Syrian Civil War

[bud]

Do you honestly think you have any more credibility on the far fringes of the left than Beck does on the far fringes of the right?

don't lecture people on credibility argus.

you have NOT provided any proof on any of the crap you've written. your comments are rue-sque, but a lot shorter. instead of patting yourself on the back, start backing up your claims with at least a little more than "i read it in the newspapers and therefore i am right and you have no credibility."

Edited September 8, 2013 by bud

[Argus]

argus, you speak with such confidence.

even obama has not yet been able to show concrete evidence that the chemical weapons were used by assad.

There isn't enough evidence in the world, nor could there ever be, to please the likes of Putin, or you.

It's like trying to argue a truther out of the idea that the WTC wasn't blown up by the CIA.

[dre]

You can go back to the American revolution, if you dare to ever read history, and see the atrocities commited between Americans AGAINST EACH OTHER as they fought over whether to throw the British out. We're talking rape, child murders, torture, families burned alive, men nailed alive to doorways, gutted and thrown into pigpens etc. etc. This is how humans act when law and society deteriorate. That's why some people feel the need to intervene.

Yeah? And you think the US would be better off if a foreign nation started lobbing around bombs during THEIR civil war, and picking sides based on hazy and incomplete information?

And the intervention being discussed wont stop any of the things you are whining about, and a lot of analysts say theres a real risk it will make things worse.

People like you have no idea what civil wars are like, or how death begets death and revenge begets revenge. Fat and comfy and pig-ignorant of the realities of the world without a care in the world that doesn't focus on your own belly.

You just described yourself perfectly. You wanna sit back, have a few beers and watch cruise missiles fly from the safety of your couch in moms basement. And the people that dont think this is a good Idea and might make things worse and escalate or even broaden the conflict (which includes a lot of US military leaders). Well theyre 911 truthers!!!

[-TSS-]

Question, why would Assad gas his own people rather than gassing the REBELS? Think, if he gassed and killed all his people than that would only leave the rebels . I think there's more to this and since no knows who actually used it and many countries and groups could have, I think Minsiter Baird should quite down he views that Syria did, which may or may not be true.

The chemical attack must be something of the world record of the most ridiculous false flags.

[GostHacked]

Take a look at the map of Damascus.

Why would Assad launch chemical weapons in Damascus and the location of these attacks are less than 5 miles from the Presidential Palace. That would be like Canada gassing Ottawa when all the leaders live here.

[bud]

There isn't enough evidence in the world,

show me this evidence. i am not saying assad didn't do it, but there isn't any real evidence to show that he did. there is also the fact that the rebels have been accused by the UN fact finding mission, earlier this year, to have used chemical weapons.

why would assad, who has been winning the war, use chemical weapons that could end up being the green light to attack him?

stop and think for a moment and if you ever get a chance, show some proof that assad is behind the attacks.

[sharkman]

Now you are sounding like a 9/11 truther, I don't know maybe you are one. Applying logic to the fog of war is a risky proposition. Consider, if you will, how many times you though Bush was illogical.

[Moonlight Graham]

What boggles my mind is that most people in the media, and in Congress, seem to be taking the Obama admin's main claims as factually correct (that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack, and that 1400+ people died from it), without much if any questioning of these facts. Congress and the media (and the world) were lied to in the run-up to the Iraq War, so I don't understand why anyone would take any information offered by the US executive branch as reliable.

This is a good article about that (by a libertarian, not a liberal): http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/09/05/the-lies-behind-this-war/

[bud]

Now you are sounding like a 9/11 truther, I don't know maybe you are one. Applying logic to the fog of war is a risky proposition. Consider, if you will, how many times you though Bush was illogical.

do you always tackle conversations with irrational accusations to try to shut down the conversations?

do YOU have evidence that assad shot those chemical weapons? because the whole world is waiting to see this evidence. if you want, there is evidence that the rebels used chemicals weapons earlier this year. that's if you want.

UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria

can you blink for a second to consider the above? or carla el ponte and her team from the UN are wrong and they're "truthers"?

give me a reason to continue acknowledging you and conversing with you by acknowledging the information posted on these posts that question the validity of obama's assertion that assad did it, when there is no actual proof and when it's quite possible that the rebels could be behind the attacks, instead of your last few responses which go along the lines of: "duh.. let me guess, you're a truther and don't believe 911! i knew it!"

[sharkman]

Why bother to give you anything? I hope the approval of a stranger on the internet does not keep you awake at night. But the thing is, you have complete tunnel vision in regards to Syria. I am on record as saying i think it's the Syrian government, but I've said whomever is the guilty party should face the consequences.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Most people seem to want the kind that would be a slam dunk in court, as if that is that is reality. The proof that will never see the courtroom(as it would be considered an illegal search of some kind) are satellite photos, intell on who actually has the capacity to launch/use the chemical weapons, evidence of who used them, and analysis of the target areas, among other things. Satellite photos alone could be the clincher.

This is data that if it was released for your consumption, it would help dictators around the world hide their crimes better. It's not worth it. I doubt they can even show Russia.

Edited September 8, 2013 by sharkman

[sharkman]

What boggles my mind is that most people in the media, and in Congress, seem to be taking the Obama admin's main claims as factually correct (that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack, and that 1400+ people died from it), without much if any questioning of these facts. Congress and the media (and the world) were lied to in the run-up to the Iraq War, so I don't understand why anyone would take any information offered by the US executive branch as reliable.

This is a good article about that (by a libertarian, not a liberal): http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/09/05/the-lies-behind-this-war/

Do you really think today's situation is the same as the Iraq one, where chemical weapons were never used and just assumed?

[Guest American Woman]

What boggles my mind is that most people in the media, and in Congress, seem to be taking the Obama admin's main claims as factually correct (that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack, and that 1400+ people died from it), without much if any questioning of these facts. Congress and the media (and the world) were lied to in the run-up to the Iraq War, so I don't understand why anyone would take any information offered by the US executive branch as reliable.

This is a good article about that (by a libertarian, not a liberal): http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/09/05/the-lies-behind-this-war/

You do realize that Bush et al did what you are referring to, right? Which would have what, exactly, to do with Obama? If you thought Martin had been deceptive, would that mean you can't trust Harper? I don't get your reasoning here.

[Argus]

Now you are sounding like a 9/11 truther, I don't know maybe you are one. Applying logic to the fog of war is a risky proposition. Consider, if you will, how many times you though Bush was illogical.

"I want those people out of there! I want them out of my capital! I don't care how you do it but I want full control of Damascus within the week, or else!"

That sound like something a dictator who had already killed 100,000 people would say?

[sharkman]

Yeah, I'd buy that all day.

[Topaz]

Have anyone noticed that since 9/11 and the job of going after terrorists around the world is only in the Middle-Eastern countries. Is it for the fact of the location of oil and gas deposits, or those countries don't like the New World Order agenda and refuse to go along with it. Of course, there's money in war and in those countries, war would help reduce their population. Sad, really sad.

[Moonlight Graham]

Do you really think today's situation is the same as the Iraq one, where chemical weapons were never used and just assumed?

The situations are obviously different, but how sure are you that the Assad regime was the one that deployed the chemical weapons? Because Obama and Kerry said so?

[Moonlight Graham]

You do realize that Bush et al did what you are referring to, right? Which would have what, exactly, to do with Obama? If you thought Martin had been deceptive, would that mean you can't trust Harper? I don't get your reasoning here.

The US executive branch has lied on so many occasions in modern history that it's ridiculous, so my reasoning is that its word shouldn't be trusted. And it wasn't as if it was just one or two people in the Bush admin that lied, it was widespread corruption right through the admin. Why would you give the Obama admin the benefit of the doubt on this? That would be pretty naïve.

[bud]

Why bother to give you anything? I hope the approval of a stranger on the internet does not keep you awake at night. But the thing is, you have complete tunnel vision in regards to Syria. I am on record as saying i think it's the Syrian government, but I've said whomever is the guilty party should face the consequences.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Most people seem to want the kind that would be a slam dunk in court, as if that is that is reality. The proof that will never see the courtroom(as it would be considered an illegal search of some kind) are satellite photos, intell on who actually has the capacity to launch/use the chemical weapons, evidence of who used them, and analysis of the target areas, among other things. Satellite photos alone could be the clincher.

This is data that if it was released for your consumption, it would help dictators around the world hide their crimes better. It's not worth it. I doubt they can even show Russia.

okay.

so you acknowledge that there is no proof and it's all lip service by obama, biden, kristof, mccain, lindsey and the AIPAC entourage. got it.

even bush jr. made an effort to come out with 'something'. even though it was mostly bullshit, they at least made an effort.

i think you should change your photo of obama. he's a hero now.

[Topaz]

This morning I saw some of the interview Charlie Rose has done with Assad, and he has said, if there is evidence that we did this, then the US needs to show it and then he said, the US can't because there is none. He also said that IF the US attacks, then EVERYTHING is open. Asked by what he meant, he said its not just his government who will come back at the US. I wonder if he is saying Iran, China, Russia and terrorists group will be going after US citizens living in the Middle-East and Europe and any other places outside of the US. On the other side , Kerry is saying that people are thinking that the US is going to WAR, but they aren't. Kerry can't say that in my view because by Assad, if the US attacks them, its is WAR as far as they are concerned. I'm sorry 1400 people have died from the gas, especially the children but if the US goes ahead with this attack, thousands could die.

[GostHacked]

You do realize that Bush et al did what you are referring to, right? Which would have what, exactly, to do with Obama? If you thought Martin had been deceptive, would that mean you can't trust Harper? I don't get your reasoning here.

Foreign policy is the driver. Obama and Bush were simply mouthpieces for the policy. Same with Harper, he is jut the person in charge during this phase of Canada's foreign policy. Presidents and Prime Ministers change, the policy does not.

[Argus]

Have anyone noticed that since 9/11 and the job of going after terrorists around the world is only in the Middle-Eastern countries.

Have you noticed that the only countries producing terrorists are Muslim countries, and that the middle east is full of Muslim countries? No, I suppose not.

[Argus]

The situations are obviously different, but how sure are you that the Assad regime was the one that deployed the chemical weapons? Because Obama and Kerry said so?

How are you sure that Hitler killed all those Jews? Because of some biased information provided by his enemies?

[Argus]

The US executive branch has lied on so many occasions in modern history that it's ridiculous, so my reasoning is that its word shouldn't be trusted. And it wasn't as if it was just one or two people in the Bush admin that lied, it was widespread corruption right through the admin. Why would you give the Obama admin the benefit of the doubt on this? That would be pretty naïve.

Do you think it was the tooth fairy that killed all those people? Or what, they were actors putting on a show?

[Topaz]

Have you noticed that the only countries producing terrorists are Muslim countries, and that the middle east is full of Muslim countries? No, I suppose not.

Do You realize that the US is more into the business of the Middle-East, which is helping to create these terrorists. Why are they in there, oil. gas power and control, which ANY country rebel against.

[-TSS-]

Until recently I have always thought that Kerry is a sensible guy and I was so disappointed that he lost the election to W in 2004. However, in this Syria-issue he has been ridiculous with the "undeniable evidence" of the chemical attack. However, as they say: You sing to the tunes whose bread you eat.