If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Bashar al-Assad goes with the tried and true defense: "Chemical weapons? What chemical weapons?   (independent.co.uk) divider line 97
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

1504 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2013 at 9:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-09 09:56:08 AM  
The logical answer is to lob missiles at Syria and kill ________?

/war, UH good god. What is it good for?
 
2013-09-09 09:56:48 AM  
We've certainly never done anything about people who claim to not have those...
 
2013-09-09 09:56:53 AM  
He's full of shiat.

This is to set aside the concept of strikes, good or bad - but he's full of shiat.
 
2013-09-09 09:57:50 AM  
www.psywarrior.com *

*Note: This joke does not imply Iraq had any weapons at the time of the US invasion of it
 
2013-09-09 09:58:12 AM  
there was an article (that was redlit) about a german study that said that Assad never gave the order to use it and that it likely was one of his generals deciding to use the CWs
 
2013-09-09 09:58:29 AM  
FTFA: "And Mr Kerry said the only course of action available to Mr Assad that could prevent an attack was to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons within the week - something the US Secretary said was not likely to happen. "

Assad should do it, and require monetary compensation for each missile, and ask double what it cost to get them in the first place.
 
2013-09-09 10:00:08 AM  
That guy's face is made to be punched, it's like someone drew a retard on the bottom of a test tube.
 
2013-09-09 10:01:05 AM  
I'm sure Bashar al Assad is a lying piece of shiat. But he's no threat to the United States. It's one thing (and a separate debate) to say we should attack, say, Iran, so they can't develop nuclear weapons. But chemical weapons are a century old; that cat's out of the bag. And hell, half the time, we sold them the bag.

I'll save you all some time and tell you what will happen: the U.S. will attack Syria, Assad will fall, and the new regime will hate the U.S. Your tax dollars at work.
 
2013-09-09 10:01:26 AM  

WippitGuud: FTFA: "And Mr Kerry said the only course of action available to Mr Assad that could prevent an attack was to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons within the week - something the US Secretary said was not likely to happen. "

Assad should do it, and require monetary compensation for each missile, and ask double what it cost to get them in the first place.


The MIC does NOT appreciate competition from foreigners.
 
2013-09-09 10:01:44 AM  
This week is going to be very interesting.
 
2013-09-09 10:02:39 AM  
Sadly, too much time has passed.  The lesson that Assad (and other dreadful people) will take away from this is that use of NBC weapons is pretty much OK.  It'll happen again, and innocents will die a miserable, spasming death, or perhaps drown in the pus from their own lungs.

There was no right path on this one.  It was straight up Kobiashi Maru.
 
2013-09-09 10:02:44 AM  
abovethelaw.com

They're in the area around Damascus Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
 
2013-09-09 10:03:41 AM  
Hand over your chemical weapons so they won't bother our soldiers when we invade, all right?
 
2013-09-09 10:04:15 AM  

Captain Horatio Mindblower: I'm sure Bashar al Assad is a lying piece of shiat. But he's no threat to the United States. It's one thing (and a separate debate) to say we should attack, say, Iran, so they can't develop nuclear weapons. But chemical weapons are a century old; that cat's out of the bag. And hell, half the time, we sold them the bag.

I'll save you all some time and tell you what will happen: the U.S. will attack Syria, Assad will fall, and the new regime will hate the U.S. Your tax dollars at work.


And in 20 years down goes our shiny new World trade center
 
2013-09-09 10:05:08 AM  
Syria should attack Saudi Arabia and Qatar for funding the rebels the last three years.
 
2013-09-09 10:09:11 AM  
Sigh. I imagine that people don't still believe it was Assad, despite how much the media wants us to think so. People are smarter than this.

Bah... who am I kidding? Idiots.
 
2013-09-09 10:10:59 AM  
It's a big ol shiat sandwich, and someone's gonna have to take a bite.
 
2013-09-09 10:13:50 AM  
9/11 2: Electric Boogeyman-Loo
 
2013-09-09 10:17:36 AM  
Funny how quick conservatives were to attack for outdated wmd and fictional yellow cake, yet a gas attack that breaks treaty and leaves women and children dead only brings outrage if you attack the perpetrators.
 
2013-09-09 10:20:18 AM  
So, does anyone actually have any clue who set off the weapons in the first place? I'm hearing "evidence" for both sides all over the place.
 
2013-09-09 10:20:59 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: They're in the area around Damascus Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.


Apt reference, wrong speaker.

That was Rumsfeld.
 
2013-09-09 10:22:44 AM  

JonnyG: Sigh. I imagine that people don't still believe it was Assad, despite how much the media wants us to think so. People are smarter than this.


I think it was most likely Assad's forces that did it, but I don't think that Assad ordered it. He and his government would have a lot to lose and little to gain by using chemical weapons, especially since they're already winning the war. He's already shown that he's well aware of how to work his image and public opinion and I doubt he wanted to give the US any excuse to act. I think the most likely scenario is some over-eager local commander combined with poor controls on the chemical weapons. Either that or it was something incredibly stupid, like someone grabbed chemical shells by accident.
 
2013-09-09 10:24:18 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Funny how quick conservatives were to attack for outdated wmd and fictional yellow cake, yet a gas attack that breaks treaty and leaves women and children dead only brings outrage if you attack the perpetrators.


I'm very liberal, but we have problems here to address before sinking a billion somewhere else.
Detroit
Chicago's murder rate
The whole NSA thing
I felt bad about the women and children in the chem attack, but you can go to any trauma ward in the US and see the same farking thing
/I'm sorry but this is a mid-east problem
 
2013-09-09 10:25:28 AM  
If we're going to bomb people for lying, we'd better start with ourselves.
 
2013-09-09 10:25:52 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I think it was most likely Assad's forces that did it, but I don't think that Assad ordered it. He and his government would have a lot to lose and little to gain by using chemical weapons, especially since they're already winning the war. He's already shown that he's well aware of how to work his image and public opinion and I doubt he wanted to give the US any excuse to act. I think the most likely scenario is some over-eager local commander combined with poor controls on the chemical weapons. Either that or it was something incredibly stupid, like someone grabbed chemical shells by accident.


According to the Germans, Assad didn't know or give the order. I doubt it was a mistake though since local soldiers were given the heads up to dawn chemical clothing
 
2013-09-09 10:26:31 AM  

JonnyG: Sigh. I imagine that people don't still believe it was Assad, despite how much the media wants us to think so. People are smarter than this.

Bah... who am I kidding? Idiots.


Pronoun trouble?

Mind parsing this into an actual argument?  Because I cannot make head nor tails of it currently:

1) You "imagine" that "people "don't believe".  Because that shouldn't?  Or that they should?

2) The media "want" us to believe it was Assad.  OK, so you think that that's wrong?  Then why do you "imagine" that people agree with that?

3) Because they're "smarter"?  So it really *was* Assad?  Huh?

Try again.  Tell us what your point is, without all the "clever".
 
2013-09-09 10:26:34 AM  

JonnyG: Sigh. I imagine that people don't still believe it was Assad, despite how much the media wants us to think so. People are smarter than this.

Bah... who am I kidding? Idiots.


"People are dumb for saying they know he did it. I am smart for saying I know he did not."
 
2013-09-09 10:27:54 AM  

Esroc: So, does anyone actually have any clue who set off the weapons in the first place? I'm hearing "evidence" for both sides all over the place.


The DOD/White House hasn't publicly released the full info, saying they have to protect sources. Meaning they probably have people inside somewhere, and I would be shocked if they didn't - I would consider that to be standard operating procedure. They are giving senators the info in closed door meetings, and those senators who were against it, seem to be softening a bit, or at least open to the idea of listening to the possibilities. So there must be something there.

There may be a release of information to the public, but it would be a leak, or it would be declassified in a few years.
 
2013-09-09 10:28:21 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: I felt bad about the women and children in the chem attack, but you can go to any trauma ward in the US and see the same farking thing


People are dying from Sarin in trauma wards all over the US?

Why weren't we told?
 
2013-09-09 10:28:23 AM  

oryx: If we're going to bomb people for lying, we'd better start with ourselves.


Ugh.
 
2013-09-09 10:29:37 AM  
A nation that is led by despotic and evil men, steals the rights of it's own citizens, fabricates lies to justify murdering people who could be innocent and violates international treaties probably should be attacked... oh wait a minute, never mind, go watch the NFL and X-Factor.
 
2013-09-09 10:30:52 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Funny how quick conservatives were to attack for outdated wmd and fictional yellow cake, yet a gas attack that breaks treaty and leaves women and children dead only brings outrage if you attack the perpetrators.


I'm the last to defend conservatives, and you're certainly right to point out the drastic change in warmongering the party affiliation of a president can make, but I would, quite frankly, like to actually see the proof our gov claims it has that he did this before we start killing more civilians to punish him for it. If the rebels are actually responsible, as unlikely as that is, then wouldn't bombing Assad for their chemical attack be rewarding the behavior we claim to be seeking to punish? And if it was some out-of-hand commander on Assad's side who ordered this, then again; where would be the justice in blowing up hundreds of more people, many of them civilians, for the mistake/misdeed of a single man? Your statement above is pure emotional manipulation. Let us act on facts, not knee-jerk assumptions and the outrage they spawn.

/Also the rebs are killing women and children too
//As well as deliberately hiding in residential areas, forcing Assad's army to either let themselves get attacked without response, or launch counter-attacks on civilian areas
///They certainly aren't blameless heroes.
 
2013-09-09 10:37:23 AM  

darth_badger: A nation that is led by despotic and evil men, steals the rights of it's own citizens, fabricates lies to justify murdering people who could be innocent and violates international treaties probably should be attacked... oh wait a minute, never mind, go watch the NFL and X-Factor.


Are you talking about the US or Syria, because honestly; given the voting rights nonsense going on right now, the persistence of blood-thirsty warmongers like McCain and Graham in our Congress, and our illegal invasion of Iraq, you could be talking about either. Be more specific in your denunciations.
 
2013-09-09 10:37:45 AM  
What would happen, realistically, if the U.S. more or less told the world to fark off and fix it's own problems? Like, say we completely backed out of the middle east entirely and just let them slaughter each other like they want? Granted, we'd be ignoring atrocities, but I don't see soldiers marching on Pyongyang so obviously atrocities aren't the real reason we're playing World Police.
 
2013-09-09 10:41:02 AM  
Now Russia is saying that Syria should give up chem weapons to avoid military actions.

The plot thickens.
 
2013-09-09 10:41:52 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Funny how quick conservatives were to attack for outdated wmd and fictional yellow cake, yet a gas attack that breaks treaty and leaves women and children dead only brings outrage if you attack the perpetrators.


Syria has never signed nor acceded to the U.N. ban on chemical weapons.  They are not breaking any treaty if they use chemical weapons.

(Neither has Angola, Egypt, North Korea or South Sudan.)
 
2013-09-09 10:43:01 AM  
C Could have been Assad, could have been one of his generals, could have been rebels that managed to capture a stockpile, heck, it could even have been an "work accident." (For those that don't speak Palestinian, that means a bomb went off while the terrorists were building it.)

What matters, at least to those who still remember the horrors of the WMDs used in World War I, is the fact that Assad either won't or can't prevent them from being used in Syria any more, and needs to be replaced ASAP by someone who will control them, before we start seeing more cities wiped out with bodies piled in the streets.

/the problem is, I don't think the US is that replacement
//not because we can't control WMDs, but because we won't, for "humanitarian reasons"
///which is why we should have never used "humanitarian reasons" as a substitute for actual humanitarian reasons
 
2013-09-09 10:44:01 AM  

Esroc: What would happen, realistically, if the U.S. more or less told the world to fark off and fix it's own problems? Like, say we completely backed out of the middle east entirely and just let them slaughter each other like they want? Granted, we'd be ignoring atrocities, but I don't see soldiers marching on Pyongyang so obviously atrocities aren't the real reason we're playing World Police.


My lord.  We could reduce the population then mail over the babies we were going to abort so their population could re-grow.
 
2013-09-09 10:44:58 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Funny how quick conservatives were to attack for outdated wmd and fictional yellow cake, yet a gas attack that breaks treaty and leaves women and children dead only brings outrage if you attack the perpetrators.


Can you prove using objective, third-party-vetted evidence that elements within the Syrian state perpetrated this?

That's a rhetorical question, because you can't.  The UN inspectors won't be done until the end of the month, and Hollande is waiting (rightly) on them before he commits or even attempts to commit French resources to this issue.  The only "evidence" you have is what's been parroted over and over in the media, "leaks" and warped statements from Administration officials all orchestrated to whip as many Americans up in a frenzy as they can.
 
2013-09-09 10:45:00 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Funny how quick conservatives were to attack for outdated wmd and fictional yellow cake, yet a gas attack that breaks treaty and leaves women and children dead only brings outrage if you attack the perpetrators.


Saddam was still under terms of surrender for a previous war. Simply not allowing inspections was a violation of his treaty terms and grounds for renewed action.

Syria is under no such constraints.
 
2013-09-09 10:45:40 AM  

Deucednuisance: drjekel_mrhyde: I felt bad about the women and children in the chem attack, but you can go to any trauma ward in the US and see the same farking thing

People are dying from Sarin in trauma wards all over the US?

Why weren't we told?


Have you ever seen a 4 year old gun shot victim where a  bullet went in their stomach and came out their nose due to gangs or even having someone else brain matter on your face? I have in the US and it's not pretty
/The chemical video was posted online for shock value
 
2013-09-09 10:46:20 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: [abovethelaw.com image 429x378]

They're in the area around Damascus Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.


That was Rumsfeld.
 
2013-09-09 10:47:55 AM  

oryx: If we're going to bomb people for lying, we'd better start with ourselves.


For some reason, I pictured Linus saying that...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-09 10:48:44 AM  

Tatterdemalian: What matters, at least to those who still remember the horrors of the WMDs used in World War I


Florence Green died on February 4, 2012. She was the last surviving veteran of WWI.
 
2013-09-09 10:49:16 AM  

PainfulItching: Esroc: So, does anyone actually have any clue who set off the weapons in the first place? I'm hearing "evidence" for both sides all over the place.

The DOD/White House hasn't publicly released the full info, saying they have to protect sources. Meaning they probably have people inside somewhere, and I would be shocked if they didn't - I would consider that to be standard operating procedure. They are giving senators the info in closed door meetings, and those senators who were against it, seem to be softening a bit, or at least open to the idea of listening to the possibilities. So there must be something there.

There may be a release of information to the public, but it would be a leak, or it would be declassified in a few years.


I point you to the pre-Iraq invasion hearings. That US Congress-persons are "softened" on military assaults by information presented by an Administration does not mean that information is 1) compelling or 2) real. I would also point you to the continued refusal of our international allies, following Obama's attempt to sell them military intervention during this latest Euro-trip, to support such actions. Other world leaders are not nearly as convinced as US elected officials, who are historically prone to support US military action, by whatever evidence they're shopping around. That speaks volumes.

It is a sad truth that US Administration, and US intelligence organizations, can and will lie to get this country to enter the military adventures they desire to pursue. They will say they know things they don't, they will misrepresent what they do know, and they will flat-out fabricate evidence; they have done these things before, and they are capable of doing them again. Until I see their evidence and hear their argument, I'm not going to be convinced. In the wake of our response to September 11th, I am simply not willing to accept "trust us" as adequate justification for military action, and neither should anyone else in this country.
 
2013-09-09 10:49:26 AM  

Esroc: What would happen, realistically, if the U.S. more or less told the world to fark off and fix it's own problems? Like, say we completely backed out of the middle east entirely and just let them slaughter each other like they want? Granted, we'd be ignoring atrocities, but I don't see soldiers marching on Pyongyang so obviously atrocities aren't the real reason we're playing World Police.


It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later. Meanwhile those atrocities were done on a much wider scale, since there were many more "enemies" (usually because of religion or ethnicity) to deal with.

Sound familiar?
 
2013-09-09 10:51:09 AM  

PainfulItching: Esroc: What would happen, realistically, if the U.S. more or less told the world to fark off and fix it's own problems? Like, say we completely backed out of the middle east entirely and just let them slaughter each other like they want? Granted, we'd be ignoring atrocities, but I don't see soldiers marching on Pyongyang so obviously atrocities aren't the real reason we're playing World Police.

It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later. Meanwhile those atrocities were done on a much wider scale, since there were many more "enemies" (usually because of religion or ethnicity) to deal with.

Sound familiar?


Yeah, you have a good point.
 
2013-09-09 10:54:24 AM  

PainfulItching: It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later.


Germans were dislodged from Austria, Germanic Czechoslovakia, and Alsace-Lorraine under after the war. Japan never left the Ryukyu Islands. Basically, no one really cared about Germany and Japan taking over areas that were traditionally German or Japanese. Still don't.
 
2013-09-09 10:55:33 AM  

Esroc: So, does anyone actually have any clue who set off the weapons in the first place? I'm hearing "evidence" for both sides all over the place.


US congress, including John Kerry, are all heavily invested in military corporations, and have all kinds of 'evidence' Assad did it. Everyone else in the entire world isn't convinced.

This is a tough one...
 
2013-09-09 10:55:44 AM  

Heron: PainfulItching: Esroc: So, does anyone actually have any clue who set off the weapons in the first place? I'm hearing "evidence" for both sides all over the place.

The DOD/White House hasn't publicly released the full info, saying they have to protect sources. Meaning they probably have people inside somewhere, and I would be shocked if they didn't - I would consider that to be standard operating procedure. They are giving senators the info in closed door meetings, and those senators who were against it, seem to be softening a bit, or at least open to the idea of listening to the possibilities. So there must be something there.

There may be a release of information to the public, but it would be a leak, or it would be declassified in a few years.

I point you to the pre-Iraq invasion hearings. That US Congress-persons are "softened" on military assaults by information presented by an Administration does not mean that information is 1) compelling or 2) real. I would also point you to the continued refusal of our international allies, following Obama's attempt to sell them military intervention during this latest Euro-trip, to support such actions. Other world leaders are not nearly as convinced as US elected officials, who are historically prone to support US military action, by whatever evidence they're shopping around. That speaks volumes.

It is a sad truth that US Administration, and US intelligence organizations, can and will lie to get this country to enter the military adventures they desire to pursue. They will say they know things they don't, they will misrepresent what they do know, and they will flat-out fabricate evidence; they have done these things before, and they are capable of doing them again. Until I see their evidence and hear their argument, I'm not going to be convinced. In the wake of our response to September 11th, I am simply not willing to accept "trust us" as adequate justification for military action, and neither should anyone else in th ...

I'm just saying that's what I've observed. I'm aware that any evidence can be spun in any direction. But it not a great leap of logic for someone to be convinced that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, or cannot control his supply of chemical weapons.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report