Poll: Is this a sign of progress?
Yes, it is a trend.
No, we should've used military action.
Yes, it's progress, but not indicative of a future trend.
I have no idea/Undecided
Other
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
It's totally off in the weeds to be debating 'children more' or 'only children'. That's a distraction.

I and I posted a link that claims the US-backed rebels kidnapped a bunch of people (this isn't disputed) and that while they were their prisoners, they killed them with chemical weapons because they weren't properly trained on how to store the weapons, so they used this to their advantage and then planted the corpses to make it appear like Assad did it, knowing the US would use this as an excuse to retaliate and attack Assad's forces.

Is it true? It's a neat, tidy theory. If I try my best to think like an Al-Qaeda fighting force and I kidnapped a bunch of kids and they died in my custody, I guess you would try to turn those lemons into lemonade and use it for political advantage. The fact that the mainstream media doesn't talk about is, imo, no reason to say it's false.

HOWEVER, what does make the theory seem far-fetched is that there WAS lots of live footage of people dying from the chemicals, and news coverage inside hospitals bringing in dying patients. Thus, I think the theory is false because, if the rebels just planted dead bodies in the street, it's hard to imagine they were able to fake all the videos and news coverage of the attack.

BUT, what I think fueled such a conspiracy IS a fact that's not disputed. When Kerry was making his case to the American people begging for them to support this war, to gain sympathy, he showed images of lots of dead children. It ran on all the news outlets in the US. But some journalists did fact-checking and found out the photos weren't from the gas attacks--they were massacres that the rebels committed. Kerry was just exploiting them as a way to trick the public into agreeing to the war. That's not a conspiracy theory; Kerry has since admitted it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
The videos of the children were posted to youtube before the alleged time of the attack. The attack was staged to get a response from the west. According to this CNN report no victims of chemical attacks were admitted to any hospitals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWZMERiKo0

Even reporters in Syria can't find any evidence.

Sometimes a turd (main stream media) turns up gold.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(13-09-2013 01:12 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  At muffs, yeah, kind of, except our 'proposal' was an off the cuff sarcastic remark. I don't know why we didn't try harder at diplomacy and actually make the proposal without looking like an asshole, but all's well that ends well, I suppose.

I'm not entirely convinced that the off the cuff sarcastic remark wasn't a well played ploy to throw the idea out as a trial balloon. This idea was reported as a topic being discussed between the Russians, US, and Iran before Kerry 'slipped'.

Why would anyone want this to look like we stumbled into this policy? Simple. If Obama was perceived as going to the Russians hat in hand to try to explore this possibility, it would appear that the US is negotiating from a position of political weakness. This in turn would make it more difficult to get the US political leaders to buy in. Also, this was Russia gets to look like it was all their idea and they are acting responsibly in the Middle East.

Why do I think this is how it played out? Within minutes, the Russians publicly announced their acceptance of Kerry's off the cuff comment. Before Kerry's plane landed, the Russians were publicly announcing this idea. The Russians may be good at intel, and certainly every Kerry word is being watched by Russian diplomats, but within minutes, the contents of Kerry's comments reached the Russian president and a well planned foreign policy is rolled out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 07:24 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(13-09-2013 07:13 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 01:12 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  At muffs, yeah, kind of, except our 'proposal' was an off the cuff sarcastic remark. I don't know why we didn't try harder at diplomacy and actually make the proposal without looking like an asshole, but all's well that ends well, I suppose.

I'm not entirely convinced that the off the cuff sarcastic remark wasn't a well played ploy to throw the idea out as a trial balloon. This idea was reported as a topic being discussed between the Russians, US, and Iran before Kerry 'slipped'.

Why would anyone want this to look like we stumbled into this policy? Simple. If Obama was perceived as going to the Russians hat in hand to try to explore this possibility, it would appear that the US is negotiating from a position of political weakness. This in turn would make it more difficult to get the US political leaders to buy in. Also, this was Russia gets to look like it was all their idea and they are acting responsibly in the Middle East.

Why do I think this is how it played out? Within minutes, the Russians publicly announced their acceptance of Kerry's off the cuff comment. Before Kerry's plane landed, the Russians were publicly announcing this idea. The Russians may be good at intel, and certainly every Kerry word is being watched by Russian diplomats, but within minutes, the contents of Kerry's comments reached the Russian president and a well planned foreign policy is rolled out.

Russia is merely acting like a responsible one in the middle east? How many middle eastern nations have Russians invaded, put military bases on permanently, occupied, bombed, flown drone strikes over?

ACTING? responsibly? More like Russia is the more responsible one on the middle east.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 09:00 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Quote:I'm not entirely convinced that the off the cuff sarcastic remark wasn't a well played ploy to throw the idea out as a trial balloon.

That doesn't make any sense. If Kerry was throwing this out there as a way to avoid a war, why is it that when it succeeded, when Syria said 'yes', Kerry is saying now it doesn't matter--we need a war anyway. Just a day ago CNN's headline read: "Obama seeks support for attacking Syria while pursuing diplomacy". He's not even waiting to see if diplomacy works--he's on tv every day begging for this war. It's clear Kerry/Obama are NOT trying to find a way to avoid war, but rather trying to find a way to SELL the public on the war. Kerry's sarcastic remark was a huge mistake because it hurt their cause and makes it all the more difficult to start the war when Syria is in the middle of disarming.

It's silly, imo, to characterize Russia's actions as "responsible" or that Russia really wants peace. Russia's being smart and opportunistic. Assad buys lots of weapons from Russia and is a good ally of Russia. He doesn't want to see him overthrown. Of course, if he was a sworn enemy of Russia, Putin would be calling for attacks too. But I'm sure Putin LOVES being able to claim the moral high ground and play the part of the peace-loving country condemning the bloodthirsty US. In the same way that he loves that Snowden fell into his lap and he can now claim to be defending freedom of the press and international law. It's just theatrics to further their political agenda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 09:47 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(13-09-2013 09:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:I'm not entirely convinced that the off the cuff sarcastic remark wasn't a well played ploy to throw the idea out as a trial balloon.

That doesn't make any sense. If Kerry was throwing this out there as a way to avoid a war, why is it that when it succeeded, when Syria said 'yes', Kerry is saying now it doesn't matter--we need a war anyway. Just a day ago CNN's headline read: "Obama seeks support for attacking Syria while pursuing diplomacy". He's not even waiting to see if diplomacy works--he's on tv every day begging for this war. It's clear Kerry/Obama are NOT trying to find a way to avoid war, but rather trying to find a way to SELL the public on the war. Kerry's sarcastic remark was a huge mistake because it hurt their cause and makes it all the more difficult to start the war when Syria is in the middle of disarming.

It's silly, imo, to characterize Russia's actions as "responsible" or that Russia really wants peace. Russia's being smart and opportunistic. Assad buys lots of weapons from Russia and is a good ally of Russia. He doesn't want to see him overthrown. Of course, if he was a sworn enemy of Russia, Putin would be calling for attacks too. But I'm sure Putin LOVES being able to claim the moral high ground and play the part of the peace-loving country condemning the bloodthirsty US. In the same way that he loves that Snowden fell into his lap and he can now claim to be defending freedom of the press and international law. It's just theatrics to further their political agenda.

Kerry is trying to keep pressure on the Russians/Syrians to negotiate the best terms for some kind of diplomatic deal.

I only said the Russians get to look like they are acting responsible. I've posted numerous times on this topic about how I think the Russians are anything but responsible and own a good portion of blame for the problems in Syria right now. I pretty much agree with what you say vis-a-vis Russia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 02:28 AM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(13-09-2013 09:47 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 09:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That doesn't make any sense. If Kerry was throwing this out there as a way to avoid a war, why is it that when it succeeded, when Syria said 'yes', Kerry is saying now it doesn't matter--we need a war anyway. Just a day ago CNN's headline read: "Obama seeks support for attacking Syria while pursuing diplomacy". He's not even waiting to see if diplomacy works--he's on tv every day begging for this war. It's clear Kerry/Obama are NOT trying to find a way to avoid war, but rather trying to find a way to SELL the public on the war. Kerry's sarcastic remark was a huge mistake because it hurt their cause and makes it all the more difficult to start the war when Syria is in the middle of disarming.

It's silly, imo, to characterize Russia's actions as "responsible" or that Russia really wants peace. Russia's being smart and opportunistic. Assad buys lots of weapons from Russia and is a good ally of Russia. He doesn't want to see him overthrown. Of course, if he was a sworn enemy of Russia, Putin would be calling for attacks too. But I'm sure Putin LOVES being able to claim the moral high ground and play the part of the peace-loving country condemning the bloodthirsty US. In the same way that he loves that Snowden fell into his lap and he can now claim to be defending freedom of the press and international law. It's just theatrics to further their political agenda.

Kerry is trying to keep pressure on the Russians/Syrians to negotiate the best terms for some kind of diplomatic deal.

I only said the Russians get to look like they are acting responsible. I've posted numerous times on this topic about how I think the Russians are anything but responsible and own a good portion of blame for the problems in Syria right now. I pretty much agree with what you say vis-a-vis Russia.

How does your dumb ass brain believe that Russia is irresponsible pertaining to the Middle East when there is no historic le example compared to that of the US? How many middle eastern nations have Russia invaded, bombed, sanctioned? Compared to the US?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Can't tell if serious. Are you excluding the CCCP?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
14-09-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 02:28 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 09:47 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Kerry is trying to keep pressure on the Russians/Syrians to negotiate the best terms for some kind of diplomatic deal.

I only said the Russians get to look like they are acting responsible. I've posted numerous times on this topic about how I think the Russians are anything but responsible and own a good portion of blame for the problems in Syria right now. I pretty much agree with what you say vis-a-vis Russia.

How does your dumb ass brain believe that Russia is irresponsible pertaining to the Middle East when there is no historic le example compared to that of the US? How many middle eastern nations have Russia invaded, bombed, sanctioned? Compared to the US?

How many Middle East countries did the USSR arm?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 09:09 AM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Quote:Kerry is trying to keep pressure on the Russians/Syrians to negotiate the best terms for some kind of diplomatic deal.

BryanS, somebody's been drinking the cool-aid. Why would Kerry want to see some kind of diplomatic deal, when the objective all along is to have a war? You're not disputing the facts that leaks have proved this was all planned years ago and that the US was behind the rebel uprising trying to create a civil war which would provide a justification for an invasion. The US has invested a huge amount of money and resources already trying to get a war with Syria, and therefore Iran. If there's a diplomatic deal, all that is shot to pieces. All that money and effort is wasted, and they'll have to start from scratch trying a new tack to justify the war. I think you just don't like admitting to yourself the cold, ugly truth about what's going on.

Kerry has to go along with the diplomatic solution and, publicly, appear to support it, so they don't appear to voters as war-mongers. But, read between the lines and he's been doing everything possible to derail the diplomatic deal. He's already trying to get out of the deal, such as yesterday when he said that even IF Syria did handle over their chemical weapons, there had to be a UN resolution committing to attack Syria if they didn't hand over all of them. They know that has zero chance of getting passed. So if they really wanted a diplomatic solution, why throw that in? Why not give the diplomatic deal a chance, and if it failed, THEN they can push for an attack? After all they don't have UN approval for the war now anyway, so, if they don't want a war, they have nothing to lose by letting the diplomatic deal play its course.

Quote:How does your dumb ass brain believe that Russia is irresponsible pertaining to the Middle East when there is no historic le example compared to that of the US?

I and I, that's absurd. Compared to the US every other country is a peaceful dove in the middle east. As you pointed out, the US has planned to topple 7 countries in the middle east. Of course, by that standard, every other country in the world is a saint in their middle east dealings.

But the fact is that Russia, like the US, has no objection to using violence when it suits their agenda, such as Chechnya, Georgia, etc., and in the old days, Afghanistan. And even in the modern middle east, Russia isn't exactly a beacon of peace. Remember they have been selling weapons, and presumably chemical weapons, in the middle east, such as to Syria.

As I said, in THIS case it suits Russia's interests to play the responsible party BECAUSE they are making money selling stuff to Syria, so they don't want to see Syria toppled. And, I'm sure they love that in this battle with the US, Russia is seen as the peaceful nation exposing the US's hypocritical war-mongering. But this does NOT mean that Russia overall is a nation that fights for tolerance, peace and liberty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: