|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 16 2018 04:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 03:35 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 03:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice. Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists. Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack. People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US. Indeed they would. But why would the US, UK and France play along? Do you believe they don't have their own intelligence? That they blindly trust what some rebels told them? If they don't know who did it, why would they leap into action instead of simply sitingt around and waiting for an official report? If they know that they will be able to prove it when the OPCW verify what happened why were they in such a rush to attack just days before that? The US, UK and France could be said to be playing along because of larger ideas that were already in motion ie escalating tensions with Russia, the feeling that this is a continuation of Russian aggression in a a different form etc. Another reason they would play along is because the US, UK and France are notoriously fucking stupid when it comes to conflict in the ME, and highly susceptible to being told what they want to hear. Remember the WMDs? Why don't they wait now? Because they knew who it was and want to send a clear message.
How is it Russian aggression when its rebels gassing rebels?
Iraq made sense. The US wanted to invade and they needed a justification.
I don't see anyone prepping to invade Syria to throw out Assad themselves.
Heck the US had just announced they had enough and were pulling out. And now they play along with a ruse to draw them back in?
For reasons?
The 'its a ruse' just doesn't add up for me. What's the gain?
|
On April 16 2018 04:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 04:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:35 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 03:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice. Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists. Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack. People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US. Indeed they would. But why would the US, UK and France play along? Do you believe they don't have their own intelligence? That they blindly trust what some rebels told them? If they don't know who did it, why would they leap into action instead of simply sitingt around and waiting for an official report? If they know that they will be able to prove it when the OPCW verify what happened why were they in such a rush to attack just days before that? The US, UK and France could be said to be playing along because of larger ideas that were already in motion ie escalating tensions with Russia, the feeling that this is a continuation of Russian aggression in a a different form etc. Another reason they would play along is because the US, UK and France are notoriously fucking stupid when it comes to conflict in the ME, and highly susceptible to being told what they want to hear. Remember the WMDs? Why don't they wait now? Because they knew who it was and want to send a clear message. How is it Russian aggression when its rebels gassing rebels? Iraq made sense. The US wanted to invade and they needed a justification. I don't see anyone prepping to invade Syria to throw out Assad themselves. Heck the US had just announced they had enough and were pulling out. And now they play along with a ruse to draw them back in? For reasons? The 'its a ruse' just doesn't add up for me. What's the gain?
I don't think the whole thing's a ruse. I'm seriously doubtful about the line I feel like I'm being fed by the media. I have been ever since Skripal was poisoned. Something just seems very 'off' about the news coverage, as if the government are trying to tell a story but haven't really got it straightened out yet. All they know is Russia = bad.
There's a hell of alot of assertions flying around and absolutely zero evidence. So I guess we're in a position to simply coin flip whether to believe the official story or not.
|
On April 16 2018 04:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 04:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:35 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 03:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice. Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists. Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack. People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US. Indeed they would. But why would the US, UK and France play along? Do you believe they don't have their own intelligence? That they blindly trust what some rebels told them? If they don't know who did it, why would they leap into action instead of simply sitingt around and waiting for an official report? If they know that they will be able to prove it when the OPCW verify what happened why were they in such a rush to attack just days before that? The US, UK and France could be said to be playing along because of larger ideas that were already in motion ie escalating tensions with Russia, the feeling that this is a continuation of Russian aggression in a a different form etc. Another reason they would play along is because the US, UK and France are notoriously fucking stupid when it comes to conflict in the ME, and highly susceptible to being told what they want to hear. Remember the WMDs? Why don't they wait now? Because they knew who it was and want to send a clear message. How is it Russian aggression when its rebels gassing rebels? Iraq made sense. The US wanted to invade and they needed a justification. I don't see anyone prepping to invade Syria to throw out Assad themselves. Heck the US had just announced they had enough and were pulling out. And now they play along with a ruse to draw them back in? For reasons? The 'its a ruse' just doesn't add up for me. What's the gain?
Where have you been? The neocons in USA have been trying to remove Assad for a very long time. This is an undisputable fact. Noone will deny this. Syria, being traditionally part of the Iran sphere, has always been considered an enemy of Israel. Getting rid of Assad, also falls into the neocons overall Middle Eastern plans of regime change, so that they can create chaos, and infuse their own interests, ie Israel and useful puppets who agrees to play by US dictated rules.
This is exactly like Iraq, and there're many who have been calling for regime change. This was in fact USA's openly stated agenda on Syria during much of Obama's presidency. Like I said, where have you been?
And what went down is what Trump chose to do. He is not controlled by the neocons. The neocons are just an element of the US government. They have a lot of influence, but they are not dictating everything about US foreign policy.
What you're doing in equating Trump's actions throughout his full presidency with what the american neocons wanted to do is extremely dishonest.
On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy?
First of all. Again, Trump who seemingly still is very much against an invasion, chose to slap Assad on the wrist. It was his decisions. Don't act like all US foreign policy actions come from the same motivations. And remember that Trump just signalled that an invasion could be a possible outcome next time. We are steadily moving in that direction. Trump, although his actions are more tame than they would want, still played perfectly into the hands of the neocons, and those who are in favor of regime change in the region. This chemical attack was a big success from their perspective, so they have many reasons to lie and deceive, or look away. We're all biased. We have all fallen for fake stories because they were told by someone who aligned with our beliefs.There's also a huge element of naivity. Just look at the french paper.
They are putting their full trust in the testimony of certain groups and organizations, because they think they are the good guys, and wouldn't deceive.
What doesn't make sense is Assad doing these attacks. It's borderline suicidal from his perspective, and let's not forget that if USA knows that they have used chemical weapons, there's no way that Russia doesn't know about it. All of these chemical attacks are a major inconvenience to Russia. It's bad PR to Russia, and it's bad PR to the Assad regime, which at this point is a russian investment. Putin knows that every attack gives USA an excuse to go for a full invasion. Do you think he's a complete fool who would allow this to happen under his watch?
|
On April 16 2018 09:38 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 04:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 04:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:35 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 03:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice. Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists. Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack. People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US. Indeed they would. But why would the US, UK and France play along? Do you believe they don't have their own intelligence? That they blindly trust what some rebels told them? If they don't know who did it, why would they leap into action instead of simply sitingt around and waiting for an official report? If they know that they will be able to prove it when the OPCW verify what happened why were they in such a rush to attack just days before that? The US, UK and France could be said to be playing along because of larger ideas that were already in motion ie escalating tensions with Russia, the feeling that this is a continuation of Russian aggression in a a different form etc. Another reason they would play along is because the US, UK and France are notoriously fucking stupid when it comes to conflict in the ME, and highly susceptible to being told what they want to hear. Remember the WMDs? Why don't they wait now? Because they knew who it was and want to send a clear message. How is it Russian aggression when its rebels gassing rebels? Iraq made sense. The US wanted to invade and they needed a justification. I don't see anyone prepping to invade Syria to throw out Assad themselves. Heck the US had just announced they had enough and were pulling out. And now they play along with a ruse to draw them back in? For reasons? The 'its a ruse' just doesn't add up for me. What's the gain? Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? What doesn't make sense is Assad doing these attacks. It's borderline suicidal from his perspective, and let's not forget that if USA knows that they have used chemical weapons, there's no way that Russia doesn't know about it. All of these chemical attacks are a major inconvenience to Russia. It's bad PR to Russia, and it's bad PR to the Assad regime, which at this point is a russian investment. Putin knows that every attack gives USA an excuse to go for a full invasion. Do you think he's a complete fool who would allow this to happen under his watch?
Putin is in no position to 'allow things to happen'. Don't get fooled by his persona-cult, he's just a man. I don't think he is happy about it but there's a limited amount of influence you can have on actions in war torn country far away.
Neither is Assad going to be in full control. Probably some officer thought 'lets gas these fuckers' and went through with it without thinking of bigger consequences. Assad should have made policy to stop chemical weapon availability if he was really so worried about it. But he failed to do that and they got used. And the consequences weren't even that severe so far.
|
On April 13 2018 07:52 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 09:22 Broetchenholer wrote:On April 12 2018 05:20 zeo wrote:On April 12 2018 04:17 Plansix wrote:
If that is true, Russia shouldn’t have vetoed the UN investigation into the recent attack. But they did. And no one wants a dictators like Assad to start thinking they can use chemical weapons like mustard gas when they want to pour fuel on the fire. Using that train of thought why did the US and its satellite states vote no on two Russian proposals to set up mechanisms to hold those responsible for alleged chemical attacks? It takes the most low effort half assed look at the situation in Syria to see through this very desperate attempt at propaganda. Every single narrative falls flat, it isnt even comical, its just so sad to see some of the comments here. 90% of the Syrian population lives in Syrian government controlled territory? I'm sure they love the salafi-wahabi rebels more! Virtually all of the enclaves that have capitulated in the last year were the result of peaceful handovers of territory based on trust of safe passage? Who cares! Assad never (even allegedly) used chemicals weapons when his towns/cities were falling like dominoes, even when the defenses at Damascus and Aleppo were on the verge of complete collapse? Irrelevant! Stockpiles of chemical weapons found left behind by terrorists abandoning cities? Lies!Chemical attacks only happen when islamist rebels are on the verge of complete and utter defeat and bring about a complete standstill of all operations? Naturally! Every single one of these chemical attacks is admitted to being a hoax without even a single shred of evidence months after the news cycle? Mistakes happen!But this one must be true, because Assad is evil. Why think? The blogs/twitter accounts I read say so. As if the States needed another reason to bomb Syria. But yeah, we sheeple are just too blind to see the obvious truth while you can see clearly. The matter of fact is, you don't know anymore then we do who did this yet you act as if anybody who disagrees with you opinion is a retard. If random guys on the internet are clever enough to look through your ruse, your ruse is really terrible. And if that is the case, maybe the military intelligence of a dozen nations are able to see through it as well. And if they can, why would they use this as an excuse to escalate it further when they obviously did not care about the escalation of the conflict before? What does the west get out of it? They will send a few missiles into Syria, and leave again because they can't risk a real war. I am sure Macron is giddy at the idea of sending in a few missiles for funsies. Or maybe all military intelligence is so stupid that they can't tell at all. Who knows. I put my faith rather on the government of the UK, France and the USA, not the dictatorship of Syria. Still, just theories, as are yours. All of us who are against war would accept a proper investigation. It's you warhawks who accuse Assad without evidence who are standing on shaky ground. This is the 3rd time Assad has been accused, and every single time, nothing in the story has made any sense, and more importantly, even years afterwards, we still have no proof of Assad being behind either of the attacks. I don't claim to know what happened, very few on "my side" does. But Assad being responsible is one of the least likely scenarios. Your blind faith in the ppl in control of the british, french and american governments is terrifying. What have they done to earn the right to be considered arbiters of truth? All 3 leaders have only been in power for around a year each, and neither of them were big-shots in the political scene before they got elected, so it's very puzzling to me how you are so quick to trust their words or judgment. To me it looks like you're just repeating propaganda. Assad and Russia is bad. France, UK and USA is good. Therefore they must be on the side of truth. Do you really think the world is this black and white? Our own western politicians have lied to us so many times before. What about Iraq? As for why the other countries are following USA's lead, it's just simply about clique behavior. Allies and spheres follow the interests and agenda of their own group. Looking at China, they have remained neutral as they typically do, and they say that we shouldn't act or accuse anyone before we have evidence. Although it's a healthy mindset to have, it's a strategy that will distance yourself from the accuser, because by not believing someone outright, you're saying that you think there's a chance that they're lying or making a mistake. China is a relentless party-pooper, but they do this out of principle. If the UK or France had that level of principles when it comes to US antics, they wouldn't be as close allies as they are. USA, UK and France are the big 3, the allies of WW1 and WW2. Going against that alliance would break from that heritage, and simply one of them saying: No, we won't help you going into Syria would be a really big deal, and it would be even worse to say, we don't believe that Assad did it. Show us evidence first! It would require extraordinary circumstances before either of them would not go along with USA, officially anyway. I'm sure that if their private opinions are different that they will discuss it behind closed doors.
You are reading me wrong if you believe i am a warhawk. I just pointed out that shouting conspiracy on the internet doesn't make it true. And that the reason we believe the American, British and French government more then the Russian and Syrian is, that the Syrian has murdered a gigantic number of it's citizens in order to stay in power and the russian government kills it's opposition and suppresses democracy and free press. The fact that Trump Macron or May are varying degrees of professional democratic politicians has absolutely nothing to do with that, their government, while surely lying to us from time to time, has a different level of morality then the one of Assad. I wouldn't believe anything they say but i am always inclined to believe them more then Assad or Putin. And yes, i would have preferred to see their proof myself and i would have preferred if they did not send a ballistic strike. Doesn't mean i believe Assad is the guy we should be seeing as the rational victim of a conspiracy to take his land away.
|
On April 16 2018 09:38 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 04:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 04:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:35 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 03:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Its standard ME civil war practice. Look at Afghanistan, for example. Its full of warring tribes. The easiest way for them to attack each other was to tell an American soldier that the other lot are terrorists. Most people (Russia excluded of course, but you can't believe shit that comes out of Russia) aren't saying that the UK or the US staged the chemical attack. People are saying that the rebels would be more than happy, as they have done before, to gas civilians and blame it on Assad to provoke action from the US. Indeed they would. But why would the US, UK and France play along? Do you believe they don't have their own intelligence? That they blindly trust what some rebels told them? If they don't know who did it, why would they leap into action instead of simply sitingt around and waiting for an official report? If they know that they will be able to prove it when the OPCW verify what happened why were they in such a rush to attack just days before that? The US, UK and France could be said to be playing along because of larger ideas that were already in motion ie escalating tensions with Russia, the feeling that this is a continuation of Russian aggression in a a different form etc. Another reason they would play along is because the US, UK and France are notoriously fucking stupid when it comes to conflict in the ME, and highly susceptible to being told what they want to hear. Remember the WMDs? Why don't they wait now? Because they knew who it was and want to send a clear message. How is it Russian aggression when its rebels gassing rebels? Iraq made sense. The US wanted to invade and they needed a justification. I don't see anyone prepping to invade Syria to throw out Assad themselves. Heck the US had just announced they had enough and were pulling out. And now they play along with a ruse to draw them back in? For reasons? The 'its a ruse' just doesn't add up for me. What's the gain? Where have you been? The neocons in USA have been trying to remove Assad for a very long time. This is an undisputable fact. Noone will deny this. Syria, being traditionally part of the Iran sphere, has always been considered an enemy of Israel. Getting rid of Assad, also falls into the neocons overall Middle Eastern plans of regime change, so that they can create chaos, and infuse their own interests, ie Israel and useful puppets who agrees to play by US dictated rules. This is exactly like Iraq, and there're many who have been calling for regime change. This was in fact USA's openly stated agenda on Syria during much of Obama's presidency. Like I said, where have you been? And what went down is what Trump chose to do. He is not controlled by the neocons. The neocons are just an element of the US government. They have a lot of influence, but they are not dictating everything about US foreign policy. What you're doing in equating Trump's actions throughout his full presidency with what the american neocons wanted to do is extremely dishonest. Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 16 2018 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
A dedicated campaign to clear the area started months ago, with the big signs of success being as of one month or so ago (successful humanitarian corridors, reports of rebels abandoning positions, etc). The chemical attack appears to have happened once the outcome was already inevitable rather than in pursuit of a desired goal.
Not being able to see that French report for a political statement more than anything else does kind of say everything that needs to be said about how willing you are to consider the alternative to what you want to be true, though. The other side of it doesn't make sense to me. The US, UK and France fake the attack or claim someone that didn't do it all for... what? The launch a bunch of missiles at empties out facilities? What is the end goal of this grand conspiracy? First of all. Again, Trump who seemingly still is very much against an invasion, chose to slap Assad on the wrist. It was his decisions. Don't act like all US foreign policy actions come from the same motivations. And remember that Trump just signalled that an invasion could be a possible outcome next time. We are steadily moving in that direction. Trump, although his actions are more tame than they would want, still played perfectly into the hands of the neocons, and those who are in favor of regime change in the region. This chemical attack was a big success from their perspective, so they have many reasons to lie and deceive, or look away. We're all biased. We have all fallen for fake stories because they were told by someone who aligned with our beliefs.There's also a huge element of naivity. Just look at the french paper. They are putting their full trust in the testimony of certain groups and organizations, because they think they are the good guys, and wouldn't deceive. What doesn't make sense is Assad doing these attacks. It's borderline suicidal from his perspective, and let's not forget that if USA knows that they have used chemical weapons, there's no way that Russia doesn't know about it. All of these chemical attacks are a major inconvenience to Russia. It's bad PR to Russia, and it's bad PR to the Assad regime, which at this point is a russian investment. Putin knows that every attack gives USA an excuse to go for a full invasion. Do you think he's a complete fool who would allow this to happen under his watch?
Yeah yeah, makes perfect sense, except that the US and the UK and France will not invade Syria soon again. I am pretty sure that they will either back out completely or negotiate some kind of deal to keep the kurds there as their proxy and forget they ever were in that position. Look at their punishment. They wasted money to blow up empty buildings. That's the clear sign that the next time a full blown invasion will start. But hey, let's just dismiss everything the western governments say because it's obviously all a big conspiracy and believe some videos on youtube because they fit our narrative. Look a video of some terror group training for doing a chemical attack, must be real. Western intelligence concluding with high probability who did the attack, all fake.
|
Just looking around the landscape after Friday's bombing, it seems like Russia and Syria have major credibility problems (not that they didn't already). These claims that Syria intercepted any, much less a majority, of the missiles that were fired seem ridiculous. The claims that the damage done by the missile strikes was minor are even more ridiculous. Have you guys seen the before and after satellite photographs of the target sites that were released? The targets were absolutely pulverized. It was obvious that many missiles had hit each target. In contrast, there hasn't been any evidence produced showing that any of the missiles were shot down or that the damage was minor. I don't really see why anyone would trust Syria and Russia on anything.
|
On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well?
Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Syria, Russia and Iran have by far the most control over the territories in Syria. It's practically a matter of time before they regain full control and the only way to lose is to have the west wage war on Syria, or coordinate with the rebel, terrorist to overthrow him. Russia is consulting him on what to do and not do, they in no way benefit from escalation of the conflict...
I stand by logic, there were also reports that USA, France and Britain's special forces are behind "a staged chemical attacks" as Russian media reported over a month ago that an attack might happen before and west media as well predicted that Assad will use chemical weapons "again" , but blaming anyone without proof is just propaganda. Not to mention that western media has tried to censor in interviews experts with opinion other then Assad did it.
|
On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this.
Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine.
The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing.
|
On April 17 2018 01:27 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 07:52 L1ghtning wrote:On April 12 2018 09:22 Broetchenholer wrote:On April 12 2018 05:20 zeo wrote:On April 12 2018 04:17 Plansix wrote:
If that is true, Russia shouldn’t have vetoed the UN investigation into the recent attack. But they did. And no one wants a dictators like Assad to start thinking they can use chemical weapons like mustard gas when they want to pour fuel on the fire. Using that train of thought why did the US and its satellite states vote no on two Russian proposals to set up mechanisms to hold those responsible for alleged chemical attacks? It takes the most low effort half assed look at the situation in Syria to see through this very desperate attempt at propaganda. Every single narrative falls flat, it isnt even comical, its just so sad to see some of the comments here. 90% of the Syrian population lives in Syrian government controlled territory? I'm sure they love the salafi-wahabi rebels more! Virtually all of the enclaves that have capitulated in the last year were the result of peaceful handovers of territory based on trust of safe passage? Who cares! Assad never (even allegedly) used chemicals weapons when his towns/cities were falling like dominoes, even when the defenses at Damascus and Aleppo were on the verge of complete collapse? Irrelevant! Stockpiles of chemical weapons found left behind by terrorists abandoning cities? Lies!Chemical attacks only happen when islamist rebels are on the verge of complete and utter defeat and bring about a complete standstill of all operations? Naturally! Every single one of these chemical attacks is admitted to being a hoax without even a single shred of evidence months after the news cycle? Mistakes happen!But this one must be true, because Assad is evil. Why think? The blogs/twitter accounts I read say so. As if the States needed another reason to bomb Syria. But yeah, we sheeple are just too blind to see the obvious truth while you can see clearly. The matter of fact is, you don't know anymore then we do who did this yet you act as if anybody who disagrees with you opinion is a retard. If random guys on the internet are clever enough to look through your ruse, your ruse is really terrible. And if that is the case, maybe the military intelligence of a dozen nations are able to see through it as well. And if they can, why would they use this as an excuse to escalate it further when they obviously did not care about the escalation of the conflict before? What does the west get out of it? They will send a few missiles into Syria, and leave again because they can't risk a real war. I am sure Macron is giddy at the idea of sending in a few missiles for funsies. Or maybe all military intelligence is so stupid that they can't tell at all. Who knows. I put my faith rather on the government of the UK, France and the USA, not the dictatorship of Syria. Still, just theories, as are yours. All of us who are against war would accept a proper investigation. It's you warhawks who accuse Assad without evidence who are standing on shaky ground. This is the 3rd time Assad has been accused, and every single time, nothing in the story has made any sense, and more importantly, even years afterwards, we still have no proof of Assad being behind either of the attacks. I don't claim to know what happened, very few on "my side" does. But Assad being responsible is one of the least likely scenarios. Your blind faith in the ppl in control of the british, french and american governments is terrifying. What have they done to earn the right to be considered arbiters of truth? All 3 leaders have only been in power for around a year each, and neither of them were big-shots in the political scene before they got elected, so it's very puzzling to me how you are so quick to trust their words or judgment. To me it looks like you're just repeating propaganda. Assad and Russia is bad. France, UK and USA is good. Therefore they must be on the side of truth. Do you really think the world is this black and white? Our own western politicians have lied to us so many times before. What about Iraq? As for why the other countries are following USA's lead, it's just simply about clique behavior. Allies and spheres follow the interests and agenda of their own group. Looking at China, they have remained neutral as they typically do, and they say that we shouldn't act or accuse anyone before we have evidence. Although it's a healthy mindset to have, it's a strategy that will distance yourself from the accuser, because by not believing someone outright, you're saying that you think there's a chance that they're lying or making a mistake. China is a relentless party-pooper, but they do this out of principle. If the UK or France had that level of principles when it comes to US antics, they wouldn't be as close allies as they are. USA, UK and France are the big 3, the allies of WW1 and WW2. Going against that alliance would break from that heritage, and simply one of them saying: No, we won't help you going into Syria would be a really big deal, and it would be even worse to say, we don't believe that Assad did it. Show us evidence first! It would require extraordinary circumstances before either of them would not go along with USA, officially anyway. I'm sure that if their private opinions are different that they will discuss it behind closed doors. You are reading me wrong if you believe i am a warhawk. I just pointed out that shouting conspiracy on the internet doesn't make it true. And that the reason we believe the American, British and French government more then the Russian and Syrian is, that the Syrian has murdered a gigantic number of it's citizens in order to stay in power and the russian government kills it's opposition and suppresses democracy and free press. The fact that Trump Macron or May are varying degrees of professional democratic politicians has absolutely nothing to do with that, their government, while surely lying to us from time to time, has a different level of morality then the one of Assad. I wouldn't believe anything they say but i am always inclined to believe them more then Assad or Putin. And yes, i would have preferred to see their proof myself and i would have preferred if they did not send a ballistic strike. Doesn't mean i believe Assad is the guy we should be seeing as the rational victim of a conspiracy to take his land away.
This is a war. Do you expect Assad to win without his army killing anyone?
And it's really important to point out that without the support from the Saudis and USA towards the opposition, this war would have been over a long time ago. They are to blame for the high death total. They supported the side that instigated everything, and that eventually lost (or it's atleast looking right now it looks like they will).
Do you have proof of all of those accusations? There's a lot of conspiracies concerning Putin, but the same can be said about top western politicians, especially someone like Clinton. And the free press is heavily attacked in the west, atleast when it comes to small individual actors, and much of the established press are proven to be corrupt and certainly is very biased. The fact that the entire mainstream media has bought this chemical attack story completely, except some parties on Fox, while the majority of alternative media, both on the left and right are highly sceptical should tell you something about our current media climate. Our independent media is to varying extent free and independent, but the big news agencies are pretty much all corporate/political shills who only repeat certain agendas. But let's not derail into this territory. It's not relevant.
The west lied about Iraq 1.0 and 2.0. They deceived the public heavily in Libya about their motivations and goals. Their allies in Syria has also been caught staging stuff and collaborated with the more radical groups of Al Qaida and ISIS.
Here's an example of western Syrian-related corruption: A big donor to the Conservative Party in the UK runs the Syria Campaign, a "humanitarian" organization that has lobbied against Assad. The Rockefeller's are also connected to the organization.
It has also been revealed that atleast USA knew that the Saudis and Qataris were funding ISIS and other radical groups, and they were seemingly ok with it at first, because they simply wanted Assad gone. And these are countries that are heavily invested in the american political elites.
You are being extremely naive. You can't just simply go with the side that you approve of the most historically, and then assume that they're telling the truth. I don't claim to know for sure that Assad is innocent. But it's the west that levels the major accusations, not Assad, so they're the ones that have to prove everything they say. What the syrian side has been saying is just that the ones who accuse them of these attacks are not credible. And they are without a doubt correct about that. However that doesn't automatically mean that the accusations are false. It just means that you have to demand actual proof. Unlike you, I don't blindly follow one of the sides. I always side with the accused by default, and then I look at the evidence and the credibility of the accusor. It makes no sense to be swayed by the arguments of the western accusors, and their allies in Syria. They have a history of being dishonest and biased. They have huge stakes in Assad being removed, and they have no evidence.
|
On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing.
This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it.
|
On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it.
He has immediate and obvious motivations when he is at war within his own country and has been for years now. Even if he didn't have the fact that hes a dictator that has been okay with killing his own people in the past (the whole reason for the war in the first place) to keep power that doesn't give any credibility either way to him being guilty or not guilty.
|
Let's at least separate facts from fiction. Russia is operating a massive disinformation campaign designed to obfuscate facts and manipulate public opinion in many places around the world. Reports of a false-flag operation perpetrated by UK special forces are nonsense designed by Russia to obfuscate facts and manipulate public opinion.
Here are some more facts; Russia (Putin) recently carried out a chemical weapons attack in retribution against a former spy and his daughter in the UK. Russia recently invaded Ukraine, and prior to that, Georgia. Russia is propping up the Assad regime because it allows them to maintain a foothold in the middle east.
One last fact to take into consideration; France and the UK well remember the horrors of WW1 when chemical weapons were used to such terrible effect. That's why they're so willing to fire a few missiles at a few sites in Syria, they want to make a point. The "west" has no intention of invading Syria, the window to do that closed years ago, at this point it would just be bad strategy.
|
On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it.
You don't know that. You are using a very bad argument and pretending we will just eat it up. You don't know anything about his motivations and it is the crux of your argument. You are essentially saying nothing.
|
On April 17 2018 14:12 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it. He has immediate and obvious motivations when he is at war within his own country and has been for years now. Even if he didn't have the fact that hes a dictator that has been okay with killing his own people in the past (the whole reason for the war in the first place) to keep power that doesn't give any credibility either way to him being guilty or not guilty.
The opposition had much stronger motives for a false flag, than Assad had of doing an actual attack. But it doesn't matter, because the accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't (or didn't have any motivation to) do something.
You're basically saying: But there's a chance that he could have done it. So we should blame him! What kind of logic is that? I believe in western principles of innocent until proven guilty. You need evidence, not weak potential motivations to execute punishment against an accused person. And even if he had strong motivations, it wouldn't change anything. You can't judge that someone is guilty without proving it.
|
On April 17 2018 14:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it. You don't know that. You are using a very bad argument and pretending we will just eat it up. You don't know anything about his motivations and it is the crux of your argument. You are essentially saying nothing.
No. That was a tangent of my argument. My argument was that you don't judge and punish someone without evidence.
You still haven't addressed this. You only grasp for straws on my tangentical points, because it's obvious that my main point is right. Atleast if you believe in western law principles.
|
On April 17 2018 15:17 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 14:51 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it. You don't know that. You are using a very bad argument and pretending we will just eat it up. You don't know anything about his motivations and it is the crux of your argument. You are essentially saying nothing. No. That was a tangent of my argument. My argument was that you don't judge and punish someone without evidence. You still haven't addressed this. You only grasp for straws on my tangentical points, because it's obvious that my main point is right. Atleast if you believe in western law principles.
There's at least one flaw in this line of reasoning: it is based on the assumption that all of the currently available evidence has been provided to the public.
If (for example) exposing how they found out the Assad regime was responsible would expose information sources, or make it easier to conceal culpability in the future, US/UK/France/whatever might well choose not to do that.
|
On April 17 2018 15:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 15:17 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 14:51 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it. You don't know that. You are using a very bad argument and pretending we will just eat it up. You don't know anything about his motivations and it is the crux of your argument. You are essentially saying nothing. No. That was a tangent of my argument. My argument was that you don't judge and punish someone without evidence. You still haven't addressed this. You only grasp for straws on my tangentical points, because it's obvious that my main point is right. Atleast if you believe in western law principles. There's at least one flaw in this line of reasoning: it is based on the assumption that all of the currently available evidence has been provided to the public. If (for example) exposing how they found out the Assad regime was responsible would expose information sources, or make it easier to conceal culpability in the future, US/UK/France/whatever might well choose not to do that.
No. That's not a flaw in my reasoning. If it is as you claim, that's the accusors being unwilling to provide evidence. And if that evidence was the only thing that could prove it, then it's their fault.
Try using that logic in court! "I swear I have the evidence, I just don't want to show it to you!" I can't believe that you guys are falling so hard for their propaganda.
|
On April 17 2018 16:01 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 15:31 Aquanim wrote:On April 17 2018 15:17 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 14:51 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it. You don't know that. You are using a very bad argument and pretending we will just eat it up. You don't know anything about his motivations and it is the crux of your argument. You are essentially saying nothing. No. That was a tangent of my argument. My argument was that you don't judge and punish someone without evidence. You still haven't addressed this. You only grasp for straws on my tangentical points, because it's obvious that my main point is right. Atleast if you believe in western law principles. There's at least one flaw in this line of reasoning: it is based on the assumption that all of the currently available evidence has been provided to the public. If (for example) exposing how they found out the Assad regime was responsible would expose information sources, or make it easier to conceal culpability in the future, US/UK/France/whatever might well choose not to do that. No. That's not a flaw in my reasoning. If it is as you claim, that's the accusors being unwilling to provide evidence. And if that evidence was the only thing that could prove it, then it's their fault. Try using that logic in court! "I swear I have the evidence, I just don't want to show it to you!" I can't believe that you guys are falling so hard for their propaganda.
Your argument was:
you don't judge and punish someone without evidence
You have not (and at this time probably cannot, even supposing it is true) demonstrate that no such evidence exists.
Therefore, this is a flaw in your reasoning.
This is not a court of law, so the rest of your post is pretty much irrelevant.
|
On April 17 2018 15:06 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2018 14:12 Sermokala wrote:On April 17 2018 13:44 L1ghtning wrote:On April 17 2018 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2018 05:27 raga4ka wrote:On April 16 2018 01:06 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2018 21:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know what's going on here but the official story coming from western governments doesn't seem to make sense at all to me.
1: There was no motive for a chemical attack. The only possible motive for anyone to launch an attack like this, given the current situation in Syria, was to get the US to attack Assad.
2: Why have Western governments decided they had to attack Assad right now, just before the OPCW starts their investigation into the chemical attacks?
3: Timing timing timing. There's been one constant in the last 6 months or so, and that is rising Western hostility to Russia leading to greater and greater tension. The Skripal poisoning, the US election investigations and now this.
I know its very vague but to me this has all felt completely wrong since the reaction to the Skripal poisoning, Western governments as a group are moving like an efficient machine, which is completely out of character, and apparently Russia keeps doing things that play right into their hands.
Things seem to be escalating far beyond where they should, given that none of the things we are accusing Russia and their friends of have any kind of forensic evidence to back them up. Just a pile of easily manipulated circumstantial evidence, and accusations against anyone who questions it.
Its almost as if our governments want this.
I keep seeing people talk about how they couldn't understand Assad's reasoning. Do you normally understand what Assad and other foreign dictators do? Why do you think you have such a firm understanding of the underlying motivations and what causes dictators to do what they do? Couldn't there be other things at play you're not aware of? Overall, the entire idea of "no motivations!" seems tragically arrogant. You don't have any reason to trust your ability to understand all the motivations. You'll never have the full story and you never have the full story for a variety of other things in the world. Why do you feel like you understand this so well? Assad is a dictator, but he isn't mad or stupid enough to do this. Can you justify this position, please? How do you know that? What do you know about Assad? You are presenting this as a given and it is not something we can just all agree on as fact. Your entire argument revolves around Assad being a reasonable, tactful person. It also assumes Assad knows he would be ejected or something for doing something like this. But France/US/UK are operating under the assumption that he did it and he's still mostly fine. The idea that he would never decide to do this is the premise of your entire argument. It is not a proven premise and everything else is built from nothing. This is a witch hunt! The accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't do something. Him not having any immediate and obvious motivations is good enough to give credibility to him not being guilty, since there is no evidence that contradicts it. He has immediate and obvious motivations when he is at war within his own country and has been for years now. Even if he didn't have the fact that hes a dictator that has been okay with killing his own people in the past (the whole reason for the war in the first place) to keep power that doesn't give any credibility either way to him being guilty or not guilty. The opposition had much stronger motives for a false flag, than Assad had of doing an actual attack. But it doesn't matter, because the accused shouldn't have to prove without a shadow of doubt that he didn't (or didn't have any motivation to) do something. You're basically saying: But there's a chance that he could have done it. So we should blame him! What kind of logic is that? I believe in western principles of innocent until proven guilty. You need evidence, not weak potential motivations to execute punishment against an accused person. And even if he had strong motivations, it wouldn't change anything. You can't judge that someone is guilty without proving it.
I don't think you understand how court works. Every trial is one side saying that there is a chance of it happening. The whole reason we have courts is because we don't really know for sure.
Western values is very much judging based on a persons history,their motive and opportunity to do a crime. Assad has all of these in spades. The opposition can be said to.have motivation for a false flag but they dont have a history of this, are extremely fractured, and have far more to risk getting caught then to gain from the attack.
The likelihood of it being a false flag compared to it being just assad killing his own people again isnt propaganda. Sideing with dictators and russia isn't being brave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
