|
Cartouche posted:I cannot wrap my head around armored vehicles being "abandoned". What did they retreat in that was more secure than armor? Of course, they may have thought that the coalition would likely cause the armored vehicle to explode... They've been told by NATO forces that "if you retreat, do it without your tanks because we will blow up tanks and armored vehicles".
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
I have two friends who are consulates in Pakistan but in the states right now for a few more days. I really really hope they don't have to go back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Can we not turn vilerat's tragic death into an excuse to purge people we don't like from the forums? Regardless of what McCain's said on Twitter I doubt vilerat's would want his death to be used as an excuse to stifle free speech. Free speech is absolutely not guaranteed here, and never was. Just glance at the leper's colony. That said I don't think anyone is going to be doing any purging, but ianam.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
Arzy posted:I would prefer Vilerat's death be avenged but that's just me. Would you take a gun and personally kill the people responsible? If not, don't ask other people to.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
factorialite posted:This is why I know I'm an rear end in a top hat. There is no way to actually get justice, but it feels wrong that nothing will happen. The people who were involved in the murderers should pay, but it's not like there is anyway to discern who those people are. A decent police force might have detectives who could find eyewitnesses, offer immunity in exchange for cooperation, and make peaceable arrests, unfortunately they don't have one of those, and (active)soldiers make terrible policemen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
By attempt do you mean ongoing, or does it appear not to have worked?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:It's funny though that people don't go murdering when someone burns the flag and that the very act is protected as freedom of speech. They just beg their government to do the murdering for them. It HELPS that the embassies are mostly near liberal DC. I wonder how an Egyptian embassy would fare in Montgomery, AL.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
The riots are not because of the movie, they're because of every thing. Every loving thing. The movie is just an excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
You... You don't want a Hardees
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
shitthedd posted:In essence, ignore rocket attacks and the occasional civilian deaths. How should Gaza respond to the attacks on their civilians then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
You need to stop using terms like "groupies". It's insulting, condescending, and adds nothing of value to the conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
shitthedd posted:It's happily a thing of history, but completely off-topic in a thread about the Middle East. Apartheid-era police in South Africa had a duty to protect all South African civilians from attacks on them though, regardless of their race. Did they protect them by firing white phosphorous at South African schools?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
I've tried to keep a pretty open mind about this whole situation. I feel like I understand the president and Kerry's argument and I believe their sincerity, and I understand the arguments of those like Chris Matthews who are adamantly against a strike. But the speech really did nothing for me. The president's argument and position seemed really weak, and he didn't seem to have any confidence. The whole slippery slope domino effect argument, I couldn't buy into. Chris Matthews on the other hand, taking about how any strike by America would kill a lot of people including civilians, and the pictures will be all over the place and just inspire more extremism and buy us no sympathy and actively work against our stated diplomatic goals, I find that argument much more compelling. I'm tired of ideological wars. Syria never signed on to the chemical weapons ban, they are offering to now. Can't we stop making threats for one week to let the diplomatic process work? greatn fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
IT Guy posted:... and why did Russia all of the sudden ask Syria to destroy their chemical weapons? (hint: it wasn't because the US was threatening to stay out of the conflict). Russia has set removing strikes from the table as a precondition for getting Assad into a treaty to destroy his chemical weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
nebby posted:Yes, and the entire situation where Assad has even been willing to offer this negotiating is because *removing strikes is now a bargaining chip* thanks to Obama's threat. And I'm saying we should do exactly that, remove strikes from the table, instead of sending mixed messages "Syria must be held accountable and the US military does not pinprick; P.S. we'll give diplomacy a shot first for a couple of weeks, maybe, unless I determine we shouldn't".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 17:13
|
|