Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[JetsetBkk]

The "lie" is in defending Assad and Putin.

Assad is gassing and murdering his own population. It's now in its 30th consecutive month. Assad is Putin's friend and one knows a person by his friends.

And the record is clear what Putin is doing to his own population at home in Russia. Once a KGB always a KGB. Russia anyway is a used to be that never was.

You write only rhetoric, and present no proof, just like the article, just like Obama and Kerry.

[FDog]

Assad and Putin lie when they accuse rebels of using chemical weapons.

That's a part of the "lie" in all of this, i.e., trying to defend Assad and Putin, pathetic mass murderers both.

Well after the UN presents it's report the inspectors are going back in to investigate the other allegations of chemical weapons use. An investigation that has been requested by Assad.

I somehow doubt Assad would request the inspectors in if he was the one that used the weapons on those 2 sites. But of course I expect you to blame Putin.

Are you sure the Chinese don't have a hand in this as well? Surely you can think of something to blame them for in all this as well.

[Jingthing]

Get a grip. Putin is lying. Assad is lying.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/russia_s_role_in_syria_putin_s_new_york_times_op_ed_is_all_hypocrisy_and.html

“Our investigation finds that the August 21 attacks were likely chemical weapons attacks using a surface-to-surface rocket system of approximately 330mm in diameter—likely Syrian-produced—and a Soviet-era 140mm surface-to-surface rocket system to deliver a nerve agent. … The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces. Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weaponry in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack, or their associated launchers. …

The scale and coordinated nature of the two attacks; against opposition-held areas; the presence of government-controlled potential launching sites within range of the targets; the pattern of other recent alleged chemical weapon attacks against opposition-held areas using the same 330mm rocket delivery system; and the documented possession of the 140mm and 330mm rocket systems able to deliver chemical weapons in the government arsenal—all point towards Syrian government responsibility for the attacks. Human Rights Watch has investigated alternative claims that opposition forces themselves were responsible for the August 21 attacks, and has found such claims lacking in credibility and inconsistent with the evidence found at the scene.”

[FDog]

Get a grip. Putin is lying. Assad is lying.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/russia_s_role_in_syria_putin_s_new_york_times_op_ed_is_all_hypocrisy_and.html

“Our investigation finds that the August 21 attacks were likely chemical weapons attacks using a surface-to-surface rocket system of approximately 330mm in diameter—likely Syrian-produced—and a Soviet-era 140mm surface-to-surface rocket system to deliver a nerve agent. … The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces. Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weaponry in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack, or their associated launchers. …

The scale and coordinated nature of the two attacks; against opposition-held areas; the presence of government-controlled potential launching sites within range of the targets; the pattern of other recent alleged chemical weapon attacks against opposition-held areas using the same 330mm rocket delivery system; and the documented possession of the 140mm and 330mm rocket systems able to deliver chemical weapons in the government arsenal—all point towards Syrian government responsibility for the attacks. Human Rights Watch has investigated alternative claims that opposition forces themselves were responsible for the August 21 attacks, and has found such claims lacking in credibility and inconsistent with the evidence found at the scene.”

So it could well be that both sides used chemical weapons.

Where was the uproar about the earlier chemical weapons attacks used by the rebels. Wait a week or so for that report to confirm.

It's ok though, Obama will sort it out. But then again, Kerry has already said that any report by the UN is 'irrelevant'.

Edited September 12, 2013 by FDog

[Publicus]

The "lie" is in defending Assad and Putin.

Assad is gassing and murdering his own population. It's now in its 30th consecutive month. Assad is Putin's friend and one knows a person by his friends.

And the record is clear what Putin is doing to his own population at home in Russia. Once a KGB always a KGB. Russia anyway is a used to be that never was.

You write only rhetoric, and present no proof, just like the article, just like Obama and Kerry.

I presented a preview of the UN Report to be issued Monday and the EU finding of the past weekend.

There are the reports of the intelligence services and the militaries of the US, France, the UK and others that have found concrete evidence that the Syrian government, and only the Syrian government could have conducted the attacks, and did in fact conduct the chemical attacks.

It's not my responsibility that some people here don't see this or don't get this so continue to post that there isn't any concrete evidence, or any evidence at all.

Denial, denial, denial is a sad thing to witness.

It's also repetitive and time consuming to do and to respond to.

Tighter thinking is required here.

[Publicus]

Assad and Putin lie when they accuse rebels of using chemical weapons.

That's a part of the "lie" in all of this, i.e., trying to defend Assad and Putin, pathetic mass murderers both.

Must really cause you to get your cranky pants on knowing that the great Obama has been played a fool by people you consider pathetic mass murderers.

Doesn't say much about your great statesman does it.

I'm finished responding to you.

You are hard core and an outlier.

No more wasting my time with your ridiculous posts.

If I need to I'll use the ignore function.

[Tywais]

A quote modified removed.

[lannarebirth]

Most people would have thought the same thing one month ago, but, apparently, he DID.

Quite.

Anyone with an IQ greater than 100 knows Prez Obama is right, that if Assad and Putin are not punished now for having used chemical warfare against the opposition they will use chemical warfare again, and again against men, women, children.

Putin and Assad already have made clear to the Syrian people in opposition to them they will kill their children - the school that Assad's air force firebombed is the most recent example. Assad firebombed a school building full of children in an opposition area. A school building full of children.

Assad and his people and Putin are ruthless, cut throat bastards. They deserve to be struck militarily so their own military capabilities to kill children can be degraded and reduced in serious ways.

I'm going to give you the benefit of any doubt, which I don't have many of; but do you think for even a second, we wouldn't bomb a school/ w children if the military assessment says there's some strategic target there? We would, and that's why we have no business there. We can only add to the carnage. Each Syrian life is precious. Just like each American life is precious.

The issue, the vicious and malevolent crime, is that Assad and Putin consciously and with determination want to make clear to the opposition that they will kill their children.

Children were also killed in Assad's chemical warfare attacks.

Assad and Putin are cut throat murderers who deliberately targeted innocent children in their school building.

No one has said the particular school building contained anything of military value.

The school building was targeted only because it contained children of the regime's opponents. That is the point of Assad and Putin. If you oppose us, we will kill your children.

Dictators are necessarily tyrants. No tyrant has a conscience.

You bring up a good point re: tyrants and their conscience's. Tell me, do you think, non dictatorial, twice elected, hoop shooting, hip leaders that engage in "double tap" drone strikes to ensure women and children will be slaughtered, have a conscience?

[F430murci]

Quite.

Anyone with an IQ greater than 100 knows Prez Obama is right, that if Assad and Putin are not punished now for having used chemical warfare against the opposition they will use chemical warfare again, and again against men, women, children.

Putin and Assad already have made clear to the Syrian people in opposition to them they will kill their children - the school that Assad's air force firebombed is the most recent example. Assad firebombed a school building full of children in an opposition area. A school building full of children.

Assad and his people and Putin are ruthless, cut throat bastards. They deserve to be struck militarily so their own military capabilities to kill children can be degraded and reduced in serious ways.

I'm going to give you the benefit of any doubt, which I don't have many of; but do you think for even a second, we wouldn't bomb a school/ w children if the military assessment says there's some strategic target there? We would, and that's why we have no business there. We can only add to the carnage. Each Syrian life is precious. Just like each American life is precious.

The issue, the vicious and malevolent crime, is that Assad and Putin consciously and with determination want to make clear to the opposition that they will kill their children.

Children were also killed in Assad's chemical warfare attacks.

Assad and Putin are cut throat murderers who deliberately targeted innocent children in their school building.

No one has said the particular school building contained anything of military value.

The school building was targeted only because it contained children of the regime's opponents. That is the point of Assad and Putin. If you oppose us, we will kill your children.

Dictators are necessarily tyrants. No tyrant has a conscience.

You bring up a good point re: tyrants and their conscience's. Tell me, do you think, non dictatorial, twice elected, hoop shooting, hip leaders that engage in "double tap" drone strikes to ensure women and children will be slaughtered, have a conscience?

Do you realize that people like you are as unamerican as it gets!

Edited September 13, 2013 by F430murci

[Publicus]

So now comes from Assad and Putin all the qualifiers, caveats, provisos, conditionals, prerequisites and other requirements to implementing a proposal that wasn't ever a serious or genuine initiative to begin with.

Assad and Putin are putting off the West taking any action at all in the Syria civil war.

Assad with Putin's support says he won't surrender his chemical weapons unless the Western-Arab coalition ceases arming, training and supporting the rebel groups it believes it can work with, and unless the United States, France and others stop talking about using military force to degrade the Syrian armed forces.

We are back to square one, do not pass goal, and do not collect chemical weapons.

Putin and Assad Have Presented The West With An Impossible Ultimatum

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Russian news agency RIA Novosti that Syria will not fulfill a chemical weapons initiative unless the U.S. stops threatening to strike Syria and "ceases arms deliveries to terrorists."

Furthermore, the "diplomatic solution" of securing and destroying a massive WMD stockpile in an active war zone is unprecedented and arguably impossible — and that's assuming Assad is actually willing to give up all 1,400 tons of chemical weapons Syria has procured over decades to deter Israel.

During that time Assad would not be accountable for using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians (not to mention ruthlessly bombing them), which is exactly what Assad and Russia would want since they both deny that chemical attacks by the Assad regime ever happened.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-russian-syria-deal-cant-be-accepted-2013-9#ixzz2ejPYoNHJ

Edited September 13, 2013 by Publicus

[boomerangutang]

Re; the victims in the most recent, and prior chemical attacks. Whose side are they on? and to who's advantage is their deaths? (motive, Watson, motive).

If some Syrian soldiers get poisoned, it could be 'blow-back' or mis-handling of weapons. After all, bombadiers never get to practice with live chemical bombs.

To have poison weaponized, and the means to launch them at a target, is more likely the ability of a standing army, than rag-tag rebels. Also, rebels poisoning their own women and children - to make a point (to compel Uncle Sam to strike their enemy) - is sicko bizarre, very unlikely, but not impossible. Neither is Lady Gaga marrying Assad impossible, yet extremely unlikely.

There are evidence-gathering methods that the US (and others) have, which they may not want to share with (or divulge to) the rest of the world. US intelligence has already taken two big hits recently, with Wikileaks and Snowden. It's no surprise they're playing their cards closer to the chest. Plus, divulging intelligence-gathering methods, can possibly compromise those people/methods. The US doesn't have to tell all it knows.

[Publicus]

This helps to explain the more recent reasons for the long standing cooperation between Syria and Russia, from the time Russia was the former USSR.

Putin is looking out for Number One.

Dictators being toppled by local insurrections and rebellions, eventually supported by Western democracies, is a horrifying thought to tyrants such as Assad and Putin.

The 3 Reasons Russia Backs Assad So Staunchly

Over the course of the 29-month Syrian conflict, Russia has provided the regime of Bashar al-Assad with supplies including guns, grenades, tank parts, fighter jets, advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, long-range air defense missiles, military officers as advisers, diplomatic cover, and lots of cash.

So why does the Kremlin back Assad so staunchly?

There are three primary reasons, as illustrated by this report from Krishnadev Calamur of NPR.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-russia-backs-assad-2013-8#ixzz2ejUjAFnT

[Publicus]

Assad and Putin are determined to make clear to the Syrian people that if you oppose us, we will kill your children.

They are vicious, malicious, malevolent tyrants who will stop at nothing.

They therefore must be stopped. It's terrible that chemical weapons is where the line is finally being drawn, but that's the reality of it.

At least a line now has been drawn. And crossed.

REALITY CHECK: Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Truly Depraved

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway of BBC reported from the site where ten people died and dozens suffered "napalm-like" burns after a Syrian fighter jet dropped an incendiary bomb on a playground.

BBC News

Human Rights Watch "has recorded multiple instances of Syrian government use of air-delivered incendiary bombs since November 2012, including in a previous school attack."

But as soon as poison gas was used on thousands of civilians while they slept, America and France decided that the West must act to uphold the minimal requirements for the crime against humanity of using poison gas on innocent people.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/syrian-planes-drop-napalm-like-bombs-on-playground-2013-8#ixzz2ejbd7RU3

Edited September 13, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Exclusive: U.N. Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack

The Russian Plan Of Removing Syria's Chemical Weapons Mid-War Is A 'Nightmare'

EU: All info on Syria gas attack points to Assad

The European Union agreed on Saturday that the Aug. 21 chemical attack outside Damascus appears to have been the work of Syria's regime, but that any potential military attack against it should wait for a U.N. inspectors' report.

I'm not doubting any of these reports, but it seems that some seem to be far too eager to drop bombs and kill people. Also, no doubt that Assad is a murderous cretin and that Putin is a duplicitous monster . . . but the hypocrisy of the would-be-bombers and aye-sayers is incredible.

100.000 dead so far . . . and nary a noise . . . after all, it is a civil war.

1000 dead supposedly from chemical weapons? Sodom and Gomorrah! Inexcusable, we must intervene. Roll out the B52s and crank up the drone-brigade.

Why haven't the powers that be intervened before? Why haven't 'surgical strikes' taken out Assad and his top ten henchmen?

Why does Putin look like the good guy here?

An excerpt from Putin's 'ad' in the NYT:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

Smackdown Russian Style

Putin speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

He's such a phony and a liar he can't keep track of what he's saying, just that he's taking both sides in the New York Times at different times.

But Putin seemed notably less concerned about civilian deaths and the second-order effects of military intervention when he took to the same opinion page in 1999 to make the case for intervention -- in Chechnya.

In an editorial titled "Why We Must Act," he defended Russian military action, writing that "in the midst of war, even the most carefully planned military operations occasionally cause civilian casualties, and we deeply regret that."

Despite international concerns, though, he assured readers that the Russian counterinsurgency operation would not cause widespread harm to civilians. "American officials tell us that ordinary citizens are suffering, that our military tactics may increase that suffering," he wrote then.

"The very opposite is true. Our commanders have clear instructions to avoid casualties among the general population. We have nothing to gain by doing otherwise."

Because when the Russians stage a military intervention, it's different.

That Awkward Time Putin Called for Military Intervention in the New York Times

In 1999, Putin justified the "decisive armed intervention" in Chechnya as "the only way to prevent further casualties both within and far outside the borders of Chechnya, further suffering by so many people enslaved by terrorists."

"[W]hen a society's core interests are besieged by violent elements," he wrote, "responsible leaders must respond."

That's not unlike the case President Obama made on Tuesday. The use of chemical weapons in Syria demonstrated "why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war," Obama said

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/12/that_awkward_time_putin_called_for_military_intervention_in_the_new_york_times

[Sing_Sling]

*Edited due to font and bold*

Putin speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

He's such a phony and a liar he can't keep track of what he's saying, just that he's taking both sides in the New York Times at different times.

Yes, agreed, he is a phony and a liar and a tyrant and a conscience-less dictator . . . yet he still looks the saner party in all of this.

Hollywood must come to the rescue yet again

Edited September 13, 2013 by Scott

[NeverSure]

REALITY CHECK: Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Truly Depraved

BBC News

-snip-

Right. It's depraved.

What you've failed to convince me of is why does the US have to be the world's policeman? Why doesn't Russia stop it? Why don't other ME countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others stop it?

Who elected the US to be the world's policeman? The taxpayers who'd have to pay for it and more accurately borrow more money for it don't want it. Congress doesn't want it. Great Britain doesn't want it. I haven't noticed the fine people in Canada or Australia signing up for it.

I don't want it. My American friends and neighbors don't want it.

WHO elected the United States of America to be the world's policeman?

Edited September 13, 2013 by NeverSure

[lannarebirth]

Assad and Putin lie when they accuse rebels of using chemical weapons.

That's a part of the "lie" in all of this, i.e., trying to defend Assad and Putin, pathetic mass murderers both.

What is Carla del Ponte's reason for "lying"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

[boomerangutang]

REALITY CHECK: Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Truly Depraved

BBC News

-snip-

Right. It's depraved.

What you've failed to convince me of is why does the US have to be the world's policeman? Why doesn't Russia stop it? Why don't other ME countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others stop it?

Who elected the US to be the world's policeman? The taxpayers who'd have to pay for it and more accurately borrow more money for it don't want it. Congress doesn't want it. Great Britain doesn't want it. I haven't noticed the fine people in Canada or Australia signing up for it.

I don't want it. My American friends and neighbors don't want it.

WHO elected the United States of America to be the world's policeman?

Americans and their leaders don't want to be the world's policemen. However, they do have the world's strongest and best trained military. There's no debate about that. Often, but not always, the US comes down on the side of 'right.' Bosnia, E.Timor, Kuwait, are 3 examples.

You ask; 'Why doesn't Russia stop it?' ....simple answer, and one that's been articulated here by Publicus and the sources he quotes: The Russians are allies of the Syrians. They have vested military and economic interests in the Assad regime.

and further; "Why don't other ME countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others stop it?" Again, relatively simple answer: They don't have a tiny fraction of the US's military strength, but more importantly, they want others to do the dirty work. Plus, they're enmeshed with many of the same peureille rivalries that Syria has, so their domestic cauldrons could ignite and spew over, if they got actively involved. You might ask why Iran (because they're Shi-ite) and the Saudis (because they're rich) aren't taking refugees? The simple answer: they're all too selfish.

[Publicus]

REALITY CHECK: Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Truly Depraved

BBC News

-snip-

Right. It's depraved.

What you've failed to convince me of is why does the US have to be the world's policeman? Why doesn't Russia stop it? Why don't other ME countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others stop it?

Who elected the US to be the world's policeman? The taxpayers who'd have to pay for it and more accurately borrow more money for it don't want it. Congress doesn't want it. Great Britain doesn't want it. I haven't noticed the fine people in Canada or Australia signing up for it.

I don't want it. My American friends and neighbors don't want it.

WHO elected the United States of America to be the world's policeman?

The combination of the laws of war and US exceptionalism.

The US is joined in the effort by France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and several dozen other countries that have condemned Assad's use of chemical weapons.

Do you realistically expect Russia, Iran, the CCP-PRC and at best other dubious states to become involved in this? Russia specifically is explicit in its support of Assad.

Saudi Arabia wants to go to the UN General Assembly about this.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Publicus

[Scott]

Inflammatory, off-topic and baiting posts have been removed.

[Publicus]

Assad and Putin lie when they accuse rebels of using chemical weapons.

That's a part of the "lie" in all of this, i.e., trying to defend Assad and Putin, pathetic mass murderers both.

What is Carla del Ponte's reason for "lying"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

Please give greater attention to accuracy. I never said Carla del Ponte is a liar.

And the headline in the story you link is a fabrication - it is completely inaccurate.

Because the news article you link has an erroneous and false headline, I present some of the actual statements in the article:

UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use

Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a one-time Syria ally, on Sunday branded Assad a "butcher" and a "murderer" who would pay a heavy price for the killings in Syria.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appealed Sunday for restraint to avoid an escalation in Syria's civil war, expressing "grave concern" over Israeli air raids.

Israel launched air strikes earlier that hit three military sites near Damascus, the second such reported attack in a 48-hour period targeting the transfer of arms to Lebanon-based Hezbollah, raising fresh concerns of a regional spillover.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Publicus

[lannarebirth]

REALITY CHECK: Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Truly Depraved

BBC News

-snip-

Right. It's depraved.

What you've failed to convince me of is why does the US have to be the world's policeman? Why doesn't Russia stop it? Why don't other ME countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others stop it?

Who elected the US to be the world's policeman? The taxpayers who'd have to pay for it and more accurately borrow more money for it don't want it. Congress doesn't want it. Great Britain doesn't want it. I haven't noticed the fine people in Canada or Australia signing up for it.

I don't want it. My American friends and neighbors don't want it.

WHO elected the United States of America to be the world's policeman?

The combination of the laws of war and US exceptionalism.

The US is joined in the effort by France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and several dozen other countries that have condemned Assad's use of chemical weapons.

Do you realistically expect Russia, Iran, the CCP-PRC and at best other dubious states to become involved in this? Russia specifically is explicit in its support of Assad.

Saudi Arabia wants to go to the UN General Assembly about this.

Define US exceptionalism if you would, please. I'm not trying to provoke you, as I believe in the concept myself. I'm just thinking we may have far different ideas of what it might mean.

[Publicus]

REALITY CHECK: Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Truly Depraved

BBC News

-snip-

Right. It's depraved.

What you've failed to convince me of is why does the US have to be the world's policeman? Why doesn't Russia stop it? Why don't other ME countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others stop it?

Who elected the US to be the world's policeman? The taxpayers who'd have to pay for it and more accurately borrow more money for it don't want it. Congress doesn't want it. Great Britain doesn't want it. I haven't noticed the fine people in Canada or Australia signing up for it.

I don't want it. My American friends and neighbors don't want it.

WHO elected the United States of America to be the world's policeman?

The combination of the laws of war and US exceptionalism.

The US is joined in the effort by France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and several dozen other countries that have condemned Assad's use of chemical weapons.

Do you realistically expect Russia, Iran, the CCP-PRC and at best other dubious states to become involved in this? Russia specifically is explicit in its support of Assad.

Saudi Arabia wants to go to the UN General Assembly about this.

Define US exceptionalism if you would, please. I'm not trying to provoke you, as I believe in the concept myself. I'm just thinking we may have far different ideas of what it might mean.

I think that might be going a little far afield from the topic.

I'll PM you if I have the time.

[Scott]

Your assumption is correct, it would be considered off-topic and would be deleted.

Thanks for the restraint.

Edit: Additional off-topic posts deleted.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Scott

[SinglePot]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

― Edmund Burke

Strongly relevant to this thread IMHO.

Edited September 13, 2013 by SinglePot

[lannarebirth]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

― Edmund Burke

Strongly relevant to this thread IMHO.

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed but I might disagree that it is relevant to this thread. This thread is much more about good men imploring other good men, not to act evilly in abetting one group of evil men over another group of evil men.

[Scott]

A post with messed up quotes has been deleted.

[Publicus]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

― Edmund Burke

Strongly relevant to this thread IMHO.

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed but I might disagree that it is relevant to this thread. This thread is much more about good men imploring other good men, not to act evilly in abetting one group of evil men over another group of evil men.

We have a dog in the fight, in the form of the moderates that deserve our support politically and morally.

Certain people refuse to recognize the fact.

[Sing_Sling]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

― Edmund Burke

Strongly relevant to this thread IMHO.

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed but I might disagree that it is relevant to this thread. This thread is much more about good men imploring other good men, not to act evilly in abetting one group of evil men over another group of evil men.

We have a dog in the fight, in the form of the moderates that deserve our support politically and morally.

Certain people refuse to recognize the fact.

Others have a dog in the fight as well . . . hence the thread title. Amazing how it always comes back to that.

Others may refuse to see any issue from more than one side, but that doesn't mean there isn't one - good, bad or indifferent.

Thread Title

[Publicus]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

― Edmund Burke

Strongly relevant to this thread IMHO.

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed but I might disagree that it is relevant to this thread. This thread is much more about good men imploring other good men, not to act evilly in abetting one group of evil men over another group of evil men.

We have a dog in the fight, in the form of the moderates that deserve our support politically and morally.

Certain people refuse to recognize the fact.

Others have a dog in the fight as well . . . hence the thread title. Amazing how it always comes back to that.

Others may refuse to see any issue from more than one side, but that doesn't mean there isn't one - good, bad or indifferent.

Thread Title

Assad would start a regional war today if he thought it would help him to remain in power.