>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
Are you fuckin slow or something?
I've made no claims one way or the other. YOU HAVE. AND YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE.
IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER?
YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE MADE.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THEN FUCK OFF!

Well said. You have made claims though:
1:Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
2:The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
3:Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out.
4:The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels.
5:North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world.
6:Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
7:the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed.
You've made plenty of claims, all of them in favor of the stories given by Gadhafi and Bashir Al-Assad. Save for number 3 where you confuse the Iraqi Kurds with the Iraqi Shia. You've already made clear that even Al Jazeera is a pro-western entity, and that eye witness testimony is bought by foreign money, so it there can not exist any evidence you would deem credible, save the apparent exception of stories provided by the State run media of Libya and Syria...
If you dislike what you see in this, then I'd recommend changing yourself since the reflection is deadly accurate.


There you go being a moron troll again. I've made no claims on whether or not Assad is responsible for killing civilians. YOU HAVE. YOU CHERRY PICK WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE THE REST. Even your sources say they don't know.
Unlike you, everything I said is backed up with actual substance.

1. Arab Spring. Confirmed by multiple sources - sponsored by foreign groups (multiple links in this thread)
2. Al Jazerra even admits that.
3. From Google result:In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, the United States encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Hussein's regime--then withdrew and refused to support them, leaving an unknown number to be slaughtered. At one point, Hussein's regime killed as many as 2,000 suspected Kurdish rebels every day. Some two million Kurds hazarded the dangerous trek through the mountains to Iran and Turkey, hundreds of thousands dying in the process.
4. here and here
5. 2007 West Point Study
6. Already established Qatar support for NATO.
I never claimed number 7. Irrelevant anyway.

>> ^marbles:

Are you fuckin slow or something?
I've made no claims one way or the other. YOU HAVE. AND YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE.
IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER?
YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE MADE.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THEN FUCK OFF!


Well said. You have made claims though:
1:Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
2:The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
3:Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out.
4:The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels.
5:North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world.
6:Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
7:the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed.

You've made plenty of claims, all of them in favor of the stories given by Gadhafi and Bashir Al-Assad. Save for number 3 where you confuse the Iraqi Kurds with the Iraqi Shia. You've already made clear that even Al Jazeera is a pro-western entity, and that eye witness testimony is bought by foreign money, so it there can not exist any evidence you would deem credible, save the apparent exception of stories provided by the State run media of Libya and Syria...

If you dislike what you see in this, then I'd recommend changing yourself since the reflection is deadly accurate.

Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
Isn't that reaffirming my point in different wording?

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.

If you think I'm misrepresenting you with that point, surely you can't object if I claim you believe that Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin? I don't think my second point is much altered by your rephrasing:

2(v2):You claim Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin.

As to point 1, perhaps you want me to reword it as well?

1(v2): You dismiss all claims regarding Syria's current events from the mainstream media and citizen journalists?

You, once again, seem to have reiterated your support of this position with this: Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. One of the most consistently reported facts from all mainstream media and citizen journalists is Assad's forces killing unarmed peaceful civilians.

Which brings us to number 3,

3(v2): You accept Assad's version of current events within Syria.
You again have reiterated your support of this:
-I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. This is Assad's story, but EVERYONE outside his regime that anyone has ever spoken to from any media outlet but Assad's own has refuted it.

-There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? This is also Assad's story, not verified by anyone outside his regime. The story from refugees and defectors is unanimous as reported by ALL other media, that those 120 soldiers were shot by Assad's secret police for refusing orders to fire upon unarmed protesters.

-The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. Once again, this explanation isn't being posed by anyone outside Assad's regime. ALL media outlets talking to refugees and defectors are well agreed that the shooters were working on Assad's orders and that foreign agents have NO role in the uprising.

Please, if I've misrepresented what you've said clear things up. I've quoted you extensively and in good context and it is overwhelmingly clear that the story you favor is the one put forward by Assad's regime, in the face of the fact that all other media outlets, Al Jazeera included, and all refugees and defectors unanimously claim otherwise.

>> ^bcglorf: It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!
Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.
1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.
2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.
3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.
The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.




I didn't dismiss anything. Earlier in the thread, I made a dig at mainstream media in general when ali wanted an "unbiased" source. I've posted links from Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, so you're not making any fucking sense.
And as far as "Assad's regime's media outlets", I have no idea what you're talking about.

In wars and armed conflicts you never know all the facts. You shouldn't accept any report from any news source at face value unless you can corroborate it with other sources. Even then you're likely only getting part of the truth. Al Jazerra repeatably makes disclaimers in this video that they don't know the facts.

Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin and given the fact that Qatar is openly supporting NATO in Libya, they are clearly going to be biased when reporting on Syria. There's little credibility to anything they choose to broadcast on the subject.

There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? I also remember first hearing about civilians being killed by snipers that were part of Assad's "secret police". So I guess it could be Assad's men, but why would he use covert police AND the military? Doesn't make any sense. The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. They're probably even doing it behind the backs of the activists they recruited and organized to protest.

But even if it is Assad that's gunning down civilians, it's not our fight. It's an internal conflict. Aiding one side or the other only brings about wider conflict with more fighting and more death.

Are these also Assad's forces shooting indiscriminately from inside this car?

I think your confusing me with someone else. I had no intention of you commenting, or even seeing this video. Also: skirt the question much (about Craig's argument)?

>> ^shinyblurry:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://religion.videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp This "child" is acting as a mouthpiece for militant atheism..I love her story.. "i go to camp every summer with hiking and ponies..but I have to read the bible (HUFF, FROWN)..yeah like we had to read about Jesus or whatever (twirls hair)..then I was like..what about the OT??!?!? Then I read "some" of it..lol..give me a break..then she rips out the most contentious passages in scripture and goes on a little mocking rant about how great science is. It's so utterly contrived that I'm surprised even you are dense enough to buy it.
I negated this drivel, even though you dragged me in for an ambush, just to mock and smear me, and make me have to refute a faked testimony from a 14 year old malcontent. That's all you're getting out of me. And you call me a troll.

@hpqp This "child" is acting as a mouthpiece for militant atheism..I love her story.. "i go to camp every summer with hiking and ponies..but I have to read the bible (HUFF, FROWN)..yeah like we had to read about Jesus or whatever (twirls hair)..then I was like..what about the OT??!?!? Then I read "some" of it..lol..give me a break..then she rips out the most contentious passages in scripture and goes on a little mocking rant about how great science is. It's so utterly contrived that I'm surprised even you are dense enough to buy it.

I negated this drivel, even though you dragged me in for an ambush, just to mock and smear me, and make me have to refute a faked testimony from a 14 year old malcontent. That's all you're getting out of me. And you call me a troll.

Nice ambush. If you want to drag me into a thread, don't start it off by putting words in my mouth. It's extremely amusing how you're trying to set it all up; Okay, here is my comment on the video: This is complete bullshit. Yeah I really buy that she was just this sweet innocent little girl who had to study the bible and suddenly she is making militant antitheist videos on the internet. This has to be one of the least well adjusted girls I've ever seen..maybe she should quit her day job of appearing in wells because I've rarely seen such superbly edited mockery.

Here's my response about her entirely fabricated commentary. First of all, the verses she mentioned about pregnant women were prophecy about sinful nations who routinely sacrificed their own children to baal, among other things. God never ordered anyone to rip open pregnant women. That's completely false.

Here is a verse about slavery she missed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

The idea of slavery in those days was far different than our modern version. In ancient Israel, people who couldn't provide for themselves or their families were sometimes sold into slavery so they wouldn't die of exposure or starvation. That person would receive housing and food in exchange for labor.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The bible teaches equality for all people, which was a new idea at the time. Anyone following the bible wouldn't have kept a slave. And if you want to talk about slavery, there has never been an abolitionist movement outside of the Christian west. Freeing slaves seems to have been a uniquely Christian virtue. So much for atheism saving the world. All of this hyperbole about slaves, where people are trying to play this bible gotcha-game shows a complete lack of understanding of the history and the cultures of the time, or what is actually in the bible in the first place. All in all, pretty damn pathetic.

Hrm, I actually wanted to see those cops get ambushed by the crowed and beat severly. That would of been something to stick around and watch. BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD !

come on everyone , if we chant it enough maybe it will happen !

>> ^blankfist:

I was specifically speaking about the Espionage Act. And according to the wiki page, even the Supreme Court ruled it wasn't a violation of one's right to free speech, which is hard for me to reconcile in a supposed free society. Either you have free speech or you don't. The first amendment of the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
What part about "Congress shall make no law" does Congress not understand? On its face, the Espionage Act should be unconstitutional.


Setting aside for a moment what the constitution says about the powers of the Supreme Court, does this ruling of the Supreme Court of Blankfist mean that any soldier has the right to march over to the enemy camp, and tell them the location and battle plan of the US Armed Forces, and be immune from prosecution?

How about fraud? Does this absolute ruling of yours mean that any attempt to control lying is also a violation of the 1st amendment?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.

It's about both. He should have a right to a trial, but beyond that this is a major encroachment on his first amendment right. Just read my comment above this one.
At best Manning should be sued for breach of contract with the U.S. Government, right? Treason is such an archaic thing that the Kings used to do; must we continue the barbarous behavior of monarchs? No one was killed or put into harm's way over these leaks. And all of the information leaked, we should have a right to because we all pay for it. And isn't government supposed to be transparent? Why such secrecy except to cover up the bad things they do?


What I meant was that people ambushing Obama about Manning should be hammering him about Manning's right to trial, about which there cannot and should not be any debate, especially from Obama.

In the larger sense, yes I think Manning did a service to his country, and I'm hoping that out of the associated fracas we see some movement to reform the rules around secrecy and National Security.

I don't have much hope of seeing that with politics being what they are these days, but it'd at least plant a seed in people's minds so that if/when sanity returns, people can rally around an effort to pare back secrecy laws.

Those trucks weren't up armored. They're just standard Ford Rangers. markd was right about the timing though. Good tactics do say to wait until point man/vehicle has passed before you detonate a mine/bomb/whatever. This separates the forces and increases your odds. I

God, I'm so fucking glad we're pulling out of that shit hole. We had no business there to begin with, and it's obvious they aren't ready to act like a civilized people. >> ^therealmarkd:

>> ^StukaFox:
Why were they shooting after the bomb went off?

The blue truck was the first up-armored vehicle in a convoy. The bomb went off in an effort to destroy the white up-armored truck caught in the blast.
The shooting was the follow-on ambush of the convoy by whoever set the car bomb and/or the crew of the convoy shooting at someone they thought was responsible for the bomb... Pretty standard tactics.

>> ^StukaFox:

Why were they shooting after the bomb went off?



The blue truck was the first up-armored vehicle in a convoy. The bomb went off in an effort to destroy the white up-armored truck caught in the blast.

The shooting was the follow-on ambush of the convoy by whoever set the car bomb and/or the crew of the convoy shooting at someone they thought was responsible for the bomb... Pretty standard tactics.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video BMW Short Film - The Ambush. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Christine O'Donnell is so dense, that light bends around her.

http://videosift.com/video/22-MInutes-Christine-O-Donnell-Ambushed-by-Mary-Walsh

Oh lol! Fixed, thanks

In reply to this comment by Payback:
I think you have a misspelled tag in http://videosift.com/video/Ambush-on-the-Road

"cash camera"?

I think you have a misspelled tag in http://videosift.com/video/Ambush-on-the-Road

"cash camera"?