XPost: alt.atheism, alt.society.liberalism, can.politics   
   From: knicklas@plovdiv.bg   
      
   In article , hlwdjsd2   
   @NOSPAMgmail.com says...   
   >   
   > In article ,   
   >  Kurt Nicklas  wrote:   
   >   
   > > In article , hlwdjsd2   
   > > @NOSPAMgmail.com says...   
   > > >   
   > > > In article ,   
   > > >  Free Lunch  wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:01:14 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in   
   > > > > alt.atheism:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > >In article <3be9s8hknlthq18do0k5qllhk2hlg1to4c@4ax.com>, Free Lunch   
   > > > > > wrote:   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:33:06 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote   
   in   
   > > > > >> alt.atheism:   
   > > > > >>   
   > > > > >> >In article , Free Lunch   
   > > > > >> > wrote:   
   > > > > >> ...   
   > > > > >> >> You make guesses all the time. Too bad you never bother to learn   
   > > > > >> >> anything.   
   > > > > >> >   
   > > > > >> >I don't know your age. I am 62 years old. I remember how we got   
   > > > > >> >involved   
   > > > > >> >in Vietnam. It happened very slowly. We first sent "advisors" which   
   > > > > >> >were   
   > > > > >> >soldiers "advising" the troops in South Vietnam. It slowly evolved   
   > > > > >> >into   
   > > > > >> >sending to Vietnam thousands of members of the military.   
   > > > > >>   
   > > > > >> You forget the 'domino theory' and the overwrought fear of   
   Communism.   
   > > > > >>   
   > > > > >> >The providing of arms could be the first step in regard to getting   
   > > > > >> >members   
   > > > > >> >of the USA military involved in that war.   
   > > > > >>   
   > > > > >> Or it could be a way to keep Iran from gaining even more power in   
   > > > > >> Syria.   
   > > > > >>   
   > > > > >> This is a complicated issue and you approach things in far too   
   > > > > >> simplistic a manner.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > >Providing anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons to members of a   
   > > > > >radical muslim rebel group called Ahrar al-Sham is NOT the solution.   
   > > > > >They   
   > > > > >lied and claimed to be a moderate group of rebels in order to get   
   those   
   > > > > >weapons.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > When do you allege that we provided them?   
   > > >   
   > > > And what's the evidence that they lied?   
   > >   
   > > Are they Islamists, Jeannie? Do you consider Islamists to be radical? If   
   > > not, what is your definition of radical?   
   >   
   > Where's the evidence that they are radicals? Where's the evidence that   
   > they're Islamists?   
      
   You could look up Ahrar al-Sham on wikipedia. Is that 'evidence'?   
      
   > All we have are assertions from unreliable sources.   
      
   What do you consider a reliable source?   
      
   > Provide valid evidence and I'll agree that that's what they are, but not   
   > on mere assertion.   
      
   What would you consider valid evidence?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)