243 1,083 959 25,275
2008 818 1,029 1,607 1,260 792 696 606 613 557 547 518 575 9,618
2009 333 374 424 504 338 498 401 613 332 429 213 459 4,918
2010 262 303 335 382 378 379 426 516 254 311 305 217 4,068
2011 389 251 308 287 379 386 306 399 397 365 276 – 3,743
Concerning the yearly totals, IBC project states: "All figures are taken from the "maximum" confirmed deaths in the IBC database. However, IBC's rates and counts will rise over the coming months, as data is still being added to the IBC database for 2006 and other periods covered here."[92]
The IBC project released a report detailing the deaths it recorded between March 2003 and March 2005[85] in which it recorded 24,865 civilian deaths. The report says the U.S. and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attributed to anti-occupations forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%). It also lists the primary sources used by the media – mortuaries, medics, Iraqi officials, eyewitnesses, police, relatives, U.S.-coalition, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), friends/associates and other.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
 
And because of the condition (total disarray) that the US left Iraq in, the continued civilian deaths (953 last month) are our responsibility, too.
 
Ya, because Alquaida has been caught doing past chemical attacks against civilians, and when they tried again, Obama and other traitors to this country.

The rockets used in the attack are not known to be in rebel hands. It was Assad.
 
AP says the rockets and chemical weapons were provided by Saudi Arabia, posted and discussed here a couple weeks ago!
 
The rockets used in the attack are not known to be in rebel hands. It was Assad.

Which rebel faction is paying you off or are you spreading that propoganda pro-bono?
 
Which rebel faction is paying you off or are you spreading that propoganda pro-bono?


The team did identify two types or rockets it said were used to deliver the gas and their trajectories, and international observers have said those weapons are not known to be in the hands of rebels battling the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Australian U.N. Ambassador Gary Quinlan, who is currently serving as president of the Security Council, said the report bolsters his country's stance. It "confirms, in our view, that there is no remaining doubt that it was the regime that used chemical weapons."

And Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador, said a preliminary review of the report points toward forces loyal to al-Assad. "The regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition possesses sarin," Power said. "It defies logic" to think members of the opposition would have infiltrated a regime-controlled area to fire on opposition-controlled areas.

Britain, France, and NATO have also said al-Assad's regime was behind the attack. But Russia is Syria's leading ally, and Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin maintained Moscow's stance that Syrian rebels might be to blame.

'War crime': U.N. finds sarin used in Syria chemical weapons attack - CNN.com


1. The rebels do not have those rockets.
2. The rebels do not have sarin.
3. The chems were withdrawn from an Assad facility, without resistance. The US claims photo evidence of this.
4. The rockets were prepared, assembled and launched from ~10 different locations within Assad territory, without resistance.

Let's be real.
 
I read this link you provioded. You obviously didn't.


1. The rebels do not have those rockets.
How can you prove such a thing? Is concision proof?


2. The rebels do not have sarin.
How can you prove such a thing? Is concision proof?


3. The chems were withdrawn from an Assad facility, without resistance. The US claims photo evidence of this.
Where? I didn't read that in the report. What page was it on, and quote it please so I can find it.


4. The rockets were prepared, assembled and launched from ~10 different locations within Assad territory, without resistance.

Let's be real.
Where? I didn't read that in the report. What page was it on, and quote it please so I can find it.


Why are you making things up? The US report does not say Assad used chemical weapons. They say "high degree of confidence." this generally means about an 8 in 10 chance.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons
attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the
scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body
of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime's
preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the
attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the
capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest
position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation.
We will continue
to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.

...short of confirmation...

Get it?

Do you have any honesty in what you say?
 
Ok... how many civilians have been killed by Assad's forces, in your guess/estimation/opinion?

Impossible to count.

The rebels don't wear uniforms. Once the survivors take their weapons to use again, propaganda can be they were civilians.
 
Do you have anything except conspiracy theory based nihilism?

Why is it a conspiracy to want certain proofs before declaring war with Syria? What if that 20% left over from the "high confidence" is the true answer?

Are you willing to bomb another nation with a 20% uncertainty?
 
Why is it a conspiracy to want certain proofs before declaring war with Syria? What if that 20% left over from the "high confidence" is the true answer?

Are you willing to bomb another nation with a 20% uncertainty?


Did you pull that 20% out of nowhere? Tell the truth.
 
Did you pull that 20% out of nowhere? Tell the truth.
I said already:

Lord of Planar said:
They say "high degree of confidence." this generally means about an 8 in 10 chance.

OK, you tell me. What percentage do you perceive "high confidence" to mean. as I have learned it, it is the 8 in 10 probability.

Very high confidence: At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence: 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence: About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence: 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence: Less than 1 out of 10 chance
 
I said already:



OK, you tell me. What percentage do you perceive "high confidence" to mean. as I have learned it, it is the 8 in 10 probability.

Very high confidence: At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence: 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence: About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence: 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence: Less than 1 out of 10 chance


Citation?
 
Why is it a conspiracy to want certain proofs before declaring war with Syria? What if that 20% left over from the "high confidence" is the true answer?

Are you willing to bomb another nation with a 20% uncertainty?

Yes he is, in fact he's been salivating at the prospect from the beginning and is frustrated by delays. I don't think he's had a good nights sleep since Kerry offered his deal 10 days ago.
 
Citation?

Why?

You havent shown your citation yo my questions.

3. The chems were withdrawn from an Assad facility, without resistance. The US claims photo evidence of this.
4. The rockets were prepared, assembled and launched from ~10 different locations within Assad territory, without resistance.
Where is this at?

why should I waste my time doing your homework... I mean search for where I found that at... again... if you won't show me where in your linked material where that is at?

I asked first.
 
Because I'm calling BS. I think you pulled those numbers out of nowhere.

Those numbers exist. I didn't pull them out my ass like you did with your claims #3 and #4. I also remember how to find them again. Not going to bother since you can't back up your claims.

Think about it. The US letter even admits it isn't certain. What percentage do you want it to mean? 90%? 95%? 99%?

Without certainty it can still be wrong!
 
Last edited:
Only in your mind.
Do you mean like theses exist in your mind:

1. The rebels do not have those rockets.
2. The rebels do not have sarin.
3. The chems were withdrawn from an Assad facility, without resistance. The US claims photo evidence of this.
4. The rockets were prepared, assembled and launched from ~10 different locations within Assad territory, without resistance.
 
Back
Top Bottom