I'm not attacking anybody... I'm attacking nonsense fake news propaganda... cheerleading for Assad the Peacemaker... I mean c'mon
If you cared so much about the Syrian people you would show a little more concern for them being oppressed, tortured, murdered, incarcerated, raped, bombed, and gassed by their own leader and government, who has also invited the Russian military to the slaughter party...
You refuse to recognize basic facts such as Arab spring protests, the resulting crackdown, international reporters being on the ground in Syria at any time, documented atrocities committed by the Assad regime, use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and your star witness being a blogger for RT who's an Assad/Putin lapdog...
Now, as far as the destabilization of the region by western meddling and the invasion of Iraq, we agree... but we all know that shit goes way back... red lining... the shah... etc... etc... etc... but anyway, I didn't support the Iraq war... still dont... haven't supported any war in my lifetime really... I think W and Cheney are legitimate war criminals for the authorization/ordering of torture and black sites... I think Guantanamo is fucking disgusting and a violation of basic human civil rights... I was alive and well in those years and posted here, so you can see I've been consistent on that from jump street... im no johnny come lately... but just because Nazi Germany and Euro Fascism ultimately grew out of the ashes of WW1 and international isolationism doesn't mean you ignore the problem because it could have been avoided... evil simply cannot be ignored
Also, you've never seen me advocate for any missile strike or military strike of any kind... I honestly dont know what I would support or what's appropriate in this situation... but I believe there are times in life when the powerful need to protect the powerless...
The same reason society needs police, who sometimes have to take drastic action with deadly force, the world is not currently some magical utopia where all 7 billion of us get along and smoke joints around a camp fire, unfortunately... we can talk about peace all we want... we can dream like John Lennon... but unfortunately its still just a fucking dream, to think otherwise is naive and unrealistic...
I believe in love... I believe in peace... but I know the opposite also exists in this world
Just be glad none of us need a gasmask
what do you want me to say? ... i've already told you that i don't believe that narrative ... i've given you a plethora of evidence ... independent journalists, official church groups in syria, people no one would accuse of being a russian bot ... i've shown you an independent analyst debunking a bbc piece where they staged an attack ... i've shown on the ground reporting ... on top of all that - all these chemical attacks have never been proven and make no sense to anyone ... we have retired military personnel from the UK and the US who don't believe in these false flags ... even the msm has reported that the terrorists in syria have used chemical weapons ... but yet, you refused to believe that maybe Assad isn't a murderer?
you just continue to say the same things ... propaganda, fake news, russian trolls ... where is the critical thinking? ... how do you respond when robert fisk says there was no chemical attack? ...
actually ... i really only have one question ... why do you (and others) want to believe so bad that Assad is an evil dictator!?? ... why? ... what is it? ... it's clear you (nor I) really know ... all we can do is look at the information available to us and decide ... but you refuse to look at the other side ... I don't understand that at all ... it's mind boggling to me that people are so convinced with a narrative that has proven time and time again to be false ..
i speak of libya here ... would you disagree there is suffering there? ... i speak of yemen - do you think that is a good situation where the saudis use white phosphorous on the civilians? ... it's in all these places that i drives me to educate myself ...
if you truly believe in peace ... you would think you would listen to what the US peace council believes or the Canadian Peace Congress ... or at the very least explore all the information so that what you allow to occur in the name of your country is just and right ...
THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Western countries accused Moscow on Monday of preventing inspectors from reaching the site of a suspected poison gas attack in Syria and said Russians or Syrians may have tampered with evidence on the ground.
The United States, Britain and France launched air strikes on Saturday against what they described as three Syrian chemical weapons targets in retaliation for a suspected gas attack that killed scores of people in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7.
Syria and its ally Russia deny using poison gas during their offensive this month, in which they seized the town that had been the last major rebel stronghold near the capital.
Inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) went to Syria last week to inspect the Douma site but have yet to gain access to the town, which is now under government control after the rebels withdrew.
"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site," U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward said at a meeting of the OPCW in The Hague on Monday.
"It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation," he said. His comments at the closed-door meeting were obtained by Reuters.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denied that Moscow had interfered with any evidence: "I can guarantee that Russia has not tampered with the site," he told the BBC in an interview.
Earlier, Britain's delegation to the OPCW accused Russia and the Syrian government of preventing the international watchdog's inspectors from reaching Douma.
The inspectors aim to collect samples, interview witnesses and document evidence to determine whether banned toxic munitions were used, although they are not permitted to assign blame for the attack.
"Unfettered access is essential," the British delegation said in a statement. "Russia and Syria must cooperate."
Moscow blamed the delay on the Western air strikes. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the British accusation that Russia was to blame for holding up the inspections was "groundless".
"We called for an objective investigation. This was at the very beginning after this information [of the attack] appeared. Therefore allegations of this towards Russia are groundless," Peskov said.
israel is bombing syria ... doctors from hospital are currently being interviewed by OPCW iin damascus ...
It’s not new news. Been previously reported on in the West. You know, where there’s independent media and journalists who don’t go missing or show up dead on the side of the road.
This topic really brings out the best of this place...anti-war people facing off against...everyone else. The centre-left/centre-right republicrat crowd, unified in their vilification of Assad. One side eyeing regime change/shift in the balance of regional power (without admitting it, usually)...the other side supporting some weird notion of saving Syrians with patriot missiles. Nothing like a good ol' bombing, and the russian bear to bring murica together again.
Is that what you see going on here? I'm not for forced regime change and don't think random missile strikes are the liberators of a troubled nation. Several here have said they aren't sure what the solution is so you can ease up on the moral high ground since you seem to think you know what's best. Are you bothered that so many don't see Assad as a good guy based on the presented evidence?
I have no interest in defending Assad, or any other politician. Im frustrated that people I normally agree with, whose opinions I respect on many topics, have resorted to pretty outrageous ad hominems against Polaris. There are people arguing the US position while still asking what the US has to gain in Syria. Shouldn’t that be the 101 of this topic, before picking a side? My position is the moral high ground, like most people think theres is. But I say with full confidence that none of this would have happened without US imperialism in the region. Further involvement, masked as altruism by those seeking it, only makes the situation worse. I don’t buy that there is any different motive behind this air strike, no matter the short term goal...the openly stated end game of regime change has never changed.
thanks man ... it's ok ... like i said ... i think because i've heard all the vitriol online before that I totally expected it .. i care only for the people of syria ... if we pay witness to the suffering of the libyan and yemenese - we should take pause when the same people want to do the same to another country ... that's all i ever hope for people here ... to not just blindly believe everything they've seen .. iregardless of the name on the website or the author - i fell i've posted compelling evidence that not is exactly what it seems ... but all I get is anger from some people ...
in any case - i appreciate that with no personal position on this matter you are defending me ... appreciate it ...
oh I’m sure you know my position. We’ve been aligned for the most part on this topic since day one. In the end, Assad should remain in power for now. I am 100% opposed to US military action in the region. I just know that no world leader is innocent, so like you I support what I feel is best for the Syrian people. Ousting Assad with no viable plan To support those people would be a nightmare right now.
Sorry ... truthfully, I confuse everyone here ... I'm for the most part singularly representing the "other side" and am replying to a lot of people simultaneously and I don't always connect who said what from page to page ...
Cool, I watched it, Anthony Bourdain is a much better travel host... what does it prove?
it shows that the oppressive state that some people have said the Syrians lived in prior to the war is not true ... she talks about phenomenal levels of religious tolerance ... it proves that in Syria jews, christians and muslims live in peace ... it's why all the relgious groups are reaching out to their international counterparts to spread the word about what is happening ... that the so called moderate rebels are terrorists groups that have publicly stated they want to create an islamist state under sharia law ... that's the side your on now ... assad aside - if you overthrow him ... that is who takes over ... we've seen it already ...
here is a letter written by the christian church ...
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
Syria lied and hid its chemical weapons program up until late 2013 after finally being outed. They then disclosed and turned over what they climbed was their entire stockpile, but that can't be confirmed. The amount they did turn over was destroyed in 2016. Do you think that after all those years of lying they just flat out handed over everything they had? It seems suspicious at best.
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
Agent Orange is technically a herbicide and not considered a chemical weapon even by OPCW standards. That doesn't mean it wasn't used negligently and with the knowledge that it could also harm people, but if were merely talking about chemical weapons then it's not. Napalm is often classified as a chemical weapon and estimates are that we dropped about 400,000 tons of the shit in Vietnam. Insane and horrendous.
Hitler actually refrained from using a lot of his stockpiles on the battlefield, but didn't hold back at the concentration camps so if you want to discuss who killed the most people, then definitely the Nazis; however, the US probably has the record for most used in war if considering Napalm. Both terrible historical records to hold.
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
Agent Orange is technically a herbicide and not considered a chemical weapon even by OPCW standards. That doesn't mean it wasn't used negligently and with the knowledge that it could also harm people, but if were merely talking about chemical weapons then it's not. Napalm is often classified as a chemical weapon and estimates are that we dropped about 400,000 tons of the shit in Vietnam. Insane and horrendous.
Hitler actually refrained from using a lot of his stockpiles on the battlefield, but didn't hold back at the concentration camps so if you want to discuss who killed the most people, then definitely the Nazis; however, the US probably has the record for most used in war if considering Napalm. Both terrible historical records to hold.
Yeah hitler definitely wins the prize with zykon B and carbon monoxide. What makes napalm a chemical weapon? I thought it was outlawed after Vietnam?
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
The fact that Agent Orange was dropped means one of two things - either the chemical's impact to humans wasn't studied, or the chemical's impact to humans was not a concern. Either way, that's chemical warfare. People didn't care about Vietnamese humans, and couldn't be bothered to check whether this chemical would screw them up before exposing them to it.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
The fact that Agent Orange was dropped means one of two things - either the chemical's impact to humans wasn't studied, or the chemical's impact to humans was not a concern. Either way, that's chemical warfare. People didn't care about Vietnamese humans, and couldn't be bothered to check whether this chemical would screw them up before exposing them to it.
Agreed but take into consideration that back then info wasn’t as readily available as it is today , the internet has played a major role in getting info to the public ..
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
The fact that Agent Orange was dropped means one of two things - either the chemical's impact to humans wasn't studied, or the chemical's impact to humans was not a concern. Either way, that's chemical warfare. People didn't care about Vietnamese humans, and couldn't be bothered to check whether this chemical would screw them up before exposing them to it.
Agreed but take into consideration that back then info wasn’t as readily available as it is today , the internet has played a major role in getting info to the public ..
Doesn't matter. Testing cosmetic products on animals occurred well before the advent of the internet. The same practice could and should have occurred with Agent Orange.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
The fact that Agent Orange was dropped means one of two things - either the chemical's impact to humans wasn't studied, or the chemical's impact to humans was not a concern. Either way, that's chemical warfare. People didn't care about Vietnamese humans, and couldn't be bothered to check whether this chemical would screw them up before exposing them to it.
There are claims that they were advised of the toxic nature to humans, but ignored the warnings and used the chemical anyway. It's one of those situations where they knew, but didn't know because it was inconvenient. I will say though that they also didn't care about even their own troops because they were pushing propaganda about how it was completely safe and US troops were being exposed without knowledge. The military are a shady bunch when you get to the upper echelon.
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
The fact that Agent Orange was dropped means one of two things - either the chemical's impact to humans wasn't studied, or the chemical's impact to humans was not a concern. Either way, that's chemical warfare. People didn't care about Vietnamese humans, and couldn't be bothered to check whether this chemical would screw them up before exposing them to it.
Agreed but take into consideration that back then info wasn’t as readily available as it is today , the internet has played a major role in getting info to the public ..
They had some knowledge based on the Dioxin component of the herbicide, but didn't care because it was being used against the "enemy". We have compensated our veterans heavily over the years for their exposure, but no one is helping the victims in Vietnam. At the heart of this, you have Dow and Monsanto. I hate them both with a passion. The chemicals they have created are most definitely a clear contributor and source of human cancers.
Fucking Russian propaganda bullshit. Just stop the nonsense, this is the same shit that helped get Trump elected.
Polaris, your sources are shit. Please, nobody buy into any of this.
I apologize for my tone and words in this comment. I should have been more diplomatic. It was not meant to be an attack on Polaris personally as some here have suggested, it was attack on his/her sources.
The simple fact is Polaris thinks that some of us have been duped and aren't looking at this objectively and I think that he/she has been duped and not looking at this objectively.
just quickly ... that timeline looks like its sourced from the same manipulative organizations ... if you are quoting human rights watch - it's problematic .. i posted all the OPCW reports on Syria ...
also note this ... Syria had chemical weapons no doubt but they've also been at war with terrorists ... possible that some of the stockpiles in the hands of terrorists before OPCW disposal ..
also look for Robert Fisk's report on Douma ... msm journalist from the independent who has been waging their war on Syria went into Douma today ...
Germany? Russia had the largest stockpile and the US was second, but both countries have now destroyed over 90% of their chemical weapons with completion expected by 2023.
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...
I wouldn't' consider napalm a chemical weapon. Agent orange had bad side effects but it was supposed to kill vegetation, there was no immediate effect on people so definitely a gray area on whether or not it was a chemical weapon. My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
Visit Vietnam and argue that Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon. If the side effects weren't known by American scientists (either immediate or long-term), there was no right for it to be dropped while still maintaining a claim of not participating in chemical warfare. That's negligence, plain and simple.
Yeah I should have included that I don't think scientists knew about the side effects at the time so when it was being used I don't think it was a chemical weapon. In retrospect it was a 100% chemical weapon. Make sense?
The fact that Agent Orange was dropped means one of two things - either the chemical's impact to humans wasn't studied, or the chemical's impact to humans was not a concern. Either way, that's chemical warfare. People didn't care about Vietnamese humans, and couldn't be bothered to check whether this chemical would screw them up before exposing them to it.
Agreed but take into consideration that back then info wasn’t as readily available as it is today , the internet has played a major role in getting info to the public ..
They had some knowledge based on the Dioxin component of the herbicide, but didn't care because it was being used against the "enemy". We have compensated our veterans heavily over the years for their exposure, but no one is helping the victims in Vietnam. At the heart of this, you have Dow and Monsanto. I hate them both with a passion. The chemicals they have created are most definitely a clear contributor and source of human cancers.
the internet has also been a big tool in terms of propaganda ... fake news ... I know a lot of you think what I post is fake news ... but I don't think anyone can objectively rebut any of it ... like, how do you dispute a well respected journalist like robert fisk when he says there was no chemical attack ...
strange going ons in douma ... OPCW says they can't safely get to the sites due to small arm fires ... they are being escorted by the UN ... but yet, all these other journalists were able to go to douma in recent days ... lots of videos of the underground tunnels the terrorists used to store munitions and hoard food ... those journalists were escorted by the syrian army ...
by the way ... the video here was posted before the alleged chemical attack ... dude calls it out because we've seen it happen before ... he fears it and rightfully so ...
Does anyone believe Assad gassed his own people, again, just when he has secured most of Ghouta? It reminds me of the Jackson 5 Santa Clause song, "I really did see Santa Clause, I really did, you gotta believe me" State Dept (who was quick to bandwagon blame Skripal poisoning on Russia Russia Russia with zero evidence) "the Assad regime must be held accountable....Russia Russia Russia ultimately bears responsibility". I really do believe it, I really do, you gotta believe them.
Erdogans' Turkey is "the west" because it joined NATO 70 years ago? There has been building pressure to have them removed, for some of the issues mentioned in your article (among other things), and you know it
C'mon lol
Turkey is not the west, that’s my point. Definitely not on the North Atlantic lol...I do know it, I was making a point. NATO is going to have to break with Turkey eventually....only way they’ll be able to hand the Kurds the O&G fields in northern Iraq, a chunk of Syria, and southeastern portions of turkey, for their service to the empire. At that point (or more likely after/while Iran is freedom’d), they won’t need Turkey in NATO any longer.
It’s not new news. Been previously reported on in the West. You know, where there’s independent media and journalists who don’t go missing or show up dead on the side of the road.
This topic really brings out the best of this place...anti-war people facing off against...everyone else. The centre-left/centre-right republicrat crowd, unified in their vilification of Assad. One side eyeing regime change/shift in the balance of regional power (without admitting it, usually)...the other side supporting some weird notion of saving Syrians with patriot missiles. Nothing like a good ol' bombing, and the russian bear to bring murica together again.
Is that what you see going on here? I'm not for forced regime change and don't think random missile strikes are the liberators of a troubled nation. Several here have said they aren't sure what the solution is so you can ease up on the moral high ground since you seem to think you know what's best. Are you bothered that so many don't see Assad as a good guy based on the presented evidence?
I have no interest in defending Assad, or any other politician. Im frustrated that people I normally agree with, whose opinions I respect on many topics, have resorted to pretty outrageous ad hominems against Polaris. There are people arguing the US position while still asking what the US has to gain in Syria. Shouldn’t that be the 101 of this topic, before picking a side? My position is the moral high ground, like most people think theres is. But I say with full confidence that none of this would have happened without US imperialism in the region. Further involvement, masked as altruism by those seeking it, only makes the situation worse. I don’t buy that there is any different motive behind this air strike, no matter the short term goal...the openly stated end game of regime change has never changed.
thanks man ... it's ok ... like i said ... i think because i've heard all the vitriol online before that I totally expected it .. i care only for the people of syria ... if we pay witness to the suffering of the libyan and yemenese - we should take pause when the same people want to do the same to another country ... that's all i ever hope for people here ... to not just blindly believe everything they've seen .. iregardless of the name on the website or the author - i fell i've posted compelling evidence that not is exactly what it seems ... but all I get is anger from some people ...
in any case - i appreciate that with no personal position on this matter you are defending me ... appreciate it ...
oh I’m sure you know my position. We’ve been aligned for the most part on this topic since day one. In the end, Assad should remain in power for now. I am 100% opposed to US military action in the region. I just know that no world leader is innocent, so like you I support what I feel is best for the Syrian people. Ousting Assad with no viable plan To support those people would be a nightmare right now.
Really glad to see you posting here again - I've missed your eloquent insight. Quite frankly, I don't know who to trust (and I think an argument can be made for skepticism from all parties), but until someone can explain how military action leads to positive outcome, complete with risk mitigation strategies, I don't see why military attacks should be the de facto action.
Thanks for the kind words, Ben. You are, as usual, spot on.
Comments
you just continue to say the same things ... propaganda, fake news, russian trolls ... where is the critical thinking? ... how do you respond when robert fisk says there was no chemical attack? ...
actually ... i really only have one question ... why do you (and others) want to believe so bad that Assad is an evil dictator!?? ... why? ... what is it? ... it's clear you (nor I) really know ... all we can do is look at the information available to us and decide ... but you refuse to look at the other side ... I don't understand that at all ... it's mind boggling to me that people are so convinced with a narrative that has proven time and time again to be false ..
i speak of libya here ... would you disagree there is suffering there? ... i speak of yemen - do you think that is a good situation where the saudis use white phosphorous on the civilians? ... it's in all these places that i drives me to educate myself ...
if you truly believe in peace ... you would think you would listen to what the US peace council believes or the Canadian Peace Congress ... or at the very least explore all the information so that what you allow to occur in the name of your country is just and right ...
here is a letter written by the christian church ...
https://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2018/04/14/who-is-the-real-culprit-behind-the-chemical-attacks-in-syria-a-brief-history/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
My guess as to who has used the most amount of chemical warfare would be germany, france or england during world war 1.
check that, gotta by the nazis during world war 2. there's your winner..ding ding.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Hitler actually refrained from using a lot of his stockpiles on the battlefield, but didn't hold back at the concentration camps so if you want to discuss who killed the most people, then definitely the Nazis; however, the US probably has the record for most used in war if considering Napalm. Both terrible historical records to hold.
What makes napalm a chemical weapon? I thought it was outlawed after Vietnam?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange
The simple fact is Polaris thinks that some of us have been duped and aren't looking at this objectively and I think that he/she has been duped and not looking at this objectively.
this guy pretty much sums it up for me ... and why I continue to post ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=miFOxXYFJuQ
NATO is going to have to break with Turkey eventually....only way they’ll be able to hand the Kurds the O&G fields in northern Iraq, a chunk of Syria, and southeastern portions of turkey, for their service to the empire. At that point (or more likely after/while Iran is freedom’d), they won’t need Turkey in NATO any longer.
Thanks for the kind words, Ben. You are, as usual, spot on.