When a politician says that money is for non-lethal use, especially if the politician is Barak Obama, I would translate that in the opposite.

They have alread admitted that the CIA is controling the supply of weapons in and out of Syria, but of course they claim that these weapons are being supplied by others.

buuaaahahahahahah!

Yeh right.

Fancy being a Syrian and Looking at this headline.




In the end, all Israel and her Western allies want to do is to break Iran – via Syria


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/robert-fisk-in-the-end-all-israel-and-her-western-allies-want-to-do-is-to-break-iran--via-syria-8037174.html

Plumbing the depths Old Boy? The Independent? What next? Perhaps some more from Russia Today? You must miss News Of The World.

It is clear that some people restrict their news and information to a very narrow list, rejecting all others. That may be seen as "loyal to the cause of the globalist agenda" but it is not very credible.

Quite boring really.

Did you notice that as well? Some can't tell the difference between opinion, rhetoric and actual news.

I noticed you didn't like this part



That may be seen as "loyal to the cause of the globalist agenda" but it is not very credible.

Everything ultimately is a point of view. A point of view is an opinion.

IE: Everything is an opinion.

Only because it is stupid.

Not true. If there is a car accident and car 'A' hit car 'B', that can be reported as a fact. Why car 'A' hit car 'B' may be a fact, or an opinion. The answer to that would be discerned by the language employed to explain it. Car 'A' hit car 'B', but why this occurred may be subjective.

It is still a point of view and an opinion. Both cars were necessary for the event to have happened. Each car "hit" or "collided" with the other car.

If car B had not been in that spot at that time, it would not have happened. Therefore, whom hit whom is irrelevant.

Not to mention that after the event, there are only "points of views" of memories of witnesses to attest to what actually happened, and unless the event was recorded on tape, the decision as to whom hit whom cannot be agreed upon.

Facts to be called facts must be agreed upon to be called "facts."

If you are a materialist and believe that this reality is real and solid and that everything you see and touch is real or a fact, then you believe that there is such a thing as "facts."

I am one who believes that this reality is an illusion, albeit a convincing and persistent one.

Sophistry. The accident remains a fact.



Not in a news report (or to the insurance company for that matter).



I already pointed that out when I stated the interpretation is subjective. It can be ascertained via forensic analysis (in our scenario).



Yes, scientific process and elimination etc. The accident occurred remains a fact.



So yours is a belief system as opposed to being scientific.

I agree with Albert Einstein who said:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Was he a scientist? I think he was.

He also said:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

If there are "facts" it is because we believe there are "facts."

If we call a thing a fact it is because we agree that it is a fact.

I Like that line.

Imagine being a Syrian whose mother or father brother or sister is murdered in the name of bringing democracy to Syria and then fining out that it was all about Iran anyway.

Imagine having a conversation about imagination.

I think you may be unaware of the context of these quotes, but I digress. It remains a belief system as stated above.

I am fully aware of the context of the quotes and the reasons he stated them.

Well, then, care to illustrate this?

Why?