Syria and the US's Motive
Comments
-
look up Sir Roger Carr ... not only is he the Vice Chair of the BBC - he's also the chair of BAE systems ... major weapons manufacturer ... nothing to see here I bet for some peeps here ...0
-
these guys have offered absolutely nothing in this thread ... like less than nothing ...Drowned Out said:In the meantime, let's watch some total bullshit Russian propaganda, from foreign sources we should never trust...Chris hedges, max blumenthal, Ben norton...total Syrian propaganda from lightweight journos. I know it's not as credible as a defector, but please...put it on in the background while ya browse.
https://youtu.be/e6C249jh7wQ0 -
They confirmed that Sarin or sarin like material was used. They said it's incontrovertible. No where did I say that they reported it initially. Get some reading comprehension please!!!polaris_x said:
un inspectors did not report the attack ... get some facts please!!! ...mrussel1 said:
So you are saying there was no attack... the UN inspectors just fabricated. Everyone's in on the ruse. Got it.polaris_x said:here's additional evidence of fraud ...
white helmets posts about attack well before attack actually happened0 -
Dictators hold elections. Putin has elections. Iraq had elections. Chavez.. more. The presence of elections is not evidence of a liberal democracy.polaris_x said:
do you have proof syrian elections were fraudulent? on what basis do you identify assad as a dictator? ... the guy who took power within a dictatorship and then reformed the electoral process to free elections of which close to 80% of syrians participated ... why would a dictator bring in elections?mrussel1 said:
Right because there's never been a dictator in history who has killed his own people... totally unprecedented. Boggles the mind, in fact.polaris_x said:
sooo ... Syria is fighting these fucks ... why on earth would they drop chemical weapons on their own civilians? ... c'mon people!!mrussel1 said:
I don't think anyone has defended that horrific attack. Just because I hate the Russian/Syrian/Iran alliance doesn't mean I support terrorism. They all suck.polaris_x said: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 ...
aside from that - you continue to show very little rational ... if Syria/Assad are at war with invading terrorists groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS - why would he not have used chemical weapons against ISIS? or Al Qaeda? show me some reasoning ...
Second, isn't Idlib a terrorist stronghold? You would have to agree to that if you are advocating the implausible theory that it was a weapons depot that held the sarin. Is it so far fetched that Assad would strike the area with sarin and consider the Syrian people collateral damage? Seems far more rational than the concoctions coming out of Russia.0 -
If Polaris can't even admit that Assad is a dictator, which is not even up for debate, then getting him to admit Assad used chemical weapons is pretty much an impossibility.mrussel1 said:
Dictators hold elections. Putin has elections. Iraq had elections. Chavez.. more. The presence of elections is not evidence of a liberal democracy.polaris_x said:
do you have proof syrian elections were fraudulent? on what basis do you identify assad as a dictator? ... the guy who took power within a dictatorship and then reformed the electoral process to free elections of which close to 80% of syrians participated ... why would a dictator bring in elections?mrussel1 said:
Right because there's never been a dictator in history who has killed his own people... totally unprecedented. Boggles the mind, in fact.polaris_x said:
sooo ... Syria is fighting these fucks ... why on earth would they drop chemical weapons on their own civilians? ... c'mon people!!mrussel1 said:
I don't think anyone has defended that horrific attack. Just because I hate the Russian/Syrian/Iran alliance doesn't mean I support terrorism. They all suck.polaris_x said: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 ...
aside from that - you continue to show very little rational ... if Syria/Assad are at war with invading terrorists groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS - why would he not have used chemical weapons against ISIS? or Al Qaeda? show me some reasoning ...
Second, isn't Idlib a terrorist stronghold? You would have to agree to that if you are advocating the implausible theory that it was a weapons depot that held the sarin. Is it so far fetched that Assad would strike the area with sarin and consider the Syrian people collateral damage? Seems far more rational than the concoctions coming out of Russia.0 -
Maybe I'm confused...am I to understand that there are people on here who support Assad?BS44325 said:
If Polaris can't even admit that Assad is a dictator, which is not even up for debate, then getting him to admit Assad used chemical weapons is pretty much an impossibility.mrussel1 said:
Dictators hold elections. Putin has elections. Iraq had elections. Chavez.. more. The presence of elections is not evidence of a liberal democracy.polaris_x said:
do you have proof syrian elections were fraudulent? on what basis do you identify assad as a dictator? ... the guy who took power within a dictatorship and then reformed the electoral process to free elections of which close to 80% of syrians participated ... why would a dictator bring in elections?mrussel1 said:
Right because there's never been a dictator in history who has killed his own people... totally unprecedented. Boggles the mind, in fact.polaris_x said:
sooo ... Syria is fighting these fucks ... why on earth would they drop chemical weapons on their own civilians? ... c'mon people!!mrussel1 said:
I don't think anyone has defended that horrific attack. Just because I hate the Russian/Syrian/Iran alliance doesn't mean I support terrorism. They all suck.polaris_x said: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 ...
aside from that - you continue to show very little rational ... if Syria/Assad are at war with invading terrorists groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS - why would he not have used chemical weapons against ISIS? or Al Qaeda? show me some reasoning ...
Second, isn't Idlib a terrorist stronghold? You would have to agree to that if you are advocating the implausible theory that it was a weapons depot that held the sarin. Is it so far fetched that Assad would strike the area with sarin and consider the Syrian people collateral damage? Seems far more rational than the concoctions coming out of Russia.
A known dictator who doesn't think twice about having his own citizens killed just for having different ideas?
Seriously?0 -
It's like we have our own Charles Lindberg's on the site..Bentleyspop said:
Maybe I'm confused...am I to understand that there are people on here who support Assad?BS44325 said:
If Polaris can't even admit that Assad is a dictator, which is not even up for debate, then getting him to admit Assad used chemical weapons is pretty much an impossibility.mrussel1 said:
Dictators hold elections. Putin has elections. Iraq had elections. Chavez.. more. The presence of elections is not evidence of a liberal democracy.polaris_x said:
do you have proof syrian elections were fraudulent? on what basis do you identify assad as a dictator? ... the guy who took power within a dictatorship and then reformed the electoral process to free elections of which close to 80% of syrians participated ... why would a dictator bring in elections?mrussel1 said:
Right because there's never been a dictator in history who has killed his own people... totally unprecedented. Boggles the mind, in fact.polaris_x said:
sooo ... Syria is fighting these fucks ... why on earth would they drop chemical weapons on their own civilians? ... c'mon people!!mrussel1 said:
I don't think anyone has defended that horrific attack. Just because I hate the Russian/Syrian/Iran alliance doesn't mean I support terrorism. They all suck.polaris_x said: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 ...
aside from that - you continue to show very little rational ... if Syria/Assad are at war with invading terrorists groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS - why would he not have used chemical weapons against ISIS? or Al Qaeda? show me some reasoning ...
Second, isn't Idlib a terrorist stronghold? You would have to agree to that if you are advocating the implausible theory that it was a weapons depot that held the sarin. Is it so far fetched that Assad would strike the area with sarin and consider the Syrian people collateral damage? Seems far more rational than the concoctions coming out of Russia.
A known dictator who doesn't think twice about having his own citizens killed just for having different ideas?
Seriously?
And before anyone freaks.. I don't mean in the racial sense, rather the defense of Germany throughout the 30's, regardless of the overwhelming evidence of what was building.Post edited by mrussel1 on0 -
mrussel1 said:
Every time you post one of those, it's pretty easy to retort with the anchor who quits on air for "white washing Putin's actions"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55izx6rbCqg
Another defector, nice
the clip I posted is a show hosted by an American Pulitzer winner, interviewing two other Americans, both writers for alternet (a site I deleted from my feeds during the primaries because their pro-Hilary rhetoric was annoying me)...one senior, with a nyt bestseller to his credit. But sure, discredit what they say based on the network, and a totally unrelated incident, without even clicking the link. I'm sure Putin is tellimg Chris hedges what to say.
You said 'the UN inspection said it was incontrovertible evidence'...which investigation was that? no one from the UN has set foot in idlib. Guess who is asking them to? Russia. All western media is based on reports by the white helmets. They have openly cited a doctor who was arrested for kidnapping, and for treating the terrorists who beheaded James foley, without mentioning his past! Your list of 'knows' proved you haven't red theo postol's report. And you won't watch an RT interview full of American Journo's because it conflicts with your beliefs on the matter...which seem to be completely aimless, and only due to your hatred of Russia. Tell me russel, when Assad falls, what happens next? What is your goal here?
Support Assad? I see there are only two shades of grey in the mind of most people when it comes to foreign policy. For us or against, eh dubya? This was the point of my 'allied powers' comment. this war has so many players with so many mixed motives...to group half the players into one team and stand behind them aligns you with a lot of fuckin nasty people you would never support if the US wasn't involved. The same people who will own wide swaths of Syria if Assad falls.Bentleyspop said:
Maybe I'm confused...am I to understand that there are people on here who support Assad?
A known dictator who doesn't think twice about having his own citizens killed just for having different ideas?
Seriously?
We won't even talk about the US killing their own citizens, nor what it would look like if civil war broke out in the US. All I'm arguing for is a proper investigation and diplomacy to end the fighting. Silly me.
when it comes to domestic politics, dems laugh at R's for all their fake news hysteria....but when we talk US foreign policy...? Can't be bothered to look at ANYTHING but state positions and sources that support them....yet they still cry fake news. the time zone posts are a perfect example. Someone makes a bullshit claim, mistakenly, and gets backed up by ppl too lazy to analyze what they're supporting. Then they totally ignore that it even happened and keep plotting along down the same path.polaris_x said:
these guys have offered absolutely nothing in this thread ... like less than nothing ...
the bipartisanship of the US war machine runs deep
Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
An American citizen who worked for RT but quit on air because of RT's lies about Putin, is a "defector"? Okay. Good one.
(CNN)International chemical weapons inspectors have found "incontrovertible" evidence that Sarin gas, or a similar substance, was used in a chemical attack in Syria earlier this month that killed 89 people.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) took biomedical samples from 10 victims of the April 4 attack on Khan Sheikhoun and found indications that they had been exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.
And yes, I don't read "state news" from a dictatorship. So keep posting RT propaganda and I'll keep shitting on it without reading or watching it.0 -
dude ... read your quote ...mrussel1 said:
They confirmed that Sarin or sarin like material was used. They said it's incontrovertible. No where did I say that they reported it initially. Get some reading comprehension please!!!polaris_x said:
un inspectors did not report the attack ... get some facts please!!! ...mrussel1 said:
So you are saying there was no attack... the UN inspectors just fabricated. Everyone's in on the ruse. Got it.polaris_x said:here's additional evidence of fraud ...
white helmets posts about attack well before attack actually happened0 -
give me some proof of assad as a dictator ... besides just people repeating it ... what constitutes a dictatorship and give me proof assad falls in that category ...Bentleyspop said:
Maybe I'm confused...am I to understand that there are people on here who support Assad?BS44325 said:
If Polaris can't even admit that Assad is a dictator, which is not even up for debate, then getting him to admit Assad used chemical weapons is pretty much an impossibility.mrussel1 said:
Dictators hold elections. Putin has elections. Iraq had elections. Chavez.. more. The presence of elections is not evidence of a liberal democracy.polaris_x said:
do you have proof syrian elections were fraudulent? on what basis do you identify assad as a dictator? ... the guy who took power within a dictatorship and then reformed the electoral process to free elections of which close to 80% of syrians participated ... why would a dictator bring in elections?mrussel1 said:
Right because there's never been a dictator in history who has killed his own people... totally unprecedented. Boggles the mind, in fact.polaris_x said:
sooo ... Syria is fighting these fucks ... why on earth would they drop chemical weapons on their own civilians? ... c'mon people!!mrussel1 said:
I don't think anyone has defended that horrific attack. Just because I hate the Russian/Syrian/Iran alliance doesn't mean I support terrorism. They all suck.polaris_x said: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 ...
aside from that - you continue to show very little rational ... if Syria/Assad are at war with invading terrorists groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS - why would he not have used chemical weapons against ISIS? or Al Qaeda? show me some reasoning ...
Second, isn't Idlib a terrorist stronghold? You would have to agree to that if you are advocating the implausible theory that it was a weapons depot that held the sarin. Is it so far fetched that Assad would strike the area with sarin and consider the Syrian people collateral damage? Seems far more rational than the concoctions coming out of Russia.
A known dictator who doesn't think twice about having his own citizens killed just for having different ideas?
Seriously?
the US has a long history of demonizing leaders of countries they seek to overthrow ... see, iraq, cuba, libya, etc0 -
the 59 cruise missiles trump launched cost $1.4 million each ...
war is good business ... the military industrial complex is alive and well and americans are blind to war profiteering ...0 -
no one is disputing that a chemical weapon (either sarin or chlorine) was released on april 4th ... the issue is how did it get released ...mrussel1 said:An American citizen who worked for RT but quit on air because of RT's lies about Putin, is a "defector"? Okay. Good one.
(CNN)International chemical weapons inspectors have found "incontrovertible" evidence that Sarin gas, or a similar substance, was used in a chemical attack in Syria earlier this month that killed 89 people.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) took biomedical samples from 10 victims of the April 4 attack on Khan Sheikhoun and found indications that they had been exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.
And yes, I don't read "state news" from a dictatorship. So keep posting RT propaganda and I'll keep shitting on it without reading or watching it.
syria has constantly asked the UN to send independent experts to investigate but the US continues to block that motion ... WHY!??0 -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d
more stuff for you guys NOT to read and to not offer constructive opinion on ...0 -
Please cut out where i say that. You're reading something not there. I'm saying that the implication of everyone reporting it before it happened is that it never happened. Therefore the UN must be in on the ruse.polaris_x said:
dude ... read your quote ...mrussel1 said:
They confirmed that Sarin or sarin like material was used. They said it's incontrovertible. No where did I say that they reported it initially. Get some reading comprehension please!!!polaris_x said:
un inspectors did not report the attack ... get some facts please!!! ...mrussel1 said:
So you are saying there was no attack... the UN inspectors just fabricated. Everyone's in on the ruse. Got it.polaris_x said:here's additional evidence of fraud ...
white helmets posts about attack well before attack actually happened0 -
I read Ritter's piece when he wrote it. He's arguing the insufficient evidence angle if I remember properly. But he published this before the UN tested and confirmed it was sarin. Again, since we can agree, hopefully, there was an attack.. and the UN stated sarin... not chlorine..., evidence leads to the government since there is no evidence or history of the terrorists being able to store, mix, or release sarin.polaris_x said:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d
more stuff for you guys NOT to read and to not offer constructive opinion on ...0 -
Thank god you realized it was a joke. I was worried you might not address the important parts of my post.mrussel1 said:An American citizen who worked for RT but quit on air because of RT's lies about Putin, is a "defector"? Okay. Good one.
The OPCW didn't attribute blame, they only said sarin or a similar agent was used ( this was covered around 3:50 in the interview I posted).mrussel1 said:
(CNN)International chemical weapons inspectors have found "incontrovertible" evidence that Sarin gas, or a similar substance, was used in a chemical attack in Syria earlier this month that killed 89 people.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) took biomedical samples from 10 victims of the April 4 attack on Khan Sheikhoun and found indications that they had been exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.
Regarding the OPCW missions....They are staffed entirely by Brits. Russia proposed the use of 'third party' investigators, but eventually backed down on this proposal, asking only that the mission actually go to Idlib. It was denied by the west. And they won't make public the time and place the samples were taken....reports indicate that the OPCW obtained the samples via Turkey.
Sounds like the investigation is being steered. Why?
Ya, air strikes were used as part of a strategic coverup....they used chemical weapons, then bombed the location. where are the tinfoil memes? I seem to see those often, but never when the conspiracy theory lends credence to US position. why not just bomb the location, why do both? Why incur the wrath of the international community, right when the US backed down on regime change demands?
Is Chris Hedges always a commie propagandist, or only when presenting for RT? I realize he doesn't have the street cred of a terrorist kidnapper, but imo he writes a decent piece every so often. The MIT report had nothing to do with Russian media, but you wouldnt read that either either either either....mrussel1 said:
And yes, I don't read "state news" from a dictatorship. So keep posting RT propaganda and I'll keep shitting on it without reading or watching it.0 -
First..i never said the UN applied blame. I said they are positive it's sarin. Then i said the practicality and likelihood of terrorists either storing or being able to deploy the gas, let alone acquiring it, points back to Assad. Both you and Polaris seem to think I say things i didn't.
Second, I did read the MIT report. So what? He is speculating without having access to classified US, French or English Intel. In other words, he's just a dude with an opinion. He may be educated in the subject but he is neither on the ground or privy to key information.0 -
I realize you never said that. The problem here is that no proof it was assad has been brought forward, and the US acted (and will likely continue to do so) against the Syrian government anyway. You want assad gone, so the stalemate of context works in the favour of all of the hawks who support illegal regime change (including you?)mrussel1 said:First..i never said the UN applied blame. I said they are positive it's sarin. Then i said the practicality and likelihood of terrorists either storing or being able to deploy the gas, let alone acquiring it, points back to Assad. Both you and Polaris seem to think I say things i didn't.
Second, I did read the MIT report. So what? He is speculating without having access to classified US, French or English Intel. In other words, he's just a dude with an opinion. He may be educated in the subject but he is neither on the ground or privy to key information.0 -
Nowhere have I said that I support any military action against Syria. In fact, I'm against the action that Trump took. The primary reason is that it was aimless and unattached to any actual strategy that I can discern. It was a one off action. I'm not a fool and I know that Russia needs Syria for all sorts of strategic reasons, most linked to ports and such. So I have no illusions of Russia ceasing to support a Syrian state. However, if the US was smart, it would figure out a way to negotiate with Russia for the removal of Assad, and send him into exile in Russia. I don't want a power vacuum there anymore than anyone else, but Russia can likely facilitate a peaceful transfer.Drowned Out said:
I realize you never said that. The problem here is that no proof it was assad has been brought forward, and the US acted (and will likely continue to do so) against the Syrian government anyway. You want assad gone, so the stalemate of context works in the favour of all of the hawks who support illegal regime change (including you?)mrussel1 said:First..i never said the UN applied blame. I said they are positive it's sarin. Then i said the practicality and likelihood of terrorists either storing or being able to deploy the gas, let alone acquiring it, points back to Assad. Both you and Polaris seem to think I say things i didn't.
Second, I did read the MIT report. So what? He is speculating without having access to classified US, French or English Intel. In other words, he's just a dude with an opinion. He may be educated in the subject but he is neither on the ground or privy to key information.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