Government out of control?

[gasattack3]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, what in the world are "we" trying to do in Syria? It seems that we're supporting a bunch of Al-Qaeda-like Islamist thugs. These "freedom fighters" whom we're sending millions of dollars in support are doing things like eating human hearts (o.k. one occassion but does it take more than that?), and beheading Christian clerics (not just a few).

WTF are "we" doing? Who's interests does this serve, to further destabilize yet ANOTHER country and have extremists take over. Extremists whom we've supported in overthrowing the dictators in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria (don't know enough about Sudan etc.) None of those countries can now be considered "better off". So, the argument that we're trying to do well by the people in those lands is ridiculous and naive.

Sure, Assad's government may not be "good" but at least he's a reasonably secular, stable, government. That's the reall deal, however. We don't want a stable Syria. Why?

Is it in Israel's interests, or the US? Why are we spending millions of dollars doing this kind of crazy sh.t?

Have we become a "War-like" nation? The kind of country that most of us despise ourselves? Have civilian "neocons" with another countries best interests in mind infiltrated our defense and intelligence departments. Civilian appointees?

Would we already have done something crazy like start a major war with, say, Iran, were it not for the tempering of the true professionals within those same institutions whom have somehow managed to remain "immune" to the political reachings of people that would like to take us to yet ANOTHER war?

Thoughts?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Stay out of the Middle East. Nothing good can come of U.S. involvement there. Blood and Treasure of U.S. Citizens won't solve internal issues, tribal hatred, religious bigotry, etc.

Assad is a bad guy for sure but the resistance is probably even worse. For once, Putin is right about the Middle East.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/06/322283/militants-execute-syrian-soldiers-video/

 

[gasattack3]

Stay out of the Middle East. Nothing good can come of U.S. involvement there. Blood and Treasure of U.S. Citizens won't solve internal issues, tribal hatred, religious bigotry, etc.

Assad is a bad guy for sure but the resistance is probably even worse. For once, Putin is right about the Middle East.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/06/322283/militants-execute-syrian-soldiers-video/

Agreed. Actually, seeing Islamist fundamentalists BEHEADING Syrian soldiers, civilians, and Christian clerics is even worse. And those videos (which I'll not link) are out there as well.

So, we support this kind of thing in the name of what? "Democracy"? You've gotta be fuc.king kidding.

So, I ask again, if not ours, who's interests is it serving in the Middle East to destabilize yet another country?

Also, if you know the answer to this, what are we going to do about those in power in the U.S. whom have been bought and paid for by foreign interests? Putting the U.S.'s reputation, the U.S. people in eventual harm (you don't just get away with the kinds of things we are doing/supporting forever), draining our treasures (rather putting us further in debt), and making us look like warmongers?

Are we becoming a nation of perpetual WAR? And against whom? And for whom?

This is sickening and it must stop.

 

[deleted9493]

One of the problems is that pretty much every other nation in the U.N. expects the U.S. to be the intervening force--why should they risk their own when we've proven the capacity and willingness to do so, historically? This has encouraged passivity from the other members of the U.N. and enmity from anyone else.

 

[gasattack3]

One of the problems is that pretty much every other nation in the U.N. expects the U.S. to be the intervening force--why should they risk their own when we've proven the capacity and willingness to do so, historically? This has encouraged passivity from the other members of the U.N. and enmity from anyone else.

Yeah, but this one is different. The world is seeing it like it is, a U.S. backed coup, with the U.S. supporting the Islamist extremist opposition with Al-Qaeda, and affiliated connections. Weak intelligence that the Assad regime actually were the ones to launch the chemical attack in the first place (this is being heavily disputed as a false flag perpetrated by our "allies" on the ground, the ones doing all of the beheading and other executions).

So, we're fomenting the very situation in the first place. I ask again, in WHO's interests is this serving by completely devastating all of these Middle Eastern countries?

Our government is no longer serving the interests of the American people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgxzpQrqSkg
Who are the warmongers LOBBYING for an aggressive Middle East policy? In spite of what the American people support or not.

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

You guys need to see the trickery of Obama in play. In one move he tries to redefine himself as aggressive and strong while forcing the GOP to look scared and weak. Not to mention he can now boast of being the only one standing by Israel (they actually want the US to strike Syria). I strongly believe Asad himself had nothing to do with the use of those weapons. Government deceit in play again.

GOP on the other hand run the risk of looking bi-polar on the issue. Just 10 months ago during the elections the GOP accused Obama of not doing enough in Syria, now he is doing too much. No one is being honest with themselves on the issue, meanwhile lives are at stake.

 

[pgg]

So, what in the world are "we" trying to do in Syria?

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are interested in exporting their natural gas to Europe via pipeline (necessarily through Syria). Assad and Putin (Gazprom) favor a pipeline from Iran through Iraq to Syria. It wasn't long ago that the USSR collapsed and Russia was on the edge of poverty-stricken irrelevance; much of that reversal has been on the back of petroleum exports. Europe is heavily, heavily dependent upon Russian natural gas.

Geopolitics, not WMD, same as Iraq, same as it ever was.

 

[loveumms]

I really hope and pray we stay out of Syria - we will make several enemies.

Like most wars, the government can pretend they are doing it only for human rights issues. The truth is wars cost a lot of money and lines the pockets of private corporations.

Our government makes me sick. It's a necessary evil but, the representatives no longer care what their constituents think about the issues. They are concerned with the next vote and how to obtain that.

Can you tell I"m jaded?

 

[loveumms]

Also - if you feel strongly about something write to your senator and representative. Do I think it does anything? Probably not but at least I feel like I'm doing something.

Here is the contact I sent to both my senators about Syria:


Dear Senator ___,

I know you support military action in Syria. I beg you to please reconsider. There is too much at stake and the US CANNOT afford another war in the middle east.

I do not agree with the use of chemical weapons but how can we get involved in yet another war that cannot be won? We have no right, or any business getting involved in another nations civil war. Who do we think we are?

We have people starving and killing each other in our own country. We need to take care of ourselves and improve our education system, infrastructure and a million other things that will again be put on the back burner so we can spend millions (or even billions) in another country.

Please listen to your constituents - according to a Reuters poll, 56% of americans oppose us entering syria, 19% agree with it. You were elected to represent us, the people. Do it!

Sincerely,
loveumms

 

[Perrotfish]

So, what in the world are "we" trying to do in Syria? It seems that we're supporting a bunch of Al-Qaeda-like Islamist thugs. These "freedom fighters" whom we're sending millions of dollars in support are doing things like eating human hearts (o.k. one occassion but does it take more than that?), and beheading Christian clerics (not just a few).

WTF are "we" doing? Who's interests does this serve, to further destabilize yet ANOTHER country and have extremists take over. Extremists whom we've supported in overthrowing the dictators in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria (don't know enough about Sudan etc.) None of those countries can now be considered "better off". So, the argument that we're trying to do well by the people in those lands is ridiculous and naive.

Sure, Assad's government may not be "good" but at least he's a reasonably secular, stable, government. That's the reall deal, however. We don't want a stable Syria. Why?

Is it in Israel's interests, or the US? Why are we spending millions of dollars doing this kind of crazy sh.t?

Have we become a "War-like" nation? The kind of country that most of us despise ourselves? Have civilian "neocons" with another countries best interests in mind infiltrated our defense and intelligence departments. Civilian appointees?

Would we already have done something crazy like start a major war with, say, Iran, were it not for the tempering of the true professionals within those same institutions whom have somehow managed to remain "immune" to the political reachings of people that would like to take us to yet ANOTHER war?

Thoughts?

What we are doing (if we do anything) is sending a strong message that the use of weapons of mass destruction in a conflict will result in massive military repercussions from the outside world, regardless of the politics of the conflict itself. That if you are so scared and so morally bankrupt that you are willing to turn chemical weapons on the enemy, its STILL a bad idea because the use of those weapons will cause your enemies to multiple exponentially.

Wars happen. In some parts of the world they happen almost continuously. The one thing that keeps the world somewhat livable for civilians is that weapons that produce a very high ratio of civilian to military casualties (chemical weapons, bio weapons, and nuclear weapons) are off limits to all combatants. There has been an amazingly consistent respect for those rules during the last century: even Hitler followed the convention against the use of chemical weapons. On the other hand its an incredibly tenuous convention: it exists only in the minds of leaders, and if one nation is allowed to use chemical weapons unchallenged then a century of human habit vanishes overnight.

That's the administration's argument, anyway.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are interested in exporting their natural gas to Europe via pipeline (necessarily through Syria). Assad and Putin (Gazprom) favor a pipeline from Iran through Iraq to Syria. It wasn't long ago that the USSR collapsed and Russia was on the edge of poverty-stricken irrelevance; much of that reversal has been on the back of petroleum exports. Europe is heavily, heavily dependent upon Russian natural gas.

This certainly could explain part of the reason why the Saudis support our intervention and the Russians oppose it, but I think its a huge stretch to say it explains our involvement in the issue. You really think that Obama is willing to go to war to back Saudi Arabia's not-yet built natural gas pipeline to Europe?

 

[gasattack3]

What we are doing (if we do anything) is sending a strong message that the use of weapons of mass destruction in a conflict will result in massive military repercussions from the outside world, regardless of the politics of the conflict itself. That if you are so scared and so morally bankrupt that you are willing to turn chemical weapons on the enemy, its STILL a bad idea because the use of those weapons will cause your enemies to multiple exponentially.

Wars happen. In some parts of the world they happen almost continuously. The one thing that keeps the world somewhat livable for civilians is that weapons that produce a very high ratio of civilian to military casualties (chemical weapons, bio weapons, and nuclear weapons) are off limits to all combatants. There has been an amazingly consistent respect for those rules during the last century: even Hitler followed the convention against the use of chemical weapons. On the other hand its an incredibly tenuous convention: it exists only in the minds of leaders, and if one nation is allowed to use chemical weapons unchallenged then a century of human habit vanishes overnight.

That's the administration's argument, anyway.



This certainly could explain part of the reason why the Saudis support our intervention and the Russians oppose it, but I think its a huge stretch to say it explains our involvement in the issue. You really think that Obama is willing to go to war to back Saudi Arabia's not-yet built natural gas pipeline to Europe?

A lot of credible folks are not believing that the Assad regime are the ones responsible for the actual use of chemical weapons but rather a ploy used by our Islamist fundamentalist "allies" whom we are supporting, to blame the Assad government (i.e. false flag) given that they know this will provide the necessary excuse (which our administration is just waiting for) to take direct action against the Assad government.

The Israel lobby is squarely behind military intervention as they have been behind ALL of our recent adventures in the Middle East. Fortunately, amongst the career generals and foreign service professionals (LESS influenced by that lobby than politicians and political appointees to military/intelligence posts) there have been cooler heads to balance out the warmongers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCZLG7MyU0

This is the other side of Pgg's perspective on geopolitics. A major confounder I would argue.

 

[Perrotfish]

A lot of credible folks are not believing that the Assad regime are the ones responsible for the actual use of chemical weapons but rather a ploy used by our Islamist fundamentalist "allies" whom we are supporting, to blame the Assad government (i.e. false flag) given that they know this will provide the necessary excuse (which our administration is just waiting for) to take direct action against the Assad government..

You know, if more of the public debates over the potential Syrian war was focused on our evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, rather than our potential national gains/losses from intervening, I would feel a lot better about how poorly the proposed military strike is polling.

 

[pgg]

This certainly could explain part of the reason why the Saudis support our intervention and the Russians oppose it, but I think its a huge stretch to say it explains our involvement in the issue. You really think that Obama is willing to go to war to back Saudi Arabia's not-yet built natural gas pipeline to Europe?

Not quite - I'm saying the difference between our non-intervention in places like [insert African genocide location of the moment] and our potential intervention in Syria has less to do with the atrocities being committed or who's in the White House, and more to do with our resource interests and those of our allies.

And I can't say I wholly disagree with that calculus, though I hope we stay out of Syria.

Eight years ago when Assad's Syria was innocently pushing all those foreign fighters and war materiel across the border into Iraq to kill Americans, I was all for bombing Syria into the stone age. Now, not so much.

Now, I think intervention in Syria has stupid written all over it. The three rules for getting involved in someone else's civil war are
1 - don't
2 - if you do, pick a side
3 - win
This intervention plan to "degrade" Assad's chemical weapon systems ignores 1, waffles on 2, and explicitly forbids 3 by ruling out ground troops or direct support for regime change.

To do anything dumber, we'd have to bomb Iran to "degrade" its nuclear weapons program.

 

[pgg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCZLG7MyU0

This is the other side of Pgg's perspective on geopolitics. A major confounder I would argue.

It's part of the equation, sure. Israel has already made strikes inside Syria; of course they want our help for more.

They also want all steps taken at any cost to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, including pre-emptive military action. I don't think that's possible, or necessary. I think Iran will inevitably acquire nuclear weapons, but Iran's leaders are sane. MAD deterrence will work. Everything that's being said about a nuclear Iran was said about post-WWII Russia. Except that most of Iran's people hate their government, and there is actual potential for positive change from within. If we're not dumb enough to bomb them and shore up support for the clerics, that is.

 

[Perrotfish]

nvm

 

[Kal EI]

Attacking Syria is beyond dumb.

 

[Spinach Dip]

OP: Are you actually implying that our government has some kind of forethought?

Interesting.

 

[gasattack3]

It's part of the equation, sure. Israel has already made strikes inside Syria; of course they want our help for more.

They also want all steps taken at any cost to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, including pre-emptive military action. I don't think that's possible, or necessary. I think Iran will inevitably acquire nuclear weapons, but Iran's leaders are sane. MAD deterrence will work. Everything that's being said about a nuclear Iran was said about post-WWII Russia. Except that most of Iran's people hate their government, and there is actual potential for positive change from within. If we're not dumb enough to bomb them and shore up support for the clerics, that is.

That's the problem. It's not a matter of whether or not "we" are dumb enough to bomb them, but rather strong enough to resist a very powerful and ruthless political lobby that can, and has done, ruin political careers.

Simply put, if you go out against AIPAC and you have national aspirations, you're done for. No other foreign lobby comes close to that kind of clout. And, it's putting the U.S. in an increasingly isolated position, not to mention draining our treasures and putting our soldiers (and civilians) at risk.

There's nothing funny or cute about that.

 

[yappy]

Syria is now agreeing to stop use, production, and allow the UN investigators do their job. No doubt this is due to the US pushing the issue and leaving military action on the table.

Thankfully, in a country of weak-necked-infants, our president had a backbone.

 

[pgg]

Syria Saddam's Iraq is now agreeing to stop use, production, and allow the UN investigators do their job. No doubt this is due to the US pushing the issue and leaving military action on the table.

Thankfully, in a country of weak-necked-infants, our president had a backbone.

FTFY 😉 The more things change, the more they stay the same.


If Assad actually follows through with this, it's probably the best possible outcome for everyone (except the rebels). I will continue respiring normally until he has complied, however.

 

[sleepallday]

A lot of credible folks are not believing that the Assad regime are the ones responsible for the actual use of chemical weapons but rather a ploy used by our Islamist fundamentalist "allies" whom we are supporting, to blame the Assad government (i.e. false flag) given that they know this will provide the necessary excuse (which our administration is just waiting for) to take direct action against the Assad government.

The Israel lobby is squarely behind military intervention as they have been behind ALL of our recent adventures in the Middle East. Fortunately, amongst the career generals and foreign service professionals (LESS influenced by that lobby than politicians and political appointees to military/intelligence posts) there have been cooler heads to balance out the warmongers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCZLG7MyU0

This is the other side of Pgg's perspective on geopolitics. A major confounder I would argue.

Unless there is some evidence that the Assad did not use chemical weapons, he most likely has. Otherwise, we are entering the conspiracy theory zone.

A few days ago, I happened to meet a recent Syrian immigrant in the docs lounge. He is pro-Assad and does not want the US to intervene. He did say that Syria has a known chemical weapons program and is now alarmed that the west is now making an issue of this well known fact.

 

[gasattack3]

Unless there is some evidence that the Assad did not use chemical weapons, he most likely has. Otherwise, we are entering the conspiracy theory zone.

A few days ago, I happened to meet a recent Syrian immigrant in the docs lounge. He is pro-Assad and does not want the US to intervene. He did say that Syria has a known chemical weapons program and is now alarmed that the west is now making an issue of this well known fact.

If the U.S. had grander ambitions, whether it be a natural gas pipeline or severe pressure from the Israel lobby in order to weaken their "enemies" (including Iran), then don't believe for a second that an attack of sorts wouldn't be used by one group to blame the other in order to further their strategic gains. Please tell me you're not that naive.

The Assad regime may be a lot of things, but I doubt they are truly stupid, which is what they'd need to be when 1) they have already taken back the initiative using conventional means, and 2) given the known international relations debacle a chemical assault would incur on them (including a likely military strike by a more militarily advanced outsider).

Again, don't be naive about this stuff. Too many people are.

 

[D P356]

Rather than boots on the ground, we should put loafers and dress shoes [of our representatives] on the ground. I think it would be bonkers to get involved with them.

PGG, I thought your rules for civil war intervention were excellent.

 

[pgg]

PGG, I thought your rules for civil war intervention were excellent.

Sir Michael Howard, a British military historian, conjured the rules. I think I first read them when we were intervening in Iraq's civil war, after doing a fair bit to get it started, and not following any of the rules, and they stuck with me.

 

[sleepallday]

If the U.S. had grander ambitions, whether it be a natural gas pipeline or severe pressure from the Israel lobby in order to weaken their "enemies" (including Iran), then don't believe for a second that an attack of sorts wouldn't be used by one group to blame the other in order to further their strategic gains. Please tell me you're not that naive.

The Assad regime may be a lot of things, but I doubt they are truly stupid, which is what they'd need to be when 1) they have already taken back the initiative using conventional means, and 2) given the known international relations debacle a chemical assault would incur on them (including a likely military strike by a more militarily advanced outsider).

Again, don't be naive about this stuff. Too many people are.

It does not seem like you understand the middle east very well. Although Assad and Israel are not on the best of terms, Israel would take Assad over the rebels any day. Hezbollah has already announced that they would not retaliate if target strikes were performed. Which tells me that they havent really picked a side yet.

You give Assad's intelligence to much credit. These middle east dictators like Assad, Saddam, Qadafi, and even Mubarak to a lesser degree are all cut from the same cloth. Just like we could not believe a word that came out of Saddam's mouth, the same is for Assad. These guys dont think like normal people and are out of touch with reality (there was something I read recently about Assad's wife shopping for designer shoes while there is civil war in her country). They have a ridiculous amount of money and have been in power so long that they feel invincible. They have stayed in power for years by putting fear into the people. Assad's killing of his people did not start with these chemical weapons. He has been bombing his people for years.

Usually, I am against middle east intervention but I have to partly agree with Obama's speech tonight. What does it say about us as a country and people if we sit back and do nothing when innocent people are being killed on such a massive scale.

 

[gasattack3]

It does not seem like you understand the middle east very well. Although Assad and Israel are not on the best of terms, Israel would take Assad over the rebels any day. Hezbollah has already announced that they would not retaliate if target strikes were performed. Which tells me that they havent really picked a side yet.

You give Assad's intelligence to much credit. These middle east dictators like Assad, Saddam, Qadafi, and even Mubarak to a lesser degree are all cut from the same cloth. Just like we could not believe a word that came out of Saddam's mouth, the same is for Assad. These guys dont think like normal people and are out of touch with reality (there was something I read recently about Assad's wife shopping for designer shoes while there is civil war in her country). They have a ridiculous amount of money and have been in power so long that they feel invincible. They have stayed in power for years by putting fear into the people. Assad's killing of his people did not start with these chemical weapons. He has been bombing his people for years.

Usually, I am against middle east intervention but I have to partly agree with Obama's speech tonight. What does it say about us as a country and people if we sit back and do nothing when innocent people are being killed on such a massive scale.

We will need to agree to disagree.

What most do not realize is that our association with Israel is increasingly putting us in harms way, not to mention draining our already drained coffers.

Here's a link from the New York Times. Of course the article paints a positive picture of this guy, you should look into some of what he states of non-Jews.

You think Islam is extreme? Backward? There are extreme elements of ALL religions. I suggest that just as extremist Islam is putting us in danger, so is extremist Judaism at this point in time. I can not say the same of Christianity for the most part, today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/n...-grand-rebbes-grave.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

Inside, his father, Israel, a kosher butcher, slept on a bench. At dawn, Mr. Holtzberg awakened, to go to Crown Heights for kapparot, a pre-Yom Kippur ritual in which thousands of chickens are slaughtered. Inside his luggage were gleaming blades of varying thicknesses, ready for what he described as a difficult job.

Thousands of chickens "ritually slaughtered"? For a religious holiday? "gleaming blades of varying thickness"? What is this? Look into it.

Look into "Kosher slaughter" or "Kosher butchering". You'll get a real idea of whether MOST Americans share similar "cultural" beliefs and values as our supposed "greatest friend and ally".

**The point I am making is that most people don't know just how extreme some of these beliefs and "rituals" indeed are. And that extremism is driving politics which effects the U.S. given the lobbying power and influence this constituency has in the U.S.

You won't hear this argument in the mainstream median or from politicians. At least those politicians who want to get reelected. As for U.S. media? Well, you know.....

 

[deleted126335]

We will need to agree to disagree.

What most do not realize is that our association with Israel is increasingly putting us in harms way, not to mention draining our already drained coffers.

Here's a link from the New York Times. Of course the article paints a positive picture of this guy, you should look into some of what he states of non-Jews.

You think Islam is extreme? Backward? There are extreme elements of ALL religions. I suggest that just as extremist Islam is putting us in danger, so is extremist Judaism at this point in time. I can not say the same of Christianity for the most part, today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/n...-grand-rebbes-grave.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

Inside, his father, Israel, a kosher butcher, slept on a bench. At dawn, Mr. Holtzberg awakened, to go to Crown Heights for kapparot, a pre-Yom Kippur ritual in which thousands of chickens are slaughtered. Inside his luggage were gleaming blades of varying thicknesses, ready for what he described as a difficult job.

Thousands of chickens "ritually slaughtered"? For a religious holiday? "gleaming blades of varying thickness"? What is this? Look into it.

Look into "Kosher slaughter" or "Kosher butchering". You'll get a real idea of whether MOST Americans share similar "cultural" beliefs and values as our supposed "greatest friend and ally".

**The point I am making is that most people don't know just how extreme some of these beliefs and "rituals" indeed are. And that extremism is driving politics which effects the U.S. given the lobbying power and influence this constituency has in the U.S.

You won't hear this argument in the mainstream median or from politicians. At least those politicians who want to get reelected. As for U.S. media? Well, you know.....

Looks like cf david is back.

 

[gasattack3]

Looks like cf david is back.

??

I think the OP is simply pointing out what mainstream media pundits wouldn't dare. Instead we hear, from them and our politicians, how much "in common" we have with Israel and Israeli's. We hear, from those same people, about our "shared values" and "culture".
We also hear about how extreme Islam is. We hear this ALL THE TIME.

What we don't hear virtually anything about is how extreme Judaism CAN BE. Ritual slaughter of animals? Kosher slaughter? Women at the back of the bus? Little girls being spat on and harassed by Orthodox Jews as they walk to school? Christian priests being spit on in Jerusalem for, well, being Christian priests?

Unfortunately, the extreme versions of Judaism are factually increasing in popularity and increasingly important in Israeli society and by default ever more influential in Israeli politics.

Given the fact that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is by all accounts the first or second most influential lobby in Washington, it doesn't take a genius to make the connection that just maybe this influence is, well, succeeding (otherwise it wouldn't be powerful OR influential) in shaping U.S. foreign policy in a way which represents the interests of Israel, and NOT necessarily the United States.

Furthermore, we often do hear about our shared values. I submit that few Americans "share" any understanding of cutting the throats of "thousands" of chickens on a religious holiday or identify that the Kosher method of cutting the throats of non-stunned large mammals is anything but cruel and, frankly, unusual.

Thankfully, Americans now have access to better information and alternative viewpoints, often gleaned from Israeli press itself, into these issues.

I notice your avatar states you are a "neocon". What does that mean to you?

 

[IGotGas]

I was going to point out earlier that the OP seemed to have some kind of antisemitic conspiracy theory thing going on, but he seems to have made that clear on his own. Good job.

 

[deleted126335]

??

I think the OP is simply pointing out what mainstream media pundits wouldn't dare. Instead we hear, from them and our politicians, how much "in common" we have with Israel and Israeli's. We hear, from those same people, about our "shared values" and "culture".
We also hear about how extreme Islam is. We hear this ALL THE TIME.

What we don't hear virtually anything about is how extreme Judaism CAN BE. Ritual slaughter of animals? Kosher slaughter? Women at the back of the bus? Little girls being spat on and harassed by Orthodox Jews as they walk to school? Christian priests being spit on in Jerusalem for, well, being Christian priests?

Unfortunately, the extreme versions of Judaism are factually increasing in popularity and increasingly important in Israeli society and by default ever more influential in Israeli politics.

Given the fact that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is by all accounts the first or second most influential lobby in Washington, it doesn't take a genius to make the connection that just maybe this influence is, well, succeeding (otherwise it wouldn't be powerful OR influential) in shaping U.S. foreign policy in a way which represents the interests of Israel, and NOT necessarily the United States.

Furthermore, we often do hear about our shared values. I submit that few Americans "share" any understanding of cutting the throats of "thousands" of chickens on a religious holiday or identify that the Kosher method of cutting the throats of non-stunned large mammals is anything but cruel and, frankly, unusual.

Thankfully, Americans now have access to better information and alternative viewpoints, often gleaned from Israeli press itself, into these issues.

I notice your avatar states you are a "neocon". What does that mean to you?

Can't help yourself, can you douche? Banned twice now. Do I hear three?

 

[IGotGas]

Thousands of chickens "ritually slaughtered"? For a religious holiday? "gleaming blades of varying thickness"? What is this? Look into it.

Look into "Kosher slaughter" or "Kosher butchering". You'll get a real idea of whether MOST Americans share similar "cultural" beliefs and values as our supposed "greatest friend and ally"...

Yes, imagine that... killing chickens for a religious holiday. Gasp. Because, you know, it's not like MOST Americans celebrate a holiday which requires the slaughter of vast quantities of birds.

And yes, ritual slaughter of a kosher bird involves quickly drawing a "gleaming blade" across its neck and cutting its throat. I think it's hard to summon up much outrage for that. In an age of factory farming, it's probably far from the most unpleasant thing to happen to the average chicken.

 

[gasattack3]

Can't help yourself, can you douche? Banned twice now. Do I hear three?

?? I'm not sure what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure calling people "douche" is a TOS violation.

But, no, I won't stifle the debate by bitching to the mods about name calling.

BTW, where is your response? You sound like a thief getting caught red handed. As if you're pissed I'm exposing what you hope not to get exposed...

Again, what does neocon mean to you? Or shall I post what the world thinks of "neocons"?

 

[deleted126335]

?? I'm not sure what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure calling people "douche" is a TOS violation.

But, no, I won't stifle the debate by bitching to the mods about name calling.

BTW, where is your response? You sound like a thief getting caught red handed. As if you're pissed I'm exposing what you hope not to get exposed...

Again, what does neocon mean to you? Or shall I post what the world thinks of "neocons"?

A chazzer bleibt a chazzer

 

[gasattack3]

Yes, imagine that... killing chickens for a religious holiday. Gasp. Because, you know, it's not like MOST Americans celebrate a holiday which requires the slaughter of vast quantities of birds.

And yes, ritual slaughter of a kosher bird involves quickly drawing a "gleaming blade" across its neck and cutting its throat. I think it's hard to summon up much outrage for that. In an age of factory farming, it's probably far from the most unpleasant thing to happen to the average chicken.

People eating turkey's for Thanksgiving and Christmas is very different from ritually cutting the throats of thousands of chickens (just in NYC alone) for a pre-religious holiday. Nice way to spend a holiday.

Kosher slaughter of large mammals is as foreign to most European Americans as can be.

So, quit this nonsense and justification of extremist rituals.

If you want, we can post content and video footage of Kosher slaughter and we can see what our fellow anesthesiologists and students studying things like anesthesia and pain feel about the fate of those animals. Shall we?

This is highly pertinent of our specialty. Anesthesia and pain.

Define "Shiksa" to me?

What is "Goyim"?

 

[IGotGas]

People eating turkey's for Thanksgiving and Christmas is very different from ritually cutting the throats of thousands of chickens (just in NYC alone) for a pre-religious holiday. Nice way to spend a holiday.

Kosher slaughter of large mammals is as foreign to most European Americans as can be.

You know someone has to kill the turkeys first, right?
European Americans? WTF?

So, quit this nonsense and justification of extremist rituals.

If you want, we can post content and video footage of Kosher slaughter.

If you want, but that will take this thread way off the rails. I believe the original point of this thread is how Israel and AIPAC (i.e. the Jooooos) control American policy.

Define "Shiksa" to me?

What is "Goyim"?

Shiksa is a derogatory Yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman. It is probably more commonly used by ultra-Orthodox Jews to insult Jewish women whom they feel are not sufficiently religious. Either usage is unacceptable.

Goyim is the plural form of the Hebrew word "Goy", which appears many times in the bible and means "nation". The Hebrew Bible often uses the word when describing the Jewish nation as well as others, but it is commonly used nowadays to refer to non-Jews as opposed to Jews.

Note that the word is a plural noun, the singular is "Goy", and the Yiddish adjective form is "Goyish" or "Goyishe". It really grates on me when it is so frequently misused in antisemitic screeds. For example, I would call you a "Goyish *****", not a "Goy *****" and certainly not a "Goyim *****".

 

[ssmallz]

People eating turkey's for Thanksgiving and Christmas is very different from ritually cutting the throats of thousands of chickens (just in NYC alone) for a pre-religious holiday. Nice way to spend a holiday.

Kosher slaughter of large mammals is as foreign to most European Americans as can be.

So, quit this nonsense and justification of extremist rituals.

If you want, we can post content and video footage of Kosher slaughter and we can see what our fellow anesthesiologists and students studying things like anesthesia and pain feel about the fate of those animals. Shall we?

This is highly pertinent of our specialty. Anesthesia and pain.

How is this any different than factory farming where large animals are slaughtered on a grand scale for food? I'm sure many of us would feel similarly disgusted if we posted a video and saw how our meat was killed. How is any of this pertinent in any way specifically to the practice of anesthesia or pain? Sure we can debate about how the impact of wars and government spending affects healthcare in general but none of it is specific to anesthesia or pain. You sound like an ignorant bigot when you make comments like these. 👎 Please refrain

 

[gasattack3]

How is this any different than factory farming where large animals are slaughtered on a grand scale for food? I'm sure many of us would feel similarly disgusted if we posted a video and saw how our meat was killed. How is any of this pertinent in any way specifically to the practice of anesthesia or pain? Sure we can debate about how the impact of wars and government spending affects healthcare in general but none of it is specific to anesthesia or pain. You sound like an ignorant bigot when you make comments like these. 👎 Please refrain

I am pointing out that the Kosher means of killing an animal is particularly extreme and unnecessary. It causes needless pain and suffering in the animal, and this is supported by the vast majority of veterinarians and scientists whom have looked at this issue, which, as you can imagine is highly contested by the community that feels it necessary to do this as part of a "religious ritual".

I'm also linking extremist Judaism (that's no more anti-semitic than it is "anti-Islam" or "anti-Christian" to criticize the extremes of those religions) to increasing political clout which has been impacting the U.S. in negative ways.

I'm also pointing out that it's a falsehood that most Americans have some media-driven sanctity of shared values with an increasingly extreme nation of Israel. Most Americans simply do not know what Kosher means. They are not aware that "thousands of chickens" are ritually having their throats sliced open and allowed to bleed to death as a part of a religious holiday (as are the large mammals in Kosher slaughter), hopefully sooner than later.

I am suggesting that, while certainly not the case now, Israel should not have any "special" status with the U.S. since their extremist views and behaviors are influencing our foreign policy. It's not a conspiracy. It's a fact.

I think our closest friends and allies should be those whom we share the most common cultural values, which quite clearly is not this increasingly popular version(s) of Judaism.

Even the Israeli press laments the growing numbers of extremist Jews in their society. I'm pointing out a few ways in which they ARE extreme, just as we're always told of the ways in which extremist Islam or Christianity may be extreme.

I give no special status to Jews or Israel. That is not anti-anything.

 

[Beargryllz]

Just be sure to invest in the right areas *before* things get heated up. I missed out on the last few overseas adventures and I wouldn't want to miss out again.

 

[gasattack3]

Just be sure to invest in the right areas *before* things get heated up. I missed out on the last few overseas adventures and I wouldn't want to miss out again.

I suppose it could be considered prudent to capitalize on world events in this way. Some would have a moral issue with capitalizing on specific events such as this, but to each their own.

The bigger picture is that the U.S. has a policy of regime change towards the Assad government. He may not be a nice guy but what are the alternatives? Look at what happened in Lybia and Egypt.

We are supporting extremist Sunni muslims whom are beheading religious minorities and the opposition Assad forces. These groups are Al-Qaeda-esque for sure.

WTF are we doing? Are we responsible for the mess this causes as taxpayers and voting citizens who's responsibility it is to reign in our government such that it abides by the will of the people? It seems our government isn't too concerned with the will of the people and is happy to put forth propaganda in order to influence the masses to it's whim.

How about the human and financial cost?

Sure, oil and gas pipelines are likely a factor. I also think that weakening Israel's enemies is another factor and this is evident by the massive Israel lobby support for our escalation of this intervention.

But, is this in OUR best interests? Again, look at what it is we are supporting (and to whom we are lending our aid).

We must think for ourselves as the stakes seem very high at this point. It's easy to be a warmonger tough guy while sitting at home in a Lazy-Boy sipping a warm cup of tea........

 

[Morguekitty]

So, what in the world are "we" trying to do in Syria? It seems that we're supporting a bunch of Al-Qaeda-like Islamist thugs. These "freedom fighters" whom we're sending millions of dollars in support are doing things like eating human hearts (o.k. one occassion but does it take more than that?), and beheading Christian clerics (not just a few).

WTF are "we" doing? Who's interests does this serve, to further destabilize yet ANOTHER country and have extremists take over. Extremists whom we've supported in overthrowing the dictators in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria (don't know enough about Sudan etc.) None of those countries can now be considered "better off". So, the argument that we're trying to do well by the people in those lands is ridiculous and naive.

Sure, Assad's government may not be "good" but at least he's a reasonably secular, stable, government. That's the reall deal, however. We don't want a stable Syria. Why?

Is it in Israel's interests, or the US? Why are we spending millions of dollars doing this kind of crazy sh.t?

Have we become a "War-like" nation? The kind of country that most of us despise ourselves? Have civilian "neocons" with another countries best interests in mind infiltrated our defense and intelligence departments. Civilian appointees?

Would we already have done something crazy like start a major war with, say, Iran, were it not for the tempering of the true professionals within those same institutions whom have somehow managed to remain "immune" to the political reachings of people that would like to take us to yet ANOTHER war?

Thoughts?

Darn good post! Agree with it 100% percent. Don't know why it's in this forum though?

... how can America claim it wants democracy when they're best pals with Saudi Arabia? Nuff said. It's a game of stealing elements from vulnerable countries.

 

[gasattack3]

Darn good post! Agree with it 100% percent. Don't know why it's in this forum though?

... how can America claim it wants democracy when they're best pals with Saudi Arabia? Nuff said. It's a game of stealing elements from vulnerable countries.

We talk about Scotch, beer, watches, cars, and financial stuff too!

Oh, and sometimes bodybuilding and steroids as well. Come here more often!

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Darn good post! Agree with it 100% percent. Don't know why it's in this forum though?

... how can America claim it wants democracy when they're best pals with Saudi Arabia? Nuff said. It's a game of stealing elements from vulnerable countries.

What's wrong with Saudi Arabia?

 

[shopsteward]

What's wrong with Saudi Arabia?

The baleful effects of the Wahabi movement on anyone who is not a heterosexual male believer in the Wahabi movement.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

The baleful effects of the Wahabi movement on anyone who is not a heterosexual male believer in the Wahabi movement.

These are things of the past. A lots has changed. Besides, there is a significant number of citizens of Western nations reside in Saudi Arabia. All of the ones I personally know is well-respected and enjoying a high, tax-free income.

Just so you know, the general public in SA is very fond of the West, especially of Americans and the American culture.

 

[shopsteward]

These are things of the past. A lots has changed. Besides, there is a significant number of citizens of Western nations reside in Saudi Arabia. All of the ones I personally know is well-respected and enjoying a high, tax-free income.

Just so you know, the general public in SA is very fond of the West, especially of Americans and the American culture.

A lot has changed? Christians in Saudi are free to worship in the same way as muslims in Saudi are free to worship, are they? Saudi women are allowed to drive cars now, can they? Go out in public without a male escort? They don't have to be covered from head to toe by the hijab so that those poor susceptible Saudi men are able to control their desire to rape? They are legally protected from being married off by their male relatives before they are even teenagers? They have the same rights as men when they go to court? Answers: no. That's a start with what's wrong with Saudi. I'm sure there's more if I could be bothered to look it up.

Foreigners in Saudi live in a privileged little bubble which has nothing to do with the theocracy and kyriarchy experienced by Saudis themselves.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

A lot has changed? Christians in Saudi are free to worship in the same way as muslims in Saudi are free to worship, are they? Saudi women are allowed to drive cars now, can they? Go out in public without a male escort? They don't have to be covered from head to toe by the hijab so that those poor susceptible Saudi men are able to control their desire to rape? They are legally protected from being married off by their male relatives before they are even teenagers? They have the same rights as men when they go to court? Answers: no. That's a start with what's wrong with Saudi. I'm sure there's more if I could be bothered to look it up.

Foreigners in Saudi live in a privileged little bubble which has nothing to do with the theocracy and kyriarchy experienced by Saudis themselves.

You are ill-informed and speaking out of emotions rather than true facts. Being a Saudi-American citizen and having lived in both worlds for a considerable periods of my life, I will try to address and clarify some of the issues in your post.

First, of course Christians don't have the same level of freedom of worship as the Muslim citizens. Just like the Vatican, Saudi Arabia is a religious state, a Muslim state. Since you brought up the comparison, do Muslims and Jews enjoy their religious holidays in American the same way their Christians counterparts?

In regards to women and driving, this issue has been debated to death, and I, like many Saudis, agree with you that it is injustice to women. However, last year a law was signed that will, gradually, allow women to drive. Yes, things are changing.

Women do go out in public without male escort. In fact, my female relatives always do. They go to malls, restaurants, and almost every place without the need of having a male escort. The only restrictions they have is when they are traveling outside the country. This is a cultural and religious norm, so there's no reason to discuss it here.

Wearing hijab is a religious rule, so discussing that will be useless. However, let me clarify that the hijab you are describing (head to toe) is not mandatory. The Islamic hijab is meant to cover the hair and the body. Covering the face is not even part of Islamic teaching, it is a tribal thing. During my last visit to Saudi Arabia, I saw many women in public who don't even cover their hair. All they had was an almost transparent cloak that clearly showed the definition of their bodies.

In regards to being forced into marriage, that's a big misconception that many anti-Islam individual use to attack my religion and culture. Under Islamic law, no woman can be forced into marriage. In fact, the marriage would be considered invalid if it wasn't based on a mutual agreement from both parties, the groom and the bride. I do admit, however, that incidents do occur from time to another, where young girls are being forced by their families to marry older men. This happens everywhere, and it is not unique to the Saudi culture. However, from the religious and the legal prospective, women, like men, have the right to decide who to marry. In fact, a relative of my stepfather got married to her current husband without her father's approval. He completely resented the guy and was going to disown his daughter if she didn't obey him. She still was able to go to court and get married. By the way, this happened over two decades ago, so you can only imagine how things have gotten better since then.

I'm not going to address the bold part of your post because it is pure ignorance and I, being a Saudi citizen, find it very offensive.

 

[deleted126335]

You are ill-informed and speaking out of emotions rather than true facts. Being a Saudi-American citizen and having lived in both worlds for a considerable periods of my life, I will try to address and clarify some of the issues in your post.

First, of course Christians don't have the same level of freedom of worship as the Muslim citizens. Just like the Vatican, Saudi Arabia is a religious state, a Muslim state. Since you brought up the comparison, do Muslims and Jews enjoy their religious holidays in American the same way their Christians counterparts?

In regards to women and driving, this issue has been debated to death, and I, like many Saudis, agree with you that it is injustice to women. However, last year a law was signed that will, gradually, allow women to drive. Yes, things are changing.

Women do go out in public without male escort. In fact, my female relatives always do. They go to malls, restaurants, and almost every place without the need of having a male escort. The only restrictions they have is when they are traveling outside the country. This is a cultural and religious norm, so there's no reason to discuss it here.

Wearing hijab is a religious rule, so discussing that will be useless. However, let me clarify that the hijab you are describing (head to toe) is not mandatory. The Islamic hijab is meant to cover the hair and the body. Covering the face is not even part of Islamic teaching, it is a tribal thing. During my last visit to Saudi Arabia, I saw many women in public who don't even cover their hair. All they had was an almost transparent cloak that clearly showed the definition of their bodies.

In regards to being forced into marriage, that's a big misconception that many anti-Islam individual use to attack my religion and culture. Under Islamic law, no woman can be forced into marriage. In fact, the marriage would be considered invalid if it wasn't based on a mutual agreement from both parties, the groom and the bride. I do admit, however, that incidents do occur from time to another, where young girls are being forced by their families to marry older men. This happens everywhere, and it is not unique to the Saudi culture. However, from the religious and the legal prospective, women, like men, have the right to decide who to marry. In fact, a relative of my stepfather got married to her current husband without her father's approval. He completely resented the guy and was going to disown his daughter if she didn't obey him. She still was able to go to court and get married. By the way, this happened over two decades ago, so you can only imagine how things have gotten better since then.

I'm not going to address the bold part of your post because it is pure ignorance and I, being a Saudi citizen, find it very offensive.

Not exactly, but it is much easier to build a mosque or a synagogue and openly practice your faith in the US as a muslim or jew, than to build a synagogue or a church in Saudi Arabia and to openly practice your faith there as a Christian or a Jew. I believe that even traveling to Mecca as a nonmuslim is forbidden.

 

[pgg]

Since you brought up the comparison, do Muslims and Jews enjoy their religious holidays in American the same way their Christians counterparts?

Er, yes ...

At least it appears that way to me, as a disinterested atheist heathen unbeliever.

Is this a trick question?

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Not exactly, but it is much easier to build a mosque or a synagogue and openly practice your faith in the US as a muslim or jew, than to build a synagogue or a church in Saudi Arabia and to openly practice your faith there as a Christian or a Jew. I believe that even traveling to Mecca as a nonmuslim is forbidden.

Er, yes ...

At least it appears that way to me, as a disinterested atheist heathen unbeliever.

Is this a trick question?

Perhaps, what I was trying to say was that, despite all the freedoms we enjoy here in America, there are several aspects of our laws and norms that cater for Christian citizens only.

The point I want to bring across is that people, regardless of their backgrounds, must abide to the law of the land. Just like paying taxes, residents of the U.S. have to pay them even if it conflicts with their principles or religious beliefs. There are over 8 million foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. I'm sure a good number of them are not able to practice their full "God given rights". However, they are more than welcome to return to where they came from and open more job opportunities to the Saudi citizens. I find it very hypocritical to see some of these foreign citizens complain and show discontent with the Saudi and Islamic laws, yet they are enjoying the bounties that their own countries didn't provide them with.

 

[pgg]

Perhaps, what I was trying to say was that, despite all the freedoms we enjoy here in America, there are several aspects of our laws and norms that cater for Christian citizens only.

Can you really not tell the difference between the conveniences that come naturally to any majority anywhere, and the calculated oppression (deliberate, systematic, and often violent) that comes unnaturally to non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia?