look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..
Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...
And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.
That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
A massive number of people would die for your greater good. B movie villain shit right there.
I didn't say I would support a carpet bomb campaign to eliminate them. If Assad had a heart attack today, then good.
look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..
Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...
And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.
That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
Nobody supported sadaam Hussein or his tactics against his own people. But to say the iraq or the world was better off without him is absurd. He clearly was against anything that threatened his power. Including terrorism. Killing him created a power vacuum that opened the door for isis. What the Hell do you think Wil happen when we assassinate assad?
I agree with this generally speaking. I was very much against the war in Iraq because as I've argued several times on these pages, many of the countries in the middle east are just western creations based on lines drawn to their economic advantage when the Ottoman Empire was broken up. Strongmen hold together disparate tribes using fear and terror. It's a case of picking your poison.
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.
This explains how the holocaust can be evoked, no matter how weak the analogy, by shameless hawks as pretext to military aggression.
This is a separate argument. I have no problem if somebody wants to argue against the bombing of Syria...personally I am for it...but the arguments against or the need for congressional approval are at least rational. What I have a problem with are those who want to deny that Assad used chemical weapons at all. It disgusts me frankly.
look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..
Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...
And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.
That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
Nobody supported sadaam Hussein or his tactics against his own people. But to say the iraq or the world was better off without him is absurd. He clearly was against anything that threatened his power. Including terrorism. Killing him created a power vacuum that opened the door for isis. What the Hell do you think Wil happen when we assassinate assad?
I agree with this generally speaking. I was very much against the war in Iraq because as I've argued several times on these pages, many of the countries in the middle east are just western creations based on lines drawn to their economic advantage when the Ottoman Empire was broken up. Strongmen hold together disparate tribes using fear and terror. It's a case of picking your poison.
Except the poison of the west's picking was spawning worse poisons beneath the surface.
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.
This explains how the holocaust can be evoked, no matter how weak the analogy, by shameless hawks as pretext to military aggression.
This is a separate argument. I have no problem if somebody wants to argue against the bombing of Syria...personally I am for it...but the arguments against or the need for congressional approval are at least rational. What I have a problem with are those who want to deny that Assad used chemical weapons at all. It disgusts me frankly.
No it's not a separate argument. You evoked the holocaust in comparison to the situation in Syria. And you support bombing Syria. It disgusts me that hawks use the death of millions to scare people into seeing things their way. Frankly, even.
look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..
Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...
And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.
That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
Nobody supported sadaam Hussein or his tactics against his own people. But to say the iraq or the world was better off without him is absurd. He clearly was against anything that threatened his power. Including terrorism. Killing him created a power vacuum that opened the door for isis. What the Hell do you think Wil happen when we assassinate assad?
I agree with this generally speaking. I was very much against the war in Iraq because as I've argued several times on these pages, many of the countries in the middle east are just western creations based on lines drawn to their economic advantage when the Ottoman Empire was broken up. Strongmen hold together disparate tribes using fear and terror. It's a case of picking your poison.
Except the poison of the west's picking was spawning worse poisons beneath the surface.
Maybe... maybe not. Is some local tribal warfare with occasional terrorism really worse than a bad state actor like Iran or N. Korea? Could argue either way.
if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...
Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!
uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...
did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?
any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...
where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...
So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?
"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."
"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.
And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""
Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.
So ...
* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then * Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization
factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...
we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...
This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.
This explains how the holocaust can be evoked, no matter how weak the analogy, by shameless hawks as pretext to military aggression.
This is a separate argument. I have no problem if somebody wants to argue against the bombing of Syria...personally I am for it...but the arguments against or the need for congressional approval are at least rational. What I have a problem with are those who want to deny that Assad used chemical weapons at all. It disgusts me frankly.
No it's not a separate argument. You evoked the holocaust in comparison to the situation in Syria. And you support bombing Syria. It disgusts me that hawks use the death of millions to scare people into seeing things their way. Frankly, even.
No. I evoked holocaust denial in comparison to the denial of use of chemical weapons by Assad. It is the denial of atrocity...a very different atrocity but an atrocity none the less. If you want to argue against a response that is fine but do not deny that the use of chemical weapons occurred. It make you sound like Sean Spicer...a very different Sean Spicer but a Sean Spicer none the less.
Um, no. Bringing it up in the first place is a page from Spicer's playbook, and yours....not mine. You admit it's a very different atrocity, so evoking the feelings and dangers of the holocaust to further your agenda is the only 'disgusting' thing happening here.
look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..
Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...
And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.
That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
Nobody supported sadaam Hussein or his tactics against his own people. But to say the iraq or the world was better off without him is absurd. He clearly was against anything that threatened his power. Including terrorism. Killing him created a power vacuum that opened the door for isis. What the Hell do you think Wil happen when we assassinate assad?
I agree with this generally speaking. I was very much against the war in Iraq because as I've argued several times on these pages, many of the countries in the middle east are just western creations based on lines drawn to their economic advantage when the Ottoman Empire was broken up. Strongmen hold together disparate tribes using fear and terror. It's a case of picking your poison.
Except the poison of the west's picking was spawning worse poisons beneath the surface.
Maybe... maybe not. Is some local tribal warfare with occasional terrorism really worse than a bad state actor like Iran or N. Korea? Could argue either way.
Yes and many years ago I would have agreed with you but technological advances have made "occasional terrorism" far more proximate and lethal. It has also made the bad state actors far more threatening as well. It is the intersection of these groups that has made the old policy of containment obsolete.
look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..
Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...
And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.
That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.
You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.
Nobody supported sadaam Hussein or his tactics against his own people. But to say the iraq or the world was better off without him is absurd. He clearly was against anything that threatened his power. Including terrorism. Killing him created a power vacuum that opened the door for isis. What the Hell do you think Wil happen when we assassinate assad?
I agree with this generally speaking. I was very much against the war in Iraq because as I've argued several times on these pages, many of the countries in the middle east are just western creations based on lines drawn to their economic advantage when the Ottoman Empire was broken up. Strongmen hold together disparate tribes using fear and terror. It's a case of picking your poison.
Except the poison of the west's picking was spawning worse poisons beneath the surface.
Maybe... maybe not. Is some local tribal warfare with occasional terrorism really worse than a bad state actor like Iran or N. Korea? Could argue either way.
Yes and many years ago I would have agreed with you but technological advances have made "occasional terrorism" far more proximate and lethal. It has also made the bad state actors far more threatening as well. It is the intersection of these groups that has made the old policy of containment obsolete.
Is it obsolete? I don't even know if that's true or not. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that there was potentially no actual strategy associated with the Syrian strikes. Military action is accompanied either immediately before or after with a political option. That doesn't appear to be the case. This is waht happens when you have zero competency on the political/civilian side of the house. Trump surrounded himself with competent military advisers, but military advisers always advise to strike. That's their training and frame of reference. People applauded the action.. but what now??
As for the war in Syria, please don’t believe me. Please just don’t let yourself be deceived. This is too important, not only for you and me, but for our children, and everyone else too. Please ask questions about who wants war and why, and please then think about how they can be stopped from getting it.
syrian people have been living a hell for the last 6 years because of terrorists invasion ... they've been bombing and killing innocent people and the only shit people react to our fraud accusations against assad ...
it's amazing how many people here believe the narrative of assad without actually ANY proof ... just lies and propaganda ... it's like what happened in iraq and libya are not evidence enough of the motive here ...
Where's the proof? Am I missing something? All I see is a headline that will convince idiots that don't take time to read the article, that proof exists. It is under investigation. Just another opportunity to show some photos of the missile launch. Cute ironic symbolism. Propaganda as transparent as the stars and bars illuminated by the rocket's red glare.
Before anyone discredits RT, I have to ask why no one challenged BS's source on the last page? No one challenges a Syrian defector's claims, a rebel fighter who has a vested interest in convincing the world that Assad did it...but we shouldn't listen to independent analysis from a prof emeritus at MIT, who is a former scientific advisor at the Department of Defense...because he's on RT. From a quick search, it appears MIT prof Theodore Postol's soundbytes on the weakness of North Korea's arsenal is newsworthy on CNN and FOX, but his detailed reports on the Syrian chemical attacks are unworthy of coverage.
I can only speak for me.. it's because as I continue to say, all of these sources have inherent bias. You either trust the US/British/French news sources, or you trust the Russia/Iran/Syria sources. I'm pretty firm where I stand.
I can only speak for me.. it's because as I continue to say, all of these sources have inherent bias. You either trust the US/British/French news sources, or you trust the Russia/Iran/Syria sources. I'm pretty firm where I stand.
That's obvious. Please explain how IBTimes and a former DoD employee / MIT prof is a Russian/Iranian or Syrian source. And like I said - why let a Syrian defector and rebel soldier slide as a US/British/French source?
I can only speak for me.. it's because as I continue to say, all of these sources have inherent bias. You either trust the US/British/French news sources, or you trust the Russia/Iran/Syria sources. I'm pretty firm where I stand.
That's obvious. Please explain how IBTimes and a former DoD employee / MIT prof is a Russian/Iranian or Syrian source. And like I said - why let a Syrian defector and rebel soldier slide as a US/British/French source?
The IB Times is quoting the MIT professor. Those aren't two sources, it's a newspaper reporting on the professor. And one person does not make a rock solid case. Pretty sure there are people in Syria that will say it was the government that perpetrated the attack, similar to this one individual who says it wasn't.
people with credentials saying so is not proof. believing your version of someone's motive for/against something is not proof being accused of, and exonorated of, a similar crime years ago is not proof
proof is proof. neither side has shown any of it as far as I can see.
"do your own research" "I did, and I still don't agree with you" "you researched from the wrong place. here, let me point you in the direction of my independent sources"
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I can only speak for me.. it's because as I continue to say, all of these sources have inherent bias. You either trust the US/British/French news sources, or you trust the Russia/Iran/Syria sources. I'm pretty firm where I stand.
That's obvious. Please explain how IBTimes and a former DoD employee / MIT prof is a Russian/Iranian or Syrian source. And like I said - why let a Syrian defector and rebel soldier slide as a US/British/French source?
The IB Times is quoting the MIT professor. Those aren't two sources, it's a newspaper reporting on the professor. And one person does not make a rock solid case. Pretty sure there are people in Syria that will say it was the government that perpetrated the attack, similar to this one individual who says it wasn't.
Lol...they're different stories based on the same topic (the MIT report). The source in this case is the media outlet. Why the semantics, you know what I mean? Both sources happen to be outside the US. Yet the subject of the stories is American. You have explained how you won't listen to any information from RT, yet no US network carried this report (from what I've found). a guy could interpret this as willfully living in an echo chamber. A person critical of the US govt line almost has no choice but to hear the other side out, since there is vvirtually NO criticism of the attack in the US (aside from the predictable cries of political theatre).
people with credentials saying so is not proof. believing your version of someone's motive for/against something is not proof being accused of, and exonorated of, a similar crime years ago is not proof
proof is proof. neither side has shown any of it as far as I can see.
"do your own research" "I did, and I still don't agree with you" "you researched from the wrong place. here, let me point you in the direction of my independent sources"
The only place I used the word proof was to ask for it after reading a headline that claimed France had it. It doesnt. So I'm making the same point, basically. Did you read the MIT report? he's calling for investigations by the UN to determine who did it, since both the Us and Russia can be involved and overseen...and internally in the US to determine if any of The attack or intelligence was fabricated for political purposes, since he claims the statements made by the administration as factual are impossible to prove as such. What is unreasonable about that position? Don't tell me there is no time because people are dying. This has been going on for five years; rushing to escalate won't help Syrians at all. He is asking for the same thing as you - proof. Does he have air tight proof it wasn't assad? Maybe not, But proving a negative and burden of proof and all that.....he has shown enough doubt to get a case thrown out of court instantly, imo. The guy's credentials are tailor made to perform analysis on this. His opinion is more valid than that of a politician, a paid mercenary, or yours, or mine. Can any of you address his claims or are we just going to keep saying 'no one knows', while the next step is contemplated? He is qualified and independent of the conflict, unlike virtually every source used by the 'allied powers'. Has independent analysis from a respected institute with no ties to the conflict claiming it was assad been posted? If so I missed it. Would be happy to read it.
Okay, well let's recap what we know and what we can speculate: 1. International weapons inspectors stated today said there was "incontrovertible evidence" that the attack was sarin or a sarin like substance. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-sarin-opcw/ 2. Sarin gas is a highly volatile substance with a short shelf life. The concept that it's sitting in a bunker or some sort of depot like grain is kind of ridiculous. 3. A Major General who defected from Syria said a few years ago that Assad "would never give up" his full chemical weapons resources 4. Reports on the ground stated there was rockets or bombs from teh sky. Do the terrorist have this capability? Have they exercised aerial power before? 5. Isn't it true that if you blow up sarin, you destroy it? I'm not a chemist but that's my understanding. It doesn't move into a city. Doesn't that cast doubt onto the Russian narrative?
I'll stick with the Allied powers, you can stick with the Axis side.
Where's the proof? Am I missing something? All I see is a headline that will convince idiots that don't take time to read the article, that proof exists. It is under investigation. Just another opportunity to show some photos of the missile launch. Cute ironic symbolism. Propaganda as transparent as the stars and bars illuminated by the rocket's red glare.
Before anyone discredits RT, I have to ask why no one challenged BS's source on the last page? No one challenges a Syrian defector's claims, a rebel fighter who has a vested interest in convincing the world that Assad did it...but we shouldn't listen to independent analysis from a prof emeritus at MIT, who is a former scientific advisor at the Department of Defense...because he's on RT. From a quick search, it appears MIT prof Theodore Postol's soundbytes on the weakness of North Korea's arsenal is newsworthy on CNN and FOX, but his detailed reports on the Syrian chemical attacks are unworthy of coverage.
Ummmm...."There is an investigation underway... it's a question of days and we will provide proof that the regime carried out these strikes," Jean-Marc Ayrault told LCP television on Wednesday.
I never said there was proof.....I just provided an article quoting an official who said France has proof and will provide it within a couple of days.
Okay, well let's recap what we know and what we can speculate: 1. International weapons inspectors stated today said there was "incontrovertible evidence" that the attack was sarin or a sarin like substance. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-sarin-opcw/ 2. Sarin gas is a highly volatile substance with a short shelf life. The concept that it's sitting in a bunker or some sort of depot like grain is kind of ridiculous. 3. A Major General who defected from Syria said a few years ago that Assad "would never give up" his full chemical weapons resources 4. Reports on the ground stated there was rockets or bombs from teh sky. Do the terrorist have this capability? Have they exercised aerial power before? 5. Isn't it true that if you blow up sarin, you destroy it? I'm not a chemist but that's my understanding. It doesn't move into a city. Doesn't that cast doubt onto the Russian narrative?
I'll stick with the Allied powers, you can stick with the Axis side.
1. I will agree that there was a chemical agent released in Idlib 2. We still don't know if it was Sarin because reports (from the same sources msm is using) claimed they could smell the gas however, sarin is odourless. 3. Ok - that's like believing US gov't sources 4. Syria and Russia have already admitted to dropping bombs in the area. Remember, the primary bomb target was Al Qaeda held area. Remember Al Qaeda - supposedly the terrorist group Americans are fighting. The fact is that the chemical attack drifted into the civilian town because of the winds that day. We know where the bombs hit because there is evidence of that - if the Syrians did drop chemical bombs into civilian areas - there would be collateral damage. 5. I've not read that about Sarin. But let's say it's true - then it goes back to point 2. So, why do we believe it was Sarin? It was because the original reports included those from the white helmets. Again - please investigate this terrorist organization. They are responsible for many fake reports and news coming out of Syria. They were showing pictures of them handling so called victims without gloves. That's fraud.
and what are the apologists saying about the bomb attack on the buses leaving aleppo? ... the terrorists lured children out of buses with potato chips then bombed them ... these are the people the Syrian gov't is fighting on the ground ... THIS IS NOT A CIVIL WAR ... where in ANY of the news do you see an opposing syrian force!?? ... NONE ... only Al Qaeda and ISIS ...
btw ... France has already admitted to supplying weapons to "rebels" aka Al Qaeda ... you don't need to go to independent sources for that - it's been admitted ...
Okay, well let's recap what we know and what we can speculate: 1. International weapons inspectors stated today said there was "incontrovertible evidence" that the attack was sarin or a sarin like substance. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-sarin-opcw/ 2. Sarin gas is a highly volatile substance with a short shelf life. The concept that it's sitting in a bunker or some sort of depot like grain is kind of ridiculous. 3. A Major General who defected from Syria said a few years ago that Assad "would never give up" his full chemical weapons resources 4. Reports on the ground stated there was rockets or bombs from teh sky. Do the terrorist have this capability? Have they exercised aerial power before? 5. Isn't it true that if you blow up sarin, you destroy it? I'm not a chemist but that's my understanding. It doesn't move into a city. Doesn't that cast doubt onto the Russian narrative?
I'll stick with the Allied powers, you can stick with the Axis side.
1. I will agree that there was a chemical agent released in Idlib 2. We still don't know if it was Sarin because reports (from the same sources msm is using) claimed they could smell the gas however, sarin is odourless. 3. Ok - that's like believing US gov't sources 4. Syria and Russia have already admitted to dropping bombs in the area. Remember, the primary bomb target was Al Qaeda held area. Remember Al Qaeda - supposedly the terrorist group Americans are fighting. The fact is that the chemical attack drifted into the civilian town because of the winds that day. We know where the bombs hit because there is evidence of that - if the Syrians did drop chemical bombs into civilian areas - there would be collateral damage. 5. I've not read that about Sarin. But let's say it's true - then it goes back to point 2. So, why do we believe it was Sarin? It was because the original reports included those from the white helmets. Again - please investigate this terrorist organization. They are responsible for many fake reports and news coming out of Syria. They were showing pictures of them handling so called victims without gloves. That's fraud.
2. Sarin is odorless but that doesn't mean that the report of the gas was accurate nor necessarily the only thing in the area. 3. I don't know what you mean? If a general defects, does that make him a liar? It's certainly no more than circumstantial, but it adds to the circumstantial case. 4. First, yes Syria did drop bombs. But why couldn't that be part of a strategic coverup? The fact that they dropped bombs doens't mean they didn't drop gas too. Second, to my earlier point, the narrative coming out of Syria is "Al Qaeda Weapons depot".. but wouldn't a bomb destroy the gas? That's my undersanding. 5. We believe it's sarin because the UN inspection said it is incontrovertible evidence. Is that not a high enough standard? I posted the link.
Comments
It disgusts me that hawks use the death of millions to scare people into seeing things their way. Frankly, even.
As for the war in Syria, please don’t believe me. Please just don’t let yourself be deceived. This is too important, not only for you and me, but for our children, and everyone else too. Please ask questions about who wants war and why, and please then think about how they can be stopped from getting it.
it's amazing how many people here believe the narrative of assad without actually ANY proof ... just lies and propaganda ... it's like what happened in iraq and libya are not evidence enough of the motive here ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-assad-chemical-attack-france-says-it-has-proof-khan-sheikhoun-a7691476.html
I think this was covered in polaris's post from washington's blog, but that link isn't working.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-was-staged-1617267
(Warning: graphic) Video for those who can't be bothered to read:
Before anyone discredits RT, I have to ask why no one challenged BS's source on the last page? No one challenges a Syrian defector's claims, a rebel fighter who has a vested interest in convincing the world that Assad did it...but we shouldn't listen to independent analysis from a prof emeritus at MIT, who is a former scientific advisor at the Department of Defense...because he's on RT.
From a quick search, it appears MIT prof Theodore Postol's soundbytes on the weakness of North Korea's arsenal is newsworthy on CNN and FOX, but his detailed reports on the Syrian chemical attacks are unworthy of coverage.
believing your version of someone's motive for/against something is not proof
being accused of, and exonorated of, a similar crime years ago is not proof
proof is proof. neither side has shown any of it as far as I can see.
"do your own research"
"I did, and I still don't agree with you"
"you researched from the wrong place. here, let me point you in the direction of
myindependent sources"-EV 8/14/93
Both sources happen to be outside the US. Yet the subject of the stories is American. You have explained how you won't listen to any information from RT, yet no US network carried this report (from what I've found). a guy could interpret this as willfully living in an echo chamber. A person critical of the US govt line almost has no choice but to hear the other side out, since there is vvirtually NO criticism of the attack in the US (aside from the predictable cries of political theatre).
The only place I used the word proof was to ask for it after reading a headline that claimed France had it. It doesnt. So I'm making the same point, basically.
Did you read the MIT report? he's calling for investigations by the UN to determine who did it, since both the Us and Russia can be involved and overseen...and internally in the US to determine if any of The attack or intelligence was fabricated for political purposes, since he claims the statements made by the administration as factual are impossible to prove as such. What is unreasonable about that position? Don't tell me there is no time because people are dying. This has been going on for five years; rushing to escalate won't help Syrians at all. He is asking for the same thing as you - proof. Does he have air tight proof it wasn't assad? Maybe not, But proving a negative and burden of proof and all that.....he has shown enough doubt to get a case thrown out of court instantly, imo.
The guy's credentials are tailor made to perform analysis on this. His opinion is more valid than that of a politician, a paid mercenary, or yours, or mine. Can any of you address his claims or are we just going to keep saying 'no one knows', while the next step is contemplated? He is qualified and independent of the conflict, unlike virtually every source used by the 'allied powers'. Has independent analysis from a respected institute with no ties to the conflict claiming it was assad been posted? If so I missed it. Would be happy to read it.
1. International weapons inspectors stated today said there was "incontrovertible evidence" that the attack was sarin or a sarin like substance. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-sarin-opcw/
2. Sarin gas is a highly volatile substance with a short shelf life. The concept that it's sitting in a bunker or some sort of depot like grain is kind of ridiculous.
3. A Major General who defected from Syria said a few years ago that Assad "would never give up" his full chemical weapons resources
4. Reports on the ground stated there was rockets or bombs from teh sky. Do the terrorist have this capability? Have they exercised aerial power before?
5. Isn't it true that if you blow up sarin, you destroy it? I'm not a chemist but that's my understanding. It doesn't move into a city. Doesn't that cast doubt onto the Russian narrative?
I'll stick with the Allied powers, you can stick with the Axis side.
I never said there was proof.....I just provided an article quoting an official who said France has proof and will provide it within a couple of days.
I don't see a problem here.
2. We still don't know if it was Sarin because reports (from the same sources msm is using) claimed they could smell the gas however, sarin is odourless.
3. Ok - that's like believing US gov't sources
4. Syria and Russia have already admitted to dropping bombs in the area. Remember, the primary bomb target was Al Qaeda held area. Remember Al Qaeda - supposedly the terrorist group Americans are fighting. The fact is that the chemical attack drifted into the civilian town because of the winds that day. We know where the bombs hit because there is evidence of that - if the Syrians did drop chemical bombs into civilian areas - there would be collateral damage.
5. I've not read that about Sarin. But let's say it's true - then it goes back to point 2. So, why do we believe it was Sarin? It was because the original reports included those from the white helmets. Again - please investigate this terrorist organization. They are responsible for many fake reports and news coming out of Syria. They were showing pictures of them handling so called victims without gloves. That's fraud.
how do you describe this factual history?
https://sarahabed.com/2017/04/21/the-us-crusader-of-democracy/
3. I don't know what you mean? If a general defects, does that make him a liar? It's certainly no more than circumstantial, but it adds to the circumstantial case.
4. First, yes Syria did drop bombs. But why couldn't that be part of a strategic coverup? The fact that they dropped bombs doens't mean they didn't drop gas too. Second, to my earlier point, the narrative coming out of Syria is "Al Qaeda Weapons depot".. but wouldn't a bomb destroy the gas? That's my undersanding.
5. We believe it's sarin because the UN inspection said it is incontrovertible evidence. Is that not a high enough standard? I posted the link.