• 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!

Ron Paul Says Syria Was False Flag Attack:

Porkuloss said:
Weren't we supposed to believe that the Great Putin took all of little boy Assad's chem toys away?
Click to expand...

Worth Remembering - the same people who told you Assad didn't have chemical weapons anymore also told you Iran wouldn't develop nukes ;)
 
cpwill said:
:lol: Why would it be a blunder? Given that it has never resulted in backlash for him - but only ever helped him achieve victory on the battle field - why would he assume that doing so again would have any different results?

The only time Assad ever deliberately took a risk with Chemical weapons was when he deliberately crossed the Red Line and dared the US to enforce it. Since then, every time he's done it he's done so safely in the knowledge that we did not really care, or, at least, we weren't willing to do anything about it.

Then he bombed someone who managed to go viral. What changed wasn't the use of WMD in Syria. What changed was the fact that it got wide, sympathetic, media coverage, highlighting innocents suffering due to Assad's abuses.



That latter is generally true. He saw it on TV, and he reacted. When earlier attacks happened, he reacted differently. The use of Gas hasn't changed - the television coverage has.



Sure. Maybe it's the illuminati. Or the Jews. Or The 33rd Degree Jewminati Masons who secretly control Bannon, who secretly controls Trump, despite his just getting yanked off of the NSC.


Oh..... Occam's Razor is generally correct, and Trump saw some sympathetic images on Television, got upset, and reacted accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I was under the impression there were significant measures taken after the 2013 Chem attacks, of which the perpetrators are still disputed. I am extremely skeptical of a government that routinely lies about the Middle East to beat the war drums. You'd think we learned our lesson from the Cheney years.

I don't think it's the Rothschilds/Bilderbergers etc. who are behind this. I think it's in plain sight. The Pentagon is given preferential treatment and it will go unquestioned as we continue to pretend "freedom fight" across the Middle East. McMaster is likely the one who advised Trump to attack and likely represents the interests of the DoD. Any national security talking point or humanitarian concern is 100% fabrication, playing on people's emotions, to nip in the bud, public opposition to a war in Syria.

Edit: Trump needed an "attitude adjustment" away from the populist message of isolationism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
I was under the impression there were significant measures taken after the 2013 Chem attacks, of which the perpetrators are still disputed
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah. The "Significant Measures" were that we got the Russians to agree to take Syrian Chemical Weapons. They didn't take them all, and we knew that they weren't going to, and we didn't care, we just wanted to be seen as "doing something", which was more important than, you know, actually doing something. They have used chemical weapons since multiple times, with no backlash other than Strongly Worded Letters Decrying The Whole Thing. They had no reason to believe this time would be any different.

I am extremely skeptical of a government that routinely lies about the Middle East to beat the war drums. You'd think we learned our lesson from the Cheney years.
Click to expand...

:pinches bridge of nose: sure. Dick Cheney, who is a super-evil-genius, has been secretly controlling the Obama and the Trump administrations.


Or. Assad is genuinely actually a murderous dictator who doesn't care about civilian casualties, which is why he indiscriminately bombs civilian populaces with both conventional and non-conventional munitions.


I don't think it's the Rothschilds/Bilderbergers etc. who are behind this. I think it's in plain sight. The Pentagon is given preferential treatment and it will go unquestioned as we continue to pretend "freedom fight" across the Middle East. McMaster is likely the one who advised Trump to attack and likely represents the interests of the DoD. Any national security talking point or humanitarian concern is 100% fabrication, playing on people's emotions, to nip in the bud, public opposition to a war in Syria.
Click to expand...

Bro if you want to insist it's all a Conspiraceh, there's nothing anyone can offer you - every piece of evidence that disagrees with your preferred conclusion "is just more evidence about how deep this really goes / how good they are". It's a non-falsifiable position.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: yeah. The "Significant Measures" were that we got the Russians to agree to take Syrian Chemical Weapons. They didn't take them all, and we knew that they weren't going to, and we didn't care, we just wanted to be seen as "doing something", which was more important than, you know, actually doing something. They have used chemical weapons since multiple times, with no backlash other than Strongly Worded Letters Decrying The Whole Thing. They had no reason to believe this time would be any different.



:pinches bridge of nose: sure. Dick Cheney, who is a super-evil-genius, has been secretly controlling the Obama and the Trump administrations.


Or. Assad is genuinely actually a murderous dictator who doesn't care about civilian casualties, which is why he indiscriminately bombs civilian populaces with both conventional and non-conventional munitions.




Bro if you want to insist it's all a Conspiraceh, there's nothing anyone can offer you - every piece of evidence that disagrees with your preferred conclusion "is just more evidence about how deep this really goes / how good they are". It's a non-falsifiable position.
Click to expand...

America has proven that they will use the press as a propaganda tool, to push false narratives that excuse American intervention in the Middle East. That's not a conspiracy that's a fact. What percent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved with 9/11, way past an acceptable year?

People were worried HRC would push a war in Syria, with her "no-fly zone". Some chose Trump because he bashed the Iraq war and was perceived as a person that would deescalate tensions. What happened? Either HRC or Trump, the American people get a war in Syria, so you tell me, who calls the shots? The President or the Pentagon?


Edit: CNN POLL 2006, 43% still believed Saddam did 9/11. Had to look it up lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
America has proven that they will use the press as a propaganda tool, to push false narratives that excuse American intervention in the Middle East. That's not a conspiracy that's a fact.
Click to expand...

No, that's a conspiracy. And it's a laughable one, because the U.S. government isn't that competent. Russia controls it's media in order to control narratives in it's country and shape them abroad - our media has zero problem acting in opposition to US government preferences. Nor does the US "lie our way into war in the ME". We have been wrong about particulars, but the idea that "any time the US is involved in kinetics in the middle east, it's because Dick Cheney is secretly lying to us all from behind the Big Green Curtain" is laughable.

What percent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved with 9/11, way past an acceptable year?
Click to expand...

No idea. Nor did the Bush administration control the media to force them to push that narrative, making it a non sequitur.

People were worried HRC would push a war in Syria, with her "no-fly zone". Some chose Trump because he bashed the Iraq war and was perceived as a person that would deescalate tensions. What happened? Either HRC or Trump, the American people get a war in Syria, so you tell me, who calls the shots? The President or the Pentagon?
Click to expand...

The President does. Had DoD been able to call the shots, the last 8 years would have looked very different. There has been a lot of chafing under a President whose instinct was to do nothing, and who sought excuses to do so.
 
cpwill said:
No, that's a conspiracy. And it's a laughable one, because the U.S. government isn't that competent. Russia controls it's media in order to control narratives in it's country and shape them abroad - our media has zero problem acting in opposition to US government preferences. Nor does the US "lie our way into war in the ME". We have been wrong about particulars, but the idea that "any time the US is involved in kinetics in the middle east, it's because Dick Cheney is secretly lying to us all from behind the Big Green Curtain" is laughable.
Click to expand...

We have profound disagreement here. I don't see either of us getting anywhere, but I'm stubborn as hell. I would raise the "throwing babies on the ground" headline from the 1st gulf war as evidence supporting my position.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)


No idea. Nor did the Bush administration control the media to force them to push that narrative, making it a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

It was 43% in 2006. I looked it up after wondering. 43% of Americans thought Saddam did 9/11, five years after, because the press accepted the narrative coming out of the WH.



the President does. Had DoD been able to call the shots, the last 8 years would have looked very different. There has been a lot of chafing under a President whose instinct was to do nothing, and who sought excuses to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. Obama did the bidding of the defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, and in a lot of ways continued Bush era policy. Obama bombed in Yemen and Somalia as well. If this is the policy of a peacenik, do nothing, pacifist, I'd hate to see what a strongman does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Porkuloss said:
Weren't we supposed to believe that the Great Putin took all of little boy Assad's chem toys away?
Click to expand...
He did and the U.S. and EU confirmed it. Then the CIA gave the rebels millions in chemical weapons so that they could stage their false flag operation.
 
Lutherf said:
Ron Paul is an isolationist and that's a great philosophy right up to the point that you have to fight a war on your own soil.
Click to expand...

Syria isn't on our soil. In fact we have 0 national security or financial interests in the region.
 
cpwill said:
No, that's a conspiracy. And it's a laughable one, because the U.S. government isn't that competent. Russia controls it's media in order to control narratives in it's country and shape them abroad - our media has zero problem acting in opposition to US government preferences. Nor does the US "lie our way into war in the ME".
Click to expand...

The government can't do it all on it's own. It had a lot of help from the MSM.
 
reinoe said:
Assad hasn't attacked any of his own people. He's been fighting terrorists the whole time.
Click to expand...

Assasd makes no distinction between rebels and ISIS.
 
ModerateGOP said:
This man has truly lost his mind:



Ron Paul Thinks Syrian Chemical Attack Was A 'False Flag' | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

While I admire Ron Paul's pacifism...he isn't exactly known for his military expertise.

Some officials are saying that Assad used chemical weapons as revenge for what happened in Hama...and to clear the way for the regimes push to take Idlib.

“This is vengeance for the regime for what happened in Hama,” the official said. “This is them saying that they are the most ruthless force in the game, that they will hit 10 times harder than anyone who hits them. It is also about trying to open up a path to Idlib, for the eventual ground attack there...."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-home-to-jets-allegedly-used-in-sarin-attacks​
 
reinoe said:
The government can't do it all on it's own. It had a lot of help from the MSM.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If there is anything we know about the MSM, it's that they are slavishly loyal to whatever Donald Trump wants them to say :mrgreen:
 
Moot said:
While I admire Ron Paul's pacifism...he isn't exactly known for his military expertise.

Some officials are saying that Assad used chemical weapons as revenge for what happened in Hama...and to clear the way for the regimes push to take Idlib.

“This is vengeance for the regime for what happened in Hama,” the official said. “This is them saying that they are the most ruthless force in the game, that they will hit 10 times harder than anyone who hits them. It is also about trying to open up a path to Idlib, for the eventual ground attack there...."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-home-to-jets-allegedly-used-in-sarin-attacks​
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is not a pacifist. Just because libertarians aren't for running around intervening in other countries affairs doesn't make them pacifists.
 
Lutherf said:
Ron Paul is an isolationist and that's a great philosophy right up to the point that you have to fight a war on your own soil.
Click to expand...

Why do people keep saying this kind of stuff? Every time a libertarian speaks on military matters people either mistake them for pacifists or isolationists. An isolationist won't trade with anyone or be friends with anyone, but libertarians are not against either. What libertarians are against is using the military as a tool of aggression and being the world police/protector. Libertarians believe the military is meant to be used for defense and defense only. That means that the only reason they will ever call on the military to do anything is if it is a matter needed to defend the country from foreign aggression.
 
Winston said:
We have profound disagreement here. I don't see either of us getting anywhere, but I'm stubborn as hell. I would raise the "throwing babies on the ground" headline from the 1st gulf war as evidence supporting my position.
Click to expand...

you raise.... a single incident.... of a non-governmental interest group giving false testimony..... to argue that there is a wide-reaching, unknown, conspiracy, by which the United States government secretly controls not only US, but non-U.S. Western media, in order to force them to pass deliberate falsehoods justifying strikes against Middle Eastern Regimes.


Sure. You are right. We are not going to agree on this insanity.


Were the moon landings faked? How about 9/11?


It was 43% in 2006. I looked it up after wondering. 43% of Americans thought Saddam did 9/11, five years after, because the press accepted the narrative coming out of the WH.
Click to expand...

The WH did not control nor have the press repeat the claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. The Press was generally split on the war going into Iraq - far from your claim that somehow they were controlled to provide a single narrative, the public debate in the US was deep and sharp.


I don't see it that way. Obama did the bidding of the defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, and in a lot of ways continued Bush era policy. Obama bombed in Yemen and Somalia as well.
Click to expand...

:shrug: then you weren't paying attention - which is fine, others pay attention so that you don't have to.

US Defense Contractors do not care if we bomb AQAP (which we should). They care if we buy more F35's, and if we buy more NVG's. Furthermore, Obama placed incredibly tight restrictions on drone strikes against VEO's - the Presidential Planning Guidance includes a level of Near-Certainty that left us deliberately allowing terrorists to plan, train, and strike because we couldn't prove to the President that we were, say, 99.99, v only 95% sure that everyone carrying weapons at (insert a meeting of bad guys here) was a bad guy.

You seem to have "anything short of pacifism" confused with "Bush Era Policy".


If DOD had been allowed to call the shots over the past 8 years, you wouldn't have seen "leading from behind" and the chaos in Libya, for example. You would have seen a much more proactive CT program, a more aggressive counter-Iranian Nuclear program, a more assertive response to Russian aggression, etc. You certainly wouldn't have seen the cuts inside the DOD budget that we've seen (which has hit both uniform and contractor side, incidentally).

This "well, it's all, like, you know, the pentagon, and, like, the corporations, you know, like, controllin the media, and, like, warmongering, and stuff" meme is attractive because it offers a simplistic explanation for a complicated problem that justifies opposition to that which you want to oppose.


Besides. Everyone knows 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq was a Joint Operation between the Jews, the Illuminati, the Banks, the Jews, Jewish Neocons, and the Jews. It's all about the money, man, don't let the MSM treat you like Sheeple.
 
Henrin said:
Why do people keep saying this kind of stuff? Every time a libertarian speaks on military matters people either mistake them for pacifists or isolationists. An isolationist won't trade with anyone or be friends with anyone, but libertarians are not against either. What libertarians are against is using the military as a tool of aggression and being the world police/protector. Libertarians believe the military is meant to be used for defense and defense only. That means that the only reason they will ever call on the military to do anything is if it is a matter needed to defend the country from foreign aggression.
Click to expand...

Relationships with allied nations are a function of defense. Engaging enemies on their turf rather than your own is a function of defense.
 
Moot said:
Assasd makes no distinction between rebels and ISIS.
Click to expand...

There is no distinction. And both groups want to overthrow the legitimate government and install an Islamic theocracy. It's silly to think Assad should make a distinction.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. If there is anything we know about the MSM, it's that they are slavishly loyal to whatever Donald Trump wants them to say :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The MSM has been complacent and lying it's way to the ME for nearly 20 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom