I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...
I agree that technically this is not a civil war but at the same time it is a civil war that the people are dealing with. yes the people are not uprising but can you expect that when one side you have a governemnt that is dropping bombs on them and on the other side they also have ISIS is attacking the people also? I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...
I agree that technically this is not a civil war but at the same time it is a civil war that the people are dealing with. yes the people are not uprising but can you expect that when one side you have a governemnt that is dropping bombs on them and on the other side they also have ISIS is attacking the people also? I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.
don't take this the wrong way but as I recommended to people - do a bit of objective research on Syria ... if you will only believe things from msm sites - then there really isn't much to add ... but there are a lot of independent media that is telling not only a different story ... but also showing direct evidence of the fraud being perpetrated there ... check out the video I posted at the beginning of this thread ... this is a delegation of the US Peace Council and their independent investigation into Syria ...
if the Syrian gov't falls - the country will be overun by terrorists ... it's similar to what is happening in iraq and basically every other country the US has orchestrated regime change ...
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.
i really don't think he's gonna get impeached ... especially for something like this ...
although, if the possibility of trump using this as a wag the dog makes people actually dig a bit deeper into syria ... i'm all for it ...
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
so ... the russians and americans agree today to investigate what happened the other day ... further cementing that there is no proof that assad dropped chemical weapons ... yet, everyone continues to peddle this myth ...
Well Tillerson basically gave Russia an ultimatum at the G7 Summit. He essentially said Russia has to choose between the US and Syria. This would be good, except I think Russia will choose Syria.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.
This is why in Trump's announcement of the attack, he said: "It is in the vital national security interest of the United states to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons". He's attempting to link the attack with national security, to justify the bypassing of Congress.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.
I agree.
Paralysis by analysis thinking.
How, specifically?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
so ... the russians and americans agree today to investigate what happened the other day ... further cementing that there is no proof that assad dropped chemical weapons ... yet, everyone continues to peddle this myth ...
Investigating doesn't mean no proof, it means looking for more info.
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...
I agree that technically this is not a civil war but at the same time it is a civil war that the people are dealing with. yes the people are not uprising but can you expect that when one side you have a governemnt that is dropping bombs on them and on the other side they also have ISIS is attacking the people also? I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.
don't take this the wrong way but as I recommended to people - do a bit of objective research on Syria ... if you will only believe things from msm sites - then there really isn't much to add ... but there are a lot of independent media that is telling not only a different story ... but also showing direct evidence of the fraud being perpetrated there ... check out the video I posted at the beginning of this thread ... this is a delegation of the US Peace Council and their independent investigation into Syria ...
if the Syrian gov't falls - the country will be overun by terrorists ... it's similar to what is happening in iraq and basically every other country the US has orchestrated regime change ...
not taking this the wrong way at all. my only issue with what you wrote (and maybe i read it wrong) is that you seem to say that is that if you believe that the syrian government did this then you are just believing what MSM is saying to us. you don't know if I or others read other Non-MSM news sites. Again I may have read your post wrong and if I did then I am sorry for that
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
Still, proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...
I agree that technically this is not a civil war but at the same time it is a civil war that the people are dealing with. yes the people are not uprising but can you expect that when one side you have a governemnt that is dropping bombs on them and on the other side they also have ISIS is attacking the people also? I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.
don't take this the wrong way but as I recommended to people - do a bit of objective research on Syria ... if you will only believe things from msm sites - then there really isn't much to add ... but there are a lot of independent media that is telling not only a different story ... but also showing direct evidence of the fraud being perpetrated there ... check out the video I posted at the beginning of this thread ... this is a delegation of the US Peace Council and their independent investigation into Syria ...
if the Syrian gov't falls - the country will be overun by terrorists ... it's similar to what is happening in iraq and basically every other country the US has orchestrated regime change ...
not taking this the wrong way at all. my only issue with what you wrote (and maybe i read it wrong) is that you seem to say that is that if you believe that the syrian government did this then you are just believing what MSM is saying to us. you don't know if I or others read other Non-MSM news sites. Again I may have read your post wrong and if I did then I am sorry for that
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...
I agree that technically this is not a civil war but at the same time it is a civil war that the people are dealing with. yes the people are not uprising but can you expect that when one side you have a governemnt that is dropping bombs on them and on the other side they also have ISIS is attacking the people also? I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.
don't take this the wrong way but as I recommended to people - do a bit of objective research on Syria ... if you will only believe things from msm sites - then there really isn't much to add ... but there are a lot of independent media that is telling not only a different story ... but also showing direct evidence of the fraud being perpetrated there ... check out the video I posted at the beginning of this thread ... this is a delegation of the US Peace Council and their independent investigation into Syria ...
if the Syrian gov't falls - the country will be overun by terrorists ... it's similar to what is happening in iraq and basically every other country the US has orchestrated regime change ...
not taking this the wrong way at all. my only issue with what you wrote (and maybe i read it wrong) is that you seem to say that is that if you believe that the syrian government did this then you are just believing what MSM is saying to us. you don't know if I or others read other Non-MSM news sites. Again I may have read your post wrong and if I did then I am sorry for that
my assumption, right or wrong, is that most are getting their info from msm sites simply because the rhetoric is the same and no one has actually posted any counterpoints to the ones I've put forth ... like there is a whole video from an Australian academic who's visited syria just on this page ... i doubt anyone is actually gonna view it and provide any counter arguments ... which has lead me to ask people to do their own objective research to actually come forth with a position or counter argument ... because right now - I keep posting information and all i get is those are conspiracy sites or square hole round peg positions ...
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
Still, proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
feel free to offer some evidence ... or provide ANY reasoning besides assad is a bad man and he must've did it ... you would think with your rant on critical reading and thinking - you could come up with something of substance ...
I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.
Who's everyone?
Of the 47 major editorial boards of Newspapers across the country, only the Houston Chronicle had a piece opposed to the strike. So I think Hugh's observation makes sense. When you have 83% of the major editorials supporting the strike, that definitely seems as if everyone is on board.
I think a more telling piece of information to assess would be to tally up the letters to the editor in response to those editorials and whether they leaned for or against. Newspapers are owned by media conglomerates and often time direct the view of their said editorial boards under a cloak of "independence." Polls show, I think, 54% of Americans approved of the strike. While a majority, it's not "vast" or "overwhelming." I for one didn't approve of it. Everyone is not on board. Wag the dog.
I think a more telling piece of information to assess would be to tally up the letters to the editor in response to those editorials and whether they leaned for or against. Newspapers are owned by media conglomerates and often time direct the view of their said editorial boards under a cloak of "independence." Polls show, I think, 54% of Americans approved of the strike. While a majority, it's not "vast" or "overwhelming." I for one didn't approve of it. Everyone is not on board. Wag the dog.
No argument here. I think letters to the editors, and comments sections on the websites of those publications would be interesting to analyze this way. I'm just saying that Hugh was not out of line in saying that it "seemed" that everyone was on board. The cable news shows talked about how presidential Drumpf suddenly was. The newpapers all came out in favor. There were congresscritters from both parties praising the strike. So while many of us peons are opposed, the loudest voices with the longest reach sure seem(ed) to be supportive.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
Still, proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
feel free to offer some evidence ... or provide ANY reasoning besides assad is a bad man and he must've did it ... you would think with your rant on critical reading and thinking - you could come up with something of substance ...
I didn't claim Assad did it.
The statement from the source that you referenced said it wasn't proven one way or the other.
You interpreted that to mean Assad didn't do it and the terrorist/rebels did without any concrete evidence, and said that's how people should be viewing the information. Again, with no substance to back it up. The impetus is on you to provide evidence to support your beliefs and you haven't done that here by linking to some crockpot tinfoil opinion blog.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I think a more telling piece of information to assess would be to tally up the letters to the editor in response to those editorials and whether they leaned for or against. Newspapers are owned by media conglomerates and often time direct the view of their said editorial boards under a cloak of "independence." Polls show, I think, 54% of Americans approved of the strike. While a majority, it's not "vast" or "overwhelming." I for one didn't approve of it. Everyone is not on board. Wag the dog.
No argument here. I think letters to the editors, and comments sections on the websites of those publications would be interesting to analyze this way. I'm just saying that Hugh was not out of line in saying that it "seemed" that everyone was on board. The cable news shows talked about how presidential Drumpf suddenly was. The newpapers all came out in favor. There were congresscritters from both parties praising the strike. So while many of us peons are opposed, the loudest voices with the longest reach sure seem(ed) to be supportive.
by everyone, I wasn't talking general population. sorry if that wasn't clear. i was meaning world leaders of allied nations and even democrats in the US.
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
Still, proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
feel free to offer some evidence ... or provide ANY reasoning besides assad is a bad man and he must've did it ... you would think with your rant on critical reading and thinking - you could come up with something of substance ...
I didn't claim Assad did it.
The statement from the source that you referenced said it wasn't proven one way or the other.
You interpreted that to mean Assad didn't do it and the terrorist/rebels did without any concrete evidence, and said that's how people should be viewing the information. Again, with no substance to back it up. The impetus is on you to provide evidence to support your beliefs and you haven't done that here by linking to some crockpot tinfoil opinion blog.
that was one aspect of the link ... there was many more points to consider ...
how is the impetus on me to prove that the syrian gov't didn't do it? ... why is that the standard? ... bomb first, ask questions later? ... is that how democracy works? ... since when is the burden of proof to be provided by the defense?
also, if the fact this tactic was used in 2013 and was debunked, the fact the UN inspected that Syria has dismantled its chemical weapons programs or the fact that the evidence being used is from a terrorist group is not good enough for you ... then there is nothing that will be ...
so, to be clear - you do not have a counter to any of the points presented ... only that you don't believe it ... so, fail on both your critical reading and critical thinking rant ...
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
Still, proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
feel free to offer some evidence ... or provide ANY reasoning besides assad is a bad man and he must've did it ... you would think with your rant on critical reading and thinking - you could come up with something of substance ...
I didn't claim Assad did it.
The statement from the source that you referenced said it wasn't proven one way or the other.
You interpreted that to mean Assad didn't do it and the terrorist/rebels did without any concrete evidence, and said that's how people should be viewing the information. Again, with no substance to back it up. The impetus is on you to provide evidence to support your beliefs and you haven't done that here by linking to some crockpot tinfoil opinion blog.
that was one aspect of the link ... there was many more points to consider ...
how is the impetus on me to prove that the syrian gov't didn't do it? ... why is that the standard? ... bomb first, ask questions later? ... is that how democracy works? ... since when is the burden of proof to be provided by the defense?
also, if the fact this tactic was used in 2013 and was debunked, the fact the UN inspected that Syria has dismantled its chemical weapons programs or the fact that the evidence being used is from a terrorist group is not good enough for you ... then there is nothing that will be ...
so, to be clear - you do not have a counter to any of the points presented ... only that you don't believe it ... so, fail on both your critical reading and critical thinking rant ...
but there's no proof as it stands right now, only evidence of what you believe took/didn't take place. but you are equating that with proof. you are correct, the onus is not on you to prove a negative, however, just because proof doesn't exist that Assad did it, it's a bit of a leap to talk about it as if it's fact.
Comments
I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.
Cheers,
HFD
if the Syrian gov't falls - the country will be overun by terrorists ... it's similar to what is happening in iraq and basically every other country the US has orchestrated regime change ...
although, if the possibility of trump using this as a wag the dog makes people actually dig a bit deeper into syria ... i'm all for it ...
we will find a way, we will find our place
Cheers,
HFD
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
https://sciscomedia.co.uk/sarin-gas-assad-fake-news/
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Who is this author, what makes him an authority on anything? How many shitty news orgs does he write for?
https://sciscomedia.co.uk/author/danielmargrain/
https://cultureandpolitics.org/author/cultpolitical/
https://bsnews.info/author/daniel-margrain/
http://mondoweiss.net/author/daniel-margrain/
https://normanpilon.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/danielmargrain/
http://guerillawire.org/author/daniel-margrain/
http://russia-insider.com/en/daniel-margrain
https://astutenews.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
None of them appear to have any credibility. Sometimes I think the critical reading skills are worse than the critical thinking skills around here.
we will find a way, we will find our place
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
http://n.pr/2o94wxe
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then
* Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
http://fair.org/home/out-of-46-major-editorials-on-trumps-syria-strikes-only-one-opposed/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The statement from the source that you referenced said it wasn't proven one way or the other.
You interpreted that to mean Assad didn't do it and the terrorist/rebels did without any concrete evidence, and said that's how people should be viewing the information. Again, with no substance to back it up. The impetus is on you to provide evidence to support your beliefs and you haven't done that here by linking to some crockpot tinfoil opinion blog.
Cheers,
HFD
how is the impetus on me to prove that the syrian gov't didn't do it? ... why is that the standard? ... bomb first, ask questions later? ... is that how democracy works? ... since when is the burden of proof to be provided by the defense?
also, if the fact this tactic was used in 2013 and was debunked, the fact the UN inspected that Syria has dismantled its chemical weapons programs or the fact that the evidence being used is from a terrorist group is not good enough for you ... then there is nothing that will be ...
so, to be clear - you do not have a counter to any of the points presented ... only that you don't believe it ... so, fail on both your critical reading and critical thinking rant ...
Cheers,
HFD