Ok you are obviously not going to watch it... You are arguing about the technicalities of something you haven't even seen, so I can't really argue back. And in being so stubborn about it, you are acting like the other side, the side who is convinced that Assad did it, without any proof.

Anyway, here is a good read about how it would be basically impossible to just order some surgical strikes and then sit back. Surgical strikes would almost definitely lead to greater military involvement, and I don't know how the US is going to pull that off.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-danger-of-the-planned-attack-on-syria-2013-8

And the video link again, for those who want to watch it.

http://vimeo.com/73224397

8/28/2013 4:22:54 PM

When have i been anything but skeptical and anything but not wanting any involvement in Syria?

8/28/2013 4:26:17 PM

Quote :

"^I think the Iraq decision was based off of bad intel, not fabricated lies."

Then you have a poor understanding of US wartime history.

The Spanish-American (USS Maine)

Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin)

Iraq (WMDs)


Fabricated/exaggerated claims are used all the time to gin up public support for military adventurism.

8/28/2013 4:32:38 PM

Quote :

"P.S. that's not the attitude to have if you are looking for the truth, esp considering it is just 10 minutes long. Watch, then judge."

Actually providing original sources instead of sketchy videos is the attitude to have if you are looking for the truth.

8/28/2013 4:47:49 PM

making decisions because of videos is why people think 9/11 was an inside job and jet contrails are chemical experiments

8/28/2013 4:49:46 PM

This guy calls for arming the rebels to induce a stalemate, as either side winning is bad
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html

This guy calls for attacking and destroying Assad as him winning would be bad
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139838/andrew-j-tabler/the-day-after-assad-wins

8/28/2013 6:36:48 PM

This is getting a little too Syrias

8/28/2013 7:11:42 PM

might as well just help assad at this point. seems like the most stable, quickest solution with the least total deaths. he will crumble eventually but don't let it be through bloodshed.

8/28/2013 8:51:49 PM

How bout we don't do anything, quit talking about syria all together, and let them have their little melt down alone. Option c. is never off the table.

8/28/2013 10:36:05 PM

Obama says we need to go in or else some day chemical weapons could be used on the US (fear mongering)

so instead of risking it, lets go in and create more chaos and reduce the power of the people that control the chemical weapons.

remember, the us is not dumb so anytime they do something and their reasoning sounds dumb its because its fishy. REALLY FISHY.

8/28/2013 11:18:34 PM

difference this time is the un convoys getting shot at right off the bat. It doesn't look like a winnable situation to be honest. all I see is shit storm

best leave it alone

8/28/2013 11:43:26 PM

I am so tired of radical Islam.

8/29/2013 8:18:03 AM

Is that a troll post? That seems strange coming from you.

Radical Islam is going to be around for a long time to come, and there isn't really anything we can do about it. Other than leave it alone and just deal with it when it crosses our borders, we should just mind our own business.

But Operation Obamascare will go on full throttle, I'm sure.

[Edited on August 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2013 8:45:57 AM

Quote :

"Obama says we need to go in or else some day chemical weapons could be used on the US (fear mongering)"

To be fair, the rhetoric is that Hamas and others could get the chemical weapons.

It then follows that Israel is at risk, and that actually sounds pretty correct. An attack on Tel Aviv that kills >1000 with chemical weapons is quite plausible. The US itself is a far cry from that, but our politicians have had the president to treat attacks on allies like attacks on the US itself.

8/29/2013 8:47:41 AM

so let Israel deal with their own shitstorm

8/29/2013 9:20:27 AM

Quote :

"Is that a troll post? That seems strange coming from you."

No.

8/29/2013 10:02:23 AM

Quote :

"To be fair, the rhetoric is that Hamas and others could get the chemical weapons. It then follows that Israel is at risk, and that actually sounds pretty correct. An attack on Tel Aviv that kills >1000 with chemical weapons is quite plausible. The US itself is a far cry from that, but our politicians have had the president to treat attacks on allies like attacks on the US itself."

don't twist it like that when the man clearly said the us itself

Quote :

" Well, what’s happened has been heartbreaking, but when you start talking about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time, their control over chemical weapons may erode, where they’re allied to known terrorist organizations that, in the past, have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility, in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us. And we want to make sure that that does not happen. "

and we're going to prevent that from happening by eroding away the control of the assad regime?

fuck out of here

8/29/2013 1:01:34 PM

we should stay the fuck out of this.

or help Assad stay in power.

8/29/2013 1:19:20 PM

Al Qaeda's potent force in Syria
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-power-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

8/29/2013 3:58:56 PM

give our fast food workers a rifle, send them into the fray

8/29/2013 4:03:29 PM

only the US is allowed to use chemical weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Ammunition

8/29/2013 10:19:39 PM

Or Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Gaza_War_.282008.E2.80.932009.29


^^ or bring Assad's forces and the rebels to the US to work together in fast food restaurants. They will gladly work for $3.50 an hour, thus solving two problems at the same time!

8/29/2013 10:27:45 PM

If WP or depleted uranium are what you consider "chemical weapons" then all incendiaries should be considered also. Hell, lead is technically a chemical too, right?

You're right though, depleted uranium slugs are as deadly as sarin and nerve gas. I mean, it has the word uranium right there.

[Edited on August 29, 2013 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2013 10:45:32 PM

The British Parliament voted against supporting any attack on Syria. A huge blow to Obama but he seems ready to go it alone.

8/29/2013 11:25:18 PM

obama doesn't really want to do it but he already promised to so now he's just bluffing until he figures out a way to do it without really doing it.

8/29/2013 11:50:02 PM

Quote :

"Al Qaeda's potent force in Syria http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-power-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t4"

That's a good read, and even better are the readers comments. I didnt read them all, but every single one I skimmed through stated opposition to intervening. And more tellingly, a few even said they would rather the US helped Assad so he stays in power, because realistically, the only options in Arab countries are

Quote :

"Brutal dictator who keeps his people in-line, Brutal Religious fanatic who will punish those not in-line with his Religious viewpoint."

And that's basically true.

And here is one comment quoting the Haaretz paper, which throws serious doubt on the assertion that Assad used the weapons, and that they were known chemical weapons to begin with:

Quote :

"Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination. Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army's Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: "None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear," he says, "and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed." This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that "there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control." Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England's Cranfield University who has worked with Britain's Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that "from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in, and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here." Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use. It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma? (source Zerohedge)"

The inspectors were apparently just 10 miles from where the attack took place.

Is Assad that stupid? That fact alone completely throws the assertion that Assad used them out the window. And his foreign minister has challenged the world to provide proof... why would he say that if there was so much evidence laying around that Assad did it?

8/30/2013 12:58:52 AM

Quote :

"If WP or depleted uranium are what you consider "chemical weapons" then all incendiaries should be considered also. Hell, lead is technically a chemical too, right? You're right though, depleted uranium slugs are as deadly as sarin and nerve gas. I mean, it has the word uranium right there."

according to the UN, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon if you are using it's toxic properties as a weapon. the claims the previous poster linked to were examples where it was used within civilian areas as a weapon, and not simply as camouflage. you can use it against the enemy, but not in civilian areas as a weapon, wp has bad toxic effects.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm
"It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

even

(and depleted uranium should be limited more, it has terrible effects)

8/30/2013 8:26:25 AM

fwiw, I heard a story on NPR about how an incendiary device (similar to napalm) was dropped at a school (yesterday/today) playground when classes let out. They interviewed a few people includng the principle, who watched 10 teenagers die (supposedly). They said a government jet was flying around just before.

8/30/2013 9:10:45 AM

http://www.wral.com/triangle-residents-with-syrian-connections-back-using-force/12833798/

Quote :

"While the world weighs a military strike against Syria, the Syrian community in Raleigh is watching, waiting and hoping the world will step in to remove President Bashar Assad. Khalila Sabra, who works with Syrian refugees, has seen the effects of Syria's civil war firsthand. She calls Assad a butcher. "He's committing genocide, and the world is just standing by and watching it happen," Sabra said Thursday."

8/30/2013 9:41:25 AM

^Who would Assad be replaced by? Al Qaeda types are now well entrenched with the rebels. Additionally if he does fall you will see a sectarian blood bath.

8/30/2013 10:00:48 AM

I don't think we're going to do anything. When Obama writes his memoirs, that redline comment is going to be one of things he most regrets saying. We/NATO don't have the stomach to effect another regime change in the ME, and to quote Breaking Bad "no half measures". It's better to do nothing at all then some sort of superficial strike that doesn't actually change the situation on the ground.

Quote :

"(and depleted uranium should be limited more, it has terrible effects)"

DU dust is definitely harmful if inhaled/swallowed, just like lead or any other heavy metal. It's dangers due to radiation are totally overblown though. The alpha particles it emits travel a tiny distance and can't penetrate clothes or skin. It has a very low decay rate, meaning it's doesn't emit much radiation at all, less than an isotope of potassium naturally present in the human body.

Hmmmmmm.......just saw this news about the bomb dropped on a playground. Pretty hard to argue that Al Qaeda somehow acquired a jet. That might change things......

[Edited on August 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM. Reason : :]

8/30/2013 10:21:05 AM

i understand the risks with DU, and they are not overblown. The emperical research in conflict areas where DU has been used is pretty damming. you dismiss the dust, but its a big deal. and the radiation alone may not be sufficient for accute effects, but they are certainly high enough for chronic and teratogenic effects

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17

8/30/2013 10:50:44 AM

OMG

Graphic video of children with their skin burned off in the latest napalm-type bomb dropped on a school

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

Damn Assad... may he be treated a 1000 times worse than that one day


[Edited on August 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM. Reason : This is WAY worse than the chemical attack in terms of extent of pain and injuries]

8/30/2013 10:55:14 AM

Quote :

"This is WAY worse than the chemical attack in terms of extent of pain and injuries"

People who die from nerve gas don't just go painlessly unconscious. I don't even feel like arguing this but this claim is just ridiculous. How many were hurt and killed in this attack vs "the chemical attack"?

8/30/2013 12:53:36 PM

yeah, i was about to say something about that but didn't. but it's probably a toss-up between being burned to death and dying from nerve toxins.

8/30/2013 12:55:22 PM

^God, that is fucked up

I understand we cant get strung out in the middle east in another war. I understand we need to be careful of backing rebel groups who have allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.

But we've got to do something to punish Bashar Assad for these heinous crimes against civilians

8/30/2013 1:00:56 PM

LOL @ everyone on here arguing the semantics of death and it's various way.

8/30/2013 1:04:28 PM

Quote :

"I understand we need to be careful of backing rebel groups who have allied with the Muslim Brotherhood."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're not really allied with the Muslim Brotherhood are they? It's pretty confusing, but I thought the Mulsim Brotherhood was Sunni. And isn't Assad's regime Ba'athist dominated by Sunnis (like Saddam's regime)? Of course, Al Queda is Sunni too, but aren't they wahhabis? I know in Egypt, Saudi Arabia was allying with the Egyptian military against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Actually, none of that makes sense. Does anybody know more about this?

8/30/2013 1:13:33 PM

Quote :

"LOL @ everyone on here arguing the semantics of death and it's various way."

Efficiency and scale in regards to chemical weapons isn't semantics. Trying to act like napalm is worse than sarin isn't even semantics, it's an emotional argument (and a flawed one at that, given the amount of suffering nerve gas causes).

8/30/2013 1:16:14 PM

So the state department just released intelligence assessment on the chemical attack.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/us-syrian-chemical-attack-killed-1-429-including

8/30/2013 1:28:18 PM

I wasn't talking about number of deaths/injuries, but the extent of injury/pain in a given individual. Of course, I was talking out of my ass, as in this case you can see the pain/injuries, but in a gas attack, at least the one that hit Syria, you couldn't see any pain/injuries, just discomfort and death. Anyway, doesn't really matter.

Bullet, Assad is not Sunni lol... This is like Syrian Conflict 101. Assad is Shia, and that's why he is supported by Iran and Hezbollah as they are Shia as well. Vast majority of the population is Sunni. Same problem in Iraq under Saddam, and in Bahrain now, albeit reversed, Sunni leader but majority Shia population. Any time that happens, it is a recipe for disaster, as the Shias and Sunnis hate each other. In fact, judging by the beliefs and practices of Shias, they are not even considered Muslims, hence the strong Sunni view that they are infidels.

And the particular Shia sub-sect that Assad belongs to, are only 12% of the population. Here is a good basic read about that sub-sect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18084964

8/30/2013 2:24:15 PM

Quote :

". In fact, judging by the beliefs and practices of Shias, they are not even considered Muslims, hence the strong Sunni view that they are infidels"

You need to start that with "In my opinion..."

8/30/2013 2:28:34 PM

It is not my opinion, it is a clear case of contradicting the most basic tenets.

If a Christian sect believed that Jesus was not god, would you consider them to be Christians?
Or if they held one of jesus' friends/relatives in a status higher than Jesus?
Etc

Anyway, this thread is not for discussing that.

This is interesting, but the statements regarding Obama are not correct, are they?

A short guide to the Middle East

8/30/2013 2:43:10 PM

Not even going to start that conversation in this thread...

8/30/2013 2:45:06 PM

Exactly!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913

Ok wtf kerry

(UN inspectors are not done yet)

Quote :

"US Secretary of State John Kerry has said Syrian government forces killed 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week. Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described the attack as an "inconceivable horror". . . . But Mr Kerry said the US already had the facts, and nothing that the UN weapons inspectors found could tell the world anything new "

8/30/2013 2:49:46 PM

they don't meet your definition of what it means to be muslim, and you don't meet theirs. neither has the authority to decide absolutely that the other is wrong. just pointing out how your opinion is a great example of why there are problems in the area, you are unable to even acknowledge them as muslims.

[Edited on August 30, 2013 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ^UN inspectors are only investigating if chemical weapons were used, not who did it]

8/30/2013 3:10:18 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

8/30/2013 4:05:28 PM

Quote :

"But Mr Kerry said the US already had the facts, and nothing that the UN weapons inspectors found could tell the world anything new"

They're not even trying anymore.

8/30/2013 4:06:14 PM

Oh man, where to even begin...

Quote :

"I can't really tell if that chart is meant to be serious."

Quote :

" The chart is serious and mostly correct, but it is missing many arrows, "

Yeah, I'd say that chart is so flawed/incomplete that it's worthless.

I wouldn't really say that the U.S. supports the Syrian rebels. We have given them some trivial support, and a lot of that has been humanitarian, I think. The only metric by which we "support" them is that we "dislike them less than the Assad regime."

Our relationships with Turkey and Qatar are pretty good, too.

Not having a red arrow between the Saudis and Iranians? What in the hell? That's like having no red arrow between the U.S. and Russia. Oh wait, they ARE missing that.

We could go on, but that could be its own thread.

Quote :

"Le duh, to have a pretext to attack Assad, someone they have hated for years and years. Give chemical weapons to rebels, let rebels use them, then frame Assad... seriosuly, you don't see the military/strategic value in that?"

In fact, I don't see that strategic value at all. I don't think we really want any part of this at the moment. If we wanted to overthrow Assad, I think that killing 100,000 of his own people would be enough. I think it's pretty obvious that we're steering clear for now, because what exactly in the hell would we do? Overthrow him? Great, then what? Have a completely failed state, armed with chemical weapons, subject to a power struggle between different rebel factions, many of whom would be extremely counter to U.S. interests, and none of which would be able to maintain any semblance of stability?

I mean, I think we want Assad gone, but the opportunity hasn't presented itself to replace him with with anyone acceptable.

Quote :

"especially in syria which doesn't really have anything for us. "

Sure they do. If nothing else, more regional leverage, if could get someone pro-American in there (or at least not antagonistic to us).

Quote :

"I think the Iraq decision was based off of bad intel, not fabricated lies. "

Quote :

"not just bad intel, intel that we knew absolutely to be incorrect "

From everything I've read, it was something between the two. We had plenty of good intel, and we had some intel (some of which turned out to be deliberate misinformation) that ran counter to it. Rather than going with the vast preponderance of intel saying that there were no WMDs, we cherry-picked intel and found the bits that supported what we wanted to do.

Even then, my greater beef with Iraq, beyond going there per se, is the assumption that they'd all be happy as shit and neatly work things out as soon as we shitcanned Saddam Hussein. All of the violations of the previous cease fire agreement (NOT armistice), such as repeatedly attacking U.S. aircraft (and probably their failure to submit properly to UN weapons inspectors) were reason enough to finish the job, whether or not it was actually a good idea.

Quote :

"How bout we don't do anything, quit talking about syria all together, and let them have their little melt down alone. Option c. is never off the table. "

I think that's pretty much what's going to happen, at least in the foreseeable future, minus a few TLAM shots to make a point but not meaningfully alter the course of the war.

Quote :

"Obama says we need to go in or else some day chemical weapons could be used on the US (fear mongering) "

I haven't heard him suggest their usage against the mainland U.S. I've heard suggestions that we don't want our overseas personnel threatened by them, which I suppose it probably at least a little part of this.

Quote :

"so instead of risking it, lets go in and create more chaos and reduce the power of the people that control the chemical weapons."

That's what I'm saying; I don't think we're going to do anything really dramatic at all.

Quote :

"difference this time is the un convoys getting shot at right off the bat. It doesn't look like a winnable situation to be honest. "

What doesn't look winnable? The civil war? Hell no. Is it winnable to convince Assad not to do that shit again? Yeah, maybe.

Quote :

"I am so tired of radical Islam. "

What does that have to do with this situation, other than it constrains us from being able to support the rebels?

Quote :

"only the US is allowed to use chemical weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Ammunition "

Quote :

"And that's basically true. "

Ehhhh...

To an extent. I mean, there's Qatar, UAE, and to a decent extent, Jordan and Kuwait.

Iraq isn't exactly theocratic or ruled by a strongman dictator, but then, it's not all that effectively ruled at all since the last strongman left town.

...but I know what you're saying. There is an element of truth in it. I would phrase it more like "I don't think there's meaningful compatibility between Arab societies and Western-style individual rights and freedoms."

Quote :

""None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear," he says, "and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed." This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack."

Sarin is a non-persistent agent. That's part of why you would use Sarin over a persistent agent like VX (that would be more appropriate for area denial than, say, Sarin would be). Sarin is volatile and degrades/evaporates very quickly after doing its deadly business. It has minimal shelf life once mixed up (I think many Sarin warheads actually mix the components in-flight), and I think that it could very well be rendered harmless within a few hours of application (and possibly less than that. I'm not sure of the exact timetable, but it's relatively short).

Quote :

"The inspectors were apparently just 10 miles from where the attack took place. Is Assad that stupid? That fact alone completely throws the assertion that Assad used them out the window."

Well, I think that they are suspected to have used chemical weapons numerous other times over the last number of months, and nobody really said much about it. It was the increased scale of this attack, I suppose, that caused a reaction. It's very possible that they've been using them on a small scale for a while, and thought that they could continue to get away with it (or were maybe deliberately incrementally upping the ante all along to see where the real breaking point would be).

Quote :

"wp has bad toxic effects"

Yeah, it fucking burns you. I'm sure it's toxic as shit, too, but it's not used as poison-it's used to burn shit up, mark targets, or provide smoke obscuration. If you did use it "as a poison", then yeah, that would make it a chemical weapon.

If you mark a target with willie pete, you are likely to burn people with it (*you can mark a miss, as in "hit 50m south of my mark", but I doubt anyone would intentially fire WP to miss. It's a useful weapon itself, and it's easier to tell someone "Hit my smoke").

Quote :

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're not really allied with the Muslim Brotherhood are they? It's pretty confusing, but I thought the Mulsim Brotherhood was Sunni. And isn't Assad's regime Ba'athist dominated by Sunnis (like Saddam's regime)? Of course, Al Queda is Sunni too, but aren't they wahhabis? I know in Egypt, Saudi Arabia was allying with the Egyptian military against the Muslim Brotherhood. Actually, none of that makes sense. Does anybody know more about this? "

The great majority of the Muslim world is Sunni. Shia Muslims primarily inhabit Iran and part of Iraq (which partly explains Iran's influence in Iraq post-Saddam Hussein, and the sectarian struggles in Iraq). I would say that it's kind of analogous to Mormonism in the United States--the great majority of the U.S. is predominantely Christian and doesn't view Mormonism as under the Christianity tent...then there are a bunch of Mormons in Utah who view themselves as a divergent sect of Christianity. There are Mormons scattered to the winds, but they are only common and dominant in a localized area.

Wahabbism is a very strict sect of Sunni Islam centered in Saudi Arabia. The only real association I know of with al Qaeda is that the Taliban (just one subgroup in the Afghan power struggle) kind of modeled themselves after some Wahhabi elements, due to their association with Osama bin Laden and, at one time, Saudi support...and their desire for a very conservative, strict brand of Islam. As I recall, there was not only a geopolitcal falling-out there, but a lower-level falling out as well, after the Taliban destroyed a bunch of Arab mujahideen gravesites, due to their opposition to any sort of decoration.

The Islamic world isn't just divided by theological lines. That's true in a few cases, but it's mostly geopolitics just like everywhere else.

[Edited on August 30, 2013 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2013 4:09:19 PM

yay, nothing I said was quoted in Duke's megapost. Probably because I didn't get into religion.

8/30/2013 5:00:32 PM