Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
Most of that is just more ad hominem. Being a lifelong critic of something makes a person more qualified to comment, not less. As for your question...the rocket range is not the only thing casting doubts on the claim it was Assad behind the chemical attacks, if there were even weapons grade chemicals used at all...but I don't think there is a large community of rocket scientists and weapons inspectors willing to go against Kerry. If you're wondering why, ask David Kelly. (More conspiracy for ya). Carla Del Ponte (UN weapons inspector) is on record with her doubts of the legitimacy of the claims. https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE94409Z20130505?client=safari
Combine this info and these opinions with the always-important analytical question - cui bono? (as asked in one of the articles I linked), and it makes zero sense that Assad would do that, and perfect sense that the US would frame him as having crossed obama's red line.
Except the US never reacted after the red line was crossed which debunks that theory. It was all tough talk and Assad called our bluff. Libya didn't do anything nearly as catastrophic as Assad and we imposed a no-fly zone there.
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
Most of that is just more ad hominem. Being a lifelong critic of something makes a person more qualified to comment, not less. As for your question...the rocket range is not the only thing casting doubts on the claim it was Assad behind the chemical attacks, if there were even weapons grade chemicals used at all...but I don't think there is a large community of rocket scientists and weapons inspectors willing to go against Kerry. If you're wondering why, ask David Kelly. (More conspiracy for ya). Carla Del Ponte (UN weapons inspector) is on record with her doubts of the legitimacy of the claims. https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE94409Z20130505?client=safari
Combine this info and these opinions with the always-important analytical question - cui bono? (as asked in one of the articles I linked), and it makes zero sense that Assad would do that, and perfect sense that the US would frame him as having crossed obama's red line.
Except the US never reacted after the red line was crossed which debunks that theory. It was all tough talk and Assad called our bluff. Libya didn't do anything nearly as catastrophic as Assad and we imposed a no-fly zone there.
No it doesn't. Because the US government is not a monolithic entity, and Syria is not Libya. Immediately following the chemical attacks, the Pentagon began plans for a no fly zone. But imposing a no fly zone without approval by the UN security council is an act of war, and would have put the US and Russia at direct odds over a Russian military ally, as explained on live tv by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just a couple months ago, and countless others since it was first mentioned. Not that the US hasn't tried to have one approved....they have, and Russia vetoed it.
(btw - the same day it was vetoed, a Russian tabled resolution attempt at a ceasefire was also denied. Not that the previous one did much good....during that ceasefire, the US bombed and killed dozens of Syrian troops....which was 'coincidentally' immediately preceding an ISIS ground attack....USISISAF?...another oops....just like all those aid and arms drops that went oops to ISIS).
The only reason the Libyan no fly zone didn't get vetoed by the security council is because the more powerful members of the Arab Leauge (ie: gulf states already in bed with the west) wanted Ghaddafi gone as well, and pressured Russia and China to abstain or face repercussions (which obviously means oil supply issues for both nations)...
The kicker to all of this (and I've lost track of whether I mentioned it in this thread or not) is that Russia offered to broker a deal to have Assad step down in 2012. If the US's intention was humanitarian regime change, why was this not good enough? I'll answer for you, because I know you won't: because the US didn't just want Assad gone; they wanted a client state/puppet government installed. Period. There is no way to talk around this...
You really think Assad used chemical weapons on his own people just to call the US's bluff? You must think he is the dumbest motherfucker in the world...if you've heard him speak even once, you know that's not true. So it's that possibility, opposed to elements within the US and their allies doing something underhanded to gain support for a no fly zone; a precedent for regime change set just two years earlier?
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
You've been around long enough to know that at some point in the 80's, during the twilight of the cold war, little Jason P woke up with morning wood for Russia and has never been successful at rubbing it away...well, that and nationalism making him adverse to criticism of his country. You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo! I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
Syrian ambassador is saying they have confirmation of foreign intelligence officers attempting to leave east Aleppo, naming them and their nationalities. Jordanian, Turk, Israeli, American, Moroccan, and several Saudis.
Here are some photos from Aleppo. The Google box is still showing only results from twitter accounts of Syrian Girl (partisangirl), and Sarah Abdallah (the lady I got the fb link from)
Most of that is just more ad hominem. Being a lifelong critic of something makes a person more qualified to comment, not less. As for your question...the rocket range is not the only thing casting doubts on the claim it was Assad behind the chemical attacks, if there were even weapons grade chemicals used at all...but I don't think there is a large community of rocket scientists and weapons inspectors willing to go against Kerry. If you're wondering why, ask David Kelly. (More conspiracy for ya). Carla Del Ponte (UN weapons inspector) is on record with her doubts of the legitimacy of the claims. https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE94409Z20130505?client=safari
Combine this info and these opinions with the always-important analytical question - cui bono? (as asked in one of the articles I linked), and it makes zero sense that Assad would do that, and perfect sense that the US would frame him as having crossed obama's red line.
Except the US never reacted after the red line was crossed which debunks that theory. It was all tough talk and Assad called our bluff. Libya didn't do anything nearly as catastrophic as Assad and we imposed a no-fly zone there.
No it doesn't. Because the US government is not a monolithic entity, and Syria is not Libya. Immediately following the chemical attacks, the Pentagon began plans for a no fly zone. But imposing a no fly zone without approval by the UN security council is an act of war, and would have put the US and Russia at direct odds over a Russian military ally, as explained on live tv by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just a couple months ago, and countless others since it was first mentioned. Not that the US hasn't tried to have one approved....they have, and Russia vetoed it.
(btw - the same day it was vetoed, a Russian tabled resolution attempt at a ceasefire was also denied. Not that the previous one did much good....during that ceasefire, the US bombed and killed dozens of Syrian troops....which was 'coincidentally' immediately preceding an ISIS ground attack....USISISAF?...another oops....just like all those aid and arms drops that went oops to ISIS).
The only reason the Libyan no fly zone didn't get vetoed by the security council is because the more powerful members of the Arab Leauge (ie: gulf states already in bed with the west) wanted Ghaddafi gone as well, and pressured Russia and China to abstain or face repercussions (which obviously means oil supply issues for both nations)...
The kicker to all of this (and I've lost track of whether I mentioned it in this thread or not) is that Russia offered to broker a deal to have Assad step down in 2012. If the US's intention was humanitarian regime change, why was this not good enough? I'll answer for you, because I know you won't: because the US didn't just want Assad gone; they wanted a client state/puppet government installed. Period. There is no way to talk around this...
You really think Assad used chemical weapons on his own people just to call the US's bluff? You must think he is the dumbest motherfucker in the world...if you've heard him speak even once, you know that's not true. So it's that possibility, opposed to elements within the US and their allies doing something underhanded to gain support for a no fly zone; a precedent for regime change set just two years earlier?
Assad's military is dropping barrel bombs on his people. They are allowing Russia to carpet bomb his people. They are summary executing his people in the streets without trial. They are using artillery on aid conveys trying to help his people. You don't think it's possible someone in his ranks would choose to use chemical weapons at some point when they had access to them ... in a moment of rage or desperation?
Russia doesn't broker anything. Russia takes what it wants. And when Russia does something in broad daylight and you call them on it, they smugly smile and say "What we do? I think not."
Russia wants and has achieved a client state in Syria.
Syrian ambassador is saying they have confirmation of foreign intelligence officers attempting to leave east Aleppo, naming them and their nationalities. Jordanian, Turk, Israeli, American, Moroccan, and several Saudis.
Here are some photos from Aleppo. The Google box is still showing only results from twitter accounts of Syrian Girl (partisangirl), and Sarah Abdallah (the lady I got the fb link from)
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
You've been around long enough to know that at some point in the 80's, during the twilight of the cold war, little Jason P woke up with morning wood for Russia and has never been successful at rubbing it away...well, that and nationalism making him adverse to criticism of his country. You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo! I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
I have no problem critiquing the US. But I don't understand how you can grandstand for Russia when they are ethically much worse and their form of government has failed and continues to fail and only moves on due to repression.
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
You've been around long enough to know that at some point in the 80's, during the twilight of the cold war, little Jason P woke up with morning wood for Russia and has never been successful at rubbing it away...well, that and nationalism making him adverse to criticism of his country. You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo! I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
I have no problem critiquing the US. But I don't understand how you can grandstand for Russia when they are ethically much worse and their form of government has failed and continues to fail and only moves on due to repression.
based on what historical facts? ... did russia overthrow iran? ... did russia go into iraq and create isis and al qaeda? ... did russia fuck up latin america and render it a 3rd world state for centuries? ...
russia may indeed be shitty ... but there is no singular shitty country more assholish than the US ... history and facts dictate that ...
Most of that is just more ad hominem. Being a lifelong critic of something makes a person more qualified to comment, not less. As for your question...the rocket range is not the only thing casting doubts on the claim it was Assad behind the chemical attacks, if there were even weapons grade chemicals used at all...but I don't think there is a large community of rocket scientists and weapons inspectors willing to go against Kerry. If you're wondering why, ask David Kelly. (More conspiracy for ya). Carla Del Ponte (UN weapons inspector) is on record with her doubts of the legitimacy of the claims. https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE94409Z20130505?client=safari
Combine this info and these opinions with the always-important analytical question - cui bono? (as asked in one of the articles I linked), and it makes zero sense that Assad would do that, and perfect sense that the US would frame him as having crossed obama's red line.
Except the US never reacted after the red line was crossed which debunks that theory. It was all tough talk and Assad called our bluff. Libya didn't do anything nearly as catastrophic as Assad and we imposed a no-fly zone there.
No it doesn't. Because the US government is not a monolithic entity, and Syria is not Libya. Immediately following the chemical attacks, the Pentagon began plans for a no fly zone. But imposing a no fly zone without approval by the UN security council is an act of war, and would have put the US and Russia at direct odds over a Russian military ally, as explained on live tv by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just a couple months ago, and countless others since it was first mentioned. Not that the US hasn't tried to have one approved....they have, and Russia vetoed it.
(btw - the same day it was vetoed, a Russian tabled resolution attempt at a ceasefire was also denied. Not that the previous one did much good....during that ceasefire, the US bombed and killed dozens of Syrian troops....which was 'coincidentally' immediately preceding an ISIS ground attack....USISISAF?...another oops....just like all those aid and arms drops that went oops to ISIS).
The only reason the Libyan no fly zone didn't get vetoed by the security council is because the more powerful members of the Arab Leauge (ie: gulf states already in bed with the west) wanted Ghaddafi gone as well, and pressured Russia and China to abstain or face repercussions (which obviously means oil supply issues for both nations)...
The kicker to all of this (and I've lost track of whether I mentioned it in this thread or not) is that Russia offered to broker a deal to have Assad step down in 2012. If the US's intention was humanitarian regime change, why was this not good enough? I'll answer for you, because I know you won't: because the US didn't just want Assad gone; they wanted a client state/puppet government installed. Period. There is no way to talk around this...
You really think Assad used chemical weapons on his own people just to call the US's bluff? You must think he is the dumbest motherfucker in the world...if you've heard him speak even once, you know that's not true. So it's that possibility, opposed to elements within the US and their allies doing something underhanded to gain support for a no fly zone; a precedent for regime change set just two years earlier?
Assad's military is dropping barrel bombs on his people. They are allowing Russia to carpet bomb his people. They are summary executing his people in the streets without trial. They are using artillery on aid conveys trying to help his people. You don't think it's possible someone in his ranks would choose to use chemical weapons at some point when they had access to them ... in a moment of rage or desperation?
Russia doesn't broker anything. Russia takes what it wants. And when Russia does something in broad daylight and you call them on it, they smugly smile and say "What we do? I think not."
Russia wants and has achieved a client state in Syria.
this is simply not factual and doesn't make any sense ...
look at a map of the enitre middle east ... who's leading which country because russia wants it to? ... saudi arabia? ... iraq? ... lebanon? ... who's got the bigger history of aggression and invasion and imposing puppet gov'ts ...
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
You've been around long enough to know that at some point in the 80's, during the twilight of the cold war, little Jason P woke up with morning wood for Russia and has never been successful at rubbing it away...well, that and nationalism making him adverse to criticism of his country. You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo! I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
I have no problem critiquing the US. But I don't understand how you can grandstand for Russia when they are ethically much worse and their form of government has failed and continues to fail and only moves on due to repression.
based on what historical facts? ... did russia overthrow iran? ... did russia go into iraq and create isis and al qaeda? ... did russia fuck up latin america and render it a 3rd world state for centuries? ...
russia may indeed be shitty ... but there is no singular shitty country more assholish than the US ... history and facts dictate that ...
Most of that is just more ad hominem. Being a lifelong critic of something makes a person more qualified to comment, not less. As for your question...the rocket range is not the only thing casting doubts on the claim it was Assad behind the chemical attacks, if there were even weapons grade chemicals used at all...but I don't think there is a large community of rocket scientists and weapons inspectors willing to go against Kerry. If you're wondering why, ask David Kelly. (More conspiracy for ya). Carla Del Ponte (UN weapons inspector) is on record with her doubts of the legitimacy of the claims. https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE94409Z20130505?client=safari
Combine this info and these opinions with the always-important analytical question - cui bono? (as asked in one of the articles I linked), and it makes zero sense that Assad would do that, and perfect sense that the US would frame him as having crossed obama's red line.
Except the US never reacted after the red line was crossed which debunks that theory. It was all tough talk and Assad called our bluff. Libya didn't do anything nearly as catastrophic as Assad and we imposed a no-fly zone there.
No it doesn't. Because the US government is not a monolithic entity, and Syria is not Libya. Immediately following the chemical attacks, the Pentagon began plans for a no fly zone. But imposing a no fly zone without approval by the UN security council is an act of war, and would have put the US and Russia at direct odds over a Russian military ally, as explained on live tv by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just a couple months ago, and countless others since it was first mentioned. Not that the US hasn't tried to have one approved....they have, and Russia vetoed it.
(btw - the same day it was vetoed, a Russian tabled resolution attempt at a ceasefire was also denied. Not that the previous one did much good....during that ceasefire, the US bombed and killed dozens of Syrian troops....which was 'coincidentally' immediately preceding an ISIS ground attack....USISISAF?...another oops....just like all those aid and arms drops that went oops to ISIS).
The only reason the Libyan no fly zone didn't get vetoed by the security council is because the more powerful members of the Arab Leauge (ie: gulf states already in bed with the west) wanted Ghaddafi gone as well, and pressured Russia and China to abstain or face repercussions (which obviously means oil supply issues for both nations)...
The kicker to all of this (and I've lost track of whether I mentioned it in this thread or not) is that Russia offered to broker a deal to have Assad step down in 2012. If the US's intention was humanitarian regime change, why was this not good enough? I'll answer for you, because I know you won't: because the US didn't just want Assad gone; they wanted a client state/puppet government installed. Period. There is no way to talk around this...
You really think Assad used chemical weapons on his own people just to call the US's bluff? You must think he is the dumbest motherfucker in the world...if you've heard him speak even once, you know that's not true. So it's that possibility, opposed to elements within the US and their allies doing something underhanded to gain support for a no fly zone; a precedent for regime change set just two years earlier?
Assad's military is dropping barrel bombs on his people. They are allowing Russia to carpet bomb his people. They are summary executing his people in the streets without trial. They are using artillery on aid conveys trying to help his people. You don't think it's possible someone in his ranks would choose to use chemical weapons at some point when they had access to them ... in a moment of rage or desperation?
Russia doesn't broker anything. Russia takes what it wants. And when Russia does something in broad daylight and you call them on it, they smugly smile and say "What we do? I think not."
Russia wants and has achieved a client state in Syria.
this is simply not factual and doesn't make any sense ...
look at a map of the enitre middle east ... who's leading which country because russia wants it to? ... saudi arabia? ... iraq? ... lebanon? ... who's got the bigger history of aggression and invasion and imposing puppet gov'ts ...
Bahbbutt...Russia has military installations all over the globe.... errrrr wait.
Most of that is just more ad hominem. Being a lifelong critic of something makes a person more qualified to comment, not less. As for your question...the rocket range is not the only thing casting doubts on the claim it was Assad behind the chemical attacks, if there were even weapons grade chemicals used at all...but I don't think there is a large community of rocket scientists and weapons inspectors willing to go against Kerry. If you're wondering why, ask David Kelly. (More conspiracy for ya). Carla Del Ponte (UN weapons inspector) is on record with her doubts of the legitimacy of the claims. https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE94409Z20130505?client=safari
Combine this info and these opinions with the always-important analytical question - cui bono? (as asked in one of the articles I linked), and it makes zero sense that Assad would do that, and perfect sense that the US would frame him as having crossed obama's red line.
Except the US never reacted after the red line was crossed which debunks that theory. It was all tough talk and Assad called our bluff. Libya didn't do anything nearly as catastrophic as Assad and we imposed a no-fly zone there.
No it doesn't. Because the US government is not a monolithic entity, and Syria is not Libya. Immediately following the chemical attacks, the Pentagon began plans for a no fly zone. But imposing a no fly zone without approval by the UN security council is an act of war, and would have put the US and Russia at direct odds over a Russian military ally, as explained on live tv by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just a couple months ago, and countless others since it was first mentioned. Not that the US hasn't tried to have one approved....they have, and Russia vetoed it.
(btw - the same day it was vetoed, a Russian tabled resolution attempt at a ceasefire was also denied. Not that the previous one did much good....during that ceasefire, the US bombed and killed dozens of Syrian troops....which was 'coincidentally' immediately preceding an ISIS ground attack....USISISAF?...another oops....just like all those aid and arms drops that went oops to ISIS).
The only reason the Libyan no fly zone didn't get vetoed by the security council is because the more powerful members of the Arab Leauge (ie: gulf states already in bed with the west) wanted Ghaddafi gone as well, and pressured Russia and China to abstain or face repercussions (which obviously means oil supply issues for both nations)...
The kicker to all of this (and I've lost track of whether I mentioned it in this thread or not) is that Russia offered to broker a deal to have Assad step down in 2012. If the US's intention was humanitarian regime change, why was this not good enough? I'll answer for you, because I know you won't: because the US didn't just want Assad gone; they wanted a client state/puppet government installed. Period. There is no way to talk around this...
You really think Assad used chemical weapons on his own people just to call the US's bluff? You must think he is the dumbest motherfucker in the world...if you've heard him speak even once, you know that's not true. So it's that possibility, opposed to elements within the US and their allies doing something underhanded to gain support for a no fly zone; a precedent for regime change set just two years earlier?
Assad's military is dropping barrel bombs on his people. They are allowing Russia to carpet bomb his people. They are summary executing his people in the streets without trial. They are using artillery on aid conveys trying to help his people. You don't think it's possible someone in his ranks would choose to use chemical weapons at some point when they had access to them ... in a moment of rage or desperation?
Russia doesn't broker anything. Russia takes what it wants. And when Russia does something in broad daylight and you call them on it, they smugly smile and say "What we do? I think not."
Russia wants and has achieved a client state in Syria.
I’m not going to get into a pissing match over which side committed worse atrocities. But remember who is on your side. You accuse me of advocating for Russia… by advocating for the US in Syria, you are advocating for ISIS, AQ, JA-N, Saudi and Turkish intelligence et al. Please spare me the moderate rebel bullshit. If Assad fell, at the very least, we would have another Iraq with sectarian forces staking claims and civil war continuing for years to come....with, likely, a very secure energy corridor patrolled by US proxies. I concede that it is possible that someone in his ranks would choose to do this….but that would be pure speculation, and not the narrative pushed by the US at all. I’ve never heard this suggested in the media before – it is always ‘the Assad regime’. This sounds like backpedalling: you haven’t conceded anything in the discussion about the chemical attacks, but you’ve gone from ‘assad did it’, to ‘is it not possible that it was some guy who works for him?’. ANd the aid convoy...where is the evidence of this attack being perpetrated by Assad? Statements from the White Helmets? Again. Who benefits? How many military interventions has Russia had outside of the former Soviet Union since the end of the cold war? One. This one. The US on the other hand…. Russia and Syria have been allies for decades. It makes zero sense to portray Russia as an aggressor trying to win influence in a country it already had military bases and trade/energy agreements in place with.
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
You've been around long enough to know that at some point in the 80's, during the twilight of the cold war, little Jason P woke up with morning wood for Russia and has never been successful at rubbing it away...well, that and nationalism making him adverse to criticism of his country. You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo! I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
I have no problem critiquing the US. But I don't understand how you can grandstand for Russia when they are ethically much worse and their form of government has failed and continues to fail and only moves on due to repression.
Ethically much worse? By what standard? As polaris said….the historical record does not support that statement. As for failed governments…you guys just elected Donald fucking Trump. I don’t grandstand for governments…but I do grandstand against war propaganda. Just admit it man…you fall asleep at night hearing the words ‘I must break you’, and wake screaming ‘our freedom’s up against the ropes!’….
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
You've been around long enough to know that at some point in the 80's, during the twilight of the cold war, little Jason P woke up with morning wood for Russia and has never been successful at rubbing it away...well, that and nationalism making him adverse to criticism of his country. You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo! I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
I have no problem critiquing the US. But I don't understand how you can grandstand for Russia when they are ethically much worse and their form of government has failed and continues to fail and only moves on due to repression.
based on what historical facts? ... did russia overthrow iran? ... did russia go into iraq and create isis and al qaeda? ... did russia fuck up latin america and render it a 3rd world state for centuries? ...
russia may indeed be shitty ... but there is no singular shitty country more assholish than the US ... history and facts dictate that ...
Did the USA systematically orchestrate the starvation of close to 10 million Ukrainians?
Oh so now we act like these are different countries? So Russia gets to wash away everything pre1989? Putin wasn't a KGB colonel and a member of the Communist party?
Hard to prove "facts" wrong when articles cite Youtube and The Libyan Free Press (oxymoron???) to back them up.
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
well ... those are the mediums by which the msm is driving the narrative ... through twitter accounts supposedly written by a 7 year old girl in perfect english ...
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
You've been around long enough to know that at some point in the 80's, during the twilight of the cold war, little Jason P woke up with morning wood for Russia and has never been successful at rubbing it away...well, that and nationalism making him adverse to criticism of his country. You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo! I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
I have no problem critiquing the US. But I don't understand how you can grandstand for Russia when they are ethically much worse and their form of government has failed and continues to fail and only moves on due to repression.
based on what historical facts? ... did russia overthrow iran? ... did russia go into iraq and create isis and al qaeda? ... did russia fuck up latin america and render it a 3rd world state for centuries? ...
russia may indeed be shitty ... but there is no singular shitty country more assholish than the US ... history and facts dictate that ...
Did the USA systematically orchestrate the starvation of close to 10 million Ukrainians?
not in the ukraine ... but read up on what international sanctions in places like iraq, iran and north korea have done ...
Ah you are comparing sanctions to racial cleansing and starvation. Okay. You're right. The UN is responsible for the issues in North Korea, not Kim. Right....
Did the US commit a mass purge of their own people following a Civil War?
again ... this is simply not the basis of understanding ... if you follow along in this thread - you will see that the belief is that what you believe is happening in syria is in fact propaganda and lies curated by PR firms from the west to help demonize Syrians and justify US arming of terrorists ... assad has not committed a mass purge ... nor did he gas his own people ... you believe that because you need to believe that ... you need to believe that the US's foreign policy is based on liberating oppressed people ... when in reality you know its about dollars, pipelines and destabilization ...
Oh so now we act like these are different countries? So Russia gets to wash away everything pre1989? Putin wasn't a KGB colonel and a member of the Communist party?
first acknowledge the brutality and the suffering caused by US intervention in countries you had no business in and we can then talk about russia ...
I don't need to believe anything. I know damn well the US is imperialistic. But to say or excuse Russia's abhorrent behavior in the 20th century and say the US is worse is delusional and completely blind in the other direction. For every My Lai, there are 20 Katyn's that happened every day, orchestrated by the Soviets.
I don't need to believe anything. I know damn well the US is imperialistic. But to say or excuse Russia's abhorrent behavior in the 20th century and say the US is worse is delusional and completely blind in the other direction. For every My Lai, there are 20 Katyn's that happened every day, orchestrated by the Soviets.
Can't they both be deplorable nations? What changes if one is worse than the other?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Oh so now we act like these are different countries? So Russia gets to wash away everything pre1989? Putin wasn't a KGB colonel and a member of the Communist party?
More logical fallacies - false equivalence this time. And yes, in a globalized world largely controlled by a single super power, sanctions are a form of 'cleansing', and should be considered a war crime (collective punishment).
I have to wonder if you and Jason would even be commenting on this thread if it wasn't an opportunity to shit on Russia. You are the only guy here with a more engrained hatred for them than Jason. The point to be made here is not that Russia is the more benevolent occupier (like, really?)...it is that American exceptionalism is a fantasy. Fuck the (world) police. The US has no moral high ground from which to justify their imperialist foreign policy
Comments
How can you prove someone wrong if they are basing their decision off youtube videos and internet pictures? They have no concrete evidence. There weren't part of an investigation team. They don't have access to surveillance equipment and satellite coverage.
Plus the website thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition which is all based on internet conspiracy and no real evidence. You know what might make pulling off a controlled demolition about 1000 times harder? Flying a goddamn jumbo jet into the building you are trying to take down with a controlled demolition. Also, what if one of the planes misses one of the towers and you just left behind a shit-ton of evidence?
Also, you know what make justifying the Iraq invasion a little easier? Hiding some WMD's in a country you have complete control of. At the very least it would give Global Research Org something to try to connect the dots over.
I'm kind of getting off topic, but just providing a few low hanging fruit for example.
go through the press conferences of the US Peace Council ... those of Eva Bartletts and Vanessa Beely who are independent journalists ...
what I don't understand is when you look at the US history in terms of foreign policy - this is right up their alley ... you guys have been arming "rebels/terrorists" for decades ... why would this be a hard one to connect the dots? ...
try using your critical thinking on syria ... nothing the msm says reconciles with either facts or reasoning ...
(btw - the same day it was vetoed, a Russian tabled resolution attempt at a ceasefire was also denied. Not that the previous one did much good....during that ceasefire, the US bombed and killed dozens of Syrian troops....which was 'coincidentally' immediately preceding an ISIS ground attack....USISISAF?...another oops....just like all those aid and arms drops that went oops to ISIS).
The only reason the Libyan no fly zone didn't get vetoed by the security council is because the more powerful members of the Arab Leauge (ie: gulf states already in bed with the west) wanted Ghaddafi gone as well, and pressured Russia and China to abstain or face repercussions (which obviously means oil supply issues for both nations)...
The kicker to all of this (and I've lost track of whether I mentioned it in this thread or not) is that Russia offered to broker a deal to have Assad step down in 2012. If the US's intention was humanitarian regime change, why was this not good enough? I'll answer for you, because I know you won't: because the US didn't just want Assad gone; they wanted a client state/puppet government installed. Period. There is no way to talk around this...
You really think Assad used chemical weapons on his own people just to call the US's bluff? You must think he is the dumbest motherfucker in the world...if you've heard him speak even once, you know that's not true. So it's that possibility, opposed to elements within the US and their allies doing something underhanded to gain support for a no fly zone; a precedent for regime change set just two years earlier?
You are right about the source issue in Syria. East Aleppo has been held by terrorists for years, with no western journo's allowed to enter....virtually every report you see coming out of that area is terrorist approved. And. Ow that it's liberated....no western cameras anywhere to film the party..but hey...free press yo!
I'm not taking the bait over the continuing ad hominems against GR anymore. I'll just let him keep gassing dissent.
Here are some photos from Aleppo. The Google box is still showing only results from twitter accounts of Syrian Girl (partisangirl), and Sarah Abdallah (the lady I got the fb link from)
https://mobile.twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/811254612552544256/photo/1
https://mobile.twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/811314424996921344/photo/1
https://mobile.twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/811338811229818880/photo/3
(Geez I suck with images today. Not bothering to figure out how to embed pics from twitter. Someone else can)
Russia doesn't broker anything. Russia takes what it wants. And when Russia does something in broad daylight and you call them on it, they smugly smile and say "What we do? I think not."
Russia wants and has achieved a client state in Syria.
Party time! Like 1999!
russia may indeed be shitty ... but there is no singular shitty country more assholish than the US ... history and facts dictate that ...
look at a map of the enitre middle east ... who's leading which country because russia wants it to? ... saudi arabia? ... iraq? ... lebanon? ... who's got the bigger history of aggression and invasion and imposing puppet gov'ts ...
I concede that it is possible that someone in his ranks would choose to do this….but that would be pure speculation, and not the narrative pushed by the US at all. I’ve never heard this suggested in the media before – it is always ‘the Assad regime’. This sounds like backpedalling: you haven’t conceded anything in the discussion about the chemical attacks, but you’ve gone from ‘assad did it’, to ‘is it not possible that it was some guy who works for him?’. ANd the aid convoy...where is the evidence of this attack being perpetrated by Assad? Statements from the White Helmets? Again. Who benefits?
How many military interventions has Russia had outside of the former Soviet Union since the end of the cold war? One. This one. The US on the other hand….
Russia and Syria have been allies for decades. It makes zero sense to portray Russia as an aggressor trying to win influence in a country it already had military bases and trade/energy agreements in place with.
As for failed governments…you guys just elected Donald fucking Trump.
I don’t grandstand for governments…but I do grandstand against war propaganda.
Just admit it man…you fall asleep at night hearing the words ‘I must break you’, and wake screaming ‘our freedom’s up against the ropes!’….
US military police
Einsatzgruppen
NKVD
2 of the 3 were racial cleansing butchers. One was not. Take a guess.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
And yes, in a globalized world largely controlled by a single super power, sanctions are a form of 'cleansing', and should be considered a war crime (collective punishment).
I have to wonder if you and Jason would even be commenting on this thread if it wasn't an opportunity to shit on Russia. You are the only guy here with a more engrained hatred for them than Jason.
The point to be made here is not that Russia is the more benevolent occupier (like, really?)...it is that American exceptionalism is a fantasy. Fuck the (world) police. The US has no moral high ground from which to justify their imperialist foreign policy