Parliment Declines Syria Involement (1 Viewer)

[ColinEssex]

I am not brainwashed by our leaders. .

Well, they only want you to hear what they want, and your TV news is censored, as are the newspapers. All you mostly hear about are good things about the US and how brilliant your troops are. No mention of killing civilians or UK troops by friendly fire.

Still, it's nice to see you think you have all the info.

Col

 

[kevlray]

Well, they only want you to hear what they want, and your TV news is censored, as are the newspapers. All you mostly hear about are good things about the US and how brilliant your troops are. No mention of killing civilians or UK troops by friendly fire.

Still, it's nice to see you think you have all the info.

Col

That is what really scares me. I know that I do not have all the info. I have a co-worker that is originally from Egypt and he still has a number of news contacts from there. Thus he has informed me of a number of incidents in Egypt that the US new media has ignored.

 

[Steve R.]

I have a co-worker that is originally from Egypt and he still has a number of news contacts from there. Thus he has informed me of a number of incidents in Egypt that the US new media has ignored.

And what does he say? It would be good to get some stories from those who are closer to the events.

Fox News, despite their pro-war stance, finally began reporting on the genocide of Christians. Even the New York Times finally got around to writing an article publicly exposing rebel atrocities. "Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West"

And along the lines of Parliament declining Americas invitation to war. The Washington Post on September 5, 2013 wrote: “Obama and top administration officials have argued forcefully that a U.S.-led military strike is needed to enforce an international ban on the use of chemical weapons ...”. What's wrong with that statement? No one appointed Obama as the UN Secretary-General with the authority to enforce international law. In fact, the real UN Secretary-General Ki-Moon was quoted by Reuters as stating: "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization, remarks that appear to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without U.N. Backing." Based on Mr. Ki-moon's statement, Obama is mistakenly asserting authority that he does not have. Obama is making a mockery of due process.

 

[nanscombe]

The UN can question the legality of any US military action but with their friends on the UN Security council, with the power of veto, what could the UN do to stop, or punish, them?

Israel has had numerous resolution passed against them and has simply ignored them and there seems to be f*** all the UN can do about it.

 

[ColinEssex]

I know that cable TV probably hasn’t reached your little hamlet yet, but in OC California we get everything from Al Jazeera news to the BBC and about a 100 other world news outlets. Not to mention the World Wide Web where we can download every newspaper on the planet. Oh yeah we also have something here called smart phones it’s all the rage, you really need to look into it.

Yes, I've heard of this technology.

Interestingly there was a programme on telly the other night about the last phone calls of people on the planes on 11/9/2001. It seems that as they were flying along, they were making these mobile phone calls.

Now we have all been told to switch off phones on a plane as it interferes with the planes electronics and could lead to failure and the plane crashing. . . . . .

Makes you wonder.

Oh, can you answer my earlier questions please? Or are you going to do the American thing and ignore anything you don't like?

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

The UN can question the legality of any US military action but with their friends on the UN Security council, with the power of veto, what could the UN do to stop, or punish, them?

Israel has had numerous resolution passed against them and has simply ignored them and there seems to be f*** all the UN can do about it.

I'm afraid the USA thinks it is above the law and can do what it likes, the Iraq war was illegal in that respect and America lost a lot of ground in popularity by looking no more than thugs and bullies and cold killers.

Col

 

[nanscombe]

... Interestingly there was a programme on telly the other night about the last phone calls of people on the planes on 11/9/2001. It seems that as they were flying along, they were making these mobile phone calls.

Now we have all been told to switch off phones on a plane as it interferes with the planes electronics and could lead to failure and the plane crashing. . . . . .
Col

Mobile phones? Or just the phones that we've seen in American films set aboard aircraft that have been around for decades. Also in that sort of situation what real difference would it have made? Flown into a target by intent or failure caused by electronic interference.

I'm afraid the USA thinks it is above the law and can do what it likes, the Iraq war was illegal in that respect and America lost a lot of ground in popularity by looking no more than thugs and bullies and cold killers.

Col

At least there was an outstanding UN resolution, threatening military action, that could have been used as possible mitigation depending on how it was interpreted.

But as long as the US warn Syria that they will effectively declare war on them and they don't do it by surprise, stealth or subterfuge it would be difficult to call it "illegal". They may be (un)lucky enough for Syria to act first on being threatened.

The main trouble could be the reaction of Syria's "allies".

 

[scott-atkinson]

Mobile phones? Or just the phones that we've seen in American films set aboard aircraft that have been around for decades. Also in that sort of situation what real difference would it have made? Flown into a target by intent or failure caused by electronic interference.

I think it makes a huge difference, if by some freak of a coincedence all the planes on 9/11 crashed due to electronic failure, then the US waged a war that never was.....

 

[Brianwarnock]

if by some freak of a coincedence all the planes on 9/11 crashed due to electronic failure...

And if my aunt had a willie she would be my uncle

Brian

 

[nanscombe]

Not so unlikely these days.

I still remember the days before actually did that sort of operation.

 

[scott-atkinson]

And if my aunt had a willie she would be my uncle

Guess her name would be Dick....

 

[ColinEssex]

Nope just an endless monologue.

Why are you scared of answering my earlier questions?

I would be pleased to remind you of them. (Just in case you have a short term memory problem)

I will anyway in a week or two in the absence of a reply.


Col

 

[nanscombe]

I deleted the last part of your post as it is obscene and unnecessary.

However, remind me how many innocent children, mums and dads were killed with napalm and conventionally by the gun, by the USA in Vietnam, or illegally in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think you will find 2000 odd pales into insignificance, yet the USA still thinks it has to poke its nose in everywhere.

American people really are brainwashed by its dictators.

Col

It's all very well going on and on about the napalm and Agent Orange death but at least they were casualties during an ongoing war.

The close to 3,000 casualties of 9/11 were from an unexpected sneak attack.

The casualties of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour would be a better comparison.

 

[ColinEssex]

I think it makes a huge difference, if by some freak of a coincedence all the planes on 9/11 crashed due to electronic failure, then the US waged a war that never was.....

I'm surprised the stewardesses didn't stop it, they are usually diligent about that sort of thing.

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

You're questions bore me, you lack substance and conviction.

You mean I don't use the foul language that you do. I could do if you like but it would be deleted like yours was, I prefer a more stimulating discussion rather than resorting to expletives.

Now, why do you find it necessary to use such language? Do you always resort to such language if someone disagrees with you?

Oh, and can you explain the link with Benny Hill? I fail to see what you are driving at there.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, nobody answers your questions because you make them confrontational in nature and we have learned not to bite. One should never feed a troll under a bridge, either. Not that I consider you a troll, but rather I was comparing two things that folks should not do.

I was actually pleasantly surprised to find that Obama had actually decided to go through Congress before acting on Syria. Given his popularity in Congress these days, he'd be lucky to get that resolution passed. Hell, if enough republican party folks show up, he couldn't pass gas in Congress. (But given the stench of the mess Congress makes every day, nobody would notice if he did.)

 

[nanscombe]

... Your sole purpose is to entertain the mindless stooges who think your antics rival Benny Hill...

I find that comparison totally inappropriate.

Benny Hill was quick witted, popular and always surrounded by pretty young women.

 

[ColinEssex]

I would say that expletive had the desired effect, it caused you to react. As to Benny Hill he is a clown.

Ah thanks. You have sort of answered my questions.

You use obscene foul language to cause a reaction in the listener, using this language seems perfectly normal to some people.

I was reading about it a while back, there is a name for it, something syndrome, I forget now.

Basically it stems from poor education and a poor grasp of vocabulary - expletives are used when no other word comes to mind. The user is generally unaware of the fact they use such language.

It's fairly obvious you struggle with language as a clown is not the same as a comedian. Benny Hill was a comedian. A clown is something you get usually in a circus.

Col

 

[nanscombe]

Benny Hill: The World's Favorite Clown

He was certainly more than a comedian. Not only could he tell a funny story he could do physical comedy as well which didn't require a word to be spoken to ellicit a response.

Clown

...
Clowns are comic performers who employ slapstick or similar types of physical humour, often in a pantomime style. Clowns have a varied tradition with significant variations in costume and performance. The most recognisable clowns are those that commonly wear outlandish costumes featuring distinctive makeup, colourful wigs, exaggerated footwear, and colourful clothing. Their entertainment style is generally designed to entertain large audiences, especially at a distance.
...
The most ancient clowns have been found in the Fifth dynasty of Egypt, around 2400 BC.[3] Unlike court jesters, clowns have traditionally served a socio-religious and psychological role, and traditionally the roles of priest and clown have been held by the same persons.
...

Benny Hill (Wiki)

...
Charlie Chaplin was a fan of Hill's work: Hill had discovered that Chaplin, his childhood idol, was a fan when he was invited to Chaplin's home in Switzerland by Chaplin's family and discovered that Chaplin had a collection of Hill's work on video. Hill and Dennis Kirkland were the first outside the family to be invited into Chaplin's private study.
...
Michael Jackson was a Benny Hill fan: "I just love your Benny Hill!" the young Jackson told a bemused English music-press critic during a 1970s tour. "He's so funny!". During Benny Hill's decline in his health he was visited by Jackson, who was in the UK at the time.
...
In Benny Hill: The World's Favourite Clown, filmed shortly before his death, celebrities such as Burt Reynolds, Michael Caine, John Mortimer, Mickey Rooney and Walter Cronkite, among others, expressed their appreciation of and admiration for Hill and his humour – and in Reynolds' case, the appreciation extended to the Hill's Angels as well. More surprisingly, perhaps, the novelist Anthony Burgess made no secret of his admiration for Hill. Burgess, whose novels were often comic, relished language, wordplay and dialect, admired the verbal and comedic skill that underlay Hill's success.
...

 

[ColinEssex]

Col, nobody answers your questions because you make them confrontational in nature

Let me just get my head around American logic here.

To ask someone if they use obscene and foul language in normal life is confrontational.
Yet calling another member a fu**ing jerk just to get a reaction, is presumably not confrontational.

That seems really wierd, but a useful lesson for my visit to Portland Oregon. I must remember to use obscene language when in America.

Col