• 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!

US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pretext?

Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

DaveFagan said:
One of the best sites is < *INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE. NEWS, COMMENTARY & INSIGHT >
Always up to date, mixed bag of info, but generally Internet best source.
Click to expand...

DaveFagan:

I gave the Clearing House a look over. Lots of opinion pieces but not much in the way of documentation or useful citations. It's sort of like Globalresearch.ca in that respect. Both are good places to find alternative viewpoints but neither do an effective job in backing up their arguments and POVs. Nonetheless, thanks for the reference and I shall keep an eye on the Clearing House now and then to see what's up.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Fledermaus said:
If you have a half dozen shovels you can fill in holes. You do know there was much other damage, right?
Click to expand...
Assad might have hurt himself laughing. His forces didn't miss a beat. Who selected such a wuss target? Rex "Order of Friendship" Tillerson?
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Civilians have been getting killed for years by the Assad regime thanks to the Arab Spring. What difference does it make whether gas was used or not?

Why would that be a game changer? Dead is dead.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Fledermaus said:
Do you really care if Syrian civilians get gassed?
Click to expand...

I think that's a rather silly argument given that we're supplying the Wahabist Saudis with the illegal cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field, that the Wahabists rain down on Yemen, the poorest nation on the planet. America has long since sodomized it's already bogus self proclaimed moral authority nonsense.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Rogue Valley said:
Assad might have hurt himself laughing. His forces didn't miss a beat. Who selected such a wuss target? Rex "Order of Friendship" Tillerson?
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted.

Have you read anything about the actual damage done?
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Fenton Lum said:
I think that's a rather silly argument given that we're supplying the Wahabist Saudis with the illegal cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field, that the Wahabists rain down on Yemen, the poorest nation on the planet. America has long since sodomized it's already bogus self proclaimed moral authority nonsense.
Click to expand...

Non-answer noted.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

DaveFagan said:
Do you remember Behghazi. It was a CIA operation to transfer arms from Libyan armories to al Qeda/ISIS militants in Syria.
/
Click to expand...

My understanding is that arms transfers went to Qatar or the UAE first and from other destinations than just Libya. Evidence of "leading from behind."

After discussions among members of the National Security Council, the Obama administration backed the arms shipments from both countries (Qatar & UAE), according to two former administration officials briefed on the talks.

American officials say that the United Arab Emirates first approached the Obama administration during the early months of the Libyan uprising, asking for permission to ship American-built weapons that the United States had supplied for the emirates’ use. The administration rejected that request, but instead urged the emirates to ship weapons to Libya that could not be traced to the United States.

“The U.A.E. was asking for clearance to send U.S. weapons,” said one former official. “We told them it’s O.K. to ship other weapons.”

For its part, Qatar supplied weapons made outside the United States, including French- and Russian-designed arms, according to people familiar with the shipments.

But the American support for the arms shipments from Qatar and the emirates could not be completely hidden. NATO air and sea forces around Libya had to be alerted not to interdict the cargo planes and freighters transporting the arms into Libya from Qatar and the emirates, American officials said.
Click to expand...

U.S.-Approved Weapons Transfer Ended Up With Libyan Jihadis - The New York Times
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Μολὼν λαβέ;1067357815 said:
My understanding is that arms transfers went to Qatar or the UAE first and from other destinations than just Libya. Evidence of "leading from behind."

Hillary Clinton -- Benghazi Scandal & Arming Syrian ?Rebels? | National Review


U.S.-Approved Weapons Transfer Ended Up With Libyan Jihadis - The New York Times
Click to expand...


Hillary Clinton -- Benghazi Scandal & Arming Syrian ?Rebels? | National Review

"hands, what are the “other things” that the State Department and the CIA were up to?

We know, as detailed above, that Ambassador Stevens’s jihadist contact, Belhadj, moved an enormous shipment of weapons from Benghazi to the Syrian “rebels” in Turkey. And we know that, while claiming not to be directly arming those “rebels,” the Obama administration was working with Turkey, the Saudis, and other Islamist governments to determine which Syrian “rebels” should be armed. As the New York Times reported in June 2012, some three months before the Benghazi massacre:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The Times elaborated that “the Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.” To repeat, however: Soon after Obama’s reelection, the Times was explaining that “with help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment.” And by June 2013, the Times reported that the administration had begun directly supplying the Syrian “rebels” with “small arms and ammunition.”
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

DaveFagan said:
Hillary Clinton -- Benghazi Scandal & Arming Syrian ?Rebels? | National Review

"hands, what are the “other things” that the State Department and the CIA were up to?

We know, as detailed above, that Ambassador Stevens’s jihadist contact, Belhadj, moved an enormous shipment of weapons from Benghazi to the Syrian “rebels” in Turkey. And we know that, while claiming not to be directly arming those “rebels,” the Obama administration was working with Turkey, the Saudis, and other Islamist governments to determine which Syrian “rebels” should be armed. As the New York Times reported in June 2012, some three months before the Benghazi massacre:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The Times elaborated that “the Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.” To repeat, however: Soon after Obama’s reelection, the Times was explaining that “with help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment.” And by June 2013, the Times reported that the administration had begun directly supplying the Syrian “rebels” with “small arms and ammunition.”
Click to expand...

More evidence of Obama and Hillary leading from behind.

It appears she was ignorant of some history as she was more than willing to repeat it. Here's a hint: It never stays covert.

Hillary Clinton Liked Covert Action if It Stayed Covert, Transcript Shows

She went on to say — as her audience already knew because of revelations in the news media — that as secretary of state she had advocated secretly arming the Syrian opposition and moving forcefully to counter the Russians, who at that point were supporting President Bashar al-Assad but had not yet fully entered the conflict.

“My view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene,”
Click to expand...

I guess the Russians got the last laugh.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-was-open-to-covert-action-abroad-hacked-transcript-shows.html
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Fledermaus said:
Did they lie about the attack they bombed the airfield over?
Click to expand...

Yes. Seymour Hersh just covered that in a story in Die Welt.

False Flags 'R Us.

By this bit of propaganda, the White House/ Deep State is laying the groundwork for future military operations.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Evilroddy said:
DaveFagan:

I gave the Clearing House a look over. Lots of opinion pieces but not much in the way of documentation or useful citations. It's sort of like Globalresearch.ca in that respect. Both are good places to find alternative viewpoints but neither do an effective job in backing up their arguments and POVs. Nonetheless, thanks for the reference and I shall keep an eye on the Clearing House now and then to see what's up.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Just curious Roddy, what news sources DO back up their claims?
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Thoreau72 said:
Just curious Roddy, what news sources DO back up their claims?
Click to expand...

Thoreau72:

Just call me Rod. Evilroddy is an old nickname from my high school days.

I don't look for news sources to back up any issue like this. I look for documents and credible testimony as evidence, whether released by a freedom of information request, leaked by a whistleblower or dug up by a hardworking journalist. It's the documents, the trail of evidence and the testimony rather than the authority of news source(s) which makes the case in my opinion. So if an article cites documentary evidence and makes a persuasive case upon critical review then that is what I look for. If that article appears in mainstream media, independent media or anywhere else doesn't really matter to me. What carries weight is the evidence which the article presents and not the gravitas or lack of gravitas of the institution which publishes or republished the article. In making the case the medium is not part of the message.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Thoreau72 said:
Yes. Seymour Hersh just covered that in a story in Die Welt.

False Flags 'R Us.

By this bit of propaganda, the White House/ Deep State is laying the groundwork for future military operations.
Click to expand...

I eould ask for citation, but we both lnow how that would go.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Evilroddy said:
Thoreau72:

Just call me Rod. Evilroddy is an old nickname from my high school days.

I don't look for news sources to back up any issue like this. I look for documents and credible testimony as evidence, whether released by a freedom of information request, leaked by a whistleblower or dug up by a hardworking journalist. It's the documents, the trail of evidence and the testimony rather than the authority of news source(s) which makes the case in my opinion. So if an article cites documentary evidence and makes a persuasive case upon critical review then that is what I look for. If that article appears in mainstream media, independent media or anywhere else doesn't really matter to me. What carries weight is the evidence which the article presents and not the gravitas or lack of gravitas of the institution which publishes or republished the article. In making the case the medium is not part of the message.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that documents can be forged? Generated from air? Can important documents be destroyed so that they are not part of a record?

I agree with your point there, but I am but an ordinary civilian not privy to government documents. Most everything these days is classified.

Certainly Daniel Ellsberg followed the method you described when he spirited mountains of TOP SECRET documents out to the media and congress. So did Snowden and Manning.

Obviously, had it been left up to the Pentagon Brass, those documents would never have seen the light of day. So my point is that while documents are great, they are easily manipulated.

In the case of Syria, this latest mention by the US about an imminent chemical attack by Assad simply does not pass the smell test. Hersh is right, and has provided a valuable service to ordinary civilians like me. He was right about My Lai, and that gives him credibility. The man has a conscience, he knows right from wrong.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Thoreau72:

As unsatisfying and unfair as it is, we have to depend on evidence to construct our critiques and indictments of the powers that be or we lose all credibility in the eyes of the body politic. However critiquing and indicting the "establishment" is not the only avenue to reform and repair of political systems that have gone awry. Forming political movements to challenge the POV's grasp on power or creating powerful interest groups to reform from within are options. Civil disobedience and law-fare are two more confrontational approaches. Finally direct action with or without violence is an option if you don't care about, or are willing to accept, the consequences of your actions. These alternate approaches do not require reliance on factual analysis and hard evidence as they are political rather than rational avenues to change.

But if we limit ourselves to commentary or critique, we must also limit ourselves to provable evidence like documents, forensic evidence, witness reports and the witnesses themselves to make our case. To do otherwise is to construct our arguments on thin air where they will not remain aloft and will fall.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Re: US Threatens Syria About Possible Chemical Attack: Honest Warning or Cynical Pret

Yes, arguments out of thin air is mostly what the government does. This is an example of it. And the western media will support those thin air arguments, though I must admit that in this case, there does seem to be a fair amount of doubt being expressed. Cause for optimism?

Barbara Lee has been successful with bipartisan support to get a rider attached to a bill that will end the sophistry of the AUMF. Cause for optimism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom