President Carter Faults Obama On IS!!!

a reply to: TrueBrit

When Assads law is handed down however, it involves SHELLING AN ENTIRE TOWN! SOME TIMES WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS!

Assad never used any chemical weapons agaisnt his own people nor towns, funny and its ironic i dont see you complaining about the Free Syrian Army and its uses of the chemical attacks in northern Syria.

Or the fact they used child soldiers, car bombs. I have being following the conflict closer then you have being on the issue, claiming that Assad used chemical weapons is claiming that Saddam did.

geez....get us out of the middle east, get us into the middle east...maybe, just maybe, Obama was trying to get these countries to stand on their own two feet, instead of our guys always coming in, and getting killed. they can't settle their own disputes, it's like our young soldiers are the middle east's "rent-an army"....where are the Saudis, and the other oil-rich countries, and their own armies...you see, they don't want their own people to die, I think that they have told our leaders that they will crash our economy by manipulating the output of oil, if we don't get American soldiers in there to fight for them....we are being played, and those in the know were told the cold reality of what would happen, behind closed doors.
I remember in the middle of December of 2008, when Obama went to his first intelligence briefing as the president-elect. they televised him entering and then hours later leaving...he was visibly slumped forward, had a pronounced look of serious trepidation on his face, and he was noticeably walking slower when he left, than when he arrived....I kept getting the feeling that he was told about things that really disturbed him, and dashed the old "hope and change" he had previously envisioned...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: MGaddafi

The reports?

All manner of people, journalists from within the country, UN people, individuals who have escaped the crapstorm and taken shelter in my country, and a plethora of other unfortunate buggers who have been caught up in events.

You wish to offer an alternative explanation? Go ahead, but if you cannot give at least as much proof for where YOU think the shelling came from (because towns were destroyed by shelling, that is not up for debate), as you would wish from someone arguing against you, I would save your breath if I were you.

Its clear what your trying by avoiding his question while by claiming that all manner of people were in the reports journalists from within the country.

I am not surprised you still believe the Free Syrian Army are moderates. By the way i am also not surprised you forget to mention TrueBrit that your beloved FSA have shelled on Christian Areas in Syria.

You wish to offer an alternative explanation? Go ahead
I have a lot more sources on the matters of Syria, your reply to the user was rather quite naive.

individuals who have escaped the crapstorm and taken shelter in my country

Those individuals you are referring that escaped are defected members whom defected in 2011 during the start of it, i am not surprised your avoiding the christian debate.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Why wouldn't ground troops help in Syria?

A Backdoor intervention into Syria to remove Assad and replace it with a Saudi/Qatari favored.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Hmm I know where you're coming from...

& I'm glad you indulged my question from the OP...


Maybe I should have Bolded the question?!?

I don't actually agree with removing Assad, I don't feel he has been portrayed correctly by the MSM...

I do however feel "boots on the ground", a tiresome expression now, is the only way to fight IS!


I guess until Assad green lights it the UN have little option but to sit back!
Resolutions, Treaties and all that guff!

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Well, funnily enough, I happen to be Christian. Apart from anything else, because I do it properly, not like a territorial half wit out to protect my own and no one else, I do not value the life of a Christian any higher than the life of those of other faiths. To otherwise would be wrong, and is a failing that there needs to be less of, not more of in the world.

Shame on you for attempting to use such a lever.

As for the rest of your post, I want to hear MGaddafi's evidence, and yours if you have it. However, again, I doubt you would be convinced, roles reversed, by whatever it is you have.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Hmmm...
Leading a coalition & Airstrikes is hardly a lack of positive action!
International Law has to be observed, so he cannot just send in troops...

International law, there it comes ... geesh.

Waging a war on an adjective, is pure idiotcy ... what is the objective?

If you told me, "Turning the middle east into a parking lot", was the objective. I'd applaud ... Hurray! we have an objective ... but when you say "fight terrorism" ... you are A-ho. What terrorism, state terrorism ... like police force in the US terrorizing citizens? The point here, is that this "adjective" is so vague ... and subject to interpretation, that it cannot be a war goal. You might as well declare war on Santa Clause.

The IS, ISIS, ISYL or ISIL are the same thing. You are waging a war on ideology ... and I have to argue with you, about how stupid that is? Oh, you think they're bad ... because they behead people. Hey news flash, Saudi Arabia beheads people ... they have a guy on salaries, 24/7, who handles a broadswoard to behead people. And they've put it on Youtube ... MAAAAANNNYYY times.

That ok with you? Saudi Arabia is AN ISLAMIC STATE ... so is Qatar, the Emirates... hey, somebody come in here and fill in the blanks here on Islamic States that behead people.

The point is, it's hipocracy.

The point is, this isn't a war ... there is no goal, no objective ... no clear goals. A war is not a game, a battle is not a football match ... murdering people by the millions, is not the solution to the worlds overpopulation.

This "war" is not a solution, it's a symptom ... a symptom of lunacy.

a reply to: bjarneorn

For the most part...
I don't know what you're talking about!!!


No I don't think we should turn the Middle East into a parking lot...
I think that's an abhorrent ideology!!!

No I don't like Saudi Arabia either!!!


Everything else you said was incoherent!
So no, we don't need to argue about it!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You know, it's pretty well known around here that I'm no Obama fanboy - farthest thing from it, but I gotta be honest here - James Earl Carter ain't got no goddamned business at all criticizing ANYONE'S Foreign policy! If you want to see what Foreign Policy disaster looks like, just take a cursory examination of the Carter Administration and it's handling of foreign affairs.

Seriously! he's also got no goddamned business commenting on military matters, either. He's got no more clue about military affairs than Clinton has, and probably a lot less - which is really saying something!

originally posted by: ExSmokerYes
Too bad Jimmy Carter is just another 33dgree Masonic As*Hole who won't say it like it is.

The last President who was a Mason is Gerald Ford. Get your facts straight.

a reply to: bjarneorn

First we have to establish that ISIS is in no way shape or form Islam. To say the middle east is the only muslims in the world is ludacris. There are many muslim countrys not having this issue. Its a MIDDLE EAST issue not an ISLAMIC one.

I agree with your thoughts on the Saudis beheading people. But Muslims arent the only ones beheading.

Right across the boarder on our OWN continent in mexico the drug cartels (Los Zetas, Mexican Mafia) Behead more people in a day then ISIS could dream of doing in a year. The drug cartels do more disusting disturbing things to fellow man than these radicals.

But no one heres of these beheadings. I could post links till my eyes rott out but will it help ?

www.google.com... graphic-mexican-terrorist-cartel-beheads-4-women-in-message-to-america-21%2F&ei=BcE2VPWpFY3KggTTyYDgCA&usg=AFQjCNH8tOUbmtVfxE0lsImtTVqH1IIAdw&sig2=PWL AKHfcRXhNArnn98TFyQ&bvm=bv.76943099,d.eXY

www.google.com... Fmexican-drug-cartel-thugs-post-atrocities-social-media-article-1.1515860&ei=BcE2VPWpFY3KggTTyYDgCA&usg=AFQjCNE7CisP4doGg4yxczhFtPc23DMKsg&sig2=4grHvO LYWMuXOlUBNuuLFA&bvm=bv.76943099,d.eXY

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ExSmokerYes
Too bad Jimmy Carter is just another 33dgree Masonic As*Hole who won't say it like it is.

The last President who was a Mason is Gerald Ford. Get your facts straight.

Then why all the "secrecy" ?
Why not admit any man who will pay your dues?
Isn't your organization for "the betterment of mankind"?

Either admit anyone who can pay or can the better than thou.

Those cars Shiners have in parades are cool and all, but lift up everyone before criticizing those you deem "not cool enough".

Mods, he brought it up. It should be fair game. If this post is deemed unworthy, than so should his.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Then why all the "secrecy" ?

The 'secrecy' is five handshakes and five passwords. Does that bother you?

Why not admit any man who will pay your dues?

Because we do not want felons in our fraternity.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

To be a shriner one must be a 32 degree mason. Then swear an oath upon the Holy Qur'an. NO human may be deemed a "Worshipfull Master" in my eyes. This is blasphemy. Dont even get me started on the Ryal Order of Jesters.

originally posted by: MGaddafi
To be a shriner one must be a 32 degree mason.

That has not been the case for some time. Any Mason can join the Shrine.

Then swear an oath upon the Holy Qur'an.

One of the reasons why I would not be a Shriner.

NO human may be deemed a "Worshipfull Master" in my eyes.

That is an old English expression for 'respected sir', it has nothing to do with worshipping, stop being disingenuous.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ah I see your a traveling man.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: the owlbear
Then why all the "secrecy" ?

The 'secrecy' is five handshakes and five passwords. Does that bother you?

Why not admit any man who will pay your dues?

Because we do not want felons in our fraternity.

Who not to lift up but those from the bottom?
The Christ would say as much.

Or do you deny his turn the other cheek principle?
Charging for "betterment" of society might also be against his words in the NT.
Sure, you had an apron carried into space and the moon.
Either admit me at no fee or you are a hypocritical organization as I help the poor without having to have a compass on my car.

I respect that presidents do not feel the need to "secretly" belong to a group that makes one swear allegiance to THEM before all others.

How much restraint should a nation have? As much as possible.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Who not to lift up but those from the bottom?

Because it is not a halfway house or rehabilitation institution. You already know the answers to this as they were addressed in the Secret Societies forum.

Charging for "betterment" of society might also be against his words in the NT.

No one is forced to join and being that we are a not for profit all dues go to upkeep and charity so quit your biblical hysteria.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: the owlbear
Who not to lift up but those from the bottom?

Because it is not a halfway house or rehabilitation institution. You already know the answers to this as they were addressed in the Secret Societies forum.

Charging for "betterment" of society might also be against his words in the NT.

No one is forced to join and being that we are a not for profit all dues go to upkeep and charity so quit your biblical hysteria.

It is silly anyway, what does the NT have to do with the Masons anyway? They will admit Jews.