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

[Landru]

Yeah and Bradley manning apologised. It's amazing what happens when sufficient force is brought to bear,

But compare Oliver and Smiths compelling case with all the detailed information and Obama and Kerry's 'compelling case' of rhetoric and accusations with not one jot of evidence.

You believe what you want Landru. It doesn't make it fact.

And for the record, "What I really want", is for the U.S to stop being a fascist murdering state and abide by some real morals and laws as it is supposed to do. I would love to be able to side with the U.S and as soon as it stops behaving in this disgusting manner, I will applaud it. Until then I will do my best to highlight it's devious double standards and crimes.

It would be really nice to see you using your debunking talent to take a look at and demand evidence in regard to the specious claims made for warmongering. Perhaps you will surprise me one day but I shan't hold my breath.

Then you should start a place to discuss this. This site is about debunking no debating. Oliver and Smith did not provide a compelling case which is evident by CNN retracting the story. As to your hate America for everything position, I don't care.

 

[Boodles]

Debunk away by nit picking round the edges but over 80% of people are well aware and sickened by war crimes being carried out in our name whilst the U.S despicably uses Al Qaeda as its army of choice to terrorise the M.E.

Not sure it this is addressed to me but I wasn't attempting to nit pick. I may not have made myself clear because I am entirely uncertain of the facts concerning this incident and where the responsibility for it lies. Hence a hedge, spread or lay. The only thing I can say with certainty is certitudinal NATO speechifying is bunkum! I'm trying to be rational and express the questions that arise in my head with respect to the OP's emphasis (yet haven't read much on rebel claims and related questions aside articles by Walid Shoebat). If my entry were just about restating my intuition or weltanschung then you'd find I am in emphatic agreement with everything you are saying and that extends to your cited source there too. However, I would be the first to acknowledge I know not of that which is without my purview and that extends to the particulars of this incident.

 

[Oxymoron]

Not sure it this is addressed to me but I wasn't attempting to nit pick.

Definitely wasn't addressed to you B. Surprised you thought it may be.

 

[Boodles]

Definitely wasn't addressed to you B. Surprised you thought it may be.

Lol. My fault. Just the succession in the thread, sorry.

 

[jvnk08]

Yeah and Bradley manning apologised. It's amazing what happens when sufficient force is brought to bear,

But compare Oliver and Smiths compelling case with all the detailed information and Obama and Kerry's 'compelling case' of rhetoric and accusations with not one jot of evidence.

You believe what you want Landru. It doesn't make it fact.

And for the record, "What I really want", is for the U.S to stop being a fascist murdering state and abide by some real morals and laws as it is supposed to do. I would love to be able to side with the U.S and as soon as it stops behaving in this disgusting manner, I will applaud it. Until then I will do my best to highlight it's devious double standards and crimes.

It would be really nice to see you using your debunking talent to take a look at and demand evidence in regard to the specious claims made for warmongering. Perhaps you will surprise me one day but I shan't hold my breath.

Firstly, Manning did not apologize for the leaks. He apologized that he may have inadvertently hurt the US with them, which is totally respectable as he should have spent more time filtering through them. But the case really can't be made that he was forced to publicly apologize, because he didn't apologize for the specific thing he would have been made to apologize for if that were the case.

Secondly, it seems like a lot of your arguments are based on absolutes. The claims that the US leadership is as a whole warmongering at every turn stands falls on its face when you consider the fact that there is a large amount of opposition in congress to Obama's calls for military action. The claim also falls on its face when you consider that the US could already be bombing Syria. For an administration that is supposedly warmongering at ever opportunity, it sure does seem to pander a lot to legitimacy and restraint when you consider what the executive branch could be doing with its powers.

Speaking in absolutes about the US does not really work. The country is diverse and complex, as is its politics. In reality you don't hear about anything but the negatives because the positive things are not controversial(granted there's not really a lot of positive news with regards to Syria).

 

[Oxymoron]

Firstly, Manning did not apologize for the leaks. He apologized that he may have inadvertently hurt the US with them, which is totally respectable as he should have spent more time filtering through them. But the case really can't be made that he was forced to publicly apologize, because he didn't apologize for the specific thing he would have been made to apologize for if that were the case.

Secondly, it seems like a lot of your arguments are based on absolutes. The claims that the US leadership is as a whole warmongering at every turn stands falls on its face when you consider the fact that there is a large amount of opposition in congress to Obama's calls for military action. The claim also falls on its face when you consider that the US could already be bombing Syria. For an administration that is supposedly warmongering at ever opportunity, it sure does seem to pander a lot to legitimacy and restraint when you consider what the executive branch could be doing with its powers.

Speaking in absolutes about the US does not really work. The country is diverse and complex, as is its politics. In reality you don't hear about anything but the negatives because the positive things are not controversial(granted there's not really a lot of positive news with regards to Syria).

I fully understand, as I think most people do, that governments are comprised of diverse and complex views and aspirations. But that does not negate that 'at the top', there is a vast propensity for warmongering to further National Interests, no matter the cost or the legality.

It is the same in the U.K and elsewhere. It was a close vote in Parliament and if it had not been for the leader of the opposition, Ed Milliband's, opposition, (despite a huge amount of pressure applied), the vote would have been a landslide for war. Much of that would have been because they did not want to go against the U.S, (the tribalism element) but also to secure 'our' interests in the region which largely align with the U.S interests, (oil).

But debunkers very often over simplify things to suit themselves, i.e. 'If the NWO is so powerful, why is it taking so long to put in place?', which is a logical fallacy because obviously there is opposition due to the diversity which you mention. It is not a slam dunk but it is inexorably moving in that direction and a lot of the troubles are a result of people and governments pushing back which accounts for why some governments have to be crushed as per Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran etc, whilst totally ignoring the terrible records of the U.S aligned states such as Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Oman etc and indeed the U.S itself.

There is clear and undeniable hypocrisy and laws/agreements are selectively ignored or enforced by the U.S in particular, to further their aims, (in a region which is 3000 miles away). The only way that the U.S gets away with it is because of it's military strength. At least 80% of the world see that the U.S is the bully in the playground and makes up it's own rules as it goes along.

That the U.S is funding Al Qaeda at the same time as fighting an alleged 'War on Terror' is indisputable but having said that it in no way stops the U.S from disputing it.

Anyone who has eyes can see it. Anyone who refuses to see it will dispute it and make excuses and change laws to justify the unjustifiable.

It may well be that if McCain was president the missiles would already be flying but that does not make it any the less wrong that Obama is patently intent on doing it as well, even if it takes him six months longer.

 

[SR1419]

That the U.S is funding Al Qaeda at the same time as fighting an alleged 'War on Terror' is indisputable

You write that insinuating that "funding Al Qaeda" is a purposeful, formal policy rather than a mismanagement of funds in Afghanistan or a misrepresentation of facts regarding arming Syrian rebels- not all of whom are "Al Qaeda".

 

[Oxymoron]

You write that insinuating that "funding Al Qaeda" is a purposeful, formal policy rather than a mismanagement of funds in Afghanistan or a misrepresentation of facts regarding arming Syrian rebels- not all of whom are "Al Qaeda".

Most of them are Al Qaeda and it is widely known. Also the widespread, prolific and extreme atrocities are well documented. It is patently obvious that the Assad govt is fighting foreign extremists who are, in the main, funded and trained by the U.S and Saudi.

 

[SR1419]

Most of them are Al Qaeda and it is widely known. .

Sorry Oxy- thats nothing more than pure speculation on your part. The Syrian rebels are a broad mix of FSA, ISIS, Al Nusra and lots of local militias...Personally, I would not fund any of them. But labeling them all or even "most" as AQ is simply wrong/bunk.

Numbering 50,000 men, the Free Syrian Army, a self-declared non-sectarian group of early army defectors, remains the largest opposition group in the country.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...intelligence-briefing-on-the-assad-resistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition

Some of the disparate groups are in conflict with each other:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/american-syria-rebels

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/06/world/meast/syria-rebels/

 

[jvnk08]

I fully understand, as I think most people do, that governments are comprised of diverse and complex views and aspirations. But that does not negate that 'at the top', there is a vast propensity for warmongering to further National Interests, no matter the cost or the legality.

It is the same in the U.K and elsewhere. It was a close vote in Parliament and if it had not been for the leader of the opposition, Ed Milliband's, opposition, (despite a huge amount of pressure applied), the vote would have been a landslide for war. Much of that would have been because they did not want to go against the U.S, (the tribalism element) but also to secure 'our' interests in the region which largely align with the U.S interests, (oil).

The US gets 40% of its petroleum from imports(and dropping year over year). Just 13% of that is from the middle east as a whole, and 8% of that 40% is from Saudi Arabia. What, pray tell, do you think is so important about Syria that it has anything to do with oil? What nefarious business interest do you think Obama is trying to further by bombing Syria?

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

But debunkers very often over simplify things to suit themselves, i.e. 'If the NWO is so powerful, why is it taking so long to put in place?', which is a logical fallacy because obviously there is opposition due to the diversity which you mention. It is not a slam dunk but it is inexorably moving in that direction and a lot of the troubles are a result of people and governments pushing back which accounts for why some governments have to be crushed as per Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran etc, whilst totally ignoring the terrible records of the U.S aligned states such as Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Oman etc and indeed the U.S itself.

First off, please read and understand what a logical fallacy is because what you cited is not an example of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

Secondly, no, the NWO is a shady cabal of rich people who pull the strings of the world in order to benefit themselves and screw everyone else. Martial law, people in camps, bar code tattoos, mind control slave labor. That is the NWO conspiracy.

Now, it seems like what you're really talking about is Globalism. Globalism has done as much good as it has bad. Are you seriously making the argument that Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran are fighting the good fight and "standing up to the globalists"? That those countries were enjoying peace and prosperity under their respective regimes without participating in the world economy? Please. Those countries love(loved) the money globalization brought into their countries which have next to no natural resources or intellectual capital of their own. The US and its allies are no angels, but those countries human rights violations far overshadow those of the other countries you listed.

There is clear and undeniable hypocrisy and laws/agreements are selectively ignored or enforced by the U.S in particular, to further their aims, (in a region which is 3000 miles away). The only way that the U.S gets away with it is because of it's military strength. At least 80% of the world see that the U.S is the bully in the playground and makes up it's own rules as it goes along.

Yeah, the bully on the playground who hands out more than twice as much foreign aid as the next country on the list. That's just federal government aid, too. The US is also in the top 5 countries in the world for charitable donations from citizens.

Half of Africa is heavily dependent on US aid. Most countries in the world receive some. What a bunch of assholes:
http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx

That the U.S is funding Al Qaeda at the same time as fighting an alleged 'War on Terror' is indisputable but having said that it in no way stops the U.S from disputing it.

Anyone who has eyes can see it. Anyone who refuses to see it will dispute it and make excuses and change laws to justify the unjustifiable.

It may well be that if McCain was president the missiles would already be flying but that does not make it any the less wrong that Obama is patently intent on doing it as well, even if it takes him six months longer.

Can you please point out where it is indisputable that the US is actively funding Al Qaeda? This seems to be a common refrain among pro-Syrian regime supporters, that the rebels are all Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda affiliates. Of course, that couldn't be further from the truth seeing as there are dozens of major opposition groups and potentially hundreds of smaller ones in the country.

Actually, it seems SR1419 said it better than I could:

You write that insinuating that "funding Al Qaeda" is a purposeful, formal policy rather than a mismanagement of funds in Afghanistan or a misrepresentation of facts regarding arming Syrian rebels- not all of whom are "Al Qaeda".

The Syrian rebels are a broad mix of FSA, ISIS, Al Nusra and lots of local militias...Personally, I would not fund any of them. But labeling them all or even "most" as AQ is simply wrong/bunk.

 

[Boodles]

Walid Shoebat describes the armed opposition in and around Syria as the 'Muslim Brotherhood'. Why is this so? It is my understanding that the MB are a century old political organisation, of wide disapora, and for the most part unarmed, at least in Egypt (until effectively being 'irradicated', for now, the week prior to this CW attack). What role do the MB play in Syria?

Naturally, foreign policy in each western and middle eastern country is as much a mirror on to each nation's internal concerns as an objective take on the facts of a given instance abroad. In New York the idea of funding or fighting alongside Al Qaeda is understandably monstrous, but putting experiences at home aside and just focussing on the Levant, what difference does it make whether these groups are "Al Qaeda", or call themselves Al Nusra? Or this or that? "FSA" as a concept sounds like something straight out of a brand consultantancy meeting. I think of Monty Python's The Life of Bryan, with John Cleese proclaiming "We are the People's Front of Judea", others saying "No we're not, they're splitters!" i.e factional in-fighting and ego driven differentiation among "revolutionaries" is a cliche as old as Jesus Christ.

Who's revolution? My point is near all these groups, call them whatever you want, are foreign mercenaries, men on a payroll, involved in armed insurrection and are not wanted in the country by the majority of the peace loving, secular leaning civilians in the population! They are hell bent on imposing an extreme (mis)interpretation of sharia law and crushing any notion of secularism, a form of social organisation that Syria is characteristically inclined toward, due to the diversity of faith and other factors. Syria was in relative terms a progressive nation. The US can topple Assad. Then what? There will be a power vacuum, and a massacre of Christians, Alawites and other Shiite Muslims. I fail to see what difference it really makes as to whether a group is branded Al Qaeda or not. The vast majority are not Syrian. When you hear on CNN that the FSA have occupied an area, all that usually means is foreigners with weapons have ransacked a street, kidnapped the families and are holding out in their houses, for the most part.

 

[SR1419]

The vast majority are not Syrian.

That is a strong claim to which you provide no evidence.

There are foreign fighters to be sure...and the exact numbers and make-up of various groups is hard to ascertain. The Pentagon has estimated that there are over 1200 different "rebel" groups. But between the Kurds and the FSA and even Syrian extremists, the claim that the "vast majority" of participants in the conflict against Assad are foreign does not appear to be backed up by the evidence.

The foreign fighters may be the more effective on the battlefield...and thus attracting the most attention. But the opposition is a wide and disparate "group" that is not easily categorized by "vast" generalizations.

 

[Boodles]

Firstly, Manning did not apologize for the leaks. He apologized that he may have inadvertently hurt the US with them, which is totally respectable as he should have spent more time filtering through them. But the case really can't be made that he was forced to publicly apologize, because he didn't apologize for the specific thing he would have been made to apologize for if that were the case.

Chelsea hadn't one thing to apologise over. If you're about to be sentenced to 99+ years in prison you'll say anything. He has been legally counselled to issue disingenuous apologies as any lawyer worth his or her salt would advise their client to do so. He didn't put the US people in any danger at all as the US people have no enemies! It's a mass delusion! He compromised a 'security of complacency' within the District of Columbia to get away with murder. The entire globe celebrated Wikileaks for empowering citizens to know the crimes governments and military perpetrate (I won't say 'in their name' as it's ridiculously naive).

Secondly, it seems like a lot of your arguments are based on absolutes. The claims that the US leadership is as a whole warmongering at every turn stands falls on its face when you consider the fact that there is a large amount of opposition in congress to Obama's calls for military action. The claim also falls on its face when you consider that the US could already be bombing Syria.

War crime is an absolute. D.C has been fighting criminal wars for over 10 years, continually. The US is not under attack from Assad, is it? There are no degrees of interpretation, no mitigative positions to stand upon, it is, in the application of law, a criminal act. Absolutely. Send over the culprits and we'll put them on trial, in Holland.

For an administration that is supposedly warmongering at ever opportunity, it sure does seem to pander a lot to legitimacy and restraint when you consider what the executive branch could be doing with its powers.

More war crime? This is like a criminal saying he only stabbed the victim once when he could have stabbed the victim several times. Granted Obama has tried to stem the tide.

Speaking in absolutes about the US does not really work. The country is diverse and complex, as is its politics.

Agreed.

In reality you don't hear about anything but the negatives because the positive things are not controversial(granted there's not really a lot of positive news with regards to Syria).

People do hear the positives. A great deal of positivity. Cultural, social, music, technology? Endless list. Great things.

The U.S should adhere to the various treaties on war, sign up to the ICC and face the music, or get out of the United Nations. Just leave it, close the New York HQ and the rest of the world can set it elsewhere, eg Hong Kong, Jerusalem, Mumbai. Face justice for the breaches of law to which individuals within government and military are subject, or go! Same with Tony Blair and his minions who feign ignorance. Disband the entire organisation, disband NATO, if not willing to adhere to and apply the law then it's pointless. Security Council is an archaic, victors 'smug club' in anycase. Utterly inequitable. Who are these diplomats and lawyers kidding, let's just dump it as it amounts to nothing. This is not an extremist opinion, this is pragmatic opinion among reasonably moderate and intelligent Europeans, Asians, Africans and South Americans. It is in no sense an attack on American people. The world loves America.

 

[Boodles]

I wonder how many in the US, or France for that matter, realise that under international law if you bomb Syria, the Syrians have a very arguably stronger legal case for bombing your country, directly - not through clandestine hijackings at Boston and Newark airports and the likes. Of course, they haven't the geographical reach but... You know who does. I sense if the game is pushed it will not be small groups of disenfrancised Muslim converts from inner city mosques that the US will have to contend with, but military force and might, acting legitimately under international law, above your mainland, a presence for the first time since the US kicked the British out of the north eastern states in the revolutionary years. Do the chickens really have to come all the way home, to roost?

Bush declared war on Gog and Magog. That is not even a joke. Ask the French. How is that going to stand up in the ICC? "Your honour, I had been drinking and reading the bible, Donald kept whispering weird things in my ear, it all went a bit cloudy"... Declare war on Syria and the US won't be declaring war on a fable but a sovereign nation, they are perfectly within their rights - legally - to defend themselves, by coming across the water, to attempt to prevent further illegal attacks. It'd be as well to be mindful that as mighty as the US defences are, technology has obviously progressed since 1945. No one of the axis powers could get to the US by air. Without intending to scaremonger, next time around - God forbid - the 'theatre' of war will be in everyone's back yard, and not 'just' Europe, Africa and Asia's. I propose renaming Alaska, Achilles Heal.

 

[Boodles]

That is a strong claim to which you provide no evidence.

It is a subjective claim gleaned largely from following a number of key individuals, bloggers, ordinary men, mainly women actually, and students, in the midst of the conflict, in Damascus, Aleppo and Homs from around June of 2011 to late 2012, on Twitter. I was observing claim and counter claim for a long time. Got too gut renching, many terribly disturbing twitpics and too much disinformation, I gave up. What convinced me in my opinion was the stark contrast between BBC broadcasts and what I could see in these personal accounts. I will attempt to provide some supporting evidence for you but am on a phone and unable to easily copy, paste, type etc.

 

[Oxymoron]

The US gets 40% of its petroleum from imports(and dropping year over year). Just 13% of that is from the middle east as a whole, and 8% of that 40% is from Saudi Arabia. What, pray tell, do you think is so important about Syria that it has anything to do with oil? What nefarious business interest do you think Obama is trying to further by bombing Syria?

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

So what are they doing in the area 3000 miles from home? Why do they keep on fomenting unrest, civil wars and regime changes, (puppet governments) and fighting proxy wars?

First off, please read and understand what a logical fallacy is because what you cited is not an example of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

Second off please note that a "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, which aptly describes the debunker bunk about why the NWO cannot exist.

Secondly, no, the NWO is a shady cabal of rich people who pull the strings of the world in order to benefit themselves and screw everyone else. Martial law, people in camps, bar code tattoos, mind control slave labor. That is the NWO conspiracy.

That is an interpretation of what it may well result in once the world is governed by an all powerful worldwide cabal that has no ethics and is simply out for its own ends.

Nobody with half an ounce of grey matter would vote for that so it is disguised as Globalism, (shady cabal of rich people who pull the strings of the world in order to benefit themselves and screw everyone else), the rest would likely come later.

Now, it seems like what you're really talking about is Globalism.

See above but yes where one ends and the other begins relies entirely on the integrity of TPTB and as many people recognise... integrity is in very short supply already.

Globalism has done as much good as it has bad.

Yes and whether it is good or bad is dependant on how it affects you and your loved ones, (if you have no regard for the 'unfortunates', as appears to be the case with the elite at the moment.

Are you seriously making the argument that Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran are fighting the good fight and "standing up to the globalists"? That those countries were enjoying peace and prosperity under their respective regimes without participating in the world economy? Please. Those countries love(loved) the money globalization brought into their countries which have next to no natural resources or intellectual capital of their own. The US and its allies are no angels, but those countries human rights violations far overshadow those of the other countries you listed.

Of course they are standing up to Globalism and fighting the good fight. They are fighting for 'their share of the cake' and I am talking about the elites in those Countries not the peasants), it is like gang warfare or one Mafia family fighting another.

Yeah, the bully on the playground who hands out more than twice as much foreign aid as the next country on the list.

Yeah the Mafia 'help the community' as well. In relation to its wealth the U.S is actually lower than many. It also spends as much as the rest of the world combined on armaments. And who exactly does it hand out money to and why. And it is also the same country that has done hundreds of more times damage to other Countries than any other.

Half of Africa is heavily dependent on US aid. Most countries in the world receive some. What a bunch of assholes:
http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx

Africa has been plundered and used and abused by its own leaders and the world, inc the U.S. It is rich in all natural resources. It has been locked into poverty by being turned into a debt zombie by Wall St Wankers and their equivalents elsewhere inc Europe.

Can you please point out where it is indisputable that the US is actively funding Al Qaeda?

It is all over the web, in the papers on all the TV news, even the Mockingbird press knows and reports it albeit they normally try to play it down as a minor part of the 'rebel freedom fighters'.

I can understand you would not be aware of Al Qaeda's prominent role if you rely on propaganda from sources such as this:
http://www.military.com/topics/syria

What began as a widespread protest in March of 2011 became a full-fledged civil war. Syrian rebels are attempting to oust Assad and his Ba'ath Party which has ruled for almost fifty years. The rebels are disorganized have no clear military structure, but have so far managed to stay operational. As the conflict progresses, the weekly death toll has gone from under one hundred to nearly one thousand.

At the beginning of Syria's civil war, president Obama called for an end to the violence and called on both rebel and government forces to lay down arms. A peace treaty was attempted in April of 2012, but due to infractions on both sides, the arrangement failed. The Obama Administration has resisted calls to intervene militarily, but the U.S. is now materially assisting the rebels and there are media reports that the U.S. and some its European allies are secretly providing the insurgents with training.

Al Qaeda not even mentioned... what a surprise.

But in the real world:
http://counterjihadreport.com/2013/08/05/al-qaeda-allies-poised-to-overwhelm-syrian-rebel-forces/

There is now a civil war within a civil war in Syria. Al-Qaeda's affiliates in Syria are now battling elements of the Free Syria Army and Kurdish militias, splintering the rebel forces.

My previous analysis of Syria said this fight was inevitable, but questioned whether it was too late for the U.S. to help the moderate rebels prevail. Absent heavy international intervention, this is a fight that Al-Qaeda and similar Islamists will win.

The Bad News

The most powerful rebel force on the ground is Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq, two technically separate groups that we'll refer to as Al-Qaeda. Their battle with the non-Islamist rebels of the Free Syria Army (FSA) officially began with a fight at a checkpoint.

Kamal Hamami, also known as Abu Bassel al-Ladkani, was a senior member of the FSA and the Supreme Military Council, the body that coordinates the rebel forces. He traveled to Latakia for a meeting with Al-Qaeda to discuss a joint offensive against the Syrian regime. He was prevented from going past a checkpoint, sparking an argument. Hamami and his brother were shot and killed, the FSA says, at the hands of the "emir," Abu Ayman al-Baghdadi.

Al-Qaeda then called the FSA to inform them of his death and that they'd kill the entire Supreme Military Council. The FSA issued a 24-hour deadline for al-Baghdadi to be handed over and asked the international community for arms to eliminate the "disease." The deadline passed without action being taken, even though a senior FSA commander had vowed, "We will wipe the floor with them."

The FSA commander's bravado is not to be believed, as the group's inaction shows. Al-Qaeda has steadily gained strength over the FSA since the civil war began; a problem that the FSA warned would arise if the West did not come to its aid.

Carpenter agreed: "I've always been extremely skeptical about the Obama administration's view that we can somehow vet who gets the aid, that we can give the money and weapons to the 'good guys' but keep the aid out of the hands of these extremist elements," he said.

Both also worried that American weapons could be captured by jihadists should a full-scale conflict break out between the two sides.

"I don't want to see them get Stinger missiles and advanced anti-tank weapons and that sort of thing, which is what they're looking for," said Bucci. "At this point, the most effective fighting forces and the ones most likely to win are, unfortunately, the most radical elements."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/15/i...ls-calls-u-s-aid-into-question/#ixzz2eRSdjMgw

Western leaders are silent. Media scoundrels ignore what demands headlines. Cold-blooded murder doesn't matter. It's too insignificant to report. Managed news misinformation substitutes.

Syria is America's war. It was planned years ago. Death squads were recruited. Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and other terrorists are Washington's shock troops.

They're well funded, armed, trained and directed. Their mission is mass murder and destruction. They target innocent civilians. They slaughter them in cold blood. Assad's wrongfully blamed for their crimes.

US-sponsored aggression is called humanitarian intervention. America's responsibility to protect reflects genocide. Post-9/11, millions died.

Mass slaughter continues. Washington bears full responsibility. Syria's being ravaged and destroyed. Tens of thousands died. No end of conflict looms.

Death squad massacres deserves headlines. Western media point fingers the wrong way. Other times they ignore them.

On August 6, Itar Tass said "Al-Nusra Front (and/or Jabhat Al-Nusra) militants massacred 450 Kurds in northern Syria." They "butchered" mainly "women and children."

Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) reported the same toll. So did Syria News. It blamed extremist foreign jihadists and Free Syrian Army (FSA) "criminals."

Mostly women and children were murdered. On August 6, Itar Tass headlined "Moscow urges Syrian government and opposition to exert efforts to oust terrorists from Syria."

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said militants massacred 450 Kurdish civilians. Over 100 children were included.

But as we know, the U.S has aided the 'rebels' with money, arms and training. But who have they been aiding? Even if it is indirectly they are aiding Al Qaeda who have promised to create a superstate comprising Iraq and Syria.

Strange how there are many many times the amount of Al Qaeda members in the world now compared to when Bush started his War on Terror.

Like to share your thoughts on how the war is going?

 

[jvnk08]

Second off please note that a "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, which aptly describes the debunker bunk about why the NWO cannot exist.

No, a logical fallacy is one with the logical structure of the argument itself, not the facts offered for support of any given side. What you mentioned simply is not a fallacy with my reasoning. Instead, feel free to support the notion that the NWO conspiracy is real, disguised as globalism, and is a slow moving beast because there is/was opposition from the good guys in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Africa has been plundered and used and abused by its own leaders and the world, inc the U.S. It is rich in all natural resources. It has been locked into poverty by being turned into a debt zombie by Wall St Wankers and their equivalents elsewhere inc Europe.

Mobile phone banking. Microlending. Crowdsharing. Immense amounts of foreign aid.

Yeah, those people have no opportunity whatsoever. Certainly not orders of magnitude more than the majority of humans who ever lived. Jeez, where are the NWO guys? They should be all over this, putting these people down wherever they can.

Yes and whether it is good or bad is dependant on how it affects you and your loved ones, (if you have no regard for the 'unfortunates', as appears to be the case with the elite at the moment.

We can agree that Globalism has positive and negative effects, but by and large it is positive. We are experiencing growing pains, of course, but that's how it is with a world as complex as we have, with 7 billion people on it.

Yeah the Mafia 'help the community' as well. In relation to its wealth the U.S is actually lower than many. It also spends as much as the rest of the world combined on armaments. And who exactly does it hand out money to and why.

Of course, the statistic you mention doesn't matter at all when you consider the actual sums of money.

Let's be clear, I'm no fan of the military industrial complex or how much money we spend on "defense". But, realistically, your statement does not hold water. No other country in the history of humanity has engaged in this level of philanthropy. Of course, you don't see it from your echochamber. But I encourage you to browse around http://philanthropy.com, go to a library or a hackerspace and see just how much positive stuff is going on. Surely the global elite either aren't trying very hard or aren't very good at what they do if they're allowing all of this positivity to go unhindered in the world that they entirely control. Or wait, that's just the "good guys" fighting back, right?

And it is also the same country that has done hundreds of more times damage to other Countries than any other.

Any substantiation to this other than your perception?

Death squad massacres deserves headlines. Western media point fingers the wrong way. Other times they ignore them.

On August 6, Itar Tass said "Al-Nusra Front (and/or Jabhat Al-Nusra) militants massacred 450 Kurds in northern Syria." They "butchered" mainly "women and children."

Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) reported the same toll. So did Syria News. It blamed extremist foreign jihadists and Free Syrian Army (FSA) "criminals."

Mostly women and children were murdered. On August 6, Itar Tass headlined "Moscow urges Syrian government and opposition to exert efforts to oust terrorists from Syria."

Again, independent verification would be great, though it isn't even particularly important. Can you demonstrate that this is the modus operandi of the majority of the FSA?

Respect your elders, even when they do things you don't like.

This is hilarious. Which elders again? Both China and Russia killed off a significant portion of the generations that would be their elders right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Not to mention the fact that in the last 200 years those countries have had absolutely nothing to do with the ancient societies that once inhabited the same geographical location.

 

[Boodles]

What, pray tell, do you think is so important about Syria that it has anything to do with oil?

Good question. Pray thee hark unto these words. Perhaps it'll clear up this misunderstanding as I have seen this 'Americans don't need Asian resources any more' argument here before. It's not about need, it's about selling to others to make vast profits. Perhaps it's been forgotten in the fervour of demos and the likes since 2011 but it's been known for 10 years that Syria is 'in the way'.

What has US domestic oil and gas consumption got to do with Anglo-Dutch-Franco-American corporate oil and gas interests in Europe? Domestic consumption in the US matters not an iota. From what I recall, billions of US Cheney dollars have been invested in a pipeline, post-Hussein, to securely transport oil out of Kuwait and for our purposes here, Qatari gas out of the Persian Gulf area, to European markets *turns on the central heating*.

Now, there are only two ways out of the gulf to the EU (and then my house). You go north through Saudi, Iraq, the Caucasian mountains, Armenia, Russia and Ukraine or you go through Saudi, Syria and western Turkey. High road or low road around the Black Sea? Altogether more simple, logistically and politically, to head west, avoiding the former soviet bloc.

The Russians don't want the pipeline anyway as Gazprom services the majority of gas to the EU through Poland and why court competition for such a lucrative market? Syria has no great natural reserves to speak of but Assad is in the way, logistically, between the gulf and the E.U and the competing interests for this market. A gatekeeper if you will. The Iranians also want to send their gas pipeline through Syria, this has been agreed with Assad and is fine by the Russians for the aforementioned reasons. Exxon Mobil in Qatar left out in the cold, distribution wise, at great cost, and Cheney, 'Billy no mates'. No wonder the French are backing Haliburton - sorry- America. There is great infrastructural cost being staked on a clear run to the EU by-passing Russia and trillions to be made from the EU, by the United States. Assad has to go, just have to -soo annoying, I know - 'legitimise' hanging his by a noose, like the US did Hussein, to make good on the investment and secure the futures.

Hope that's cleared that up a little. It isn't really a contentious issue, of course these wars are about oil and gas. Does anyone genuinely think otherwise?

 

[jvnk08]

Good question. Pray thee hark unto these words. Perhaps it'll clear up this misunderstanding as I have seen this 'Americans don't need Asian resources any more' argument here before. It's not about need, it's about selling to others to make vast profits. Perhaps it's been forgotten in the fervour of demos and the likes since 2011 but it's been known for 10 years that Syria is 'in the way'.

What has US domestic oil and gas consumption got to do with Anglo-Dutch-Franco-American corporate oil and gas interests in Europe? Domestic consumption in the US matters not an iota. From what I recall, billions of US Cheney dollars have been invested in a pipeline, post-Hussein, to securely transport oil out of Kuwait and Qatari gas out of the Persian Gulf area, to European markets *turns on the central heating*. Now, there are only two ways out of the gulf to the EU (and then my house). You go north through Saudi, Iraq, the Caucasian mountains, Armenia, Russia and Ukraine or you go through Saudi, Syria and western Turkey. High road or low road around the Black Sea? Altogether more simple, logistically and politically, to head west, avoiding the former soviet bloc. The Russians don't want the pipeline anyway as they service the majority of gas to the EU through Poland and why court competition for such a lucrative market? Syria has no great natural reserves to speak of but Assad is in the way, logistically, between the gulf and the E.U and the competing interests for this market. A gatekeeper if you will. The Iranians also want to send their gas pipeline through Syria, this has been agreed with Assad and is fine by the Russians for the aforementioned reasons. Exxon Mobile and the Qatar left out in the cold, Cheney Billy no mates. It is a gas thing. No wonder the French are backing Haliburton - sorry- America.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2012/01/24/factbox-whose-oil-does-eu-buy

Yeah, seems like a lot of appetite for middle eastern oil in the EU. Better attack Syria to secure those pipeline routes in the name of Halliburton.

Lets look at the big oil and gas pipelines in Syria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk–Banias_pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk-Ceyhan_Oil_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_Pipeline

Care to point out the significant Western interest here? I mean, since the US is obviously warmongering to bomb Syria for oil pipelines and all.

The Russians don't want the pipeline anyway as they service the majority of gas to the EU through Poland and why court competition for such a lucrative market? Syria has no great natural reserves to speak of but Assad is in the way, logistically, between the gulf and the E.U and the competing interests for this market. A gatekeeper if you will. The Iranians also want to send their gas pipeline through Syria, this has been agreed with Assad and is fine by the Russians for the aforementioned reasons. Exxon Mobil in Qatar left out in the cold, distribution wise, at great cost, and Cheney, 'Billy no mates'. No wonder the French are backing Haliburton - sorry- America. There is great infrastructural cost being staked on a clear run to the EU by-passing Russia and trillions to be made from the EU, by the United States. Assad has to go, just have to -soo annoying, I know - 'legitimise' hanging his by a noose, like the US did Hussein, to make good on the investment and secure the futures.

Hope that's cleared that up a little. It isn't really a contentious issue, of course these wars are about oil and gas. Does anyone genuinely think otherwise?

You added this after I pointed out the fact that the west's interest in Syria's oil and natural gas pipelines is dwarfed by that of Russia's.

Nope, sorry, Assad is not a nice, misunderstood guy. But he didn't bring this on himself either. His father started trend of trampling human rights in the country over the past few decades.

 

[Boodles]

... the NWO is a shady cabal of rich people who pull the strings of the world in order to benefit themselves and screw everyone else. Martial law, people in camps, bar code tattoos, mind control slave labor. That is the NWO conspiracy.

Understandable interpretation but I'm afraid not. That is an American interpretation gleaned from internet videos and speaks more to the xenophobic isolationism, and fear of socialism and the state that predominates there. The New World Order is concerned with the burgeoning neo-colonialism of the 60s through 80s, the cold war, the ideological friction between command and capital based economies, and the anticipated, but mistaken presumption, of the eventual supremacy of the capitalist model, post the velvet revolution. It is very real. It is not an order in the sense of a group of people, or a cabal, as you put it, it is an order in the sense of new global structures, new markets and challenges, and the means to exploit them. The only sense in which it is not real is that in some ways this vision has failed, as communism, in varying forms, is alive and well.

Yeah, the bully on the playground who hands out more than twice as much foreign aid as the next country on the list. That's just federal government aid, too.

Yes this is a huge problem yet you make it sound like it has been a good thing?

Half of Africa is heavily dependent on US aid.
http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx

Ditto. Agreed but emphasise what you're thinking is good, is in fact awful. Suggest reading Kwame Nkrumah for insights into neo-colonialism, the prototype for the "NWO" and the role of aid in crucifying African economies. What you don't mention is the IMF and World Bank demand capitalist restructuring of all these countries banking systems, and the total re-privatisation of national resource wealth in order to funnel trillions into the western banks. Even Tunisia, and Libya, recently, have undergone such restructuring. It is Africa that has been massively subsidising the west, not the other way around. China does not do this.

 

[Boodles]

Yeah, seems like a lot of appetite for middle eastern oil in the EU. Better attack Syria to secure those pipeline routes in the name of Halliburton...

Care to point out the significant Western interest here? I mean, since the US is obviously warmongering to bomb Syria for oil pipelines and all.

I'm referring to general strategic principles, future infrastructure, secondary contracts.

Nope, sorry, Assad is not a nice, misunderstood guy. But he didn't bring this on himself either. His father started trend of trampling human rights in the country over the past few decades.

I take your point with respect to his father and I did not say he was nice or misunderstood, did I? You'll recall he was touted as reformist in the states. He appears a mild mannered, quietly spoken man, a medical doctor who trained and worked in London hospitals, with an English wife, not unlike couples I have sat down to polite dinner parties with but I could not comment on him as a person, other than that, and his personality is no relevance. He had leadership thrust upon him unexpectedly. Jeremy Bowen of the BBC will interview him. Perhaps we can gauge him further at that point?

Had a look at your links, thank you. I was referring in the main to gas. You are referring to current infrastructure. The gas pipeline you show is relatively local, from Sinai to the Levant, and the oil pipelines, inland Iraq? How are these relevant? Not the infrastructure I am referring to.

In any case, yes, I see the current European Commission figure for importation of middle eastern oil is a not insubstantial 14% of all importation within the E.U. Today's price is $111 per barrel. That's approximately $15,540,000,000 per annum in revenues for the producers.

Refining, forwarding to the retail market, engineering expertise, secondary industry, all bring in a great deal more, of course. 42 gallons in a barrel, obviously various products within that, petrol, jet fuel, bitumen and others. Too complex to calculate but the mark up from the wholesale price is healthy I should imagine.

 

[Boodles]

Many may have seen this clip from an Arab summit in Syria in 2008 before, others not, so here it is. Deeply prophetic, Gaddafi, the maverick of the collective, foreseeing his own death at the hands of the Americans and warning the other Arab leaders they too may very well face the same fate as Hussein. I really don't care what the NATO powers think of Gaddafi, in this speech he shows a deeply intuitive, pragmatic understanding of the Israelis, his European neighbours, and the mistrusting but peaceful relationships Arab nations have with one another. I occasionally view it to remind myself of Bashar Al Assad's reaction, around about the 6 or 7 minute mark. Increasingly, this speech screams of a man who understandsstood the true nature of things.

 

[Boodles]

Yeah, seems like a lot of appetite for middle eastern oil in the EU. Better attack Syria to secure those pipeline routes in the name of Halliburton.
Lets look at the big oil and gas pipelines in Syria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_Pipeline

^^ It's that one actually, thanks, the gas pipeline I mentioned was local (for now) .On a phone it's hard for me to react fast. It's due for extension in to Europe. And it is one possible connection to Qatar (but on the wrong side of Arabia (Red Sea rather than Persian Gulf). I snipped the other examples as they aren't relevant to debunking your assertion that it's not about resources (as the US, and then you said Europe, have little interest).

Care to point out the significant Western interest here? I mean, since the US is obviously warmongering to bomb Syria for oil pipelines and all.

Sure, but gas (and oil). Let's get that clear, again.

From godourlight.info/?p=102, July 2012:

Natural gas has become one of the most important commodities in determining regional power. The European Union currently imports 50% of its energy and with an increased dependence on natural gas, the EU has fallen victim during various periods with the suspension of the natural gas supplies from Russia.

True. This was a big story. Gas prices have risen here at five times the rate of inflation. You don't want to see my bill, it makes me want to cry. Anyway...

A major gas pipeline project has since been planned to counter this trend, and the pipeline will originate in Qatar via Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Okay.

This little known fact is one major reason why Russia is taking the current situation in Syria very seriously – because the outcome will affect its own geopolitical standing within greater Europe.

Qatar is a country with rich natural gas reserves that can ensure source diversity in natural gas supply for the EU – the later has been seeking to reduce its dependence on Russia. Streamlining Syria and Turkey as the final mile to Europe is of paramount interest to the US and its NATO allies. It is a major piece of a larger puzzle of economic and political consolidation.

Ahah?

Also of great interest to the international banks, corporations and the IMF, will be all of Syria's state-owned assets and resources.

But I guess many may not understand the value of state owned sovereign assets and elements of command based economy. I don't know. So the ideological vulgarity of that last extract may be lost, it may sound good to asset strip open up the wider Syrian economy to free market economics on order to bankcrupt stimulate growth. Oh, here we are:

It's state-owned bank will also disappear within weeks, and [be] replaced by a new privately owned central bank as in Libya.

Rothschilds 'expertise' and Anglo-American, not the Syrian people's. I know many think what they did to Gaddafi had nothing to do with imposing an Anglo-American central banking system to ensure trade in the dollar, rather than the gold Dinar, as your monopoly money with literally fractional reserves of gold to back it up is utterly useless unless the world continues to use it, but is it really smart for Syria to follow suite? Ernst and Young, J P Morgan and the World Bank will write up reports to make it sound like fiscal restraint, dollars and debt, were exactly what is needed, afterwards.

The recent economic history of these wretched Mediteranean souls under the cruel yoke of dictatorship and just crying out for the United States to come and liberate, bringing Taco Bell for all.

Before the west's infiltration of Syria in 2011, the country was in the black and enjoying steady economic growth that beat China in terms of percentage – all during a period of recession in the west. With sanctions and destabilization, that has changed, and with further asset-stripping, just like Libya, Syria will remain deep in the red for the foreseeable future.

The future oil and gas road to southern Europe goes through Syria, and is meant to free Europe from dependence on Russia.

 

[jvnk08]

Understandable interpretation but I'm afraid not. That is an American interpretation gleaned from internet videos and speaks more to the xenophobic isolationism, and fear of socialism and the state that predominates there. The New World Order is concerned with the burgeoning neo-colonialism of the 60s through 80s, the cold war, the ideological friction between command and capital based economies, and the anticipated, but mistaken presumption, of the eventual supremacy of the capitalist model, post the velvet revolution. It is very real. It is not an order in the sense of a group of people, or a cabal, as you put it, it is an order in the sense of new global structures, new markets and challenges, and the means to exploit them. The only sense in which it is not real is that in some ways this vision has failed, as communism, in varying forms, is alive and well.

Yes, I understand there is a new world order in the sense that the balance of power is shifting from the concentration of resources to the concentration of intelligence. However, communism is not 'alive and well' in any sense other than the governments of a few countries have held on to it as a political philosophy. The prosperity we see in politically communist countries like China and Vietnam is entirely due to their capitalist economies.

And yeah, those countries are real angels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

He appears a mild mannered, quietly spoken man, a medical doctor who trained and worked in London hospitals, with an English wife, not unlike couples I have sat down to polite dinner parties with but I could not comment on him as a person, other than that, and his personality is no relevance.

Yeah, real typical guy. Talking with his wife about shopping for at western fashion labels and music on iTunes while simultaneously using the military to violently suppress what started as peaceful protests.

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/

I'm referring to general strategic principles, future infrastructure, secondary contracts.

Of course, these supposed motives fall apart when we look at the support for the proposed military actions. France is the only vocal proponent in Europe. In the US it's looking increasingly less likely that congress will support Obama's calls for military action, and per yesterday's developments it's looking more likely that an agreement will be brokered to place Syria's absolutely vast CW stockpile under international control. We'd already be bombing Syria if there was indeed a plot afoot to feign legitimacy.

^^ It's that one actually, thanks, the gas pipeline I mentioned was local? On a phone it's hard for me to react fast. It's due for extension in to Europe. I snipped the other examples as they aren't relevant to debunking your assertion that it's not about resources (as the US, and then you said Europe, have little interest).


Sure, but gas (and oil). Let's get that clear, again.

The entire time I've been talking about both. But yes, Gas is the bigger of the two here. Of course, one could easily make the same exact argument in the other direction - Russia is interested in Syria to expand its own capability to sell its natural gas, seeing as they are one of the world's largest producers. It's safe to say there is a web of interests, is it enough for the west to use its militaries to change the regime in Syria? It's looking doubtful.

Ditto. Agreed but emphasise what you're thinking is good, is in fact awful. Suggest reading Kwame Nkrumah for insights into neo-colonialism, the prototype for the "NWO" and the role of aid in crucifying African economies. What you don't mention is the IMF and World Bank demand capitalist restructuring of all these countries banking systems, and the total re-privatisation of national resource wealth in order to funnel trillions into the western banks. Even Tunisia, and Libya, recently, have undergone such restructuring. It is Africa that has been massively subsidising the west, not the other way around. China does not do this.

Gonna need sources here. My personal experience in the world of philanthropy paints a vastly different picture with regards to where federal aid is being spent, particularly in Africa.

And yeah, China doesn't do that! Right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa–China_economic_relations#Fears_of_colonialism

China has their own central bank that is as publicly mandated as the US Federal Reserve System:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Bank_of_China

The Federal Reserve System has a mixture of properties of public and private institutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve#Structure

From 2012:

Natural gas has become one of the most important commodities in determining regional power. The European Union currently imports 50% of its energy and with an increased dependence on natural gas, the EU has fallen victim during various periods with the suspension of the natural gas supplies from Russia.

True. This was a big story. Gas prices have risen here at five times the rate of inflation. You don't want to see my bill, it makes me want to cry. Anyway...

A major gas pipeline project has since been planned to counter this trend, and the pipeline will originate in Qatar via Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Okay.

This little known fact is one major reason why Russia is taking the current situation in Syria very seriously – because the outcome will affect its own geopolitical standing within greater Europe.

Qatar is a country with rich natural gas reserves that can ensure source diversity in natural gas supply for the EU – the later has been seeking to reduce its dependence on Russia. Streamlining Syria and Turkey as the final mile to Europe is of paramount interest to the US and its NATO allies. It is a major piece of a larger puzzle of economic and political consolidation.

Ahah?

Also of great interest to the international banks, corporations and the IMF, will be all of Syria's state-owned assets and resources.

But I guess you may not understand the value of state owned assets and elements of command based economy. I don't know. So the ideological vulgarity of that last paragraph may be lost on you, as it may sound good to asset strip open up the wider Syrian economy to free market economics to bankcrupt stimulate growth. Oh, here we are:

It's state-owned bank will also disappear within weeks, and [be] replaced by a new privately owned central bank as in Libya.

Rothschilds 'expertise'. Anglo-American, not the Syrian people's? I know many of you guys think what they did to Gaddafi over the Dinar is You Tube conspiracy? No.

Finally, the recent economic history of these wretched Mediteranean souls under the cruel yoke of dictatorship and just crying out for America to come and liberate them with bombs, bringing Taco Bell for all.

Before the west's infiltration of Syria in 2011, the country was in the black and enjoying steady economic growth that beat China in terms of percentage – all during a period of recession in the west. With sanctions and destabilization, that has changed, and with further asset-stripping, just like Libya, Syria will remain deep in the red for the foreseeable future.

The future oil and gas road to southern Europe goes through Syria, and is meant to free Europe from dependence on Russia.

*Cough* Errr, are you getting all of these quotes from this infowars piece? http://www.infowars.com/bye-bye-syria-globalist-destruction-of-a-nation-state/

None of these assertions are backed by sources or statistics.

 

[Boodles]

No I haven't ever managed to read a page of content on Infowars in my life, too 'domestically focused' for a European. Not that I'm knocking them. I think they are often the most refreshingly different and radical take you guys get out there, media-wise. Alex Jones is a don! You see, outsiders view these things differently. But no, the source was a Christian site, link above the text.

I mean this nicely but Wikipedia is not a trustable source either, and neither are most press editorials. This site is fun and informative but obviously there is a slight limitation in all these things, when pulling random "facts" from web pages. I pull what strikes me as truthful, from experience, no matter what the source. If you like I can go "hardcore" and search academic peer reviewed papers but they can't be thrown up here so easily.

I am not aware of "yesterday's developments", having had my radio off, and I haven't had a television since 2006.

I see here that Alex Jones is generally perceived as a self interested lunatic and purveyor of lies? I disagree, for the most part and consider him sincere. I think Mick here mentioned his appearance on a TV news programme in the UK where he screamed his head off recently. Andrew Neil - the presenter and former editor of The Times - called him mad but to most UK viewers under a certain age that was praiseworthy, for Andrew Neil can be very tiresome and well, a former employee of Rupert Murdoch. As for his views on the so called illuminati etc, I actually buy the vast majority, or feel much of it is true, if not so simplistically true. The difference is it does not scare me in the least. I respect it.

 

[jvnk08]

But no, the source was a Christian site, link above the text.

The article on that site appears to be a repost of the InfoWars article.

I see here that Alex Jones is generally perceived as a self interested lunatic and purveyor of lies? I disagree, for the most part and consider him sincere. I think Mick here mentioned his appearance on a TV news programme in the UK where he screamed his head off recently. Andrew Neil - the presenter and former editor of The Times - called him mad but to most UK viewers under a certain age that was praiseworthy, for Andrew Neil can be very tiresome and well, a former employee of Rupert Murdoch. As for his views on the so called illuminati etc, I actually buy the vast majority of that as much of it is true, if not so simplistically true. The difference is it does not scare me in the least. I respect it.

I think Alex Jones is sincere, but that doesn't stop him from being a charlatan. Here's a video with some of his failed predictions(which overall date back to the late 90s):



That channel has some more compilations and videos tearing apart Jones' claims.

You'd be hard pressed to find folks here on this forum, and indeed in rational society in general, who do not think that there is abuse of power, cronyism, corruption, etc in governments around the world including the US.

But the difference is that there's no need to evoke a higher-order explanation, that it's all part of an orchestrated effort by a small group whose goals are to literally cause the suffering in the world because that suffering directly translates into their profit. In reality, the problems we see are a emergent property of the sheer immensity and complexity of the world economy. You'll also be hard pressed to prove that there is noone doing anything about those issues or that they fail to accomplish anything. Groups like the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, Sunlight Foundation have enjoyed a lot of success.

 

[Boodles]

The article on that site appears to be a repost of the InfoWars article.

No. My source is from 14 months ago, Infowars have two pieces on this idea, from six and seven days ago, respectively.

That's if those are the pages you refer to. So it is the other way around, if there's any connection at all.

 

[moderateGOP]

We have also seen reports from accredited chemical weapons inspectors that the rebels could not have devised a delivery system for such a large payload. Do you simply ignore that since its goes against your narrative? Do you trust the Russians implicitly or is it possible they have an incentive to lay the blame on the rebels?

Lots of CTs trust RT because it is strictly anti-west and spouts what they want to hear. Despite the fact that it is run by the Russian Government. Libertarians and conservatives go to its YT channel in droves because they don't like American authority... It's been made clear that the world trusts Assad's story way more than Obama's. He has not made a compelling case, but to ignore evidence that go against your worldview is not doing anybody any good.

 

[Boodles]

*Cough* Errr, are you getting all of these quotes from this infowars piece? http://www.infowars.com/bye-bye-syria-globalist-destruction-of-a-nation-state/

None of these assertions are backed by sources or statistics.

I now see this link is also from 14 months ago so I take your point. At a cursory glance, aside the final paragraph, I agree with what it is saying. This is a good example of what I mean about finding Infowars refreshingly umm... radical for American output, but it is an opinion piece in the main so I do not expect it to be rigorously sourced.

The only thing I need take from that, or my source is what I put forward to you concerning the extension of a gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe and the uncomfortably dependent relationship the EU has with Gazprom. Is this in dispute, whether Infowars, or my aunt Sally is the source?

 

[jvnk08]

I now see this link is also from 14 months ago so I take your point. At a cursory glance, aside the final paragraph, I agree with what it is saying. This is a good example of what I mean about finding Infowars refreshingly umm... radical for American output, but it is an opinion piece in the main so I do not expect it to be rigorously sourced.

The only thing I need take from that, or my source is what I put forward to you concerning the extension of a gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe and the uncomfortably dependent relationship the EU has with Gazprom. Is this in dispute, whether Infowars, or my aunt Sally is the source?

What is in dispute is whether the EU's dependance on Russian natural gas has anything to do with Obama and a few other countries pushing for military action following a chemical weapons attack in Syria. Aside from the fact that there are huge logical shortcomings with the idea that they are pushing for military action in order to secure oil pipelines, there is also no concrete evidence supporting this notion yet that I've seen. There is not a lot of substance to this theory in light of how the situation has developed over the past few years.

InfoWars is known for their outright false sensationalism.

 

[Oxymoron]

What is in dispute is whether the EU's dependance on Russian natural gas has anything to do with Obama and a few other countries pushing for military action following a chemical weapons attack in Syria.

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'.

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'.

'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'.

 

[SR1419]

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.

Sorry Oxy- that is simply not true- the analysis reported in this article is evidence of the Assad regime being responsible for the Ghouta attack- that you simply ignore it a a "joke" says more about your objectivity then lack of evidence itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w....html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130905

Here is another similar yet detailed analysis from the NGO Human Rights Watch:

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

This IS evidence- it may not be convincing to you but you can't claim no evidence has been presented.

extremely biased...throwing as much rhetoric and propaganda as possible and hoping it will stick'.

thats funny...you just described your entire methodology here at MB.

 

[Oxymoron]

Sorry Oxy- that is simply not true- the analysis reported in this article is evidence of the Assad regime being responsible for the Ghouta attack- that you simply ignore it a a "joke" says more about your objectivity then lack of evidence itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w....html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130905

Here is another similar yet detailed analysis from the NGO Human Rights Watch:

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

This IS evidence- it may not be convincing to you but you can't claim no evidence has been presented.

So where is the evidence? That is rhetoric. The U.S keeps making claims but refuses to disclose evidence. This fact alone shows that what you call evidence, is clearly not. 80% of people do not believe them. They think Obama and Kerry are out and out liars.

Your level for accepting such 'evidence/rhetoric' on such huge issue a is suspiciously low.

http://dprogram.net/2013/09/10/kidn...d-assad-not-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-2/

(PaulWatson) – A Belgian teacher who was kidnapped by rebels in Syria said he overheard the militants acknowledging that President Bashar Al-Assad was not responsible for last month's chemical weapons attack.

thats funny...you just described your entire methodology here at MB.

Did I?

 

[SR1419]

So where is the evidence? That is rhetoric.

So, I take it you didn't actually read the report? photos of rockets owned the the regime is evidence.

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

You claimed no evidence had been represented. you were wrong.

Did I ?

yes.

 

[Oxymoron]

So, I take it you didn't actually read the report? photos of rockets owned the the regime is evidence.

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

You claimed no evidence had been represented. you were wrong.

Well if you will insist on calling rhetoric and hearsay evidence. You do understand why hearsay is inadmissible in court do you? So you just ignore first hand evidence which contradicts your assertion. Did you actually read the link I posted and watch the video's?

Without physical access to Eastern and Western Ghouta,
Human Rights Watch interviewed by Skype from August
22 to September 6 more than 10 witnesses and survivors
of the August 21 attacks, and 3 doctors who responded to
the attacks. Human Rights Watch also reviewed available
video and photo footage from the scene of the attacks,
including high-resolution images obtained directly from
a source who photographed and measured the rocket
components found in the Eastern Ghouta attack, and conducted a detailed analysis of the weapon remnants captured in such footage.

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. I think it would be entirely prudent if the warmongers did the same but then they don't really want that do they, hence the rush to get the 'Lightning Strike' underway and kill more Syrian civilians.

yes.

I suggest you watch and listen to one of your own ex Senators who seems to be pretty much on the same page as me and the other 80% of the world who have not fallen for the warmongering propaganda. Very telling that even after Syria agrees to put its CW's out of use and under U.N control, Obama & co are still warmongering.

 

[Oxymoron]

Cameron was doing his best to warmonger back in May.. what a surprise!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-fears-of-likely-chemical-weapons-attack.html

A confidential paper, seen by The Daily Telegraph, sets out the case for two "options" allowing Britain and France to start supplying arms to the official Syrian opposition as early as June.

"The situation in Syria is deteriorating sharply. With the likely use of chemical weapons and the growth of extremism, the conflict has entered an even more dangerous phase," the paper argues.

"We must consider all the options, [including] the ability to give further assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition. It will also protect civilians, and save lives. Crucially, it will ensure we can respond flexibly to a major escalation in the conflict, such as chemical weapons attacks."

The proposal will be discussed by foreign ministers at a meeting in Brussels on 27 May where it will run into opposition led by Germany which also has the backing of Baroness Ashton and her EU diplomatic service.

Please explain how arming the terrorists would 'protect Syrian civilians' who are being slaughtered by the terrorists?

Please explain how arming the terrorists would stop Assad from using Chemical Weapons if he so chose?

Would it not be much cheaper and more pragmatic to distribute humanitarian aid, gas masks and medicines to those deemed most in danger of a chemical attack?

But even more to the point, why does Syria have Chemical Weapons in the first place?
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/chemical/

Since the early 1980s, Syria has made efforts to acquire and maintain an arsenal of chemical weapons. Regional security concerns, and most notably Syria's adversarial relationship with Israel, represent the most likely present-day motivation behind Syria's chemical weapons program. Specifically, a series of disastrous military defeats to Israel in 1967, 1973, and 1982, followed by the weakening of Arab unity against Israel following the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and Israel's presumed acquisition of nuclear weapons, provided impetus for Syria to pursue a strategic deterrent against the conventional and nuclear Israeli threats. [1] Syria has neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and has officially stated that while it supports a region-wide ban on WMD, it cannot unilaterally renounce chemical weapons for as long as Israel continues to pose a threat to its security. [2]

So the chemical weapons stockpile is/was a deterrent to Israels WMD's, not for use to kill a few hundred of it's own citizens, thereby giving the U.S, (which they know has been itching to invade for decades), the excuse they need to attack.

Numerous press and U.S. government sources indicate that Syria first obtained chemical weapons from Egypt on the eve of the attack on Israel in October 1973. [8] Reports that Israeli troops captured stockpiles of Syrian chemical weapons support the view that Syrian combat troops received these weapons during the Yom Kippur war. [9] Notably, although Syrian forces suffered severe defeat, at no point did they deploy chemical weapons.

 

[Oxymoron]

Cluster bombs
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/cluster-munitions/index.jsp

Cluster munitions have had a severe impact on civilians, killing and injuring large numbers and causing long lasting socio-economic problems. In 2008, governments negotiated and adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This important international humanitarian law treaty prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions and requires States to take specific action to ensure that these weapons claim no future victims.
The problems caused by cluster munitions are not new. In nearly every conflict where they have been used over the past 40 years cluster munitions have taken a heavy toll on civilians both during the fighting and after military operations have ended.

Civilian casualties during conflict often occur because cluster munitions scatter huge numbers of explosive submunitions over very large areas. Some models discharge hundreds of submunitions over more than thirty thousand square metres of territory. Since these submunitions are generally free-falling, incorrect use, wind, and other factors can cause them to strike well outside the intended target area.

108 States signed the Convention between 3 December 2008 and 31 July 2010. The Convention entered into force on 1 August 2010.

But not by the U.S or Saudi Arabia

http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=4850

WASHINGTON, 23 Aug (IPS) - Arms control advocates are decrying a new U.S. Department of Defence announcement that it will be building and selling 1,300 cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, worth some 641 million dollars.

A B-1B Lancer unleashes cluster munitions. Credit: US Army

The munitions at the heart of the sale are technically legal under recently strengthened U.S. regulations aimed at reducing impact on civilian safety, but activists contend that battlefield evidence suggests the weapons actually exceed those regulations.

"Both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have recently condemned the use of cluster munitions by the government of Syria – that's ironic given this new sale, because a cluster munition is a cluster munition, no matter what kind it is," Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a watchdog group here in Washington, told IPS.

 

[SR1419]

Well if you will insist on calling rhetoric and hearsay evidence. You do understand why hearsay is inadmissible in court do you? So you just ignore first hand evidence which contradicts your assertion.

The only assertion I made was that your claim that no evidence that Assad's regime was responsible has been presented is false. Eyewitness testimony and photo and video analysis IS "evidence" whether you agree with the conclusions or not.

I made no claims regarding responsibility either way...simply pointed out your bunk.

Without physical access to Eastern and Western Ghouta,
Human Rights Watch interviewed by Skype from August
22 to September 6 more than 10 witnesses and survivors
of the August 21 attacks, and 3 doctors who responded to
the attacks. Human Rights Watch also reviewed available
video and photo footage from the scene of the attacks,
including high-resolution images obtained directly from
a source who photographed and measured the rocket
components found in the Eastern Ghouta attack, and conducted a detailed analysis of the weapon remnants captured in such footage.

I suggest you watch and listen to one of your own ex Senators ...

Sorry- that has nothing to do with the fact that your standard MO on this site is essentially "throwing as much rhetoric and propaganda as possible and hoping it will stick"

 

[Oxymoron]

Sorry- that has nothing to do with the fact that your standard MO on this site is essentially "throwing as much rhetoric and propaganda as possible and hoping it will stick"

So you are accusing the Senator of "throwing as much rhetoric and propaganda as possible and hoping it will stick", because what he says is no different to what i have said throughout my posts on this site.

 

[SR1419]

So you are accusing the Senator of "throwing as much rhetoric and propaganda as possible and hoping it will stick", because what he says is no different to what i have said throughout my posts on this site.

Are you plagiarizing him?