Politics Democrat speaks truth about Syria, destroy's Obama and Hillary

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I think you will find that there are very many people who regard Gabbard as kind of a tool. She went to speak with Assad. Assad is a known genocidal dictator. He has slaughtered thousands and thousands of his own people.

Syria: Assad regime kills so many detainees it amounts to 'extermination' of civilian population, UN says
civilian-deaths-syria.jpg

Of course it's very convenient for Assad to point to ISIS and say "hey, that's who I'm up against" but there are knowledgeable people who argue that Assad had a big hand in creating ISIS's presence in Syria. For example: http://orient-news.net/en/news_show/94727/0/Assad-responsible-for-the-rise-of-ISIS-in-Syria

Trump of course loves this narrative, because Russia is 100% behind Assad. And he's been buddying up to Gabbard for a while. I bet you she gets a position in the Trump administration in short order. (So he can say: "see? I'm bipartisan!")
 
Dunno if I agree with thread title. I have a feeling the situation is more complicated than that.

barfo
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I think you will find that there are very many people who regard Gabbard as kind of a tool. She went to speak with Assad. Assad is a known genocidal dictator. He has slaughtered thousands and thousands of his own people.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? She said she didn't go there to speak with Assad but when the opportunity presented itself she took it. "You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends."
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Did you watch the video? She said she didn't go there to speak with Assad but when the opportunity presented itself she took it. "You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends."
Click to expand...
Is it up to her to make peace with Assad? I'd think it was more the job of the people he's slaughtering. I would like to know how many experts on the region she consulted.
 
Here's an alternative view

“Meet the Democrat Who’s Not Afraid to Criticize President Obama on ISIS,” intones a recent ABC News headline. The story describes remarks by Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), who has for the past month been all over the media slamming Obama's refusal to directly associate ISIS and other terrorists with the Islamic faith.
She's particularly a favorite of right-wing media. Appearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a “diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat.” She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
To the media, Gabbard is a curious spectacle. She's a Hawaii Democrat, coming from one of the nation's most progressive and dovish chapters of the Democratic Party, but she's also an Iraq war veteran, and she's consistently tried to outflank President Obama and the rest of her party to the right on foreign affairs. Last month she openly mocked Secretary of State John Kerry during an appearance on CNN, saying that he thinks, "if we give them [Islamic extremists] $10,000 and give them a nice place to live that somehow they're not going to be engaged in this fighting."
To Gabbard, the fact that Syria and Iraq have been through years of brutal civil war, wrecked economies and massive displacement is irrelevant; the only reason they have an extremism problem is because of Islamic theology.

But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.

More.

Note that that article is from February 2015. So basically Gabbard had a view of Syria before she went that her visit amazingly confirmed 100%.

(Here's the last paragraph of the article. Heartbreakingly wrong:

Gabbard should take note of these trends and realize that while Muslim-bashing may be in vogue at the time, it may just be the political equivalent of an economic bubble—and when it pops her own political career may go with it.

Not only did it not pop, it inflated to massive size and her career is likely to inflate with it.)
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Is it up to her to make peace with Assad? I'd think it was more the job of the people he's slaughtering. I would like to know how many experts on the region she consulted.
Click to expand...

She's on the House Foreign Relations Committee, I'm not seeing anything bad about politicians going to see first hand what is going on.
 
The statement "there are no moderate rebels" gives her away. That's pure Kremlin-speak.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
She's on the House Foreign Relations Committee, I'm not seeing anything bad about politicians going to see first hand what is going on.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But conversely, just because they went there doesn't mean that we should believe "they saw what was going on".

In the early years of the Soviet Union, British Socialists went on visits there and returned with glowing descriptions of what a worker's paradise it truly was. Of course, they believed that before they went there, they were shown round by handlers, and at this time thousands of Russians were already being killed by their own government.

Look, Sly: I can see that you might be getting exasperated. "This guy thinks he's always right and won't concede anything." But look at it this way - I'm being bipartisan! I just said that a Democrat was a deluded asshole!
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Of course not. But conversely, just because they went there doesn't mean that we should believe "they saw what was going on".

In the early years of the Soviet Union, British Socialists went on visits there and returned with glowing descriptions of what a worker's paradise it truly was. Of course, they believed that before they went there, they were shown round by handlers, and at this time thousands of Russians were already being killed by their own government.
Click to expand...

We're picking sides in a civil war that we helped to start to get an oil pipeline built. Millions of people displaced, raped, killed. We don't want anything to do with these people because they all might be secret spooky terrorists. So lets keep funding the war and destabilizing the region. And this makes sense to you?
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Of course not. But conversely, just because they went there doesn't mean that we should believe "they saw what was going on".

In the early years of the Soviet Union, British Socialists went on visits there and returned with glowing descriptions of what a worker's paradise it truly was. Of course, they believed that before they went there, they were shown round by handlers, and at this time thousands of Russians were already being killed by their own government.

Look, Sly: I can see that you might be getting exasperated. "This guy thinks he's always right and won't concede anything." But look at it this way - I'm being bipartisan! I just said that a Democrat was a deluded asshole!
Click to expand...


funny cartoons for kids 4.jpg
 

Attachments

  • funny cartoons for kids 4.jpg
    funny cartoons for kids 4.jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 51
SlyPokerDog said:
She said she didn't go there to speak with Assad but when the opportunity presented itself she took it.
Click to expand...

Not sure I believe that part.

SlyPokerDog said:
We're picking sides in a civil war that we helped to start to get an oil pipeline built. Millions of people displaced, raped, killed. We don't want anything to do with these people because they all might be secret spooky terrorists. So lets keep funding the war and destabilizing the region. And this makes sense to you?
Click to expand...

What are the better options at this point? Ignore the civil war? Arm all sides? Kill them all?

Seems like we are about to switch sides, which should be pretty interesting...

barfo
 
SlyPokerDog said:
We're picking sides in a civil war that we helped to start to get an oil pipeline built.
Click to expand...

That's like saying the Empire vs. the Rebels is "a civil war". After all - both sides commit atrocities - you don't think there were civilians on those Death Stars?
 
barfo said:
Not sure I believe that part.



What are the better options at this point? Ignore the civil war? Arm all sides? Kill them all?

Seems like we are about to switch sides, which should be pretty interesting...

barfo
Click to expand...

Russian seems to want to be the lead dog in the fight. I say we let them. It won't turn out good for them and the rest of the middle east can call them the Great Satan.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
That's like saying the Empire vs. the Rebels is "a civil war". After all - both sides commit atrocities - you don't think there were civilians on those Death Stars?
Click to expand...

In your example we're the Empire.


In 2011–12, after Syrian president Bashar al-Assad refused to cooperate with Turkey’s proposal to create a natural gas pipeline between Qatar and Turkey through Syria, Turkey and its allies became “the major architects of Syria’s ‘civil war.’” The proposed pipeline would have bypassed Russia to reach European markets currently dominated by Russian gas giant Gazprom. As a result, Muhawesh wrote, “The Middle East is being torn to shreds by manipulative plans to gain oil and gas access by pitting people against one another based on religion. The ensuing chaos provides ample cover to install a new regime that’s more amenable to opening up oil pipelines and ensuring favorable routes for the highest bidders.”

In 2012, the US, UK, France, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, along with Turkey, began to organize, arm, and finance rebels to form the Free Syrian Army, consistent with long-standing US plans to destabilize Syria. These nations formed a pact, “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People,” that implemented a sectarian divide and conquer strategy to overthrow President Assad. “It’s important to note the timing,” Muhawesh wrote. “This coalition and meddling in Syria came about immediately on the heels of discussions of an Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline that was to be built between 2014 and 2016 from Iran’s giant South Pars field through Iraq and Syria. With a possible extension to Lebanon, it would eventually reach Europe, the target export market.” As MintPress News reported, access to oil and gas—not sectarian differences—is the underlying cause of the violent conflict and humanitarian disaster in Syria. “The war is being sold to the public as a Sunni-Shiite conflict” by the Friends of Syria because, if the public understood the economic interests at stake, “most people would not support any covert funding and arming of rebels or direct intervention.”

http://projectcensored.org/8-syrias-war-spurred-contest-gas-delivery-europe-not-muslim-sectarianism/
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Russian seems to want to be the lead dog in the fight. I say we let them. It won't turn out good for them and the rest of the middle east can call them the Great Satan.
Click to expand...
That is why I'm for atheist refugees. If they don't believe in religion they shouldn't believe in Satan and should be less likely to hate us. Simple.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
That is why I'm for atheist refugees. If they don't believe in religion they shouldn't believe in Satan and should be less likely to hate us. Simple.
Click to expand...

Psst... we call counties the Axis of Evil. A different variation of the Satan theme.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
In your example we're the Empire.


In 2011–12, after Syrian president Bashar al-Assad refused to cooperate with Turkey’s proposal to create a natural gas pipeline between Qatar and Turkey through Syria, Turkey and its allies became “the major architects of Syria’s ‘civil war.’” The proposed pipeline would have bypassed Russia to reach European markets currently dominated by Russian gas giant Gazprom. As a result, Muhawesh wrote, “The Middle East is being torn to shreds by manipulative plans to gain oil and gas access by pitting people against one another based on religion. The ensuing chaos provides ample cover to install a new regime that’s more amenable to opening up oil pipelines and ensuring favorable routes for the highest bidders.”

In 2012, the US, UK, France, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, along with Turkey, began to organize, arm, and finance rebels to form the Free Syrian Army, consistent with long-standing US plans to destabilize Syria. These nations formed a pact, “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People,” that implemented a sectarian divide and conquer strategy to overthrow President Assad. “It’s important to note the timing,” Muhawesh wrote. “This coalition and meddling in Syria came about immediately on the heels of discussions of an Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline that was to be built between 2014 and 2016 from Iran’s giant South Pars field through Iraq and Syria. With a possible extension to Lebanon, it would eventually reach Europe, the target export market.” As MintPress News reported, access to oil and gas—not sectarian differences—is the underlying cause of the violent conflict and humanitarian disaster in Syria. “The war is being sold to the public as a Sunni-Shiite conflict” by the Friends of Syria because, if the public understood the economic interests at stake, “most people would not support any covert funding and arming of rebels or direct intervention.”

http://projectcensored.org/8-syrias-war-spurred-contest-gas-delivery-europe-not-muslim-sectarianism/
Click to expand...
Thank goodness Assad had a plucky little ally called Russia to stick up for him! And he was such a nice guy before all this went down, too.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Russian seems to want to be the lead dog in the fight. I say we let them. It won't turn out good for them and the rest of the middle east can call them the Great Satan.
Click to expand...
Okay, not going to argue with you any more Sly. Wasting far too much time on this site. But just be aware what "letting" Russia do what they want has meant.
No simple answers anywhere, and bad people on both sides. But Assad is pretty much pure evil, and Putin close behind.
 
BREAKING: Trump and Putin discuss coordinating on ISIS and Syria, Kremlin says
 
3RA1N1AC said:
But Denny said nobody cares about oil anymore.
Click to expand...

I said we didn't take the oil or even really control it.

The whole "it's about oil" would ring true if we did.

It being about free flow of oil is something I can buy. That is, Saddam agreeing to sell all its oil to China or Russia in exchange for lifting sanctions.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Here's an alternative view

“Meet the Democrat Who’s Not Afraid to Criticize President Obama on ISIS,” intones a recent ABC News headline. The story describes remarks by Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), who has for the past month been all over the media slamming Obama's refusal to directly associate ISIS and other terrorists with the Islamic faith.
She's particularly a favorite of right-wing media. Appearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a “diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat.” She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
To the media, Gabbard is a curious spectacle. She's a Hawaii Democrat, coming from one of the nation's most progressive and dovish chapters of the Democratic Party, but she's also an Iraq war veteran, and she's consistently tried to outflank President Obama and the rest of her party to the right on foreign affairs. Last month she openly mocked Secretary of State John Kerry during an appearance on CNN, saying that he thinks, "if we give them [Islamic extremists] $10,000 and give them a nice place to live that somehow they're not going to be engaged in this fighting."
To Gabbard, the fact that Syria and Iraq have been through years of brutal civil war, wrecked economies and massive displacement is irrelevant; the only reason they have an extremism problem is because of Islamic theology.

But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.

More.

Note that that article is from February 2015. So basically Gabbard had a view of Syria before she went that her visit amazingly confirmed 100%.

(Here's the last paragraph of the article. Heartbreakingly wrong:

Gabbard should take note of these trends and realize that while Muslim-bashing may be in vogue at the time, it may just be the political equivalent of an economic bubble—and when it pops her own political career may go with it.

Not only did it not pop, it inflated to massive size and her career is likely to inflate with it.)
Click to expand...
She's somewhat right. The driving force behind it all is ideology, not poverty, not lack of jobs, not lack of education. However, I think that decent amount of "extremists" don't really share the ideology, and do join forces with radical extremists (who actual believe in the fucked up ideal) because they have nothing going for them. I think the logic is that, if some of the people over there got a better start and better situation, they wouldn't resort to become an "extremist".

Just my opinion. I don't follow politics that closely so it's just a guess.
 
So it turns out... her trip was sponsored by what turns out to be a guy who promotes Assad's interests in the US.
While denying any ethical violation, she is repaying the costs of the trip personally.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top