World news III

what's with the two murdered boys in the tower of london attributed to him? rivals for the throne?

I don't know and to be honest, I do not care enough to find the info.

Just read a bit on it, interesting stuff, they were his nephews! And yes potential rivals but he had their claim rebuffed by labeling them bastard children so didn't really need to kill them, some say Henry VIII who defeated and killed and seized the throne from Richard the III had the boys killed. I wonder how this all plays out in that Tudors show.

well he did kill Reginald Pope's family including his 8 year old nephew to wipe out another claim to the throne in the show

wouldn't want to be in Boston tonight...

the events in Boston seem so unreal, glad its over and people can start healing...though of course the nuts out there are crying conspiracy and government setup! people like that just piss me off, government collusion for every god damn event that occurs.

I get pretty tired of all that mess as well Jesse. That dumb ass aunt of the two guys calling them perfect angels and that it is a setup. I would like the FBI to go get that bitch show her the footage...ALL of it and make her watch. I was pleased to see today that the little one has confessed right out. Even to shooting the cop.

http://news.sky.com/story/1094560/woolwich-terror-pm-holds-cobra-crisis-meeting

British soldier hacked to death by Muslim extremists in broad daylight in London

just really really effed up

I saw that on the news the other day. people are fucking crazy

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/24/18466766-sweden-riots-cops-seek-reinforcements-us-citizens-warned?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

Rioting in Sweden of all placing? The world really is going to hell. I blame austerity, and Michele's precious free market idealogy which leads to nothing but ultimate and greed and ever widening income gaps.

yea jesse, ok. that makes so much sense.

People do horrendous things sometimes in the name of their views or faith. Things that years ago would have been either rare or unthinkable seem now to be practically daily occurrences. It's tragic and a waste of life.

so how do the Americans feel about the fact that they're most likely about to bomb Syria?

I'm not American but I think America has been behaving like a monkey with a hand grenade for decades now. They are meddling in the business of other countries, they have not obtained UN approval for this one, meaning that like Iraq II it will be an illegal war and they will end up killing or maiming way more people than if they stayed OUT. Also considering that over 90 percent of American citizens are against intervention and the government isn't going to try to obtain permission from congress, it really makes you wonder how free a country it is. Sure, they vote every four years but they have no say in something as important as this?? Mind boggling.

Nicky Mayfair wrote:

so how do the Americans feel about the fact that they're most likely about to bomb Syria?

over 90% of the american people are firmly against it, according to polls! I personally dont know anyone who is for it! I think our country at this point is really sick and tired of our war mongering and bullying of the middle east!

Sheila O wrote:

I'm not American but I think America has been behaving like a monkey with a hand grenade for decades now. They are meddling in the business of other countries, they have not obtained UN approval for this one, meaning that like Iraq II it will be an illegal war and they will end up killing or maiming way more people than if they stayed OUT. Also considering that over 90 percent of American citizens are against intervention and the government isn't going to try to obtain permission from congress, it really makes you wonder how free a country it is. Sure, they vote every four years but they have no say in something as important as this?? Mind boggling.

as of right now Obama has relented (probably due to the overwhelming pressure from the public, from congress, and from the other countries in the UN who do not support this) to letting congress decide if we should or not. If congress says no (which i have a feeling they will) I think that most likely he will go against congress anyway and use his bullshit executive overreach. UNLESS every country in the UN is against it and then I dont think it will happen. I have heard that the UK (in addition to russia and china) have backed out. (thank god!!!!! Though I am very surprised that the UK backed out)

There is supposed to be a worldwide protest today in cities all over the world against any intervention but I dont know if it actually is taking place or not

Nicky Mayfair wrote:

so how do the Americans feel about the fact that they're most likely about to bomb Syria?

Contrary to what Michele and Shelia have been talking about behind my back, I am not with Obama on this. While I think the world has a moral obligation to stop what is happening, the US cannot go into it alone. Sadly if we can't have the UN backing we can't do anything. Now mind you boots on the ground true war invasion ala Iraq has never been in the equation, it was always going to be air strikes like Libya, but we see what happened there. We cannot go in without a comprehensive end game scenario like the fall of Assad, which Obama said he is not seeking, so then what is the point? I am sad that we can't do anything about it, but we the US can't go into every goddamn country alone and try to reform it through might.

PS...Syria again is about oil. So if Obama does strike, despite the American populace against it, even if Congress votes against it, then I will know for certain that Obama is done.

We never did say *ANYTHING * negative about you behind your back! Quite the opposite, Mr. Paranoia. ;)

I think Syria might be about Israel. I can't think of any other reason. I'm a supporter of Israel but I think it is time to let them wage their own battles. We can't do it for them anymore, especially considering that we would actually be supporting Al Quada on this one., supporting fundamentalist Islamists whose values are so very different from our own. Why in God's name would we want to do that?? Spill the blood of innocent Syrians for WHAT?? WHAT??? Explain to me WHY???

John" Buffoon" McCain's brilliant idea is to:

A) Take out Assad

B) Then arm the opposing factions within the rebel groups and let them fight it out, thereby prolonging the conflict.

I'll have a bottle of Thorazine with a Valium chaser please. 

Sheila O wrote:

We never did say *ANYTHING * negative about you behind your back! Quite the opposite, Mr. Paranoia. ;)

Not the impression I got from that other one

 

That other one? Michele, you mean? I don't want to get into the details of our conversation but these words, strike me dead if I am lying, passed my lips, "I like Jesse. I've never actually spoken to him but he seems cool and he's funny. And he can tolerate an opinion different from his own."

So there. :friends

PS> I already knew what your views on this subject were because you had responded in that thread on my FB wall.

It's Rwanda/Srebenica, all over again. a big stage-acting performance of "But..but....we did'nt know it was THAT bad."

The world is kept puprosely misinformed as to not get too involved. back in the day, the US (and subsequently the UN) largely ignored the cries during the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. The public did'nt really know what was going on. probably some other tribal war amongst bunch of africans. Reporters were sending images from Rwanda and they were largely ignored. When they finally reached us... the result; 1 million people dead. clinton had to get down on his knees a year later and admid that insufficient action was taken and hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved(he admitted to that on camera!)

same thing during Bosnia. people in the US were largely kept stupid about the whole thing. and then it was Christiane amanpour(a TRUE JOURNALIST )who in a live-feed confronted clinton during a tv-interview with the images of skinny, emaciated, white europeans behind barbed wire. If she hadn't done that; the US would've sat on it's ass and nobody would be the wiser. Meanwhile how many of you americans know that the Croats have been reporting the building of concentration camps months earlier? and that hundreds of thousands of people had already been killed. yu really think they did'nt know? they did'nt want you to know! Clinton did'nt need a "Gulf-style" war in his admnistration. in hindsight; he had nothing to fear. Croatia was liberated within weeks. But the killing had already tken place

And another complication: there are many fundamentalist factions(al quaida-sympathizers) amongst the rebel troops in Syria. if the US does nothing: assad will continue terrorizing syrians.The syrians and the world will point fingers at the US for not stepping in. if the US does step in; it will open the door for those fundamentalist factions to call the US 'the agressor' when the bombs fall and people eventually die. It's not unlikely for a Iraqi-style civil war to come out of that. ..or not.

So; is it better to just let those people die and loose face(but save your money) or, should you say; damn it, I don't want to be the pres who did nothing and allowed a lot of people to die.

And Assad is mad. His airstrikes are butal and getting worse. a dutch reporter came back from syria and said "it's worse than we get to see". CNN did very little reporting on it up untill, now. Those images of those chemical attacks really aren't the first ones. It was only untill recently that those images reached the media outlet.s Chem-attacks have been going on MUCH longer than 'they' like you to know. So people have not had the chance to 'give a shit'. now, people will have something to say about it. and fuelled by popular opinion(for-or-against...doesnt matter as long as the populace feels included); i expect the US to go in.

Media is lagely responsible when it comes to intervention-not the "goodness" of a bunch of politicians.

jus' ma two cents'....