|
Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons
Quote:
Who to believe? |
|
need more sources
|
Quote:
the 'examiner.com'.. it's huge they're running this story |
hacking
disinformation ... |
As usual these sources are retarded.
Examiner.com is an "amateur" news site where anyone can publish stories, there's no real central editorial control or vetting of content - as a result they routinely plagiarize legit articles and publish total bullshit. Mint Press is an idealistic little startup by inexperienced students & amateurs. Their heart is in the right place IMO and I dig the focus on human rights & social justice, but these are not seasoned correspondents. All they do in their article is repeat speculation by random people and quote various other news stories in 'real' newspapers, then plop a provocative headline on it to get pageviews. There's zero independent verification by any of the writers. I'm against action in Syria, but I'm also against shitty journalism and people who regurgitate it as fact because it backs up their worldview. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
From their site: Quote:
I'm not saying this isn't true. I'm saying (a) if this was true the mainstream news would be all over it, and (b) it's more likely that someone is against the US getting involved in Syria is taking a lot of creative license here. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
The source is excellent, and they have some balls for running that story. |
Quote:
Fox News is on! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
go away. |
So, so far we "know" it was mishandling of chemical weapons in the hands of rebels, it was also launched from a ship in the Mediterranean sea, in addition to actual intelligence agencies who tracked the launch from within gov. controlled areas, intercepted orders for troops to be ready with gas masks and supposedly intercepted various terrorists saying that Assad had lost his nerve and ordered the attacks.
Pick your theory, step right up. Win a Kewpie doll for your sweetheart. |
i'm confused
aren't the rebels al-queda? and aren't we the ones funding them? sooo, does that make the US government responsible for the chemical weapons?
i could be wrong, but that's my:2 cents: |
Quote:
The fact that _Richard_ thinks they are a reliable news source does not surprise me at all. |
Quote:
Good advice on the 'go away' part though, no use arguing with morons. |
Quote:
Here is what the article says: Quote:
Why does the article say "many believe" instead of giving a direct quote from a single source that says "I am a rebel, and we have chemical weapons". The article then goes on to state: Quote:
Then.... Quote:
Who is Abu Ayesha? He seems to be a Saudi Militant, but does mean he is from Saudi Arabia or he is member of the government in Saudi Arabia? Did he have the weapons himself, or did he get them from Saudi Arabia? How were they transported? What faction is Abu Ayesha from? Then we have the text that kills any credibility this so called news site has: This kind of evil happens because of sin and mankind's rebellion to God's word. Little do these men realize is, that nothing in all of creation is hidden from God?s sight. Quote:
I'm not saying I believe our government or the UN; I'm not saying the rebels didn't have a small amount of chemical weapons. What I am saying is that you have a poorly written article with no facts and no proof; Nothing said can be verified. I can understand the rebels and their families might not want their names printed, but if nothing can be verified... It's no longer a news article and much more of an opinon piece. Toss in some bible quotes and I don't believe a word written. On top of this, I find it difficult to believe that the Saudis would have chemical weapons, no less be willing to give them to a rebel force. I would be much more inclined to believe the rebels "liberated" the weapons from a Syrian government stash, and used them without knowing what they were. (Take that for what's it worth.) Come to think of it, what is the US claiming and what did Kerry present as facts? Does their side add up to anything better? Can the US or the UN say "At 3am four trucks left the [military depot name] where chemical weapons are known to be stored and traveled thirty miles to the site where [Syrian military person name here] gave the order to use them"? I am guessing not. |
Quote:
it's also my understanding that the rebel forces are more intent on securing their particular region/territory of syria rather than fight assad's forces on a unified front. i would not say it makes usa responsible for the chemical weapons but it doesn't rule it out necc. we do know that assad has built 5 major chemical weapons stations and his father before him was an advocate of using them to quell opposition. so it would make sense that syria has their own chemical weapons industry. they are not relying on new missiles either, scud missiles, etc. + from what i've read they buy a ton of military shit directly from russia so it actually seems not likey the usa is complicit in syria's chem weapons. the op and all of this prove one thing- going in there/bombing/attacking is a bad idea. for so many reasons. |
Quote:
Regardless, you got to use that special college trick, however, loss of points for not utilizing 'et al'. i entirely agree. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Let's start with the writer of the article, Joseph Parker: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
:1orglaugh If you look at a random selection of Joseph Parker's articles you will find a Christian spin on everything, with scripture used to summarize what the presented info means or that it was obviously part of the Christian God's plan. Joseph Parker: http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...h%20parker.jpg Here is Parker's hard hitting reporting on Sydney Leathers of Weinergate fame: Quote:
Quote:
:stoned ADG |
Bunch of pansies ...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I do agree about knowing your sources, however :thumbsup |
Quote:
|
Quote:
which, is hilarious. |
Quote:
Then we have the UN. Sometimes I believe the UN is nothing more than a pawn of the United States. Let's just say they are completely un-biased... Could they just be wrong? There is lots of proof there was a chemical attack. But did the President of Syria athorize it? Did someone in the government launch the attack intentionally? Did someone in the Syrian military use the wrong shells? Did the rebels come across a cache of chemical weapons and not know what they were? Did the rebels come across chemical weapons, and knowingly use them hoping it would be blamed on the Syrian military? |
No match for "CRACKPOTNEWSNETWORK.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 20:23:16 UTC <<< |
Quote:
|
Quote:
For me, that's all secondary to the fact that the West has no clear objective or parameters over there. Bring down Assad? Not gonna happen and even if it were a possibility, there's no good successor. Lob a few cruise missiles as a slap on the wrist? My guess is this is the likely outcome, probably some innocent people die, Assad weathers that no problem and the war continues, the USA & whoever else participates look like idiots for blowing a few things up in a pointless gesture. Again that probably kills civilians. Even with that bare minimum there are so many ways the intervention escalates. The sad reality is that Syria is now a failed state where no one can maintain central control, and the fighting is going to drag on for a good long time. Eventually (if not this time) some other powers are going to get involved and the thing will become a bigger mess. My main point is, as a general pacifist I'm opposed to military interventions unless there's a huge clear-cut humanitarian stake (*some* parts of the Yugoslavian War fit this IMO, not all tho), but if you're going to do it have a set and achievable goal and a good understanding of what's happening on the ground. Otherwise stay the fuck out. |
Quote:
From the right (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting): Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://antoningregoire.wordpress.com...-saudi-arabia/ Quote:
With that said, it defies logic to me that Assad would have used chemical weapons at this point, and even less likely if he did, that he will use them again. What would be gained? In my mind, the rebels would be more likely to have staged their own false flag operation to blame the Assad regime, and get the US and perhaps other nations to bomb the government. :stoned ADG |
These "stories" will be floating around because people want it to be true, for some reason. It's far more likely that it was done by Assad's regime, who have exempted themselves from international law regarding chemical weapons -- and have the military systems to deliver them also. We should still probably stay out of their business.
|
the objective has been clearly stated.
punish assad and send a message to other countries. |
Quote:
Not saying that to argue, I'm genuinely curious. |
Quote:
this is the source you used to debunk something? are you serious? :1orglaugh 'Antonin Grégoire @Antonyn6 13h @Partisangirl And if Bashar is the traitor? View conversation' :1orglaugh real unbiased reporting you got there. well done. lol. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
so to even suggest we're going to teach someone over there a lesson for dropping bombs by dropping bombs on them? yup, that's the plan.. not to mention, 100,000+ already dead. MANY of those were tortured and raped then murdered children. yeah, we're gonna teach that sort of person a lesson with our hypocritical bombs. it's like i was mentioning elsewhere, lets' drop our mk7 fire bomb on em. certainly a chem weapon and not precision, but we use em. |
Quote:
My take is that short of a massive sustained strike that destabilizes Assad's regime (not necessarily the ideal outcome in the long run), I'm not sure what will effectively serve notice. |
here's the other thing to consider. according to some reports, the chem strike was indeed by assad's forces, commanded by his younger brother, they've even pinppointed the battalions that launched the strikes.
the rationale behind the strike was to quell the uprising there, the syrian spring. by all accounts, assad's dropping chem bombs not only did not quell the uprising, the bombings have fueled it and by some accounts, was the catalyst for escalating it all to civil war. and so we're gonna drop bombs over there to send a message? they are not going to get that message. |
Quote:
Since I already have cited an article to debunk the article you cited, please tell me which points the blog writer I cited was making in the debunk article that you specifically disagree with? The person writing was not reporting, but instead analyzing the MintPress reporting. I didn't get a sense of an agenda in the debunk story. For what it's worth, the same author disputes and debunks pro-bomb Syria propaganda as well: Quote:
With that said, it defies logic to me that Assad would have used chemical weapons at this point, and even less likely if he did, that he will use them again. What would be gained? In my mind, the rebels would be more likely to have staged their own false flag operation to blame the Assad regime, and get the US and perhaps other nations to bomb the government. :stoned ADG |
Quote:
i especially enjoyed your focus on the founder and her gender. Real important. :) are you able to show, simply, what has been debunked? |
"Stop watching Fox News."
Such an intelligent, well thought out counterargument. Cheers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I've grown so cynical about politics, all I see is having a war is a good distraction from all the scandals Obama is facing.
|
Quote:
|
Too late, our government already made a decision.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123