• 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!

Seymour Hersh on Syria and gas attacks

Thoreau72 said:
Who to believe, Donald or Seymour?

Trump Bombed Syria Ignoring Important U.S. Intelligence.

The "gas attacks" for which Donald retaliated, were not what we were told they were. Such a surprise!
Click to expand...

The story is partially and more or less, what we knew Trump was, when we gave him the job.

Do I think reacting as he did? If Hersh is telling the truth? I would waited.

Do I think we should remove Assad? We should have before the Russians and Iranians had moved in with force.
 
joG said:
The story is partially and more or less, what we knew Trump was, when we gave him the job.

Do I think reacting as he did? If Hersh is telling the truth? I would waited.

Do I think we should remove Assad? We should have before the Russians and Iranians had moved in with force.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the input, but as far as I'm concerned, my government has no moral or legal authority to overthrow any lawful government anywhere, despite our proclivity for doing just that going back decades.

The hypocrisy is astounding when we get all worked up over unfounded rumors and allegations that the Russians manipulated our bloody election, when we have been doing worse than that for decades, all over the globe.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I appreciate the input, but as far as I'm concerned, my government has no moral or legal authority to overthrow any lawful government anywhere, despite our proclivity for doing just that going back decades.

The hypocrisy is astounding when we get all worked up over unfounded rumors and allegations that the Russians manipulated our bloody election, when we have been doing worse than that for decades, all over the globe.
Click to expand...

Lawful government? Interesting definition.
 
1. Don Cheeto administration will build up a false narrative about Syria about to use chems

2. 'some' secrete source connected to 'US interest' will use chems in Syria

3. Don Cheeto gets to bomb Syria again

4. Don Cheeto ratings get a bump

easy as pie .............
 
joG said:
Lawful government? Interesting definition.
Click to expand...

In context, I meant a government elected through some democratic process, by the voters of the country.
 
Thoreau72 said:
In context, I meant a government elected through some democratic process, by the voters of the country.
Click to expand...

Whose results' legitimacy the mass torturing to death before the election might be thought to have put in doubt. But the dictator and the regime lost all legitimacy, when the started shooting at their people instead of calling for an election with UN supervision or some other kind of method that protected the population. Since 2005 a dictator is not allowed to ignore R2P. It is no acceptable excuse that the population did not want you to be dictator and so you have the right to kill them till they are silent.
 
joG said:
Whose results' legitimacy the mass torturing to death before the election might be thought to have put in doubt. But the dictator and the regime lost all legitimacy, when the started shooting at their people instead of calling for an election with UN supervision or some other kind of method that protected the population. Since 2005 a dictator is not allowed to ignore R2P. It is no acceptable excuse that the population did not want you to be dictator and so you have the right to kill them till they are silent.
Click to expand...

Neither you nor anybody else can offer any proof at all to back up your claim/suggestion that Assad shoots his own people.

CIA talking points do not constitute proof.

Moreover, you won't offer any authority that makes the US in charge of or responsible for what other governments do around the world. Why are we the world's policeman? I thought you considered yourself to be a conservative?

That you happen to believe everything you're told proves only one thing--you're gullible as all get out, very easily led.

I'm rather the opposite of that. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
Neither you nor anybody else can offer any proof at all to back up your claim/suggestion that Assad shoots his own people.

CIA talking points do not constitute proof.

Moreover, you won't offer any authority that makes the US in charge of or responsible for what other governments do around the world. Why are we the world's policeman? I thought you considered yourself to be a conservative?

That you happen to believe everything you're told proves only one thing--you're gullible as all get out, very easily led.

I'm rather the opposite of that. :peace
Click to expand...

What exactly do you need as proof? His army did start shooting down Syrians. Dictators often do not do any killing themselves. Caesar's forensics were pretty convincing and would mean that it would be of no import, who actually shot the first shot.

Also, the 2005 UN norm is new, but it does give wider responsibility to outsiders to protect, when the local government no longer does or actually does the opposite. After the Security Council ignored its Responsibility to Protect, the devolved to the neighborhood and the wider global community. That was why it was debateably correct legally to ask the neighborhood to solve the problem. That they would not be able to, with the Europeans blocking effective measures and the others' conflicting goals was expected or should have been. So, yes we did have a responsibility that we ignored and thus allowed the situation to evolve to mass murder and maiming and many millions of refugees.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Who to believe, Donald or Seymour?

Trump Bombed Syria Ignoring Important U.S. Intelligence.

The "gas attacks" for which Donald retaliated, were not what we were told they were. Such a surprise!
Click to expand...
Seymour Hersh is a hack. Ever since Vietnam he has been desperate to be relevant. Back in the GWB days he proclaimed we were invading Iran with 100 percent certainty all based upon some unidentified sources, much like he uses in this article. The man is unhinged.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
Information Clearing House? Are y'all really this desperate to smear President Trump?

I hate when people attack the source, but damn!
 
joG said:
What exactly do you need as proof? His army did start shooting down Syrians. Dictators often do not do any killing themselves. Caesar's forensics were pretty convincing and would mean that it would be of no import, who actually shot the first shot.

Also, the 2005 UN norm is new, but it does give wider responsibility to outsiders to protect, when the local government no longer does or actually does the opposite. After the Security Council ignored its Responsibility to Protect, the devolved to the neighborhood and the wider global community. That was why it was debateably correct legally to ask the neighborhood to solve the problem. That they would not be able to, with the Europeans blocking effective measures and the others' conflicting goals was expected or should have been. So, yes we did have a responsibility that we ignored and thus allowed the situation to evolve to mass murder and maiming and many millions of refugees.
Click to expand...

I happily admit my bias--anything the CIA says is most likely just propaganda. My bias comes from discovering in 1970 that the agency was in the drug business in southeast asia, as a friend of mine went to work for them flying helicopters. Years later when the Iran-Contra affair blossomed, my bias was confirmed. And again with Gary Webb and the Dark Alliance. Sorry, I don't believe much of what they say.

So, regarding Syria and statements about Assad, for proof I would need confirmation from several sources OTHER THAN the agency.
 
Rogue Valley said:
ICH is a known conspiracy website.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends what one's 'perspective' is, eh? ;)

Most of their contributors are non-governmental, and therefore much more credible IMO. Western mainstream media and government are merely propaganda organs. ICH is much more credible.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I happily admit my bias--anything the CIA says is most likely just propaganda. My bias comes from discovering in 1970 that the agency was in the drug business in southeast asia, as a friend of mine went to work for them flying helicopters. Years later when the Iran-Contra affair blossomed, my bias was confirmed. And again with Gary Webb and the Dark Alliance. Sorry, I don't believe much of what they say.

So, regarding Syria and statements about Assad, for proof I would need confirmation from several sources OTHER THAN the agency.
Click to expand...

Well, concerning Syria, I have seen so much literature over the last three decades and heard so much about Syria from freinds and family that worked in various countries in the region including Syria, that I tend to believe that the CIA reports are probably softer than reality, because people would disbelieve true reports.
 
joG said:
Well, concerning Syria, I have seen so much literature over the last three decades and heard so much about Syria from freinds and family that worked in various countries in the region including Syria, that I tend to believe that the CIA reports are probably softer than reality, because people would disbelieve true reports.
Click to expand...

Yes, Israel has been attempting to destabilize and attack its neighbor for about 30 years. Knowing the Israelis, misinformation is a key part of their strategy.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, Israel has been attempting to destabilize and attack its neighbor for about 30 years. Knowing the Israelis, misinformation is a key part of their strategy.
Click to expand...

No doubt we could discuss israel. But we were on another topic. Though Syria has certainly been impacted by Israel, I don't think I would believe a comparison of the levels of supression and torture that the Assad family is known to have implemented to secure its privilege with Israeli behavior, as brutal as that might have been perceived to have been.
 
joG said:
No doubt we could discuss israel. But we were on another topic. Though Syria has certainly been impacted by Israel, I don't think I would believe a comparison of the levels of supression and torture that the Assad family is known to have implemented to secure its privilege with Israeli behavior, as brutal as that might have been perceived to have been.
Click to expand...

For the most part, you believe what you are told to believe. To borrow from Aldous Huxley, one believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them. 30 years worth of repetition and innuendo really help.
 
Thoreau72 said:
For the most part, you believe what you are told to believe. To borrow from Aldous Huxley, one believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them. 30 years worth of repetition and innuendo really help.
Click to expand...

Sure. That is how learning works. You build on what you have come to believe and try to fit new experience and information instead of doubting it a priori. If something rubs or contradicts in some way, you test. In order to reduce the probability of selective bias, you try to make sure of a diverse basis with contradictory opinions, testing all the while. That's how I do it. You don't?
 
joG said:
Lawful government? Interesting definition.
Click to expand...

Assad is elected. The CIA and NED interfered in the election to the max with organized protestors. They failed and funded, trained and armed their prtotestors as an insurgency. Currently known as al Qeda, ISIS, ashrar al sham, jabhat al sham, Nusra Frot, or more in the vernacular as head-chopping terrorists. Lawful government is the exact definition and we would be defined accurately as the INVADERS. The USA has never been threatened or attacked by Syria.
/
 
joG said:
Sure. That is how learning works. You build on what you have come to believe and try to fit new experience and information instead of doubting it a priori. If something rubs or contradicts in some way, you test. In order to reduce the probability of selective bias, you try to make sure of a diverse basis with contradictory opinions, testing all the while. That's how I do it. You don't?
Click to expand...

That's bullcrap. You function on pete and re-pete from the MSM and it's working grand. No thinking required.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
Assad is elected. The CIA and NED interfered in the election to the max with organized protestors. They failed and funded, trained and armed their prtotestors as an insurgency. Currently known as al Qeda, ISIS, ashrar al sham, jabhat al sham, Nusra Frot, or more in the vernacular as head-chopping terrorists. Lawful government is the exact definition and we would be defined accurately as the INVADERS. The USA has never been threatened or attacked by Syria.
/
Click to expand...

Your saying that Assad is "elected" says everything about your opinion of "democracy". It is very similar to that of the greater and lesser dictators of the last century. Not very nice, Orwell would have wept.
 
DaveFagan said:
That's bullcrap. You function on pete and re-pete from the MSM and it's working grand. No thinking required.
/
Click to expand...

I realize that you like only things that you learned in '68. ;)
 
joG said:
Sure. That is how learning works. You build on what you have come to believe and try to fit new experience and information instead of doubting it a priori. If something rubs or contradicts in some way, you test. In order to reduce the probability of selective bias, you try to make sure of a diverse basis with contradictory opinions, testing all the while. That's how I do it. You don't?
Click to expand...

That is the point.

For me, one must consider the source. When the source has a record of mendacity and deception, I am most skeptical of what that source says. When a source is nothing but a propagandist, I tend to reject what the source says as propaganda.

When the claims of a propagandist cannot be proved, I simply don't believe it. When the claims of the propagandist are countered and contradicted by others in the field, the propaganda becomes obvious.

Hersh has provided good sources as to the falsehoods presented by the US government, including several US service members. Yes, there are a few good men in the US intelligence community, and most all of them today are whistleblowers, pointing out the false statements of the US "intelligence" community.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS, have far more credibility than the CIA or other political branches.

From the military perspective, what possible military advantage could be gained by gassing 12 year old unarmed children in one's own country? Care to take a shot at an answer to that rhetorical? Shall I hold my breath?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom