Crisis in Syria Looks Very Different on Satellite Channels Owned by Russia and Iran

Thats a joke, he cant even spell his own name right.
It's DUNG! not deng. Dung as in cow poop and what resides between your ears!

Syrian wrote:

<quoted text> Once again DENG, you make an excellent and very informative post!

"UNITED NATIONS -- Crimes against humanity were continuing in Syria and must not go unpunished, the United Nation's human rights chief said on Monday."

From the Iranian news: "An Iranian lawmaker says the Arab League (AL) has no right to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs as the country is at the frontline of anti-Zionist resistance."

Contrast that with this from the United Nations, not reported in the Iranian news: "Crimes against humanity were continuing in Syria and must not go unpunished, the United Nation's human rights chief said on Monday."

DENG wrote:

Crisis in Syria Looks Very Different on Satellite Channels Owned by Russia and Iran
Full story: The New York Times
YEP, TUNE IN FOR THE CREDIBLE NEWS FROM SYRIA ON THESE MEDIA SITES AND NOT FROM THE ISRAELI-CONNECTED AND PROBABLY OWNED NEW YORK TIMES AND ANY MEDIA SOURCE IN THE UNITED STATES; THE U.S. MEDIA SITES ARE ULTIMATELY REGULATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

From the Iranian news: "An Iranian lawmaker says the Arab League (AL) has no right to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs as the country is at the frontline of anti-Zionist resistance."

Contrast that with this from the United Nations, not reported in the Iranian news: "Crimes against humanity were continuing in Syria and must not go unpunished, the United Nation's human rights chief said on Monday."

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>I think not. One, there is nothing unusual about Russi and China protecting their weapons markets at the cost of others' lives. And two, most nations have already condemned Assad and Syria. The USA and Syria so far have had nothing to do with the effort to unseat the monster in Syria.

You're an ignorant moron. Vetoes from Russia and China on the Security Council are extremely rare. It's considered really confrontational. They usually just abstain from a given Security Council resolution if they have strong misgivings.

You simply don't live in reality.

And you were apparently drunk when you typed that last sentence.

Your post makes no sense. Clearly they did use their veto, and it was clearly because they want to keep selling weapons to that country. How often or why the do or not use their veto has no bearing upon anything. Your trying to trivialize the fact that their veto is directly responsible for the deaths of women and children, all for more rubles.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
You're an ignorant moron. Vetoes from Russia and China on the Security Council are extremely rare. It's considered really confrontational. They usually just abstain from a given Security Council resolution if they have strong misgivings.
You simply don't live in reality.
And you were apparently drunk when you typed that last sentence.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
You're an ignorant moron. Vetoes from Russia and China on the Security Council are extremely rare. It's considered really confrontational. They usually just abstain from a given Security Council resolution if they have strong misgivings.
You simply don't live in reality.
And you were apparently drunk when you typed that last sentence.

Nothing worse than an ignorant moron, eh! About half of all the vetoes cast in the Security Council over the years were by Russia and the Soviet Union, though of late Russia uses hers more sparingly. However, my point was that in this case Russia vetoed because she was looking after her own interests, not those of the people of Syria, and I stand by that point, which you did not refute. THAT is reality. And appearances can be deceiving, as you seem to be a flaming asshole, when in fact you may not be flaming at all.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing worse than an ignorant moron, eh! About half of all the vetoes cast in the Security Council over the years were by Russia and the Soviet Union, though of late Russia uses hers more sparingly. However, my point was that in this case Russia vetoed because she was looking after her own interests....

Cretin, as I said in correction of your earlier nuttiness, Chinese and Russian vetoes are extremely rare on the Security Council. Your claim that half of all vetoes over the years were by the non existent Soviet Union does not address the point I correctly made: Vetoes are very rare.

Again, it indicates how seriously China and Russia felt about this issue.

No one involved in US foreign policy has any qualms about saying the US acts in its own interests. Most recently many have said that about continued US support for Bahrain, where lots of civilians in a suppressed minority have risen up and been killed, jailed and tortured by the minority government there.

So you're not saying anything...again. You're a complete moron, a liar and an ideologue. Totally anti rational.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Cretin, as I said in correction of your earlier nuttiness, Chinese and Russian vetoes are extremely rare on the Security Council. Your claim that half of all vetoes over the years were by the non existent Soviet Union does not address the point I correctly made: Vetoes are very rare.
Again, it indicates how seriously China and Russia felt about this issue.
No one involved in US foreign policy has any qualms about saying the US acts in its own interests. Most recently many have said that about continued US support for Bahrain, where lots of civilians in a suppressed minority have risen up and been killed, jailed and tortured by the minority government there.
So you're not saying anything...again. You're a complete moron, a liar and an ideologue. Totally anti rational.

In magic, it is called misdirection. You try to divert the discussion to a record or lack thereof of vetoes, rather than the welfare of the innocent Syrians. It doesn't matter how Russia voted in the past, for the purposes of this discussion Russia voted to sit by and watch innocents die so they could continue a port in Syria and continue to sell arms to Syria. How other countries have behaved in other instances is equally irrelevant to this matter. You have made a fool of yourself, or rather exposed your foolishness to all. Your insults are just another misdirection. You carry no water at all.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
In magic, it is called misdirection. You try to divert the discussion to a record or lack thereof of vetoes, rather than the welfare of the innocent Syrians.

Yes, first I wanted to fix your starting lie - and you should admit to it for once, Cletus.

Vetoes are very rare, especially from any two members of the Security Council. You were mistaken or lying.

Now that that is settled beyond argument, I again direct your ignorant, lying attention to my previous post which mentioned the US' position in Bahrain. It is a position of US national interests (perceived)- something everyone knows the US pursues - rather than the interests of the majority of citizens in Bahrain.

So it is not surprise to any halfway intelligent observer that China and Russia are also pursuing their national interests in foreign policy.

Now, with a more subtle, informed participant, I could discuss _why_ the Chinese and Russians felt so strongly about this particular resolution they vetoed. Their reaction didn't come from nowhere.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, first I wanted to fix your starting lie - and you should admit to it for once, Cletus.
Vetoes are very rare, especially from any two members of the Security Council. You were mistaken or lying.
Now that that is settled beyond argument, I again direct your ignorant, lying attention to my previous post which mentioned the US' position in Bahrain. It is a position of US national interests (perceived)- something everyone knows the US pursues - rather than the interests of the majority of citizens in Bahrain.
So it is not surprise to any halfway intelligent observer that China and Russia are also pursuing their national interests in foreign policy.
Now, with a more subtle, informed participant, I could discuss _why_ the Chinese and Russians felt so strongly about this particular resolution they vetoed. Their reaction didn't come from nowhere.

You fixed nothing. As for a halfway intelligent observer, you might just barely meet that criteria, but that places you into my "too stupid to spend time on" category. You cannot repeat your absurdities and declare the matter settled. They were and are irrelevant. Find yourself a more subtle, informed participant than yourself, a dog or cat perhaps. Fuck you again.

Ok, lemme get this straight.
forgetting the veto thing, your saying that the US is supporting some brutal regime in Bahrain. Further your saying that the US support is totally wrong and is proof of our self serving interests.

FINALLY YOU JUSTIFY THE MURDER OF SYRIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN BECAUSE CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE SIMPLY DOING WHAT THE US IS DOING?

So, in your eyes, the US is wrong and russia is right even though they are both doing the exact same thing.

Are Bahrain children more important that Syrain children? Are they more deserving of life?

Your total argument is based upon your hypocrisy towards Syria.
If you are going to tout some moral high ground, then make sure your applying your enlightened views equally.

People are dying, and to you....Thats ok.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, first I wanted to fix your starting lie - and you should admit to it for once, Cletus.
Vetoes are very rare, especially from any two members of the Security Council. You were mistaken or lying.
Now that that is settled beyond argument, I again direct your ignorant, lying attention to my previous post which mentioned the US' position in Bahrain. It is a position of US national interests (perceived)- something everyone knows the US pursues - rather than the interests of the majority of citizens in Bahrain.
So it is not surprise to any halfway intelligent observer that China and Russia are also pursuing their national interests in foreign policy.
Now, with a more subtle, informed participant, I could discuss _why_ the Chinese and Russians felt so strongly about this particular resolution they vetoed. Their reaction didn't come from nowhere.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
You fixed nothing. As for a halfway intelligent observer, you might just barely meet that criteria, but that places you into my "too stupid to spend time on" category. You cannot repeat your absurdities and declare the matter settled. They were and are irrelevant. Find yourself a more subtle, informed participant than yourself, a dog or cat perhaps. Fuck you again.

Vetoes are very rare in the Security Council. That's fact. You could not accept this.

The US also pursues its own interests in foreign policy, as in Bahrain, in ways that can be messy. Hillary Clinton has been explicit about this on TV regarding the US' differing approaches to uprisings in different Arab Spring countries.

This principle of pursuing national interests in foreign policy is not unusual for the US, for Russia or for China.

Yet you focus only on Russia and China as committing some particular outrage here. There are lots of analogues involving many other countries doing similar things - pursuing national interests.

These are just facts that your constapo mind cannot accommodate.

Now as for my judgment about what should happen or what the US should do regarding Syria...I haven't really opined.

RACE wrote:

FINALLY YOU JUSTIFY THE MURDER OF SYRIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN BECAUSE CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE SIMPLY DOING WHAT THE US IS DOING?
<quoted text>

My point, gasbag, is that you are in essence doing the same regarding the situation in Bahrain. And you certainly weren't braying about the millions of Iraqi civilian refugees and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths during the US invasion of Iraq.

Try to git ur hom skool teechur to eevalwate how won situashun can bee lik anuthur situashun, Jethro.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
My point, gasbag, is that you are in essence doing the same regarding the situation in Bahrain. And you certainly weren't braying about the millions of Iraqi civilian refugees and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths during the US invasion of Iraq.
Try to git ur hom skool teechur to eevalwate how won situashun can bee lik anuthur situashun, Jethro.

Hey clueless! Since you don't seem to know much about anything!!Afghanistan was training terrorists responsible for murdering almost 4,000 American LIVES on 9/11. What are you saying clown?? That we should have just stuck our heads in the sand and cried our little eyes out?? Not hardly!! You may sit back and take it in the rear but most Americans were for taking out terrorist training camps responsible for 4,000 American Deaths!! Stop the ignorant nonsense!!
Just for you cluelessness, we had terrorists killing Americans all over the world numbnuts. Have you been living in La La Land since Vietnam and don't have a clue as usual what has taken place in the world around you!! Did you happen to know that there was an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and a UN sponsored Gulf War One?? Did you not know as usual that we had attacks on the Cole and American Embassies?? Did you not know as usual that we had two attacks on the World Trade Center and the second attack was on 9/11??? Did you not know as usual that we had Democrats voting to use force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did you not know as usual that terrorist camps were training Islamic Terrorists responsible for World Trade Center Attacks and had to be taken out?? Did you not know as usual that Saddam had broken every U.N. Resolution and gave us every right to go back in? That Saddam had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people in some cases using nerve agents (for you it would be called WMDs). Of course you didn't know any of this as you were in your own radical liberal Hamas sock puppet dream world. Stop trying to lecture the educated on your idiocy!!!

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
My point, gasbag, is that you are in essence doing the same regarding the situation in Bahrain. And you certainly weren't braying about the millions of Iraqi civilian refugees and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths during the US invasion of Iraq.
Try to git ur hom skool teechur to eevalwate how won situashun can bee lik anuthur situashun, Jethro.

Saddam Hussein created a far greater humanitarian nightmare than Libya. "The Butcher of Baghdad" slaughtered, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- far more people than were killed in Bosnia and Kosovo, where President Clinton ordered military force for humanitarian reasons. Yet, when weapons hunters found no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the dwindling number of pro-war Democrats turned against the war never mind the sickening sight of thousands of Iraqis found in shallow graves.
That Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD, having used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people, was not in dispute. All 16 U.S. intelligences agencies thought so "with the highest probability." France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, China, Israel and even Saddam's own generals assumed Iraq possessed WMD. Even U.N. weapons inspector and Iraq War critic Hans Blix thought Saddam likely possessed these weapons. As Blix admitted at a 2004 University of Berkeley forum:' I'm not here to have gut feelings. But yes, in December 2002 (three months before the invasion) I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." The non-unilateralist Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, unlike Bush, sought no congressional war resolution. Obama, therefore, ordered military action against Libya "unilaterally" -- without the congressional approval that he once argued the Constitution demanded.

As Obama further explained in his December 2007 statement, "In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." So a president, according to Obama, does not need congressional authority -- provided the action involves "self-defense" or "stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

What is the "actual or imminent threat" to America posed by Libya?
Ritter served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in fourteen of the more than thirty inspection missions in which he participated.

In January 1998, his inspection team in Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials stating that information obtained from these sites would be used for future planning of attacks. UN Inspectors were ordered out of Iraq by the United States Government, shortly before Operation Desert Fox attacks began in December 1998, using information which had been gathered for the purpose of disarmament to identify targets which would reduce Iraq's ability to wage both conventional and possibly unconventional warfare. UN Weapons Inspectors were thereafter denied access to Iraq. He spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

and my point douchebag is that you are admitting to the murder of thousands of innocents and your only defense to these atrocities is more mindless (well everybody else is doing it).. real mature moron.

Please tell me when the condemnation of Bahrain atrocites was brought before the UN and the US vetoed it???

You wont stay on point and argue because you know you have blood on your hands and its staining your soul.

Try to deflect all you like puppet, but your ass has been had, go back to your puppet master and get your beating.

Your taunts only serve to illuminate your ignorance.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
My point, gasbag, is that you are in essence doing the same regarding the situation in Bahrain. And you certainly weren't braying about the millions of Iraqi civilian refugees and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths during the US invasion of Iraq.
Try to git ur hom skool teechur to eevalwate how won situashun can bee lik anuthur situashun, Jethro.

Yeah, I don't need to rehash the failed arguments for invading Iraq under Saddam, who out of US national interests was an ally while torturing his people for more than a decade....

Oh wait, I just proved the point I was making about how nations - not just Russia and China - pursue their national interests.

Okay, you stupid freeek?

Your right! You dont. What you NEED to do though, limpdick, is to justify the deaths of thousands of civilians in Syria.

Can you do that one little thing?

No? I thought not.

You really suk at this, you know that?

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

Yeah, I don't need to rehash the failed arguments for invading Iraq under Saddam, who out of US national interests was an ally while torturing his people for more than a decade....
Oh wait, I just proved the point I was making about how nations - not just Russia and China - pursue their national interests.
Okay, you stupid freeek?

RACE wrote:

Your right! You dont. What you NEED to do though, limpdick, is to justify the deaths of thousands of civilians in Syria.
<quoted text>

You stupid fck, the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq came first, under US puppet Saddam and then during the lying invasion.

I don't need to account for any deaths there or in Syria. That would be you war mongers.

My point is that you only get outraged when China and Russia pursue their foreign policy interests to the detriment of civilians while ignoring the ample cases of the US - and other countries - doing the same.

I call that a sickness of yours. Real anti rationality. Not merely an inability to see the opposite point of view, but an insistence that we obliterate any awareness of another country's point of view.