As I suggested, the shootings are not evidence as to the nature, origin and catalyst for the events. Who fired the first shots? Was it a false flag as the experts I cited infer? If you are familiar with Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model you would understand that outlets like AlJazeera and the Guardian are no less biased in their reportage. In fact, as the propaganda model makes clear, Western media bias is systemic. It's a structural issue, in other words.
Then why do you keep answering my posts? Are you a masochist? Every point you have tried to make has been incorrect so you resort to semantics to try to dodge your embarrassment. Why don't you actually research before you post incorrect information? SEEK TRUTH FROM FACTS AND NOT IDEOLOGICAL DOGMATISM
It's extremely likely that the government forces did fire into the crowds as it was accurate and directed. There is no reason for anyone else to engage the protesters and the Syrian army has had a history of killing civilians and in fact the UN actually found one massacre to be the result of the Syrian army's actions. Also an inference is not a conclusion. What will you accept as evidence?
The Saudis didn't do 9-11.. and if you knew anything about history and US Visas, you know how and why non-Saudis applied for US Visas in KSA. The Saudis want the 28 redacted pages released... Fools speculate entirely too much.
Honestly, your words don't affect me. My point was that the Syrian forces were dropping barrel bombs onto civilians which for some bizarre reason you seemed to think that the number of refugees negated that fact. I've also asked you previously to disprove the footage of Syrian helicopters dropping the aforementioned bombs of which you did not respond. I don't have to. The evidence is in my favour. Which is why I posted. I don't have any ideology which pertains to this conflict. You seem very agitated.
You don't appear to accept the underlying provocations that led to the shootings. That's my main contention with your interpretation, not that the shootings never happened. I'm afraid that BBC reports and the like do not explain the underlying motivations underpinning the violence, and this is what the article I cited attempted to do - successfully and truthfully, in my opinion. The established mainstream media narrative portrayed is that the events in Syria were akin to the Arab Spring. This is about as far from the reality of the situation as it's possible to be.
The provocations were made by the protesters for protesting hence they were shot. The reports that I listed clearly indicate that the protesters were there because people were shot by Syrian forces. I do accept the underlying provocations which led to the shootings and I place the blame on the Syrian forces. The article which you presented had many anomalies and inaccuracies attributed to it and I found it dubious for reasons which I've mentioned previously. I've asked you what you would accept as evidence?
Since the 28 pages haven't been released then you have no idea of their involvement and we can only make hypothetical conclusions based on the fact that the Congressmen who have seen them say that Saudis were involved.
According to you the article had anomolies and inaccuracies but that doesn't mean your opinion has any basis in fact. The propaganda model shows that on the key issues Western mainstream media is inherently bias in its reportage. The claim that Assad used chemical weapons on is own people in the suburbs of Damascus, for instance, were unfounded but are still repeated. It is clear to me, that there is an agenda going on here that the mass of the population can not be told about - much like the WMD in Iraq debacle. The official narrative that you subscribe to is a highly contested one.
You are confusing amusement with agitation. Don't be ridiculous. I don't even know you. Are you suggesting that in your unrealistic world that civilians don't become collateral damage? I am trying to get the point across to you that killing Syrian people was not the intent of the Syrian government and what I pointed out was that was being done with intent in Ukraine. You don't care about Ukrainians though as you mentioned. The US has killed more kids walking to school, tending gardens and going to Mosque with drones than barrel bombs by tens of hundreds. You seem to have selective indignation. The US is not above International laws.
Congratulations. You have out done yourself with that statement. Its called H.Res 428 and is co sponsored by both parties in the House and Senate.
Knowing somebody else isn't a prerequisite. No. I never said that. You never once said that until now. And irrespective of whether or not the dropping of barrel bombs to kill civilians is intentional the fact remains that they are being dropped on civilian areas and with little to absolutely no accuracy. This is illegal under international law. No I didn't say that. I said that I'm not interested in the situation. Which bears no relation to the topic at hand unlike the imaginative DU wolly pete bombs that you seem to think exist. No I do not but I am focused on the actual topic I'm aware.
Yes which is why I doubt it's credibility as well it's accuracy I never said that which is why I listed all those links. And yet non-western media has reported similar stories. Well something killed those people. Right so you suspect that there is an agenda. Can you back that up as well as what it is? Yes that's why we are having a debate. As I said before what sources will you accept? This is the third time now.
You doubted the credibility of the article yet your links didn't address the substantive thesis. Yes, something certainly did kill those people and it was as the result of chemical weapons as depicted. The pertinent contention though, is that there is no evidence that Assad was culpable. The agenda is obvious to anybody with a functioning brain who doesn't accept the corporate media as gospel. I accept the sources I posted, naturally.
It's all in the PNAC Margot. Here's a clue, U.S foreign policy is closely connected to their concept of exceptionalism. - - - Updated - - - Bingo!!! - - - Updated - - - Yep, Bingo!!!
No it's not a thesis. My links did substantiate my contention which stated clearly that protesters were fired upon by the Syrian army. I've fulfilled your criteria as among those links were non-western sources and those not from the BBC. It is impossible to obtain footage of Syrian snipers firing upon civilians because doing so would mean that anybody holding the camera would have been shot dead. Also to note was the fact that first protest in February was actually as a result of people being tortured and killed by the Syrian authorities and that the mourners were fired upon. Really? Who else had the capability to launch such heavy ordnance? What is it then? I've asked you before. Of course you do. The fourth time now. What sources will you accept as evidence? If you continue to dodge this question then I will consider you point of view to be unsubstantiated and I will be unable to continue.
I've already answered your question. To repeat, the sources contained in the article I posted. The fact that the protestors were fired on by the Syrian army is not the point of contention, as I have been at pains to point out. There are alternative theories as to who might of used the chemical weapons on the Syrian people. I'm not here to hold your hand. The point is, there is no evidence that Assad was the culprit. I pointed out the agenda above. You are able to comprehend information I take it?
No you haven't. I asked what you would consider evidence because quite clearly it doesn't seem to matter if I give you multiple news agencies; you simply won't accept them. And there weren't any sources in the article you posted. In fact that was one of the things that I pointed out was the fact that it didn't even have references. And now you agree that the Syrian army fired upon protesters. I was asking for you to elaborate upon that statement. Are you able to articulate with supporting evidence? Oh wait, you can't. And no you haven't once pointed it out aside from "regime change" and yet that's all you've said about that. You know I can't be asked to debate serious matters with children especially when they flout common courtesy. My god; how unbelievably dense can people be. I mean light just bounces off you doesn't it?!
There's no point continuing because you have an inability to follow the discussion and/or are being deliberately obtrusive.
UN Official Carla Del Ponte already confirmed Terrorists used chemical weapons against Syrian Army in Khan Assal. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188 What part of this you don't understand? Now you speak about Army shooting "peaceful protesters" Are these protests peaceful to you? [video=youtube;1bNpFFoiyrI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bNpFFoiyrI[/video] Throwing postal workers off the roofs..........just because they work for the government! If I was in Syrian government and dealt with that, I would send in the Army and crush the skulls of those animals with no regret.
Wake up to what ? Wake up to the fact that the West in conjunction with the Saudi's, Turkey, and others were arming and giving support (which is in violation of international law) an insurgency inside a sovereign nation ? Wake up to the fact that these "rebels" were extremist Islamic strict sharia loving folk in league with and largely comprised of Al Qaeda, Al Nursra and what now is known as ISIS. Wake up the fact that the arms and support to these rebels ramped up and exacerbated a civil war which killed over 100,000 civilians. Who needs to wake up here ?
