Syria and the US's Motive

CM189191 said:

.

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

Degeneratefk said:

mrussel1 said:

Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.

You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.

I would be curious to know who has killed more people in the last 84 days? Assad Putin or trump?

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

Degeneratefk said:

mrussel1 said:

Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.

You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

CM189191 said:

Someone please explain to me why the only military in the war room is the person watching the door?

Funny indeed but that isn't the "war room" as I assume you are aware. That is Mar-a-lago during/after the China meeting. The military people are on video conference from the Pentagon of course. But please...continue.

So it's been confirmed that this is indeed a meeting about the Syria mission in the so-called Mar-a-lago situation room. I am curious as to what your comment means here. Were you inventing a fact, trying to suggest this isn't the full gang of idiots behind an act of war? Or simply wanted point out that this isn't in the WH war room?

It's pretty clear what I meant and everything I posted above is 100% correct. No facts invented.

No, it's not pretty clear. You said it's a photo during/after the China meeting. It is absolute fact now that it is NOT during a China meeting. It is in fact the National Security meeting when they were discussing the attack on Syria. That was confirmed by Spicer. So what exactly is 100% correct about your 100% inaccurate post? I assume you are trying to say it is 100% accurate because you said "during/after" the China meeting, and this Syria meeting did happen to be held later on the same day of the China meeting? Hmm. I don't think that quite works man. And the reason I'm harping on it isn't to just try and prove you wrong, btw. It's because I think it is actually important to acknowledge/point out who exactly is running things when it comes to military actions.... and the truth of that point is disturbing at best.... something that you seem to have been specifically trying to mislead people about with your post.

See for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/white-house-photo-syria-briefing/

Drowned Out said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

Degeneratefk said:

mrussel1 said:

Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.

You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.

A massive number of people would die for your greater good. B movie villain shit right there.

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

polaris_x said:

CM189191 said:

polaris_x said:

CM189191 said:

polaris_x said:

another good summation of how people need to view the information ...

https://sciscomedia.co.uk/sarin-gas-assad-fake-news/

if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...

Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!

Who is this author, what makes him an authority on anything? How many shitty news orgs does he write for?
https://sciscomedia.co.uk/author/danielmargrain/
https://cultureandpolitics.org/author/cultpolitical/
https://bsnews.info/author/daniel-margrain/
http://mondoweiss.net/author/daniel-margrain/
https://normanpilon.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/danielmargrain/
http://guerillawire.org/author/daniel-margrain/
http://russia-insider.com/en/daniel-margrain
https://astutenews.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
None of them appear to have any credibility. Sometimes I think the critical reading skills are worse than the critical thinking skills around here.

uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...

did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?

any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...

where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...

So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?

"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."

"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."

Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.

And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""

Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.

So ...

* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then
* Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization

factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...

we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...

This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.

This explains how the holocaust can be evoked, no matter how weak the analogy, by shameless hawks as pretext to military aggression.

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

polaris_x said:

CM189191 said:

polaris_x said:

CM189191 said:

polaris_x said:

another good summation of how people need to view the information ...

https://sciscomedia.co.uk/sarin-gas-assad-fake-news/

if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...

Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!

Who is this author, what makes him an authority on anything? How many shitty news orgs does he write for?
https://sciscomedia.co.uk/author/danielmargrain/
https://cultureandpolitics.org/author/cultpolitical/
https://bsnews.info/author/daniel-margrain/
http://mondoweiss.net/author/daniel-margrain/
https://normanpilon.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/danielmargrain/
http://guerillawire.org/author/daniel-margrain/
http://russia-insider.com/en/daniel-margrain
https://astutenews.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
None of them appear to have any credibility. Sometimes I think the critical reading skills are worse than the critical thinking skills around here.

uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...

did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?

any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...

where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...

So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?

"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."

"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."

Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.

And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""

Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.

So ...

* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then
* Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization

factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...

we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...

This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.

This explains how the holocaust can be evoked, no matter how weak the analogy, by shameless hawks as pretext to military aggression.

This is a separate argument. I have no problem if somebody wants to argue against the bombing of Syria...personally I am for it...but the arguments against or the need for congressional approval are at least rational. What I have a problem with are those who want to deny that Assad used chemical weapons at all. It disgusts me frankly.

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

polaris_x said:

CM189191 said:

polaris_x said:

CM189191 said:

polaris_x said:

another good summation of how people need to view the information ...

https://sciscomedia.co.uk/sarin-gas-assad-fake-news/

if you're gonna decry the source - then I challenge you to find any faulty information and evidence of such ...

Wow, an entire article of: "I don't know anything, I'm just asking questions here!" It's like the broken clock method of 'journalism': if I write about enough conspiracy theories, one of them is bound to hit!

Who is this author, what makes him an authority on anything? How many shitty news orgs does he write for?
https://sciscomedia.co.uk/author/danielmargrain/
https://cultureandpolitics.org/author/cultpolitical/
https://bsnews.info/author/daniel-margrain/
http://mondoweiss.net/author/daniel-margrain/
https://normanpilon.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/danielmargrain/
http://guerillawire.org/author/daniel-margrain/
http://russia-insider.com/en/daniel-margrain
https://astutenews.com/tag/daniel-margrain/
None of them appear to have any credibility. Sometimes I think the critical reading skills are worse than the critical thinking skills around here.

uhhh ... talk about lack of critical reading skills ... i specifically said if you are gonna gripe about the source to then actually provide proof that anything is not factual ...

did your critical reading skills read the part about hans blixt who said there is no proof of syria launching a chemical attack? ... the same guy who kept saying there was no WMD in iraq?

any interest in actually learning about syrian history, poliltics and geography before continuing the buy the unsubstantiated lies the msm is peddling? ... because if assad falls - we have another country run by terrorists ...

where are the terrorists controlling more and more land and resources now? ... iraq, libya and syria ... all places the US has decided to intervene in ...

So why not link directly to the Blixt quote? Instead of this hack job?

"In an interview with DW, the Swedish diplomat said he could appreciate that most of world opinion, having been "rightly indignant" about the gas attack on Syrian civilians, will approve of the missile strikes. Blix says he thinks the retaliation was "measured" and specific, and he doesn't think the Trump administration is planning an "all-out war" in Syria. But he did, however, criticize the fact that the US made the decision to carry out the strikes unilaterally, hastily and without making a legal case that they were justified, which he refers to as the US acting like the "world's sheriff."

"I don't know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council," Blix said. "Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it."

Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it's natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.

And those distinctions matter, Blix insists. "If you had a murder and you strongly suspect one fellow, do you go to judgment and execution straight away?" he asked. "Three days after the murder?""

Proof of nothing is not evidence of something.

So ...

* Same claims made against Assad in 2013 - proven false then
* Syria dismantled all chemical weapons as overseen by UN organization

factor in sources which the attack was reported .. white helmets = terrorist group started by former British military and funded by US gov't ...

we are a week after and there is STILL NO proof Assad engaged in a chemical attack ... NONE ... only the same lies that were put forth in 2013 ...

This explains how Holocaust denial can still exist.

This explains how the holocaust can be evoked, no matter how weak the analogy, by shameless hawks as pretext to military aggression.

This is a separate argument. I have no problem if somebody wants to argue against the bombing of Syria...personally I am for it...but the arguments against or the need for congressional approval are at least rational. What I have a problem with are those who want to deny that Assad used chemical weapons at all. It disgusts me frankly.

No it's not a separate argument. You evoked the holocaust in comparison to the situation in Syria. And you support bombing Syria.
It disgusts me that hawks use the death of millions to scare people into seeing things their way. Frankly, even.

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

Degeneratefk said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

look ... anyone can google what they want to read ... and for sure it works both ways ... but give me some objective reasoning ... all you guys do is ignore based on the sources I link without actually disputing the information posted ..

Degeneratefk said:

mrussel1 said:

Polaris says ..."aha! There's no proof, ergo Assad is innocent".. the rest of us say... "aha, our intelligence sources and msm all agree that that Assad did it"...

And that all points back to the argument I was making several days ago. Unless you are on the ground, bearing witness, all sources have some level of bias. Therefore, you pretty much have to decide what resources you trust.

That's not at all how I read it. There is no proof that Assad did it. That doesn't mean Assad is innocent. It means the US had no basis for dropping bombs on a sovereign nation. If you have the proof and you're confident that you have bi-partisan support, present it to Congress and get legal approval.

You haven't read the raw intelligence. Nor have I. Nor has anyone here. I don't trust Trump one iota. But I sure as fuck don't trust homicidal maniacs like Assad or Putin. I don't support the military strike although it was mostly symbolic. But if Assad and Putin were killed tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Of that, I am firm in my conviction.

Nobody supported sadaam Hussein or his tactics against his own people. But to say the iraq or the world was better off without him is absurd. He clearly was against anything that threatened his power. Including terrorism. Killing him created a power vacuum that opened the door for isis. What the Hell do you think Wil happen when we assassinate assad?

I agree with this generally speaking. I was very much against the war in Iraq because as I've argued several times on these pages, many of the countries in the middle east are just western creations based on lines drawn to their economic advantage when the Ottoman Empire was broken up. Strongmen hold together disparate tribes using fear and terror. It's a case of picking your poison.

Except the poison of the west's picking was spawning worse poisons beneath the surface.

Maybe... maybe not. Is some local tribal warfare with occasional terrorism really worse than a bad state actor like Iran or N. Korea? Could argue either way.