NarrowBandFtw
Honorary Master
Its not an irrational bias, i've supplied you with the rationality.
Where? All you said is he is nothing more than anti-US propaganda unless I missed something? There was no evidence offered for him being anti-US, he ran for president, that by default makes him pro-US, he may be anti-warmongering etc, calling him anti-US seems irrational.
No i havent made anything special about this, thats all you. I used the barrel bomb example because we can be sure Turkey is launching those long distances.
And here lies my rationality behind Ron Paul, he admonishes the US for using these dirty weapons (rightfully so) but defends the Syrians.
Im not the US and i've never used barrel bombs, so me pointing out the use of them isn't hypocrisy. How about we condemn the use of dirty weapons no matter the side using them.
We all know why the term is even in the news, it is always in reference to that evil Assad. I had assumed your reference was a sarcastic one pointing out it is absurd to assume Turkey is shooting those from across the border, hence it must be Assad again. Was that a wrong assumption?
The hypocrisy comment was referring to US-hypocrisy not yours fwiw.
Lastly, I've not seen Ron Paul defend Syria's use of those weapons, he defends, or rather points out, they have a right to be defending themselves i.e. Syria's legitimate government is under threat, of course they will fight to remain in power.
The US, its allies and coalition however, again as Ron Paul has pointed out, have no business being in Syria at all, any sovereign state experiencing military interference on it's home ground will see it as an act of war, that is what it is. Syria just happens to be fighting on so many fronts it is unable to do much about the multiple invading forces.
