Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: One of my 'unreliable scientists' reporting on the Idlib sarin attack

By: monkeytrots in POPE IV | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 26 Apr 17 10:52 PM | 106 view(s)
Boardmark this board | POPES NEW and Improved Real Board 		Msg. 24674 of 47202
(This msg. is a reply to 24671 by Zimbler0)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Reuters ? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Not the first time they were caught pubishing fake news and photos - and not the last. I was one of those that immediately caught the above bit of fakery - before others on the 'web' were chiming in.

The 'why would he' piece is nothing but conjecture. Not journalism- a highly slanted opinion piece.

One can, and I do, point out that the rebels have FAR more to gain by staging a chemical attack and blaming it on Assad than Assad does of doing the same.

Reuters and AP are both as bad as the NY Slimes.

As to the claim that I started out 'blaming the Rebels' -

Here is my FIRST POST on the subject, Zim.

This missile attack on Syria is ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

#msg-997669

Now, do I say that 'The rebels did the attack' -
or do I say that 'There is hell of a lot of doubt that Assad did the attack' ?

After reviewing THIS article, and many others - I did SAY that the REBELS were responsible in 2013 for the sarin attacks.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

Al Nusra (the Syrian rebels - close ties to ISIS and Al Queda) and Sarin: Hersh's Piece: "WHOSE SARIN ?"

My post: #msg-997677

I have subsequently read major portions of that UN report - and stand by conclusions about the 2013 attacks (multiple - not just Eastern Ghouta ).

Can we defeat Assad and the Russians in Syria ?
Undoubtedly.

The real question is; "What then ?"

Iran, Lybia, Irag, Afghanistan (both times, under Reagan and under Bush), Egypt (under Hussein.Ø) - What have we accomplished, what are the conditions for those people today, has muslim terrorism decreased ?

Keep muslims out of this country, attack them when WE are attacked and wipe them out - Otherwise, stay the hell out of the 'internals' of other countries. Let them kill each other - and let their allah sort it out.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: One of my 'unreliable scientists' reporting on the Idlib sarin attack
By: Zimbler0 in POPE IV
Wed, 26 Apr 17 7:53 PM 		Msg. 24671 of 47202

Zim: Is Michael mann a climate scientist?
(In spite of his credentials I don't think so.)

I have no problem with Theodore Postol being a fine scientist. But, as I recall,
your original premise was that the terrorists were the ones to use sarin. What
you posted, like everything else, has no facts to suggest that the terrorists
were the ones to use sarin.

Makes a good conspiracy theory. But nothing else there.

Kind of like the 'man made global warming'. No actual facts supporting it.
But lots of thieving going on in the name of it.

In the meantime, try chewing on this.
Zim.

>>>
Commentary: Why Assad used chemical weapons

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-chemical-weapons-commentary-idUSKBN17D1PN

In the early hours of April 7, the U.S. military launched a series of missile strikes against an air base in northern Syria, in retaliation for the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons attack against civilians three days earlier.

The strike shows that President Donald Trump is more willing to use military force in Syria than his predecessor, Barack Obama. But it raises another crucial question: Why would Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose regime has consolidated control over Syria’s largest cities in the past year and put the rebels on the defensive, risk a new international backlash by using chemical weapons? If he's winning, why would Assad take such a risk?

The answer lies in Assad’s refusal to compromise or offer any significant concessions since the Syrian uprising began in March 2011, and later morphed into a civil war. Assad overplayed his hand this time, after being emboldened by recent statements from White House officials that it was time for Western powers to accept the “political reality” of Assad’s continued dominance. Assad likely decided to test those boundaries, not expecting Trump to respond militarily because the U.S. president has made it clear that he sees fighting Islamic State as his highest priority in Syria and Iraq.

. . . . (skip a bunch) . . .

Instead, Assad and his allies formed the “axis of resistance” – Iran, Syria and the Islamist militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas. They boasted that the revolts had proven that they are the true representative of the majority of people in the Arab and Muslim worlds, who for decades had been stifled under regimes that “sold out” to the United States.

. . . .

At the start of the rebellion in 2011, Assad used Islamic militants to destabilize his opponents, as he had done nearly a decade earlier in Iraq. The Syrian regime released hundreds of al Qaeda activists and other militants from its prisons, and they went on to become leaders of Islamic State and other jihadist groups. Many of those militants ended up fighting Assad’s regime, but they also became the focus for Western leaders worried about jihadist attacks in their own countries.

>>>

(Much was skipped. Entire article is at the link. Zim.)

« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next