Syria Strike Protesters Hope to Harness Momentum Saturday in D.C. Turnout will likely be lower than at similar protests before the Iraq War

By STEVEN NELSON

September 6, 2013

Opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to launch air strikes against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad believe they have momentum on their side. Seasoned anti-war protesters hope this momentum will manifest itself Saturday, when they march from the White House to Capitol Hill.

"The fact that [constituent advocacy] is making a political impact in Congress may give people a sense of power and that could make people more likely to participate," Eugene Puryear, a national organizer for the ANSWER Coalition - whose acronym stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism - told U.S. News.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/06/syria-strike-protesters-hope-to-harness-momentum-saturday-in-dc

What would you expect from Answer Coalition?

They are a pro HEZBOLLAH organization!

What would you expect from Answer Coalition?

They are a pro HEZBOLLAH organization!

Oh yes that is obvious

ANSWER Coalition - whose acronym stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism

What would you expect from Answer Coalition?

They are a pro HEZBOLLAH organization!

Oh yes that is obvious

ANSWER Coalition - whose acronym stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism

But they have no problem with racism against Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.

The May-June 2003 issue of Tikkun magazine, a progressive magazine of Jewish interests, contained a special section entitled Authoritarianism and Anti-Semitism in the Anti-War Movement? According to Tikkun, "many Jews report that they were encountering what they perceived to be anti-Semitism at anti-war demonstrations organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R." Tikkun described the perceptions of anti-Semitism as based on Israel being singled out for criticism and ANSWER's failure to "acknowledge or support the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination."^[19]

But they have no problem with racism against Jews.

Oh boy here we go........

If there is anything stickier than gay rights (no pun intended)

it is Anti Zionism That is then called racism

Personally I do not know this Answer group perhaps you do?

All I know is there is no problem with being anti-war, anti offensive attacks on a Sovereign State

It would seem that is what you would like to suggest? That if a group that is anti war is also

anti Zionism then zero sum results? Then they have no right to free speech anymore?

What would you expect from Answer Coalition?

They are a pro HEZBOLLAH organization!

Oh yes that is obvious

ANSWER Coalition - whose acronym stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism

But they have no problem with racism against Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.

The May-June 2003 issue of Tikkun magazine, a progressive magazine of Jewish interests, contained a special section entitled Authoritarianism and Anti-Semitism in the Anti-War Movement? According to Tikkun, "many Jews report that they were encountering what they perceived to be anti-Semitism at anti-war demonstrations organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R." Tikkun described the perceptions of anti-Semitism as based on Israel being singled out for criticism and ANSWER's failure to "acknowledge or support the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination."^[19]

If the new definition of anti semitism is to have a criticism of Israel, well very few non Jews would escape that definition. It would seem Jew and Israeli are interchanged as necessary to make sure the charge can be levied.

If the new definition of anti semitism is to have a criticism of Israel, well very few non Jews would escape that definition. It would seem Jew and Israeli are interchanged as necessary to make sure the charge can be levied.

That is not the new definition of antisemitism.

Answer supports anti-Israel terror organizations.

Answer does not support the right of Israel which let me check is the only Jewish state in the world compared to a plethora of Islamic states, to even exist.

Many of those Answer types, and yes I have encountered some personally, are indeed rabid antisemites.

Many so called anti-Zionists are ALSO anti-semites. Not all. Got it now?

But they have no problem with racism against Jews.

Oh boy here we go........

If there is anything stickier than gay rights (no pun intended)

it is Anti Zionism That is then called racism

Personally I do not know this Answer group perhaps you do?

All I know is there is no problem with being anti-war, anti offensive attacks on a Sovereign State

It would seem that is what you would like to suggest? That if a group that is anti war is also

anti Zionism then zero sum results? Then they have no right to free speech anymore?

It's relevant here.

Answer supports Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is an antisemitic terror organization closely linked to the Assad regime and also Iran.

But they have no problem with racism against Jews.

Oh boy here we go........

If there is anything stickier than gay rights (no pun intended)

it is Anti Zionism That is then called racism

Personally I do not know this Answer group perhaps you do?

All I know is there is no problem with being anti-war, anti offensive attacks on a Sovereign State

It would seem that is what you would like to suggest? That if a group that is anti war is also

anti Zionism then zero sum results? Then they have no right to free speech anymore?

Here are the crib notes or script for everything we've seen unfold in the Mid East these past 12 years. Apparently it is anti semitic to suggest that it is the work of warmongering madmen? That should be obvious on its face. No need to even know the religion of the instigators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

If the new definition of anti semitism is to have a criticism of Israel, well very few non Jews would escape that definition. It would seem Jew and Israeli are interchanged as necessary to make sure the charge can be levied.

That is not the new definition of antisemitism.

Answer supports anti-Israel terror organizations.

Answer does not support the right of Israel which let me check is the only Jewish state in the world compared to a plethora of Islamic states, to even exist.

Many of those Answer types, and yes I have encountered some personally, are indeed rabid antisemites.

Many so called anti-Zionists are ALSO anti-semites. Not all. Got it now?

I don't know from ANSWER. I was just reading the blurb you quoted.

Here are the crib notes or script for everything we've seen unfold in the Mid East these past 12 years. Apparently it is anti semitic to suggest that it is the work of warmongering madmen? That should be obvious on its face. No need to even know the religion of the instigators.

Many so called anti-Zionists are ALSO anti-semites. Not all. Got it now?

That's a fact Jack.

Many so called anti-Zionists are ALSO anti-semites. Not all. Got it now?

That's a fact Jack.

re facts..

Jews are not a racial group; hence Ethiopian, Indian, N.African, European etc groups of Jews, similar to muslims in their broad racial diversity.

Jews are part of the abrahamic ethnicity (and faith), which they share with Arabs. Which also makes both groups semitic. It was only a late 19th century German simplification that made semitic synonymous with being Jewish. Strictly speaking anti-semitic would mean being opposed to both Jews and Arabs.

Jews are followers of Judaism, they are members of a religious, not ethnic or racial grouping.

Meanwhile back on topic..

The real shame in the Syria debate is that political partisanship (a desire to stick one on Obama), plus a re-run of the Vietnam syndrome/paralysis in relation to Iraq & Afghan, is clouding the key issue. This is quite simply that a tin-pot dictator (Assad) has used chemical weapons on at least one occasion in defiance of international treaties and precedent. Indeed the RAF used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1920's and the world looked away when Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians in the 1980's. But today we live in a post-colonial, post-Cold war era. If Assad is allowed to get away with this, it is a classic "Italian invasion of Abyssinia" moment of 1935-36 (which also saw the employment of chemical weapons by the Italians). This not only caused the demise of the League of Nations but set the scene for Hitler's territorial annexations and ultimately WW2.

While not forecasting any version of WW3, the US remains the sole cultural, economic and military superpower, which has both the ability and standing to make the use of chemical weapons indefensible and liable to punitive action. Undoubtedly while Obama's handling of the whole Syrian crisis has been symptomatic of Iraq/Afghan paralysis, a failure to do anything will have grave consequences. This is a time for leadership and making decisions that may not be short-term politically popular. It is not a re-run of the disastrous invasion of Iraq and the shamefully mismanaged Afghan campaign. It's actually a lot more important.

Many so called anti-Zionists are ALSO anti-semites. Not all. Got it now?

That's a fact Jack.

re facts..

Jews are not a racial group; hence Ethiopian, Indian, N.African, European etc groups of Jews, similar to muslims in their broad racial diversity.

Jews are part of the abrahamic ethnicity (and faith), which they share with Arabs. Which also makes both groups semitic. It was only a late 19th century German simplification that made semitic synonymous with being Jewish. Strictly speaking anti-semitic would mean being opposed to both Jews and Arabs.

Jews are followers of Judaism, they are members of a religious, not ethnic or racial grouping.

Meanwhile back on topic..

The real shame in the Syria debate is that political partisanship (a desire to stick one on Obama), plus a re-run of the Vietnam syndrome/paralysis in relation to Iraq & Afghan, is clouding the key issue. This is quite simply that a tin-pot dictator (Assad) has used chemical weapons on at least one occasion in defiance of international treaties and precedent. Indeed the RAF used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1920's and the world looked away when Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians in the 1980's. But today we live in a post-colonial, post-Cold war era. If Assad is allowed to get away with this, it is a classic "Italian invasion of Abyssinia" moment of 1935-36 (which also saw the employment of chemical weapons by the Italians). This not only caused the demise of the League of Nations but set the scene for Hitler's territorial annexations and ultimately WW2.

While not forecasting any version of WW3, the US remains the sole cultural, economic and military superpower, which has both the ability and standing to make the use of chemical weapons indefensible and liable to punitive action. Undoubtedly while Obama's handling of the whole Syrian crisis has been symptomatic of Iraq/Afghan paralysis, a failure to do anything will have grave consequences. This is a time for leadership and making decisions that may not be short-term politically popular. It is not a re-run of the disastrous invasion of Iraq and the shamefully mismanaged Afghan campaign. It's actually a lot more important.

Ah - but politics rears its ugly head... every indicator says a armed intervention into Syria is NOT popular - in fact very unpopular with American voters - right and left - conservative and liberal ... Therefore in my opinion - nothing much will happen .. The House will likely not approve - the Senate only barely and obama will have to go it alone - very alone

Many so called anti-Zionists are ALSO anti-semites. Not all. Got it now?

That's a fact Jack.

re facts..

Jews are followers of Judaism, they are members of a religious, not ethnic or racial grouping.

I'm pretty sure that most of us know that Judaism is a religion without any help, but it is also considered an ethnic group and the the United States Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race, at least for purposes of certain anti-discrimination laws. Many people who call themselves Jews do not believe in that religion at all. More than half of all Jews in Israel today call themselves "secular," and don't believe in God or any of the religious beliefs of Judaism. Half of all Jews in the United States don't belong to any synagogue.

As the OP, I ask that those who post on this thread to get back on topic - which is the dynamics of the threatened strike on Syria (as per the broad OP statement)... However, once again I have to state that on this thread we now have had two significant off topic discussions done with disagreement among several --- but done without being disagreeable... If we have such disagreement discussions one more time - we may set a TVF record for having civilized debates about sensitive subjects... that would be amazing ...

Thank you folks ... back on topic - Please...

Sorry about the edits -- my coffee hasn't sunk in fully and my syntax is horrible ... and I can almost read now...

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

News • Syria • News • ISSUE 49•36 • Sep 5, 2013

hehehehe

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/?ref=auto

Obama relying on student's spin on Syria? McCain,

Kerry also informed by 26-year-old at Georgetown (Elizabeth O’Bagy)

In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Kerry cited O’Bagy, arguing that the war in Syria is “not being waged entirely or even predominately by dangerous Islamists and al-Qaida die-hards,” but rather the struggle is being led but “moderate opposition forces – a collection of groups known as the Free Syria Army.”

Kerry was citing an opinion piece O’Bagy wrote for the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 30 titled “On the Front Lines of Syria’s Civil War.” It ran with a tag-line “The conventional wisdom – that jihadists are running the rebellion [in Syria] – is not what I’ve witnessed on the ground.”

The O’Bagy narrative, however, is contradicted by intelligence estimates and experts specializing in the region.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-relying-on-students-spin-on-syria/

*********************************

Wall Street Journal Issues a Kinda Important ‘Clarification’ to its Syria Op-Ed

The Wall Street Journal issued a “clarification” on Friday that the author of an op-ed defending the Syrian Free Army—a piece cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain as evidence that the rebels were not the jihadists some had portrayed them to be—was in fact affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a political action committee that explicitly supports the Syrian rebels.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wall-street-journal-issues-a-kinda-important-clarification-to-its-syria-op-ed/

This all reminds me of Hileries ccmpaign when she asked if Obama was they guy you want answering the call. Being the Camander and Chief is much different than being a comunity organizer it is a real shame voters do not think more about what is needed from the person they put into power

Syria's rebels and soldiers agree: military strikes will change nothing

Syria's rebels and President Bashar al-Assad's soldiers agree on next to nothing. They've killed each other by the tens of thousands in a war mired in stalemate. But they're now agreed on one thing. The military strike America is preparing will not change anything.

By Bill Neely, Damascus

5:25PM BST 07 Sep 2013

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10293591/Syrias-rebels-and-soldiers-agree-military-strikes-will-change-nothing.html

Two U.S. Senatorial CLOWNS who believe a college student's opinion that the Syrian 'Rebels' are not dominated by radical Islamists

Many so called anti-Zionists are ALSO anti-semites. Not all. Got it now?

That's a fact Jack.

re facts..

Jews are not a racial group; hence Ethiopian, Indian, N.African, European etc groups of Jews, similar to muslims in their broad racial diversity.

Jews are part of the abrahamic ethnicity (and faith), which they share with Arabs. Which also makes both groups semitic. It was only a late 19th century German simplification that made semitic synonymous with being Jewish. Strictly speaking anti-semitic would mean being opposed to both Jews and Arabs.

Jews are followers of Judaism, they are members of a religious, not ethnic or racial grouping.

Meanwhile back on topic..

The real shame in the Syria debate is that political partisanship (a desire to stick one on Obama), plus a re-run of the Vietnam syndrome/paralysis in relation to Iraq & Afghan, is clouding the key issue. This is quite simply that a tin-pot dictator (Assad) has used chemical weapons on at least one occasion in defiance of international treaties and precedent. Indeed the RAF used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1920's and the world looked away when Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians in the 1980's. But today we live in a post-colonial, post-Cold war era. If Assad is allowed to get away with this, it is a classic "Italian invasion of Abyssinia" moment of 1935-36 (which also saw the employment of chemical weapons by the Italians). This not only caused the demise of the League of Nations but set the scene for Hitler's territorial annexations and ultimately WW2.

While not forecasting any version of WW3, the US remains the sole cultural, economic and military superpower, which has both the ability and standing to make the use of chemical weapons indefensible and liable to punitive action. Undoubtedly while Obama's handling of the whole Syrian crisis has been symptomatic of Iraq/Afghan paralysis, a failure to do anything will have grave consequences. This is a time for leadership and making decisions that may not be short-term politically popular. It is not a re-run of the disastrous invasion of Iraq and the shamefully mismanaged Afghan campaign. It's actually a lot more important.

I've thought and thought about this and I can't get a handle on it. There is too much conflicting information as shown just in this thread I can't get a handle on what the final outcome would be. My friends and neighbors don't want an attack.

Just because the US is the biggest, does that mean it's obligated to apply for the job of bouncer? There is, after all, a group of countries in Europe and the ME who have an interest in this. Why not them if something has to be done?

Also, can we guarantee that no other nation will join the fight or be harmed in the fight?

For me, there are too many unknowns and I hope Congress shoots it down and lets Obama stand alone, whatever he decides. He wants the fight, so let him take the consequences if it's such a great deal.

Just because the US is the biggest, does that mean it's obligated to apply for the job of bouncer? There is, after all, a group of countries in Europe and the ME who have an interest in this. Why not them if something has to be done?

Because something does not "Have" to be done in the 1st place

The US is not applying for job the job of bouncer.

It is keeping the job it has as provocateur

It is repaying debts it put off during election

It is also nicely distracting much bigger problems right here at home in the USA

Why would anyone be surprised these days?

This is the same crew that uses the IRS as a personal tool

The same crew willing to sacrifice American lives because saving them would be too noisy at a preferred quiet time

The list goes on & on

PS:

President Obama has given himself the powers to declare martial law -

especially in the event of a war with Iran. It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American.

Two U.S. Senatorial CLOWNS who believe a college student's opinion that the Syrian 'Rebels' are not dominated by radical Islamists

You know, when I see a post like this, I consider it a strong post FOR the strike. If THAT'S the nature of the opposition to it, it THAT'S the argument against, if THAT'S "why" we have no business getting involved in Syria, if someone finds THIS persuasive enough to post it, if THIS is all someone can come up with to argue against, then the rest of us leaning against should maybe take another look and reconsider our opposition to it...

Two U.S. Senatorial CLOWNS who believe a college student's opinion that the Syrian 'Rebels' are not dominated by radical Islamists

You know, when I see a post like this, I consider it a strong post FOR the strike. If THAT'S the nature of the opposition to it, it THAT'S the argument against, if THAT'S "why" we have no business getting involved in Syria, if someone finds THIS persuasive enough to post it, if THIS is all someone can come up with to argue against, then the rest of us leaning against should maybe take another look and reconsider our opposition to it...

To each his own opinion ... but Senator John McCain (IMO) has lost all credibility on the Syrian issue along with his lackey/crony Senator Graham ... Sometimes the best criticism is lampooning those who have influence but are all too often off on the wrong target ... Again in my opinion Senator McCain suffers from Senile Dementia - cognitive impairment ... and should retire as his statements and actions are so off target as to be laughable ... Senator McCain having influence on American policies is just so sad ... Being a Vietnam Veteran myself - I use to have respect for McCain and his service -- but he has long since lost credibility -- and it began at least around 2006 for which I have stories to tell ... If John McCain worked for a major corporation he would be forced to retire to keep him from further embarrassing the company ///

Two U.S. Senatorial CLOWNS who believe a college student's opinion that the Syrian 'Rebels' are not dominated by radical Islamists

You know, when I see a post like this, I consider it a strong post FOR the strike. If THAT'S the nature of the opposition to it, it THAT'S the argument against, if THAT'S "why" we have no business getting involved in Syria, if someone finds THIS persuasive enough to post it, if THIS is all someone can come up with to argue against, then the rest of us leaning against should maybe take another look and reconsider our opposition to it...

To each his own opinion ... but Senator John McCain (IMO) has lost all credibility on the Syrian issue along with his lackey/crony Senator Graham ... Sometimes the best criticism is lampooning those who have influence but are all too often off on the wrong target ... Again in my opinion Senator McCain suffers from Senile Dementia - cognitive impairment ... and should retire as his statements and actions are so off target as to be laughable ... Senator McCain having influence on American policies is just so sad ... Being a Vietnam Veteran myself - I use to have respect for McCain and his service -- but he has long since lost credibility -- and it began at least around 2006 for which I have stories to tell ... If John McCain worked for a major corporation he would be forced to retire to keep him from further embarrassing the company ///

Ah, a Vietnam veteran and a trained psychologist. AND an HR expert! WITH "untold stories"!! Impressive. Not too persuasive, but impressive. Well, I guess the voters of Arizona disagreed with you, and by quite a margin, and just a couple of years ago, despite your credentials and the dossier you've compiled. Good thing I'm not a psychologist as I might have formed an opinion (hmmm - MHFAO?) about people who get a kick out of seeing dresses painted on old men...

But I get it. If you can't make the argument, then mock those who do.

I frankly believe McCain & Graham have FAR more credibility than Obama does - he should be VERY grateful.

Two U.S. Senatorial CLOWNS who believe a college student's opinion that the Syrian 'Rebels' are not dominated by radical Islamists

You know, when I see a post like this, I consider it a strong post FOR the strike. If THAT'S the nature of the opposition to it, it THAT'S the argument against, if THAT'S "why" we have no business getting involved in Syria, if someone finds THIS persuasive enough to post it, if THIS is all someone can come up with to argue against, then the rest of us leaning against should maybe take another look and reconsider our opposition to it...

To each his own opinion ... but Senator John McCain (IMO) has lost all credibility on the Syrian issue along with his lackey/crony Senator Graham ... Sometimes the best criticism is lampooning those who have influence but are all too often off on the wrong target ... Again in my opinion Senator McCain suffers from Senile Dementia - cognitive impairment ... and should retire as his statements and actions are so off target as to be laughable ... Senator McCain having influence on American policies is just so sad ... Being a Vietnam Veteran myself - I use to have respect for McCain and his service -- but he has long since lost credibility -- and it began at least around 2006 for which I have stories to tell ... If John McCain worked for a major corporation he would be forced to retire to keep him from further embarrassing the company ///

Ah, a Vietnam veteran and a trained psychologist. AND an HR expert! WITH "untold stories"!! Impressive. Not too persuasive, but impressive. Well, I guess the voters of Arizona disagreed with you, and by quite a margin, and just a couple of years ago, despite your credentials and the dossier you've compiled. Good thing I'm not a psychologist as I might have formed an opinion (hmmm - MHFAO?) about people who get a kick out of seeing dresses painted on old men...

But I get it. If you can't make the argument, then mock those who do.

I frankly believe McCain & Graham have FAR more credibility than Obama does - he should be VERY grateful.

Again - we can disagree without being disagreeable ... IMO John McCain has been on the wrong side of every significant issue from Amnesty to issues like Syria for at least ten years, And ridiculing and lampooning politicians is as old as the American Republic and is a legitimate way to express displeasure with a politician. McCain should go register as a Democrat for all the good he does the Republican Party... He couldn't stand up to obama in the 08 Presidential Campaign and for some reason has become obama's right hand man to the extent McCain is now a political liberal - nothing I can side with..