5 ms·

Good old Hersh has been in war crime denial business lately. In particular denying Khan Sheikhoun chemical massacre, which was attributed to Assad by UN JIT/OPC

by varjag 8y ago

Good old Hersh has been in war crime denial business lately. In particular denying Khan Sheikhoun chemical massacre, which was attributed to Assad by UN JIT/OPCW.

epicureanideal 8y ago
I suspect I'll get downvoted for this by people who believe our media, but I think with some critical thinking it's possible to at least realize the possibility that the UN JIT/OPCW may be influenced to the point of bias by the US and its allies. Many smart people around me have asked, what would have been Assad's motivation to bring down the wrath of the US on himself at a point when he's winning the war? What is the US doing in Syria without an invitation by the Syrian government, supposedly "fighting terrorists" but against the government? Why does the US have the right to constantly invade other governments it doesn't like because "they're not legitimate"? Assuming the US was the size of Connecticut and had no nuclear weapons, it would be easy for a power like China to take the domestic unrest after the Bush, Trump, or any of several other elections to claim that the US has become a dictatorship and they need to occupy large parts of our territory to ensure freedom. Then assume that somehow that tiny US manages to start winning against the China-supported "insurgents". Then suddenly, out of nowhere, with the war turning in favor of the US, the US uses some chemical weapons on civilians and brings down international condemnation on itself. Who wouldn't be skeptical? But our government has done a great job of making every other country in the world and its government seem suspicious, so it's easy for many of us to think it's perfectly reasonable that Assad is a crazy person who doesn't want to live past next week, and so is perfectly happy to use unnecessary chemical weapons in a war he's already winning, with a major global power backing him. Some of the people who were even in the video showing the "chemical attack" have said that they were not attacked with chemical weapons. Those witnesses have been dismissed as "Russian propaganda". See for yourself, the "Russian propaganda" and a US-friendly media source denouncing the Russian propaganda. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/russia-presents-alleged-syrian-witnesses-to-opcw/9702128 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/russia-presents-allege... https://www.rt.com/op-ed/428514-douma-civilians-chemical-hoax/ https://www.rt.com/op-ed/428514-douma-civilians-chemical-hoa... By the way, there are plenty of people in the US who have criticized this overall US strategy for a long time. https://www.amazon.com/New-Military-Humanism-Lessons-Kosovo/dp/0745316336 https://www.amazon.com/New-Military-Humanism-Lessons-Kosovo/... But I suppose people on both sides of this debate will think that the other side is just believing the "obviously wrong" propaganda of the other side.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  > I suspect I'll get downvoted for this [...] Why do you start your post with an appeal to pity?
- zeth___ 8y ago
  This type of thing is always presented as 'if you don't believe us, you must believe the evil doers!'. Anyone with half a brain will not believe our side and the other side.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    Thinking in terms of "our side" and "other side" is part of the problem I think. I may pay taxes to one of the involved parties, but that's not a rational reason to root for that side like it was my preferred sports team. It's "my" side only in a very abstract and indirect sense, through some sort of democratic system and accident of geography, but I shouldn't let either of those bias my analysis.
- SCHiM 8y ago
  Without insinuating anything about your post, your opinions or your beliefs, I have the following hopefully partially objective points to note about your post for fellow readers of hackernews. You raise suspicions that the OPCW and JIT are biased or influenced by the US and its allies. But offer nothing more than a convoluted, hearsay, appeal to authority to back it up. "Smart people around me also think that <something>". That <something> is a frequent talking point of 'the other side' (ie. not the US and its allies). 'Why use chemical weapons if you're winning and you know the US would crack down': because you didn't know, you've been using them since the start and noticed no significant reaction from the west[0], and because there's more to war than just 'winning'[1]. The instances in which chemical weapon use was suspected were instances where a high attrition for both sides was likely: entrenched enemy combatants in civilian areas. Even if you 'win' there by conventional means, you're likely to have sustained losses that can quite conveniently be avoided if you can just gas your enemies out of their basements. Having cast and fortified your suspicion on the supposedly true, neutral, authority on the subject, but not actually pointing to any concrete points of contention, but keeping it mostly vague using hindsight rationalizations (as if everyone has perfect knowledge of what the other side would do?), you then shift your focus to an implausible scenario that seems calculated to produce a large amount of moral outrage. "What if <contemporary rival of USA> were to invade the USA and then <suddenly[0]> use chemical weapons while casting blame on the USA?". Of course, we have already established that it is perfectly rational to use chemical weapons when you can get away with it: it's effective, it didn't cause much ruckus until now and, looking at what was actually achieved: you've definitely come out on top[2]. Not to say that the USA is always blameless, but this false-flag-poison-gas operation just doesn't cut it. We all know the US doesn't need much to start assassinating people with drones. [0]: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Ch... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabitants-prepare-leave-deadly-syria-chemical-attack https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabita...
jessaustin 8y ago
Didn't you get the memo? Nobody believes that BS anymore. Your guys weren't even subtle about it, killing those poor people so soon after the White House announced that it would be pulling the troops out, exactly a year before the same song-and-dance would play again. Next time be proactive and kill some poor people after an 11.5-month interim!
- varjag 8y ago
  You mix your war crime incidents. I was talking about Khan Sheikhoun, a good year before any pullout was announced.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    They're not "mine", buddy. Cui bono? Trump had been talking pullout the whole campaign. MFW he shockingly seemed determined to honor a promise and forced your MIC to pull out all of the stops and show themselves and their sockpuppet AQ white helmet brigade for what they really are. Besides why do you hearken back to ancient history? Haven't your latest false flags and Novichok poisonings had the effect you wanted?
    - varjag 8y ago
      > Cui bono? Assad primarily. He uses weapons (including chemical) to kill his enemies, news at 11. > Haven't your latest false flags and Novichok poisonings had the effect you wanted? When you side with scumbags, the whole reality becomes a patchwork of false flag conspiracies. That's how you can sleep at night dude, the victims of the monsters you support have to be the baddies.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        I can't sleep at night. My taxes and the patriotism of my countrymen have been stolen to line the pockets of armaments manufacturers and their puppets in politics and media. The media itself has been perverted to the point that "truth" is bizarre caricature, twisted more and more to make us fear more and more, when most of us have never been safer. Look at the tripe you're serving here: I can actually imagine you believe most of it. "Let's invade nations because the government killed some people! Please ignore the people our own cops, military, and contracted deathmurderdrones are killing!" Those armaments for which we pay so much are killing innocent people in seven nations right now that they will even admit [0], with more planned soon. [1] Even in a global context of ever-increasing peace and prosperity, the bastards in our secret services are hard at work toppling more elected governments, to sow the seeds for more violence that simply must be addressed in the only way we know how. Those same bastards have brought the same practices back home. We have far too many laws and far too many cops struggling (failing) to enforce them without turning large swathes of USA and (especially) Latin America into Iraq. We have more prisoners than any nation or empire in history, in both percentage and absolute terms. One might think we had the rest of the world beaten pretty badly on military spending, at least until one considered how much more we spend than they do building prisons. Yeah, I'm the one sleeping. I would advise you to start following Glenn Greenwald, Abby Martin, or others who can offer a clue to the clueless, but I'm sure it would set you off on the same tired talking-point McCarthyist character assassination with which you started this desultory thread. [0] https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3ywd5/white-house-acknowledges-the-us-is-at-war-in-seven-countries https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3ywd5/white-house-ackno... [1] https://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/ https://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dr...

by varjag 8y ago

Good old Hersh has been in war crime denial business lately. In particular denying Khan Sheikhoun chemical massacre, which was attributed to Assad by UN JIT/OPCW.

epicureanideal 8y ago

I suspect I'll get downvoted for this by people who believe our media, but I think with some critical thinking it's possible to at least realize the possibility that the UN JIT/OPCW may be influenced to the point of bias by the US and its allies. Many smart people around me have asked, what would have been Assad's motivation to bring down the wrath of the US on himself at a point when he's winning the war? What is the US doing in Syria without an invitation by the Syrian government, supposedly "fighting terrorists" but against the government? Why does the US have the right to constantly invade other governments it doesn't like because "they're not legitimate"? Assuming the US was the size of Connecticut and had no nuclear weapons, it would be easy for a power like China to take the domestic unrest after the Bush, Trump, or any of several other elections to claim that the US has become a dictatorship and they need to occupy large parts of our territory to ensure freedom. Then assume that somehow that tiny US manages to start winning against the China-supported "insurgents". Then suddenly, out of nowhere, with the war turning in favor of the US, the US uses some chemical weapons on civilians and brings down international condemnation on itself. Who wouldn't be skeptical? But our government has done a great job of making every other country in the world and its government seem suspicious, so it's easy for many of us to think it's perfectly reasonable that Assad is a crazy person who doesn't want to live past next week, and so is perfectly happy to use unnecessary chemical weapons in a war he's already winning, with a major global power backing him. Some of the people who were even in the video showing the "chemical attack" have said that they were not attacked with chemical weapons. Those witnesses have been dismissed as "Russian propaganda". See for yourself, the "Russian propaganda" and a US-friendly media source denouncing the Russian propaganda. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/russia-presents-alleged-syrian-witnesses-to-opcw/9702128 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/russia-presents-allege... https://www.rt.com/op-ed/428514-douma-civilians-chemical-hoax/ https://www.rt.com/op-ed/428514-douma-civilians-chemical-hoa... By the way, there are plenty of people in the US who have criticized this overall US strategy for a long time. https://www.amazon.com/New-Military-Humanism-Lessons-Kosovo/dp/0745316336 https://www.amazon.com/New-Military-Humanism-Lessons-Kosovo/... But I suppose people on both sides of this debate will think that the other side is just believing the "obviously wrong" propaganda of the other side.

Fnoord 8y ago
> I suspect I'll get downvoted for this [...] Why do you start your post with an appeal to pity?
zeth___ 8y ago
This type of thing is always presented as 'if you don't believe us, you must believe the evil doers!'. Anyone with half a brain will not believe our side and the other side.
- JackCh 8y ago
  Thinking in terms of "our side" and "other side" is part of the problem I think. I may pay taxes to one of the involved parties, but that's not a rational reason to root for that side like it was my preferred sports team. It's "my" side only in a very abstract and indirect sense, through some sort of democratic system and accident of geography, but I shouldn't let either of those bias my analysis.
SCHiM 8y ago
Without insinuating anything about your post, your opinions or your beliefs, I have the following hopefully partially objective points to note about your post for fellow readers of hackernews. You raise suspicions that the OPCW and JIT are biased or influenced by the US and its allies. But offer nothing more than a convoluted, hearsay, appeal to authority to back it up. "Smart people around me also think that <something>". That <something> is a frequent talking point of 'the other side' (ie. not the US and its allies). 'Why use chemical weapons if you're winning and you know the US would crack down': because you didn't know, you've been using them since the start and noticed no significant reaction from the west[0], and because there's more to war than just 'winning'[1]. The instances in which chemical weapon use was suspected were instances where a high attrition for both sides was likely: entrenched enemy combatants in civilian areas. Even if you 'win' there by conventional means, you're likely to have sustained losses that can quite conveniently be avoided if you can just gas your enemies out of their basements. Having cast and fortified your suspicion on the supposedly true, neutral, authority on the subject, but not actually pointing to any concrete points of contention, but keeping it mostly vague using hindsight rationalizations (as if everyone has perfect knowledge of what the other side would do?), you then shift your focus to an implausible scenario that seems calculated to produce a large amount of moral outrage. "What if <contemporary rival of USA> were to invade the USA and then <suddenly[0]> use chemical weapons while casting blame on the USA?". Of course, we have already established that it is perfectly rational to use chemical weapons when you can get away with it: it's effective, it didn't cause much ruckus until now and, looking at what was actually achieved: you've definitely come out on top[2]. Not to say that the USA is always blameless, but this false-flag-poison-gas operation just doesn't cut it. We all know the US doesn't need much to start assassinating people with drones. [0]: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Ch... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabitants-prepare-leave-deadly-syria-chemical-attack https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabita...

jessaustin 8y ago

Didn't you get the memo? Nobody believes that BS anymore. Your guys weren't even subtle about it, killing those poor people so soon after the White House announced that it would be pulling the troops out, exactly a year before the same song-and-dance would play again. Next time be proactive and kill some poor people after an 11.5-month interim!

varjag 8y ago
You mix your war crime incidents. I was talking about Khan Sheikhoun, a good year before any pullout was announced.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  They're not "mine", buddy. Cui bono? Trump had been talking pullout the whole campaign. MFW he shockingly seemed determined to honor a promise and forced your MIC to pull out all of the stops and show themselves and their sockpuppet AQ white helmet brigade for what they really are. Besides why do you hearken back to ancient history? Haven't your latest false flags and Novichok poisonings had the effect you wanted?
  - varjag 8y ago
    > Cui bono? Assad primarily. He uses weapons (including chemical) to kill his enemies, news at 11. > Haven't your latest false flags and Novichok poisonings had the effect you wanted? When you side with scumbags, the whole reality becomes a patchwork of false flag conspiracies. That's how you can sleep at night dude, the victims of the monsters you support have to be the baddies.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      I can't sleep at night. My taxes and the patriotism of my countrymen have been stolen to line the pockets of armaments manufacturers and their puppets in politics and media. The media itself has been perverted to the point that "truth" is bizarre caricature, twisted more and more to make us fear more and more, when most of us have never been safer. Look at the tripe you're serving here: I can actually imagine you believe most of it. "Let's invade nations because the government killed some people! Please ignore the people our own cops, military, and contracted deathmurderdrones are killing!" Those armaments for which we pay so much are killing innocent people in seven nations right now that they will even admit [0], with more planned soon. [1] Even in a global context of ever-increasing peace and prosperity, the bastards in our secret services are hard at work toppling more elected governments, to sow the seeds for more violence that simply must be addressed in the only way we know how. Those same bastards have brought the same practices back home. We have far too many laws and far too many cops struggling (failing) to enforce them without turning large swathes of USA and (especially) Latin America into Iraq. We have more prisoners than any nation or empire in history, in both percentage and absolute terms. One might think we had the rest of the world beaten pretty badly on military spending, at least until one considered how much more we spend than they do building prisons. Yeah, I'm the one sleeping. I would advise you to start following Glenn Greenwald, Abby Martin, or others who can offer a clue to the clueless, but I'm sure it would set you off on the same tired talking-point McCarthyist character assassination with which you started this desultory thread. [0] https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3ywd5/white-house-acknowledges-the-us-is-at-war-in-seven-countries https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3ywd5/white-house-ackno... [1] https://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/ https://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dr...