Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 23, 24, 25 Next

Post to this Topic

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 6:14pm

The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria (Greenwald)

In every type of government, nothing unites people behind the leader more quickly, reflexively or reliably than war. Donald Trump now sees how true that is, as the same establishment leaders in U.S. politics and media who have spent months denouncing him as a mentally unstable and inept authoritarian and unprecedented threat to democracy are standing and applauding him as he launches bombs at Syrian government targets.
Trump, on Thursday night, ordered an attack that the Pentagon said included the launching of 59 Tomahawk missiles which “targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.” The governor of Homs, the Syrian province where the attack occurred, said early this morning that the bombs killed seven civilians and wounded nine.
The Pentagon’s statement said the attack was “in retaliation for the regime of Bashar Assad using nerve agents to attack his own people.” Both Syria and Russia vehemently deny that the Syrian military used chemical weapons. (...)

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 11:09am

steeler wrote:

Not delving into what information is accurate regarding the latest chemical bombing and the U.S. bombing response last night, just want to point out that one has to critically examine whatever sources one tends to resort to for information. The second sentence in the paragraph above is not quite accurate. The link provided in the main story does not really support it. Ironic that a story about people playing fast and loose with the facts then plays fast and loose with the facts.

i think he's referring to her last blurb on the video

regards

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 7:21am

miamizsun wrote:

i've been busy with work (time sensitive stuff)

so i haven't been keeping abreast of the latest media churn

but i gleaned this over coffee earlier

to use a sports metaphor

"looks like call from the old playbook"

These Are the Missing Facts about the Chemical Attack in Syria

Darius Shahtahmasebi

Thursday, April 06, 2017

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 4:41am

These Are the Missing Facts about the Chemical Attack in Syria

Darius Shahtahmasebi

Thursday, April 06, 2017

On Tuesday, yet another chemical weapons attack occurred in Syria. This particular attack took place in the Idlib province, and dozens have reportedly died as a result.

The U.S. attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering a terror group that should have been a prime suspect.

Syria is no stranger to chemical weapons attacks. In 2013, there were two notably devastating attacks, both of which the Obama administration used to try to justify a direct strike on the Assad government.

The U.N. thoroughly investigated the first 2013 attack. The U.N Commission of Inquiry’s Carla Del Ponte ultimately said the evidence indicated the attack was carried out by the Syrian rebels – not the Syrian government. Despite this, support for the Syrian rebels from the U.S. and its allies only increased, raising serious questions about Obama’s sincerity when condemning chemical attacks.

The U.S. attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering a terror group that should have been a prime suspect.

Biased Evidence

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh found the second major attack was committed in a similar manner. Hersh found that the U.S. quite deliberately attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering al-Nusra, a terror group with access to nerve agents that should have been a prime suspect.

In 2016, the U.N. concluded that the Syrian government had, indeed, used chemical weapons during the years-long conflict, but that ISIS had, too. This is in light of the fact that in 2013, the U.N. also declared that the regime no longer possessed chemical weapons.

Without directly confirming any of the intelligence, the media and politicians are out in full force condemning the Assad government.

News Molded to Fit Foreign Policy Agenda

Even a New Zealand newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, ran an ambitious article entitled “Donald Trump is the only leader who can stop Syrian atrocities.” No – it is not the Onion.

In the article, the writer ignores all of the aforementioned reports regarding attacks in 2013, claiming that in that year, “the Syrian regime used sarin.” She also claims “Obama did nothing” in response.

The claim that Obama “did nothing” makes no sense. In 2016 alone, Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs – almost half of which landed in Syria. These bombs also rained on Syrian troops in direct violation of international law. As president, Obama also oversaw the CIA’s expenditures of about $1 billion a year training Syrian rebels.

Is it that we only care about chemical weapons attacks if there is an indication that the Syrian government was behind it?

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 3:12am

haresfur wrote:

There is always a way to claim doubt in the face of evidence if you don't want to believe the information. You know, kind of like climate change denial.

I will say that I think Obama's Syria policy was a disaster. He supported the democracy movement and then left them hanging and created enough of a power vacuum for ISIS. Then he refused to buck Congress over responding to the chemical weapons attacks and was left with a diplomatic failure and provided an opening for Russia to intervene and really complicate things. If Trump was a statesman, he would say, "Ok Assad, we tried a diplomatic agreement so you wouldn't use chemical weapons again and you broke that. So here's what I'm doing."

I for one find less morality in intervening to prop up the government than intervening when someone is committing crimes against humanity. Or is government crime ok if you keep it inside your borders?

Your comparison to science is ludicrous and self-serving. We're talking about a war zone and the proverbial fog, not a phenomena studied by thousands of people with expert knowledge. If one denies the latter, it's simply ignorant and foolish. To be suspicious of political motives is another ball game entirely. And it's far more rational to wait for an independent investigation than to rely on hearsay and expected/suspected motives of actors involved.

Lesser evil-ism to the rescue. You keep dodging the obvious problem. Do you understand the concept of sovereignty? Or has past U.S. intervention in your own country made you completely servile? As some might say, "if you can't beat them, join them."

The worst dictators are the ones that don't buy our products...

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 2:57am

This smells really fishy. Look, who is to gain from yesterday's events? Al Qaeda (rebels, tomato, tomato), the Neocon war machine and NATO (EU). Assad either got played by Al Qaeda placing their chemical stores around innocent civilian shields of which there is much precedence or could it be Assad is telling the truth, in their normal horrific bombings they accidentally hit the weapons store. Assad purposely using chemical weapons in this manner when they were clearly winning and did not need American involvement just makes no damn sense.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 2:42am

R_P wrote:

There is always "overwhelming" evidence if one should believe the cheerleaders of "preventive" wars...

Regardless of who did what, it remains just as illegal for one country to just bomb another to pieces to exact revenge, or to change a regime to one's liking. Aside from the illegality, similar endeavours in recent years have shown that it doesn't quite yield the expected (but oh-so-noble) results. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

Gotta agree with you here. {#Yes}

Kaw

Location: Just above sea level
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 1:51am

Our intelligence service in the Netherlands released a document that stated that Russia tried to influence our election. A few pages into the document the same organization wrote: 'while there is no evidence of Russian influence'
2017 seems to become the year of proof without proof. We have seen it in the USA with its elections and the Russian influence. We have seen it in Turkey with the Gulen movement. We are seeing it in Syria. Assad did it. We don't have solid proof, but here are some bombs.

While I don't think it's a justified move, I think it's a smart move. USA has its own Putin now. Aggressive, unpredictable and he does what he wants on an international level. It sort of balances things. I only am afraid that Putin will try to provoke Trump and Trump will be provoked. That's easy game. The result will be a disaster on many levels except for the weapon factory owners in both countries that have close ties with the current government.

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 1:13am

R_P wrote:

There is always "overwhelming" evidence if one should believe the cheerleaders of "preventive" wars...

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 11:53pm

haresfur wrote:

No IMO there is overwhelming evidence that people were injured or died from chemical weapons. There is no credible way this could be a 'false flag' attack. The exposure is not consistent with the Russian claim that the Syrians bombed a rebel weapons stash and it is extremely improbable that such a cache could exist. So yeah I call BS on this diversionary claim that we don't know who did it.

There is always "overwhelming" evidence if one should believe the cheerleaders of "preventive" wars...

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 11:38pm

R_P wrote:

Doesn't change a thing whether you put words in his mouth or mine. It's a well-known, dishonest tactic.

I suppose you're the "rebel supporter" who, once again, feels compelled to come to aid of the U.S. military. In this case, to abet its unilateral, and under international law, clearly illegal actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 10:50pm
Without Proof or Cause or Consent, 'Impetuous' Trump Bombs Syria 'The impetuousness of this bombing campaign - its impulsiveness - is stunning even by US war-loving standards'

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 10:30pm

haresfur wrote:

So correct the statement

ETA I suppose I could have said the author of the article you cited thinks...

Doesn't change a thing whether you put words in his mouth or mine. It's a well-known, dishonest tactic.

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 10:13pm
R_P wrote: That's typically how facile straw man arguments start... So correct the statement ETA I suppose I could have said the author of the article you cited thinks...

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 10:05pm
haresfur wrote: I suppose you think... That's typically how facile straw man arguments start...

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 10:01pm

R_P wrote:

It's WMD all over again. Why don't you see it? (Peter Hitchens)

There's a big difference between claiming that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program when the Intelligence people in charge of non-proliferation knew there was absolutely no evidence for it and someone actually using nerve agents.

I suppose you think the rebels have access to Russian made planes and chemical bombs and convinced all the people below to go along with a plan to kill their children for some strategic gambit. Or maybe they just imagined their dead kids {#Doh}

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 9:07pm

Rubio makes sure it's all justified by scripture (much like the enemy usually does): "Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished."

Does that mean the U.S. is really God?

In other news: peas in a pod. The problem was how can you get both parties to work together due to all the polarization?

Palestinian American Prof. Rashid Khalidi in October: Both Clinton & Trump will lead to a direct US war in Syria.
Both parties thrive on war
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) 7 April 2017

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 7:19pm
"Trump's not into war.."

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 6:24pm
And away we go. 43 60 Tomahawks just launched at Syrian airbases while Trump dines with Xi.

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 4:24pm
U.S. Weighs “Saturation Strike” Against Syrian Government in Response to Chemical Attack A.k.a. shock and awe carpet bombing?

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 23, 24, 25 Next