Regarding Syria's "Nerve Gas" attacks

[LikelyToBreak]

Eugeny Anatolievich please excuse the believers in the Obama myth.  They cannot accept the fact that the Leader would lie to them.  Even after it has been proven many times.

It looks like Obama is thinking twice about attacking Syria openly, since the American Congress has pretty much told him, that he will be impeached if he does openly attack Syria.  There are many in America who want Obama impeached for his violations of the Constitution, rather he attacks Syria or not.  But, Congress won't act until they have something which the vast majority of the American citizens are mad about Obama doing.  Then, they'll act to protect themselves and go ahead and impeach Obama.

[Shiranu]

My problem with the conflict is inbetween Anatolievich and the opposition... I am not as pro-Al-Asad as him but at the same time he is correct; the rebels for the most part are just as bad, and I would argue far worse than al-Asad, of people. It is like saying, "Should we support Hitler or Stalin"... how about neither?

[frosty]

Eugeny Anatolievich please excuse the believers in the Obama myth.  They cannot accept the fact that the Leader would lie to them.  Even after it has been proven many times.

It looks like Obama is thinking twice about attacking Syria openly, since the American Congress has pretty much told him, that he will be impeached if he does openly attack Syria.  There are many in America who want Obama impeached for his violations of the Constitution, rather he attacks Syria or not.  But, Congress won't act until they have something which the vast majority of the American citizens are mad about Obama doing.  Then, they'll act to protect themselves and go ahead and impeach Obama.

Just because you made that post it still doesn't change anything. You can try to shoot down all the statistics and historical facts you want, calling it an "Obama myth", it's not going to change anything and you're only fooling yourself. I never advocated any foreign military intervention, and in response to the Russian guy's post, I never said the opposition was free of crimes either. But to use your Internet "activism" to take Assad off the hook for what he has done doesn't make much sense considering he is the very same tyrant many of these Internet enthusiasts claim they oppose.

And as for believing in myths... well, you can speak for yourself on that one.

[frosty]

Who has destroyed Syria's infrastracture? Bandits have. They are supported and sponsored by USA and Saudi Arabia, the best friend of USA.  

So Assad's massive stockpiles of munitions have not done it? The countless leaked videos of his forces using massive artillery pieces, or launching systems to send missiles and rockets into villages? You simply claimed, without giving one iota of evidence, that "bandits" did it, like you're regurgitating something you've been told. You will really have to do better than that if you want to promote your opinions on an objective basis. I assumed it was common knowledge that Assad, as a state actor, has massive assets capable of destroying infrastructure, but if you're that oblivious (a very nice way of putting it) I can provide many, many sources which will prove me right and you wrong.

Do you know proverb: "He's lying like a witness."? I remember Serbia. There were multiple sources of witnesses too. And U.S. were supporting and sponsoring albanian bandits, drug dealers and kidnappers and calling them rebels and fighters for freedom. They were witnesses. Some later Carla Del Ponte has written the book where she told that everything was the great lie. And now the same lie repeats again. And chemical weapon in Iraq? When the U.S. has learned that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, they started the war. I think when Assad will give up the last unit of chemical weapon, U.S. will start the war. Only the weapon of mass destruction guarantees protection from U.S. aggression.
Sometimes everything seems like deja vu. U.S. are the Imperia of Evil. U.S. are the kingdom of lie. U.S. are the enemy of peace.

It's peculiar that you don't seem to understand what you're doing here. You're simply trading in one propaganda line for the other, and recycling claims that no civilians have been harmed and the rebels are responsible for everything. I seriously wonder what authority you of anybody have to make all of these claims and expect anybody to believe it. It seems you have bought into whatever State TV propaganda organ you've been watching, and you have an emotional axe to grind with the U.S. so you blatantly take one side because it suits your preconceived notions of the conflict. Sure, say the same thing about me, but the difference being is that I know what started the conflict and I know what transgressions both sides have committed.

[Eugeny Anatolievich]

So Assad's massive stockpiles of munitions have not done it? The countless leaked videos of his forces using massive artillery pieces, or launching systems to send missiles and rockets into villages?

Bandits hide in villages. Syrian army sends missiles and rockets into villages to kill bandits, and destroys something. It is inevitable. And some casualties among non-combatants are inevitable too. A la guerre comme a la guerre. War always means death and destruction.

Assad is the legal president according to laws of Syria like the king of Saudi Arabia is the legal king according to S.A. laws, and like Kim Jong-un is the legal supreme leader of Northern Korea according to their laws.

It is his duty to defend the country and to suppress any armed resistance to lawful authority. It is duty of every state ruler to defend the country and to suppress any armed resistance to lawful authority.

But only the bandits are responsible for all deaths and destructions. They must stop fighting and surrender. Assad and Army of Syria are doing their duty, so they are not guilty.

[LikelyToBreak]

Eugeny Anatolievich so called propaganda may be more accurate than our propaganda.  

This is of great concern. [youtube:383anawu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzYtVexR1o[/youtube:383anawu]
Even if only a little of this is true, we may have a Manchurian Candidate in the Whitehouse.

[Jmpty]

:-s

[zarus tathra]

The UN's Human Rights council declared all those videos fake more than a month ago.

link

Also, you have to wonder what exactly Assad would have to gain from a gas attack. He's winning the war, and the public is mostly on his side. A gas attack would give the US an excuse to bombard Syria and would represent the insurgency's only real chance of success.

[frosty]

The UN's Human Rights council declared all those videos fake more than a month ago.

link

Also, you have to wonder what exactly Assad would have to gain from a gas attack. He's winning the war, and the public is mostly on his side. A gas attack would give the US an excuse to bombard Syria and would represent the insurgency's only real chance of success.

I was just re-reading this, and the article you linked to was absolutely atrocious. A poorly designed conspiracy website that chastises other people to "wake up", and then it doesn't actually show any citations of the U.N. actually saying the videos are fake. It uses AllVoices, a user submitted amateur conspiracy "news" site, and it also uses RT and Iran State TV sources which, when checked, seem to show no actual proof the U.N. claimed the videos were fake. They just say 'UN says videos are fake' without properly citing anything.

I wonder why westerners seem to think Assad has the support of the population when so many have been killed, imprisoned, internally displaced or externally displaced. Perhaps it was from a phony world tribune report that falsely claimed Assad had 70 percent of Syrian support but when it was asked to disclose it's data it absolutely refused to do so - because they had none. Assad is surviving because his millions of Alawite sect members are taking up arms to defend him. Shia militias from Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen are pouring into the country in massive numbers to prop up his forces. Iran and Russia ship weapons to him every single day, as well as give him free oil, money, and protect him at the U.N. from the international community.

The only thing I agree with you on is that Assad is indeed winning because he is surviving. Most of Syria is not in his control, but the battlelines will stay where they are for a while now. The only chance the opposition has of getting rid of Assad is to somehow assassinate him, other than that he is probably going to stay, albeit as the Mayor Of Damascus, not the President Of Syria.

[zarus tathra]

Here's another article. It's from Infowars, but it cites people who've written for the BBC and the Associated Press. And apparently, it wasn't a deliberate gas attack, the rebels were just given a shell that was intended for Al-Qaeda and they didn't know wtf it was, so they accidentally set it off. Which actually seems kind of plausible, because the rebels are mainly shopkeepers and farmers who were given weapons that they most likely don't even know what to call.

[frosty]

Here's another article. It's from Infowars, but it cites people who've written for the BBC and the Associated Press. And apparently, it wasn't a deliberate gas attack, the rebels were just given a shell that was intended for Al-Qaeda and they didn't know wtf it was, so they accidentally set it off. Which actually seems kind of plausible, because the rebels are mainly shopkeepers and farmers who were given weapons that they most likely don't even know what to call.

It's Infowars. A site that aggregates the most random links, from random blogs to health websites just so they can prove their point.  In the article, they themselves even expressed a tad of skepticism about the claims made by these alleged prominent professional journalists. That should raise a red flag if Infowars questions their own sources, which let's be honest almost never happens. They are a self serving conspiracy website that shares information that furthers their own agenda. And hey, making money through online sales isn't so bad either.

[zarus tathra]

You know what, if you're going to be that way, fine. Here's one of the links from the article.

[frosty]

You know what, if you're going to be that way, fine. Here's one of the links from the article.

Be what way? Inconveniencing you, and shattering your perfect little world of sharing links and copypasta articles? I'm being skeptical of your claims, just like you are being skeptical with the official story. Funny how on the Interwebz the so called truth speakers never liked being questioned themselves. It's all the system's fault, and they are above being questioned because they "know the truth".

If you don't like this kind of stuff that's really just too bad. And since you linked to Mint Press, yet another example of selective bias copypasta to serve your agenda, that's doesn't help things either. A site that, yet again, when pressed about their sources in that article they absolutely refused to disclose their methods. You seem to be oblivious to what you are doing, which is selectively sharing information here just so you can promote a narrative of what is really happening inside Syria, even though you seem to have next to no knowledge of it's internal situation at all. Outside of sharing conspiracy links and recycling what they say through your own words, you got nothing.

Perhaps once you are finished with your defensive banter you can finally address the increasing number of points I have made that you have conveniently ignored.

[zarus tathra]

Here's an article that compares the Mint Press with the American government reports.

When the evidence isn't circumstantial, it's strikingly vague: "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence," the report asserts. Taken at face value, it's one of the most damning claims in the government's report–a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that "confirmed" chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

It says at the end that the Mint Press article is probably very shaky, but the American government reports are also extremely shaky. This is war, you can't believe anything you hear.

[frosty]

Here's an article that compares the Mint Press with the American government reports.

When the evidence isn't circumstantial, it's strikingly vague: "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence," the report asserts. Taken at face value, it's one of the most damning claims in the government's report–a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that "confirmed" chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

It says at the end that the Mint Press article is probably very shaky, but the American government reports are also extremely shaky. This is war, you can't believe anything you hear.

Well, I always try to cross-check and verify things through multiple conflicting sources, and even then, what the Internet is almost incapable of doing is replicating an event as it happened through the eyes of the perceivers. This leads to conflicting information, conflicting reports and a large gap being filled by various sources, an example of which I criticized above.

Also, it should be said, that thanks to Hezbollah, the regime might survive for good now. Hezbollah has engaged in a campaign around the capital and in Aleppo as well against al-Qaeda and every time they dealt al-Qaeda forces serious blows and defeats. Of course, this is based on the information I have read upon but I draw it from multiple sources, and it seems to be mostly accurate. It is quite impressive on a military scale how Hezbollah was able to defeat forces that, before the crisis, seemed so similar to them.