Can we just drop the kinds of bombs that burst open like piñatas to distribute food, medical supplies and gas masks? Because I think I could get behind something like that.
I SO want the Humanitarians with Guillotines.
If you think that you can wage war to further a humanitarian agenda, then be CERTAIN someone is playing you, with a different agenda, altogether. Remember Rwanda? That was deliberately incited for just such a purpose.
If you want to know about Syria? Who just sold/bought gas exploration rights to Syriaâs Golan Heights? Why were no Syrians in the transaction - and why are the shareholders and âstrategic advisorsâ of this venture âpeopleâ like Jacob Rothschild and Dick Cheney?
Look no further than http://www.moonofalabama.org/ for complete take-downs of the total BS that get passed about Syria, Egypt and Libya, today.
I encourage you to read the in-depth commentary that goes on in the message threads, from posters across a spectrum of political positions - the linkage they provide is often eye-opening.
You had me at âRothschildâ.
Yes. Because if you even suggest that a dynasty of billionaires, with 200 years of continuity had the desire or capability of operating to manipulate global political and economic events?
Why! Then it is clear you are in league with David Duke or Lyndon LaRouche - and motivated by the same hatred espoused by Henry Ford or the insanity of David Icke. Case dismissed.
Sourcewatch is educational on the specific interests and influence of Baron Jacob. Two enlightening articles are linked to his entry:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/RIT_Capital_Partners_plc
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Open_Russia_Foundation
It is not unreasonable to have a moment of insight that disrupts conventional, media narratives, upon discovering both his political connection to the founding of government institutions in Israel, and his financial backing for an exploration company that will succeed by causing disruption in the Assad regime.
As in all analysis of events that involve neither logical basis, nor hypothesis derived from the laws that govern the sciences, but are instead rooted in the depths of human psychology and motivation: ask always cui bono.
Itâs almost as if the trend in politics to discredit logic and reason is predictable and inevitable, isnât it?
And we, rational folks, are misled by the tools and principles by which we are successful in negotiating a good hypothesis for the sciences. Occamâs razor is useless for economic or political analysis - because we do not account for the delusional or deceptive - which are fundamental to navigating world events. Nature may be obscure or complex, but it does not intend to lie, and there is not a Machiavellian force in the causal chain of biology. We can joke about that possibility, in quantum physics. 
Who really owns what? Who really has an interest in one outcome, over another? These are questions that need to be answered.
First, we must also understand, what is the medium through which we perceive these answers, and who are the messengers? How do they relate to established ownership and interests?
I guarantee, you will never hear the truth about economics, finance or politics on NPR - any more than you expect to from Uzbekistanâs national broadcaster.
It can be entertaining, but you never listen to NPR or FOX or BBC or RussiaToday, as a truth-seeking and independent thinker, expecting a balanced story by journalists striving to achieve objective insights. Rather, you listen to hear lies of commission, omission and unexamined false-assumption.
The question is then not what âsidesâ are represented in any story, but whoâs lie, for what purpose. âWhat do these people want me to believe, and how are they influencing me to act?â
For NPR? Itâs pretty easy. About 85% of the time it is Dept of State or US Army. The rest proceeds from there. However? Whoâs tool is this really? In the United States, I argue that the engine of Government is very powerful, and the handles of its control do not belong to a devolved extension from the will of the governed. The background for this position can be developed from a familiarity with this book, among others.
Everybody laughs, when Cheneyâs pronouncement of âReality-based communityâ and âmake our own realityâ are dragged out in an âenlightenedâ and ârationalâ audience. Nonetheless, these are the same people who can then have âinformedâ opinion on how the US should deal with Al-Assad in Syria - never questioning the basics of his accountability for supposed occurrences, or even the basic notion that there is any valid role or legitimate action that could ever be performed in the name of the American people, at all. This has become non-debatable.
If you begin to push on the cui bono arguments, you move from accusations of the âimprobableâ to those of the âunpalatableâ - cast into the pit of Icke and LaRouche, whoâs examples are likely cultivated to discredit the possibility of an alternative narrative for world events.
And even there, we have to be careful, true?
Theyâre people too, itâs hard to blame them for being more adaptable in a mad world, In a different environment they could have been artists or caregivers or inventors. sigh
Us and our stupid monkeyspheres.
I like your take. This is definitely the next, compassionate âmetaâ point-of-view.
Without delving to far into mysticism or theological propositions, I extend a number of quotations, that should be a meal for thoughtfulness, not a confirmation of prejudice.
âSee, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in . . . to kind of catapult the propaganda.â
âGeorge W. Bush, May 24, 2005
âThe basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.â
âPhilip K. Dick
âAh, this is obviously some strange use of the word âsafeâ that I wasnât previously aware of.â
âArthur Dent
âHe that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.â
âThomas Paine
âI cannot exclude the possibility that God would save all men at the Judgment.â
â Karl Barth
âIn the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy.â
âDavid Korten
âBlackâs got âRespectâ, and Whiteâs got his Soul TrainâŠâ
â David Bowie, Young Americans
Way to turn a Venn Diagram of overlapping quotes into a Spirograph 
Letâs add. . .
âYou never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change
something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.â
-Buckminster Fuller
âThose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat itâ.
-George Santayana
âHow about you not blow our things up? Thatâd help.â
-Random, imaginary Syrian
I for one like the idea of giving the refugees options, join a co-operative, create some sustainable eco-villages, give them part of Detroit, whatever. . .letâs put that billion-or-ten dollars on the table and let THEM choose how theyâre spent, individually and in tiny groups.
I bet almost nobody picks âSend missiles to kill a few of our old friends and blow up our homesâ.
And then if they create something better than what we have, then they can save us! We deserve freedom too, right?
Iâm pretty sure that lots of people said that before him. And will say it again.
#137 from /., is that you?
Whats next? A quote from the Protocols of the Elders of ZIon?
Well yeah, you could say that about pretty much anything.
Yeah, but not with such delightful irony.
Actually, yes, one generally can with any wise or clever saying. However, I do my research.and am familiar with the subject, and heâs generally considered the source.
So, back to the topic?
Heh. 3-Digit UID Club.
âHistory doesnât repeat itself, but it does rhyme.â
â John Robert Colombo, A Said Poem (1970)
