Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)

my2hands said:

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

Drowned Out said:

polaris_x said:

Drowned Out said:

tbergs said:

Drowned Out said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

What does the DC think tank Arms Control Association post about Jaish-al-Islam?

 https://southfront.org/syrian-islamist-group-jaysh-al-islam-admits-using-forbidden-weapons-against-kurds-in-aleppo/

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.

Like this?
 https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/20/journalist-safety-turkey
Turkey is 'the west'...I mean....it's not...but they're part of NATO.  If only Syria (or fragments of it) were too!  

Just ignore the illegal weapons part, all good.

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.

polaris_x said:

my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmask

just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...

polaris_x said:

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 ...

polaris_x said:

here is another version of the chemical attacks timelines with links ...

https://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2018/04/14/who-is-the-real-culprit-behind-the-chemical-attacks-in-syria-a-brief-history/

polaris_x said:

tbergs said:

polaris_x said:

my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmask

just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...

polaris_x said:

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 ...

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

polaris_x said:

tbergs said:

polaris_x said:

my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmask

just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...

polaris_x said:

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. 

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

polaris_x said:

tbergs said:

polaris_x said:

my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmask

just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...

polaris_x said:

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.

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

polaris_x said:

tbergs said:

polaris_x said:

my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmask

just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...

polaris_x said:

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.