Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Smell The Hypocrisy

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) writes | about a year ago

The Matrix 22

1000 a month being killed in Mexico. Most of it as close to US border as Ciudad Juarez.

But OMG!!! Syria!!!

The Neocons never stopped operations. The "Arab spring" was another route to the PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defences".

1000 a month being killed in Mexico. Most of it as close to US border as Ciudad Juarez.

But OMG!!! Syria!!!

The Neocons never stopped operations. The "Arab spring" was another route to the PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defences".

cancel ×

22 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Chemical weapons? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43636159)

WMD is something of a distinction.
But I've got to concur: our government and media choice of priorities is most fascinating.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43636433)

The only report of Chemical Weapons by Assad? Unconfirmed and dubiously sourced assertions channeled via Israeli military intelligence.

There are confirmed uses by the "rebels" - foreign mujahedeen fighters.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43636539)

Chemical weapons? WMD is something of a distinction.

*sigh* Are you still really trying to sell the war? Be patient. We have to soften up the target a bit first. Total destruction (the true purpose) will come soon enough. Right now it's more profitable to keep them shootin' at each other until the survivors are so exhausted that they cannot defend themselves, and then like SPECTRE, we strike!

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43638717)

I saw one Syrian rebel face on the news assert WMD usage by Assad.
If you have to accuse me of a sales pitch, well, it's your accusation.
No, having spent 2011 in Afghanistan, I'm amply convinced that redistributing power and increasing voter involvement is key to walking back military adventurism.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43638801)

I saw one Syrian rebel face on the news assert WMD usage by Assad.

Wow, I'm convinced...

...I'm amply convinced that redistributing power...

By force?

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43639465)

AP had a photo...

The EXIF data was scrubbed.

You want analytical breakdown of the "veracity" of claims? Follow "Moon of Alabama" blog. B has taken down a number of these disinformation efforts in the past.

Re:Chemical weapons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43640909)

can you please post some more host file spam?

Re:Chemical weapons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43648905)

Hello Paul.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43639583)

...walking back military adventurism.

..."trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank."

You are doomed

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43649301)

As long as Zimbabwe Ben Bernanke prints the frogskins, I fear you're correct.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43649561)

Heh, sometimes I have to wonder if you really are just pretending or not...

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43649611)

I am as serious as lung cancer, boss. I got into some hyperbole and sarcasm with damn_registrars.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43649793)

Yeah well, making this Ben Barnacle person out to be some evil genius behind all this is positively comedic. Truly the butler did it. Makes you sound about as smart as lung cancer...

A man takes his father to the doctor.

At the office, the doctor tells the old man, "I'm sorry, sir, but you have lung cancer. You'll be dead in a year."

On the way home, the old man turns to his grief-stricken son and says, "Quit all that cryin'! I'm not depressed. I've lived 75 great years. How 'bout you and me go to my favorite bar and have a couple beers with my friends?"

So while the guys are having their beers, the old man breaks the news to his friends. "Fellas," he says, "I'll be dead in a year 'cause I got AIDS."

On the way home, his son asks, "Dad, why did you lie to your friends?"

His dad replies, "'Cause when I die, I don't want them trying to fuck your mother!"

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43650835)

Sure, it's the institution of central banking that's the actual problem. Fair point: personalizing the issue is a distraction.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43656943)

Sure, it's the institution of central banking that's the actual problem.

The ant mill seems to be your destiny... Which one of those guys [youtube.com] is you?

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43660565)

Socialism is an ant colony. So we're either stuck, or trading up.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43645573)

Are you still really trying to sell the war?

If he is he can forget it until at least the next election. No Democrat President has started a war since Kennedy, and no Republican President has failed to start one since Ford. If he wants a war he should vote for whoever the Republicans run.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43646503)

No Democrat President has started a war since Kennedy, and no Republican President has failed to start one since Ford.

Oh please! What difference is that supposed to make? Why do you people keep on insisting that the battling Bickersons are in some kind of opposition to each other? And why stop at Kennedy? I mean, aside from some propaganda value? Let's go back to Teddy Roosevelt and see how this 'war' thing balances out. Fuck it, let's go back to the Canaanites. I'm sure all the appropriate analogies can be found there too. But here and now, the democrats and the republicans (and their 'third' party spin-offs) are working together to do their thing, and giving either one the time of day is just a bit... dumb, or evil.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43676697)

Well, both parties seem to be opposed to my views, at least the ones that matter to me -- drug laws, copyright insanity, patent insanity, etc. Both parties are indeed pro-business and anti-human.

The two parties seem to switch sides every few generations. It used to be that Democrats always started wars but were good for the economy and we were at peace, but with Republicans they wrecked the economy.

After the Civil war it was the Dems who were racist and the Repubs who were for an egalitarian society and that reversed some time before I was born.

As to "why stop at Kennedy," he was the last Democrat to start a war, Ford was the last Republican to not start one. You could blame that on his short reign, and you could also say Nixon was the last one to not start one.

I've been voting mostly Green Party for the last decade or so, they're a hell of a lot closer to my opinions than the other four viable parties (of course, the corporate media isn't about to mention Greenies, Libbies, or those religious nuts in the Constitution party).

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43677251)

There is no 'both' parties... They are bickering factions of the same thing. It is pointless to search for any distinctions, which amount to nothing more than method. There is but one goal.

As to "why stop at Kennedy,"...

Kennedy was only 50 years ago. You analogy is like playing a slot machine for 30 seconds and then complaining that it doesn't pay out its stated percentage.

And watch out for the Greens. I've seen some of the alliances they make, and it ain't pretty. They all talk big when nobody's paying attention, or when they have no real influence..

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43695625)

There is no 'both' parties... They are bickering factions of the same thing.

I can't disagree with that. I was just pointing out an odd piece of recent history. I don't worry about the Greens, they're not going to win anyway. It's like voting "none of the above" so they can't say "apathy." Only half those eligible do vote and the rest are accused of apathy when in fact there's nobody worth voting for, one will be as bad as the other.

Re:Chemical weapons? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43697559)

I can't disagree with that. I was just pointing out an odd piece of recent history.

If you don't disagree, then why would you point something like that out? What is 'odd' about that segment of our history? What difference does it make if the politician declaring war is a democrat or a republican? It's not like they are the ones making the choice out of their own free will. They're just following orders like the rest of us. Hell, I can blame Johnson for taking Vietnam as far as he did, and at the same time I can credit Nixon (if I put his treason aside) and Ford for ending it. And I will give the republicans every bit as much credit for the passage of the civil rights act as the damn democrats, whom I remember as the party of George Wallace and a bunch of other racist motherfuckers. Granted the 'new' dixiecrats' are now republicans, but it still doesn't make any difference. They are one.

There are people worth voting for. They're just not likely to be on the ballot, but you can always write them in.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>