The Syrian Conflict Thread

[NarrowBandFtw]

Sidestepping the fact i questioned you to name one other side that drops bombs with helicopters in Syria? Or you just somehow missed it? Well lets say its standard bombs and not barrel bombs, still an "atrocious war-crime" using your exact quote and description.

Answering a question with another question that doesn't actually answer the question

In any event, my apologies, I thought your question was rhetorical, by all means I will answer: I don't know. I certainly won't discount any parties that are active in the area with an air force, I lost count of who are bombing in Syria, but USA, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia are all candidates. It makes for amazing headlines and can be used to turn people against whoever takes the blame, it is not entirely impossible that whoever did it wanted to achieve exactly that outcome.

No you wont, you will only accept evidence that fits your preconceived bias. If the only type of proof you accept is people actually admitting to the crime you will be waiting a long time. I also question your ability to discern between a dictator and a democratic country. Its far harder to keep the American public oblivious than it is to keep the Syrians loyal to Assad. Basically there is no reason why Assad would admit to bombing hospitals despite the evidence.

I look forward to proving you wrong then, seeing as your own "preconceived bias" against me has convinced you of a falsehood.

If you truly believe it is hard to keep the American public oblivious to anything though we'll have to disagree on that one, stick a pic of a Kardashian picking dog poop up in front of the vast majority of the population and they will look, tweet, tune-in and run with it for weeks on end. If you're not too biased against RT I'll find the funny clip for you showing precisely how many times and how steadfastly Obama stated there will not be US boots on the ground in Syria while there already was. It is not hard to keep the most connected populace fooled if you happen to control the narrative.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

still an "atrocious war-crime" using your exact quote and description.

Oops, forgot to add, still "atrocious" yes, but only a war-crime if intent is proven, atrocious accidental collateral damage is not a crime, however bad it is, and even if it is intentional, the guilty have not been identified.

 

[Unhappy1]

Answering a question with another question that doesn't actually answer the question

In any event, my apologies, I thought your question was rhetorical, by all means I will answer: I don't know. I certainly won't discount any parties that are active in the area with an air force, I lost count of who are bombing in Syria, but USA, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia are all candidates. It makes for amazing headlines and can be used to turn people against whoever takes the blame, it is not entirely impossible that whoever did it wanted to achieve exactly that outcome.

Only Syria and Russia are using helicopters, check it up if you don't believe me. I mean its pretty obvious that would be the case, only Syria and Russia have airfields in Syria.

If you truly believe it is hard to keep the American public oblivious to anything though we'll have to disagree on that one, stick a pic of a Kardashian picking dog poop up in front of the vast majority of the population and they will look, tweet, tune-in and run with it for weeks on end. If you're not too biased against RT I'll find the funny clip for you showing precisely how many times and how steadfastly Obama stated there will not be US boots on the ground in Syria while there already was. It is not hard to keep the most connected populace fooled if you happen to control the narrative.

No i didn't say that, i said its harder to keep the American public oblivious, compared to the Syrian public. American politics has a functioning opposition, Syria's doesn't.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Only Syria and Russia are using helicopters, check it up if you don't believe me. I mean its pretty obvious that would be the case, only Syria and Russia have airfields in Syria.

Nah I'll take your word for it, I would not expect to find a 100% accurate and always up to date list of aircraft being used in an active war zone though, surely things change very rapidly on the ground every day. The US has access to Turkish bases, the French have their carrier in the Mediterranean still I think, both within helicopter range of Aleppo.

With that, I'm out for the night, have a good evening.

 

[crackersa]

'Smoking Kills More People Than Obama' Poster to Be Removed in Moscow



http://sputniknews.com/art_living/20160217/1034926604/smoking-kills-obama.html

Look crackersa, the Russians made it easy for you to understand now

lol

:erm: if you can't deliver your message the first time, you may need to look for another job.

 

[Xarog]

The first Ron Paul quote that started this whole conversation was in reply to my quote regarding barrel bombing hospitals. The Ron Paul quote itself references the use of these barrel bombs. Im not sure what you're waffling on about and it seems you've jumped in without fully reading the conversation.

Assad's 'Barrel Bombs'...and Ours
Written by Daniel McAdams
Tuesday August 4, 2015

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...s/2015/august/04/assads-barrel-bombsand-ours/

Still think so?

 

[snoopdoggydog]

:erm: if you can't deliver your message the first time, you may need to look for another job.

Now only if I can find a Russian advert for a sense of humor

 

[Dave]

Now only if I can find a Russian advert for a sense of humor

Does it actually exist? The Russian sense of humour, not the advert .

 

[Xarog]

No i didn't say that, i said its harder to keep the American public oblivious, compared to the Syrian public. American politics has a functioning opposition, Syria's doesn't.

Both parties are institutions of the American government. They cooperate to keep the populace away from uncomfortable truths. Case in point, do you see any republicans giving Obama grief over his lies about boots on the ground in Syria?

 

[Xarog]

Does it actually exist? The Russian sense of humour, not the advert .

In Soviet Russia joke laughs at you.

 

[Unhappy1]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...s/2015/august/04/assads-barrel-bombsand-ours/

Still think so?

Checks url

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/

Yes

Both parties are institutions of the American government. They cooperate to keep the populace away from uncomfortable truths. Case in point, do you see any republicans giving Obama grief over his lies about boots on the ground in Syria?

I never claimed they gave each other grief on all topics but there certainly is topics where they do give each other a hard time. Foreign policy is without a doubt one of those.

 

[Xarog]

Checks url

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/

Yes

So you want to hold him personally liable has having expressed everything another person said by virtue of the fact that his institute published it? Can you even be sure that Ron Paul himself had any say in the editorial decision in the first place?

Note the staff list : http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/about-us/ (And while you're at it, you might as well check out the mission statement.)

I said right at the outset that I objected to the way you were characterising Ron Paul himself. I then made my argument and explained why I do not think the particular criticisms you voiced serve as suitable proof of your claims. It is you who is turning that into something it isn't.

Is your point that Syria's democratic system is on an equal footing to Americas? Or are you arguing nonsense again?

Each country has its own state secrets. Each country lies about different things. It is you who is arguing nonsense by claiming that America's secrets are somehow more open to scrutiny. The way America structures its lies is far more sophisticated due to it being able to enjoy the fruits of having near total media dominance of the planet.

 

[Unhappy1]

So you want to hold him personally liable has having expressed everything another person said by virtue of the fact that his institute published it? Can you even be sure that Ron Paul himself had any say in the editorial decision in the first place?

Note the staff list : http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/about-us/ (And while you're at it, you might as well check out the mission statement.)

I said right at the outset that I objected to the way you were characterising Ron Paul himself. I then made my argument and explained why I do not think the particular criticisms you voiced serve as suitable proof of your claims. It is you who is turning that into something it isn't.

You're waffling a load of nonsense again, a common theme it seems. All i said was :

The first Ron Paul quote that started this whole conversation was in reply to my quote regarding barrel bombing hospitals. The Ron Paul quote itself references the use of these barrel bombs. Im not sure what you're waffling on about and it seems you've jumped in without fully reading the conversation.

The website is named fsking Ron Paul, if somebody posts an article from Reuters, saying the "Reuters quote" its perfectly fine. I do enjoy having debates and conversations here but when people just want to argue rubbish, i have no inclination to waste my time. Good night.

 

[Unhappy1]

Oh look Narrowbandftw said Ron Paul too

Digressing a bit, but the whole "barrel bomb" thing has been exposed as propaganda by a number of sources, here's Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/august/04/assads-barrel-bombsand-ours/

You better waffle on about that as well.

 

[Xarog]

Unhappy, please pay attention:

And here lies my rationality behind Ron Paul, he admonishes the US for using these dirty weapons (rightfully so) but defends the Syrians.

See what you said? This bit here is a load of bollocks.

The article in question was clearly a criticism of the United States' own hypocrisy towards the Syrians. It was not actually a commentary about the use of weapons at all. It is thus you who is reading too much into what was said and making an argument that cannot be reasonably justified given the facts.

You are ignoring the very real fact that the United States is using the barrel bomb claim as part of its propaganda cycle, and that this is a very real thing that it uses in general to influence the state of play in foreign countries. That goes back directly to my comment about America's media dominance. You are refusing to acknowledge the role that this practice has and also what the real intent behind its use is.

The Big Lie, as I have already pointed out, is that Syria had any fscking choice in the matter as to who started shooting up the place. Turkey and Saudi Arabia both funded mercenary armies to attack the Syrians. There is mountains of evidence to show that outside forces specifically fomented the very rebellion that ultimately occurred. In every reasonable sense of the word, they are acting under duress. When your back is up against the wall, if your house is being robbed and your life is in danger, I don't think anyone can reasonably expect you to give a flying fsck whether you kill the robbers with a gun or sulphuric acid.

But there's a clear distinction between robbing someone's house without a weapon and pouring sulphuric acid on the inhabitants, wouldn't you say?

In other words, the situations where the United States has in fact used these horrible weapons is vastly different from the ones the Syrians find themselves under. For you to expect the Syrians and the United States to abide by identical standards for two fundamentally different situations is simply unreasonable.

Ron Paul is nothing but anti US propaganda and putting on a whataboutism argument doesn't expose anything.

And thus, the piece in question is not a whataboutism. It only becomes a whataboutism because you're refusing to acknowledge the point it's actually trying to make.

The US propaganda campaign is real, open your eyes.

 

[Unhappy1]

Unhappy, please pay attention:

No Xarog you pay attention, don't confuse my conversation i was having with Narrowband which is about barrel bombs and hospitals and the conversation i was having with you about Ron Paul the person. The original post references Ron Paul the source (which even fsking Narrowband calls it "Ron Paul"). I even said my post lead from Narrowband, i directly quoted that post for you. Its not difficult, i know you know that. You're purposely trying to muddy the waters with a pointless argument about what we should call fsking Ron Paul and how we should refer to him. I've already said i don't have time for this rubbish, im not quite sure why i've made more time but i wont be doing it again.

The US propaganda campaign is real, open your eyes.

As if i ever denied it wasn't, the Russian propaganda campaign is real, open your eyes. See i can also make silly comments.

 

[Xarog]

No Xarog you pay attention, don't confuse my conversation i was having with Narrowband which is about barrel bombs and hospitals and the conversation i was having with you about Ron Paul the person.

I am not. The use of barrel bombs in general and the argument about who blew up the hospitals is two different issues. They are related only because the claims of the Syrians using barrel bombs against the hospital comes from the same sources that are attempting to paint the Syrian regime as evil monsters because they use barrel bombs in general.

The original post references Ron Paul the source (which even fsking Narrowband calls it "Ron Paul"). I even said my post lead from Narrowband, i directly quoted that post for you. Its not difficult, i know you know that. You're purposely trying to muddy the waters with a pointless argument about what we should call fsking Ron Paul and how we should refer to him. I've already said i don't have time for this rubbish, im not quite sure why i've made more time but i wont be doing it again.

Nonsense. I made two posts in a row. The first was a response to your claims about Ron Paul the person, the second response was about the argument regarding the barrel bombs and the sources and so forth. And I don't feel that I've been in any way confused about the conversation, tbh.

As if i ever denied it wasn't, the Russian propaganda campaign is real, open your eyes. See i can also make silly comments.

Ok, so for a person such as NarrowBandFtw and myself, who is clearly suspicious of any report that has a reasonable probability of being mere propaganda, how would you justify your faith in that particular report without dismissing the validity of our suspicion completely? Do you think our worries are invalid?

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Do you guys ever sleep?

 

[Unhappy1]

Ok, so for a person such as NarrowBandFtw and myself, who is clearly suspicious of any report that has a reasonable probability of being mere propaganda, how would you justify your faith in that particular report without dismissing the validity of our suspicion completely? Do you think our worries are invalid?

Which report are you referencing in particular? The MSF one? I think the MSF have shown themselves to not be a product of US propaganda.

 

[Xarog]

I never claimed they gave each other grief on all topics but there certainly is topics where they do give each other a hard time. Foreign policy is without a doubt one of those.

No, only certain aspects of foreign policy. Niether side will talk seriously about the influence on politics from the MIC, for example. And yet its influence is decisive in all foreign policy decisions. Similarly the influence of the Dollar hegemony and the need to sustain it in terms of foreign policy decisions. No matter which clown is in the king-clown chair, the decisions will be exactly the same, and the other clowns will poke fun at the performance regardless.

In fact, that's precisely what distinguishes Ron Paul from all the other sods. He's an honest politician. And that's why he'd never get elected. The establishment would do anything to sabotage him, much like they've tried to do to Trump and Sanders.