If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
"Watch interviews of Assad"? Wow.
why wow? ... please explain ... can't wait to hear this ...
Well Assad is a British trained ophthalmologist, so I would not expect him to act like Joseph Stalin.
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
Even more scary that Assad isn't a raging lunatic. He keeps his pulse under 60 while carpet bombing Aleppo. Demoralize the population by giving zero fucks on if your enemy or your citizens are killed and herd them out. Siege the city and starve everyone out.
And to claim Assad doesn't have any chemical weapons but the Jihads do is totally illogical. Even if he did turn over every chemical weapon he had (doubtful), he has had around 4 years to make some more.
Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime[6] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.
Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime[6] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
Even more scary that Assad isn't a raging lunatic. He keeps his pulse under 60 while carpet bombing Aleppo. Demoralize the population by giving zero fucks on if your enemy or your citizens are killed and herd them out. Siege the city and starve everyone out.
And to claim Assad doesn't have any chemical weapons but the Jihads do is totally illogical. Even if he did turn over every chemical weapon he had (doubtful), he has had around 4 years to make some more.
it's not illogical ... did you read the articles pointing to ISIS and chemical weapons? ... where is your response? ... the UN organization oversaw the dismantling of syria's chemical weapons ... that oversight doesn't just end after it's over ... it continues to present day ...
really!?? ... c'mon ... so, if I post an article from an independent news site - it gets shit on ... if i post from the times ... this is what I get ... this is why I ask people to do their own research from ALL sites ...
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
"Watch interviews of Assad"? Wow.
why wow? ... please explain ... can't wait to hear this ...
No. You please explain how you can fall for the refined talk of a lying murderous thug.
ok ... so, officially you know nothing about syria ... or assad ... no longer need to reply to you ...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
you have stated who is telling the truth and who isn't (western/mainstream media).
I do research and if enough of it is corroborated by enough credible sources, then yes,I tend to believe it. but there is bias everywhere. we are humans, flawed emotional beings.
if I thought the truth was indiscernible I wouldn't come here, read the news, or anything of the sort.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
you have stated who is telling the truth and who isn't (western/mainstream media).
I do research and if enough of it is corroborated by enough credible sources, then yes,I tend to believe it. but there is bias everywhere. we are humans, flawed emotional beings.
if I thought the truth was indiscernible I wouldn't come here, read the news, or anything of the sort.
yes ... i obviously have my opinion ... but when I specifically asked people to do their own research ... i didn't say from where ... i said from all sites ... cross check ... check sources ... investigate sources ... etc...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
There is a truth of course. Who released the chemical attack? There is a truth there. I'm not sure which sources are saying it was Al Qaeda vs Assad, but there is a truth to that answer. I know the Russian Federation's position is that it was the terrorists. Western media says Assad. You believe it was the terrorists. Share with us your primary sources that lead you to your conclusion, that runs counter to the western conclusion. I will freely say that when the all the British and US sources say the same thing, I'm going with that. That's my bias. I don't believe anything the Russians say. Never have.
Canada prime minister supports US action....Didn't expect that
our prime minister is an asshole ... we've been arming saudis and there obliteration of yemen ... so, canada sucks in this regard as well ...
jesus, do you just hate everybody?
no ... i simply do not believe in blind faith ... i believe in peace for all ... not just people who are lucky to be born into western nations ... i fight for the disadvantaged and the planet ... i come on here because i hope that besides people who post ... there are lurkers who read ... those who read with an open mind and open heart ... because of what I know to be happening in syria is soul crushing I come here to give voice to those that cannot ... i don't come here to be popular with anyone ...
in normal circumstances - it would is asking a bit much to get people to do some reading but I figured because Syria is actually at war with Al Qaeda and ISIS - people would actually make the effort ...
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
"Watch interviews of Assad"? Wow.
why wow? ... please explain ... can't wait to hear this ...
No. You please explain how you can fall for the refined talk of a lying murderous thug.
ok ... so, officially you know nothing about syria ... or assad ... no longer need to reply to you ...
Canada prime minister supports US action....Didn't expect that
our prime minister is an asshole ... we've been arming saudis and there obliteration of yemen ... so, canada sucks in this regard as well ...
jesus, do you just hate everybody?
no ... i simply do not believe in blind faith ... i believe in peace for all ... not just people who are lucky to be born into western nations ... i fight for the disadvantaged and the planet ... i come on here because i hope that besides people who post ... there are lurkers who read ... those who read with an open mind and open heart ... because of what I know to be happening in syria is soul crushing I come here to give voice to those that cannot ... i don't come here to be popular with anyone ...
in normal circumstances - it would is asking a bit much to get people to do some reading but I figured because Syria is actually at war with Al Qaeda and ISIS - people would actually make the effort ...
I agree with this: i believe in peace for all ... not just people who are lucky to be born into western nations
I HAVE an open mind. that IS why I come here. you might want to change your strategy of belittling people who don't agree with your views.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
There is a truth of course. Who released the chemical attack? There is a truth there. I'm not sure which sources are saying it was Al Qaeda vs Assad, but there is a truth to that answer. I know the Russian Federation's position is that it was the terrorists. Western media says Assad. You believe it was the terrorists. Share with us your primary sources that lead you to your conclusion, that runs counter to the western conclusion. I will freely say that when the all the British and US sources say the same thing, I'm going with that. That's my bias. I don't believe anything the Russians say. Never have.
i believe it was a chemical weapons depot held by al qaeda ...
the same british and us that went into iraq on what evidence? ... the same british and us countries that have gone all over the world and instituted regime change like in iran and almost all of central america ... that is not surprising based on what you post ... all i will say is that the US and british hold no moral authority ... i will reiterate that it's not like I support the russians either ... there are sources from all sides saying different things ...
really!?? ... c'mon ... so, if I post an article from an independent news site - it gets shit on ... if i post from the times ... this is what I get ... this is why I ask people to do their own research from ALL sites ...
you said unequivocally that western media does not report the truth. I found it amusing that not long after, you posted a link to the times.
anyway, have a wonderful weekend.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
There is a truth of course. Who released the chemical attack? There is a truth there. I'm not sure which sources are saying it was Al Qaeda vs Assad, but there is a truth to that answer. I know the Russian Federation's position is that it was the terrorists. Western media says Assad. You believe it was the terrorists. Share with us your primary sources that lead you to your conclusion, that runs counter to the western conclusion. I will freely say that when the all the British and US sources say the same thing, I'm going with that. That's my bias. I don't believe anything the Russians say. Never have.
i believe it was a chemical weapons depot held by al qaeda ...
the same british and us that went into iraq on what evidence? ... the same british and us countries that have gone all over the world and instituted regime change like in iran and almost all of central america ... that is not surprising based on what you post ... all i will say is that the US and british hold no moral authority ... i will reiterate that it's not like I support the russians either ... there are sources from all sides saying different things ...
No, let's be clear. There were plenty of western media who challenged the administration's conclusions on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Scott Ritter was about the most popular person interviewed leading up to the war and he was dead on from the start. You are conflating the politicians with the media, intentionally to make your point which is intellectually dishonest. I'm not saying plenty of media didn't beat the war drum, they did, but they didn't all do that. Russian media is state controlled. The message is the same all the time.
Second, provide your source(s) that you used to conclude that it was an Al-Qaeda depot, please.
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
There is a truth of course. Who released the chemical attack? There is a truth there. I'm not sure which sources are saying it was Al Qaeda vs Assad, but there is a truth to that answer. I know the Russian Federation's position is that it was the terrorists. Western media says Assad. You believe it was the terrorists. Share with us your primary sources that lead you to your conclusion, that runs counter to the western conclusion. I will freely say that when the all the British and US sources say the same thing, I'm going with that. That's my bias. I don't believe anything the Russians say. Never have.
i believe it was a chemical weapons depot held by al qaeda ...
the same british and us that went into iraq on what evidence? ... the same british and us countries that have gone all over the world and instituted regime change like in iran and almost all of central america ... that is not surprising based on what you post ... all i will say is that the US and british hold no moral authority ... i will reiterate that it's not like I support the russians either ... there are sources from all sides saying different things ...
No, let's be clear. There were plenty of western media who challenged the administration's conclusions on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Scott Ritter was about the most popular person interviewed leading up to the war and he was dead on from the start. You are conflating the politicians with the media, intentionally to make your point which is intellectually dishonest. I'm not saying plenty of media didn't beat the war drum, they did, but they didn't all do that. Russian media is state controlled. The message is the same all the time.
Second, provide your source(s) that you used to conclude that it was an Al-Qaeda depot, please.
listen ... just consider this for a moment ... the white helmets ... they just fucking gave an oscar to a terrorist group ... there is a plethora of evidence exposing the white helmets as frauds ... this s the organization most msm outlets get their information ... which is duly reported ...
also - consider that without actually investigating the attack ... all the msm outlets immediated pointed to assad ... the same outlets that blamed him for a 2013 attack that was later debunked ... why not wait for an independent investigation? ...
1. Pieced together circumstantial evidence, cobbled from multiple sources such as twitter and supposedlly posted and deleted smoking guns that take place over several years and now multiple administrations 2. The absence of a motive of the Assad regime, in your/the writer's opinion 3. Questions as to whether Sarin gas could be identified that quickly.
No offense, but all this does is try to counter the western conclusion. It certainly is far from conclusive itself. I'm also not sure how you hve an independent investigation in Syria. Will you send a subpoena to Assad to testify to a sub-committee?
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
where did I say from my sources? ... i didn't ... in fact, I said to do research from all sources ...
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
There is a truth of course. Who released the chemical attack? There is a truth there. I'm not sure which sources are saying it was Al Qaeda vs Assad, but there is a truth to that answer. I know the Russian Federation's position is that it was the terrorists. Western media says Assad. You believe it was the terrorists. Share with us your primary sources that lead you to your conclusion, that runs counter to the western conclusion. I will freely say that when the all the British and US sources say the same thing, I'm going with that. That's my bias. I don't believe anything the Russians say. Never have.
i believe it was a chemical weapons depot held by al qaeda ...
the same british and us that went into iraq on what evidence? ... the same british and us countries that have gone all over the world and instituted regime change like in iran and almost all of central america ... that is not surprising based on what you post ... all i will say is that the US and british hold no moral authority ... i will reiterate that it's not like I support the russians either ... there are sources from all sides saying different things ...
No, let's be clear. There were plenty of western media who challenged the administration's conclusions on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Scott Ritter was about the most popular person interviewed leading up to the war and he was dead on from the start. You are conflating the politicians with the media, intentionally to make your point which is intellectually dishonest. I'm not saying plenty of media didn't beat the war drum, they did, but they didn't all do that. Russian media is state controlled. The message is the same all the time.
Second, provide your source(s) that you used to conclude that it was an Al-Qaeda depot, please.
I'm also not convinced that Polaris cares about fighting a war with Al-Qaeda. Polaris from what I understand is pro-Assad and if being pro-Assad means being against Al-Qaeda well then Polaris will be against Al-Qaeda.
Comments
And to claim Assad doesn't have any chemical weapons but the Jihads do is totally illogical. Even if he did turn over every chemical weapon he had (doubtful), he has had around 4 years to make some more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing
But he does give nice interviews, so he has that going for him.
also mrussel said that there there is bias everywhere and that people ultimately will believe what they want to believe and you agreed ... so, if you believe that the truth is ultimately indiscernible then there is no point in doing any research ...
I do research and if enough of it is corroborated by enough credible sources, then yes,I tend to believe it. but there is bias everywhere. we are humans, flawed emotional beings.
if I thought the truth was indiscernible I wouldn't come here, read the news, or anything of the sort.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
I will freely say that when the all the British and US sources say the same thing, I'm going with that. That's my bias. I don't believe anything the Russians say. Never have.
in normal circumstances - it would is asking a bit much to get people to do some reading but I figured because Syria is actually at war with Al Qaeda and ISIS - people would actually make the effort ...
I HAVE an open mind. that IS why I come here. you might want to change your strategy of belittling people who don't agree with your views.
-EV 8/14/93
the same british and us that went into iraq on what evidence? ... the same british and us countries that have gone all over the world and instituted regime change like in iran and almost all of central america ... that is not surprising based on what you post ... all i will say is that the US and british hold no moral authority ... i will reiterate that it's not like I support the russians either ... there are sources from all sides saying different things ...
anyway, have a wonderful weekend.
-EV 8/14/93
Second, provide your source(s) that you used to conclude that it was an Al-Qaeda depot, please.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-chemical-weapons-red-flags-and-false-flags/5583616
also - consider that without actually investigating the attack ... all the msm outlets immediated pointed to assad ... the same outlets that blamed him for a 2013 attack that was later debunked ... why not wait for an independent investigation? ...
Someone please explain to me why the only military in the war room is the person watching the door?
1. Pieced together circumstantial evidence, cobbled from multiple sources such as twitter and supposedlly posted and deleted smoking guns that take place over several years and now multiple administrations
2. The absence of a motive of the Assad regime, in your/the writer's opinion
3. Questions as to whether Sarin gas could be identified that quickly.
No offense, but all this does is try to counter the western conclusion. It certainly is far from conclusive itself. I'm also not sure how you hve an independent investigation in Syria. Will you send a subpoena to Assad to testify to a sub-committee?