As for being a security risk to the US: pull the other one, it’s got bells on. :rolleyes:
Is that the one in the middle? 
Got a nickel says that if John Mace is the username for Scarlett Johansson, Red will let you pull whatever you want, whenever, wherever. So much for progressives and their alleged “gender equality”!
The bulk of the planning and operations for the 9/11 attack was carried out by an Al Queda cell in Hamburg, Germany. The connection of terrorists with bases in Yemen, Somalia, Syria, etc. are insignificant compared to cells in the West itself. The Boston Marathon bombing was carried out by two naturalized American citizens, in Watertown, MA. Evidence exists that both used funds given to them from various welfare programs. The directions (to build the bombs0 were taken from an internet website.
No bases in Afghanistan required.
I assumed that was your intended point, though you never know. I was poking fun at your language, stating that 9/11 was “carried out” in Europe. Obviously, wherever else it was planned and staged, it was carried out in the United States.
What canard Red? You wrote a lot but nothing to do with Werekoala’s errant pattern of facts?
The response to your query is in the post itself. Time to roll your sleeves-up and give those ‘little grey cells’ a work-out.
Oh we forgot about the casualties in those countries. Mostly because there weren’t any.
Not one life saved over this.
Just explain what you mean by a canard. If you don’t know how can we know what you mean?
I have never said there were. Who is it you are responding to? It surely can’t be to me?
you keep saying how much better it will be for Syrians, Turks, and Israelis regarding the dismantling of CW’s. Do you not read what you write? Sadly the rest of us do.
What turned that into me saying there were casualties in Israel and Turkey? Why did you suggest I made that claim?
It will be better when Assad’s CW aresenal is destroyed but that does not excuse your response with your assumption that I believe there have been CW casualties in Israel or Syria.
You have set up a straw man and knocked it down. You do that quite often so you need to quit.
Speak for yourself.
Is it a one-sided affair? Click on prior cites. Is it it in the US’s interest to intervene for the rebels knowing what we know about them? Is Saddad a threat to the US? If so, how? Further has either side threatened the US in any way?
So again, what business is it of the US to intervene in Syria? Obama’s say so doesn’t do it for me – nor for most of the civilized world.
Why did you cite my response to Werekoala in order to bring up your canard bysiness?
Here is what you cited from me:
Regardless that you want to discuss your canard, the facts are that hundreds of Syrians have been gassed to death and our President threatened military action because that crossed a red line set by the international community. No matter that you think there is a canard that should force the US to butt out of the conflict, there is a clear reality today that the threat of military action has forced Assad to relinquish his CW arsenal.
US involvment has produced an outcome that you can only pretend is not a significant outcome for good.
The events have already begun overtaking your canard worries. The best part about events is that you cannot deny they are happening. All the CW in Syria are in process of being destroyed. The argument over the military value of CW vs conventional weapons becomes less and less relevant with each passing day.
because you said it would make it better. If they’re not being attacked with CW’s then how is it better?
Just because you do not recognize the international long held ban on chemical weapons - that self inflicted distancing ones self from reality - does not make chemical weapons no different as instruments of inflicting death and suffering than conventional weapons as you are trying to promote.
So pattern of facts are flawed from the start.
For you to understand what will be better in the big picture is for you to think beyond your agenda.
It will not of course be better for any civilians that get killed or wounded by conventional weapons during the dismantling of Assad’s CW arsenal, but it will be better for all with good intent as I believe Obama and so many other world leaders have to strive for a resolution to the conflict that ultimately stops or slows the killing.
Small minds cannot grasp what would be better in the diplomatic realm to resolving this crusis when in 18 months the CW major concern is removed from that troubled part of the world.
And the immediate ‘better’ for Syrians sleeping in their beds is that they are less likely to die during the ongoing war just for breathing in the air as all humans need to sustain life. It’s better because if they were to be attacked by conventional weapons and they survive they can take cover. That is because artillery with explosives require a very close to a direct hit to kill humans. Chemical weapons require much less accuracy to kill more people with one artillery shell.
That you continue to deny this basic understanding however does not surprise me since your motive is to deny Obama and Kerry any whiff of achieving something.
Let’s see cites to prove this.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you stating that that you beleive that an artillery shell loaded with explosives can kill well beyond a direct hit and kill far more humans from a similarly delivered device loaded with Sarin?
I am asking you to prove what you say, for a change.
Regards,
NotFooledbyNotFooledbyW