Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)
Options
Comments
-
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.benjs said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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?benjs said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.polaris_x said:
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...tbergs said:
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.polaris_x said:
just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmaskpolaris_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 ...
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.
https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.josevolution said:
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 ..benjs said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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?benjs said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.polaris_x said:
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...tbergs said:
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.polaris_x said:
just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmaskpolaris_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 ...
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.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.dignin said: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.
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.
0 -
apology accepted above ... my goal, as stated all along is to provide a different perspective ... i don't take the aggression personally ...
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
0 -
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 ...tbergs said:
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.josevolution said:
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 ..benjs said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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?benjs said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.polaris_x said:
i'm thinking the US use of napalm, white phosporous, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc... not sure if du is considered chemical or nuclear ...tbergs said:
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.polaris_x said:
just remember who has used chemical weapons most in world history ... there's a reason why you don't need one ...my2hands said:
Just be glad none of us need a gasmaskpolaris_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 ...
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.
0 -
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 ...
0 -
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 ...polaris_x said:apology accepted above ... my goal, as stated all along is to provide a different perspective ... i don't take the aggression personally ...
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
0 -
#nowayjosejosevolution said:
lol now your onto this what happened to the Indictments on the HRC case ..JC29856 said: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.
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/04/280313.htm
0 -
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.my2hands said: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
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.
0 -
Thanks for the kind words, Ben. You are, as usual, spot on.benjs said:
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.Drowned Out said:
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:
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 ...Drowned Out said:
I have no interest in defending Assad, or any other politician.tbergs said:
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?Drowned Out said:
Like this?Halifax2TheMax said:
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.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/
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.
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.
in any case - i appreciate that with no personal position on this matter you are defending me ... appreciate it ...0 -
for kicks, I checked out the authors of the timeline. The original writer, almost immediately after starting the timeline in 2013, followed up with this blogpost: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 ...
http://lcbackerblog.blogspot.ca/2013/09/yuta-kawashima-what-we-think-we-know.html?m=1
In it he speaks of how ‘Through my own research on Syria (Yuta Kawashima, “Timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-2013,” last updated on September 3, 2013), coupled with a torrent of reports from world major media, national governments and international organizations, I could roughly grasp “what we think we know” about Syria. At the same time, however, a strange feeling came over me. Information out there seems to be deliberately converging on a certain point, as if the point was already determined in the first place‘...then goes on to discuss the attacks, the state-media apparatus, the similarities pushing toward war prior to invading Iraq, international law not favouring ‘retaliatory’ strikes, etc etc...
he wrote the original timeline in 2013 and essentially questioned the validity of its sources from day one.... It’s been updated for five years by the second author. Googled her name....found all of her blogs...for whom? Why, the completely impartial Brookings Institute, of course.
Duped? Honey pot?Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
Talk to the JIM0
-
Again, you guys realize evil america has 2,000 troops on the ground, right?
Call me when its 170,000...
Meanwhile, continue to support Assad and Putin The Peacemaker... that's really worked out so far.0 -
I'll roll with Noam Chomsky on this one...0
-
Cue the pity party ...my2hands said:Again, you guys realize evil america has 2,000 troops on the ground, right?
Call me when its 170,000...
Meanwhile, continue to support Assad and Putin The Peacemaker... that's really worked out so far.Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Pity party?0
-
thanks ... I think this is the thing ... all I really hope for, as I've stated many times, is that people think about this critically as this guy did ...Drowned Out said:
for kicks, I checked out the authors of the timeline. The original writer, almost immediately after starting the timeline in 2013, followed up with this blogpost: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 ...
http://lcbackerblog.blogspot.ca/2013/09/yuta-kawashima-what-we-think-we-know.html?m=1
In it he speaks of how ‘Through my own research on Syria (Yuta Kawashima, “Timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-2013,” last updated on September 3, 2013), coupled with a torrent of reports from world major media, national governments and international organizations, I could roughly grasp “what we think we know” about Syria. At the same time, however, a strange feeling came over me. Information out there seems to be deliberately converging on a certain point, as if the point was already determined in the first place‘...then goes on to discuss the attacks, the state-media apparatus, the similarities pushing toward war prior to invading Iraq, international law not favouring ‘retaliatory’ strikes, etc etc...
he wrote the original timeline in 2013 and essentially questioned the validity of its sources from day one.... It’s been updated for five years by the second author. Googled her name....found all of her blogs...for whom? Why, the completely impartial Brookings Institute, of course.
Duped? Honey pot?
I don't really understand why people are so invested in the Assad narrative!? ... they are unwilling to listen to alternative viewpoints despite the overwhelming accounts that don't follow that stream ... what scares me is these guys use the same mechanisms to dissuade dissention... calling things conspiracy theorists, assad-apologists, etc... widely used tactics by western states to shut down opposition ...
like i said before ... lies get harder to maintain ... like this is the narrative people are believing in douma ...
* assad just before liberating douma from jaysh al-islam and a week after trump said he's going to withdraw from syria launches a chemical attack against his own civilians ... of which 80% live under syrian protection
* that chemical attack resulted in mass deaths which the syrian gov't FIRST buried in the ground and then dug up and transported away so no one could test them
* that all the peeople, doctors and nurses and eyewitnesses that were there being interviewed are plants or have been coerced by the gov't .. we are talking about people just standing in the street ... doctors who work at the hospital
* that the reports from msm while interviewing the terrorists that have been kicked out is truthful
it's mind boggling to me that people are accusing us of being conspiracy theorists!! ...
0 -
you know what libya and iraq and syria have in common? ... they were secular states ... think about what that means for a minute ... here is a country where governence is not by islamist or some fundamental religious rule ... where christians and jews and muslims live harmoniously ... and the so called moderate rebels all want to impose an islamist state with sharia law ... how do people think this is good for anyone!???
0 -
Right, so America can only accept any semblance of fault, and can only accomplish regime change when there are 'boots on the ground', and it's not worth discussing her role unless it's a full scale invasion.my2hands said:Again, you guys realize evil america has 2,000 troops on the ground, right?
Call me when its 170,000...
Meanwhile, continue to support Assad and Putin The Peacemaker... that's really worked out so far.my2hands said:I'll roll with Noam Chomsky on this one...
So it's me or Noam? Did you read my post? His thoughts in the links you posted are contradictory. Which Noam do you roll with, bro?
Thanks for the effort, I can tell this took a lot of thought.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 273 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help