Then they got sick. But that’s gotta be correlation not causation or your invented fantasy won’t be true.
You’re the one inventing fantasy. They basically “reported” (and who are these “journalists” anyway?) that they think it was from Assad’s forces.
Meanwhile, the paper reporting this conjecture is Le Monde who has partial state ownership.
How about an impartial source of information from a paper that isn’t owned by government and isn’t spewing conjecture and hearsay instead of providing hard evidence? Sounds like a better prerequisite for those who aren’t trying to support a preconceived conclusion.
You need reading skills.
That’s ironic you say that, considering what you say next…
The real question that I posed and you conveniently ignored is: If al-Asshole has nothing to hide then why did he stall for 5 days
You need reading skills. I answered that question in detail. If you’re too lazy to click a link, here it is again:
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?
Why would they invite them? Because they’re there to ID if chems have been used, not who used them.
What an utter failure at logic. The United States has been jumping to conclusions that any chemical weapons used must be from the Syrian government while ignoring the possibility that the rebels used them (very much like your own inane framing of the situation).
What good would it do to launch chemical weapons on the same day the U.N. inspectors arrive and relatively close by knowing full well the USA will blame them for it? It makes zero sense, and you’re doing backflips to rationalize it in your desperate plea to be “right” instead of being rational.
Why would he use them on women and children? Collateral damage in his desperate attempt to stay in power.
You fail at logic 101. How does stirring up the ire of the world and provoking attacks from the United States help him stay in power? It doesn’t.
At least ocschwar has a slightly better cockamamie theory that Assad and/or his brother are completely insane and are purposfully provoking the USA to destroy themselves. That’s at least more feasible.
Why do you hate the American industrial military complex but you’re all for the Russian equivalent?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle
Question: Why do you resort to a fallacious argument with a false dichotomy?
Answer: Because you’re locked into “black and white” thinking and you’re embarrassed from a previous thread in which I used facts, sources and critical thinking to dismiss your inane assertions.
an idiot on par with you
If you have the facts, pound on the facts.
If you have the law, pound on the law.
If you don’t have either, pound on the table.
You were condescending and rude to me from the start in the other thread and then became shocked (shocked!) when I responded and you couldn’t handle what you dished out. And, you obviously still can’t take what you dish out and now resort to being infantile in this thread as well.
Unless you want many of your inane posts deleted from this thread just like in the last thread, I suggest you stop calling me an idiot and let your laughable lack of logic speak for itself instead.
Are you angry with me? No one cares. What people really care about is what’s going to happen when the Obama Administration (now unilaterally) bombs the shit out of Syria causing even more death and destruction while solving nothing.
That’s what most people care about along with wasting even more money that the United States doesn’t have.
Speaking of “unilateral”… In discussing the civil war in Syria on March 6, 2012, President Obama stated, “For us to take military action unilaterally as some have suggested or to think that somehow there is some simple solution I think is a mistake.”
ONCE AGAIN
The Obama administration hasn’t shown any evidence that an airstrike (that’s also bound to hit civilians like so many others have done in the past) will accomplish anything.
Meanwhile, since the previous thread in which we discussed this, most of the rest of the world is pulling back and questioning what good an airstrike will do. Now Obama is by himself. Looks like your bloodthirsty, chickenhawk fantasies of a useless, collateral attack on Syria have dissipated for now…
Teapot, we missed you and ocschwar in this newer thread… why weren’t you there?
What are you afraid of? What’s wrong? Cat got your tongue?
