• 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:

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?




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.




: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.

I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job, that we faked the moon landing, that the Earth is flat, that Elvis and Tupac are alive, or any outlandish theories about JFK and free masons. I don't know what happened during Roswell. I further no claims of lizard people, Atlantis, or sub surface dwellers.

I'm just a man who reads too much Chris Hedges and Howard Zinn. And I think the government has been lying to the American people about Syria. Obama administration included. I find it highly suspicious that the people's popular opinion, "stay out of Syria." Was disregarded this week. Merely a week ago, Donald Trump was in favor of a hands off approach to Syria. I find it highly suspect that, that position runs contrary to the interests of the military industrial complex. You're not going to get very far with me if you don't accept that the United States does what it does, not for humanitarian, and counter-terrorism purposes, but for special interests and big business. We used to manufacture weapons for wars but, now we make wars for weapons.

There's other atrocity propaganda too, besides the one I linked. I'm not saying the U.S. Government does state-run propaganda. But, MSNBC, does take anchors off air if they are too critical of DC. that is what happened to Phil Donahue's show on MSNBC. During that period post-9/11, and during the first invasion of the Second Gulf War. Donahue was a vocal critic of the war and MSNBC took him off air.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue

Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."[20] Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned by General Electric and Comcast, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[21]

They took Donahue off air because he was criticizing, with legitimacy the Bush Administration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Relationships with allied nations are a function of defense. Engaging enemies on their turf rather than your own is a function of defense.

Which has nothing to do with Trumps action.
 
I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job, that we faked the moon landing, that the Earth is flat, that Elvis and Tupac are alive, or any outlandish theories about JFK and free masons.

What makes you think they are outlandish? Do you really believe the stories the lying, government-controlled MSM tell you?

I'm just a man who reads too much Chris Hedges and Howard Zinn.

Ah. Yes. I think we have identified part of the problem.

And I think the government has been lying to the American people about Syria. Obama administration included.

Well, I tell you what. Ask me anything you like about Syria, and I'll answer you honestly, and as completely as I can, though to be fair, I spend more time focusing on the other side of the border.

I find it highly suspicious that the people's popular opinion, "stay out of Syria." Was disregarded this week. Merely a week ago, Donald Trump was in favor of a hands off approach to Syria.

:lol: yeah. Because if there is anything we know about Donald Trump, it's that he's well-thought out, consistent, careful in how he goes about adopting positions, always adopts popular opinions in order to maintain his super-high approval ratings, and doesn't think whatever the last person who talked to him thinks.

I find it highly suspect that, that position runs contrary to the interests of the military industrial complex.

:pinches bridge of nose:

We've been over this. It's the JewMinatti, the Masons, and the NeoCons, who are all colluding inside the Deep State.


You're not going to get very far with me if you don't accept that the United States does what it does, not for humanitarian, and counter-terrorism purposes, but for special interests and big business.

Given that I'm involved in those efforts, I can tell you pretty well how we make the decisions that we do. :shrug: you are incorrect. I've sat in plenty of targeting meetings. The only special interests that I've seen fight over whether or not to hit something were CIA v DOD and Air Force v Land Components. U.S. Business has never come up.

There's other atrocity propaganda too, besides the one I linked. I'm not saying the U.S. Government does state-run propaganda.

You literally claimed that above when you stated that the US Government controls the media in order to force them to publish lies that would justify middle east wars.

But, MSNBC, does take anchors off air if they are too critical of DC. that is what happened to Phil Donahue's show on MSNBC. During that period post-9/11, and during the first invasion of the Second Gulf War. Donahue was a vocal critic of the war and MSNBC took him off air.

Who gives a flying flip? That in no way establishes that the US Government secretly controls the media in order to force it to lie to the American people about the Middle East.
 
What makes you think they are outlandish? Do you really believe the stories the lying, government-controlled MSM tell you?



Ah. Yes. I think we have identified part of the problem.



Well, I tell you what. Ask me anything you like about Syria, and I'll answer you honestly, and as completely as I can, though to be fair, I spend more time focusing on the other side of the border.



:lol: yeah. Because if there is anything we know about Donald Trump, it's that he's well-thought out, consistent, careful in how he goes about adopting positions, always adopts popular opinions in order to maintain his super-high approval ratings, and doesn't think whatever the last person who talked to him thinks.



:pinches bridge of nose:

We've been over this. It's the JewMinatti, the Masons, and the NeoCons, who are all colluding inside the Deep State.




Given that I'm involved in those efforts, I can tell you pretty well how we make the decisions that we do. :shrug: you are incorrect. I've sat in plenty of targeting meetings. The only special interests that I've seen fight over whether or not to hit something were CIA v DOD and Air Force v Land Components. U.S. Business has never come up.



You literally claimed that above when you stated that the US Government controls the media in order to force them to publish lies that would justify middle east wars.



Who gives a flying flip? That in no way establishes that the US Government secretly controls the media in order to force it to lie to the American people about the Middle East.

I'll bite on the topic of Syria. I find it fascinating.

So, let's say the Saudi/U.S. coalition gets its way, and we assassinate Assad. That's the endgame, right? We want to kill Assad and liberate Syria from an oppressive regime, just like what we did in Iraq. What did we learn from the Second Gulf War, that will prevent a U.S. occupation enduring for a decade +? How else are we going to prevent a power struggle? Are we going to systematically kill all members of the Syrian Armed Forces, allow the Free Syrian Army to establish rule, and then team up with them to kill ISIS and Al-Nusra, and what happens to the Kurds?
 
Assad lacks a motive in this crime. He was on the verge of destroying the rebels anyway, and there was an upcoming peace summit. Why would he piss all that away? The Chem attack benefits Saudi Arabia and the rebels, not Assad.. By turning the U.S. on Assad. It doesn't add up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we look at who is benefiting it is Trump and by proxy Putin. It all could have been cooked up by the two them. Tail wagging the dog.
 
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.

Assad lost his legitimacy when he used chemical weapons on his own people.
 
:lol: yeah. Because if there is anything we know about Donald Trump, it's that he's well-thought out, consistent, careful in how he goes about adopting positions, always adopts popular opinions in order to maintain his super-high approval ratings, and doesn't think whatever the last person who talked to him thinks.
.

You owe me a new sarcasm meter. That section blew mine out.
 
Assad lost his legitimacy when he used chemical weapons on his own people.

You're thinking the rebels. It was the rebels who launched a chemical attack on innocent civilians.
 
Worth Remembering - the same people who told you Assad didn't have chemical weapons anymore also told you Iran wouldn't develop nukes ;)

What subset of those people are the ones that told me Saddam was an existential threat to the USA?

I think I need to update my video game algorithm. This nonsense over the last 20 years or so defies any attempt at modeling. Maybe if I used fuzzy logic with crushed milkweed.:confused:
 
You're thinking the rebels. It was the rebels who launched a chemical attack on innocent civilians.

Most of the known evidence suggests the bombs fell from the sky...and the rebels don't have planes.
 
I agree the timing doesn't make sense. But maybe Assad did it just to test the waters with our new President?

Or maybe Assad had nothing to do with it because he turned in all his chemical weapons back when Obama was POTUS, and Ron Paul is exactly right?

Wednesday last week it was theory that it was a false flag operation meant to make Assad look bad. By Thursday the US responded to "Assad's actions", making Wednesday's theory valid.
 
Most of the known evidence suggests the bombs fell from the sky...and the rebels don't have planes.

The US and UN confirmed that the chemical stockpiles in Syria were destroyed. If the chemical weapons came from the sky then it came from the U.S. because Syria didn't have them.
 
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.

So Trump reacts by ordering 60 Tomahawks launched at some of Assad's military hardware, after telling the Russians (and thus Assad) what was coming. The Tomahawks will need to be replaced (US taxpayers). Assad's hardware will need to be replaced (Putin/Russia). The manufacturers of said hardware must be happy some pictures were enough to jerk Trump's chain.

Not totally sold on the false flag thing. If true, Trump is more easily manipulated than Obama was. "SAD."
 
While I like Ron Paul on many of his economic stances, I could never vote for him based on his mixed up views on foreign policy. He is obviously influenced too much by his father Ron Paul, who I consider to be a drooling nut job.

Ron Paul is his own father?? Imagine that.

It's Ron Paul that came up with the false flag claim. You I think are thinking of Rand Paul.. who didn't say that.
 
Ron Paul is his own father?? Imagine that.

It's Ron Paul that came up with the false flag claim. You I think are thinking of Rand Paul.. who didn't say that.

You are exactly right....I was thinking of Rand Paul he is too influenced by his dad Ron Paul....who is in fact a drooling nutjob.
 
You're thinking the rebels. It was the rebels who launched a chemical attack on innocent civilians.

ISIS and Assad are the two entities in the battlespace that I am aware of having used Chemical Weapons.
 
I'll bite on the topic of Syria. I find it fascinating.

Okedoke.

So, let's say the Saudi/U.S. coalition gets its way, and we assassinate Assad. That's the endgame, right?

Not currently, at least. Assassination is currently verboten for the USG, but the strength of that is on an Executive Order, meaning that the President has the authority to override it.

Regardless, the death of Assad is not (to my knowledge) current US Policy; his removal from power is a preference, but I haven't seen Regime Change become US Policy, either.


We want to kill Assad and liberate Syria from an oppressive regime, just like what we did in Iraq.

No we do not. Very specifically we do not want "ownership" of Syria the way we ended up with ownership of Iraq. That is why we are working with local partners like the Kurds to attack ISIS, instead of trying to actually invade ourselves, which we have neither the political willpower to do, nor the ability to do without attacking Russia.

The whole "Let's just do nothing and see if that works" policy that we pursued in Syria for years led to a really, really, really #*#&@'d up situation, with hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, millions of refugees (more than any conflict since WWII, IIRC), and no "good" options. It turns out that's a really not good way to achieve policy goals.

What did we learn from the Second Gulf War, that will prevent a U.S. occupation enduring for a decade +?

Well, since we are neither invading nor planning to invade, that's sort of a non-worry. What we appear to be doing instead is inserting SOF to work with local partners. If you want the compilation of lessons-learned from OIF, however, probably the biggest single item is modern COIN theory. Recommended Reading, Recommended COIN Theorist, Recommended IO Background.

How else are we going to prevent a power struggle?

It's a power struggle now. Asking how we would prevent such a thing is sort of like asking "how are we going to keep the Russians from getting nukes???"

Are we going to systematically kill all members of the Syrian Armed Forces, allow the Free Syrian Army to establish rule, and then team up with them to kill ISIS and Al-Nusra, and what happens to the Kurds?

we are currently working with elements of Kurds; probably what happens with them is some kind of de facto autonomy with possible nominal membership in a nation state, similar to how Kurdistan has functioned in Iraq. :shrug: But that last is just my guess.
 
Or maybe Assad had nothing to do with it because he turned in all his chemical weapons back when Obama was POTUS, and Ron Paul is exactly right?

:lamo :lamo :lamo


Thanks, Thoreau :D I had a long couple of flights today, and that was a needed chuckle.
 
Okedoke.



Not currently, at least. Assassination is currently verboten for the USG, but the strength of that is on an Executive Order, meaning that the President has the authority to override it.

Regardless, the death of Assad is not (to my knowledge) current US Policy; his removal from power is a preference, but I haven't seen Regime Change become US Policy, either.




No we do not. Very specifically we do not want "ownership" of Syria the way we ended up with ownership of Iraq. That is why we are working with local partners like the Kurds to attack ISIS, instead of trying to actually invade ourselves, which we have neither the political willpower to do, nor the ability to do without attacking Russia.

The whole "Let's just do nothing and see if that works" policy that we pursued in Syria for years led to a really, really, really #*#&@'d up situation, with hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, millions of refugees (more than any conflict since WWII, IIRC), and no "good" options. It turns out that's a really not good way to achieve policy goals.



Well, since we are neither invading nor planning to invade, that's sort of a non-worry. What we appear to be doing instead is inserting SOF to work with local partners. If you want the compilation of lessons-learned from OIF, however, probably the biggest single item is modern COIN theory. Recommended Reading, Recommended COIN Theorist, Recommended IO Background.



It's a power struggle now. Asking how we would prevent such a thing is sort of like asking "how are we going to keep the Russians from getting nukes???"



we are currently working with elements of Kurds; probably what happens with them is some kind of de facto autonomy with possible nominal membership in a nation state, similar to how Kurdistan has functioned in Iraq. :shrug: But that last is just my guess.

Do you see Saudi Arabia as a menace in this conflict at all? Or, do you see Iran as a menace? Because, as I understand it, Syria has become a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
 
Do you see Saudi Arabia as a menace in this conflict at all? Or, do you see Iran as a menace? Because, as I understand it, Syria has become a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Iran is a huge menace. If I had to pick an actor that was more dangerous in this space right now than ISIS, it would be Iran. Saudi Arabia is busy on their southern border with the ongoing Huthi rebellion, although though even that....


Iran's involvement in Yemen goes back years, and ranges from political and religious support for Houthi leaders to military training and active involvement in the fighting, according to media reports and Yemen analysts.....
 
Iran is a huge menace. If I had to pick an actor that was more dangerous in this space right now than ISIS, it would be Iran. Saudi Arabia is busy on their southern border with the ongoing Huthi rebellion, although though even that....


Iran's involvement in Yemen goes back years, and ranges from political and religious support for Houthi leaders to military training and active involvement in the fighting, according to media reports and Yemen analysts.....

Yeah, I could see some fireworks going off there. There's a brand new thread just started tonight, that is picking up where this conversation is going. You might dig it.. or feel compelled to contribute.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/military/283361-america-vs-russia-and-syria-hypothetical-thread.html

I gave a small summary from memory, of my feelings toward the ME right now, I might have got some things wrong, might have got some things right, lol.
 
Do you see Saudi Arabia as a menace in this conflict at all? Or, do you see Iran as a menace? Because, as I understand it, Syria has become a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

...and by extension the USA and Russia. The fact that WE are behind one of the most oppressive, damaging regimes in the world in this nonsense is depressing, to say the least. Yes, the House of Saud is that bad. The whole Wahhabism mindset was born and bred via them. But Nixon/Kissinger/PetroDollar - here we are.
 
Back
Top Bottom