Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)
Comments
-
My understanding of US troops in Syria is that there are only approximately 2,000... mostly located in Northern Syria to fight ISISHalifax2TheMax said:
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?polaris_x said:
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...benjs said:
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?dignin said:
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.benjs said:The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...0 -
Last time I checked the guy driving away the get away car is still guilty even though he didn't pull the trigger.polaris_x said:
oh dear ... how many times do I have to say that I condemn my country as well!? ... do you read anything i write man? ... how many times I gotta say it? ... WE ARE COMPLICIT ... the difference is we aren't the ones firing the missilesmy2hands said:
You do realize there are more countries involved then the evil USA, dont you?polaris_x said:
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...benjs said:
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?dignin said:
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.benjs said:The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
Your Canadian government either is right there with us or supports us... every single time... maybe you war mongering canadians need to get your shit together? Same goes for half of EuropeI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
damn ... someone actually posted the snopes stuff ... they are using the same mainstream media sources to discredit her ... do some research on the Al quds hospital attack ... the western narrative was assad bombed the hospital but the hospital was never bombed ... that is not hard to discredit ...Lizard said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/Big Bank Hank said:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/12/disinformation-conspiracy-trolling-syrian-chemical-attack/
The WHOLE Situation sucks as to where the the truth lies.....Humans have no good purpose.
P.S. http://https//www.factcheck.org/2018/03/meme-falsely-claims-exposed-snopes-com/
0 -
The next big scandal is going to be how YouTube is being used for fake news disinformation propaganda... I think it's actually worse than facebook
People are sucking that shit up... video after video and comment after comment of total horeshit...
Next thing people will think the earth is flat... oh shit, wait a second lol0 -
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...Halifax2TheMax said:
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?polaris_x said:
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...benjs said:
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?dignin said:
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.benjs said:The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
0 -
this is ms. bartlett's response to snopes ...
In December 2016, the self-professed “fact check” website Snopes also produced a smear piece full of logical fallacies on me. Interestingly, had they not, I might not have come across their article whitewashing al-Qaeda’s rescuers.
Snopes’ Bethania Palma opened with this teaser (emphasis added):
“The idea that victims of mass tragedies are ‘recycled’ is a common theme among conspiracy theorists, but there are international reports and footage of the Al Quds Hospital attack.”
In addition to the unoriginal use of “conspiracy theorists”, two different issues were conflated: That of whether people are being used in staged videos, and that of the al-Quds hospital “attack”. The conclusion following “but” has absolutely nothing to do with the first part of the sentence. This is a straw man argument, and is designed to mislead.
Snopes continued with things like “outlandish-sounding claims” and that I believe “international media are conspiring to fabricate stories of hospital bombings,” and that I refer to “all factions fighting President Bashar al Assad’s forces as terrorists.”
As it turned out, my outlandish-sounding claims were true. The al-Quds hospital was not “destroyed”, the “last doctors” theme was a propaganda ploy, as was the “last pediatrician in Aleppo,” and many other ruses. Indeed, international media did conspire to fabricate stories, such as that on Omran Daqneesh, and also on Bana al-Abed.
The international media did conspire to claim that Assad was starving civilians in Aleppo, which was laid to rest when media actually spoke to civilians (and not terrorist mouthpieces) after Aleppo’s liberation.
The international media also conspired along the same lines regarding Madaya. I went to Madaya this June and learned the same sordid realities (starvation, torture, imprisonment) that civilians endured in Aleppo, due to al-Qaeda and affiliated extremists. The international media continue to conspire, with the same tired claims.
Snopes stated, regarding Syria’s 2014 Presidential election: “Voting in that election only took place in government-held territories.”
False. Voting occurred also in neighbouring Lebanon, where I witnessed the first of two days of mass-turnout of Syrians to vote. Syrians in countries like Canada which has closed the Syrian embassy flew to Damascus airport just for the right to vote.
Snopes also neglected to mention that, in their efforts to bring “democracy” to Syria, “moderates” shelled voting stations throughout Syria on June 3, firing 151 shells on Damascus alone, killing at least 5 and maiming 33 Syrians,” in Damascus, as I wrote in 2014.
As for whether forces fighting the Syrian army and civilians are terrorists, I have heard this repeatedly from civilians in Syria themselves, like this civilian in Aleppo in June 2017. Whether FSA, al-Qaeda, al-Zenki or another shade of extremist, they all commit acts of terrorism against Syrian civilians.
Snopes then strangely pointed out the following, as if I would refute it: “Bartlett has a statement on her own web site:
‘I support Syria against a ‘civil’ war that is funded, armed and planned by the western powers and their regional allies with a view to wiping out all resistance to imperialism in the Middle East…’.”
Indeed, I did have it on my blog, and one can still see it among my Facebook cover photos. Thanks for sharing that, Snopes! Incidentally, Qatar’s former PM admitted this as well, noting Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey had been coordinating with America and sending weapons to militants since events began in 2011. What a dang conspiracy theorist the former Qatari Prime Minister is! Almost as conspiratorial as the former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, who noted (video here):
“I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria.
This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.
Naturally, I refused, I said I’m French, that doesn’t interest me….This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned.”
Otherwise, in their “fact check” Snopes repeated points I’ve already addressed above, including about the Quds hospital, which Snopes neglected to mention that MSF had said was “destroyed”. Thus, the explanation that it was somehow risen from the rubble and working anew in September is simply illogical. It was “destroyed”, remember? Reduced “to rubble”, said MSF.
0 -
BTW - the Barzah Research Facility that was bombed yesterday which the US claimed was a chemical weapons store was inspected for the 2nd time just last year by the OPCW ... with nothing suspicious found .. but hey ... let's fire off some $1.8 million dollar missiles ...
0 -
Like I said, you need to understand the capability of weapons systems. Less time on Yoitube, more time on war machination. And you didn’t answer my question.polaris_x said:
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...Halifax2TheMax said:
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?polaris_x said:
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...benjs said:
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?dignin said:
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.benjs said:The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Does Russia have any or some of those weapons capabilities?polaris_x said:
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...Halifax2TheMax said:
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?polaris_x said:
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...benjs said:
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?dignin said:
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.benjs said:The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb into peace.....MFMeltdown99 said:Who is involved in just about every world conflict since the end of WW2? America has no interest in peace.
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
http://www.middleeasteye.net/in-depth/features/syria-torture-victim-teaching-sweden-happiness-1920328012
I'm sure this guy is actually a CIA plant... or a "Terrorist" just spreading anti-Assad propaganda
0 -
-
Let me guess, NPR is bullshit too?0
-
Some people may want to read this... even though its western media (oh no!)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/lesson-from-syria-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-theories-alt-right
0 -
You do realize the OPCW investigated and confirmed the previous chemical attack was legit and that the Syrian government used Sarin gas in that attack... the infamous red line attack... afterwards Syria agreed to get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile... of course that was supposed to be supervised and handled by Russia lolpolaris_x said:BTW - the Barzah Research Facility that was bombed yesterday which the US claimed was a chemical weapons store was inspected for the 2nd time just last year by the OPCW ... with nothing suspicious found .. but hey ... let's fire off some $1.8 million dollar missiles ...
Is that bullshit too?0 -
Here is a little tidbit on Eva Bartlett and some of her claims...
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children
And of course, she writes a blog for the state funded Russian media outlet Russia Today (RT)!!!! Bwahahahaha
From what I can tell she isn't even a fucking journalist... this is who you're hitching your wagon too? Give me a fucking break, all your bullshit conspiracy theories are coming from an RT blogger? Infowars started the bullshit White Helmets nonsense well... not to mention these weak ass conspiracies fall apart with just minimal research
You are sucking down fake news and propaganda... its warping you... open your eyes0 -
6 degrees of separation. .....my2hands said:Let me guess, NPR is bullshit too? D
NPR is American mainstream media
American media is controlled and owned by the Jews
The Jews control Israel which is next to Syria
Israel controls the U.S. govt.
Syria is led by the peacemaker Assad
The U.S. Bombed Syria
0 -
sorry what question was that? ... how many troops are in syria? ... reports are not clear as some have said that us troops occupy about 1/3 of syria now ... I know they've been part of the so called ooalition in raqqa from the get go so they will be in the north for sure ...Halifax2TheMax said:
Like I said, you need to understand the capability of weapons systems. Less time on Yoitube, more time on war machination. And you didn’t answer my question.polaris_x said:
all the news outlets are calling the strikes on chemical weapons stores or production facilities ... not sure how bombing that would be considered safe for nearby people ...Halifax2TheMax said:
You need to better understand the production, storage, delivery, destruction and types of arms used before you pass judgement on whether it makes sense. Do you know how many US troops are in Syria and where they’re located? So how dangerous was it for them? Also, what’s the west’s Ultimate end game, from the both sides, not blinded by mainstream media, critical thinking perspective?polaris_x said:
blowing up a chemical weapons factory is about as intelligent as blowing up a nuclear missile ... if the americans did indeed blow up a chemical weapons store - then it unleashed toxic chemicals that would not only impact civilians but american soldiers and neighbouring countries ...benjs said:
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?dignin said:
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.benjs said:The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
based on people actually visiting the bomb sites today - it's clear they weren't chemical weapons stores ...
so what is it? ... this is a no-win situation for the US ...
so, why don't you educate me on weapons systems and tell me how bombing what was declared to be chemical weapons production facilities would be safe for the people around there ...
0 -
Occupy? Now the US is an occupying force in Syria? Lol0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M
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