Syria

Drowned Out

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.  

JimmyV

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

Lost Dogs, brother.  

Ah, thank you!  I have the CD, must pull that one out today.

my2hands said:

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?

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.

my2hands

Drowned Out said:

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

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!

my2hands

Drowned Out said:

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

Drowned Out

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

Lost Dogs, brother.  

Ah, thank you!  I have the CD, must pull that one out today.

my2hands said:

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?

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.  

Drowned Out

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

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?  

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

JimmyV

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

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?  

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.

Drowned Out

my2hands said:

Drowned Out said:

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.

Drowned Out

JimmyV said:

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

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?  

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.

JimmyV

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

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?  

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. 

JC29856

dignin said:

I guess if you don't trust Russian sources and don't outright dismiss more mainstream western sources that makes you an American cheerleader.....if so, count this Canuck in!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
Humanitarian Efforts!

The True Human Cost of U.S. Wars

Altogether, in the three parts of this report, I have estimated that America’s post-9/11 wars have killed about 6 million people.  Maybe the true number is only 5 million. Or maybe it is 7 million. But I am quite certain that it is several millions.

It is not only hundreds of thousands, as many otherwise well-informed people believe, because compilations of “passive reporting” can never amount to more than a fraction of the actual numbers of people killed in countries living through the kind of violence and chaos that our country’s aggression has unleashed on them since 2001.

The systematic reporting of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has surely captured a larger fraction of actual deaths than the small number of completed investigations deceptively reported as mortality estimates by the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan.  But both of them still only represent a fraction of total deaths.

And the true number of people killed is most definitely not in the tens of thousands, as most of the general public in the U.S. and in the U.K. have been led to believe, according to opinion polls.

We urgently need public health experts to conduct comprehensive mortality studies in all the countries the U.S. has plunged into war since 2001, so that the world can respond appropriately to the true scale of death and destruction these wars have caused.

As Barbara Lee presciently warned her colleagues before she cast her lone dissenting vote in 2001, we have “become the evil we deplore.”  But these wars have not been accompanied by fearsome military parades (not yet) or speeches about conquering the world. Instead they have been politically justified by “information warfare” to demonize enemies and fabricate crises, and then waged in a “disguised, quiet, media free” way, to hide their cost in human blood from the American public and the world.

After 16 years of war, about 6 million violent deaths, 6 countries utterly destroyed and many more destabilized, it is urgent that the American public come to terms with the true human cost of our country’s wars and how we have been manipulated and misled into turning a blind eye to them – before they go on even longer, destroy more countries, further undermine the rule of international law and kill millions more of our fellow human beings.

As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism, “We can no longer afford to take that which is good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to discard the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself time will bury in oblivion.  The subterranean stream of Western history has finally come to the surface and usurped the dignity of our tradition. This is the reality in which we live.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/04/25/how-many-millions-have-been-killed-in-americas-post-9-11-wars-part-3-libya-syria-somalia-and-yemen/

dignin

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

Lost Dogs, brother.  

Ah, thank you!  I have the CD, must pull that one out today.

my2hands said:

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?

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.

Nobody hear, that I can see anyways is saying that the US isn't capable of this shit too but the evidence in this particular situation at this time points to Russia being the muddier.

And I don't think you can compare this to Iraq, not the same animal. Again, I was protesting in the street here in Canada against the invasion of Iraq.

mcgruff10

dignin said:

JimmyV said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

Lost Dogs, brother.  

Ah, thank you!  I have the CD, must pull that one out today.

my2hands said:

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?

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.

Nobody hear, that I can see anyways is saying that the US isn't capable of this shit too but the evidence in this particular situation at this time points to Russia being the muddier.

And I don't think you can compare this to Iraq, not the same animal. Again, I was protesting in the street here in Canada against the invasion of Iraq.

Same here. I was all for Afghanistan but totally against Iraq round two. Those were dark times. 

Drowned Out

my2hands said:

Drowned Out said:

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

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!

Ok...so if you’ve ever had anything published by RT or made an appearance on the network, you are on the russian payroll.  Got it.  That pretty much eliminates all mainstream dissent from US/NATO positions. Here's a handy list of 2300 people for you to ignore in the future because they've appeared on RT.  http://www.europeanvalues.net/rt/
Useful idiots, according to this NGO.  Barry Sanders is a useful idiot x 5, apparently.  
Some of the people you and your sources have claimed to be bots have been all over media you would never bother watching, laughing about being bots...
Do you want to comment on the credentials of Blumenthal, Fisk, Pilger, Hedges (who has a show on RT), Hersch, and the credible critics of US/NATO actions in Syria, who seem to have difficulty finding western platforms for their positions?  Are they all paid russian bots?  Or are we only picking the low hanging fruit here?

my2hands

So again... 7 years of false flag attacks... for regime change... that's your narrative... so why hasn't it happened? I don't think it's really that complicated, your hero Assad has used chemical weapons, get over it... and guess what else, the white helmets are not terrorists... they are nobel peace prize winners...

It's amazing so maybe people think everything from the use of chemical weapons to the white helmets are fake just to take Assad out... yet there has been zero attempt to actually take Assad out

Im not going to try to change anybody's mind, its pointless. Call me when 100,000 US troops are on the ground

my2hands

Talk to the people from JIM... 

Halifax2TheMax

Drowned Out said:

my2hands said:

Drowned Out said:

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

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!

Ok...so if you’ve ever had anything published by RT or made an appearance on the network, you are on the russian payroll.  Got it.  That pretty much eliminates all mainstream dissent from US/NATO positions. Here's a handy list of 2300 people for you to ignore in the future because they've appeared on RT.  http://www.europeanvalues.net/rt/
Useful idiots, according to this NGO.  Barry Sanders is a useful idiot x 5, apparently.  
Some of the people you and your sources have claimed to be bots have been all over media you would never bother watching, laughing about being bots...
Do you want to comment on the credentials of Blumenthal, Fisk, Pilger, Hedges (who has a show on RT), Hersch, and the credible critics of US/NATO actions in Syria, who seem to have difficulty finding western platforms for their positions?  Are they all paid russian bots?  Or are we only picking the low hanging fruit here?

Tomorrow 

Halifax2TheMax

Updates? Or did rosanne call? Can anyone articulate Team Trump Treason’s Syria strategy? Tapping rocks to BS.

my2hands

Regime change happen yet? 100k US soldiers flooding in yet?

False flag my ass, suckers

Drowned Out

my2hands said:

Regime change happen yet? 100k US soldiers flooding in yet?

False flag my ass, suckers

Love how you sidestep the rules here by not directing these comments at anyone in particular.  There's a word for that.  A few, actually.  
Still waiting for your critiques on the work of Blumenthal, Fisk, Pilger, Hedges (who has a show on RT), and Hersch.  Or did you think there was some kind of statute of limitations on a message board, after which you could still save face AND do some drive-by cheap shots?  You're the only person in this thread using the words false flag, btw.