Surprise, surprise… the guy who consumes the same media sources as Cow agrees with him.
Yes, @Ygret is a member of the Cowicidal Reading Club I set up last year. That explains everything. I mean, it couldn’t be that someone disagrees with you for any other reason. That would be preposterous.
shit the mainstream media is before linking me to The Guardian as an example of “REAL” news
Enlighten us on examples of “real” news sources. Name them. I’m always trying to gather new, more reliable sources in my arsenal and it would seem you have some stellar examples to share.
the UN inspectors are there to see if chemical weapons have been used and are not mandated to decide who used them.
That’s very true and for damn good reasons. Even if you find the remnants of a Syrian missile with traces of a nerve agent, you still don’t know whether Assad’s troops fired it, or whether rebels seized it during an attack on an army base somewhere in the north, and later employed it.
That’s why many of the psychotic rebels only hurt themselves by preparing chemical weapons themselves and even admitting to their willingness to use them. If they’d taken the high road (you know, beyond using child soldiers, beheadings, eating the hearts cut from the chests of their enemy and general extremist, religious zealotry, etc.) – It might be much more clear cut who the true source for chemical weapons are from.
Because of this complexity, it’s going to take time to figure out the source for chemical weapons. We’ll have to rely on whistleblower defectors, documents/orders made public, etc.
Just as the Syrian government has itself to blame for stockpiling chemical weapons, the zealot rebels only have themselves to blame for muddying the waters by their own shitty actions as well.
If intercepted military communications correlate with the timings and locations of chemical attacks then it pretty much destroys any truth to al-Asshole’s claims of innocence.
Not necessarily. You’re attempting to simplify a complex situation. What if they shell an area, then they send in troops and the rebels retaliate into the same area with nerve agents?
The other thing that I expect you and Cow (though I’m quickly losing hope with him) to explain is why al-Asshole stalled letting the UN inspectors into the area for 5 days? It’s because he has things to hide …
Unlike you, I can think of various explanations because it’s, indeed, a complex situation. You state absolutes with black and white thinking and that’s exactly what got us into the Iraq War as well.
There’s a couple of possibilities, but if you only consume Western mainstream media and take it as gospel, you may not be able to critically think about different possibilities.
One possibility is the Syrian government had something to hide and wanted to destroy evidence before inspections because they used chemical weapons. This seems to be the only possibility you can manage to subscribe to via your black and white thinking.
Another possibility is it was still an active war zone and the last thing the Syrian government wanted to do is shell the area against rebels and end up killing or injuring U.N. inspectors. If that happened, that’d be a pretext for Western powers for war against Syria.
Another possibility is the Syrian government wanted to inspect the area to see if rebels left any faux “evidence” to set them up. Something the rebels have been guilty of doing in the past, by the way.
There’s many other possibilities as well. The people who are eager to go to war want to simplify a complex situation. I’m not eager for the United States to go to war with Syria, are you?
Evidence Indicates that Syrian Government Did Not Launch a Chemical Weapon Attack Against Its People
Michael Rivero asks:
-
Why would Syria’s Assad invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day they arrive, just miles from where they are staying?
-
If Assad were going to use chemical weapons, wouldn’t he use them against the hired mercenary army trying to oust him? What does he gain attacking women and children? Nothing! The gain is all on the side of the US Government desperate to get the war agenda going again.
Who really benefits from a chemical attack?
The USA made the “red line” statement that they would take action if there was a chemical attack. This threat wasn’t made in secret to the Syrian government, it was a public statement that was heard by the world including the rebels.
You think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that the rebels wouldn’t take advantage of this situation to get Western forces to attack the Syrian government? The same rebels that have recruited child soldiers, practice beheadings and other atrocities wouldn’t stoop to exposing their own sarin gas to victims of conventional Syrian bombings?
The problem with religious zealots (or any other zealots for that matter) is they all too often will try to rationalize doing horrific things in the short-term for what they perceive is for the greater good in the long-term.
In your haste to turn a complex situation into a simplistic situation, I think you’re forgetting that.
Unlike you, I’m able to consider multiple scenarios. I certainly don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, but I also think there’s plenty of reason to suspect rebels as well.
And now, let’s get to the CRUX of the entire issue in regards to the United States and what we should or shouldn’t do.
ONCE AGAIN…
You (nor the U.S. government) has shown any evidence whatsoever that air strikes on Syria will help the situation. No doubt, I think we can both agree it’s a horrible situation. But, I’m going to have to agree (in part) with “paranoid leftists” like Republican Representative Mike Rogers that there’s not even a solid plan for transition to a post-Assad Syria submitted by the Obama Administration.
Once we’re done bombing Assad (and, inevitably, civilians) do we then attack the rebels (and, inevitably, civilians) who have recruited child soldiers, eaten the hearts out of soldiers, carried out beheadings and are strongly suspected of already carrying out chemical attacks as well?
… or is this all just about gas pipeline territory and money?
