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.

 R_P wrote:
 
Gotta agree with you here.

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.

 

 R_P wrote:
 

 haresfur wrote:

 R_P 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.

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'

 haresfur wrote: 

 R_P wrote:

 
So correct the statement

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

 haresfur wrote: 
That's typically how facile straw man arguments start...

 R_P wrote:

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 

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

"Trump's not into war.."

And away we go.  43 60 Tomahawks just launched at Syrian airbases while Trump dines with Xi.

U.S. Weighs “Saturation Strike” Against Syrian Government in Response to Chemical Attack
A.k.a. shock and awe carpet bombing?

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

Actually knowing something, remembering history or having experience of the world is becoming a disadvantage. How much easier it would be to join in with the flow of opinion about Syria, to listen happily to, and read contentedly, media reports on the subject.

As it is, I feel something close a physical pain as I do this.

Today’s frenzy over alleged use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair’s WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it in exactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.

How *can* trained journalists (and experienced diplomats) be so lacking in the desire or ability to question what they are told? How come that they accept without hesitation reports which have not come from their own staff, but instead come from within terrifying war zones where gangs of fanatical murderers are the only law? One or two at least have the decency to refer to the new reports of gas attacks as ‘suspected’ or alleged, but most present them as established fact. ‘All the hallmarks’ means in such cases what? Though millions believe this has been proven, past accusations of gas use by Damascus have never been independently shown to be true.

Well, how can facts *be* independently established about such events? Not easily. Alas, that makes it appalling simple to make propaganda without ever facing serious checks. (...)

WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath (2015)
Tillerson says US ‘steps under way’ for removal of Syria’s Assad

 R_P wrote: 
thanks for the clarification

maybe my bumbling attempt to go from profit to prophet was lost in the digital ether

 

 miamizsun wrote: 
Even do unto others as you would have them do unto you  fails when 'you' hates themselves or is self destructive.

free will is a bitch ... 

 Capt. Obvious:

 R_P wrote: 

yes in one sense iagree (however humans like yourself can and do profit peacefully and legitimately)

as people are frightened (not always but usually by manufactured boogeymen) they roll over and give/surrender their own power to politicians spouting rhetoric/propaganda

i think it is a form of coercion

political corruption/power is a necessary precursor to state force used to harvest current and future resources (taxation and debt)

currently political power is antithetical to any form of accountability

if we can't say no or disagree then we're f'd (the violence and fleecing continue)

this, as you correctly point out, greases the wheels of the war machine (a political business model)

the overarching philosophical theme i'd also like to point out is the emotional thought process that leads us to abandon the critical and/or fact based thought process (bacon/scientific methodology)

feelings first, facts second

humans need to know and understand the decision making framework to get the effects that we like

this has to be in the context of human/property rights

politicians are people too, and they simply don't have a higher claim on another peaceful individual's life, liberty or justly produced or acquired property

rules should be as universal as possible regardless of fancy hats, costumes and titles

i think we should make as much as possible contractual (well defined so we can hold them accountable)

peace