Poking holes in "Syrian Rebels" Claims about Chemical Weapons Use

I don't know. Are you trying to build a case against me for plagiarism now?

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.
 
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.
:)

Obama and Kerry & co are politicians as well aren't they?
 
:)

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...
 
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:
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_0.pdf

Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks...our investigation finds that the August 21 attacks were
likely chemical weapons attacks using a surface-to-surface rocket system of approximately 330mm in diameter—likely Syrian-produced—and a Soviet-era 140mm surface-to-surface rocket system to deliver a nerve agent...The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces. Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weaponry in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack, or their associated launchers
Content from External Source
This IS evidence- it may not be convincing to you but you can't claim no evidence has been presented.
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".
 
Really? I didn't know he was still trying to run for president, that's amazing. Got any info on that?

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...

In May 2013, Gravel was one of several former members of Congress to accept $20,000 from the Paradigm Research Group, an advocacy group for UFO disclosure, as part of holding what they termed a Citizen Hearing on Disclosure, modeled after congressional hearings, regarding supposed U.S. government suppression of evidence concerning UFOs.[193] Gravel said, "Something is monitoring the planet, and they are monitoring it very cautiously, because we are a very warlike planet,"[194] and, "What we're faced with here is, in areas of the media, and the government too, an effort to marginalize and ridicule people who have specific knowledge."[193]
Content from External Source
 
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".

nice try. You made a claim. It was bunk. Thats not semantics.
 
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?
 
1. Well actually, the thread is about 'poking holes in claims that the rebels used chemical weapons', and so far no one has offered up any evidence that they are not responsible. The 'poking holes concept/theory' has more holes in it than a sieve and is an extremely good example of 'extremely biased debunking by throwing as much rhetoric and propaganda as possible and hoping it will stick'.

2. So the debunking goes along the lines of 'Assad is an extremely evil man, (the new OBL if you will), and the nice rebels need our help, ('our help', being the U.S and anyone we can coerce into falling in line) and out of the goodness of our hearts and our love for democracy, we will ignore our peoples wishes, (if we can possibly get away with it), not to mention International Law or world wide condemnation and help these nice rebels by supplying them arms, intelligence, money and training as part of our usual philanthropic practises, even though it is damaging to ourselves and not in our National Interests'.

3. 'We have no ulterior motives, we are the good guys and are so appalled at what we say this evil person has done that we will fight for the underdog, (nice freedom loving rebels), because like us they have never done anything bad'

4. But in short: 'We want to illegally launch hundreds of 'precision', high explosive missiles at the Syrian people to punish Assad for killing Syrian people and foreign jihadists, with chemical weapons but we have no proof, (or will not disclose said proof if we do have it), that it was Assad and not the rebels, who used said chemical weapons. We are aware the rebels are intent on killing him and his supporters, (the elected govt), but this does not justify him fighting back because he is so evil, (unlike our friends in the UAE). We are not intending to topple the govt or aid the rebels by doing so'.

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.
 
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."
No idea what you are talking about. Please explain.

Are you a Neocon?

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.
No idea what you are talking about. Please explain.
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?
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.

I would like to know why exactly you think the Russians, Syrians, and Infowars are more credible than the USA?
Are you really serious? Why is the U.S more credible than anyone?

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.
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.

 
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.



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....
 
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.
Show me. Are you sure you are not confusing quotation marks with enclosing apostrophes "Hello" against 'Hello'.

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....

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'

Straw is a former Cabinet Minister, and one of only three individuals to have served in Cabinet continuously from 1997 to 2010 under the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He held two of the traditional Great Offices of States, as Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, and Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006 under Blair. Between 2007 to 2010 he served as Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice throughout Brown's Premiership.

After the Labour Party lost power in May 2010, Straw briefly served as Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Justice Secretary, with the intention to stand down from the frontbench after the subsequent 2010 Labour Shadow Cabinet election.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
That is debatable.

To you perhaps.

However, it appears that you tacitly accept 'the claim' that Assad is responsible for the CW attacks.

Your perception is inaccurate.

Do you also accept the equally dubious claim that 'effecting regime change is not part of the U.S attack plan for Syria'?

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.

BTW, was your claim that the former senator is still trying to run for president, bunk or can you back it up?

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.
 
The U.S has no credibility. They are known warmongers and proven liars.

cf Russia and "we have no chemical weapons" Syria??

A statement made without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

80% at least of the world know it. Even your own citizens know it.

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 you perhaps.

To me, definitely

Your perception is inaccurate.
So you do not tacitly accept that Assad 'did it'. Surely 'if you had evidence', you could articulate an opinion?


Suggesting the previous claim is "dubious" is misdirection- rhetorical propaganda.

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.
There is very good reason why Assad should be considered a suspect in the attack.
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?

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.
Seems diametrically opposed to Obama's statements "Assad must go"


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.
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?
 
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.
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:
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.
 
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.
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:
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'.

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:
Well actually, the thread is about 'poking holes in claims that the rebels used chemical weapons', and so far no one has offered up any evidence that they are not responsible. The 'poking holes concept/theory' has more holes in it than a sieve and is an extremely good example of 'extremely biased debunking by throwing as much rhetoric and propaganda as possible and hoping it will stick'.

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:
So the debunking goes along the lines of 'Assad is an extremely evil man, (the new OBL if you will), and the nice rebels need our help, ('our help', being the U.S and anyone we can coerce into falling in line) and out of the goodness of our hearts and our love for democracy, we will ignore our peoples wishes, (if we can possibly get away with it), not to mention International Law or world wide condemnation and help these nice rebels by supplying them arms, intelligence, money and training as part of our usual philanthropic practises, even though it is damaging to ourselves and not in our National Interests'.

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:
'We have no ulterior motives, we are the good guys and are so appalled at what we say this evil person has done that we will fight for the underdog, (nice freedom loving rebels), because like us they have never done anything bad'

But in short: 'We want to illegally launch hundreds of 'precision', high explosive missiles at the Syrian people to punish Assad for killing Syrian people and foreign jihadists, with chemical weapons but we have no proof, (or will not disclose said proof if we do have it), that it was Assad and not the rebels, who used said chemical weapons. We are aware the rebels are intent on killing him and his supporters, (the elected govt), but this does not justify him fighting back because he is so evil, (unlike our friends in the UAE). We are not intending to topple the govt or aid the rebels by doing so'.

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:
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.

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 think you're misusing the term "debunking" here.
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.

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.
'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/

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.
Who is that , the U.S?

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.

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.

Of course, that logic based argument isn't even as important as the physical evidence, which is in fact emerging
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.

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.
Back it up then. Where is this 'solid body of evidence and consensus'? :rolleyes:


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-may-have-used-chemical-weapons-29246963.html
07 May 2013

A United Nations inquiry into human rights abuses in Syria has found evidence that rebel forces may have used chemical weapons, its lead investigator has revealed.
Content from External Source
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
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.

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.
How ironic? So how would a 'limited strike, not designed to effect regime change; change that scenario?

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.
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).

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.
Content from External Source
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?

 
Last edited:
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.


Hello people
need your help spreading awareness about something
in Iran the government has censorship on the internet and people cannot access websites freely
so most of them have to use proxies to browse and to play travian among other things
Content from External Source
The problem is that the game has banned proxies.

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.
 
...

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.
Content from External Source
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?
...
How does the preceding statement logically infer your interpretation? You're just ranting wildly now.
 
And yet you support states with dictators that oppress and kill their own people.

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).

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.


Hello people
need your help spreading awareness about something
in Iran the government has censorship on the internet and people cannot access websites freely
so most of them have to use proxies to browse and to play travian among other things
Content from External Source
The problem is that the game has banned proxies.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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 does the preceding statement logically infer your interpretation? You're just ranting wildly now.
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'.
 
Recruited by Al-Qaeda: Foreign fighters in a Damascus jail tell their stories

Raouchan says he sneaked into Syria last January through Turkey. In Istanbul, two men claiming to be from Al-Qaeda met Raouchan and accompanied him to Syria. There, he joined a large terrorist group run by an Egyptian jihadist.

In the Damascus prison, there are many stories of men recruited from faraway lands to come fight for jihad in Syria.

Another detainee, Amer El Khadoud, tells Maria Finoshina how he left a normal life in France, where he lived for years with his wife, a French woman, to join the Syrian jihad with an Al-Qaeda affiliated group.

“I volunteered,” says Amer. “I went to Turkey. In a refugee camp, there I met a Salafi group and I trained with them for about 2 1/2 months, and then we illegally crossed the border into Syria.”
Content from External Source
http://rt.com/news/syria-foreign-fighters-mercenaries-706/



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
By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.

In Syria, al-Qaeda's foot soldiers call themselves Jabhat al-Nusrah li-Ahli al-Sham (Front for the Protection of the Levantine People). The group's strength and acceptance by the FSA are demonstrated by their increasing activity on the ground (BBC)--from seven attacks in March to sixty-six "operations" in June. In particular, the Jabhat has helped take the fight to Syria's two largest cities: the capital of Damascus, where 54 percent of its activities have been, and Aleppo. Indeed, al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria if defections from the FSA to the Jabhat persist and the ranks of foreign fighters (Guardian) continue to swell.

Al-Qaeda is not sacrificing its "martyrs" in Syria merely to overthrow Assad. Liberation of the Syrian people is a bonus, but the main aim is to create an Islamist state in all or part of the country.
Content from External Source
No trayvion or Candy Crush there then?
 
Last edited:
Al Qaeda the main rebel force in Syria says Council on Foreign Relations

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:

al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria if defections from the FSA to the Jabhat persist and the ranks of foreign fighters (Guardian) continue to swell.
Content from External Source
I am not minimizing the threat and/or role AQ is playing in Syria- just highlighting your inaccurate portrayal of what the CFR says.

Here is another sobering analysis:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/09/al_qaeda_and_the_thr.php
 
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?

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 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.
 
?

How do you know they were the actual rockets that delivered the sarin?

I'll wait for the U.N report from people who were actually there if that's ok with you.

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

the details it documented included the large size and particular shape of the munitions and the precise direction from which two of them had been fired. Taken together, that information appeared to undercut arguments by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that rebel forces, who are not known to possess such weapons or the training or ability to use them, had been responsible....The investigators were unable to examine all of the munitions used, but they were able to find and measure several rockets or their components. Using standard field techniques for ordnance identification and crater analysis, they established that at least two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified provenance...the weapons in question had not been previously documented or reported to be in possession of the insurgency.

Moreover, those weapons are fired by large, conspicuous launchers. For rebels to have carried out the attack, they would have had to organize an operation with weapons they are not known to have and of considerable scale, sophistication and secrecy — moving the launchers undetected into position in areas under strong government influence or control, keeping them in place unmolested for a sustained attack that would have generated extensive light and noise, and then successfully withdrawing them — all without being detected in any way.

One annex to the report also identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex
Content from External Source
 
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

the details it documented included the large size and particular shape of the munitions and the precise direction from which two of them had been fired. Taken together, that information appeared to undercut arguments by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that rebel forces, who are not known to possess such weapons or the training or ability to use them, had been responsible....The investigators were unable to examine all of the munitions used, but they were able to find and measure several rockets or their components. Using standard field techniques for ordnance identification and crater analysis, they established that at least two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified provenance...the weapons in question had not been previously documented or reported to be in possession of the insurgency.

Moreover, those weapons are fired by large, conspicuous launchers. For rebels to have carried out the attack, they would have had to organize an operation with weapons they are not known to have and of considerable scale, sophistication and secrecy — moving the launchers undetected into position in areas under strong government influence or control, keeping them in place unmolested for a sustained attack that would have generated extensive light and noise, and then successfully withdrawing them — all without being detected in any way.

One annex to the report also identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex
Content from External Source
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
Experts: Don't Bomb Syrian Chemical Weapons Sites
WASHINGTON -- You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.

But now there is concern that bombing other sites could accidentally release dangerous chemical weapons that the U.S. military didn't know were there because they've lost track of some of the suspected nerve agents.

Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons -- purposely or accidentally -- would likely kill nearby civilians in an accidental nerve agent release, create a long-lasting environmental catastrophe or both, five experts told The Associated Press. That's because under ideal conditions -- and conditions wouldn't be ideal in Syria -- explosives would leave at least 20 to 30 percent of the poison in lethal form.
 
Last edited:
Carry on supporting the nice U.S operatives... the same ones who took down the towers and enabled the latest war adventures and fear mongered the American people into giving up their freedoms such that when they lock down Boston under Martial Law, those same Americans come out on the streets and are so grateful at being 'protected' that instead of complaining at their loss of liberties and warrentless searches... some come out on the streets and cheer. "Yeah, go USA... USA...USA" like it was a victory.

Boston was not under Martial Law or a mandatory lockdown. http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/


By early Friday morning, the streets of Watertown and Cambridge were deserted, and life in Boston, a major American city, had ground to a standstill. Throughout the day, the media described residents complying with a “lockdown order,” but in reality the governor’s security measure was a request.

“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”
Content from External Source
 
Boston was not under Martial Law or a mandatory lockdown. http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/


By early Friday morning, the streets of Watertown and Cambridge were deserted, and life in Boston, a major American city, had ground to a standstill. Throughout the day, the media described residents complying with a “lockdown order,” but in reality the governor’s security measure was a request.

“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”
Content from External Source
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:
Call it what you like... "Got any evidence" ROFL.

'It's not torture... it's 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.

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?

“If there’s a person running around with explosives in a major population center, it wouldn’t be that surprising that the response of authorities would be to ask people to not be outside,” says David Barron, a professor of public law at Harvard Law School. The heightened risk to the public, given the violence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is already alleged to have inflicted, made officials feel the shelter in place request was necessary, but such measures might not be the standard response to every future terrorism manhunt. “If the idea is somehow that the model for how to respond–when there’s any kind of suspect on the loose related to terrorism, they’ll be telling a place to be completely shut down–that seems not at all likely,” Barron says.

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/#ixzz2fOE3FxEv
Content from External Source
 
It wasn't a lockdown, no matter how often the CTers say it was. I have friends that live there and I asked them.
 
Back
Top