Syria and the US's Motive

11415171920

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    edited April 13

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    another good summation of how people need to view the information ...

    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 ...

    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!

    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.
    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.
    * why is the fact that the UN has already oversaw the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons not considered some proof?
    * why is the fact that Syria was falsely accused in 2013 of a similar attack not proof?
    * why is the fact that the reports coming out of Idlib (an Al Qaeda stronghold) are primarily from the White Helmets - an organization already proven to be fake humanitarians started by ex British military and funded by US / UK gov'ts not considered to be problematic?
    * why is the fact that there is no reason for syria to gas their own people at this stage of their war against terrorists not raising enough eyebrows?

  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 2,629
    jeffbr said:

    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.

    http://fair.org/home/out-of-46-major-editorials-on-trumps-syria-strikes-only-one-opposed/

    Ok, I'm not discrediting your statement, I just don't care the newspapers approved. If everyone supported it, why not get congressional approval?
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    please also note that Clinton via the podesta email leaks has already said she would prefer to covertly intervene in syria ...

    now ... look at the axis of evil countries ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

    coincidence?
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,566
    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    another good summation of how people need to view the information ...

    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 ...

    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!

    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.
    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.
    * why is the fact that the UN has already oversaw the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons not considered some proof?
    * why is the fact that Syria was falsely accused in 2013 of a similar attack not proof?
    * why is the fact that the reports coming out of Idlib (an Al Qaeda stronghold) are primarily from the White Helmets - an organization already proven to be fake humanitarians started by ex British military and funded by US / UK gov'ts not considered to be problematic?
    * why is the fact that there is no reason for syria to gas their own people at this stage of their war against terrorists not raising enough eyebrows?

    "I don't know the answer. I'm just asking questions here!"
    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
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,965
    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/66712.html

    "Trump’s claim that a chemical weapon was dropped from a plane is “erroneous”, and “no competent analyst” could avoid that conclusion."
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    no ... i've provided cursory evidence ... the fact you choose to ignore it doesn't mean a case isn't there that this is a fabrication ... none of you have bothered to do additional research ... how do I know? ... because as I keep reiterating - no one actually is able to counter the points put forth ...

    syria has never used chemical weapons ... there is absolutely no proof of that ... vs. a country like the US that has used every known WMD known to man from nerve agents to nuclear weapons ... the same country that continues to beat the drums of war in north korea and just today announced with bravado of their biggest bomb ever being dropped ...

    so, continue to post absolutely nothing ... and in short order - there will be proof that this was a chemical weapons depot of al qaeda or that al qaeda released the gas ...

    oh ya ... and today not only did US airstrikes kill 18 syrian friendlies today ... they also bombed another depot holding chemical weapons held by the terrorists ... so, ya ... that's not proof either to you folks ... just keep showing blind faith in a country that has done nothing but cause suffering around the world ... be proud ... and start chanting ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    critical thinking vs. blind faith ...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,965
    polaris_x said:

    critical thinking vs. blind faith ...

    You have blind faith in your sources. The irony is thick.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342


    this sums it up pretty good ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    critical thinking vs. blind faith ...

    You have blind faith in your sources. The irony is thick.
    dude ... just move on ... it's clear you haven't bothered to objectively look at all the info or do any research ... you're just trolling now ...

    stay wrapped up in your flag and start chanting ...
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,566
    polaris_x said:
    lol
    The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) is a news agency in Syria. It is a public-owned media organization linked to the Syrian Ministry of Information.

    SANA appeared to focus on two things, the first was pro-regime counter-protests, such as the massive rally called "Defenders of the Homeland, Peace Be Upon You", in appreciation of the Syrian army. At that time, protesters were being rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured on a regular basis.

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was also falsely portrayed as a reformer, and SANA continued to present this image of him.

    As protesters were imprisoned and tortured, and Syria's civil uprising turned into an all-out armed conflict, state media depicted the situation as a foreign invasion. SANA emphasised that opposition groups were foreigners, and that Syrians stood by the regime, the army, and the regime's allies wholeheartedly. During this phase, whitewashing the killing of civilians was the norm.

    The Ministry of Information immediately dismissed "rumors" by "some outlets" that chemical weapons were used in opposition-held Ghouta, which is regularly the target of mortar attacks by the Syrian army.

    A month after the attacks, SANA tweeted a quote from Former British Ambassador Craig John Murray, who said that Israel provided the US with "fabricated evidence" on the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta.

    After all, it was - as they say - all part of the conspiracy to overthrow the regime via foreign states. Less than a year before the attacks, SANA had quoted Hizballah Secretary Hassan Nasrallah who stated that the uprising was a conspiracy by Israel and the United States in collaboration with "moderate" Arab states.

    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
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 2,629
    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:
    lol
    The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) is a news agency in Syria. It is a public-owned media organization linked to the Syrian Ministry of Information.

    SANA appeared to focus on two things, the first was pro-regime counter-protests, such as the massive rally called "Defenders of the Homeland, Peace Be Upon You", in appreciation of the Syrian army. At that time, protesters were being rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured on a regular basis.

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was also falsely portrayed as a reformer, and SANA continued to present this image of him.

    As protesters were imprisoned and tortured, and Syria's civil uprising turned into an all-out armed conflict, state media depicted the situation as a foreign invasion. SANA emphasised that opposition groups were foreigners, and that Syrians stood by the regime, the army, and the regime's allies wholeheartedly. During this phase, whitewashing the killing of civilians was the norm.

    The Ministry of Information immediately dismissed "rumors" by "some outlets" that chemical weapons were used in opposition-held Ghouta, which is regularly the target of mortar attacks by the Syrian army.

    A month after the attacks, SANA tweeted a quote from Former British Ambassador Craig John Murray, who said that Israel provided the US with "fabricated evidence" on the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta.

    After all, it was - as they say - all part of the conspiracy to overthrow the regime via foreign states. Less than a year before the attacks, SANA had quoted Hizballah Secretary Hassan Nasrallah who stated that the uprising was a conspiracy by Israel and the United States in collaboration with "moderate" Arab states.

    and what here is not true!??

    assad brought about free elections ... i think he most definitely qualifies as a reformer ...

    the chemical attack in ghouta has already been proven to be not done by the syrian gov't ... so, that's yet another thing that's true ...

    the opposition group ARE foreigners ... even the US will admit to that now ... it's Al Nusra/Al Qaeda and ISIS ... this is not even dispute ...

    you actually cut and pasted a link that has all truths ... so, try again ...
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342

    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    i appreciate your position ... you are clearly not coming in with a bias for or against assad ... but you are asking the questions every person should be asking ...
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,566
    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:
    lol
    The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) is a news agency in Syria. It is a public-owned media organization linked to the Syrian Ministry of Information.

    SANA appeared to focus on two things, the first was pro-regime counter-protests, such as the massive rally called "Defenders of the Homeland, Peace Be Upon You", in appreciation of the Syrian army. At that time, protesters were being rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured on a regular basis.

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was also falsely portrayed as a reformer, and SANA continued to present this image of him.

    As protesters were imprisoned and tortured, and Syria's civil uprising turned into an all-out armed conflict, state media depicted the situation as a foreign invasion. SANA emphasised that opposition groups were foreigners, and that Syrians stood by the regime, the army, and the regime's allies wholeheartedly. During this phase, whitewashing the killing of civilians was the norm.

    The Ministry of Information immediately dismissed "rumors" by "some outlets" that chemical weapons were used in opposition-held Ghouta, which is regularly the target of mortar attacks by the Syrian army.

    A month after the attacks, SANA tweeted a quote from Former British Ambassador Craig John Murray, who said that Israel provided the US with "fabricated evidence" on the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta.

    After all, it was - as they say - all part of the conspiracy to overthrow the regime via foreign states. Less than a year before the attacks, SANA had quoted Hizballah Secretary Hassan Nasrallah who stated that the uprising was a conspiracy by Israel and the United States in collaboration with "moderate" Arab states.

    and what here is not true!??

    assad brought about free elections ... i think he most definitely qualifies as a reformer ...

    the chemical attack in ghouta has already been proven to be not done by the syrian gov't ... so, that's yet another thing that's true ...

    the opposition group ARE foreigners ... even the US will admit to that now ... it's Al Nusra/Al Qaeda and ISIS ... this is not even dispute ...

    you actually cut and pasted a link that has all truths ... so, try again ...
    Point being: SANA is state-run propaganda for Assad
    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
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,342
    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,965
    polaris_x said:

    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,566
    .
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
    I would be curious to know who has killed more people in the last 84 days? Assad Putin or trump?
    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
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,965
    polaris_x said:

    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

    We keep going round and round. Your sources are biased too. I don't understand how you can't acknowledge that fact. You seem to think Seymour Hersch is some trump card, but he's not. He relies far too heavily on anonymous sourcing and he's been wrong more than a few times in the past. His whole Kennedy escapade nearly destroyed his career. He's not exactly unassailable.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 6,965
    CM189191 said:

    .

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
    I would be curious to know who has killed more people in the last 84 days? Assad Putin or trump?
    Are you talking civilians or including people with guns in their hands?
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,566
    mrussel1 said:

    CM189191 said:

    .

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
    I would be curious to know who has killed more people in the last 84 days? Assad Putin or trump?
    Are you talking civilians or including people with guns in their hands?
    why not both?
    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
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 2,629
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
    Nobody supported sadaam Hussein or his tactics against his own people. But to say the iraq or the world was better off without him is absurd. He clearly was against anything that threatened his power. Including terrorism. Killing him created a power vacuum that opened the door for isis. What the Hell do you think Wil happen when we assassinate assad?
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 5,873
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

    mrussel1 said:

    Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

    And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

    That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
    You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.

    A massive number of people would die for your greater good. B movie villain shit right there.

  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 4,810
    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:

    CM189191 said:


    Someone please explain to me why the only military in the war room is the person watching the door?

    Funny indeed but that isn't the "war room" as I assume you are aware. That is Mar-a-lago during/after the China meeting. The military people are on video conference from the Pentagon of course. But please...continue.
    So it's been confirmed that this is indeed a meeting about the Syria mission in the so-called Mar-a-lago situation room. I am curious as to what your comment means here. Were you inventing a fact, trying to suggest this isn't the full gang of idiots behind an act of war? Or simply wanted point out that this isn't in the WH war room?
    It's pretty clear what I meant and everything I posted above is 100% correct. No facts invented.
    No, it's not pretty clear. You said it's a photo during/after the China meeting. It is absolute fact now that it is NOT during a China meeting. It is in fact the National Security meeting when they were discussing the attack on Syria. That was confirmed by Spicer. So what exactly is 100% correct about your 100% inaccurate post? I assume you are trying to say it is 100% accurate because you said "during/after" the China meeting, and this Syria meeting did happen to be held later on the same day of the China meeting? Hmm. I don't think that quite works man. ;) And the reason I'm harping on it isn't to just try and prove you wrong, btw. It's because I think it is actually important to acknowledge/point out who exactly is running things when it comes to military actions.... and the truth of that point is disturbing at best.... something that you seem to have been specifically trying to mislead people about with your post.

    See for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/white-house-photo-syria-briefing/
    You need to brush up on the timeline of what happened and/or pay attention. I said "during/after" the china meeting because the Syrian strike in fact took place during the President's dinner with the Chinese President. So the photo in the mar-a-lago "situation room" (if you would like to call it that) happened at some point during Trump and his people meeting with the President of China. I am really not sure what you are so confused about? The people around that table were cabinet members/aids at mar-a-lago specifically because of the meeting with China and obviously military advisors were on teleconference from the pentagon. The argument you seem to be making is silly. Everything I wrote is accurate.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 4,810
    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    another good summation of how people need to view the information ...

    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 ...

    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!

    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.
    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 ...
    This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 4,810
    I'm sure Brigadier-General Zaher al-Sakat who served as head of chemical warfare for Syria prior to his defection is just a big liar...

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/assad-still-has-hundreds-of-tonnes-of-chemical-weapons-after-fooling-un-inspectors-ex-general-says&pubdate=2017-04-15
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 5,873
    edited April 16
    BS44325 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    CM189191 said:

    polaris_x said:

    another good summation of how people need to view the information ...

    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 ...

    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!

    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.
    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 ...
    This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.
    This explains how the holocaust can be evoked, no matter how weak the analogy, by shameless hawks as pretext to military aggression.

Sign In or Register to comment.