Proof That Syria Used Chemical Weapons; Jury Still Out On Russia

[Kathianne]

Now I assume this will not be 'good enough' for Balu or those that are convinced of a larger conspiracy, (Balu doesn't buy into the conspiracy, he's here to encourage those that do).

I think it's good enough. I think the proof will be good enough for allies and most players in the ME:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/13/intercepted-communications-show-syrian-military-planning-chemical-attack/


U.S. intercepted communications of Syrian military planning chemical attack

POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON APRIL 13, 2017 BY JOHN SEXTON




The U.S. Intelligence Community intercepted communications in which the Syrian military is heard planning the chemical weapons attack that took place last week. From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/us-intelligence-syrian-chemical-weapons/index.html):



The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN.

The intercepts were part of an immediate review of all intelligence in the hours after the attack to confirm responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in an attack in northwestern Syria, which killed at least 70 people.



So far, no intercepts indicate that Russia had any direct involvement or advance knowledge of the attack, but CNN’s source suggests this may be because the Russians are more wary of having their communications intercepted. At a briefing, the source told CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/us-intelligence-syrian-chemical-weapons/index.html), “We know the Russians have chemical expertise in-country.” However, the source would only say the U.S. was still “assessing” Russian involvement.

Monday an unnamed government source told the Associated Press Russia knew about the attack (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/10/report-u-s-has-concluded-russia-knew-about-chemical-attack-in-advance/) in advance. That judgment was based on the presence of a Russian drone over a hospital where victims of the attack were treated. There was subsequently an airstrike on that hospital in what the U.S. believes was an attempt to cover up the use of chemical weapons. The AP’s source suggested the drone and the later bombing were too much of a coincidence and must indicate Russian complicity in the attack.

President Trump sounded less certain when he was asked if Russia knew about the attack. “I would like to think that they didn’t know, but certainly they could have,” the President said Wednesday. He added, “We’ll find out.”

Videos at site

[sear]

a) "The first casualty of War is truth."

b) Not to put Russia / Putin in the clear, but Assad's hands are dirty here.

c) What limited information I've seen indicates the chemical weapon explanation is plausible.

d) If that is not the explanation, then the false evidence to support it is elaborate and impressive.

Ockham's Razor

[Balu]

The only reliable direct proofs may be the objects of air means of delivery chemicals (chemical bombs bodies never burst into small pieces) and the traces of Sarin in corpses and in the terrain collected and evaluated in the course of independent investigation to whom all the parties trust. (The USA, and especially CNN, is not such a side)
The WORDS about a 'radio exchange' after more than 10 days after the assumed 'chemical bombing' cannot be seriously treated as an 'evidence'.

[sear]

Sarin is widely reported.
Suppose it wasn't Sarin, but some other nerve agent.

Would it matter?
I saw the video.
Those children were obviously exposed to, and suffering from the affects of such exposure.

Might it be falsified? ISIL poisoning children, and blaming it on Assad, for a public relations victory?

I can't prove that didn't happen.

But do YOU think that's the Ockham's Razor explanation? You think Assad is a choir boy?

[Balu]

Sarin is widely reported.
Suppose it wasn't Sarin, but some other nerve agent.

Would it matter?
I saw the video.
Those children were obviously exposed to, and suffering from the affects of such exposure.

Might it be falsified? ISIL poisoning children, and blaming it on Assad, for a public relations victory?

I can't prove that didn't happen.

But do YOU think that's the Ockham's Razor explanation? You think Assad is a choir boy?

All you are speaking about are the suspicions, assumptions - versions. And nothing more.
To make some of them proofs the analysis of the direct material evidence and all the accompanying non-material factors are subject to evaluation in course of INVESTIGATION. All this is required to come to a proper conclusion. And all this MUST be done by authorized SPECIALISTS, PRIOR TO opening a mouth and STATING that SOMEBODY is guilty, no matter who it may be.
You disagree?

[Kathianne]

The mouthpiece speaks in circles, no surprise. By definition that is part and parcel of propaganda, for when caught in the act. Once again, the first response was Turkey and autopsies, 'conspiracy.' Second response, 'recordings of planning by Syria,' fakes! Response to later, 'Science!' Response to that, 'Turkey!' Response: Conspiracy!

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/06/522896831/turkey-says-autopsies-of-syrian-victims-show-evidence-of-sarin-exposure

[sear]

"All you are speaking about are the suspicions, assumptions - versions. And nothing more." B #5

I just did character string searches for:
- susp
- assu
- vers
and the hits I got were all from YOUR post, not mine.

When I saw grainy B&W video of the Rodney King beating, I considered it conclusive.
King won over a $Million in a court settlement, and years later, has died.
Even the defense didn't contest the authenticity.

When the Obama administration charged Assad with chem. weapons use, rather than denying it, Assad & Putin released Syria's stockpile, for destruction at sea by the U.S.

There's little if anything out of character here. And the false flag scenario isn't taken seriously by experts.

"To make some of them proofs the analysis of the direct material evidence and all the accompanying non-material factors are subject to evaluation in course of INVESTIGATION." B

I have expressed a suspicion based upon preliminary analysis of early reports. *
I am NOT judge.
I am NOT jury.
This is a RECREATIONAL forum, for entertainment and amusement; not a legal forum restricted to technical authorities.

OF COURSE there would have to be an investigation.
You think that because the final results of that investigation are not in, public comment is prohibited?
Perhaps you do not understand the United States Constitution's First Amendment.

"All this is required to come to a proper conclusion." B #5

Correct. Even if correct, my suspicions are improper.
Congratulations. You have now caught up with the rest of us.

"And all this MUST be done by authorized SPECIALISTS, PRIOR TO opening a mouth and STATING that SOMEBODY is guilty, no matter who it may be.
You disagree?" B

I know.
They have protocols to follow.
Expressing opinion early after an event is not held to the same standard; no matter how valid such idle, recreational comment may be.

* If there was a dispute, if numerous suspects were each blaming another, there might be more room to quibble or ponder.
But reports of this atrocity have flooded in from around the world from numerous varied sources, and they all paint the same picture.
I'm surely open to allowing the process to unfold.
But anyone that pretends the court of public opinion hasn't drawn a preliminary conclusion should feed their unicorn, and tell the Easter Bunny I said hello.

[Balu]

According your B #7 nothing was done to obtain the proofs of chemical air attack prior to US strike. This is what I am speaking about.

[Kathianne]

According your B #7 nothing was done to obtain the proofs of chemical air attack prior to US strike. This is what I am speaking about.


:laugh2:

[Drummond]

All you are speaking about are the suspicions, assumptions - versions. And nothing more.
To make some of them proofs the analysis of the direct material evidence and all the accompanying non-material factors are subject to evaluation in course of INVESTIGATION. All this is required to come to a proper conclusion. And all this MUST be done by authorized SPECIALISTS, PRIOR TO opening a mouth and STATING that SOMEBODY is guilty, no matter who it may be.
You disagree?

Two points:

1. We know Sarin was the agent involved. If it had been something else, then the victims would've exhibited symptoms consistent with whatever that alternative agent WAS. In fact, they didn't. Therefore, it was Sarin poisoning !!

This therefore means that all we know about the chemical properties of Sarin applies. Such as, IT WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED AS AN ACTIVE AGENT IF 'RELEASED' AS A RESULT OF A FACILITY STORING IT, BEING BOMBED.

We therefore already know that the Syrian / Russian version of events is NOT credible.

2. An investigation is an investigation !! It would get to the truth of the matter, since that would be the investigators' job. Your objection to the Resolution's wording on 'blame game' grounds is therefore nothing more than a red herring .. just an excuse to stymie its being ratified.

So, no, Balu. This is all a smokescreen. Your people wanted the Resolution stopped, because they didn't want the investigation it would've instigated to ever happen. Nothing else makes logical sense.

[sear]

"1. We know Sarin was the agent involved. If it had been something else, then the victims would've exhibited symptoms consistent with whatever that alternative agent WAS." D #10

Some have referred to sarin as "nerve agent".
I doubt it's the only one.
What's anthrax?
What's botulistic bacillus waste?

Differing nerve agents may have both overlapping, and also perhaps distinctive symptoms.
I'm not an MD. I don't specialize in this field.

But while it may have been sarin, I wouldn't conclude it is without some scientific evidence to confirm.

"Probable nerve agent" would seem to be the best for now.

[Balu]

Two points:

1. We know Sarin was the agent involved. If it had been something else, then the victims would've exhibited symptoms consistent with whatever that alternative agent WAS. In fact, they didn't. Therefore, it was Sarin poisoning !!

This therefore means that all we know about the chemical properties of Sarin applies. Such as, IT WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED AS AN ACTIVE AGENT IF 'RELEASED' AS A RESULT OF A FACILITY STORING IT, BEING BOMBED.

We therefore already know that the Syrian / Russian version of events is NOT credible.

2. An investigation is an investigation !! It would get to the truth of the matter, since that would be the investigators' job. Your objection to the Resolution's wording on 'blame game' grounds is therefore nothing more than a red herring .. just an excuse to stymie its being ratified.

So, no, Balu. This is all a smokescreen. Your people wanted the Resolution stopped, because they didn't want the investigation it would've instigated to ever happen. Nothing else makes logical sense.
Stop lying!
https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/270136.htm

[Drummond]

"1. We know Sarin was the agent involved. If it had been something else, then the victims would've exhibited symptoms consistent with whatever that alternative agent WAS." D #10

Some have referred to sarin as "nerve agent".
I doubt it's the only one.
What's anthrax?
What's botulistic bacillus waste?

Differing nerve agents may have both overlapping, and also perhaps distinctive symptoms.
I'm not an MD. I don't specialize in this field.

But while it may have been sarin, I wouldn't conclude it is without some scientific evidence to confirm.

"Probable nerve agent" would seem to be the best for now.

Well, our experts are confident - from the symptoms reported - that it WAS Sarin. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the symptoms were distinctive enough to address your questioning.

I think you're trying to muddy the waters, from .. no good basis at all.

[Drummond]

Stop lying!
https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/270136.htm

Quote to me any part of this very lengthy transcript which proves the investigators would NOT have done their job, and arrived at the truth of the matter !!

[Black Diamond]

Quote to me any part of this very lengthy transcript which proves the investigators would NOT have done their job, and arrived at the truth of the matter !!
The Kremlin and Ron Paul here in the colonies will help you. :cool:

[sear]

#12 & #13

Early indications rule out causes like:

- nunchaku

- being thrown from a train

- bad whiskey (though perhaps we shouldn't rule this one out completely)

- an arrow through the head

Sarin seems a plausible explanation.
But it's silly to insist on claiming a final conclusion before the facts are in.

"I think you're trying to muddy the waters, from .. no good basis at all."

Get a degree in journalism, and you will understand.

[Russ]

The U.S. Intelligence Community intercepted communications in which the Syrian military is heard planning the chemical weapons attack that took place last week. From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/us-intelligence-syrian-chemical-weapons/index.html):


The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN.

The intercepts were part of an immediate review of all intelligence in the hours after the attack to confirm responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in an attack in northwestern Syria, which killed at least 70 people.


So far, no intercepts indicate that Russia had any direct involvement or advance knowledge of the attack, but CNN’s source suggests this may be because the Russians are more wary of having their communications intercepted. At a briefing, the source told CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/us-intelligence-syrian-chemical-weapons/index.html), “We know the Russians have chemical expertise in-country.” However, the source would only say the U.S. was still “assessing” Russian involvement.


Clearly, Assad and the Syrians used Sarin on Syrian civilians, including kids and babies. It is horrifying. For now, I will accept the premise that the Russians were not involved before-the-fact, but they're definitely trying to help cover everything up after-the-fact. Possibly Putin is ticked at Assad now for making him look bad.

[Kathianne]

The U.S. Intelligence Community intercepted communications in which the Syrian military is heard planning the chemical weapons attack that took place last week. From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/us-intelligence-syrian-chemical-weapons/index.html):


The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN.

The intercepts were part of an immediate review of all intelligence in the hours after the attack to confirm responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in an attack in northwestern Syria, which killed at least 70 people.


So far, no intercepts indicate that Russia had any direct involvement or advance knowledge of the attack, but CNN’s source suggests this may be because the Russians are more wary of having their communications intercepted. At a briefing, the source told CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/us-intelligence-syrian-chemical-weapons/index.html), “We know the Russians have chemical expertise in-country.” However, the source would only say the U.S. was still “assessing” Russian involvement.


Clearly, Assad and the Syrians used Sarin on Syrian civilians, including kids and babies. It is horrifying. For now, I will accept the premise that the Russians were not involved before-the-fact, but they're definitely trying to help cover everything up after-the-fact. Possibly Putin is ticked at Assad now for making him look bad.


Russ, that link was included with my OP. I also added,
Now I assume this will not be 'good enough' for Balu or those that are convinced of a larger conspiracy, (Balu doesn't buy into the conspiracy, he's here to encourage those that do).

I think it's good enough. I think the proof will be good enough for allies and most players in the ME:

LOL! I was so right! ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Russ, that link was included with my OP. I also added,

LOL! I was so right! ;)

You are right, it is not good enough--unless one has absolute trust in U.S. INTELLIGENCE--being unbiased and presenting the truth.. I DO NOT...
Since we bombed Assad as a reply -- I have no trust in U.S. INTELLIGENCE being unbiased and telling the truth.
Seems to me to be in their best interests to lie to justify action already taken by USA..
NOW IF I AM TO BE RIDICULED FOR SUCH BASIC AND COMMON SENSE REASONING.
Then do please share why I am so dumb and why I SHOULD HAVE ABSOLUTE FAITH AND TRUST IN THIS CONVENIENT NEW INFORMATION.
Otherwise , I may continue to walk in my blind ignorance.. a thing I loathe to ever do my friend.
Thanks in advance... -Tyr

[Kathianne]

You are right, it is not good enough--unless one has absolute trust in U.S. INTELLIGENCE--being unbiased and presenting the truth.. I DO NOT...
Since we bombed Assad as a reply -- I have no trust in U.S. INTELLIGENCE being unbiased and telling the truth.
Seems to me to be in their best interests to lie to justify action already taken by USA..
NOW IF I AM TO BE RIDICULED FOR SUCH BASIC AND COMMON SENSE REASONING.
Then do please share why I am so dumb and why I SHOULD HAVE ABSOLUTE FAITH AND TRUST IN THIS CONVENIENT NEW INFORMATION.
Otherwise , I may continue to walk in my blind ignorance.. a thing I loathe to ever do my friend.
Thanks in advance... -Tyr

I added no characterization of anyone, other than Balu.

You my friend, are free to believe whatever you like. As I said, there is no proof for those who want none, your mind is made up already.

[Kathianne]

More:

http://observer.com/2017/04/obama-bashar-al-assad-syria-chemical-weapons/


Syrians Continue to Die Because Barack Obama Lied

Democratic falsehood that 'Bush Lied, People Died' made confronting Assad's WMD threat more difficult

By Austin Bay (http://observer.com/author/austin-bay/) • 04/14/17 11:00am



Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad swears the April 4 chemical weapons attack on the village of Khan Sheikhun didn’t occur—or if it did occur his forces didn’t use chemical weapons.
“Definitely, 100 percent for us, it’s fabrication,” Assad told Agence France Press (https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/syrias-assad-says-chemical-attack-100-percent-fabrication) in what AFP touts as the Syrian genocidaire’s first interview since the attack and the Trump Administration’s retaliatory cruise missile strike.

Assad followed his allegation with more propaganda poison: “Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists. They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack.”

Tell the Big Lie and tell it often: Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels employed that technique with big media effects and graveyard consequences. For seven decades the Soviet Union peddled various versions of the “it’s all America’s fault,” and Assad’s 21st century Russian allies continue to employ it with abrasive regularity.

Alleging the U.S. conspires with terrorists echoes other boggling “Blame America” lies that have unfortunate and damaging traction in many Muslim countries. Two of the worst—(1) that America planned 9-11 and (2) the U.S. created Al Qaeda and the Islamic State in order to wage global war against Muslims—hinder efforts to combat militant Islamist terrorists.

...


Confident propagandists love to play “Nothing to see here, move along” and its variants that slickly ignore essential context or suppress key facts.

The Assad regime has exploited this trope. As news of the attack spread, Assad’s apparatchiks claimed that the chemical attack never occurred. Outright denial might stymie political criticism. Seeding doubt might also deter retaliation, just in case the Trump Administration or Turkey decided to enforce the Obama Administration’s “red line” forbidding Assad’s use of chemical weapons—the line Obama failed to enforce.

Why might Turkey retaliate? Syrian jet-fighters loyal to Assad launched a chemical weapons attack within 100 kilometers of the Turkey-Syria border, a fact-on-the-ground most mainstream media have missed or ignored.

Turkey didn’t retaliate, the U.S. did. But the Turks were furious. Turkish investigators quickly autopsied (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-syria-chemical-attack-sarin-gas-20170411-story.html) three victims of the attack.

Their blood and urine samples confirmed exposure to nerve agent Sarin (GB in military jargon). Sarin is definitely a WMD. Note that “officials from the World Health Organization and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons participated in the autopsies.”

Physical evidence obtained and analyzed by responsible, credible organizations confirmed the use of a banned and deadly WMD. Other nations reached the same conclusion, including the U.S.

However, Assad’s AFP interview reprised the “nothing to see here” trope: “You have a lot of fake videos now,” (Assad) said. “We don’t know whether those dead children were killed in Khan Sheikhun. Were they dead at all?”

...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I added no characterization of anyone, other than Balu.

You my friend, are free to believe whatever you like. As I said, there is no proof for those who want none, your mind is made up already.

My mind is made up only on one thing--that is, no definitive and truly unbiased "proof"" has been given to the public..
I have repeatedly stated that I did not -- ""think""-- Assad did it.. Never have I entirely ruled out the possibility that he did--I do think it is remote...
Common senses says to look to whom profits greatly and , even to the other factor of it being an accidental release due to bombing a target unbeknownst to have Sarin gas..

As to my not accepting our Intelligence service's new revelation about message intercepts-- well that can be so easily faked and would serve a purpose to reinforce national security by way of further pointing to the wisdom and strength of Trump as a strong national leader...........

Now with Trump being my guy, why would I question this unless I truly believe we are being played?
Unless, I sought the truth and that does not include me saying 100% that ASSAD DID NO DO IT...

Thus accusing me of having my mind made up is an error.
Perhaps due to my lack of explaining my stand clearly enough.
I have now done so...

One can express disbelieve in a person's guilt without saying they -KNOW- 100% THEY ARE INNOCENT..
THAT I HAVE DONE AND RIGHTLY POINTED TO THE PARTY THAT TRULY AND GREATLY PROFITED FROM THIS INCIDENT (ISIS).

AS AN ASIDE-
I WONDER WHY THE VAST MAJORITY ARE SO HELLBENT ON REMOVING ASSAD , WHEN THE VACUUM CREATED WILL BE FILLED BY ISIS.-TYR

[Kathianne]

Tyr, I'm not going to debate you on this. Bottom line is one can agree with Assad that somehow all those kids faked being dead. That Turkish drs. lied regarding autopsies. That it wasn't Russian drones that flew over then an aircraft tried to bomb the hospital where the fake victims were. Then Trump decided a couple days later that it was time to bomb them. So Trump is either complicit in the conspiracy or he's just been duped.

[sear]

"AS AN ASIDE-
I WONDER WHY THE VAST MAJORITY ARE SO HELLBENT ON REMOVING ASSAD , WHEN THE VACUUM CREATED WILL BE FILLED BY ISIS.-TYR" TZ #22

- Deposing Iran's Mossadegh turned out to be a real bad idea. We're still paying the price.

- Deposing Iraq's Saddam turned out to be a real bad idea. We're still paying the price.

- Deposing Libya's Quadaffy turned out to be a real bad idea. We're still paying the price.

- Faddiddling with Egypt's Mubarak, not too smart.

"AS AN ASIDE-
I WONDER WHY THE VAST MAJORITY ARE SO HELLBENT ON REMOVING ASSAD , WHEN THE VACUUM CREATED WILL BE FILLED BY ISIS.-TYR" TZ #22

This one may deserve gold star for the month.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, I can agree with Assad staying in power, if that's what Syrians want or I guess if he has the power to do so. That doesn't remove his culpability regarding the chemical attacks and may refrain from using in the future. I believe that's more or less the US official position-though this administration does seem to have communication problems or sticking with a position problem.

[sear]

"Yeah, I can agree with Assad staying in power, if that's what Syrians want" K #25

If it was what they want, why did they begin a revolt against him 5 years ago, that's sustained to this day. They don't seem very wishy-washy to me about it.

"this administration does seem to have communication problems or sticking with a position problem." K #25

"I love Wikileaks." Trump

NATO is obsolete.

I'll repeal & replace Obamacare.

Why not better relations with Putin?

it's a long list

[Kathianne]

"Yeah, I can agree with Assad staying in power, if that's what Syrians want" K #25

If it was what they want, why did they begin a revolt against him 5 years ago, that's sustained to this day. They don't seem very wishy-washy to me about it.

"this administration does seem to have communication problems or sticking with a position problem." K #25

"I love Wikileaks." Trump

NATO is obsolete.

I'll repeal & replace Obamacare.

Why not better relations with Putin?

it's a long list

I said 'if' and then about having the power to force. I'm not saying it's right, but do think there's lots of bad actors all over the globe. The US should not try to take all of them out.

There are lines though. WMD are one. Essential interests are another. Russia colluding with Syria, Iran is an example. Everyone needs to mind themselves, not just the US.

[sear]

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams


"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." Thomas Jefferson

I'm not advocating isolationism.

But we've re-learned numerous times the problems that develop when the U.S. crates a power vacuum. We re-learned it in:

- Iraq / Saddam

- Libya / Quadaffy

- We're at it again in Syria / Assad

[Drummond]

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

I'm not advocating isolationism.

But we've re-learned numerous times the problems that develop when the U.S. crates a power vacuum. We re-learned it in:

- Iraq / Saddam

- Libya / Quadaffy

- We're at it again in Syria / Assad

Depends very much upon the individual case, doesn't it ? The one does not have to follow from the other.

Did killing bin Laden create a power vacuum in Al Qaeda, leading to a far more murderous leadership ?

Perhaps Hitler should've been left alone, in case there was a chance of a power vacuum there? The emergence of a neo-Nazi movement, perhaps ?

Deposing leaders of countries, removing the regimes they led, doesn't HAVE to end badly. You're assuming it would. Your case doesn't hold water. Depositions CAN lead to a better outcome.

On the issue, by the way, of whether Assad deserves to be deposed .. because it might create a power-vacuum allowing ISIS to fill it ... well, again, it'd depend on how it was handled. Tricky in this case, because of Russia's staunch support of him. But possibly deserved nonetheless.

You see, I'm having quite a problem in deciding who or what is worse: Assad or ISIS (and whatever terrorist 'affiliates' there may be out there). Terrorists, we know what they are, we know they only ultimately deserve extermination. BUT .. a nation's leader who unleashes WMD's against his own people, in his own country .. how is that any better than terrorism ? How do you argue that such a leader is any better than a terrorist ?

It's curious. Russia is staunchly against terrorism ... its leadership SAYS. Yet, they're remarkably in favour of keeping Assad in power. How do THEY decide who's the more deserving ??

I think there's only one answer -- self-interest. Terrorists who don't serve Russian interests, they'll oppose. Perhaps those who DO .. they'll support ?

[sear]

"Depends very much upon the individual case, doesn't it ? The one does not have to follow from the other." D #29

It may in some cases.

BUT !!

"Nature abhors a vacuum."

Take out a regional leader, and SOMEthing eventually will fill the gap.

"Did killing bin Laden create a power vacuum in Al Qaeda, leading to a far more murderous leadership ?"

No, but:
UBL had been marginalized. He was no longer the functional leader. So terminating him did not create a leadership vacuum in the organization.

"Perhaps Hitler should've been left alone, in case there was a chance of a power vacuum there? The emergence of a neo-Nazi movement, perhaps ?"

Hitler had genuinely megalomaniacal ambitions. He wanted to take over the planet, and seemed well on his way to doing so.

And we didn't thump Hitler, and then go home.

The U.S. was quite skillful in swooping in with the Marshall Plan, insuring that the despised Germans became U.S. allies, and not allies of the Soviets / Stalin (a WWII U.S. ally).

"Deposing leaders of countries, removing the regimes they led, doesn't HAVE to end badly. You're assuming it would."

My position is a little more sophisticated than that.

I'm NOT assuming that it would.
I'm OBSERVING that it has.

It's logic psychologist Joy Browne teaches explicitly.

If you don't want B to pop up, and every time you hit button A,
B pops up;
STOP HITTING BUTTON A !!

Lookit:
Early in the Eisenhower administration the U.S. ushered Iran's duly elected Mossadegh out of office, replacing him with the Shah.

We're still paying for that blunder generations later.

"Your case doesn't hold water. Depositions CAN lead to a better outcome."

Can, AND HAS !!

History proves it can go either way.
The point is not merely to do it, and hope for the best;
but in those very rare cases where it's appropriate, it is in the U.S. national interest to ENGINEER it to result in a positive outcome for the U.S.
That wasn't the case in Iran.
That wasn't the case in Iraq.
That wasn't the case in Libya.

"On the issue, by the way, of whether Assad deserves to be deposed .. because it might create a power-vacuum allowing ISIS to fill it ... well, again, it'd depend on how it was handled. Tricky in this case, because of Russia's staunch support of him. But possibly deserved nonetheless."

We are in accord.

"You see, I'm having quite a problem in deciding who or what is worse: Assad or ISIS (and whatever terrorist 'affiliates' there may be out there)."

Don't sucker yourself about it.
They're both bad.
Obama was much maligned for analysis paralysis in not following Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman McCain (R-AZ) guidance on it. Still too soon to know whether the Obama recalcitrance was the correct course.

"It's curious. Russia is staunchly against terrorism ... its leadership SAYS. Yet, they're remarkably in favour of keeping Assad in power. How do THEY decide who's the more deserving ??"

Pragmatism.
Putin wants the warm water ports Assad allows access to, and is clearly willing to kill children to keep it.

[Drummond]

"Depends very much upon the individual case, doesn't it ? The one does not have to follow from the other." D #29

It may in some cases.

BUT !!

"Nature abhors a vacuum."

Take out a regional leader, and SOMEthing eventually will fill the gap.

"Did killing bin Laden create a power vacuum in Al Qaeda, leading to a far more murderous leadership ?"

No, but:
UBL had been marginalized. He was no longer the functional leader. So terminating him did not create a leadership vacuum in the organization.

"Perhaps Hitler should've been left alone, in case there was a chance of a power vacuum there? The emergence of a neo-Nazi movement, perhaps ?"

Hitler had genuinely megalomaniacal ambitions. He wanted to take over the planet, and seemed well on his way to doing so.

And we didn't thump Hitler, and then go home.

The U.S. was quite skillful in swooping in with the Marshall Plan, insuring that the despised Germans became U.S. allies, and not allies of the Soviets / Stalin (a WWII U.S. ally).

"Deposing leaders of countries, removing the regimes they led, doesn't HAVE to end badly. You're assuming it would."

My position is a little more sophisticated than that.

I'm NOT assuming that it would.
I'm OBSERVING that it has.

It's logic psychologist Joy Browne teaches explicitly.

If you don't want B to pop up, and every time you hit button A,
B pops up;
STOP HITTING BUTTON A !!

Lookit:
Early in the Eisenhower administration the U.S. ushered Iran's duly elected Mossadegh out of office, replacing him with the Shah.

We're still paying for that blunder generations later.

"Your case doesn't hold water. Depositions CAN lead to a better outcome."

Can, AND HAS !!

History proves it can go either way.
The point is not merely to do it, and hope for the best;
but in those very rare cases where it's appropriate, it is in the U.S. national interest to ENGINEER it to result in a positive outcome for the U.S.
That wasn't the case in Iran.
That wasn't the case in Iraq.
That wasn't the case in Libya.

"On the issue, by the way, of whether Assad deserves to be deposed .. because it might create a power-vacuum allowing ISIS to fill it ... well, again, it'd depend on how it was handled. Tricky in this case, because of Russia's staunch support of him. But possibly deserved nonetheless."

We are in accord.

"You see, I'm having quite a problem in deciding who or what is worse: Assad or ISIS (and whatever terrorist 'affiliates' there may be out there)."

Don't sucker yourself about it.
They're both bad.
Obama was much maligned for analysis paralysis in not following Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman McCain (R-AZ) guidance on it. Still too soon to know whether the Obama recalcitrance was the correct course.

"It's curious. Russia is staunchly against terrorism ... its leadership SAYS. Yet, they're remarkably in favour of keeping Assad in power. How do THEY decide who's the more deserving ??"

Pragmatism.
Putin wants the warm water ports Assad allows access to, and is clearly willing to kill children to keep it.

All of this means one thing. Depositions aren't, of themselves, the problem. How the aftermath is handled, IS.

Obama walked away from Iraq. If he hadn't, ISIS wouldn't have stepped into what remained.

And Russia is self-serving. Agreed. I don't think they have any interest in what Assad is, or how badly he behaves, or what he does (beyond that of keeping him as unassailable as possible for whatever he DOES do) .. he's merely a convenient source of their self-interest being served. For as long as that remains true, he'll be supported.

[sear]

"All of this means one thing. Depositions aren't, of themselves, the problem. How the aftermath is handled, IS." D

It's a tautology.
What matters afterwards is what happens afterwards.

"Obama walked away from Iraq." D

President Obama performed to the conditions established in international law by the Bush administration, before Obama was inaugurated.

The Bushies tried to negotiate an extension of the U.S. SOFA, and failed. You blame that on Obama ?!

"If he hadn't, ISIS wouldn't have stepped into what remained."

According to what I've read of it, most of all of ISIL's senior military command are former Saddam Iraq military commanders.

a) Bush executed Saddam.

b) Bush deliberately decided to fire Saddam's commanders; unleashing them upon the world.

If you want to point your bony finger of righteous indignation, point it where it belongs, at the guy that set the conditions for this mega-problem in the first place. That was President of the United States of America George Walker Bush.

[Drummond]

If you want to point your bony finger of righteous indignation, point it where it belongs, at the guy that set the conditions for this mega-problem in the first place. That was President of the United States of America George Walker Bush.

Ah, the bog-standard mantra of the Left once more ... IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT ....:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Why am I not surprised ?




"All of this means one thing. Depositions aren't, of themselves, the problem. How the aftermath is handled, IS." D


It's a tautology.
What matters afterwards is what happens afterwards.

Nitpicking in the extreme. I stand by what I stated. The aftermath I referred to could be handled well, or badly. More than one outcome is possible.


[B]"Obama walked away from Iraq." D

President Obama performed to the conditions established in international law by the Bush administration, before Obama was inaugurated.

So, why did Obama make his standing on withdrawal part of his canvassing pitch ? More, though ... are you seriously saying that Obama wasn't his own man, that he HAD to order the withdrawal, as he did, when he did, in the quantities that occurred, supposedly according to Bush's own wishes ??

I'm fascinated by that. Are you saying that Bush's Presidency set mandates Obama was obliged to follow, that he couldn't make his own Presidential decisions ? Do Republican Presidencies carry greater authoritative weight than Democrat ones ?

That's ridiculous.

Face this fact: what happened on Obama's watch, was OBAMA'S responsibility.


"If he hadn't, ISIS wouldn't have stepped into what remained."

According to what I've read of it, most of all of ISIL's senior military command are former Saddam Iraq military commanders.

Not content with blaming Bush for Obama's decisions, you go further, and say that the decisions ex-Saddam's people chose to make, are Bush's fault as well ??

If I wake up in a grumpy mood, and what I say or do follows from that grumpiness, Sear, by Golly, I blame GW Bush !!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[aboutime]

How sad. We still have Americans who would rather blame Bush for everything, than wait for the honest, actual, documented truthful facts to become known?

No wonder our nation is so divided. If we stop trusting the last vestiges of fellow Americans who are in the business of protecting us, and providing for our welfare; from any part of the government...then....OUR ENEMIES WIN.

That kind of hatred, and distrust is exactly how OBL, and now ISIS have planned to let us destroy ourselves from WITHIN.

Any of us who enjoy living here in America, who also enjoy the Freedoms, Liberties, and Rights we have. Should spend a month or two in a THIRD WORLD country, and stop putting YOUR OWN NATION DOWN because it FEELS SO GOOD to be the bearer of Terrible News....first.
Trying to impress others with your absolute KNOWLEDGE of the way everything SHOULD BE only WIDENS the DIVIDE between Honor, and Hate.

[sear]

"... IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT ...." D #33

"We still have Americans who would rather blame Bush for everything" at #34

Hypocrites.

Blaming Obama for Iraq is as preposterous as blaming the sunrise on the rooster's crow.

I understand.
NEITHER of you can refute my factually, clearly stated point.
So you each state a conspicuous absurdity, insinuate that it's my position (it never was), and then ridicule it.

You're ridiculing yourselves.

If you make a formal study of simple logic you will learn that "cause and effect" is an idea we inherited from ancient times.

It was Bush, not Obama that lied U.S. into War in Iraq. That's a fact, and I have the proof.

That's not blaming Bush for everything. It's blaming him for destabilizing the region for decades, which he has already done.

I'd invite you two, or anyone else, to instead of concocting absurdities, attributing them to me, and then pretending to ridicule me about it,
that instead you actually discuss or refute a position I've actually taken.

But I realize, neither of you can.
So you try to bait-&-switch your way out of it.
Not sure who you think you're fooling.
But you'll surely not fool me.

[aboutime]

"... IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT ...." D #33

"We still have Americans who would rather blame Bush for everything" at #34

Hypocrites.

Blaming Obama for Iraq is as preposterous as blaming the sunrise on the rooster's crow.

I understand.
NEITHER of you can refute my factually, clearly stated point.
So you each state a conspicuous absurdity, insinuate that it's my position (it never was), and then ridicule it.

You're ridiculing yourselves.

If you make a formal study of simple logic you will learn that "cause and effect" is an idea we inherited from ancient times.

It was Bush, not Obama that lied U.S. into War in Iraq. That's a fact, and I have the proof.

That's not blaming Bush for everything. It's blaming him for destabilizing the region for decades, which he has already done.

I'd invite you two, or anyone else, to instead of concocting absurdities, attributing them to me, and then pretending to ridicule me about it,
that instead you actually discuss or refute a position I've actually taken.

But I realize, neither of you can.
So you try to bait-&-switch your way out of it.
Not sure who you think you're fooling.
But you'll surely not fool me.



SEAR. Do you use a straw to breathe while buried in so much of your own BS?

Bait and Switch that!

[Drummond]

SEAR. Do you use a straw to breathe while buried in so much of your own BS?

Bait and Switch that!

After Sear's latest offerings here, there can be no further doubt whatever that he's a pro-Obama apologist. A propagandist Leftie who just cannot look REALITY in the eye, and acknowledge it !

SEAR ... really !!! ... what a load of rot !! Bush DID NOT LIE ... nobody knew what WMD's Saddam was keeping back. The UN's efforts at investigation were pathetic. Nothing else but Bush's order to go in, militarily, would've solved that problem. The invasion in 2003 WAS NECESSARY !!

And the troop withdrawals afterwards ? Wanted by Obama, campaigned for by Obama, publicly announced by Obama, and ordered by Obama, ON HIS WATCH.

WE SEE THE RESULT !!!!