Syrian Priest beheaded by Syrian rebels

Obama orders the bombing of the same groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan while aiding them in Syria.

Obama has no clue what he is doing.

I guess he's supporting the military-industrial complex in the end...intentionally or not, and I'm afraid this really is the driving force behind these decisions.JustBeYourself

Freedom fighters of peace. 

Yup, Iran and Hezbollah are much better options, it's infinitely more preferrable that they and Assad succeed.

Is this ad hominem argument ever going to stop?  Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.  

Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.theone86

Yup, Iran and Hezbollah are much better options, it's infinitely more preferrable that they and Assad succeed.

Is this ad hominem argument ever going to stop?  Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.  

theone86

Syria was a lot better off under Assad than they are under these 'rebels'.

Yup, Iran and Hezbollah are much better options, it's infinitely more preferrable that they and Assad succeed.

Is this ad hominem argument ever going to stop?  Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.  

theone86

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yup, Iran and Hezbollah are much better options, it's infinitely more preferrable that they and Assad succeed.

Is this ad hominem argument ever going to stop?  Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.  

KC_Hokie

Syria was a lot better off under Assad than they are under these 'rebels'.

Their goal is to overthrow Assad because they're sick of living under his oppression.  If they don't do it now then they're just going to be back doing this whole thing over years down the line.  America was hardly more unified either.  It took them thirteen years after the end of the war to ratify the Constitution, Jefferson at one point thought that they were going to miss the deadline for ratification of the Paris Peace Treaty because they couldn't get enough representatives from the states to assemble at once.

Yep, Syria was a whole lot better with Assad murdering peaceful demonstrators.

The whole problem with the Obama doctrine, like most of Obama's policies, is the fact it's so naive.

Obama felt replacing governments in the Middle East with 'moderate' transitional Islamists would bring democracy.

The problem there is secular democracy and Islamists don't mix. Never have.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yup, Iran and Hezbollah are much better options, it's infinitely more preferrable that they and Assad succeed.

Is this ad hominem argument ever going to stop?  Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.  

theone86

Syria was a lot better off under Assad than they are under these 'rebels'.

Their goal is to overthrow Assad because they're sick of living under his oppression.  If they don't do it now then they're just going to be back doing this whole thing over years down the line.  America was hardly more unified either.  It took them thirteen years after the end of the war to ratify the Constitution, Jefferson at one point thought that they were going to miss the deadline for ratification of the Paris Peace Treaty because they couldn't get enough representatives from the states to assemble at once.

Yep, Syria was a whole lot better with Assad murdering peaceful demonstrators.

The rebels in Syria have no common purpose. The 'FSA' is completely fake and a product of NATO and the West.

The Islamists and Jihadists just want power and implement their will.

There is no unified leadership group and no intellectual purpose or goals behind their rebellion.

I would like to point out that this story is ultimately linked to a site run by apologists for the Assad regime. The most inflammatory statement in this story is specifically designed to mess with your sensibilities and is directly traceable to the Assad supporter's site.

That doesn't mean that the story isn't true as it may very well be at least to a certain extent. What it does mean is that this is designed to evoke similar reactions as those evoked by WWF showing images of animals trapped in small cages or relief agencies showing pictures of starving children with bloated bellies.

What makes this story interesting is the clear connection to the propaganda war associated with this conflict.

The whole problem with the Obama doctrine, like most of Obama's policies, is the fact it's so naive.

Obama felt replacing governments in the Middle East with 'moderate' transitional Islamists would bring democracy.

The problem there is secular democracy and Islamists don't mix. Never have.

KC_Hokie

You're an insane conspiracy theorist, there's no point in trying to reason with you.

Yep, Irak was a whole lot better with Hussein murdering Kurds.

An average republican

Interesting.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

The whole problem with the Obama doctrine, like most of Obama's policies, is the fact it's so naive.

Obama felt replacing governments in the Middle East with 'moderate' transitional Islamists would bring democracy.

The problem there is secular democracy and Islamists don't mix. Never have.

theone86

You're an insane conspiracy theorist, there's no point in trying to reason with you.

It's naive as hell considering Islamists and secular democracy have NEVER, EVER mix.

[QUOTE="An average republican"]

Yep, Irak was a whole lot better with Hussein murdering Kurds.

LordQuoquethon

Interesting.

Am I saying to go in and join the war under false pretenses and without any sort of international support?  No, I don't believe I am.

I would like to point out that this story is ultimately linked to a site run by apologists for the Assad regime. The most inflammatory statement in this story is specifically designed to mess with your sensibilities and is directly traceable to the Assad supporter's site.

That doesn't mean that the story isn't true as it may very well be at least to a certain extent. What it does mean is that this is designed to evoke similar reactions as those evoked by WWF showing images of animals trapped in small cages or relief agencies showing pictures of starving children with bloated bellies.

What makes this story interesting is the clear connection to the propaganda war associated with this conflict.

SUD123456

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

The whole problem with the Obama doctrine, like most of Obama's policies, is the fact it's so naive.

Obama felt replacing governments in the Middle East with 'moderate' transitional Islamists would bring democracy.

The problem there is secular democracy and Islamists don't mix. Never have.

KC_Hokie

You're an insane conspiracy theorist, there's no point in trying to reason with you.

It's naive as hell considering Islamists and secular democracy have NEVER, EVER mix.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

You're an insane conspiracy theorist, there's no point in trying to reason with you.

theone86

It's naive as hell considering Islamists and secular democracy have NEVER, EVER mix.

Am I saying to go in and join the war under false pretenses and without any sort of international support?  No, I don't believe I am.

theone86

A group of "peaceful demonstrators," by defitnion, cannot be an irregular army at the same time. 

You really are a full blown imbecile who eats up whatever your government feeds you as long as there's a Democrat in the White House, which would be ok, if it weren't for how superior you think you are when compared to an average conservative idiot.  

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

I would like to point out that this story is ultimately linked to a site run by apologists for the Assad regime. The most inflammatory statement in this story is specifically designed to mess with your sensibilities and is directly traceable to the Assad supporter's site.

That doesn't mean that the story isn't true as it may very well be at least to a certain extent. What it does mean is that this is designed to evoke similar reactions as those evoked by WWF showing images of animals trapped in small cages or relief agencies showing pictures of starving children with bloated bellies.

What makes this story interesting is the clear connection to the propaganda war associated with this conflict.

KC_Hokie

Holy f*ck. Your question is walking talking propaganda. In two weeks they could only find two people who aren't Sunni? Damn, they must really suck at searching.

Or perhaps your question is massively overblown hyperbole...aka propaganda. It is delightfully delicious that your question is the exact one raised in the article and serves the exact same propaganda purpose.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

I would like to point out that this story is ultimately linked to a site run by apologists for the Assad regime. The most inflammatory statement in this story is specifically designed to mess with your sensibilities and is directly traceable to the Assad supporter's site.

That doesn't mean that the story isn't true as it may very well be at least to a certain extent. What it does mean is that this is designed to evoke similar reactions as those evoked by WWF showing images of animals trapped in small cages or relief agencies showing pictures of starving children with bloated bellies.

What makes this story interesting is the clear connection to the propaganda war associated with this conflict.

SUD123456

Holy f*ck. Your question is walking talking propaganda. In two weeks they could only find two people who aren't Sunni? Damn, they must really suck at searching.

Or perhaps your question is massively overblown hyperbole...aka propaganda. It is delightfully delicious that your question is the exact one raised in the article and serves the exact same propaganda purpose.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] How is it 'propaganda' to point out the Islamist rebels in Syria are beheading and executing anyone that isn't Sunni? Just two weeks ago they executed a 15 year old because he spoke out against their religious laws.KC_Hokie

Holy f*ck. Your question is walking talking propaganda. In two weeks they could only find two people who aren't Sunni? Damn, they must really suck at searching.

Or perhaps your question is massively overblown hyperbole...aka propaganda. It is delightfully delicious that your question is the exact one raised in the article and serves the exact same propaganda purpose.

Newsflash: The rebels of all types aren't executing everyone who isn't Sunni.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Holy f*ck. Your question is walking talking propaganda. In two weeks they could only find two people who aren't Sunni? Damn, they must really suck at searching.

Or perhaps your question is massively overblown hyperbole...aka propaganda. It is delightfully delicious that your question is the exact one raised in the article and serves the exact same propaganda purpose.

SUD123456

Newsflash: The rebels of all types aren't executing everyone who isn't Sunni.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]That was the Obama doctrine....let 'moderate' Islamists take over in the hope they will transition to democracy.

It's naive as hell considering Islamists and secular democracy have NEVER, EVER mix.

KC_Hokie

The part that is wrong is that President Obama has never outlined a specific doctrine of what his international goals are.  He has never supported a policy of ushering Islamist into power as you claim, you are lying through your teeth.

ITT: we learn that Hokie is an idiot, but we all already knew that, didn't we?

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Newsflash....Al Qaeda and their affiliates execute people of different faiths or even political views. The most powerful and effective rebels groups are foreign Jahidists, Salafists and other Islamists. KC_Hokie

Newsflash: The rebels of all types aren't executing everyone who isn't Sunni.

Do you deliberately overstate everything? Or do you simply have no logic filter? If there are tens of thousands of al Nursa who literally execute everyone who isn't Sunni then why aren't there thousands of executions per day?

Perhaps because you massively overstate the situation. You would have made a great propagandist for Hitler or Stalin.

No one doubts that there are bad people in al Nusra. They might even be the majority of the FSA fighters. And there is good reason to be concerned about arming them.

But the original article took the one incident with the priest and turned it into propaganda with this statement:

"With such instances, not a single Christian will remain the the east".

That is clearly designed to influence people in the west to drop support for the rebels. It is not a balanced or reasoned viewed point. It is alarmist propaganda designed to appeal to emotion.

And everything you type is similarly designed.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="theone86"]Not only are you lying through your teeth, you're now going into the typical "trash Islam" mode we've come to expect from many posters around here.

theone86

The part that is wrong is that President Obama has never outlined a specific doctrine of what his international goals are.  He has never supported a policy of ushering Islamist into power as you claim, you are lying through your teeth.

ITT: we learn that Hokie is an idiot, but we all already knew that, didn't we?

Look at what Obama did. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood come to power in Libya and Egypt. He even told the secular ally to leave in Egypt.

In Syria he's supported Islamists in removing a secular dictator.

And now look at Afghanistan....talking with the 'moderate' Taliban. Taliban are Islamists and literally mean 'student of Islam'.

So his overall foreign policy in the Middle East involves Islamists taking over in the hope of an eventual transition to democracy. Problem with that logic is secular democracy and Islamism don't mix. You would need a second revolution for that to happen. This is what might be happening in Egypt right now.

And resorting to name calling is a great way to end arguments. Very effective.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Newsflash: The rebels of all types aren't executing everyone who isn't Sunni.

SUD123456

"With such instances, not a single Christian will remain the the east".

That is clearly designed to influence people in the west to drop support for the rebels. It is not a balanced or reasoned viewed point. It is alarmist propaganda designed to appeal to emotion.

And everything you type is similarly designed.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] The most powerful groups certainly are. Jabhat al Nursa are nuts and they are in the tens of thousands. There is also a Chechen group that beheads anyone they capture.KC_Hokie

"With such instances, not a single Christian will remain the the east".

That is clearly designed to influence people in the west to drop support for the rebels. It is not a balanced or reasoned viewed point. It is alarmist propaganda designed to appeal to emotion.

And everything you type is similarly designed.

And they were all executed, am I right?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]But the original article took the one incident with the priest and turned it into propaganda with this statement:

"With such instances, not a single Christian will remain the the east".

That is clearly designed to influence people in the west to drop support for the rebels. It is not a balanced or reasoned viewed point. It is alarmist propaganda designed to appeal to emotion.

And everything you type is similarly designed.

SUD123456

And they were all executed, am I right?

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]This incident took place right next to Iraq where the Christian population plummeted. So it's not far fetched at all to see the same result among the Christian community. KC_Hokie

And they were all executed, am I right?

Unlike other displaced muslims and kurds in Iraq, correct?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

And they were all executed, am I right?

SUD123456

Unlike other displaced muslims and kurds in Iraq, correct?

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]After a certain percentage were the others left.KC_Hokie

Unlike other displaced muslims and kurds in Iraq, correct?

And the evidence that the Christian community is being targeted is one incident, which we aren't even really certain what happened. Congrats, you have swallowed the hook.

That is exactly what was intended by this article, highlighting this one incident, and putting in the back of your mind the potential wholesale slaughter and dislocation of the Christian community...with the implication that this is a result of supporting the rebels. Images of rebels who behead people are the modern equivalent of WWI germans who bayonet babies.

That is propaganda delivered to perfection and you ate it up, even though I forewarned you at the very beginning that that was the intent. You went full circle.

Gold star for Assad's information cronies.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Unlike other displaced muslims and kurds in Iraq, correct?

SUD123456

And the evidence that the Christian community is being targeted is one incident, which we aren't even really certain what happened. Congrats, you have swallowed the hook.

That is exactly what was intended by this article, highlighting this one incident, and putting in the back of your mind the potential wholesale slaughter and dislocation of the Christian community...with the implication that this is a result of supporting the rebels. Images of rebels who behead people are the modern equivalent of WWI germans who bayonet babies.

That is propaganda delivered to perfection and you ate it up, even though I forewarned you at the very beginning that that was the intent. You went full circle.

Gold star for Assad's information cronies.

Yeah people die and stuff over there.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Just pointing out that quote isn't propaganda or whatever as you were trying to claim. When Christian communities get targeted in the Middle East they flee and don't come back. It's happened all over the Levant and Mesopotamia area over hundreds of years. Most recently in places like Iraq and Libya. KC_Hokie

And the evidence that the Christian community is being targeted is one incident, which we aren't even really certain what happened. Congrats, you have swallowed the hook.

That is exactly what was intended by this article, highlighting this one incident, and putting in the back of your mind the potential wholesale slaughter and dislocation of the Christian community...with the implication that this is a result of supporting the rebels. Images of rebels who behead people are the modern equivalent of WWI germans who bayonet babies.

That is propaganda delivered to perfection and you ate it up, even though I forewarned you at the very beginning that that was the intent. You went full circle.

Gold star for Assad's information cronies.

LOL apparently you are indeed that simplistic.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] What part is wrong? Have you researched the Obama Doctrine? KC_Hokie

The part that is wrong is that President Obama has never outlined a specific doctrine of what his international goals are.  He has never supported a policy of ushering Islamist into power as you claim, you are lying through your teeth.

ITT: we learn that Hokie is an idiot, but we all already knew that, didn't we?

Look at what Obama did. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood come to power in Libya and Egypt. He even told the secular ally to leave in Egypt.

In Syria he's supported Islamists in removing a secular dictator.

And now look at Afghanistan....talking with the 'moderate' Taliban. Taliban are Islamists and literally mean 'student of Islam'.

So his overall foreign policy in the Middle East involves Islamists taking over in the hope of an eventual transition to democracy. Problem with that logic is secular democracy and Islamism don't mix. You would need a second revolution for that to happen. This is what might be happening in Egypt right now.

And resorting to name calling is a great way to end arguments. Very effective.

Conspiracy theorist confirmed.  You're blaming President Obama for supporting free elections in Egypt that HAPPENED to end in the Muslim Brotherhood's favor (I'd like to point out for the umpteenth time that although they are theocratic they are far less extreme than other groups in the region such as Hezbollah).  Any reasonable person understands that the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power was not President Obama's intent, again confirming just how unreasonable you are.

In Syria he's supporting removing a dictator who not only killed his own people but is a close ally of the region's largest theocracy, evidenced by both Iran and Hezbollah's support.  Your attempt to make this into some sort of Obama jihad conspiracy is completely laughable.  Are you going to address the criticism that you're constantly using ad hominem against the rebellion?  Are you going to address that there are just as many religious zealots fighting for Assad as there are fighting against them?  Nope, you're just going to continue on with your conspiracy theory despite all the evidence proving it wrong (as we've all come to expect from you), just again proving how unreasonable you are.

Talking with the Taliban because Afghanistan's government is laughably corrupt and lacks legitimacy.  You can't pick and choose whom the people elect in free elections and you can't pick and choose who they support in the abscence of a legitimate government.  Again, trying to pin the fact that the Afghani government lacks legitimacy on President Obama, laughable.  Again, shows just how unreasonable you are.

You blame President Obama for the Egyptian people electing Islamic theocrats, you blame him for the Syrian people rebelling against a tyrant, you blame him for talking to a group that a large chunk of the Afghan population looks to for support, you attempt to poison the well and lump peaceful theocrats in with militant extremists and blame President Obama by proxy, all the while ignoring that there are religious extremists fighting on the other side as well, and then you attempt to tie it all together into some conspiracy about President Obama being part of some sort of Islamist conspiracy.  You are the pinnacle of irrationality, I don't even know how you take yourself seriously.

It's effective if it's true.

Yup, Iran and Hezbollah are much better options, it's infinitely more preferrable that they and Assad succeed.

Is this ad hominem argument ever going to stop?  Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.  

theone86

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yup, Iran and Hezbollah are much better options, it's infinitely more preferrable that they and Assad succeed.

Is this ad hominem argument ever going to stop?  Oh look, rebels doing bad things, therefore entire rebellion is bad.  

LJS9502_basic

Perhaps France should've just stayed out of it during the American Revolution...........................................

It's great how virtually all of the media ignored this story in order to protect two false narratives:  that Islam is a religion of peace and that its adherents are not more vicious and barbaric than most of us in the West, and that the so-called "Free Syrian Army" who Obama and most of the moron leaders of Western nations are supporting isn't a vicious and bloodthirsty Islamist group.  Remember, the priority is to shield Obama. 

Obama is a Sunni. Indonesia is Sunni. Saudia Arabia is Sunni, Muslim Brothers are Sunni, Taliban are Sunni etc.... 

Shiites are the current enemy ( Iran , Lebanon and Syria) w syria being ruled by alawites  ( basically shiites). 

Obama dont give a damn about  arab christians.I would feel sympathetic, but Arab christians long ago joined Arab muslims in anti-semitism and jew hate. They can go to hell with their arab brothers.

Obama is a Sunni. Indonesia is Sunni. Saudia Arabia is Sunni, Muslim Brothers are Sunni, Taliban are Sunni etc.... 

Shiites are the current enemy ( Iran , Lebanon and Syria) w syria being ruled by alawites  ( basically shiites). 

Obama dont give a damn about  arab christians.I would feel sympathetic, but Arab christians long ago joined Arab muslims in anti-semitism and jew hate. They can go to hell with their arab brothers.

consoletroll