1. The resilience and
perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.
2. The widespread
existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address
problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to
support IDPs and the provision of free health care).
3. Many Reconciliation
initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for
whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for
Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities,
towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.
4. The devastating impact
for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the
industrial infrastructure by armed groups.
5. The group has heard
the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be
respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from
their counterparts in the West.
6. The consistently
positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government
controlled areas in Syria.
7. Important and
significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented
from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.
8. The coverage by some
media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of
the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors
Council in Aleppo).
9. The acute polarisation
inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to
implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's
population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international
community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.
10. Many media narratives
in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have
met.
11. Many people whom we
met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the
exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society
and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as
increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.
12. Widespread concern
was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces
which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually
indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.
13. People are deeply
concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not
being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.
14. Without exception,
every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of
commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society
which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that
Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own
leadership.
15. While almost all
media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military
offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September
5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate
death and injury included:
Four car bombs at Homs
with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the
Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20
wounded.
This is only a part of
the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians,
such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we
were there.
Already, we have been
accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.
No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and
we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country.
Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the
messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not
'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!
I would repeat the cry of
most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves.
I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both
government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do
not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the
deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to
achieve their own agendas.
I hope and pray that any
ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the
international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs
and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid'
as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal
of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country;
the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and
healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling
war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and
listen first to the voices of the people themselves.
I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea.
you do not have all the facts about north korea ...
1. The resilience and
perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.
2. The widespread
existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address
problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to
support IDPs and the provision of free health care).
3. Many Reconciliation
initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for
whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for
Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities,
towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.
4. The devastating impact
for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the
industrial infrastructure by armed groups.
5. The group has heard
the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be
respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from
their counterparts in the West.
6. The consistently
positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government
controlled areas in Syria.
7. Important and
significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented
from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.
8. The coverage by some
media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of
the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors
Council in Aleppo).
9. The acute polarisation
inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to
implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's
population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international
community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.
10. Many media narratives
in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have
met.
11. Many people whom we
met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the
exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society
and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as
increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.
12. Widespread concern
was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces
which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually
indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.
13. People are deeply
concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not
being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.
14. Without exception,
every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of
commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society
which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that
Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own
leadership.
15. While almost all
media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military
offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September
5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate
death and injury included:
Four car bombs at Homs
with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the
Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20
wounded.
This is only a part of
the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians,
such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we
were there.
Already, we have been
accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.
No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and
we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country.
Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the
messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not
'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!
I would repeat the cry of
most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves.
I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both
government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do
not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the
deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to
achieve their own agendas.
I hope and pray that any
ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the
international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs
and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid'
as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal
of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country;
the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and
healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling
war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and
listen first to the voices of the people themselves.
I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea.
you do not have all the facts about north korea ...
sure do, Rodman got them for me
Wait... do you have all the facts?
i don't have all the facts but i don't choose to accept a single narrative ... it made me dig into Syria, it made me dig into Libya, it made me dig into Yemen and it made me dig into North Korea ...
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You do realize there are more countries involved then the evil USA, dont you?
Your Canadian government either is right there with us or supports us... every single time... maybe you war mongering canadians need to get your shit together? Same goes for half of Europe
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
I agree with that it doesn’t make any sense to bomb a chemical facility ..
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You do realize there are more countries involved then the evil USA, dont you?
Your Canadian government either is right there with us or supports us... every single time... maybe you war mongering canadians need to get your shit together? Same goes for half of Europe
oh dear ... how many times do I have to say that I condemn my country as well!? ... do you read anything i write man? ... how many times I gotta say it? ... WE ARE COMPLICIT ... the difference is we aren't the ones firing the missiles
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
My understanding of US troops in Syria is that there are only approximately 2,000... mostly located in Northern Syria to fight ISIS
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You do realize there are more countries involved then the evil USA, dont you?
Your Canadian government either is right there with us or supports us... every single time... maybe you war mongering canadians need to get your shit together? Same goes for half of Europe
oh dear ... how many times do I have to say that I condemn my country as well!? ... do you read anything i write man? ... how many times I gotta say it? ... WE ARE COMPLICIT ... the difference is we aren't the ones firing the missiles
Last time I checked the guy driving away the get away car is still guilty even though he didn't pull the trigger.
damn ... someone actually posted the snopes stuff ... they are using the same mainstream media sources to discredit her ... do some research on the Al quds hospital attack ... the western narrative was assad bombed the hospital but the hospital was never bombed ... that is not hard to discredit ...
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...
In December 2016, the self-professed “fact check” website Snopes also produced a smear piece full of logical fallacies on me. Interestingly, had they not, I might not have come across their article whitewashing al-Qaeda’s rescuers.
Snopes’ Bethania Palma opened with this teaser (emphasis added):
“The idea that victims of mass tragedies are ‘recycled’ is a common theme among conspiracy theorists, but there are international reports and footage of the Al Quds Hospital attack.”
In addition to the unoriginal use of “conspiracy theorists”, two different issues were conflated:
That of whether people are being used in staged videos, and that of the
al-Quds hospital “attack”. The conclusion following “but” has absolutely nothing to do with the first part of the sentence. This is a straw man argument, and is designed to mislead.
Snopes continued with things like
“outlandish-sounding claims” and that I believe “international media are
conspiring to fabricate stories of hospital bombings,” and that I refer
to “all factions fighting President Bashar al Assad’s forces as
terrorists.”
As it turned out, my outlandish-sounding claims
were true. The al-Quds hospital was not “destroyed”, the “last doctors”
theme was a propaganda ploy, as was the “last pediatrician in Aleppo,”
and many other ruses. Indeed, international media did conspire to fabricate stories, such as that on Omran Daqneesh, and also on Bana al-Abed.
The international media did conspire
to claim that Assad was starving civilians in Aleppo, which was laid to
rest when media actually spoke to civilians (and not terrorist
mouthpieces) after Aleppo’s liberation.
The international media also conspired along the same lines regarding Madaya. I went to Madaya
this June and learned the same sordid realities (starvation, torture,
imprisonment) that civilians endured in Aleppo, due to al-Qaeda and
affiliated extremists. The international media continue to conspire,
with the same tired claims.
Snopes stated, regarding Syria’s 2014
Presidential election: “Voting in that election only took place in
government-held territories.”
False. Voting occurred also in neighbouring Lebanon, where I witnessed
the first of two days of mass-turnout of Syrians to vote. Syrians in
countries like Canada which has closed the Syrian embassy flew to
Damascus airport just for the right to vote.
Snopes also neglected to mention that,
in their efforts to bring “democracy” to Syria, “moderates” shelled
voting stations throughout Syria on June 3, firing 151 shells on
Damascus alone, killing at least 5 and maiming 33 Syrians,” in Damascus,
as I wrote in 2014.
As for whether forces fighting the
Syrian army and civilians are terrorists, I have heard this repeatedly
from civilians in Syria themselves, like this civilian in Aleppo
in June 2017. Whether FSA, al-Qaeda, al-Zenki or another shade of
extremist, they all commit acts of terrorism against Syrian civilians.
Snopes then strangely pointed out the following, as if I would refute it: “Bartlett has a statement on her own web site:
‘I support Syria against a ‘civil’ war that is funded, armed and planned by the western powers and their regional allies with a view to wiping out all resistance to imperialism in the Middle East…’.”
Indeed, I did have it on my blog, and one can still see it among my Facebook cover photos. Thanks for sharing that, Snopes! Incidentally, Qatar’s former PM admitted this as well,
noting Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey had been coordinating with America
and sending weapons to militants since events began in 2011. What a dang
conspiracy theorist the former Qatari Prime Minister is! Almost as conspiratorial as the former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, who noted (video here):
“I was in England two years
before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British
officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in
Syria.
This was in Britain not in America.
Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked
me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would
like to participate.
Naturally, I refused, I said I’m French,
that doesn’t interest me….This operation goes way back. It was
prepared, preconceived and planned.”
Otherwise, in their “fact check” Snopes
repeated points I’ve already addressed above, including about the Quds
hospital, which Snopes neglected to mention that MSF had said was
“destroyed”. Thus, the explanation that it was somehow risen from the
rubble and working anew in September is simply illogical. It was
“destroyed”, remember? Reduced “to rubble”, said MSF.
BTW - the Barzah Research Facility that was bombed yesterday which the US claimed was a chemical weapons store was inspected for the 2nd time just last year by the OPCW ... with nothing suspicious found .. but hey ... let's fire off some $1.8 million dollar missiles ...
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...
Like I said, you need to understand the capability of weapons systems. Less time on Yoitube, more time on war machination. And you didn’t answer my question.
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...
Does Russia have any or some of those weapons capabilities?
Who is involved in just about every world conflict since the end of WW2? America has no interest in peace.
We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb into peace.....MF
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
BTW - the Barzah Research Facility that was bombed yesterday which the US claimed was a chemical weapons store was inspected for the 2nd time just last year by the OPCW ... with nothing suspicious found .. but hey ... let's fire off some $1.8 million dollar missiles ...
You do realize the OPCW investigated and confirmed the previous chemical attack was legit and that the Syrian government used Sarin gas in that attack... the infamous red line attack... afterwards Syria agreed to get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile... of course that was supposed to be supervised and handled by Russia lol
And of course, she writes a blog for the state funded Russian media outlet Russia Today (RT)!!!! Bwahahahaha
From what I can tell she isn't even a fucking journalist... this is who you're hitching your wagon too? Give me a fucking break, all your bullshit conspiracy theories are coming from an RT blogger? Infowars started the bullshit White Helmets nonsense well... not to mention these weak ass conspiracies fall apart with just minimal research
You are sucking down fake news and propaganda... its warping you... open your eyes
NPR is American mainstream media American media is controlled and owned by the Jews The Jews control Israel which is next to Syria Israel controls the U.S. govt. Syria is led by the peacemaker Assad The U.S. Bombed Syria
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...
Like I said, you need to understand the capability of weapons systems. Less time on Yoitube, more time on war machination. And you didn’t answer my question.
sorry what question was that? ... how many troops are in syria? ... reports are not clear as some have said that us troops occupy about 1/3 of syria now ... I know they've been part of the so called ooalition in raqqa from the get go so they will be in the north for sure ...
so, why don't you educate me on weapons systems and tell me how bombing what was declared to be chemical weapons production facilities would be safe for the people around there ...
Comments
Wait... do you have all the facts?
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
I'm sure these rape victims made it up too...
Your Canadian government either is right there with us or supports us... every single time... maybe you war mongering canadians need to get your shit together? Same goes for half of Europe
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/12/disinformation-conspiracy-trolling-syrian-chemical-attack/
The WHOLE Situation sucks as to where the the truth lies.....Humans have no good purpose.
P.S. http://https//www.factcheck.org/2018/03/meme-falsely-claims-exposed-snopes-com/
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
People are sucking that shit up... video after video and comment after comment of total horeshit...
Next thing people will think the earth is flat... oh shit, wait a second lol
In December 2016, the self-professed “fact check” website Snopes also produced a smear piece full of logical fallacies on me. Interestingly, had they not, I might not have come across their article whitewashing al-Qaeda’s rescuers.
Snopes’ Bethania Palma opened with this teaser (emphasis added):
“The idea that victims of mass tragedies are ‘recycled’ is a common theme among conspiracy theorists, but there are international reports and footage of the Al Quds Hospital attack.”
In addition to the unoriginal use of “conspiracy theorists”, two different issues were conflated: That of whether people are being used in staged videos, and that of the al-Quds hospital “attack”. The conclusion following “but” has absolutely nothing to do with the first part of the sentence. This is a straw man argument, and is designed to mislead.
Snopes continued with things like “outlandish-sounding claims” and that I believe “international media are conspiring to fabricate stories of hospital bombings,” and that I refer to “all factions fighting President Bashar al Assad’s forces as terrorists.”
As it turned out, my outlandish-sounding claims were true. The al-Quds hospital was not “destroyed”, the “last doctors” theme was a propaganda ploy, as was the “last pediatrician in Aleppo,” and many other ruses. Indeed, international media did conspire to fabricate stories, such as that on Omran Daqneesh, and also on Bana al-Abed.
The international media did conspire to claim that Assad was starving civilians in Aleppo, which was laid to rest when media actually spoke to civilians (and not terrorist mouthpieces) after Aleppo’s liberation.
The international media also conspired along the same lines regarding Madaya. I went to Madaya this June and learned the same sordid realities (starvation, torture, imprisonment) that civilians endured in Aleppo, due to al-Qaeda and affiliated extremists. The international media continue to conspire, with the same tired claims.
Snopes stated, regarding Syria’s 2014 Presidential election: “Voting in that election only took place in government-held territories.”
False. Voting occurred also in neighbouring Lebanon, where I witnessed the first of two days of mass-turnout of Syrians to vote. Syrians in countries like Canada which has closed the Syrian embassy flew to Damascus airport just for the right to vote.
Snopes also neglected to mention that, in their efforts to bring “democracy” to Syria, “moderates” shelled voting stations throughout Syria on June 3, firing 151 shells on Damascus alone, killing at least 5 and maiming 33 Syrians,” in Damascus, as I wrote in 2014.
As for whether forces fighting the Syrian army and civilians are terrorists, I have heard this repeatedly from civilians in Syria themselves, like this civilian in Aleppo in June 2017. Whether FSA, al-Qaeda, al-Zenki or another shade of extremist, they all commit acts of terrorism against Syrian civilians.
Snopes then strangely pointed out the following, as if I would refute it: “Bartlett has a statement on her own web site:
Indeed, I did have it on my blog, and one can still see it among my Facebook cover photos. Thanks for sharing that, Snopes! Incidentally, Qatar’s former PM admitted this as well, noting Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey had been coordinating with America and sending weapons to militants since events began in 2011. What a dang conspiracy theorist the former Qatari Prime Minister is! Almost as conspiratorial as the former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, who noted (video here):
Otherwise, in their “fact check” Snopes repeated points I’ve already addressed above, including about the Quds hospital, which Snopes neglected to mention that MSF had said was “destroyed”. Thus, the explanation that it was somehow risen from the rubble and working anew in September is simply illogical. It was “destroyed”, remember? Reduced “to rubble”, said MSF.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Does Russia have any or some of those weapons capabilities?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I'm sure this guy is actually a CIA plant... or a "Terrorist" just spreading anti-Assad propaganda
https://www.npr.org/2017/02/09/514326212/former-detainee-describes-atrocities-inside-syrian-prison
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/lesson-from-syria-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-theories-alt-right
Is that bullshit too?
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children
And of course, she writes a blog for the state funded Russian media outlet Russia Today (RT)!!!! Bwahahahaha
From what I can tell she isn't even a fucking journalist... this is who you're hitching your wagon too? Give me a fucking break, all your bullshit conspiracy theories are coming from an RT blogger? Infowars started the bullshit White Helmets nonsense well... not to mention these weak ass conspiracies fall apart with just minimal research
You are sucking down fake news and propaganda... its warping you... open your eyes
NPR is American mainstream media
American media is controlled and owned by the Jews
The Jews control Israel which is next to Syria
Israel controls the U.S. govt.
Syria is led by the peacemaker Assad
The U.S. Bombed Syria
so, why don't you educate me on weapons systems and tell me how bombing what was declared to be chemical weapons production facilities would be safe for the people around there ...