Glen beck nailing it with syria

[tererun]

So this video is a bit graphic, but it pretty much shows part of the insanity with meddling in syria.

Glenn Beck Shocking Video THIS Is Who We Are Helping In Syria! SHARE WITH EVERYONE! - YouTube

For those who do not want to watch it there is a general of the rebels that we are trying to help who actually eats the liver of a dead man. He goes and cuts out the liver and heart ourt of a corpse sitting on the ground and then procedes to show the world what they will do to their enemy and starts to eat them. Normally, glen beck would classify as crazy nutbar in my book. I checked out snopes, and looked for anything debunking this as a real video and due to his reputation I will apologize in advance if this happens to be fabricated. It is 2 months old so there has been time to have some opposition to it.

We have been presented with a very sad story about rebels seaking freedom from a horrible regime who would use chemical weapons on it's own people. I am not saying that is good at all, and it is horrible. On the other side we have jihadists who are loyal to the same fundamentalist mindset that fuelled 9/11 being cannibals. There is not a good side to come out on top in this. there is no good person to back who is fighting the good fight. No solution that involves taking sides in this is a good one. Both sides are crazy. Both sides are sick. We are presented with an idea from Obama that a rebel victory will end the war and bring peace and stability to the land, and that is not the case. We are being sold a false narrative again, and we will end up helping a sick regime who will do cruel and inhuman things no matter which side we support.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Whether or not a terrorist nutjob ate the liver of a dead enemy, they are not the people we want to be supporting.

But, then, neither is Assad.

 

[Canell]

Show this to Congress when they gather to discuss Syria. eace

 

[a351]

Really sick of this argument. Moments of extreme brutality and barbaric behavior during warfare does not wipe away the credibility of the entire faction or absolve one of the responsibility to put an end to the atrocities committed by oppressive regimes. It would be akin to arguing against military action aimed at Nazi Germany because some German POW's were treated inhumanely by allied forces. A cartoonish view and one not to be taken seriously.

 

[JC Callender]

But aren't we basing our possible military intervention on the chemical attack, and isn't the chemical attack a moment of extreme brutality and barbaric behavior?

Really sick of this argument. Moments of extreme brutality and barbaric behavior during warfare does not wipe away the credibility of the entire faction or absolve one of the responsibility to put an end to the atrocities committed by oppressive regimes. It would be akin to arguing against military action aimed at Nazi Germany because some German POW's were treated inhumanely by allied forces. A cartoonish view and one not to be taken seriously.

 

[ecofarm]

I can't believe that fringe lefties will tout Glen Beck at their convenience. Is there no amount of hypocrisy at which such people will balk?

 

[a351]

But aren't we basing our possible military intervention on the chemical attack, and isn't the chemical attack a moment of extreme brutality and barbaric behavior?

The use of chemical weaponry is serving as rationale for taking military action, but the slaughtering of civilians, non combatants and the general opposition is not an isolated incident. It's a calculated and ritual process on the part of Assad. The two incidents are not equitable in terms of scale, severity or frequency.

 

[P. Kersey]

Really sick of this argument. Moments of extreme brutality and barbaric behavior during warfare does not wipe away the credibility of the entire faction or absolve one of the responsibility to put an end to the atrocities committed by oppressive regimes. It would be akin to arguing against military action aimed at Nazi Germany because some German POW's were treated inhumanely by allied forces. A cartoonish view and one not to be taken seriously.

So when do you think we should attack North Korea?

 

[JC Callender]

One person ordered a chemical attack, and that's the reason we may take military action, on the other side, one person ate the heart of a dead soldier....two equally heinous acts. It's hard to argue clear cut support for one side while considering these two acts.

If it weren't for the chemical attack, I don't think our administration is talking about military intervention at this time.

The use of chemical weaponry is serving as rationale for taking military action, but the slaughtering of civilians, non combatants and the general opposition is not an isolated incident. It's a calculated and ritual process on the part of Assad. The two incidents are not equitable in terms of scale, severity or frequency.

 

[a351]

So when do you think we should attack North Korea?

The presence of nuclear technology, the lack of structured opposition and location make it a an entirely different ballgame. I'm in full support of opposition to the NK regime in the form of sanctions and aid to democratic movements however. In Syria, we now have an opportunity to unseat a trigger happy maniac and a destabilizing force in the region, yet some still insist on placing more importance on this incident than the string of atrocities committed by Assad.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Is using poison gas somehow worse than dropping napalm?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The use of chemical weaponry is serving as rationale for taking military action, but the slaughtering of civilians, non combatants and the general opposition is not an isolated incident. It's a calculated and ritual process on the part of Assad. The two incidents are not equitable in terms of scale, severity or frequency.

Understandable.

You, we, come to our visions of how things should be "over there" through Western tolerance of thought. That is good, that is what we teach, what we should teach. Most of the rest of the world is not taught that concept. Leaders over in that part of the world, especially, to maintain order where people who will cut out and eat another's liver, that will punish not the perpetrators but stone to death the victims of rape, that will walk onto a crowded bus or into pizza parlor and detonate themselves, that will fly themselves plus hundreds of other innocents into buildings occupied by thousands of other innocents...must often take extraordinary measures, have to be a certain type of leader. Firm, harsh even, as if not they will be taken as being weak. How, if you were a leader, head of state in one of these middle east nations, how would you end up dealing with this rampant and widespread general behavior?

Remember Anwar Sadat? Nice guy, he made peace with a neighbor, which is what one should strive to do... got him publicly assassinated. That is often how they deal with "weakness" over there.

 

[tererun]

The presence of nuclear technology, the lack of structured opposition and location make it a an entirely different ballgame. I'm in full support of opposition to the NK regime in the form of sanctions and aid to democratic movements however. In Syria, we now have an opportunity to unseat a trigger happy maniac and a destabilizing force in the region, yet some still insist on placing more importance on this incident than the string of atrocities committed by Assad.

So we unseat the crazy guy who is dropping chemical weapons and put the cannibal in his place? That is the crazy you are saying. If you want to support going in and wiping out both sides and establishing some sort of makeshift government with some rules to protect the people that is a different story, but when you talk of taking sides that is what you are talking about. Aiding the rebel forces is not the same as a full scale invasion and occupation.

 

[a351]

One person ordered a chemical attack, and that's the reason we may take military action, on the other side, one person ate the heart of a dead soldier....two equally heinous acts.

A single instance of cannibalism after death was levied during combat is not equally heinous to the wanton gassing of scores of non combatants, women, and children. Also, this One Person you're referring to so casually happens to preside over The Entire ****ing Country and its Military. Not exactly a Joe Shmoe huh?

It's hard to argue clear cut support for one side while considering these two acts.

For some, strangely enough it is.

If it weren't for the chemical attack, I don't think our administration is talking about military intervention at this time.

And this changes exactly nothing. Your comparison and attempt to equate the two incidents is simply garbage.

 

[P. Kersey]

The presence of nuclear technology, the lack of structured opposition and location make it a an entirely different ballgame.

Where? NK or syria?

I'm in full support of opposition to the NK regime in the form of sanctions and aid to democratic movements however.
In Syria, we now have an opportunity to unseat a trigger happy maniac and a destabilizing force in the region, yet some still insist on placing more importance on this incident than the string of atrocities committed by Assad.

So one oppressive, trigger happy, dictator who murders his own people should be excused but the one who can't kick our ass should be bombed immediately.

 

[P. Kersey]

Is using poison gas somehow worse than dropping napalm?

Gas can kill people far from the desired target.
Napalm is more predictable and controllable.

 

[a351]

So we unseat the crazy guy who is dropping chemical weapons and put the cannibal in his place? That is the crazy you are saying.

Oh, the Cannibal is the top candidate to replace Assad? Well ****, this changes everything.

If you want to support going in and wiping out both sides and establishing some sort of makeshift government with some rules to protect the people that is a different story, but when you talk of taking sides that is what you are talking about. Aiding the rebel forces is not the same as a full scale invasion and occupation.

So your alternative is to wipe out both sides? I'm personally in favor of allowing the Syrian people to determine their own system of governance, with discourse preferably free of gunfire aimed at peaceful demonstrators.

 

[ecofarm]

Is using poison gas somehow worse than dropping napalm?

Are you interested at all in the world today, or will you forever excuse anything because of the past.

 

[VanceMack]

One person ordered a chemical attack, and that's the reason we may take military action, on the other side, one person ate the heart of a dead soldier....two equally heinous acts. It's hard to argue clear cut support for one side while considering these two acts.

If it weren't for the chemical attack, I don't think our administration is talking about military intervention at this time.

Which "one person"? And was itthe same "one person" that ordered the attack in May?

 

[a351]

So one oppressive, trigger happy, dictator who murders his own people should be excused but the one who can't kick our ass should be bombed immediately.

The difference being we have ample opportunity to take decisive action in Syria to better their situation, whereas our options in NK are extremely limited due to the factors listed above. Not all scenarios are alike, and treating them as such serves only to excuse inaction

 

[VanceMack]

The difference being we have ample opportunity to take decisive action in Syria to better their situation, whereas our options in NK are extremely limited due to the factors listed above. Not all scenarios are alike, and treating them as such serves only to excuse inaction

Do you think the people in Egypt or doing much better today than 5 years ago? Serious question.

 

[MaggieD]

So this video is a bit graphic, but it pretty much shows part of the insanity with meddling in syria.

Glenn Beck Shocking Video THIS Is Who We Are Helping In Syria! SHARE WITH EVERYONE! - YouTube

For those who do not want to watch it there is a general of the rebels that we are trying to help who actually eats the liver of a dead man. He goes and cuts out the liver and heart ourt of a corpse sitting on the ground and then procedes to show the world what they will do to their enemy and starts to eat them. Normally, glen beck would classify as crazy nutbar in my book. I checked out snopes, and looked for anything debunking this as a real video and due to his reputation I will apologize in advance if this happens to be fabricated. It is 2 months old so there has been time to have some opposition to it.

We have been presented with a very sad story about rebels seaking freedom from a horrible regime who would use chemical weapons on it's own people. I am not saying that is good at all, and it is horrible. On the other side we have jihadists who are loyal to the same fundamentalist mindset that fuelled 9/11 being cannibals. There is not a good side to come out on top in this. there is no good person to back who is fighting the good fight. No solution that involves taking sides in this is a good one. Both sides are crazy. Both sides are sick. We are presented with an idea from Obama that a rebel victory will end the war and bring peace and stability to the land, and that is not the case. We are being sold a false narrative again, and we will end up helping a sick regime who will do cruel and inhuman things no matter which side we support.

How familiar are you with war? I'd say "not very." Doing horrendous, unspeakable things to dead men (and alive, for that matter) is part of the ballgame.

If the fact that he ate the internal organs of his enemies and had it videotaped for propaganda purposes throughout the country (and the world) seems horrendous to you? You ought to read about what we did to the American Indians, what they did to us; you might also talk to some Viet Nam vets to learn what we honorable Americans did to the Vietnamese. And how they paid us back.

It's part of war.

 

[ecofarm]

Do you think the people in Egypt or doing much better today than 5 years ago? Serious question.

We should have been more involved in Egypt. Anyway, democratic transition takes a generation or two and it's about time we all got started.

 

[JC Callender]

The soldier who ate the heart is said to be a commander as well, and as a commander, with his actions is setting an equal (imo) standard of brutality for his underlings.

The chemical attack was worse, imo. But if we're going to attack another country, there's always the possibility of boots on the ground and there's almost always a guarantee of injuring or killing innocent civilians. We have to be 100% sure that one side is definitely right and one side definitely wrong. Are you sure?

A single instance of cannibalism after death was levied during combat is not equally heinous to the wanton gassing of scores of non combatants, women, and children. Also, this One Person you're referring to so casually happens to preside over The Entire ****ing Country and its Military. Not exactly a Joe Shmoe huh?



For some, strangely enough it is.



And this changes exactly nothing. Your comparison and attempt to equate the two incidents is simply garbage.

 

[P. Kersey]

The difference being we have ample opportunity to take decisive action in Syria to better their situation, whereas our options in NK are extremely limited due to the factors listed above. Not all scenarios are alike, and treating them as such serves only to excuse inaction

That's called hypocrisy.
Syria is none of our business.