Nerve Gas Attack in Damascus kills 1300, Including Women and Children

Definitely plausible. Again, does this complicity make inaction acceptable?

How can you be certain either way the Americans aren't doing the exact same thing in this case?

Given that uncertainty, and never mind the fact that you have absolutely no clue who was behind the release of the chemicals, can you 'choose a side'? Especially an American one?

how's about we get rid of weapons all together and just settle this with a good bout of fisticuffs. Hey it's okay that our drone and cruise missile strikes kill innocents because they aren't chemical….

We? You planning to go over there and take away the weapons?

We? You planning to go over there and take away the weapons?

our governments are acting in our names as our representatives, are they not?

Ah yes. Another thread of idiot know it alls who think they have a solution and come off like they actually give a shit about people in this case the Syrian people. But in a few weeks they won't give a shit as they move onto the new cause of the week to rail about.

I thought the Al Qaeda elements didn't come into the conflict until after it had already begun? I was more of the mind there were separate factions fighting for the "rebel" side, some of which were unfortunately islamists.

I think you're right on that. There may have been "traces" of Al Quaeda influence prior to the supposed influx. Really a hard situation to completely pin down which may partially explain the tippy-toe approach from some Western powers. Gassing and bombing civilians and possibly "Rebels" is lower than low but that goes without saying.

How can you be certain either way the Americans aren't doing the exact same thing in this case?

Given that uncertainty, and never mind the fact that you have absolutely no clue who was behind the release of the chemicals, can you 'choose a side'? Especially an American one?

Like I said

I don’t have enough information to say whether any action is justified, but someone should get an ass beating for gassing that many folks.

I don’t have the time or energy to speculate, much less choose a side. I responded to this thread in response to the assertion that it didn't matter which party was in office. I think that’s an insane perspective.

But if we’re choosing sides We’re talking about a country that has amassed the 3rd largest stockpile of chemical weapons, some of which have now been released on a boatload of civilians. I guess you can mark me down for the side that thinks this shouldn’t get lost due to international gridlock.

Is there any amount of evidence that would lead you to support a beatdown for whoever is responsible? The shit has been happening for a while. How about the continued use of chemical weapons? You cool with that?

Ah yes. Another thread of idiot know it alls who think they have a solution and come off like they actually give a shit about people in this case the Syrian people. But in a few weeks they won't give a shit as they move onto the new cause of the week to rail about.

Even if you thought it, why would you waste your time typing it?

Oh, I see now! You are against the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Let me think about that position for a bit. It's certainly novel!

Kn.

Sounds like Kerry/Obama are gonna do it anyway…..Kerry's press conf was filled with all the usual self-righteous, cheast thumping rhetoric…guess we should be ready to see some action….

Kerry's quite a piece of work………..

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/26/what-john-kerry-really-did-in-vietnam/print

Oh noze, not counterpunch!

Oh, I see now! You are against the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Let me think about that position for a bit. It's certainly novel!

My comments lack novelty. I can live with that. How would you characterize your contribution to this thread?

Oh, I see now! You are against the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Let me think about that position for a bit. It's certainly novel!

Ok, I think I'm with you now, but please excuse me as I'm slow. A few questions.

If the Unites States supplied the chemical weapons to Al Qaeda operatives, how many innocent civilians should they kill with missile strikes? Now if they didn't supply them, should the number of dead innocents be a different number?

Now as for the differences between Democrats and Republicans, if I follow correctly, if the Republicans were in power we'd be forced to deal with terrible speeches, whereas Democrats employ gifted wordsmiths who will make us feel good about the soon to be hellfire. So that's another win for us.

If the Unites States supplied the chemical weapons to Al Qaeda operatives, how many innocent civilians should they kill with missile strikes? Now if they didn't supply them, should the number of dead innocents be a different number?

Will they be using chemical agents or just good old-fashioned missiles?

Now as for the differences between Democrats and Republicans, if I follow correctly, if the Republicans were in power we'd be forced to deal with terrible speeches, whereas Democrats employ gifted wordsmiths who will make us feel good about the soon to be hellfire. So that's another win for us.

Good, we agree that Democrats are gifted in the art of speech. So if no hellfire ensues, you’ll take a step down from your high horse?

Good, we agree that Democrats are gifted in the art of speech. So if no hellfire ensues, you’ll take a step down from your high horse?

I apologize I interrupted your Cheny-esque sabre rattling.