The only thing that would permanently solve the problem of mideast terrorism would be what I refer to as a "general pacification of the middle east"; the full scale occupation of the mideast by US and allied forces. These occupied zones would then be administered as military regions or commisariats and would likely require the construction of military-administrative centers accross the middle east. This would coordinate the project of progressive deislamization that would have to be carried out in order the end the terrorist threat. These military regions would also be given a sustainable basis by carrying out a project of establishing settlement areas in which whole cities would be built and populated by american, latin american, canadian and israeli settlement zones. These settlement metropolises would would be modeled after the ancient roman colonias. Although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The only thing that would permanently solve the problem of mideast terrorism

We no longer have a problem of "mid-east terrorism"

would be what I refer to as a "general pacification of the middle east"; the full scale occupation of the mideast by US and allied forces. These occupied zones would then be administered as military regions or commisariats and would likely require the construction of military-administrative centers accross the middle east.

Bring it to the former PNAC folks.

This would coordinate the project of progressive deislamization that would have to be carried out in order the end the terrorist threat. These military regions would also be given a sustainable basis by carrying out a project of establishing settlement areas in which whole cities would be built and populated by american, latin american, canadian and israeli settlement zones. These settlement metropolises would would be modeled after the ancient roman colonias. Although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor.

It's too late for reverse Nazism.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The only thing that would permanently solve the problem of mideast terrorism would be what I refer to as a "general pacification of the middle east"; the full scale occupation of the mideast by US and allied forces. These occupied zones would then be administered as military regions or commisariats and would likely require the construction of military-administrative centers accross the middle east. This would coordinate the project of progressive deislamization that would have to be carried out in order the end the terrorist threat. These military regions would also be given a sustainable basis by carrying out a project of establishing settlement areas in which whole cities would be built and populated by american, latin american, canadian and israeli settlement zones. These settlement metropolises would would be modeled after the ancient roman colonias. Although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor.

Yeah, it's been working real well in Afghanistan since 2001.

I'm convinced that the USA and its allies need to help the rebels in Syria now. They need to send money and/or arms to them. They have at our request organized themselves into a recognized organization. Many are becoming anti-American now though, because we still refuse to help them. Guess who is stepping into the breach? Who is helping to win the civil war for the rebels, thanks to their greater fighting experience and ability to get weapons? Al Queda. If we want a friendly government to succeed Assad, we'd better get in there NOW and help the good guys.

Instead, the US is dithering and talking about "negotiation." Negotiate over what? With whom? A mass murdering criminal whose only interest is in keeping his own power, achieved at the cost of killing at least 60,000 of his own people so far with mass bombing and terror? We did not "negotiate" with Qaddafi, or bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein. Why should we negotiate with Assad, who is at least as bad as any of them?

My prediction: if we don't help now, we will have to go to war in Syria by this Summer or Fall. Are we going to settle for an Al Queda government in Syria? I don't think so. But that's where we're headed. We will probably have to be involved in some way anyway, come this Summer. Obama sometimes just seems slow to take action; too cautious. Help the rebels now at least with some money, and that could prevent more extensive involvement and probably even war later.

No way should "we" - if by "we" you mean "the United States" - help the Syrian rebels.

At best, their victory will create a power vacuum that only some form of Muslim extremism can step into (e.g., al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood) - and at worst, the rebels are Muslim extremists themselves.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

No way should "we" - if by "we" you mean "the United States" - help the Syrian rebels.

At best, their victory will create a power vacuum that only some form of Muslim extremism can step into (e.g., al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood) - and at worst, the rebels are Muslim extremists themselves.

The real point is, if we don't help the Syrian rebels, we will lose our chance for a new ally, and they are more likely to depend on and therefore support or yield to the Muslin extremists, which they themselves are demonstrably NOT. They are the people rising up for freedom, and we should support them with arms (not with troops on the ground; we should not wage their revolution for them). The power vaccuum will be created if we DON'T support them NOW.

And stop putting the Muslim Brotherhood in the same league as Al Qaeda. That just destroys your credibility, if you have any left.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The real point is, if we don't help the Syrian rebels, we will lose our chance for a new ally, and they are more likely to depend on and therefore support or yield to the Muslin extremists, which they themselves are demonstrably NOT. They are the people rising up for freedom, and we should support them with arms (not with troops on the ground; we should not wage their revolution for them). The power vaccuum will be created if we DON'T support them NOW.

That train left the station a decade ago - when we had a chance to make the Kurds our allies in perpetuity. Oh, but we were too scared that Turkey might get butt-hurt.

And stop putting the Muslim Brotherhood in the same league as Al Qaeda. That just destroys your credibility, if you have any left.

You mean the same Muslim Brotherhood that is quoted on those bus ads in San Francisco that states that homosexuality should be punished by death?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

That train left the station a decade ago - when we had a chance to make the Kurds our allies in perpetuity...

-I think the offer is still open.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

... You mean the same Muslim Brotherhood that is quoted on those bus ads in San Francisco that states that homosexuality should be punished by death?

-Nah. The Muslim Brotherhood whose leader who wants a new caliphate, based in Jerusalem.

Hey, Eric. Any chance this is you?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...an-rebel-group

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Nah. This guy actually got off his butt instead of running his mouth at the 4TF. Too bad the Syrian opposition is full of thugs who are worse than the Ba'athists. That's saying something.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The real point is, if we don't help the Syrian rebels...

-Looks like the Benghazi fiasco may have been related to attempts to do just that.

Happy?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...And stop putting the Muslim Brotherhood in the same league as Al Qaeda. That just destroys your credibility, if you have any left.

-I wonder how many years it will be before Mr. Objectivity changes his tune on that one.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The truth = no WMD. Plame and hubby were correct - that's FACTUAL history...

-Nepotist Plame and her loser husband didn't care about the truth, and just happened to be right, and the Bush administartion did care about the truth, and just happened to be wrong.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...if that were true, that's even more pathetic. Bush falling for Baathist lies and starting a war that killeed 100s of thousands...

-No, it's just very difficult to detect when an enemy is lying when they pull out the stops to do so, particularly when the enemy's lies make them look bad, not good.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Bush falling for Baathist lies and starting a war that killeed 100s of thousands...

-In case PW hadn't noticed, the Ba'athists murdered hundreds of thousands of people before March of 2003. The fact that they wanted to continue after March of 2003 isn't much of a surprise.

PW might notice that the Ba'athists don't run much of anything in Iraq today. Considering that the Chump-in-Chief can't handle the world with the Ba'athists out of power in Iraq, can you imagine where he'd be if they were still there?

Originally Posted by playwrite

... that would be a wet dream for the GOP Benghazi scammers and their moronic sheeple like you.

-No, PW might be thinking of this guy:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The real point is, if we don't help the Syrian rebels, we will lose our chance for a new ally...

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

You mean the same Muslim Brotherhood that is quoted on those bus ads in San Francisco that states that homosexuality should be punished by death?

We should construct foreign policy on the basis of bus ads in San Francisco?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We should construct foreign policy on the basis of bus ads in San Francisco?

-No, it should be based on the fact that the Islamic Brotherhood advocates the return of the Caliphate from Spain to Bangladesh, to be ruled by Sharia law (including the execution of '58's said homos).

While folks like Glick and Flat fret about the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of helping the democratic forces of Egypt realize that they have to actually engage in politics (something our own Occupiers also need to learn from their opposite numbers the Tea Party), 120,000 Syrians have died at the hands of genocidal maniac Assad, and pundits complain that if he is deposed "something worse could happen." What could be worse, I wonder? Nothing. And even my own Green Party folks blabber on about "negotiating" with Assad. There is no conceivable way to deal with Assad, except to kill him and get him out. It may already be too late, but the more that you guys, and meanie mouth JordanGoodspeed, blather on with your ridiculous nonsense, the less likely it will be that the democratic forces who rose up peacefully against their dictator, and who were shot down and murdered just for helping their fellows who were hurt to get medical help, will be able to take over instead of Al Qaeda. We need to send arms to these rebels yesterday, and stop the blathering idiocy. That bathering idiocy is doing nothing but killing thousands more freedom-loving Syrian people every single day.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

While folks like Glick and Flat fret about the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of helping the democratic forces of Egypt realize that they have to actually engage in politics (something our own Occupiers also need to learn from their opposite numbers the Tea Party), 120,000 Syrians have died at the hands of genocidal maniac Assad, and pundits complain that if he is deposed "something worse could happen." What could be worse, I wonder? Nothing. And even my own Green Party folks blabber on about "negotiating" with Assad. There is no conceivable way to deal with Assad, except to kill him and get him out. It may already be too late, but the more that you guys, and meanie mouth JordanGoodspeed, blather on with your ridiculous nonsense, the less likely it will be that the democratic forces who rose up peacefully against their dictator, and who were shot down and murdered just for helping their fellows who were hurt to get medical help, will be able to take over instead of Al Qaeda. We need to send arms to these rebels yesterday, and stop the blathering idiocy. That bathering idiocy is doing nothing but killing thousands more freedom-loving Syrian people every single day.

To be fair, the Syrian rebels aren't much better, but please don't let that stop your telling of the official narratives.

Meanie mouth?

Trust me, Eric, it will get worse. Worse than you really want to imagine. Cannibalism has already been reported. This type of shit is the last thing we need to get involved with.

Remember the lesson of Afghanistan in the 80s.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

To be fair, the Syrian rebels aren't much better, but please don't let that stop your telling of the official narratives.

The Syrian rebels are the folks who went out on the streets demonstrating for freedom, whom Assad shot down. They have been fighting for their freedom ever since. 120,000 have died while we listen to libertarians and anarchists and their official narrative that you and JordanNotuptospeed swallow. If we want a new ally and a new democratic state, we should support them financially and with arms. That would not drag us into a war; they still have to do the fighting.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Syrian rebels are the folks who went out on the streets demonstrating for freedom, whom Assad shot down. They have been fighting for their freedom ever since. 120,000 have died while we listen to libertarians and anarchists and their official narrative that you and JordanNotuptospeed swallow. If we want a new ally and a new democratic state, we should support them financially and with arms. That would not drag us into a war; they still have to do the fighting.

Spoken like a man who didn't watch the linked video. Sorry bro, not exactly the sort of folks I care to support. I suppose it's not a real surprise that they are your sort though.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Spoken like a man who didn't watch the linked video. Sorry bro, not exactly the sort of folks I care to support. I suppose it's not a real surprise that they are your sort though.

Your video is just the official narrative.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your video is just the official narrative.

Is it? Rebels executing bound, kneeling men is the official narrative? And when the Syrian army execute rebels in the same fashion is that the official narrative? Do you happen to have any compelling reason I should want to get involved in someone else's nasty, spite-filled fight over who gets to dominate whatever is left of the country when they are all through?

No thanks. Tell you what though, if you really want to move me with the power of your convictions, I suggest you head on over to Syria yourself and get your own hands dirty. That would be a far more impactful statement than the one you are making from a comfy, safe home in San Jose.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Is it? Rebels executing bound, kneeling men is the official narrative? And when the Syrian army execute rebels in the same fashion is that the official narrative? Do you happen to have any compelling reason I should want to get involved in someone else's nasty, spite-filled fight over who gets to dominate whatever is left of the country when they are all through?

Send arms to them, because they asked for them, because they are fighting for freedom; and because 120,000 more people will die if you do, than if you don't. But although those reasons and more might compel people with good sense and compassion, I have no doubt it will not "compel" you.

Wouldn't you feel a bit of "spite" if YOUR family had been shot down and tortured just for helping your friends who got hurt from Assad's bombs and tanks? I bet even YOU would.

No thanks. Tell you what though, if you really want to move me with the power of your convictions, I suggest you head on over to Syria yourself and get your own hands dirty. That would be a far more impactful statement than the one you are making from a comfy, safe home in San Jose.

No, I don't need to make that statement. I have confidence that if the rebels get enough material assistance to offset what Iran and Russia are giving to the genocidal dictator, they can win in their own fight. I don't have to fight their battles. If San Jose gets taken over by a genocidal dictator, well then maybe I'll "move you" with my actions. Meanwhile I'm going to help keep libertarians and republicans out of office, and maybe a few DINOs too, and that should help forestall that unhappy eventuality!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Send arms to them, because they asked for them, because they are fighting for freedom; and because 120,000 more people will die if you do, than if you don't. But although those reasons and more might compel people with good sense and compassion, I have no doubt it will not "compel" you.

Funny thing that. There is a chance approaching 100% that regardless of which side wins you won’t be seeing any “freedom” break out in Syria any time soon. Oh the victorious side will no doubt call its new creation “freedom” but it likely won’t adhere very strictly to the actual meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Wouldn't you feel a bit of "spite" if YOUR family had been shot down and tortured just for helping your friends who got hurt from Assad's bombs and tanks? I bet even YOU would.

Sure. But then Assad isn’t killing and torturing my family. Approximately 3 seconds of simple logical thought is all it takes to easily separate those who are trying to harm me from those who aren’t. Those are Arab men with Arab problems and I have the utmost confidence that they can work things out themselves without my interference (indeed, it is also important that they be allowed to work it out without my interference).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, I don't need to make that statement. I have confidence that if the rebels get enough material assistance to offset what Iran and Russia are giving to the genocidal dictator, they can win in their own fight. I don't have to fight their battles. If San Jose gets taken over by a genocidal dictator, well then maybe I'll "move you" with my actions. Meanwhile I'm going to help keep libertarians and republicans out of office, and maybe a few DINOs too, and that should help forestall that unhappy eventuality!

Exactly the answer I expected from you. More than willing to use another’s money to fund a war, but too afraid to go and get dirty yourself. If you want to get involved in a war Eric, then I suggest you sign on with the FSA and show them what you are made of. Hell, I think experiencing a civil war first-hand might even be good for you.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Funny thing that. There is a chance approaching 100% that regardless of which side wins you won’t be seeing any “freedom” break out in Syria any time soon. Oh the victorious side will no doubt call its new creation “freedom” but it likely won’t adhere very strictly to the actual meaning of the word.

The Arab Spring was young people rising up for freedom. They have gained more freedom everywhere, except in Syria, which had a group of thugs with the support from abroad needed to suppress, torture and kill the people. Sometimes it is better to help stop genocide where we can.

Sure. But then Assad isn’t killing and torturing my family. Approximately 3 seconds of simple logical thought is all it takes to easily separate those who are trying to harm me from those who aren’t. Those are Arab men with Arab problems and I have the utmost confidence that they can work things out themselves without my interference (indeed, it is also important that they be allowed to work it out without my interference).

They are working things out real well. 120,000 killed, and millions of refugees. And those Arab men are getting a lot of very-deadly interference from Russian and Persian men. And don't wonder too much if some of those real Arab men get a bit spiteful about what the thugs are doing to them.

Exactly the answer I expected from you. More than willing to use another’s money to fund a war, but too afraid to go and get dirty yourself. If you want to get involved in a war Eric, then I suggest you sign on with the FSA and show them what you are made of. Hell, I think experiencing a civil war first-hand might even be good for you.

Your comment is irrelevant. I am not asking Americans to go fight a war in Syria.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Wouldn't you feel a bit of "spite" if YOUR family had been shot down and tortured just for helping your friends who got hurt from Assad's bombs and tanks? I bet even YOU would...

-So. You're old enough to remember this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iuku5cBFJY

...did your generous attitude extend to Nguyen Ngoc Loan?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

While folks like Glick and Flat fret about the Muslim Brotherhood...

-You mean, the guys who want a sharia-based Caliphate?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...instead of helping the democratic forces of Egypt realize that they have to actually engage in politics...

-Oh, the democratic forces of Egypt would like to engage in politics. The problem is their authoritarian government, run by a group called THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...120,000 Syrians have died at the hands of genocidal maniac Assad...

1) Probably not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

...by 15 May, this figure was updated to 80,000. According to various opposition activist groups, between 70,000 and 82,565 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 34,420 armed combatants consisting of both the Syrian Army and rebel forces, up to 1,000 opposition protesters and 1,000 government officials. By October 2012, up to 28,000 people had been reported missing, including civilians forcibly abducted by government troops or security forces...

...so over 30,000 were armed combatants of either side (or sides), and many of them were killed by the opposition.

2) Bashir Assad's Ba'athists are bad. Agreed. But I keep forgetting; how many people did Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists kill? What was your response to efforts to remove him?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

... Remember the lesson of Afghanistan in the 80s.

-Actually, we were right to support some of the Mujahadeen in the 1980s. Ahmad Shah Masaood's Tajiki in the Pahsjir were effective vs. the Soviets and not a pack of psychos. If it hadn't been for the Jamiat Islami, our operations in Afghanistan would have been a lot rougher. But we also supported Gabal Al-Din's goons. So you have a fair point. And that's part of the question: How to you support guys who are good guys and effective, without empowering the bad guys?

A more recent case is Libya.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Send arms to them, because they asked for them, because they are fighting for freedom...

-Put another way, which ones are freedom loving, and which ones are just as (or more) evil than the Ba'athists?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

...Assad isn’t killing and torturing my family. Approximately 3 seconds of simple logical thought is all it takes to easily separate those who are trying to harm me from those who aren’t...

-Eric used to say things like "We can't be the world's policeman." I'll try to find the quotes...

So why is Syria special?

You keep making long posts with annoying colors, you stay on my ignore list. Even if you don't, I will often ignore your irrelevant arguments.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-So. You're old enough to remember this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iuku5cBFJY

...did your generous attitude extend to Nguyen Ngoc Loan?



-You mean, the guys who want a sharia-based Caliphate?



-Oh, the democratic forces of Egypt would like to engage in politics. The problem is their authoritarian government, run by a group called THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD...



1) Probably not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

...by 15 May, this figure was updated to 80,000. According to various opposition activist groups, between 70,000 and 82,565 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 34,420 armed combatants consisting of both the Syrian Army and rebel forces, up to 1,000 opposition protesters and 1,000 government officials. By October 2012, up to 28,000 people had been reported missing, including civilians forcibly abducted by government troops or security forces...

...so over 30,000 were armed combatants of either side (or sides), and many of them were killed by the opposition.

2) Bashir Assad's Ba'athists are bad. Agreed. But I keep forgetting; how many people did Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists kill? What was your response to efforts to remove him?



-Actually, we were right to support some of the Mujahadeen in the 1980s. Ahmad Shah Masaood's Tajiki in the Pahsjir were effective vs. the Soviets and not a pack of psychos. If it hadn't been for the Jamiat Islami, our operations in Afghanistan would have been a lot rougher. But we also supported Gabal Al-Din's goons. So you have a fair point. And that's part of the question: How to you support guys who are good guys and effective, without empowering the bad guys?

A more recent case is Libya.



-Put another way, which ones are freedom loving, and which ones are just as (or more) evil than the Ba'athists?



-Eric used to say things like "We can't be the world's policeman." I'll try to find the quotes...

So why is Syria special?

-Yeah, I guess facts are hard to debate, aren't they?