• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin: Didn’t feel isolated, not all G8 leaders agree Assad used chemical weapons

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

They did have equal ability.

I'm finding you're not very analytical.

No, they didn't. Not in 2003. Want to see the difference, invade Iran.

I also noted other things.
 
Just so you know. It's an extremely derogative term, and it is not funny.

You have a point, even though it was meant as slang for khaim. I think you should appeal to the moderators to get it eliminated. Any maybe even get me a warning for using it. I'm sure you would feel much better about it if you could do that. And I'm even onside with doing that now. I've had my fun with it.

Also, I'm sure the majority of the people on this board would be in favour of a lot more censorship. And after all, making fun of somebody's milk cow is not nice is it!
 
You have a point, even though it was meant as slang for khaim. I think you should appeal to the moderators to get it eliminated. Any maybe even get me a warning for using it. I'm sure you would feel much better about it if you could do that. And I'm even onside with doing that now. I've had my fun with it.

Also, I'm sure the majority of the people on this board would be in favour of a lot more censorship. And after all, making fun of somebody's milk cow is not nice is it!

Within the rules, you are free to use all the derogatory terms you wish. You may even fling out the N-word, since this seems to be the kind of speech you favor. However, when you post on a public message board, others are free to respond whether you wish them to or not. You are responsible for what you post, and you will be judged by it. If you enjoy labeling yourself as antisemitic, racist or bigoted, by all means do so. Expect others to respond accordingly. I know I will. :)
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

No, they didn't. Not in 2003. Want to see the difference, invade Iran.

I also noted other things.

Invade Iran in 2003? Great response.

Do you just see things you want to see?
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Besides the OP's idiotic rhetoric when trying to explain this article and his personal opinion, i do agree with Putin and i dont believe that the government used chemical weapons, or both sides are using chemical weapons for several reasons:
U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator | Reuters
There has been a lot of testimony that the syrian rebels used the chemical weapons not the governemnt

Turkish police seizes 2 kg of sarin gas from Al-Nusra militants
Rebels have been arrested in Turkey with sarin gas.

UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad's troops | Mail Online
Carla Del Ponte said UN Commission investigating war crimes in Syria has 'strong, concrete suspicions' that rebels used chemical weapons
 
Within the rules, you are free to use all the derogatory terms you wish. You may even fling out the N-word, since this seems to be the kind of speech you favor. However, when you post on a public message board, others are free to respond whether you wish them to or not. You are responsible for what you post, and you will be judged by it. If you enjoy labeling yourself as antisemitic, racist or bigoted, by all means do so. Expect others to respond accordingly. I know I will. :)

Well thanks for letting me know all about what you think. And I sure hope you don't judge me by my joke about Hymie's mom's milk cow going dry from fright. It was only a joke, in an attempt to draw a parallel to the amount of damage Palestinian missiles do when fired into his country. And so, if the provocation for war is manufactured by the US it will most likely be by Israel where nobody 'really' gets hurt but some milk cow gets the bag scared off her. Hahahaha, get it? I mean after all, hundreds of Palestinian children are being slaughtered by the Zionist regime for crimes no worse than throwing rocks. Let's try for a little perspective here!
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Besides the OP's idiotic rhetoric when trying to explain this article and his personal opinion, i do agree with Putin and i dont believe that the government used chemical weapons, or both sides are using chemical weapons for several reasons:
U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator | Reuters
There has been a lot of testimony that the syrian rebels used the chemical weapons not the governemnt

Turkish police seizes 2 kg of sarin gas from Al-Nusra militants
Rebels have been arrested in Turkey with sarin gas.

UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad's troops | Mail Online
Carla Del Ponte said UN Commission investigating war crimes in Syria has 'strong, concrete suspicions' that rebels used chemical weapons

Don't get too pained over my little bit of humour on the milk cow. It's best to try to keep it light. The eividence in your links is old evidence but it's suspicious that Del Ponte has gone dark on the matter of who was using the chem/bio weapons. That's the biggest issue worth analyzing because if she is turned then we will want to know who turned her.

In any case, the evidence being used for more US involvement is even flimsier than it was for Iraq and Americans seem to be mostly afraid to comment on it. If it's not that then we have to think that they don't care are are painfully uninformed and in the dark about the whole business. This is what I find so alarming as the tea baggers and libertarians spent so much time saying they weren't going to let America march off to a phony war again. Now when Ron Paul speaks on the subject as he did the other day, there is literally no feed back.

Here again one has to suppose that the baggers and libertarians were only speaking up in an effort to show more displeasure toward Obama. (racist hate mongering)
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

The lion's share of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile came from Iraq, when Saddam was in power.

Good thing Saddam isn't in power, because I'm sure he would be more than happy to come to Assad's aid in defeating the webels.

That's a difficult call. They are both fascist dictators, but Bashar's dad Hafez al-Assad was content with fighting Saddam in the Gulf War. Saddam would also have a chance to install a regime with his own Sunni version of Islam rather than the Shia one he was repressing.
 
Last edited:
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

This is kinda funny considering after the formation of the USSR and during the cold war via declassified documents the Soviets weren't very concerned with a rivals military if they were to invade but rather their domestic armed civilians.

It seems hes using the "government over the people" propaganda like Stalin would to inspire his citizens and promote global government supremacy.
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

What makes this applicable to the current times for me is that it's the 'gas attack' scenario being played out again by the US propagandists. Americans should be proactive and do everything in their capability to not let that happen. And as you will see on the other thread, Ron Paul is being and is making the right suggestions.

You seem to like to accuse other people of swallowing propaganda, yet it seems to escape you that a claim by the President of Russia - who has committed Russia to supporting Assad - on the Syrian conflict might just be propaganda in the other direction. Who is the one lacking in an honest agenda, now?
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

I think you need to learn a little bit about chem/bio weapons. A good resource would be your own CIA section leader Pelletiere who debunked the lies about Iraq doing the gassing at Halabja.

But I fear that's getting way too complicated for this cluster........

You deny that attack was Saddam's??

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

The Halabja attack has been recognized as a separate event from the Anfal Genocide that was also conducted against the Kurdish people by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein.[6] The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government.[7] The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanity by the Parliament of Canada.[8]

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Good, now we can continue. The fact is, Iraq didn't have the right type of gas that was used at Halabja according to Pelletiere. And so we have to contemplate that Pelletiere could have been lying if he said that. Was he lying? If he was lying then it was to cover up the fact that the gas used had to have been supplied to Saddam by the US.

And there's my point with Pelletiere. Now you can choose your side on that one.

What makes this applicable to the current times for me is that it's the 'gas attack' scenario being played out again by the US propagandists. Americans should be proactive and do everything in their capability to not let that happen. And as you will see on the other thread, Ron Paul is being and is making the right suggestions.

Plain and simple, there is no proof of the gas attacks by Assad's side. There isn't even proof of gas attacks by the terrorist side. Del Ponte has gone dark on the issue and that tells us all we need to know. The UN leans toward the West in nearly all cases and would not hold back evidence that could seal the case against Assad.

I'm interested in your further comments on Pelletiere especially.

You're suggesting that the US was responsible for the gas attack at Halabja?

You're using that to suggest that the US is responsible for the use of gas in Syria?
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

You're suggesting that the US was responsible for the gas attack at Halabja?

You're using that to suggest that the US is responsible for the use of gas in Syria?

The links I provided on Pelletiere adequately explain it all. And then after you have read the two parts all I want is to hear the answer from some of the people here on Pelletiere's truthfulness or lack of. Was he lying and then if so, why would he lie?

This may lead some to come to the conclusion that the US was responsible in an indirect way. Or it could lead some to conclude that Iran did it. Or it could cause such handwringing that some people just have to turn to their ice cream for a little peace of mind.
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

You have a point, even though it was meant as slang for khaim. I think you should appeal to the moderators to get it eliminated. Any maybe even get me a warning for using it. I'm sure you would feel much better about it if you could do that. And I'm even onside with doing that now. I've had my fun with it.

Also, I'm sure the majority of the people on this board would be in favour of a lot more censorship. And after all, making fun of somebody's milk cow is not nice is it!

For a guy with 175 posts, you sure seem familiar (though wrong) with this website. It's almost like you're making an (unjustified) personal remark toward the member you quoted, as if you know them.


How about if we both agree to not waste each others time anymore?

Donsutherland does not waste anyones time. He presents his position, provides evidence and does so without troll/bait/flame of any sort. While I do not agree with him regarding this event, I have the utmost respect for his analysis, citations and respect of honest debate.

Case in point:


Turkish police seizes 2 kg of sarin gas from Al-Nusra militants
Rebels have been arrested in Turkey with sarin gas.

Why use such garbage sources. Do you realize that, if your opponent was pathetic enough to respond in kind, that they could just grab biased BS from some wackjob website that counters your BS. Hell, I bet we could find some fringe-job willing to claim Putin himself employed the gas.

Let's look at a frontpage article from the pathetic website above:

MOSCOW (RUSSIA)

Peter Dale Scott continues his analysis of the U.S. system of domination. In a conference held in Moscow, this former Canadian diplomat summed up the findings of his investigation into the funding of the system with money deriving from drug trafficking and hydrocarbon deals. Although widely known, such facts are nevertheless difficult to accept.


Come on, dude. Spare us the fringe garbage conspiracy theory spam. No one believes it. It only makes the citation provider look ridiculous.


UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad's troops | Mail Online
Carla Del Ponte said UN Commission investigating war crimes in Syria has 'strong, concrete suspicions' that rebels used chemical weapons

The Daily Fail (Online)? That's a tabloid.

Talk about wasting people's time. If I wanted to scrape the scum off the bottom of the internet barrel, I could do it myself.
 
Last edited:
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Or it could cause such handwringing that some people just have to turn to their ice cream for a little peace of mind.

What do you have against ice cream? You also appear to hate milk cows.
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

For a guy with 175 posts, you sure seem familiar (though wrong) with this website. It's almost like you're making an (unjustified) personal remark toward the member you quoted, as if you know them.

What on earth are you on about? Something about me having 175 posts that makes me familiar with this site? And something about a remark about a member, uh, ....................... I secretly know some member?




Donsutherland does not waste anyones time. He presents his position, provides evidence and does so without troll/bait/flame of any sort. While I do not agree with him regarding this event, I have the utmost respect for his analysis, citations and respect of honest debate.

I think it was him who said that Pelletiere had forgot about what happened or something like that. That's definitely a waste of everybody's time. But if it works for you then run with it!

Case in point:




Why use such garbage sources. Do you realize that, if your opponent was pathetic enough to respond in kind, that they could just grab biased BS from some wackjob website that counters your BS. Hell, I bet we could find some fringe-job willing to claim Putin himself employed the gas.

Let's look at a frontpage article from the pathetic website above:




Come on, dude. Spare us the fringe garbage conspiracy theory spam. No one believes it. It only makes the citation provider look ridiculous.




The Daily Fail (Online)?

That's a tabloid.

Talk about wasting people's time. If I wanted to scrape the scum off the bottom of the internet barrel, I could do it myself.

More than anything you are demonstrating frustration at the fact that the allegations of chem/bio weapons by Assad have no basis in fact. And it appears that a reference to Del Ponte is doubly unsettling for you and your agenda. But I'm willing to work with you on it if you want to. I could find lots of references to the UN's Del Ponte saying that the use of the gas evidence was leaning toward it being used by the terrorists. Could you keep it together long enough to explor even that a little further?
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Why use such garbage sources. Do you realize that, if your opponent was pathetic enough to respond in kind, that they could just grab biased BS from some wackjob website that counters your BS. Hell, I bet we could find some fringe-job willing to claim Putin himself employed the gas.

Let's look at a frontpage article from the pathetic website above:




Come on, dude. Spare us the fringe garbage conspiracy theory spam. No one believes it. It only makes the citation provider look ridiculous.




The Daily Fail (Online)? That's a tabloid.

Talk about wasting people's time. If I wanted to scrape the scum off the bottom of the internet barrel, I could do it myself.

Oh god! Here comes the source Nazi!
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Rejecting lunatic fringe websites and tabloids is not exactly nazism.

I forgot anything you dont like is a "fringe" site. How could i be so stupid!
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

How could i be so stupid!

1. Born that way.
2. Dropped on head.
3. Drugs.
4. Debilitating disease.

The possibilities are almost endless.

What's your point?
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

1. Born that way.
2. Dropped on head.
3. Drugs.
4. Debilitating disease.

The possibilities are almost endless.

What's your point?

That anything that doest come from the MSM in your opinion is always a farce. News flash the MSM doesnt always report everything going on in the world, they have a sensationalist driven view they have to uphold.
 
Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

That anything that doest come from the MSM in your opinion is always a farce. News flash the MSM doesnt always report everything going on in the world, they have a sensationalist driven view they have to uphold.

Voltaire.com is a blog at best and quite clearly a propaganda website. The Daily Fail is a tabloid.

Objecting to propaganda and tabloids is not nazism.

It's telling that the obliteration of ones source(s) results in personal attacks including a flat-out Godwin. Such a hysteric reaction is to be expected from a "point" being pushed by garbage citations and such only reinforces the likelihood that there's really no issue upon which to debate but merely a desire to propagate a narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom