Prove the US is lying about who used the chemical weapons on whom

the right IGNORED all the evidence that Bush presented was utter bullshit.


Now you think you can PROOVE Obama is lying about the intell.

give some god damned proof of your claims as your record is REALLY shitty when it comes to facts.
 
give me some fucking proof


all you people have been saying it now for days.

PRODUCE some evidence or shut the fuck up
 
Unfortunately for you good sister, it is OBAMA who has to do the proving, not republicans, not the American people.

NO ONE should just trust him.

If his evidence is unconvincing .. end of story
 
I PROVED Bush was lying with facts.

they ignored those facts and some still do.






EVIDENCE


give me some evidence Obama is lying
 
evince said:
I PROVED Bush was lying with facts.

they ignored those facts and some still do.






EVIDENCE


give me some evidence Obama is lying
Click to expand...

Obama conducts the Bush foreign policy to the letter.

I repeat, it is OBAMA who has to do the proving.

Why should anyone trust a known liar and pawn of the MIC?
 
I have seen NOTHING to prove what keeps being claimed by some on all sides.

Bring me the "facts" you people are using to stand against protecting a population from being gassed by their tyrant leader.
 
Obama is conducting American foreign policy.


Bush did too.



Bush just lied about the facts to all of us.

Now I have proof of those lies is WHY I hated Bush.

Give me fucking proof
 
evince said:
I have seen NOTHING to prove what keeps being claimed by some on all sides.

Bring me the "facts" you people are using to stand against protecting a population from being gassed by their tyrant leader.
Click to expand...

Here are the facts .. the US is a warmongering nation .. proved beyond all reasonable doubt. THUS, it is incumbent on Obama to make the case for war.

Fact 2 .. Obama attacked and destroyed Libya based on false information.

Fact 3 .. Obama supports Al Qaida.

Why do you ignore those truths?

Why are you so in support of the MIC .. the exact same entity that brought us the tragedy of Iraq.

Why are you so supportive of Al Qaida?
 
With Iraq's WMDs - it just didn't make sense. Our own inspectors didn't find any.

With Syria/chem weapons - we have pics of rockets leaving govt space and landing in rebel space and we have people who have been proven through blood tests to have had chem weapons used on them.

Could the rebels have done the chem weapons and timed it with the rockets? possible, but Occam's Razor would say Assad did it.

Is it good to question the evidence? Sure. Govts lie. But Obama hasn't been the type to lie in the past, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, it's possible they are misinterpreting the evidence. But Obama doesn't want to bomb Syria, so he doesn't have a bias to find the evidence true.

This is very different from Iraq where Bush/cheney were looking for any excuse to go to war with them.

I hope Congress examines the evidence closely. I don't think anyone on this message board has access to the same level of info as those in intelligence. And if they did, they couldn't speak about it.
 
Prove the Syrian government guilty, Desh. Right now all we have is some teleprompter reader telling us that he's pretty darned sure. We don't convict people in the US by that standard now, do we?

Some advice to the Teleprompter Reader in Chief: When accusing another nation of something, it is you who has to prove it.
 
blackascoal said:
Here are the facts .. the US is a warmongering nation .. proved beyond all reasonable doubt. THUS, it is incumbent on Obama to make the case for war.

Fact 2 .. Obama attacked and destroyed Libya based on false information.

Fact 3 .. Obama supports Al Qaida.

Why do you ignore those truths?

Why are you so in support of the MIC .. the exact same entity that brought us the tragedy of Iraq.

Why are you so supportive of Al Qaida?
Click to expand...

BAC, I highly respect you; but we did NOT have false info for Lybia, Obama does NOT support Al Quaeda.

Yes, US is warmongering - but Obama has been the one reluctant to go to war, unlike the neocons.
 
tekkychick said:
With Iraq's WMDs - it just didn't make sense. Our own inspectors didn't find any.

With Syria/chem weapons - we have pics of rockets leaving govt space and landing in rebel space and we have people who have been proven through blood tests to have had chem weapons used on them.

Could the rebels have done the chem weapons and timed it with the rockets? possible, but Occam's Razor would say Assad did it.

Is it good to question the evidence? Sure. Govts lie. But Obama hasn't been the type to lie in the past, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, it's possible they are misinterpreting the evidence. But Obama doesn't want to bomb Syria, so he doesn't have a bias to find the evidence true.

This is very different from Iraq where Bush/cheney were looking for any excuse to go to war with them.

I hope Congress examines the evidence closely. I don't think anyone on this message board has access to the same level of info as those in intelligence. And if they did, they couldn't speak about it.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, Obama conducts the Bush foreign policy to the letter. He had the same reasons to attack Libya that Bush had to attack Iraq .. using the same tactics and false rational. He has the same reasons to attack Syria that Bush had to attack Iraq.

I say again, Obama attacked and destroyed Libya based on a pack of lies .. which put the world on notice that he isn't a damn bit different than George Bush.

The entire planet is unconvinced by this administration .. and everyone knows the real target is Iran.
 
who the FUCK cares??? This isn't about "proving chem weapons" - it's about the US response. 106k + ALREADY KILLED -no end in sight.

So why does the extreme limited use of chem weapons necessarily draw in the US????

It's horrible, but the so are the 104K deaths. This is a KILLING ZONE - stay the hell out.
 
Congress wants to make the decision. If Congress decides to attack, then obviously they have the proof, right?
 
tekkychick said:
BAC, I highly respect you; but we did NOT have false info for Lybia, Obama does NOT support Al Quaeda.

Yes, US is warmongering - but Obama has been the one reluctant to go to war, unlike the neocons.
Click to expand...

Much love for you good sister, but you're wrong.

The Viagra rape story, put forth by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton was just a pack of lies they used to force the UN hand.

If you need me to post the evidence that it was a lie, that's real easy.

The so-called 'rebels' of Libya was made up of Al Qaida .. exactly as is the so-called rebels in Syria. Both truths are known to the entire world.

Today, Libya is destroyed and in total chaos because of Obama and NATO.

If you need me to post this evidence, that too is real easy.
 
blackascoal said:
Much love for you good sister, but you're wrong.

The Viagra rape story, put forth by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton was just a pack of lies they used to force the UN hand.

If you need me to post the evidence that it was a lie, that's real easy.

The so-called 'rebels' of Libya was made up of Al Qaida .. exactly as is the so-called rebels in Syria. Both truths are known to the entire world.

Today, Libya is destroyed and in total chaos because of Obama and NATO.

If you need me to post this evidence, that too is real easy.
Click to expand...

I missed the whole rape story, I guess. We went into Libya - with the French leading - to stop the killing of civilians. That's what the no-fly zone was about.

Were there members of Al Quaeda among the rebels? Yes, but all the rebels weren't Al Quaeda; there was a small number of them that were.

But I don't want to re-debate Libya on a thread about Syria.

I think we all agree that there is a large number of Al Quaeda people among the Syrian rebels. And so far, we have not been drawn in to support either side.

My impression is that if we DO respond to the chemical attacks, no one on this board wants us to send troops in to fight Assad - that we want any response (if any) to be measured, short, tactical.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think anyone here is arguing for an indepth involvement in Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top