• I don't know for certain, but it seems too greased a gear to be true.

    I don't have glaring truth, somebody else has already done that, but I do know that Trayvon Martin popped up during election time and Syria popped up during the Surveillance scandal, plus, something about the way this conflict has apparently materialized out of nothing and has been so convenient, it seems fishy to me. It seems like we don't have all the angles we need, or all the information, and that is not a good sign. Besides, the Government is never to be trusted, and has even recently proven that it cannot be trusted.

  • Yes, they are..

    House Homeland Security Committee chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas) called John Kerry out when he claimed that only a small portion of the "rebels" are Al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists. He pointed out to Kerry that in various briefings this number was 50 percent. Al Nusra Front is clearly the dominant group. Even the N.Y. Times had an article saying there are no secularists to n the "rebel" side. In any other situation we would call them Islamic terrorists.

    Then there is the problem of how the U.S. Achieved a death toll of a 1,429, which Obama was forced to round off to over 1,000. France put it at 281. Britain had it under 400 if I remember correctly. The only "evidence" presented was sarin samples provided by foreigner governments with no chain of custody and nothing to show who carried it out. There is a story on the web that the "rebels" admitted to an Associated Press correspondent that they were in fact behind the chemical attack. Russia provided evidence from a chemical attack that took place several months ago indicating the "rebels" carried out an attack citing that the rockets used for delivery were home-made and lacked stabilizers, which indicate that they weren't used by Assad's troops.

    This is all about Obama painting himself into a corner and hopefully Congress will resist political pressure and vote down war in Syria. It is sad but unfortunately Putin has more credibility on this issue than an American Administration. And considering that the "rebels" are Al-Qaeda foreign fighters and assorted Islamists...Like the group in Libya that sacked our embassy in Benghazi, the Russians must be scratching their heads trying to understand how we can put our navy and air force at their disposal. It's bewildering.

  • Yes, they will do anything to get a war

    Its been proven before that American politicians no matter democrat or republican will lie to get into a war that does not even involve the US. Just look at the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Grenada, Iraq, and many more. If they want to remove someone who doesn't support US interest then the US will do everything in their power to remove him.

  • Most likely yes,

    Just as former U.S. Politicians lied about our motivations about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes to politics today, as sad as it is, I think it's better to assume they're lying until you're given proof to believe otherwise. If they can prove it, I'll believe them. But the awful, paternalistic, condescending, "just trust us" attitude of this administration makes me doubt the proof even exists. Russia has just compiled a report stating that they believe the chemicals were used by the rebels (not that they're an entirely trustworthy source either, but still). Moreover, certain rebels have admitted that the attacks were their responsibility. With some many theories and explanations floating around as to exactly what happened, it's hard to believe that the U.S. Has it right from the gate.

  • To say that they're lying you should have proof to support it.

    They are lying about what? The contention was not even established. To say that someone is lying, there should be a sufficient reason to prove that he or she is really lying, however, in this sense, a solid proof is not even presented. Everything about this question whether or not they are lying is just an assumption.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.