I wasn’t referring to a general position (conspiracies happen all the time, Conspiracy Theories™ are a different thing though), but responding to a specific series of posts. And if you think that Buchanan and Paul are credible in their apparent false flag operations assertion (based on what? their obvious dislike of Obama and their knee jerk contrariness for anything his administration says?) then there really isn’t much more to say.
But you think a truther rag like counterpunch is a credible source?
More credible than John Kerry.
Your characterisation of it as that shows you know nothing about it. Address the arguments if you want to but don’t start name calling. It just undermines your credibility.
I trust Counterpunch to ask awkward questions. It is an international left of centre alternative news magazine with contributions from internationally respected mainstream journalists and pundits.
You don’t say ! Like the conspiracy to invade Iraq? The conspirators publicly announced this conspiracy in a 1996 paper titled ‘A Clean Break - A New Strategy to Secure the Realm’. Many of the authors, Wolfowitz, Feith, et. al., went on to high positions in the Bush administration where false evidence was manufactured, countless lies told by the President and prominent government officials, and indeed Iraq was invaded. When the phony evidence was exposed for the 100th time, Bush went to a press dinner and made a joke of his own lies. You mean conspiracies like that one?
The conspiracy to invade Syria was announced in the same 1996 paper, even the plan to use proxy warfare and accusations of WMD as a justification, this is from the wiki article on 'A Clean Break … "
"It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting their possession of “weapons of mass destruction”.
I would argue that all the decisions of the US govt. involving finance, or war policy, are made by conspiracies.
By “awkward questions” you mean spouting truther nonsense and JAQing off regarding Jewish conspiracy theories.
You have excellent taste in sources.
You do realize your referring to truthers who like to spread Jewish conspiracy theories don’t you?
Presumably you also think David Duke is more credible than Barack Obama if you really feel that way.
Here in the real world we generally don’t let our hatred of public figures cause us to make such foolish comments.
Like I said I think Assad did it. But there are unanswered questions and we have been presented with not even evidence rising to Powell’s Dog and Pony show. And that makes me even more cautious and when it comes to my government starting a war and inevitably killing lots of people then I want answers.
Some rebel factions appear to have access to chemical weapons. Some rebel factions are lunatic jihadists with their own history of massacres in Syria. There are some gaping holes in the official story. There are other states, most notably Saudi Arabia, playing their own game.
There’s plenty of ‘reasonable doubt’ here. I’m willing to be convinced but I want more than ‘Trust us’. With all the talk of red lines and ‘credibility at stake’ I’m feeling like we’re being hustled into something.
Ok - true to form you want to name call and not debate. Goodbye.
[QUOTE=tagos]
There’s plenty of ‘reasonable doubt’ here. I’m willing to be convinced but I want more than ‘Trust us’. With all the talk of red lines and ‘credibility at stake’ I’m feeling like we’re being hustled into something.
[/QUOTE]
And then we have Assad, who in the early stages totally overreacted, slaughtering peaceful protesters wholesale, having his goons round up dissidents and whacking them and then leaving their bodies (or the bodies of their wives and children) in the streets and pretty much attempting to terrorize the entire population into obedience…and when that failed and the people started fighting back he just bumped up the craze another couple of notches and unleashed his military on whole neighborhoods full of folks who had nothing to do with the protests OR the rebellion. Just like daddy…chip off the old block.
Let’s pretend, however, that it was rebels who got a hold of chemical weapons. Where did they get them from? Probably from Assad’s own stockpiles. So, seems to me that even if this were the case, then the most likely US military strikes (against known stockpiles) would still be beneficial. It will send a message (namely that the use of chemical weapons is still a serious issue and one that will have a military response to the country that does it) and it will eliminate those stockpiles from being used by either side in the future. And, if in fact it was rebels that did it (:dubious:) this will eventually come out, because contrary to what some think, it’s pretty difficult to keep a real conspiracy under wraps for long periods of time.
Er… where in my post did I call you names after you rather foolishly defended Counterpunch?
Don’t try and misrepresent what I said just because you don’t like your sources getting exposed.
Do you object to claims that Counterpunch is a truther rag? If so, please explain why?
I have heard there was an AP story that rebels set off gas captured from the Army in an attempt to move it.
I can find nothing myself, so I believe the story is hokey.
There have been other incidents of gas used in Syria, note …
“the Russian Ambassador to UN, Vitaly Churkin, announced in mid-July that according to the documents which he has handed over to the UN, the rebels in Syria have used a chemical gas within an attack. Churkin went on to say that Russia has submitted an 80-page report in this regard to the UN. Also, the investigations of the UN independent probe committee showed that the terrorists have used chemical weapons in the vicinity of the Syrian city of Halab.”
We have reached the point where not only do we not know what is going on, it is quite possible that we cannot know because there is no way to ascertain the truth.
I believe that is a bad reason for us to kill a bunch of people. They are killing children well enough by themselves, they need no help from us.
Yes, attacking a chemical weapons depot would send a message. It might be clouded a bit for those who live nearby.
I’d at least expect a card from Assad saying thanks.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Yes, attacking a chemical weapons depot would send a message. It might be clouded a bit for those who live nearby.
[/QUOTE]
From memory most of the stockpiles are on military bases, not under orphanages or puppy farms.
Hopefully this was an attempt at one of those ‘joke’ thingies. 
Yes, but if I had to guard a stockpile, I’d move it to the local orphanage.
If memory serves me it’s a gas and would travel with the wind. I wouldn’t want to test your theory on what happens when you blow a pile of it up. I think it’s mixed on site as needed and if that’s the case it’s a risky venture to destroy it in a haphazard manner.
I don’t have the ability to search for it at the moment (excellent debating, I know), but I’ve read in other threads here on this topic, as well as in a few articles, that blowing up the chemical weapons wouldn’t necessarily release the gas into the air. Something about the weapons being a little more complex inside and requiring a series of specific actions to create the gas itself, rather than just boom.
I totally accept this may be wrong, but that’s what I’ve been believing for a week now.
Nerve agents are similar to pesticides. Dangerous but not unmanageable.