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.

http://socioecohistory.files.wordpre...propaganda.jpg

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:

Once again, I'll wait for further corroboration before drawing any conclusions, but to date, I do not feel there is a strong case for bombing anyone over the chemical weapons used in Syria, since there is still no conclusive proof about which group/faction is responsible.

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

you cited three paragraphs from a rather long article that neither confirms nor denies anything, while saying 'things aren't clear'

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.

if it ran on fox news, would it have been 'not credible'?

I think you overestimate the general population's opinion of Fox News. They're viewed as gospel truth by their whatever % of devoted slack jawed idiots who are their target audience, no one else takes anything they say seriously.

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.

if the story ran on fox news, would we have discussed if it is credible

Too late, our government already made a decision.

I went on vacation in Maryland recently, and in every bar or restaurant I was in, FOX news was on the TV. I couldn't help but think how misinformed these people are.

They have far and away the largest audience of ANY news organization in the United States. Their ratings crush all the other news channels. So it may be you and some liberal Canadian GFY'ers who are in the minority on that one. Just sayin'...

No, just like if it ran on CNN or MSNBC. I wouldn't believe it unless there was some actual investigative journalism going on.

All of the news channels basically report what they read off the AP wire. They all "report" stuff...but really don't know if what they are saying is the "truth" or govt. propaganda.

EDIT: FITTY CHEMICAL WEAPONS ACCIDENTS BY "REBELS" IN SYRIA

But how do you know that YOU aren't misinformed too?

That's the conundrum. Everyone seems to think they are special and know what's really going on.

In my opinion NONE of us knows shit. We all try to cobble together the truth from what passes for the "news" these days.

I watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and now Al Jazeera America News trying to put some kind of picture together of what's happening in the world.
And even though I like to think that I'm "special" and "clever" and have all the answers...I too, am probably just as misinformed (by design from the govt.) as people who only watch one news channel...or even NO news at all. :(

I believe we all know what they want is to know, and they give us just enough conflicting information to confuse us, divide us, and keep everyone debating the small stuff while they do their dirty work.

"Divide and conquer" doesn't apply only to your enemies in battle. :2 cents:

I agree 100% with that DWB.

And to see just how good they are at doing it...all you have to do is read the replies in this thread. Everybody turning on each other, calling each other names, babbling about Fox News, etc.

Everything EXCEPT concentrate on what is happening. :(

babbling about fox news :1orglaugh

did you see how much effort went into discrediting something, whereupon if it was posted on fox news, it would have been accepted 'without question'

you don't see how that's hilarious?

Your reply just now is another example of how the govt. controlled information to ALL the media (via misinformation and false "leaks", etc.) is keeping us divided.

You are focused on Fox News and the online website source you quoted.
Who gives a fuck? Bringing them up and starting yet another running argument is exactly what DWB was talking about when he said "Divide and Conquer"

That kind of thing plays right into the hands of the govt. and the gigantic military industrial machine that wants to be fed even MORE money.

People are getting filthy rich while other people are dying.
And instead of a conversation focusing on the United States preparing to attack another Sovereign nation and kill even more Muslim people...you are derailing the conversation in every way you can think of.

From your earlier failed trolling about the "banking scandal" being far worse than the U.S. preparing to murder thousands of people with cruise missiles...to what you are doing now by going on and on about Fox News and credibility.

I honestly wonder about you sometimes. I'm not sure if you deliberately do this in every goddamn thread you come into...or if maybe you have a condition that affects the way you think.

I'm not attacking you or trying to offend you. It's just that some of the stuff you go off on is fucking strange.

Why don't you focus on what this thread is actually about? It's kind of an important issue.

Then you could start a brand new thread that explores your theories about Fox News and the credibility of Examiner.Com and any other things that pop into your head. :)

"Accepted without question" by who? Me or anyone else in this thread? I doubt it.

All I did was point out that the two articles cited to start this thread aren't convincing - the first because The Examiner publishes whoever and whatever with no editorial or journalistic standards (that is not an opinion, that's their MO, to offer amateur writers a platform). The second because it's not a strong story, it's got hearsay quotes with no independent verification and the publisher's already backpedaled a bit on the hows & whatnot of the writing.

Then you get fixated on the Fox thing. If someone had posted a Fox story as their evidence I would have replied: :1orglaugh

I don't profess to knowing what happened over there, and it's possible some rebel group was responsible for that attack (though personally I think it's more likely the regime). And I think we should stay da fuck out of there. But I am gonna point out shitty sources & articles paraded as facts & evidence - went to j school and it's a topic near & dear. More and more you see people polarized and locked into their selected worldview & agenda, picking and choosing what they read and believe because it feeds their ego rather than trying to educate themselves about what's going on.

I cannot. Can you provide any site that has that?

If this is true, it might just be a major game changer.

Usually I am all for the US flexing it's muscle. But not today.

Our problem is we have no goal, and even if we did have a goal it would be difficult at best to press home. Remove Assad? Great, and replace him with... Whom?

We need to stay the fuck out of this shit. This is not our problem.

Yup, we're in agreement. I haven't discussed this with a single person who thinks it's a good idea, pretty rare to have near unanimous opposition on anything.

http://telegrafist.org/2013/09/04/83711/

http://tp.chinamil.com.cn/

http://www.infowars.com/report-china...oast-of-syria/

If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose ? and lose big.
That?s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.

If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week ? which is no sure thing ? the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2e4Bd9EYY

I remember visiting Amsterdam and it seemed like every bar and restaurant had shows like Starsky & Hutch on. I couldn't help but think back to GFY and think that this is why they are so misinformed about life here.

So once again someone has over hyped something on the Internet. Translation from your first article:

The authors openly admit that the ships would not be in any way involved in a potential conflict, but only observe the actions of NATO and Russian ships.

The second page only talks about Chinese naval operations in general, nothing about the Chinese moving ships into the gulf. It does mention the US sending more warships into the area.

The third page is... Infowars? Really? That is not a news site and is utterly stupid. And in this case it also says in the opening line "China has reportedly sent warships to the coast of Syria to ?observe? the actions of US and Russian ships as tensions build in preparation for a potential military strike on Syria which could come as soon as next week.".

China getting involved in this conflict would be a major game changer. Seems you over played your hand. I believe you suck at the Internet.

At the very same time, the US needs to be more like China. China is only interested in what is happening directly to China and doesn't care much about anything else.

hey robbie, no worries man.

the thread is actually that examiner thread, so when you see us discussing sources, that's the article posted by the OP being called into question as 'bullshit', and my following argument of that, as the story has been floating around (ignored, as usual with 'important stories'), it, with the sources, should be taken a little more seriously. (ie, all on topic)

My reference to fox news, and subsequent discussion about that, is utilizing the example of regardless of how laughable Fox News is, if Fox News were to run the same story, the credibility would be unquestionable. (ie, all on topic)

Now, to dispute the article and 'debunk it', sexism, discrimination, and just plain ignorance has been utilized in some mistaken display of online coherence, to achieve a 'victory' on a message board argument. So, i agree, this isn't on topic. However, i remain confident a reasonable and thought-out discussion is indeed possible on Gfy, regarding matters such as this.

So with that in mind, im going to leave you be with the rest of your opinions and speculations regarding my person.

so, we're back to sources and credibility.

I guess i'll wait for CNN to run the story and read it.. again..

Personally, I haven't seen a single cable news channel or show in well over a year now. I've caught MAYBE 30 minutes of broadcast national news in the past 6 months and I do not seek out news on websites either unless something specific comes up or a link is shared here or from a friend. I do like to catch things like 60 minutes or meet the press now and then, and also a lot of PBS news and history shows as well as political roundtables.

Put me FIRMLY in the cynical of government camp!

Just this morning was a great reminder on PBS about the Pentagon papers. You all know this right? When Daniel Ellsberg released super top secret documents about America's long buildup and involvement in the Vietnam war? It lead to Nixon's exit and the end of that war and supreme court decisions on first amendment. Very relevant to all this.

Yet, and I feel it's a very qualified yet, there is little else that makes more sense than the cigar being just a cigar. These strange stories coming out of fields more left than the last... are just looking like wild theories meant to distract from the simple truth of the matter. That the leader of that country authorized the gas attacks on his own people. The largest such incident since Saddam and the Kurdish rebels.

As much as Nixon needed to be spanked hard for his lies, Assad needs to be for his (when evidence shows he was responsible). If evidence points somewhere else, then spank them. But every other lead seems like sandwich meat so far, so there you have it.

That's because despite being a rapidly modernizing society, they don't yet have the resources to effectively project force outside their regional sphere. At least not a regular basis. It's not enough to have a big ol army - they lack the infrastructure and technology and even at this point the doctrine to do any real expeditionary stuff. But they are accelerating this investment at a huge rate, in 15-20 years China will most definitely be throwing their weight around internationally.

You probably know some of that due to your military background, but IMO it's kind of an interesting topic. Reading a book or two about force projection - or even just a couple papers - can be pretty illuminating as to what priorities different nations have far as getting involved internationally and/or regionally. Definitely not as simple as most people think.

But I agree the US could stand to take a hard look at what's going on at home rather than an intervention every 2 years. Breaks my heart how much could have been invested in our own society had it not gone into the black hole of Iraq (and Libya, and now Syria, etc).

One of the biggest problems I see with society in the near future is too much information, and who is producing it.

This thread started with an article that looked rather credible. But a quick read and nearly anyone should see this is a very poorly written news article that has no facts and really isn't news - it's very vague general pointing of fingers. Then factor in the article was written by someone with no news history, backed up by someone who claims to be an AP reporter when in fact they've only written one or two articles or them... And you have a lot of bullshit that people believe.

Then we have you with talking bullshit and giving us three sources, none of which validate your point. The first site says China is sending a single ship to "watch", the second site is a link of general China Navy news that fails to mention Syria, and the third is Infowars - The peach tree in my backyard is a better source of news than Alex Jones is.

In the future this will become more of a problem with people like you saying things that aren't really true, but some people are sheep and will believe them.

You aren't the solution, you are the problem.

China has never been interested in projecting itself outside of it's borders with the exception of Korea.

China does not have a blue water navy - a navy that can leave it's sphere if influence and travel the world - and doesn't seem to want one (their recent aircraft carrier set aside). I don't see this as changing in the near future. China isn't about to go to war with anyone over Syria or any other country.

I have to agree. The Great Wall of China is a big hint into the nature of the Chinese people at the core. They're currently dealing with all internal stuff such as converting to green energy and whatnot before they roast themselves in coal smog and dirty water. They have some disputes with Japan over outlying islands and that's about it I think?

lol .... just keep reading the same bullshit ...

Ask the good '' rebel '' Abdul Samad Issa if he is extreme or not ... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

As for numbers, the US propaganda machine says '' thoudand(s) `` of killed children and women , while reports from people on the ground called for 353 ...

Don`t get me wrong, 353 is 353 too many, but just pointing out the spin ...
As well, the US DOP now repeats over and over again that chemical attacks were in the '' teens '' ....


Drumming up for war , in the name of peace ... :Oh crap...

Yeah, I guess there is no way that someone might be understating the numbers . . . why would they do that?

can't believe you people continue to engage this delusional fool _Richard_

you pick that comment out of this thread to take issue with?

you're a fucking troll. you can namedrop and bold in rebel names all you want, i doubt anyone here is impressed.


nevertheless shitface, out of 100,000+ syrian civilians killed in the uprising you claim only 330 of them are children.....and you accuse me of falling for media bullshit?

fuck off dimwit , you are way over your head here.

Pops, ever been down 95?

U.S. intelligence intercepted negotiations that Iranian intelligence agencies have given the order to attack the militants the U.S. embassy and other diplomatic offices in Baghdad in the event of a strike Western countries on Syria, wrote in a Friday newspaper Wall Street Journal.

According to the newspaper, citing unnamed representatives of the secret services in the U.S., he gave orders to General Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's elite special forces, "Al-Quds" from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In his address to the Iraqi Shiite militias Soleimani, according to the source of the newspaper, called for them to be prepared for the fact that Washington may launch a military operation in Syria. The Iranian side did not comment on the matter.

The U.S. State Department has warned its citizens against travel to Iraq due to the increased terrorist threat, says Wall Street Journal. The most likely target militants considered the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and other objects are not specified. According to Reuters, the State Department and the CIA declined to comment on the message.

The situation in Syria has escalated since August 21, when the media reported on the use of chemical weapons by government forces in operations against opposition fighters near Damascus. After that, the Western countries, including the U.S. and the UK, there is talk of a possible military intervention in the Syrian conflict, bypassing the UN.

U.S. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to authorize military action against an Arab country. U.S. authorities considered it proven that the regime of Bashar al-Assad on Aug. 21 to apply poisons against its citizens, resulting in the deaths of more than 1.4 thousand people.

131
Read online RIA Novosti

lol, the examiner.com, seriously?

http://gdb.voanews.com/4B0F9B54-3D78...FA92D_w268.jpg

Did you guys solve the issue of peace in the Middle East yet? :upsidedow

Slackers! :321GFY

:stoned

ADG