XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.french   
   XPost: soc.culture.canada, soc.culture.syria, soc.culture.iraq   
   XPost: rec.sport.tennis   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   Translation of Pelosi remark:   
      
   We the elites can see that the American people don't want us to kill   
   Syrian civilians.  But their evil dictator threatens the security of   
   our country, of its neighbors, and of the world.  So, you just have to   
   trust us and not get in the way of our tasty meal full of Syrian blood!   
      
   Meanwhile, John Kerry is making the round telling people that Assad   
   committed crime against humanity and doing so in terms of horribly   
   graphical description of writhing dead bodies of children in the   
   hundreds or the thousands - a depiction that is totally contradicted   
   by the youtube pictures I have personally seen.  I was even commenting   
   to friends the past weekend how deaths caused by nerve gas - as shown   
   by those pictures I have seen - could be so peaceful, even as I abhor   
   death no matter how it looks.   
      
   Instead of trying to answer the questions about what kind of chemical   
   compounds were causing those deaths and who have done the deed, Kerry   
   resorted to dramatics to sway the public opinion.  It shows a dramatic   
   upturn of desparation on the part of the warmongers who now feel they   
   must "even the playing field" for thir Syrian rebel fighters before   
   it's too late, having witnessed the stunning defeat of David Cameron's   
   effort in the House of Commons.   
      
   And so desparate are the neocons that Senator Dianne Feinstein, as one   
   of those senior congressional leaders whom the Obama administration   
   can entrust with its highly questionable "classified" intelligence   
   about Assad's "crime against humanity", is telling people that Obama   
   can go ahead and attack Syria without the approval of Congress.   
      
   How nice for Barack Obama to act now exactly like Warhawk John McCain,   
   the man the American voters soundly rejected in 2008 in favor of Obama   
   precisely because of the issue they had with GW Bush's war, so that   
   the neocon masters can continue to move their hegemony agenda,   
   regardless of the huge expense of lives and property for the Syrians.   
      
   One more thing to note: Nancy Pelosi has consistently advertised   
   herself as a big fan of the Dalai Lama, ostensibly because of his   
   "nonviolence" teaching.  But in the name of American security, she   
   chooses to completely forget about nonviolence.  She sounded like the   
   violence caused in a modern war is not intrinsically a problem - only   
   the fatigue factor.   
      
     "It is clear that the American people are weary of war..."   
      
   I don't think the principle of nonviolence depends on whether you are   
   tired of war or not.  War is violence and unleashes violence and   
   violence is the antithesis of nonviolence.  Either you espouse   
   nonviolence or you don't.  Either it bothers you that many more   
   civilians will be killed by our cruise missiles or it doesn't.   
      
   Whatever insult has been inflicted on the Syrian people, you are   
   adding a huge amount of injury to their affliction.   
      
   Either you can put yourself in a Syrian person's shoes or you don't.   
   You don't think you will be touched by those American bombs; so you   
   are fine with the image of yourself knocking heads with the Dalai Lama   
   with palms pressed and held together tightly to the chest.  The gross   
   inconsistency of your image making and your deed does not bother you   
   at all.  The worst is that you are supporting this only because the   
   war is actually a one-sided affair.  You pummel (like a thug) a people   
   who have no means to and cannot defend themselves.  You wouldn't have   
   been so cavalier about going forward with this asymmetric war that   
   will cause a lot of blood to flow, otherwise.  You are telling people   
   that there is a monster, a horrific monster, that we must chase, not   
   seeing that you are in fact the most horrific, most hypocritical   
   monster of all to bomb the likes of Um and her family of seven.  Um   
   and her family did not flee from Damascus from Assad, your designated   
   monster.  Rather she was fleeing from your bombs, Nancy!   
      
   Remember when you tell Barack to go "get'em, boy". you have taken   
   possession of the bombs that spill thousands' blood, Nancy.  Now you   
   own this "war" of great injustice.   
      
   Nancy Pelosi exhorts Obama to bomb Syria: "Barack, go, go get'em, boy!"   
      
   Finally, oh, yeah, she worries about "regional stability" of the   
   Middle East...  So, she wants you to think of her as a humanitarian   
   who is willing to sacrifice some Syrian civilian lives to save the   
   lives of many more people from the region.   
      
   But that is pure hogwash!   
      
   She conveniently let a casual listener forget that Assad's Syria was   
   minding only its own business and did not invade another country or   
   cause a civil war, unlike the American spies and their British and   
   French counterparts, in the past decades.   
      
   Syria was in fact keeping the peace in Lebanon for decades with the   
   blessing of Israel as well as the U.S.   
      
   And when Assad's peacekeeping mission was told to shut down, they   
   obeyed our order.  And when we turned Iraq into total chaos, Syria   
   absorbed a huge number of refugees and kept terrorists from thriving   
   on its land.   
      
   The point is Pelosi is clearly telling a lie when she suggested that   
   Assad's regime would be "an issue of our national security, regional   
   security, ...".   
      
   These politicians never have a brain nor a heart: for a few shekels   
   and a place in the market place, they'll do anything to remove the   
   obstacles that get in their masters' way to wreck the world.   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   Part (I) Why I oppose to Obama's impending attack of Syria   
      
   i) Hans Blix says the West has no mandate to go to war against Syria.   
      He says we get ahead of the due process.  Obama or the US Congress   
      is not a court of law; much less an internationally recognized   
      court like the ICC.   
      
   ii) Obama does not have the information to allow him to "conclude"   
       that Assad did it.  Even intelligence experts have said as much,   
       not just ANSWER's Richard Becker.   
      
       Anti-war activist Richard Becker from the ANSWER coalition:   
      
       US is not at all sure who was behind the alleged chemical weapons   
       attack in Syria, yet it wants to oust the Syrian government, so it   
       is `fixing the intelligence around the objective',   
      
       http://rt.com/op-edge/us-syria-chemical-attack-974/   
      
       US officials (as quoted by AP) in the intelligence community:   
      
       According to an Office of the Director for National Intelligence   
       report cited by the AP, the evidence against Syria "is thick with   
       caveats" and contains gaps that are getting in the way of putting   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)