Author Topic: Oh, shit!  (Read 526 times)

Tom62

  • Global Moderator
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2017, 10:10:35 AM »
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

Tom, when you say "rebels" do you mean "dissenting Syrians"?  Rightfully most of the media have tried to keep "rebels" for Syrians and "militants" for Al Q, Daesh etc. Assad tends to call them all "terrorists" regardless of the accepted use of that term - just so he can feel justified in treating them all the same and accuse the West of supporting "terrorism".

Do you have a reference that the rebel Syrians have used nerve gas? Or was it the militants against the Syrian rebels?

I meant all Islamic radical groups that fight against Assad. There doesn't seem to be any moderate groups fighting any more in this bloody war, so I don't differentiate between rebels and militants. Here is an interesting article about the chemical attack.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2017, 12:10:19 PM »
We  know that the Muslim rebels have chemical weapons and they'd used them in the past against other rebels. I assume that even ISIS has them. It makes not much sense that Assad would have used chemical weapons this time. Doesn't make much sense, since he is winning the war with the Russians. Why would he want to provoke the USA?

Tom, when you say "rebels" do you mean "dissenting Syrians"?  Rightfully most of the media have tried to keep "rebels" for Syrians and "militants" for Al Q, Daesh etc. Assad tends to call them all "terrorists" regardless of the accepted use of that term - just so he can feel justified in treating them all the same and accuse the West of supporting "terrorism".

Do you have a reference that the rebel Syrians have used nerve gas? Or was it the militants against the Syrian rebels?

I meant all Islamic radical groups that fight against Assad. There doesn't seem to be any moderate groups fighting any more in this bloody war, so I don't differentiate between rebels and militants. Here is an interesting article about the chemical attack.

Problem is, who to believe? Rationalwiki describes GlobalResearch thus:

Quote
Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Quote
Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist and author. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.[1] Since 2001, he has been the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes pieces viewed as conspiracy theories.[2][3] Chossudovsky is himself a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories.



Though there seems to be viciousness and barbarity on all sudes (see my comments on medieval mindsets) I do tend to dufferentiate those who are fighting for their verdion of what their country should be and those who will kill, rape and torture all commers to gsin territory etc in the country of another. Thus, though shitheads all, at least the patriotic Syrian shitheads (opposing a shitty regime) have a little more legitimacy than a mixture of fundamentalist shitheads from all over.

OK, needs a microscope to spot the differece but . . .

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 11229
  • Gender: Female
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2017, 02:30:24 PM »
I haven't been following the attack on Syria in the news so forgive me if something I say is off the mark, but between that and the attack in Stockholm all the news' been showing is people saying that the US stepped in to save the civilians afflicted in the war. Or something.  :reading:

Sounds like the kind of bullshit politicians like to tell people in order to gain popular support.

What's the political...or economic goal? Does Syria have petrol?

I have some catching up to do.  :eyeroll:

 
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


BooksCatsEtc

  • Surprisingly OK
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 8189
  • Gender: Female
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2017, 04:02:21 PM »

What's the political...or economic goal? Does Syria have petrol?

I have some catching up to do.  :eyeroll:

Personally, I think it's all just dick swinging on 45's part.

What really gets me are the Tea Party types now blubbering about the poor dead children in Syria.  Would have been a lot more useful if they'd been concerned about the fate of Syrian children when their refugee parents were trying to find haven elsewhere, like in America.
Sandy

  
"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?"  from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5313
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2017, 04:42:00 PM »
Some of Trump's loony right supporters are having trouble accepting this. "The Alt-Right Has Found A New Cuck To Hate: It’s Donald Trump" | Red State

Yes, I did just post a link to "Red State," but it's an interesting piece.

Quote
These were the alt-right nutcases that made Donald Trump during the run up to the election. They went from being just random internet kooks to actual engines of policy, promoting Trump’s every crazed, barely intelligible speech on the campaign trail.

And Trump ate it up.

Trump is no stranger to pushing conspiracy theories, whether it be his birther theories about Barack Obama or his oh-so-casual promotion of the idea that Ted Cruz’s dad was somehow connected to Lee Harvey Oswald and President Kennedy’s assassination.

Make no mistake, these are his people.

And now his people are losing their collective minds.

Even before last night’s strike, the usual suspects began a furious “false flag” push, signaling that Assad was not to blame for the deadly gas attack, but that either it was staged by the “fake media,” or Syrian rebels had launched the attack, themselves.

Alex Jones, the rabid Trump-apologist and founder of unhinged conspiracy site, InfoWars, began beating the drum on Wednesday, implicating George Soros-funded groups for staging the gas attack.

[Continues . . .]
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Icarus

  • The wise one.
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2017, 10:18:07 PM »
 I got my first information from an unreliable source. Turns out it 59 Tomahawk missiles not Minutemen. The schedule was for 60 but one of them failed.

I continue to argue that using those facilities was a waste. I agree with Books that it was an act of "dick swinging" more than an affective deterrent.

Tom62

  • Global Moderator
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2017, 11:50:30 PM »
More doubts about the responsible people behind the attack.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2017, 12:27:24 AM »
More doubts about the responsible people behind the attack.

As many doubts about the veracity of reporting agencies . . . As soon as I see anything resembling an agenda or a bias in a report I suspect its accuracy. Interested in facts not opinions in this sort of thing.

Playing devil's advocate a bit: I wonder how sure even the UN can possibly be that any country has complied 100% with a ruling, that there are no hidden stocks, or even the ability to construct gas manufacturing plant to make new stock after the inspectors are gone? After all if a bunch of terrorists can do it in the midst of a battle zone a government would have no problem.

"Motivation" is going to be the key to working out the "who" and I agree that a bunch of barbaric (in our western eyes) terrorists, for whom killing innocents is everyday stuff and a means of ensuring only their people remain, have the edge there. However I also feel that Assad is only very slightly more sane and trustworthy than was Saddam Hussein.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Tom62

  • Global Moderator
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2017, 01:14:12 PM »
It seems that I'm not the only one who has some doubts.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh, shit!
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2017, 01:53:45 PM »
It seems that I'm not the only one who has some doubts.


Yes, that guy has been holding that line from the begining. There was "an expert" in nerve gasses on the BBC radio today saying that the "hard" evidence, so far, points at air delivered weapons.  He based this, from what I can remember, on the persistence of the agent. If air delivered in the open the gas disperses quickly, if it is contained in a building the "saturation" of the structure, due to the partial containment, would make it dangerous to enter for some time. Also the spread patterns in the surroundings would be modified by the structure and how it failed and, presumably, any wind.

In the reports, IIRC, the reporter entered the area that was the claimed factory or store with no problems. He did make it clear that the words used were important to determine whether or not this target was a building or open compound and that this was not clear. News stations, including the BBC, are often sloppy in their re-writes and editing.

If innocent Assad's best defense would have been to immediately call for an independent observation/investigation team. He seems to be against any external verification of this sort of thing. Assad, like his father, has a strong and well earned vicious bully-boy reputation. But, could be a cultural thing looking around the Muslim world and its history.

So, still doubt and that ex-ambassador is probably as accurate as his "opponents" until, hopefully, some trustworthy facts appear. I'll not hold my breath waiting.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.