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 21
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

1497 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2013 at 9:54 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-09 10:01:05 AM
4 votes:
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 10:25:28 AM
3 votes:
If we're going to bomb people for lying, we'd better start with ourselves.
2013-09-09 10:49:16 AM
2 votes:

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 10:05:08 AM
2 votes:
Syria should attack Saudi Arabia and Qatar for funding the rebels the last three years.
2013-09-09 01:38:27 PM
1 votes:

generallyso: Because if there's one thing Iran is known for it's attacking its neighbors.

Oh wait.


Well if you ignore the Iranian trained, funded and controlled terrorist organization Hezbollah than you are absolutely right.

generallyso: Yes yes we've all seen the repeatedly debunked "threats" that amount to little more than intentional mistranslations and declarations that they will fight back against any attack


besides the routine destruction threats, sure.
And the military parades with signs of 'death to Israel' in arabic are just iranian military joking around.
2013-09-09 10:57:20 AM
1 votes:

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?


Buy Syria is not taking over other countries
2013-09-09 10:55:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:45:00 AM
1 votes:

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 10:44:58 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:23 AM
1 votes:

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 10:30:52 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:52 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:44 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:59 AM
1 votes:

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 10:17:36 AM
1 votes:
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 10:10:59 AM
1 votes:
It's a big ol shiat sandwich, and someone's gonna have to take a bite.
2013-09-09 10:04:15 AM
1 votes:

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 10:02:44 AM
1 votes:
abovethelaw.com

They're in the area around Damascus Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
2013-09-09 10:02:39 AM
1 votes:
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 10:01:44 AM
1 votes:
This week is going to be very interesting.
2013-09-09 09:56:08 AM
1 votes:
The logical answer is to lob missiles at Syria and kill ________?

/war, UH good god. What is it good for?
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report