I don't know. Are you trying to build a case against me for plagiarism now?
Poking holes in "Syrian Rebels" Claims about Chemical Weapons Use
- Thread starter moderateGOP
- Start date
SR1419
Senior Member.
ok Oxy you win...the former senators comments in that video were rhetoric and propaganda...but then again...since he is a politician, I would expect nothing less.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Obama and Kerry & co are politicians as well aren't they?
yup- as are Assad, Putin, Milliband etc...all politicians pander- its the nature of the business.
but out of work politicians who haven't been voted into office in over 30yrs yet still trying to run for president are not held to the same level of scrutiny as currently sitting politicians I guess...
Really? I didn't know he was still trying to run for president, that's amazing. Got any info on that?
Last edited:
Can I suggest that if you were as unbiased as you claim, you would be better employed debunking specious arguments, presented as evidence, as justification for going to war... yet again, rather than playing semantics such as "it may not be convincing to you but you can't claim no evidence has been presented".
SR1419
Senior Member.
He ran in 2008 and contemplated it in 2012 but could not generate enough support...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel
of course, he is not above accepting $20,000 to participate in supposed UFO disclosure seminar...
External Quote:
SR1419
Senior Member.
nice try. You made a claim. It was bunk. Thats not semantics.
That is debatable. However, it appears that you tacitly accept 'the claim' that Assad is responsible for the CW attacks.
Do you also accept the equally dubious claim that 'effecting regime change is not part of the U.S attack plan for Syria'?
BTW, was your claim that the former senator is still trying to run for president, bunk or can you back it up?
moderateGOP
Active Member
1. rhetoric? I only mentioned that I am a huge war advocate in the article. That's all the rhetoric I used. I think here you are replacing the word "rhetoric" with the statement, "I am right and you are wrong."
2. Can you please point out exactly where I stated this in the article. Since you put this stuff in quotes, I'm assuming you are quoting me. But re-reading my article and looking at it now, I do not see where I said this.
3. Again, point out where I said this exact thing.
4. I thoroughly debunked your assertions in my article. I pointed out that MintPress News is the one site that started this story with a bunch of quotes from people with one letter names. Then, the story exploded once Infowars linked to it a couple of days ago. There IS less evidence to support your theory than the US Government's! So, why do you support this theory? I would like to know why exactly you think the Russians, Syrians, and Infowars are more credible than the USA?
Your responses to this thread proves to me that you didn't read my article. You didn't read the link to the other blog that I posted (Which also debunks half the other YT vids you post or can possibly post about this topic). Why you continue to search for any number of radical crazy fringe sites to back up your conspiratorial viewpoint wonders me.
No idea what you are talking about. Please explain.
Are you a Neocon?
No idea what you are talking about. Please explain.
You debunked nothing. You linked to some rhetoric without substance or logic. Even the U.S admit they have offered no credible evidence that 'Assad did it'. They simply ask us to believe that they have the evidence but cannot or will not release it.
Are you really serious? Why is the U.S more credible than anyone?
Over 80% of the world and the vast majority of even the U.S public give no credence to the lunatic neocon warmongers. I suppose you, like Obama regard them as radical, crazy, fringe people.
moderateGOP
Active Member
Can you not follow my easy to follow numbered quotes (Which I did for you)? You said I debunked using rhetoric and then you listed a bunch of stuff which I never said.
So what do you think about Mintpress news and RT and the Syrian Government? Why are they more credible than the USA? You never answered my question....
Show me. Are you sure you are not confusing quotation marks with enclosing apostrophes "Hello" against 'Hello'.
The U.S has no credibility. They are known warmongers and proven liars. 80% at least of the world know it. Even your own citizens know it.
You didn't answer, are you a Neocon.
Jack Straw states 'Assad unpleasant but rational. Chemical strikes by Assad would be illogical'
External Quote:
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
To you perhaps.
Your perception is inaccurate.
Suggesting the previous claim is "dubious" is misdirection- rhetorical propaganda.There are very good reasons why Assad should be considered a suspect in the attack.
I have no doubt that "regime change" is certainly on the administration's list of potential favorable outcomes...but I do not know their "attack plan" so cannot speculate. I would be surprised if any engagement is as aggressive as Libya. Certainly not "Iraq 2" per your earlier hysteria.
Sorry- did write it in the present tense- since there is no election imminent, should have said "very recently ran"....and is still very involved in politics...and ufo's apparently.
MikeC
Closed Account
cf Russia and "we have no chemical weapons" Syria??
A statement made without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
so everything the US says is a lie? the US says that it exists - is that a lie??
Silly generalities make for poor discussion.
To me, definitely
So you do not tacitly accept that Assad 'did it'. Surely 'if you had evidence', you could articulate an opinion?
It is a statement of fact as there is no 'substantive' evidence to back it up... ergo =dubious. Add to that there is equally or more substantive evidence to the contrary and 'dubious' is a slam dunk.
I agree but equally there are good reasons, (arguably better), that the 'terrorists did it'.
Hardly a good reason to bomb the crap out of the Syrian people is it?
Seems diametrically opposed to Obama's statements "Assad must go"
Yeah lots of politicians and presidents are involved in ufo's or claim to have seen them, also a lot of police and military personnel as well. So when did he last run for President?
Yep as your post proves.
I said: "The U.S has no credibility. They are known warmongers and proven liars. 80% at least of the world know it. Even your own citizens know it."
How you manage to derive from that "so everything the US says is a lie? the US says that it exists - is that a lie?" is a matter for you to come to terms with at your leisure. Good luck.
Clearly, knowing their propensity to lie and that they are warmongers, it would be extremely foolish to 'take their word for something' and in order to believe them it would be necessary for them to provide a small thing like substantive evidence. Otherwise we will be sat here years to come going 'They did it again, just like Iraq'.
And then some debunker will say 'That's bunk, only x million were killed in Syria and y million were killed in Iraq... so it's not the same... you just said bunk and I debunked you'.
Notwithstanding that, they have put forward no credible evidence that a missile attack would stop Assad from doing it again, (if indeed he did do it in the first place).
Anyone can see the only outcome would be even more civilian deaths.
There are a myriad of polls that back my statement... have a look.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
You said the US has no credibility - it is not stretch from there to me thinking you do not find anything the US says to be credible - therefore you do not believe it, therefore you think it is a lie.
If that isn't what you think then perhaps the US does actually have "some" credibility after all.
I did not talk about casualties because I was talking about your wildly generalist statements - made without evidence, and pointing that they can be dismissed without evidence too.
If that isn't what you think then perhaps the US does actually have "some" credibility after all.
I did not talk about casualties because I was talking about your wildly generalist statements - made without evidence, and pointing that they can be dismissed without evidence too.
You are using the typical debunker tactic of twisting peoples words and defaulting to semantics. You know and everyone else knows what is meant when people say the U.S has no credibility. I will not play semantics with you. You have just validated my analogy:
But to make this clear. If someone gives evidence in a court of law and then is found to have lied in part... they lose all credibility and their entire evidence is thrown out as unreliable unless it can be independently backed up.
Last edited:
jvnk08
Active Member
Well, actually, it's quite relevant. One of the core claims is that the rebels used chemical weapons to get NATO involved, but NATO or NATO-friendly countries gave them the weapons to begin with in order to do so. Supposedly the real motivation for promotion of a military intervention is to secure oil pipeline territory, and the chemical attack is an engineered false pretense with which to render legitimacy to western advocacy of a strike.
Oxymoron said:
I think you're misusing the term "debunking" here.
Anyways, "the new OBL" is a bit of a stretch, Assad isn't a religious extremist but instead the president of a country of ~22m people. He's had over a decade to demonstrate responsible leadership and listen to his citizens. Instead, he continued the repressive policies of his father and went on shopping sprees in Europe with his wife while his country stagnated.
Oxymoron said:
If we look at the situation from a purely logical basis, we see that one side has a preponderance of both the necessary weapons and training. It's entirely possible that it was an accident, that they didn't mean to use CW, the orders were lost in translation somewhere, or any number of things that indicate the use was unintentional. But that doesn't change the fact that, logically speaking, it's much more likely that the SA is to blame rather than the opposition.
Of course, that logic based argument isn't even as important as the physical evidence, which is in fact emerging and there appears to be a consensus forming from both governments and human rights groups pointing the finger squarely at the SA. There really isn't a solid body of evidence in the opposite direction.
Yes, both sides have committed war crimes. But if you set aside the demonstrably false notion that the opposition is entirely made up of terrorists and extremists seeking to exploit the instability in the country, you see that there is a very real and legitimate desire on the part of the Syrian people to see Assad go. It's a shame it's dragged on this far, though in a cruel twist of irony Assad has managed to make Mubarak look like a reasonable guy. Despite their shortcomings, it's clear that the opposition has a lot more legitimate cause than Assad. Also, I find it kind of amusing, Oxymoron, that in this case you are in total support of the repressive government rather than the people resisting it. From what I can tell it's usually the opposite case.
Lastly, on a purely technical basis, even if the strikes were as aggressive as NATO's intervention in Libya, we're talking a handful of civilian deaths as a result of collateral damage. UNHRC puts the death toll from NATO intervention at 60.
Last edited:
So if Syria were training and supplying weapons to American dissidents and foreign fighters were flooding your borders, you would be ok with that would you?
I don't. From my time on this forum it is pretty clear that 'debunking' means finding flaws (however small) and generally trying to discredit, (by virtually whatever means) anything that is anti establishment whilst at the same time studiously ignoring or making excuses for flaws in establishment arguments.
'A bit of a stretch'... so he is not the new boogeyman and justification for more U.S military 'adventure'? Are you seriously citing the shopping habits of Assad's wife as legitimate grounds for attacking the Syrian people, the vast majority of whom do not support the rebels?
Apart from the chemical attacks of unknown origin, please enlighten me as to the substantive differences in terrorist/rebel actions taking place in Syria and the terrorist/rebel actions taking place elsewhere in the region/
Who is that , the U.S?
Anything is possible as we have very little evidence one way or the other. But Obama thinks that he will use that to further his aims in the region and act unilaterally and illegally, possibly even against Congress but certainly against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the U.S electorate.
Where? Even Congress is not allowed to see this mythical evidence and is not even allowed to discuss what is put forward as evidence, even among themselves.
Back it up then. Where is this 'solid body of evidence and consensus'?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-may-have-used-chemical-weapons-29246963.html
External Quote:
Yes, set that nonsense aside as it seems you are the only one saying it. No one would be dumb enough to say the opposition was 'entirely made up of terrorists and extremists but the evidence is that they are the ones who are the most powerful and bloody and likely the largest.
How ironic? So how would a 'limited strike, not designed to effect regime change; change that scenario?
And my noted predisposition should speak volumes about how despicably I think Obama & co are acting. I agree, it is something when I have to start defending the rights of an unpleasant and odious regime from aggression by another unpleasant and odious regime. But that is the Syrians problem and the American peoples problem when it comes down to it. When America thinks it can invade legitimate Countries on the basis that they do not like the way they run things, it is a sad day for the world but that day has long passed as the U.S has repeatedly done it for decades and it is clear they are encouraged by their past 'successes', (that they got away with it, not that it made anything better for the people, although that was obviously never the intent anyway).
So you think it ok that other Countries go in destroy a Countries infrastructure (which may not be perfect but works and is stable), take over it's banking system, plunder it's resources and then walk away leaving a maelstrom of bloodshed and anarchy and then deny responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths that follow do you?External Quote:
Last edited:
Cairenn
Senior Member
And yet you support states with dictators that oppress and kill their own people. We have free access to the internet and yet many of the folks in countries that you support, don't. Why? What are governments afraid of?
I mention this because this showed up in one of the Skype rooms for the game I play today.
You benefit from the freedom of the West and yet we are "fascist murdering state" that seems to, in your opinion, lacking in "real morals'. But those that have none and that murder their own people are excused by you.
I mention this because this showed up in one of the Skype rooms for the game I play today.
The problem is that the game has banned proxies.External Quote:
You benefit from the freedom of the West and yet we are "fascist murdering state" that seems to, in your opinion, lacking in "real morals'. But those that have none and that murder their own people are excused by you.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
How does the preceding statement logically infer your interpretation? You're just ranting wildly now.
And how many more times are you going to repeat that libelous accusation when it has been repeatedly refuted and you have repeatedly been asked to back up your baseless claims and have repeatedly failed to do so?
I refer you to my above post and re paste the relevant section here. PLEASE READ AND DIGEST.
And my noted predisposition should speak volumes about how despicably I think Obama & co are acting. I agree, it is something when I have to start defending the rights of an unpleasant and odious regime from aggression by another unpleasant and odious regime. But that is the Syrians problem and the American peoples problem when it comes down to it. When America thinks it can invade legitimate Countries on the basis that they do not like the way they run things, it is a sad day for the world but that day has long passed as the U.S has repeatedly done it for decades and it is clear they are encouraged by their past 'successes', (that they got away with it, not that it made anything better for the people, although that was obviously never the intent anyway).
That is heartrending Cairenn... perhaps you are right after all... it is tragic that they cannot access travian. Can they get Candy Crush or Farmville? Perhaps we really should liberate them if they can't.
Then again, perhaps we should threaten to bomb travian unless they unban proxies, problem solved, that may be a little less extreme and cheaper, what do you think?
Darn it, what was I thinking... can't do that, they have corporate rights and are legally entitled to ban proxies if they want. Back to plan A then.
If the cap fits, wear it. It gives me no pleasure I can assure you. In fact I am deeply embarrassed by our cruelty and disregard for human life. But we know where the blame really rests do we not and it is not so much with the average Joe but firmly with the corporate and political elite Neocons. Thankfully there are still true patriotic, honest politicians who fight for us and manage to mitigate the damage done. We need to help them and support them.
Last edited:
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The argument was like, 'I only lit a small pile of paper, I am not responsible for the fact that it set light to the whole building and killed hundreds of people... nothing to do with me'.
http://rt.com/news/syria-foreign-fighters-mercenaries-706/External Quote:
Christians fearful of persecution by jihadists.
Last edited:
Al Qaeda the main rebel force in Syria says Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782
http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782
No trayvion or Candy Crush there then?External Quote:
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
Its fascinating that in your zeal you simply make stuff up.
The CFR never "says" that AQ is the "main" rebel force. This is as close as the op-ed piece gets:
I am not minimizing the threat and/or role AQ is playing in Syria- just highlighting your inaccurate portrayal of what the CFR says.External Quote:
Here is another sobering analysis:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/09/al_qaeda_and_the_thr.php
I think you guys are talking at crossed purposes. I don't think Oxymoron is an apologist for the Assad government, he is - as far as I interpret it, afraid, indeed sick to the back teeth of yes, American fascism, across Eurasia. Nearly everyone over 'here' is, from Dublin, to Moscow, from Tehran to Damascus, Athens to Paris. The full circle. Clearly, in Europe, and across the Arab world, the two nations people regard as the most aggressive and dangerous threats to the lives of people in the Arab world are, first and foremost Israel (obviously - ask near anyone here) and secondly, the United States. I'm sorry if that is hurtful but this is the perception across Eurasia. It is not up to Oxymoron to readjust his view of American fascism, it is a view almost universally mirrored by objective people, rather it is up to Americans to reappraise their government's foreign policy and to understand what the world thinks of it.
Yes Syria has been censoring the internet for over ten years, markedly so this last year, pulling the plug entirely on occasion. Your government now has laws in place to pull the switch at a stroke during a time of national emergency. Your allies in Saudi Arabia are worse in terms of censorship, possibly the worst in the entire world. Countries tend to censor the internet on moral grounds due to the sheer tonnage of hardcore pornography coming out of your country, and also, obviously because they deem it expedient to censor material that is critical of them. I believe censorship of the latter is of course inexcusable. That's how it is but it doesn't in any sense excuse further fascism from across the Atlantic. Also, in terms of internet freedom the United States is not only allowing free access to it's citizens, it is recording each and every action you make on the internet, and every email, and every phone call you make on Verizon, and God knows what else. Some freedom that is.
My point is American foreign policy is one thing. Syrian internal policy another. It'd be as well to understand they are totally separate issues. No one is defending the killing of innocents.
6 mins ago
He just rang in to Radio 4. Medieval scene of jubilation, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and yes, FSA, villagers and even bemused children in the crowd. An accompanying Turkish photographer took grisly pictures, probably beginning to circulate dark Twitter. Many government soldiers. One accused of rape. Summary justice and apparently an act of revenge for government executions.
He just rang in to Radio 4. Medieval scene of jubilation, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and yes, FSA, villagers and even bemused children in the crowd. An accompanying Turkish photographer took grisly pictures, probably beginning to circulate dark Twitter. Many government soldiers. One accused of rape. Summary justice and apparently an act of revenge for government executions.
SR1419
Senior Member.
The UN report echoed almost exactly what the Human Rights Watch report said:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
External Quote:
You seem intent on following your leaders zeal to apportion blame on the Syrian Govt, (Assad) for the attacks, (and there are a number of them over a time frame (attacks that is... not necessarily by Assad)) on extremely dubious and contradicted evidence, (not least logical evidence). You deny that you are pushing for U.S military action against Syria but your leaders are very clear on what they want to do, (even if it is blatantly illegal), so it is clear why they are pushing the rhetoric and one must logically ask, why are you so keen to apportion blame?
It has been pretty much acknowledged for some time that chemical weapons have been used but it is entirely unclear as to i) who used them ii) how many were killed iii) how bombing Syrian civilians is an appropriate response for someone else using CW's on them iv) what would be the consequences of missiles blowing up some stores of CW's in terms of both dispersion of gas clouds and/or military responses by not only the Syrians but also Russia, China and Iran.
None of the documents you cited address any of these questions. The cherry picked quotes you use fail to mention that the missiles are old missiles no longer in service and that they may well have been adapted all of which puts the capability well within the means of 'rebel' elements.
Further, funding, training and arming jihadists and sending them to attack a legitimate Country is a war crime. Much is made of the 100,000 casualties but hardly any of them would be casualties if the U.S, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey were not funneling the weapons and jihadists to Syria to fight the proxy war.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/08/30/experts-dont-bomb-syrian-chemical-weapons-sites.html
Last edited:
Boston was not under Martial Law or a mandatory lockdown. http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/
External Quote:
Lol... We'll come to you... I see that.
Yeah, Cairenn tried that nonsense too.
All staged by Alex Jones?
Last edited:
It is called exigent circumstances. There was no Lockdown or Martial Law. Do you have any evidence?
Call it what you like... "Got any evidence" ROFL.
'It's not kidnap and torture... it's extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation'... 'It's not Chemical Weapons... it's D.U, Phosphorous and Agent Orange'... 'It's not illegal invasion... it's humanitarian aid' and on and on and on... deny deny deny.
Last edited:
Did you read the article? Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. Is he part of conspiracy? How about David Barron, a professor of public law at Harvard Law School?
External Quote:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Synchronicity - What's your experience of it?- Latest: Todd Feinman
Trending content
-
Thread 'Reported drones over Fort Lesley McNair and possible DC counter-UAS laser deployment'- Kyle Ferriter
Replies: 2 -
-
-