If Assad is guilty of chemical attacks on his own people then Assad is evil enough to order chemical attacks on his own people. He would have been evil enough with or without Western involvement in Syria. No one can say with any certainty that these attacks, if they happened, wouldn't have happened under different circumstances.
I suppose that’s true...but is their precedent for assad using chemical weapons prior to the ‘Civil War’?
You guys and your WW2 references ....it's pathetic.
Can I bring up all of the turn of the century mass murders of US citizens during the labour movements? The 1800's slaughter of NA aboriginals? Stalin....
Funny this is mentioned... I think many here still think that nuking Japan actually saved millions of lives.
Well it did. You do realize that after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese war cabinet was tied 3-3 on whether or not to continue the war. Millions of Japanese still wanted to fight even after two atomic bombs.
No, it didn't. That is 100% intentional American propaganda that you're basing this on. Japan was only 2 weeks or so away from surrendering when they dropped those bombs. If Truman hadn't been a fool about them being allowed to keep their Emperor, which they did anyway at the end of the day, that war would have ended immediately without the nukes. In fact, those nukes had very little to nothing to do with them surrendering in any case. They were going to surrender because of the threat they suddenly felt coming from the Russian allies.
Give me the proof that they were two weeks away from surrendering. Show Me some credible document. If that was the case then why was it 3-3 even after Nagasaki? That isn’t not American propaganda that is fact.
The proof is found in more extensive research not spoiled by the bullshit American version of events. Try doing some reading about the issue and you'll find plenty of info about it from various view points, and the common factor is that the American line that you're touting comes out as a pretty obvious falsehood. Your demand for "hard proof" is a bit ironic though, considering the complete lack of any such thing for the version of the story that you believe. The only reason it was 3-3 is because of that Emperor issue that I mentioned (as Truman refused in order to essentially show off their shiny new bomb). But even then, right at that time Russia invaded Manchuria, and that is what was going to get them to surrender anyhow. This is according to all sorts of accounts on both the Japanese and the American military sides. Do you realize how many people in the American military leadership were against nuking Japan for these very reasons? And how contested those casualty estimates "had the bombs never been dropped" are? When Truman gushed about that aspect, he kept ratcheting up the estimates in order to make sure the American people stayed on his side, given the horrors that came out of his decision to drop the bombs. Just FYI, fun fact: your understanding of this debate places you in what's called the "Traditionalist School". There are of course many, many people who still believe what you are saying, and what is taught in the American education system (and in the Canadian education system too, FWIW), but it isn't for lack of evidence to the contrary. It shows off the power of nationalistic propaganda.
Just to counter a few of your points: estimates changed because: he asked Marshall about casualties that would be incurred in carrying the planned invasions through to the Tokyo Plain. The published version of Truman's letter states that Marshall told him it would cost "at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million." (61)
A plausible inference some observers have made is that the fact that these numbers were dramatically higher than those which Marshall had presented at the 18 June meeting with the President was probably the result of knowledge that the Japanese were positioning a much larger defense than had been forecast. (62) This notion carries a further implication that Marshall's statement was influential in the decision to use the atomic weapon. If true, this would establish a link between the intelligence reporting and the decision to drop the bomb.
same source about estimates: The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan had been constructed before the receipt of evidence that defensive forces on Kyushu would be much higher than initially expected. Even so, they were excluded from the presentation to Truman on 18 June, apparently because of concern over how the President might react. If, as the evidence seems to show, Marshall was indeed in possession of the latest Kyushu estimates at the time the detailed report of the Alamogordo test was being read in Potsdam (21 July), he would have known even then (a) that the overall number of Japanese combat divisions on Kyushu already exceeded what had been expected by the invasion date still three months away, and (b) that the number for the south--where the landings were to take place--was at least double what had been forecast. Under those conditions, it is not unreasonable, as has been argued, to postulate that Marshall could have--without stretching--responded to a question on expected casualties by citing estimates that he had known about earlier but had considered higher than he wanted to accept, or higher than he thought the President could accept.
same source
There is no record that any revised casualty estimates were actually produced as a result of the dramatically changed SIGINT picture of the opposing forces that an invasion would have encountered. But a meeting held specifically in response to intelligence showing a much- larger-than-expected buildup of opposition forces would not have been able to duck the casualty implications of that information.
same source
the original estimates by the Joint War Plans Committee and by MacArthur's staff had been produced when both groups were forecasting opposing forces only half the size that now awaited them. And even those casualty estimates had been purposely excluded from the briefing of a President who had said he planned to "make his decision...with the purpose of economizing to the maximum extent possible in the loss of American lives."
Ok I"m not going to research all night lol. I still think it was the correct decision since japan was not going to surrender and like I said, I have never seen actual proof that they were going to surrender in two weeks. If that is case show it to me and I'll change my mind. And I have a ba and 12 grad credits in history so I definitely know how to do extensive research. My senior thesis was published in some historical journal.
Post edited by mcgruff10 on
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
Holy cow! I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject.
Can some one either: -Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or -Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or -Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Holy cow! I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject.
Can some one either: -Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or -Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or -Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)
Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan. Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda. If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.
I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything. Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.
Holy cow! I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject.
Can some one either: -Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or -Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or -Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)
Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan. Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda. If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.
I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything. Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.
i'm questioning my education and job after this thread lol.
I think claiming both McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria is an easy way to ignore that there is some merit to what @my2hands has been saying. I don't think McCarthyism or anti-Russian hysteria is why he has been saying it.
Which of his points have merit that I have yet to acknowledge? Has he ignored any of mine?
JIM has found the Syrian government was responsible for several chemical attacks
Which is my point the last 30 pages or so lol
It’s been stated multiple times that they did so without following SOP for such an assessment….a sentiment echoed by weapons inspectors and American observers over and over….so their statements should be taken with a grain of salt. Have you acknowledged the blame the US shoulders for all of this starting in the first place? Even if Assad is guilty of chemical attacks…would they have happened without the US plotting his demise?
And yet, they were confident enough to officially state the Syrian government was responsible for multiple chemical weapons attacks...I don't think they would do that lightly... you either think they were just flat wrong, by some level of incompetence I guess, or that they knowingly lied about it, as part of some larger conspiracy to remove Assad.... neither of which I see as realistic... I trust their report and dont see any reason for them to either lie, or make the official statement without being absolute certain, that's not something you just throw around unless you're sure...
Now, US blame for the current situation in Syria... we talking destabilization of the area due to Iraq? some lay the blame on the Bush Iraq Invasion (which I was completely against) ... some lay the blame on the Obama draw down (something I fully supported).... I would say there is no Obama draw down without the initial invasion and the disgusting shock & awe era... that entire era and administration are horrifying examples of American power gone wrong in difficult times... that shit was crazy... a dark period in my countries history, no question
And of course there is the issue of imperialism, global hegemony, regional hegemony, regime change, soft and hard support for opposition groups, clandestine activities, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and other assorted American hobbies.... that's a very long and complicated conversation that I'm not trying to have on a message board... but im sure it would be an interesting conversation
Holy cow! I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject.
Can some one either: -Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or -Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or -Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)
Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan. Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda. If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.
I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything. Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.
i'm questioning my education and job after this thread lol.
Holy cow! I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject.
Can some one either: -Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or -Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or -Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)
Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan. Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda. If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.
I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything. Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.
i'm questioning my education and job after this thread lol.
I think claiming both McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria is an easy way to ignore that there is some merit to what @my2hands has been saying. I don't think McCarthyism or anti-Russian hysteria is why he has been saying it.
Which of his points have merit that I have yet to acknowledge? Has he ignored any of mine?
JIM has found the Syrian government was responsible for several chemical attacks
Which is my point the last 30 pages or so lol
It’s been stated multiple times that they did so without following SOP for such an assessment….a sentiment echoed by weapons inspectors and American observers over and over….so their statements should be taken with a grain of salt. Have you acknowledged the blame the US shoulders for all of this starting in the first place? Even if Assad is guilty of chemical attacks…would they have happened without the US plotting his demise?
And yet, they were confident enough to officially state the Syrian government was responsible for multiple chemical weapons attacks...I don't think they would do that lightly... you either think they were just flat wrong, by some level of incompetence I guess, or that they knowingly lied about it, as part of some larger conspiracy to remove Assad.... neither of which I see as realistic... I trust their report and dont see any reason for them to either lie, or make the official statement without being absolute certain, that's not something you just throw around unless you're sure...
Now, US blame for the current situation in Syria... we talking destabilization of the area due to Iraq? some lay the blame on the Bush Iraq Invasion (which I was completely against) ... some lay the blame on the Obama draw down (something I fully supported).... I would say there is no Obama draw down without the initial invasion and the disgusting shock & awe era... that entire era and administration are horrifying examples of American power gone wrong in difficult times... that shit was crazy... a dark period in my countries history, no question
And of course there is the issue of imperialism, global hegemony, regional hegemony, regime change, soft and hard support for opposition groups, clandestine activities, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and other assorted American hobbies.... that's a very long and complicated conversation that I'm not trying to have on a message board... but im sure it would be an interesting conversation
Well no wonder we aren’t getting anywhere...that’s the conversation I’ve been trying to have I don’t think you can talk syria without touching on those issues.
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
Good question who really really knows?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
Good question who really really knows?
See, that's just it. Unless you are on the ground witnessing it who is 100% certain what exactly happened. That is why you develop trusted sources and critical thinking skills, we aren't all knowing all seeing beings.
Some of us trust Russian funded sources and some of us trust Western funded sources.
I believe that Russia propaganda has for years been actively muddying the waters surrounding many world events with the soul purpose of confusion. Throw everything and the kitchen sink out there so nobody believes anything, you can't trust anyone and there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that is exactly what they are doing. The alternative facts era. Look at Crimea and the 2016 US election as at least two examples. Also look at how Putin came to power and has held power in Russia as another example.
And sadly, judging by your comments and others here their strategy is working.
I keep seeing the words ‘russian funded’ in association with virtually any source that doesn’t align with western positions. Am I missing proof of payment, or even allegations here? Asking honestly. Chussodovsky, Sarah Abdallah, Vanessa Beesley, Eva Bartlett and all of the sites that publish them...are they actually russian funded? Who is funding Max Blumenthal and Robert Fisk? Big difference between ‘on the take’, and ‘relaying the other position’
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
One simple question........
patience young padawan. That is four questions, and they are about as far from simple as it gets. I've already addressed the basic question, but I will again shortly.
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
One simple question........
My guess would be that even if that particular theory is true, regime change was never Obama's goal in 2013 and it isn't Trump's goal now. It is the goal of the so-called "deep state" and convincing a president to fully invade is taking time. Or something like that.
m2h: Not every attack can be viewed thru the same lens. It's been speculated that some have been fabricated by the white helmets to maintain their own relevance and funding. I've seen speculation that there have been attacks by rogue government forces. You could be right about the latest incident being a wag the dog thing. They may or may not be false flags. Maybe Obama didn't feel he had support in congress. Maybe there was division within the ranks. Maybe Obama himself was against intervention and was debating his Generals or lobbyists and missed his window. Maybe Russia's offer for Assad to step aside in 2012 was still being negotiated. Maybe Russia made it clear through diplomatic channels that they'd drop a nuke if Assad was taken out. Maybe Trump is colluding with Putin. Maybe Trump has no clue wtf is going on. Maybe the end game has changed to balkanization with Assad in power in a reduced area as a way to save face for all involved. Who knows. How am I supposed to know the answers to this? This is obviously beyond my pay grade, and you know there are a million possibilities....I DO know that there is concrete evidence of premeditation, and a publicly stated desire for regime change. Why are you asking me to tell you how your government has failed in their clearly stated goals? Maybe Assad has used chemicals. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I just don't believe it to be at all likely.....it makes no sense unless you just think Assad is both a homicidal and suicidal sociopath, which I don't think he is.
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
Good question who really really knows?
See, that's just it. Unless you are on the ground witnessing it who is 100% certain what exactly happened. That is why you develop trusted sources and critical thinking skills, we aren't all knowing all seeing beings.
Some of us trust Russian funded sources and some of us trust Western funded sources.
I believe that Russia propaganda has for years been actively muddying the waters surrounding many world events with the soul purpose of confusion. Throw everything and the kitchen sink out there so nobody believes anything, you can't trust anyone and there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that is exactly what they are doing. The alternative facts era. Look at Crimea and the 2016 US election as at least two examples. Also look at how Putin came to power and has held power in Russia as another example.
And sadly, judging by your comments and others here their strategy is working.
I hear you and I don't disagree. At the same time, the Iraq lie always looms large in these situations and it should. It isn't just Russia that has muddied these waters. The actions of my own government kicked up a lot of silt too.
I keep seeing the words ‘russian funded’ in association with virtually any source that doesn’t align with western positions. Am I missing proof of payment, or even allegations here? Asking honestly. Chussodovsky, Sarah Abdallah, Vanessa Beesley, Eva Bartlett and all of the sites that publish them...are they actually russian funded? Who is funding Max Blumenthal and Robert Fisk? Big difference between ‘on the take’, and ‘relaying the other position’
Chussodovsky is a known conspiracy theorist and appears to write for RT... which means he gets paid by RT... which means he works for and gets paid by Russian state sponsored media
Abdallah is a twitter "journalist" with no background, no credentials, no nothing... and could even be a completely fake person for all we know, but proof otherwise?
Eva Bartlett is a blogger on RT, which again means she is literally on the payroll... and is another example of someone with no credentials, that we really dont know shit about, that has been elevated to "journalist" somehow... I really like the "I Love Bashar" wristband she wore on her state controlled visit to Syria... seems like she doesn't have a bias at all lol
m2h: Not every attack can be viewed thru the same lens. It's been speculated that some have been fabricated by the white helmets to maintain their own relevance and funding. I've seen speculation that there have been attacks by rogue government forces. You could be right about the latest incident being a wag the dog thing. They may or may not be false flags. Maybe Obama didn't feel he had support in congress. Maybe there was division within the ranks. Maybe Obama himself was against intervention and was debating his Generals or lobbyists and missed his window. Maybe Russia's offer for Assad to step aside in 2012 was still being negotiated. Maybe Russia made it clear through diplomatic channels that they'd drop a nuke if Assad was taken out. Maybe Trump is colluding with Putin. Maybe Trump has no clue wtf is going on. Maybe the end game has changed to balkanization with Assad in power in a reduced area as a way to save face for all involved. Who knows. How am I supposed to know the answers to this? This is obviously beyond my pay grade, and you know there are a million possibilities....I DO know that there is concrete evidence of premeditation, and a publicly stated desire for regime change. Why are you asking me to tell you how your government has failed in their clearly stated goals? Maybe Assad has used chemicals. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I just don't believe it to be at all likely.....it makes no sense unless you just think Assad is both a homicidal and suicidal sociopath, which I don't think he is.
That is a whole lot of maybes and if's....
Why would you risk false flag attacks, or flat out faking attacks, for a "maybe" that is taking 7+ years in the making.... THAT is what doesn't make sense
A desperate leader taking brutal action to maintain power and not get hung seems like it makes much more sense than the alternative of 7 years of false flag attacks just to MAYBE achieve regime change, and then not even make an attempt...
And I'm being accused of not being able to use critical thought? Lol
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
Good question who really really knows?
See, that's just it. Unless you are on the ground witnessing it who is 100% certain what exactly happened. That is why you develop trusted sources and critical thinking skills, we aren't all knowing all seeing beings.
Some of us trust Russian funded sources and some of us trust Western funded sources.
I believe that Russia propaganda has for years been actively muddying the waters surrounding many world events with the soul purpose of confusion. Throw everything and the kitchen sink out there so nobody believes anything, you can't trust anyone and there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that is exactly what they are doing. The alternative facts era. Look at Crimea and the 2016 US election as at least two examples. Also look at how Putin came to power and has held power in Russia as another example.
And sadly, judging by your comments and others here their strategy is working.
I hear you and I don't disagree. At the same time, the Iraq lie always looms large in these situations and it should. It isn't just Russia that has muddied these waters. The actions of my own government kicked up a lot of silt too.
Thank you! A breath of fresh air to see some objectivity, some nuance. And it's not just Iraq. It's an easily recognizable pattern.
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
One simple question........
My guess would be that even if that particular theory is true, regime change was never Obama's goal in 2013 and it isn't Trump's goal now. It is the goal of the so-called "deep state" and convincing a president to fully invade is taking time. Or something like that.
missed this....careful man....deep state? You will be targeted with tinfoil memes soon
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
One simple question........
My guess would be that even if that particular theory is true, regime change was never Obama's goal in 2013 and it isn't Trump's goal now. It is the goal of the so-called "deep state" and convincing a president to fully invade is taking time. Or something like that.
missed this....careful man....deep state? You will be targeted with tinfoil memes soon
That's kinda my point though. To believe in all these false-flag attacks is to believe in the "deep state" and the like. Are there elements of the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus that want to take out Assad? Sure, but staging a chemical attack in order to justify that is a bridge too far for me. Remember, these are people who at the end of the day couldn't successfully stage WMD sites in Iraq.
I do think Assad did it. Can I prove it? Of course not. That doesn't mean I don't think the guy is guilty.
m2h: Not every attack can be viewed thru the same lens. It's been speculated that some have been fabricated by the white helmets to maintain their own relevance and funding. I've seen speculation that there have been attacks by rogue government forces. You could be right about the latest incident being a wag the dog thing. They may or may not be false flags. Maybe Obama didn't feel he had support in congress. Maybe there was division within the ranks. Maybe Obama himself was against intervention and was debating his Generals or lobbyists and missed his window. Maybe Russia's offer for Assad to step aside in 2012 was still being negotiated. Maybe Russia made it clear through diplomatic channels that they'd drop a nuke if Assad was taken out. Maybe Trump is colluding with Putin. Maybe Trump has no clue wtf is going on. Maybe the end game has changed to balkanization with Assad in power in a reduced area as a way to save face for all involved. Who knows. How am I supposed to know the answers to this? This is obviously beyond my pay grade, and you know there are a million possibilities....I DO know that there is concrete evidence of premeditation, and a publicly stated desire for regime change. Why are you asking me to tell you how your government has failed in their clearly stated goals? Maybe Assad has used chemicals. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I just don't believe it to be at all likely.....it makes no sense unless you just think Assad is both a homicidal and suicidal sociopath, which I don't think he is.
That is a whole lot of maybes and if's....
Why would you risk false flag attacks, or flat out faking attacks, for a "maybe" that is taking 7+ years in the making.... THAT is what doesn't make sense
A desperate leader taking brutal action to maintain power and not get hung seems like it makes much more sense than the alternative of 7 years of false flag attacks just to MAYBE achieve regime change, and then not even make an attempt...
And I'm being accused of not being able to use critical thought? Lol
I wouldnt risk a false flag... You're right, it would make no sense for me to do that. You gave a reason for the last attack - to wag the dog. Are you walking that back now? Conflicted? or did you just mean to say that the retaliation to the perfectly-timed-for-trump attacks were the only part that qualifies as a wag?
MAYBE the point is to just keep grinding down the enemy so that they are in shambles when focus moves to Iran or Hezzbollah? I DON'T KNOW, NEITHER DO YOU. Again - why are you asking me to clarify your government's openly stated desire for regime change?
Desperate leader taking brutal action to maintain power? You say this like the chemical attacks have occurred because he was surrounded by ISIS....which is of course, again, hyperbole.....less sensationally, I'm sure you mean to say that they are happening in areas where his forces have been on the verge of losing territory?...when in fact the exact opposite is true.
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
One simple question........
My guess would be that even if that particular theory is true, regime change was never Obama's goal in 2013 and it isn't Trump's goal now. It is the goal of the so-called "deep state" and convincing a president to fully invade is taking time. Or something like that.
missed this....careful man....deep state? You will be targeted with tinfoil memes soon
That's kinda my point though. To believe in all these false-flag attacks is to believe in the "deep state" and the like. Are there elements of the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus that want to take out Assad? Sure, but staging a chemical attack in order to justify that is a bridge too far for me. Remember, these are people who at the end of the day couldn't successfully stage WMD sites in Iraq.
I do think Assad did it. Can I prove it? Of course not. That doesn't mean I don't think the guy is guilty.
God. I'm not going down the 9/11 rabbit hole again. But I will say....there was no benefit to staging WMD sites. The WMD lies were used to get approval for the invasion. Risking it all when the invasion had already taken place, just to say atodaso would have been an unnecessary risk. I don't buy this consistent argument of incompetence in the US intelligence and military communities. We look at useful idiots like Bush and Trump and say 'as if they can pull that off'.....Everyone knows the US govt goes after the best and brightest in any industry that benefits those communities. There are so many examples of subversion, false flags, election interference, buying influence, coordinated dissent, assassination etc etc throughout US foreign policy historically....yet we are supposed to believe that this is beyond them because they're inept? I also said earlier that it's possible that it's not even the US govt directly staging the attacks.
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
One simple question........
My guess would be that even if that particular theory is true, regime change was never Obama's goal in 2013 and it isn't Trump's goal now. It is the goal of the so-called "deep state" and convincing a president to fully invade is taking time. Or something like that.
missed this....careful man....deep state? You will be targeted with tinfoil memes soon
That's kinda my point though. To believe in all these false-flag attacks is to believe in the "deep state" and the like. Are there elements of the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus that want to take out Assad? Sure, but staging a chemical attack in order to justify that is a bridge too far for me. Remember, these are people who at the end of the day couldn't successfully stage WMD sites in Iraq.
I do think Assad did it. Can I prove it? Of course not. That doesn't mean I don't think the guy is guilty.
God. I'm not going down the 9/11 rabbit hole again. But I will say....there was no benefit to staging WMD sites. The WMD lies were used to get approval for the invasion. Risking it all when the invasion had already taken place, just to say atodaso would have been an unnecessary risk. I don't buy this consistent argument of incompetence in the US intelligence and military communities. We look at useful idiots like Bush and Trump and say 'as if they can pull that off'.....Everyone knows the US govt goes after the best and brightest in any industry that benefits those communities. There are so many examples of subversion, false flags, election interference, buying influence, coordinated dissent, assassination etc etc throughout US foreign policy historically....yet we are supposed to believe that this is beyond them because they're inept? I also said earlier that it's possible that it's not even the US govt directly staging the attacks.
I don't think they are completely inept. I just don't think they are all-powerful either. Not finding WMD deeply damaged the U.S.'s reputation and credibility. I don't at all agree that preventing that would have been seen as an unnecessary risk.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
estimates changed because: he asked Marshall about casualties that would be incurred in carrying the planned invasions through to the Tokyo Plain. The published version of Truman's letter states that Marshall told him it would cost "at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million." (61)
A plausible inference some observers have made is that the fact that these numbers were dramatically higher than those which Marshall had presented at the 18 June meeting with the President was probably the result of knowledge that the Japanese were positioning a much larger defense than had been forecast. (62) This notion carries a further implication that Marshall's statement was influential in the decision to use the atomic weapon. If true, this would establish a link between the intelligence reporting and the decision to drop the bomb.
The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan had been constructed before the receipt of evidence that defensive forces on Kyushu would be much higher than initially expected. Even so, they were excluded from the presentation to Truman on 18 June, apparently because of concern over how the President might react. If, as the evidence seems to show, Marshall was indeed in possession of the latest Kyushu estimates at the time the detailed report of the Alamogordo test was being read in Potsdam (21 July), he would have known even then (a) that the overall number of Japanese combat divisions on Kyushu already exceeded what had been expected by the invasion date still three months away, and (b) that the number for the south--where the landings were to take place--was at least double what had been forecast. Under those conditions, it is not unreasonable, as has been argued, to postulate that Marshall could have--without stretching--responded to a question on expected casualties by citing estimates that he had known about earlier but had considered higher than he wanted to accept, or higher than he thought the President could accept.
same source
There is no record that any revised casualty estimates were actually produced as a result of the dramatically changed SIGINT picture of the opposing forces that an invasion would have encountered. But a meeting held specifically in response to intelligence showing a much- larger-than-expected buildup of opposition forces would not have been able to duck the casualty implications of that information.
same source
the original estimates by the Joint War Plans Committee and by MacArthur's staff had been produced when both groups were forecasting opposing forces only half the size that now awaited them. And even those casualty estimates had been purposely excluded from the briefing of a President who had said he planned to "make his decision...with the purpose of economizing to the maximum extent possible in the loss of American lives."
Can some one either:
-Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or
-Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or
-Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything. Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.
Now, US blame for the current situation in Syria... we talking destabilization of the area due to Iraq? some lay the blame on the Bush Iraq Invasion (which I was completely against) ... some lay the blame on the Obama draw down (something I fully supported).... I would say there is no Obama draw down without the initial invasion and the disgusting shock & awe era... that entire era and administration are horrifying examples of American power gone wrong in difficult times... that shit was crazy... a dark period in my countries history, no question
And of course there is the issue of imperialism, global hegemony, regional hegemony, regime change, soft and hard support for opposition groups, clandestine activities, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and other assorted American hobbies.... that's a very long and complicated conversation that I'm not trying to have on a message board... but im sure it would be an interesting conversation
As for Syria, I'm convinced little of that conflict makes any sense. But hey, we've gotta toss those bombs somewhere, right?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I have one very simple question....
if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?
specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?
or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?
Good question who really really knows?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Some of us trust Russian funded sources and some of us trust Western funded sources.
I believe that Russia propaganda has for years been actively muddying the waters surrounding many world events with the soul purpose of confusion. Throw everything and the kitchen sink out there so nobody believes anything, you can't trust anyone and there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that is exactly what they are doing. The alternative facts era. Look at Crimea and the 2016 US election as at least two examples. Also look at how Putin came to power and has held power in Russia as another example.
And sadly, judging by your comments and others here their strategy is working.
Big difference between ‘on the take’, and ‘relaying the other position’
I've already addressed the basic question, but I will again shortly.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
m2h: Not every attack can be viewed thru the same lens. It's been speculated that some have been fabricated by the white helmets to maintain their own relevance and funding. I've seen speculation that there have been attacks by rogue government forces. You could be right about the latest incident being a wag the dog thing. They may or may not be false flags.
Maybe Obama didn't feel he had support in congress. Maybe there was division within the ranks. Maybe Obama himself was against intervention and was debating his Generals or lobbyists and missed his window. Maybe Russia's offer for Assad to step aside in 2012 was still being negotiated. Maybe Russia made it clear through diplomatic channels that they'd drop a nuke if Assad was taken out. Maybe Trump is colluding with Putin. Maybe Trump has no clue wtf is going on. Maybe the end game has changed to balkanization with Assad in power in a reduced area as a way to save face for all involved. Who knows.
How am I supposed to know the answers to this? This is obviously beyond my pay grade, and you know there are a million possibilities....I DO know that there is concrete evidence of premeditation, and a publicly stated desire for regime change. Why are you asking me to tell you how your government has failed in their clearly stated goals?
Maybe Assad has used chemicals. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I just don't believe it to be at all likely.....it makes no sense unless you just think Assad is both a homicidal and suicidal sociopath, which I don't think he is.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/michel-chossudovsky/
Abdallah is a twitter "journalist" with no background, no credentials, no nothing... and could even be a completely fake person for all we know, but proof otherwise?
https://medium.com/@Brian_Whit/syria-propaganda-and-the-mysterious-sarah-abdallah-a-hizbullah-connection-bd6308975f6e
Beeley is another conspiracy theorist turned faux twitter/blog journalist...
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/vanessa-beeley-syria-white-helmets_uk_5ad9b6cae4b03c426dad48a9
Eva Bartlett is a blogger on RT, which again means she is literally on the payroll... and is another example of someone with no credentials, that we really dont know shit about, that has been elevated to "journalist" somehow... I really like the "I Love Bashar" wristband she wore on her state controlled visit to Syria... seems like she doesn't have a bias at all lol
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children
Its amazing all you need is a twitter account and people think you're a journalist that should be trusted
I may need a Twitter account and become a journalist!
Why would you risk false flag attacks, or flat out faking attacks, for a "maybe" that is taking 7+ years in the making.... THAT is what doesn't make sense
A desperate leader taking brutal action to maintain power and not get hung seems like it makes much more sense than the alternative of 7 years of false flag attacks just to MAYBE achieve regime change, and then not even make an attempt...
And I'm being accused of not being able to use critical thought? Lol
And it's not just Iraq. It's an easily recognizable pattern.
I do think Assad did it. Can I prove it? Of course not. That doesn't mean I don't think the guy is guilty.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You gave a reason for the last attack - to wag the dog. Are you walking that back now? Conflicted? or did you just mean to say that the retaliation to the perfectly-timed-for-trump attacks were the only part that qualifies as a wag?
MAYBE the point is to just keep grinding down the enemy so that they are in shambles when focus moves to Iran or Hezzbollah? I DON'T KNOW, NEITHER DO YOU. Again - why are you asking me to clarify your government's openly stated desire for regime change?
Desperate leader taking brutal action to maintain power?
I don't buy this consistent argument of incompetence in the US intelligence and military communities. We look at useful idiots like Bush and Trump and say 'as if they can pull that off'.....Everyone knows the US govt goes after the best and brightest in any industry that benefits those communities. There are so many examples of subversion, false flags, election interference, buying influence, coordinated dissent, assassination etc etc throughout US foreign policy historically....yet we are supposed to believe that this is beyond them because they're inept?
I also said earlier that it's possible that it's not even the US govt directly staging the attacks.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."