MIT Professor Disputes Evidence of Sarin Attack

Being reasonable and skeptical is not the same thing as slavish deference to authority. You're not smarter than the rest of us for embracing paranoid and factually unsupported nonsense.

 

You have a link to the root source?

 

So you sided with Saddam Hussein? Why such disloyalty to America?

 

There is nothing "reasonable or skeptical" about uncritically accepting US government propaganda as you've clearly done.

 

Let me tell you again. I was opposed the the Iraq war because it would destabilize the ME and make Iran ascendant.. We INVADED Iraq. We did not invade Libya or Syria. Do you know the GD difference?

 

The link provided in the OP is the "root source".

 

I see.

So when you oppose US government policy in Iraq, it's because you have good reasons for doing so.

But when I oppose US government policy in Libya and Syria, it's because I side with Qaddafi and Assad.

Tell me, do you realize you're a hypocrite or has it never occurred to you?

 

We didn't have a policy in Libya and Syria. The people rebelled against Assad and Gaddafi. We had NO control over that. But, YOU keep trying to reinvent both men and castigate the US.

 

how much was that your first priority?

 

Now you're just lying like you always do when painted into a corner.

Do you actually think people will believe these lies? Or is it for your own benefit?

 

You didn't provide the link. Here you go-
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04...he-nerve-agent-attack-in-khan-shaykhun-syria/

 

So where is the link to the root source?

 

Yes I did. It's embedded in the title text in the first post.

 

It's embedded in the title. Just scroll over the text and click on the hyperlink.

 

Oh yeah, clearly. Because this MIT guy looked at some YouTube videos and decided that the report was false. He also blindly rejects the signal intelligence because... Well, just because!

 

I remember seeing on our Yesteryear channel a film which believed the real reason for the Libya war was your politicians wanting to get even for Lockerbie - not that I agreed with it but Hilary sure went ecstatic when she heard of Gaddafi's death.

Libya like Iraq was bought from the public on lies and although France and the UK were looking forward to good oil deals, the US most certainly interfered in the dynamics of another country with no regard to the hell they were going to create.

You had a choice over your response. That was to act opportunistically. Bye the way what is this discussion doing on this thread?

 

Your mindless deference to political authority is not reasonable or skeptical. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

Can't even address the points I've raised. Typical.

 

"The US government said so" is not a reasonable argument. Technically, it's not even an argument. It's just mindless servility.

 

Yet that is not a link to the root source. Within your source is a link to another source that being https://phaven-prod.s3.amazonaws.co...k-in-Khan_Shaykhun__Syria__April13_2017__.pdf

But sadly I cannot verify the above link as being the root source as I see no connection between the MIT professor and haven-prod.s.amazonaws.com as the preceding is unknown to me. Wish the professor had published the argument on a MIT server as it would make the claim much more credible.

 

You didn't raise any points. You just keep obliquely referring to the US government's allegations as if they were divine mandates.

And if I recall correctly, you're the one who refuses to address the points that Postol raised. Why are you such a hypocrite?

 

But "an MIT professor said so" is absolutely an argument and completely reasonable.

See how you are?

 

Postol has provided ample reasoning in support of his position. Feel free to address it any time.

 

I just addressed Postol's non-points, and you've reacted as expected - by ignoring and dismissing my response as usual. Postol doesn't know what he is talking about, and propagandists at RT, PressTV and countless propaganda and CT blogs have latched onto it, just as you have. You and they are concerned only with supporting your narratives, not the facts. You are not objective, but strongly biased against your own country.

 

No, he hasn't.