3 ms·

Am I defending he used Sarin? Hell yes. That's already disproved. Am I defending he may have killed civilians while bombing rebels? Well, not defending, but

by pdx 10y ago

Am I defending he used Sarin? Hell yes. That's already disproved. Am I defending he may have killed civilians while bombing rebels? Well, not defending, but putting in perspective, since we kill civilians almost daily. Am I saying that you have been lied to by an administration that destroyed Libya and wants nothing more than to do the same to Syria? Yes, I am.

the_watcher 10y ago
Killed civilians as collateral damage, while tragic, and something that we should work to reduce and minimize, is in no way equivalent to targeting civilians. Following your logic, manslaughter should not be a distinct crime from murder.
- pdx 10y ago
  There's no proof that he targeted civilians. He may have, he may not have. How do you know he did? Who told you so? 1) It's a war. There is a fog of war where accurate information is not always available. 2) It's a common tactic to lie about your enemy to garner more money and weapons from your US sugar daddy. 3) The US government itself has an agenda to topple Syria for it's own reasons and those of it's Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia. Given 1,2, and 3, you are confident that you are in possession of the true state of affairs, even as you conveniently discount that the sarin gas accusation that so infuriated everybody originally, has been proven to be a lie. But hey, let's go to war with Russia based on unproven accusations. I wonder if you're old enough to remember Iraq, and the lies we were told about that? In 2003, we were told a lot of lies to get the population behind the destruction of Iraq. That was 13 years ago, so you were probably in high school or grade school. But it does happen that our government lies to the populous when it wants to destroy a country. https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/ https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/
- the_watcher 10y ago
  I can't reply directly to pdx, but pdx seems convinced that Assad has not targeted civilians despite ample evidence to the contrary, based on one post from a site that strains credibility, and takes acceptance of the very clear fact that he has done so to mean someone is advocating for a nuclear war with Russia, and accuses me of not being old enough to remember Iraq. How these conclusions are reached is left unstated besides "you don't have every single fact that could possibly be had about this despite that not being necessary." You've shown the level of credibility we should attribute you, which is none.
  - pdx 10y ago
    I am being polite and laying out the reasons why you need to examine your beliefs. Nobody said you need to know every event in Syria to form an opinion. You just need to know about a single, proven event that supports the war hysteria narrative you have been fed. Do you?
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      In what way is pointing out that Assad has behaved as an enemy to the United States would or that Syria is on the state sponsors of terrorism list (compiled by people with more knowledge than either of us) creating a war hysteria narrative? Are you claiming that Syria is not in the midst of a war claiming the countless lives? Are you claiming that Assad is not an aggressor? If you object to everything as unproven based on the fact that you found a website saying it's unproven, is it even possible to find a "proven" event?
- abgawrv 10y ago
  It's equivalent in the eyes of the families and communities in which these civilian deaths are occurring. And, I think you're naive to say that we don't target civlians. The MSF hospital strike was clearly intentional -- it may not have come as an order from the top (the strike was authorized by regional commanders), but the feeble attempt at discipline (there were no criminal charges) is essentially a go-ahead for other low level actors to engage in the same behavior. The US government paid out a pathetic $6000 to families of the dead civilians. I'm guessing that didn't quite break the bank.

by pdx 10y ago

the_watcher 10y ago

Killed civilians as collateral damage, while tragic, and something that we should work to reduce and minimize, is in no way equivalent to targeting civilians. Following your logic, manslaughter should not be a distinct crime from murder.

pdx 10y ago
There's no proof that he targeted civilians. He may have, he may not have. How do you know he did? Who told you so? 1) It's a war. There is a fog of war where accurate information is not always available. 2) It's a common tactic to lie about your enemy to garner more money and weapons from your US sugar daddy. 3) The US government itself has an agenda to topple Syria for it's own reasons and those of it's Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia. Given 1,2, and 3, you are confident that you are in possession of the true state of affairs, even as you conveniently discount that the sarin gas accusation that so infuriated everybody originally, has been proven to be a lie. But hey, let's go to war with Russia based on unproven accusations. I wonder if you're old enough to remember Iraq, and the lies we were told about that? In 2003, we were told a lot of lies to get the population behind the destruction of Iraq. That was 13 years ago, so you were probably in high school or grade school. But it does happen that our government lies to the populous when it wants to destroy a country. https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/ https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/
the_watcher 10y ago
I can't reply directly to pdx, but pdx seems convinced that Assad has not targeted civilians despite ample evidence to the contrary, based on one post from a site that strains credibility, and takes acceptance of the very clear fact that he has done so to mean someone is advocating for a nuclear war with Russia, and accuses me of not being old enough to remember Iraq. How these conclusions are reached is left unstated besides "you don't have every single fact that could possibly be had about this despite that not being necessary." You've shown the level of credibility we should attribute you, which is none.
- pdx 10y ago
  I am being polite and laying out the reasons why you need to examine your beliefs. Nobody said you need to know every event in Syria to form an opinion. You just need to know about a single, proven event that supports the war hysteria narrative you have been fed. Do you?
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    In what way is pointing out that Assad has behaved as an enemy to the United States would or that Syria is on the state sponsors of terrorism list (compiled by people with more knowledge than either of us) creating a war hysteria narrative? Are you claiming that Syria is not in the midst of a war claiming the countless lives? Are you claiming that Assad is not an aggressor? If you object to everything as unproven based on the fact that you found a website saying it's unproven, is it even possible to find a "proven" event?
abgawrv 10y ago
It's equivalent in the eyes of the families and communities in which these civilian deaths are occurring. And, I think you're naive to say that we don't target civlians. The MSF hospital strike was clearly intentional -- it may not have come as an order from the top (the strike was authorized by regional commanders), but the feeble attempt at discipline (there were no criminal charges) is essentially a go-ahead for other low level actors to engage in the same behavior. The US government paid out a pathetic $6000 to families of the dead civilians. I'm guessing that didn't quite break the bank.