[prog2djent]

YES YES YES YES

Hit the nail right on the head.

His best video ever, the only thing I agree with him on 100%

Syrian Intervention is a method of combating unemployment.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Syrian Intervention is a method of combating unemployment.

I don't think it would last long enough for new soldiers to be trained, if US actually would need more to swat a fly.

[patrickinator]

ron paul is a genius. however he pretty much takes up the russian stance which is right, but wont help him win support.

[Annoying-Mouse]

His a good orator. Alas, his words mean very little. Al-Qadea have very little presence in Syria and can't do much damage. Polls have been done to show the Syrian rebels don't, for the most part, support Al-Qadea and in fact want their countries model to resemble Turkey.

The CIA do know who assistance will be given to for the most part. He doesn't seem to properly grasp the difference between the situation that happened in Afghanistan and Syria. Training camps were open by Bin Laden and he was wealthy and had means to raise a fundraiser. There's a difference between Afghan Mujahideen that the CIA were funding and Arab mujahideen who were funded by Saudi. You're forgetting that Al-Qade aren't very big and only consisted of around 500 - 1000 less operatives in 2001. And the Arab mujahideen consisted of more than 1,500 volunteers. "Osama bin Laden was allegedly among the recipients of U.S. arms,[43] although this view has been disputed.[44][45][46][47]" As you can see if you follow those references, there isn't much evidence for that view.

Again, there's a difference between 1953 Iran and Syria. The obvious difference being the fact that Mohammad Mosaddegh had the support of his people and was democratically elected and didn't take part in any human rights abuses.

The rest of his speech is pure speculation and there's very little chance in all out war in the region. Especially considering if there is an intervention, it's going to be a NATO intervention. People were talking about Russia intervention in Iraq in 2002. What happened? Nothing.

Having said all this, I'm against an intervention at the moment. Until there's a proper opinion poll on what the Syrian people want and it has to shown a landslide victory. Both the people who are arguing for an intervention and against an intervention are as hyperbolic as each other. Neither of you guys are being intellectually honest and are merely trying to justify your already predetermined beliefs.

[ak137]

Ron Paul, unlike Obama, Cameron, bush and others, has balls to say stuff like this in front of a Israeli/Zionist controlled Congress. Props to him. It's no wonder he wasn't invited to the AIPAC conference, unlike his fellow Republican nominees lol.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by ak137)
in front of a Israeli/Zionist controlled Congress..

Now come on, you don't that is an easy and lazy type of thing to say, can you back that up at all?

You could apply it to anything,

"expendature isn't extending to building more Mosque's because of the zionist/Israeli' controlled government.

[Studentus-anonymous]

Problem is America needs war. The armed forces are simply too powerful a lobbying force, the arms industry and all commerce surrounding the US war machine is powerful and vocal.

Hell, war is even usually good for those industrial lobbies not even directly linked to the military industrial complex.

Basically America economically speaking can't live with an extended peace.

[rawkus]

(Original post by ak137)
a Israeli/Zionist controlled Congress

You realise that this sort of language is why most people believe those who don't follow the official narrative on issues such as Syria are Alex Jones-esque conspirary nuts. With such liberal use of wild accusations that you cannot back up, you are effectively destroying the credibillity as well of all those who think intervention in Syria is for geopolitical and not humanitarian reasons.

[James10000]

Ron Paul is right. The Media is trying to manufacture consent for an intervention. With Liberals its the humanatarian argument ( dont you know war will cause more deaths re libya) with conservatives it lets expand the american empire argument.

The Aim is geopolitical advantage in the region and nothing to do with human rights. Saudi Arabia is paying a wage to the FSA and funding them. Many of the Massacres committed are by either FSA terrorist or Loyalist militias. The Media blames the actions of the loyalist maltias on Assad but that is stupid, its like blaming the queen for what unionist paramilitary groups did in Northern Ireland.


The FSA dont respect human rights and already force local business to pay them a protection fee. I see no difference to iran 1953 or the Bay of Pigs invasion. A choice between Assad or CIA proxies, I pick Assad

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by ak137)
Ron Paul, unlike Obama, Cameron, bush and others, has balls to say stuff like this in front of a Israeli/Zionist controlled Congress. Props to him. It's no wonder he wasn't invited to the AIPAC conference, unlike his fellow Republican nominees lol.

Come on man. Really?

[James10000]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
I don't think it would last long enough for new soldiers to be trained, if US actually would need more to swat a fly.

Stuff you can do other than train soliders. Locked Martin etc all have factories in key swing states and constituents of senior Senators. All pork-barrel spending, its not unusual for a Senator to block a law being passed until a weapons building programme than employs people in his state is extended.

The War in Libya cost less than 1 billion dollars and opened up 75 billion dollars of Gaddafi era assets and 100s of billions of dollars of oil fields which gaddafi had been demanding high prices for. Whilst Syria has less oil, it has other strategic advantages to weaken oil rich Iran and building oil piplines by passing russia. Oil Pipelines are of huge strategic value.

The US will never fight with a full strength Iran, first it will bring iran down to its knees

[Dog4444]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Now come on, you don't that is an easy and lazy type of thing to say, can you back that up at all?

You could apply it to anything,

"expendature isn't extending to building more Mosque's because of the zionist/Israeli' controlled government.

Can you prove it's not?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Dog4444)
Can you prove it's not?

Burden of proof, do you know what this is?

[Dog4444]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Burden of proof, do you know what this is?

No.

The problem is, all the information we get can't be 100% relied on, even physics laws and stuff.

Now, if I ask you to prove that US/UK government is not controlled by Jewish/Zionists will you manage to do so?

[ak137]

(Original post by rawkus)
You realise that this sort of language is why most people believe those who don't follow the official narrative on issues such as Syria are Alex Jones-esque conspirary nuts. With such liberal use of wild accusations that you cannot back up, you are effectively destroying the credibillity as well of all those who think intervention in Syria is for geopolitical and not humanitarian reasons.

(Original post by prog2djent)
Now come on, you don't that is an easy and lazy type of thing to say, can you back that up at all?

You could apply it to anything,

"expendature isn't extending to building more Mosque's because of the zionist/Israeli' controlled government.

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Come on man. Really?

Lmao, you have to be dumb, deaf and blind to not notice who is really pulling the strings on the politicians in the congress.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by ak137)
Lmao, you have to be dumb, deaf and blind to not notice who is really pulling the strings on the politicians in the congress.

I'm not denying there is some kind of lobbying power or a vague existence of a plut- or oligarchy but to try and fashion that as a manifestation of a Zionist agenda, I can't understand how that works.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Dog4444)
No.

The problem is, all the information we get can't be 100% relied on, even physics laws and stuff.

Now, if I ask you to prove that US/UK government is not controlled by Jewish/Zionists will you manage to do so?

Prove to me life isn't a dream. Prove to me I don't run the world. Prove to me I'm not a timelord. Prove to me Obama wasn't groomed to become president by Kenya.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by ak137)
Lmao, you have to be dumb, deaf and blind to not notice who is really pulling the strings on the politicians in the congress.

Can't really blame you. What's the point in studying policy-making and America's political structure as well as international relations when you can just spout some rhetoric? All you need to know is the following terms; military-industrial complex, mainstream media, lobbying, zionism and imperialism and voila you're now a political scholar.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by ak137)
Lmao, you have to be dumb, deaf and blind to not notice who is really pulling the strings on the politicians in the congress.

No, I've researched it enough, of course there are congress people who are controlled by such forces, as there are with big business, and unions.

But thinking everything is controlled by Israel and zionists according to arabs and muslims. Its a shame and guilt complex ever since the Israeli war, various scapegoating and internal failure.



I love these "self criticism", "honest arab", "liberal egyptian author", "liberal cleric" videos, its a nice break from the hate filled junk we usually see.

[Dog4444]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Prove to me life isn't a dream. Prove to me I don't run the world. Prove to me I'm not a timelord. Prove to me Obama wasn't groomed to become president by Kenya.

You still haven't explained why it's not.

Well, there is one vid I love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

Hate arguing with "humanitarians". No logic and explanation behind their statements.

Again, can you disprove anything from this video or can you prove it's not controlled by Jews?