If you understand what I said correctly, than you didn't explain your question clearly. Reread and try again. Be specific.
Also, I asked about chemical weapons. And quit with the hyperbole and generalization when people ask for specifics.
When has the USA ever really given a genuine damn about the well being of Muslims? Rephrased it for you.
I'm sorry, I should have explained myself better when I asked the 'why Syria' question but pertaining to what you specifically asked, I can't name anything of the top of my head.
When has America really cared about the well-being about any other nation except America? Even Reagan sided with Argentina when the Falklands was invaded.
But to answer your question with examples, I'd probably say the Bosnian genocide is the best case, where the US led an intervention to stop the Christian Serbs from massacring the Muslim Bosnians and other ethnic groups. I could also point out to the siding of innocent Muslims over the appallingly evil yet "Christian" Lord's Army. There's also Somalia (though it ended in disaster and kept foreign intervention out of Africa for a while) and even the current handing of Egypt. Libya may also be an example. I'm thinking it has to do mostly with these past two Democratic presidents, though, since I'm coming up short on what Bush II did. Maybe you could even make a case that Bush I's war was to help out Muslims against the secular Hussein government, but there were too many oil interests to make that a pure connection.
Now, off with the conspiracies. How about some hard evidence to prove your point?
oxymoron wrote: Please explain how you prove a cover up? It was just an idea but absence of evidence doesn't prove evidence of absence.
But without evidence, all you have is special pleading.
Well played but there were people saying that when Watergate happened and guess what? They were wrong.
Right, because there was plenty of evidence to show that there was a coverup that linked the break-in to the White House. No one took it on faith. There was a leak and some solid investigative journalism.
Right, because there was plenty of evidence to show that there was a coverup that linked the break-in to the White House. No one took it on faith. There was a leak and some solid investigative journalism.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say your not a big fan of conspiracy theories. Thus, this debate will never end. I on the other hand have an open mind to them. There is one other conspiracy pertaining to the world wars but I forget the specifics.
Right, because there was plenty of evidence to show that there was a coverup that linked the break-in to the White House. No one took it on faith. There was a leak and some solid investigative journalism.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say your not a big fan of conspiracy theories. Thus, this debate will never end. I on the other hand have an open mind to them. There is one other conspiracy pertaining to the world wars but I forget the specifics.
No, I am not a fan of "theories" with no evidence. Time and time again they've been shown to be wrong. The reality is that the truth is far too complicated for most people out of the loop to understand and conspiracy theories offer an understandable form of control, letting them know, in religious-like ways, that there's someone, something, out there, and thus nothing is the fault of the individual, since there's always a cover up.
I have an open mind to shady governments doing shady things — and all governments are shady — but I don't condone idle speculation without any shred of evidence.
I don't know if its popular belief that the 3rd world war will start in the middle east, but I have heard and read that belief from a lot of people and places. Does any one on here have this belief
I honestly don't know if I believe that to be true or not. Keep in mind a 3rd world war doesn't necessarily have to be nuclear in nature.
Please explain how you prove a cover up? It was just an idea but absence of evidence doesn't prove evidence of absence.
