One guy, who is not quite right in the head, speculating about another guy, who at this point may not be quite right in the head, and ignoring the issue of the guy’s brother, who is known not to be quite right in the head, to assemble arguments for a pre-decided thesis.
It’s funny how in the other threads and here you don’t seem to focus on the fact that the rebels aren’t right in their heads (to say the least). Why is that?
Without a doubt, Assad has a horrible human rights track record and I would never put it past him to use chemical weapons (if he thought he could get away with it), but to discount how batshit crazy the rebels are shows your lack of taking into account all factors in this foolhardy build-up for war.
Rivero’s arguments are actually quite discounted.
By whom? You?
-
Syria’s Assad invited United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria. TRUE
-
The chemical weapons attack against women and children then happened on the very day they arrived, just miles from where they were staying. TRUE
-
Assad had nothing to gain by using chemical weapons on women and children. TRUE
Or that the rebels are angels.
No angels? Understatement of the year. They’ve recruited child soldiers, eaten the hearts out of soldiers, carried out beheadings and are also strongly suspected of already carrying out chemical attacks themselves (and have even admitted their intentions to use them). Then add a dash of extremist, religious zealotry that puts their God above the rest of humanity and you’ve got the total, angelic package.
But there was a Sarin attack on the Damascus suburb, 1300 dead, and plenty of evidence to show it was the regime.
Sure, If you take a very Western, America-centric media point of view. There’s others that show plenty of evidence (including video) that shows rebels using chemical weapons.
It’s a complicated mess, but one thing is for sure, the Obama administration needs to back the fuck down (like most everyone else is) until there’s hard evidence made available to better determine what’s really going on. And, even then, there need to be A PLAN for after all the bombings are over with. The administration hasn’t shown any evidence that an airstrike (that’s also bound to hit civilians like many others in the past have done) will accomplish anything.
If the Obama administration is truly itching to partake in a truly humanitarian mission, there’s the Congo staring at them right in the face. Why Syria? It’s about the gas money and I’m not talking about small change.
Related:
Syria-US war: When are we going to learn?
