BLOCKBUSTER! Syrian Rebels Take Responsibility For Chemical Attack...

[paulitician]

Boot lickers like TASB and denial worlders like Paulitician are completely ignoring Israeli, French, German, and American evidence that empirically shows the Syrian regime is responsible.

That is why your "just once more" application is denied. This is over.

They lie. Need i say more?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

As a rule, I hate to ever agree with anything spouted by the dishonest hack imbecile, Fakey. However, truth is important, so I'll grudgingly agree again with that one thing he says:

There really is no legitimate doubt that it was fucking Assad and his regime that committed the chemical attack atrocities. The evidence may be "circumstantial," but it is nevertheless still crystal clear, compelling and totally convincing.

That's only HALF of the problem, here, however.

If we stipulate that it WAS Assad who did it, that STILL doesn't mean we necessarily "ought" to fire missiles or whatever into Syria.

The REST of the problem requires some very specific answers to some very troubling and as yet completely unanswered questions.

What is the U.S. national interest in the Syrian civil war, notwithstanding that we abhor the use of chemical weapons?

Is it sufficient that our intervention is intended to prevent further acts of brutal barbaric war crimes by that pinhead cocksucker, Assad? ARE we, at long last, taking the official position that we are somehow "policeman of the world?" ARE we the world's policeman? Who or what gives us that right? If we are prepared to play that role in Syria for humanitarian reasons (and no other) then why aren't we doing it elsewhere? Ever hear of Darfur?

If we are prepared to let loose some missiles into another nation (we are committing ourselves to committing ACTS of war), and if the basis is something OTHER than humanitarian, then what IS the basis?

How does it fit into our overall foreign policy? What exactly IS our overall foreign policy?

Does Syria pose ANY risk to us? If so, what? If so, is it imminent? How so?

What is our GOAL in letting loose those missiles? What are the ACKNOWLEDGED risks? How does lobbing in missiles accomplish our goal?

Are we prepared for the possible/probable consequences?

Will this require an exit strategy? Do we have such contingency planning in place?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Boot lickers like TASB and denial worlders like Paulitician are completely ignoring Israeli, French, German, and American evidence that empirically shows the Syrian regime is responsible.

That is why your "just once more" application is denied. This is over.

Show us the evidence then. You keep making this empty claim as though it holds merit. It doesn't. You have nothing but hearsay which you're trying to condemn conflicting reports based on hearsay, while advocating the hearsay of others.

I realize You're completely mentally unstable, but you have to recognize how fucking idiotic this makes you appear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boot lickers like TASB and denial worlders like Paulitician are completely ignoring Israeli, French, German, and American evidence that empirically shows the Syrian regime is responsible.

That is why your "just once more" application is denied. This is over.

They lie. Need i say more?

And you continue to show why libertarians will never govern at the state or national level in America.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There really is no legitimate doubt that it was fucking Assad and his regime that committed the chemical attack atrocities. The evidence may be "circumstantial," but it is nevertheless still crystal clear, compelling and totally convincing

Yes, there is doubt. We have just as many conflicting reports, interviews and videos as we have "proof". Face it, there is no proof and beating those who refuse to fall silent regarding the no proof in the face of the power establsihments continued, never dying assertion to the contrary doesn't change that.

You have no proof of Assad's guilt. It is just as likely that the rebels used them based on what we know. To claim otherwise is simply ignorant and nothign short of belief bias.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Meet our new Allies folks.....

WARNING: VIDEO VERY GRAPHIC!

This is an article and you don't have to view the video

*WATCH* US backed Syrian rebels behead Christian bishop (NSFW)

These are animals of the lowest order...amazing that our so-called leaders appear driven to fully fund and arm them.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, it's not. The original publication is from the Mint Times. If you had more than two lonely brain cells, you may actually have a point. But unfortunately, your research abilities are on par with Fake Starkey. Nonexistent.

I was the one who pointed out the Mint Press, which is a lopsided unreliable news source from the reactionary and libertarian side.

If one is criticized by TASB, then one knows one is on the right path.

If we rely solely on U.S. intelligence, you do realize that then our government can do exactly as it pleases anywhere, since intelligence doesn't care about honesty but only what it can get away with with whoever is currently its major players.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It is very sad that our Government and so many others have conveniently ignored the fact the UN did find that Syrian Rebels likely used Chemical Weapons earlier in this War. So even if Assad did use them, why the sudden outrage and bloodthirst for War? Most Warmongers i've spoken to, can't even tell me why they hate Assad so much. All they seem to know is that they were told they had to. What has Assad and Syria ever done to our Nation?

Yea, that is a critical indication that in all common sense, it is the rebels that would do it again. This is now of the greatest importance, and it's not getting reported at all. Is this true?

UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad's troops | Mail Online

A senior United Nations official has claimed that Syrian rebels may have used chemical weapons against government forces.

Carla Del Ponte said evidence from casualties and medical staff indicated that rebel forces in the civil war had used the deadly nerve agent sarin.

‘Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and there are strong, concrete suspicions, but not yet incontrovertible proof, of the use of sarin gas,’ said Del Ponte in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.’ ...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There really is no legitimate doubt that it was fucking Assad and his regime that committed the chemical attack atrocities. The evidence may be "circumstantial," but it is nevertheless still crystal clear, compelling and totally convincing

Yes, there is doubt. We have just as many conflicting reports, interviews and videos as we have "proof". Face it, there is no proof and beating those who refuse to fall silent regarding the no proof in the face of the power establsihments continued, never dying assertion to the contrary doesn't change that.

You have no proof of Assad's guilt. It is just as likely that the rebels used them based on what we know. To claim otherwise is simply ignorant and nothign short of belief bias.

To even imagine that it was the rebels that targeted the particular locations hit is silly.

The reason circumstantial evidence can be so powerful is that it forces a little focus.

Assad did it. There really is not any legitimate doubt.

Forget that step. Take it as a given.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you concede that point. You are still free to object to our proposed "response." And such objections can be pretty powerful. If you were to agree that Assad did it beyond question, I am guessing that you would STILL object to lobbing in our missiles. That's fine. My question would then be: why?

And don't assume that I'd agree with your objections or that I'd disagree. I just want to see the positions fleshed out fully and clearly. You and I do not always agree. But I do see you as one of the more intelligent people discussing many of these topics. So, seriously, if we stipulated that Assad is responsible, what is the proper U.S. response? And Why?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There really is no legitimate doubt that it was fucking Assad and his regime that committed the chemical attack atrocities. The evidence may be "circumstantial," but it is nevertheless still crystal clear, compelling and totally convincing

Yes, there is doubt. We have just as many conflicting reports, interviews and videos as we have "proof". Face it, there is no proof and beating those who refuse to fall silent regarding the no proof in the face of the power establsihments continued, never dying assertion to the contrary doesn't change that.

You have no proof of Assad's guilt. It is just as likely that the rebels used them based on what we know. To claim otherwise is simply ignorant and nothign short of belief bias.

To even imagine that it was the rebels that targeted the particular locations hit is silly.

The reason circumstantial evidence can be so powerful is that it forces a little focus.

Assad did it. There really is not any legitimate doubt.

Forget that step. Take it as a given.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you concede that point. You are still free to object to our proposed "response." And such objections can be pretty powerful. If you were to agree that Assad did it beyond question, I am guessing that you would STILL object to lobbing in our missiles. That's fine. My question would then be: why?

And don't assume that I'd agree with your objections or that I'd disagree. I just want to see the positions fleshed out fully and clearly. You and I do not always agree. But I do see you as one of the more intelligent people discussing many of these topics. So, seriously, if we stipulated that Assad is responsible, what is the proper U.S. response? And Why?

If we're talking guilt of Assad based on evidence (theory, as it were), then the proper response is for the international community to form a coalition to come up with a solution. Preferrably a diplomatic solution. Personally, seeign as this is not our backyard, I'd leave it to others to find that, and we can help assist in making sure that chemical weapons weren't used again by Assad. Whether that means heavily sanctioning Syria, or a host of other ways that can be used against him to put severe pressure on him over it.

But again, that comes with UN supporting evidence of guilt and a coalition of willing powers to handle the problem. not soem willy nilly "we said he's guilty, end of story" nonsense concocted by known liars where there has been a vision to war with Syria since....1999? maybe earlier?

I agree that IF guilt can be proven, then we should assist in pressuring him over the situation. But the current idea is absolutely disasterous and will bind our hands into a hot war.

There is no good side in this. The rebels make up several factions, including Kurds, not only fighting assad, but amongst themselves. And Saudi Arabia and Qatar are key players in funding the rebels. Especially those of the muslim brotherhood and Al qaeda affiliate varieties.

 

[georgephillip]

Bandar Bush was one of the prime movers of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and he may be up to his old tricks a decade later in Syria:

"According to the French newspaper Le Figaro, two brigades of anti-government fighters that were trained by the CIA, Israelis, Saudis, and Jordanians crossed from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan into Syria to launch an assault, respectively on August 17 and 19, 2013.

"The US must have invested quite a lot in training both anti-government brigades. If true, some may argue that their defeat prompted the chemical weapons attack in Damascus as a contingency plan to fall back on.

"However, how they came by chemical weapons is another issue, but many trails lead to Saudi Arabia. According to the British Independent, it was Saudi Prince Bandar 'that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February 2013.'

"Turkey would apprehend Syrian militants in its territory with sarin gas, which these terrorists planned on using inside Syria. On July 22 the insurgents would also overrun Al-Assal and kill all the witnesses as part of a cover-up.

"A report by Yahya Ababneh, which was contributed to by Dale Gavlak, has collected the testimonies of witnesses who say that “certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack.”

Saudi Arabia?s ?Chemical Bandar? behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? | Global Research