Syria and the US's Motive
Comments
-
https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/who-to-believe-about-syria/
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.Post edited by polaris_x on0 -
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 ...0 -
tl;dr "I have no idea what I am talking about or who to believe"polaris_x said:0 -
France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-assad-chemical-attack-france-says-it-has-proof-khan-sheikhoun-a7691476.html0 -
Fake news!!!!dignin said:France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-assad-chemical-attack-france-says-it-has-proof-khan-sheikhoun-a7691476.html0 -
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.dignin said:France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86
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:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BAzQwOepcU
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.Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
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.0
-
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?mrussel1 said: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.
0 -
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.Drowned Out said:
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?mrussel1 said: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.
0 -
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 ofmyindependent sources"By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Drowned Out said:
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?mrussel1 said: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.
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.HughFreakingDillon said: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 ofmyindependent sources"
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.Drowned Out said:
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.dignin said:France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86
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:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BAzQwOepcU
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 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.0 -
1. I will agree that there was a chemical agent released in Idlibmrussel1 said: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.
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.
0 -
axis side?mrussel1 said:
I'll stick with the Allied powers, you can stick with the Axis side.
how do you describe this factual history?
https://sarahabed.com/2017/04/21/the-us-crusader-of-democracy/
0 -
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 ...0
-
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 ...0
-
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.polaris_x said:
1. I will agree that there was a chemical agent released in Idlibmrussel1 said: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.
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.
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help