'No doubt' Syria used chemical arms, says US Vice-President Joe Biden

[JDGRUEN]

As soon as I see "false flag" or "infowars", I know it is probably BS.

I recently listened to a BBC World News Radio report that Israeli Intelligence had determined that the Sarin gassing was done by the so called Rebels. ..

[Ulysses G.]

I would like to see a link to that report.

[F430murci]

The primary argument I see on behalf of Assad, Russia and those that apparently support Assad is that it was not logical for Assad to gas rebels or civilians when he does not need to.

Whether such actions make sense or are necessary militarily did not stop Assad from dropping napalm on a school yard and committing war crimes against civilians over the last several years.

The intelligence buz is that Assad has been using chems in battlefield for a while, but the areas are too remote for inspection or confirmation. The August 21 incident just got out of hand and attracted too much attention.

[Baloo22]

The primary argument I see on behalf of Assad, Russia and those that apparently support Assad is that it was not logical for Assad to gas rebels or civilians when he does not need to.

Whether such actions make sense or are necessary militarily did not stop Assad from dropping napalm on a school yard and committing war crimes against civilians over the last several years.

The intelligence buz is that Assad has been using chems in battlefield for a while, but the areas are too remote for inspection or confirmation. The August 21 incident just got out of hand and attracted too much attention.

I will agree that we should not be putting the term "Saint" in front of the name Assad. Yes, he is a bad boy. The problem with your line of reasoning is that it ignores that reality that all antagonists in that conflict are, for the lack of a better term, barbarians! You can't throw a stone up in the air over there without it landing on some group that is now committing or has committed some act of savagery or "war crime".

They have been doing this crap to each other for centuries. The only thing that has changed is the technology. And, most likely, they will be doing it to each other for the next century. If you go to the Wikipedia page for the Hama Massacre of 1982 and you will see a comment right at the beginning that is very informative. It says: "Not to be confused with 2012 Hama massacre or 1981 Hama massacre."

[F430murci]

The primary argument I see on behalf of Assad, Russia and those that apparently support Assad is that it was not logical for Assad to gas rebels or civilians when he does not need to.

Whether such actions make sense or are necessary militarily did not stop Assad from dropping napalm on a school yard and committing war crimes against civilians over the last several years.

The intelligence buz is that Assad has been using chems in battlefield for a while, but the areas are too remote for inspection or confirmation. The August 21 incident just got out of hand and attracted too much attention.

I will agree that we should not be putting the term "Saint" in front of the name Assad. Yes, he is a bad boy. The problem with your line of reasoning is that it ignores that reality that all antagonists in that conflict are, for the lack of a better term, barbarians! You can't throw a stone up in the air over there without it landing on some group that is now committing or has committed some act of savagery or "war crime".

They have been doing this crap to each other for centuries. The only thing that has changed is the technology. And, most likely, they will be doing it to each other for the next century. If you go to the Wikipedia page for the Hama Massacre of 1982 and you will see a comment right at the beginning that is very informative. It says: "Not to be confused with 2012 Hama massacre or 1981 Hama massacre."

You are correct and i was not trying to state otherwise. More or less responding to these "Assad would never do that" type of arguments.

I just feel bad for the innocent children and civilians caught between all of the human garbage fighting in Syria. For sure, those waging war and fighting are mostly despicable scum.

[JDGRUEN]

I would like to see a link to that report.

It was a BBC PodCast Radio World News -- so I don't have a link ... I listen to BBC PodCast frequently and while they are liberal / leftist as most and constantly slanting the news - especially by omission ... I take note when they broadcast something that goes against the grain of there normal slanting of the news - so I took note of this piece...

[Jingthing]

I would like to see a link to that report.

It was a BBC PodCast Radio World News -- so I don't have a link ... I listen to BBC PodCast frequently and while they are liberal / leftist as most and constantly slanting the news - especially by omission ... I take note when they broadcast something that goes against the grain of there normal slanting of the news - so I took note of this piece...

Then we may as well act like you never said that as you can't present any documentation or context whatsoever. Cheers.

[JDGRUEN]

I would like to see a link to that report.

It was a BBC PodCast Radio World News -- so I don't have a link ... I listen to BBC PodCast frequently and while they are liberal / leftist as most and constantly slanting the news - especially by omission ... I take note when they broadcast something that goes against the grain of there normal slanting of the news - so I took note of this piece...

Then we may as well act like you never said that as you can't present any documentation or context whatsoever. Cheers.

Yes - TV and Radio reports often do not have Links - it is the nature of the beasts. But I reiterate what I heard as a valid report from a reputable organization ... Therefore - It is my opinion that the report was valid. I don't know of any rule that says opinion cannot be posted on TVF nor of any that requires footnoting of every post.

When you say 'we' do you have a frog in your pocket, or are you authorized to speak for every poster on this thread or are you trying to act as a TVF moderator ? Please clarify ...

[Jingthing]

Yes - TV and Radio reports often do not have Links - it is the nature of the beasts. But I reiterate what I heard as a valid report from a reputable organization ... Therefore - It is my opinion that the report was valid. I don't know of any rule that says opinion cannot be posted on TVF nor of any that requires footnoting of every post.

...

You made a claim about what you say you think you heard that sounds extremely questionable. It's the kind of report you expect from Iranian propaganda. So believe what you want. My opinion is that nobody should take what you say you think you heard as anything serious without some kind of cited credible source and that would NOT include Iranian propaganda. No I am not saying BBC is Iranian propaganda, but they could certainly be REPORTING about what the pro-Assad sources are saying, which is a different thing than what you posted. If this is for real, it should take about five seconds to find such a reliable source given the visibility and importance of the situation in Syria. Cheers.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[JDGRUEN]

Yes - TV and Radio reports often do not have Links - it is the nature of the beasts. But I reiterate what I heard as a valid report from a reputable organization ... Therefore - It is my opinion that the report was valid. I don't know of any rule that says opinion cannot be posted on TVF nor of any that requires footnoting of every post.

...

You made a claim about what you say you think you heard that sounds extremely questionable. It's the kind of report you expect from Iranian propaganda. So believe what you want. My opinion is that nobody should take what you say you think you heard as anything serious without some kind of cited credible source and that would NOT include Iranian propaganda. No I am not saying BBC is Iranian propaganda, but they could certainly be REPORTING about what the pro-Assad sources are saying, which is a different thing than what you posted. If this is for real, it should take about five seconds to find such a reliable source given the visibility and importance of the situation in Syria. Cheers.

The report directly referenced Israeli Intelligence, and was submitted by a BBC reporter - on the ground in Syria ... I didn't 'Think' I heard - I know what I heard and and it had nothing to do with any off the wall fanciful BS about Iranians ,,, Go pick a fight with someone else.

Edited September 1, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[Jingthing]

Yes - TV and Radio reports often do not have Links - it is the nature of the beasts. But I reiterate what I heard as a valid report from a reputable organization ... Therefore - It is my opinion that the report was valid. I don't know of any rule that says opinion cannot be posted on TVF nor of any that requires footnoting of every post.

...

You made a claim about what you say you think you heard that sounds extremely questionable. It's the kind of report you expect from Iranian propaganda. So believe what you want. My opinion is that nobody should take what you say you think you heard as anything serious without some kind of cited credible source and that would NOT include Iranian propaganda. No I am not saying BBC is Iranian propaganda, but they could certainly be REPORTING about what the pro-Assad sources are saying, which is a different thing than what you posted. If this is for real, it should take about five seconds to find such a reliable source given the visibility and importance of the situation in Syria. Cheers.

The report directly referenced Israeli Intelligence, and was submitted by a BBC reporter - on the ground in Syria ... I didn't 'Think' I heard - I know what I heard and and it had nothing to do with any off the wall fanciful BS about Iranians ,,,

The thing is, mate, WE don't know what you heard and the full context of what you heard. We do know your claim. That's it. In my opinion, given the propaganda noise going around about these chemical attacks, sorry, some anonymous poster here is not a source of stellar value.

This is the kind of propaganda I'm talking about, this case Russian, expect the same kind of noise from Iran as both are deeply involved with Assad:

http://rt.com/op-edge/istael-syria-attack-crisis-251/

The world will no longer have America pulling the wool over its eyes. Growing sectors in the international community are coming to understand that those gangs of violent assassins, rapists and criminals – aka Syrian Freedom Fighters – have been armed, trained, financed and given the fullest media support by the US and its allies.

America’s dirty tricks department is raving full-blast right now trying to pin recent chemical weapons attacks on Bashar al-Assad’s government, but this is getting very low credibility ratings. Common sense dictates that it would be suicide for President Bashar Assad to kill his own civilians – including children – in a Damascus neighborhood, when his real enemies are the Western-backed terrorists and delinquents trying to take over his country.

[JDGRUEN]

@Jingthing Post number 251

Your off the wall speculation about nefarious propaganda sources goes far beyond me making a mere reference to a BBC radio news broadcast. I have no idea how you can make such strange connections as I've not known the BBC to spread propaganda - slant the news in the leftist direction - but spread propaganda - no.

I know what I heard when listening to the BBC broadcast and related it accurately --- If you don't accept it as real or factual -- TOO BAD - others will make their own decision... I am not on TVF to please you.

You've made your point now about three times and Please Take Note: I don't care what you think. So why don't you be a good little school yard bully - take your off the wall speculation and that 'we' frog you have in your pocket and move along - as I don't think you represent the opinion of the majority of posters on this thread relative to my original post.

[Jingthing]

To summarize -- a poster here said this:

I recently listened to a BBC World News Radio report that Israeli Intelligence had determined that the Sarin gassing was done by the so called Rebels. ..

On the BBC website, RIGHT NOW, I searched on Sarin and found no such report as above. If this was real, it would be there, would it not?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

Again, if anyone has any kind of substantiation of this item that isn't clearly from a biased opinion piece, I think much of the world would be interested.

Anybody?

Edited September 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Keep the discussion on the topic and be civil to one another.

[F430murci]

To summarize -- a poster here said this:

I recently listened to a BBC World News Radio report that Israeli Intelligence had determined that the Sarin gassing was done by the so called Rebels. ..

On the BBC website, RIGHT NOW, I searched on Sarin and found no such report as above. If this was real, it would be there, would it not?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

Again, if anyone has any kind of substantiation of this item that isn't clearly from a biased opinion piece, I think much of the world would be interested.

Anybody?

For sure, that story would be blowing the airways both there and here in the US.

[simple1]

To summarize -- a poster here said this:

I recently listened to a BBC World News Radio report that Israeli Intelligence had determined that the Sarin gassing was done by the so called Rebels. ..

On the BBC website, RIGHT NOW, I searched on Sarin and found no such report as above. If this was real, it would be there, would it not?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

Again, if anyone has any kind of substantiation of this item that isn't clearly from a biased opinion piece, I think much of the world would be interested.

Anybody?

For sure, that story would be blowing the airways both there and here in the US.

Could be from a BBC report dated 6/05/2013 quote "UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

[hawker9000]

If nothing you've seen so far has convinced you about the truth of these chemical attacks, then nothing you're likely to see as an average citizen probably is going to convince you. I'm no defender of the president's administration, but if that's your position at this point, there's really no point in Obama expending any more of his time or energy in making that case, and he should be focused rather on making the case, if he can, given the chemical attacks, for military intervention. And that I think is proving undoable for him. It certainly proved so in the UK. Other than France, no one else seems willing to step up to the plate either.

[F430murci]

To summarize -- a poster here said this:

I recently listened to a BBC World News Radio report that Israeli Intelligence had determined that the Sarin gassing was done by the so called Rebels. ..

On the BBC website, RIGHT NOW, I searched on Sarin and found no such report as above. If this was real, it would be there, would it not?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

Again, if anyone has any kind of substantiation of this item that isn't clearly from a biased opinion piece, I think much of the world would be interested.

Anybody?

For sure, that story would be blowing the airways both there and here in the US.

Could be from a BBC report dated 6/05/2013 quote "UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Yes, I remember her report and there are a bunch of articles out there where she said that about attack in May. Not sure why that would be on a live broadcast now about this incident.

Edited September 2, 2013 by F430murci

[chuckd]

To summarize -- a poster here said this:

I recently listened to a BBC World News Radio report that Israeli Intelligence had determined that the Sarin gassing was done by the so called Rebels. ..

On the BBC website, RIGHT NOW, I searched on Sarin and found no such report as above. If this was real, it would be there, would it not?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

Again, if anyone has any kind of substantiation of this item that isn't clearly from a biased opinion piece, I think much of the world would be interested.

Anybody?

It could have been a discussion of this Huffington Post article, where I found the link on the BBC web site. Publishing date of 8/29 looks about right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-newman/syria-libya-iraq_b_3831540.html?utm_hp_ref=uk?ncid=GEP

[JDGRUEN]

If nothing you've seen so far has convinced you about the truth of these chemical attacks, then nothing you're likely to see as an average citizen probably is going to convince you. I'm no defender of the president's administration, but if that's your position at this point, there's really no point in Obama expending any more of his time or energy in making that case, and he should be focused rather on making the case, if he can, given the chemical attacks, for military intervention. And that I think is proving undoable for him. It certainly proved so in the UK. Other than France, no one else seems willing to step up to the plate either.

Including Germany as that government does not seem to see sufficient evidence either

[JDGRUEN]

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began1 Sep 2013 07:21

FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

[Publicus]

@Jingthing Post number 251

Your off the wall speculation about nefarious propaganda sources goes far beyond me making a mere reference to a BBC radio news broadcast. I have no idea how you can make such strange connections as I've not known the BBC to spread propaganda - slant the news in the leftist direction - but spread propaganda - no.

I know what I heard when listening to the BBC broadcast and related it accurately --- If you don't accept it as real or factual -- TOO BAD - others will make their own decision... I am not on TVF to please you.

You've made your point now about three times and Please Take Note: I don't care what you think. So why don't you be a good little school yard bully - take your off the wall speculation and that 'we' frog you have in your pocket and move along - as I don't think you represent the opinion of the majority of posters on this thread relative to my original post.

The majority of posters to this thread desperately detest Obama in all things and happily would support the enemies of the United States if it meant damaging President Obama.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Publicus

[hawker9000]

@Jingthing Post number 251

Your off the wall speculation about nefarious propaganda sources goes far beyond me making a mere reference to a BBC radio news broadcast. I have no idea how you can make such strange connections as I've not known the BBC to spread propaganda - slant the news in the leftist direction - but spread propaganda - no.

I know what I heard when listening to the BBC broadcast and related it accurately --- If you don't accept it as real or factual -- TOO BAD - others will make their own decision... I am not on TVF to please you.

You've made your point now about three times and Please Take Note: I don't care what you think. So why don't you be a good little school yard bully - take your off the wall speculation and that 'we' frog you have in your pocket and move along - as I don't think you represent the opinion of the majority of posters on this thread relative to my original post.

The majority of posters to this thread detest Obama in all things and happily would support the enemies of the United States if it meant damaging President Obama.

No rational argument to be made, so the last line of defense is just to label all opponents Obama-haters. What's needed is rational argument & debate, not desperate rhetoric. Lots of others making good points pro & con, and god knows it's not clear-cut.

[Publicus]

@Jingthing Post number 251

Your off the wall speculation about nefarious propaganda sources goes far beyond me making a mere reference to a BBC radio news broadcast. I have no idea how you can make such strange connections as I've not known the BBC to spread propaganda - slant the news in the leftist direction - but spread propaganda - no.

I know what I heard when listening to the BBC broadcast and related it accurately --- If you don't accept it as real or factual -- TOO BAD - others will make their own decision... I am not on TVF to please you.

You've made your point now about three times and Please Take Note: I don't care what you think. So why don't you be a good little school yard bully - take your off the wall speculation and that 'we' frog you have in your pocket and move along - as I don't think you represent the opinion of the majority of posters on this thread relative to my original post.

The majority of posters to this thread detest Obama in all things and happily would support the enemies of the United States if it meant damaging President Obama.

No rational argument to be made, so the last line of defense is just to label all opponents Obama-haters. What's needed is rational argument & debate, not desperate rhetoric. Lots of others making good points pro & con, and god knows it's not clear-cut.

Kindly take another read of the foul and snarling attitude and absence of argument made in the post I critique and criticize.

[Steely Dan]

This is like a spat between the two ugly sisters, whether or not the Assad regime, the so called 'rebels' or both of them used chemical weapons intervention will achieve nothing without addressing the root cause of the problem, namely Iran. Syria is full of Hizbollah fighters and Iranian revolutionary guards, without them the regime would have buckled long ago. If Assad did indeed use chemical weapons I'm sure Iran sanctioned it. Syria is but a side show distracting from the main priority of ridding Iran of it's monstrous and insane theocratic dictatorship.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/08/25/the-road-to-damascus-starts-in-tehran/?singlepage=true

It’s Middle East Groundhog Day all over again. The discussion of What To Do About Syria is a replay of What To Do About Saddam: it’s all about the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong way.

When the intel and military “experts” say, as they have been saying for many months, “there is no good outcome in Syria,” they’re talking about that war, the wrong war.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Steely Dan

[hawker9000]

This is like a spat between the two ugly sisters, whether or not the Assad regime, the so called 'rebels' or both of them used chemical weapons intervention will achieve nothing without addressing the root cause of the problem, namely Iran. Syria is full of Hizbollah fighters and Iranian revolutionary guards, without them the regime would have buckled long ago. If Assad did indeed use chemical weapons I'm sure Iran sanctioned it. Syria is but a side show distracting from the main priority of ridding Iran of it's monstrous and insane theocratic dictatorship.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/08/25/the-road-to-damascus-starts-in-tehran/?singlepage=true

It’s Middle East Groundhog Day all over again. The discussion of What To Do About Syria is a replay of What To Do About Saddam: it’s all about the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong way.

When the intel and military “experts” say, as they have been saying for many months, “there is no good outcome in Syria,” they’re talking about that war, the wrong war.

You might be right, but it's like all the "how high does the scandal go?" issues in domestic politics. They probably don't call it "plausible deniability" in the international arena, but just like we can't go after China & Russia for THEIR support of the Assad regime, neither can we really go after Iran. Just not a fight we can afford to pick. Even though Assad might be a proxy, that's more than enough to hang him. .........for someone to hang him. Iran might be enabling him, but they're not holding a gun to his head forcing him to commit mass-murder. If he wants to implicate Iran in his last words, that would be instructive.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[JDGRUEN]

Obama’s Plan to Blame Syria on Congress

September 2, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

The Congress trap will let Obama opt out of an attack that he is ambivalent about while blaming Republicans for destroying American credibility. Even now the progressive spin machine is roaring into action and denouncing Congress for not immediately returning to session to consider Obama’s plan.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-plan-to-blame-syria-on-congress/

[F430murci]

Obamas Plan to Blame Syria on Congress

September 2, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

The Congress trap will let Obama opt out of an attack that he is ambivalent about while blaming Republicans for destroying American credibility. Even now the progressive spin machine is roaring into action and denouncing Congress for not immediately returning to session to consider Obamas plan.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-plan-to-blame-syria-on-congress/

Nice headlines on that website!

-----

Obama brainwashes soldiers into hating right-wingers.

President of the Islamic Forum of Canada Explains How Gays Benefit from Being Stoned to Death

_____

Lets see, do I want to read and believe articles written by paranoids off their medication or articles written by credible journalist?

Edited September 2, 2013 by F430murci

[JDGRUEN]

Obama, the benevolent dictator: ‘I will allow Congress to vote on military action in Syria’

One thing America has come to learn about Obama is that he always requires a little wiggle room on any decision he makes, just in case he wants to change his mind, or in case things look like they might go wrong, he can always back out and deny he was ever intending to move ahead with what was actually a bad plan in the first place. Yes, this is the Obama we’ve come to know.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/01/obama-the-benevolent-dictator-speaks-i-will-allow-congress-to-vote-on-military-action-in-syria/