Syria Chemical Weapons Attack

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
CTsar
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:38 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: Syria Chemical Weapons Attack

Postby CTsar » Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:23 am

am I crazy to think this is Hogan vs Iron Sheik all over again? Trump and Putin set this up to derail Russia Gate. Trump has already announced he isn't going into Syria:

http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/trump-were ... nto-syria/


youtuber black pigeon speaks thinks that there will be a "regime change" at the end of the war, but Assad will step down for another secular, pro-Russia president / dictator.


CTsar
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:38 pm
Reputation: 3

Postby CTsar » Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:10 am

Megaterio Llamas wrote:
Masato wrote:White house press secretary freudian slips REAL reason for intervention in Syria:



Lol. This seems to be the season for freudian slips. Did you check out the Ruth Bader Ginsburg thread yet?




User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:06 pm

CTsar wrote:am I crazy to think this is Hogan vs Iron Sheik all over again? Trump and Putin set this up to derail Russia Gate. Trump has already announced he isn't going into Syria:

http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/trump-were ... nto-syria/


youtuber black pigeon speaks thinks that there will be a "regime change" at the end of the war, but Assad will step down for another secular, pro-Russia president / dictator.



I hope so. It's certainly the most optimistic scenario.
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:33 pm

Out of 46 Major Editorials on Trump’s Syria Strikes, Only One Opposed

http://fair.org/home/out-of-46-major-ed ... e-opposed/

Of the top 100 US newspapers, 47 ran editorials on President Donald Trump’s Syria airstrikes last week: 39 in favor, seven ambiguous and only one opposed to the military attack.

In other words, 83 percent of editorials on the Syria attack supported Trump’s bombing, 15 percent took an ambivalent position and 2 percent said the attack shouldn’t have happened. Polls showed the US public being much more split: Gallup (4/7–8/17) and ABC/Washington Post (4/7–9/17) each had 51 percent supporting the airstrikes and 40 percent opposed, while CBS (4/7–9/17) found 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.

A list of the editorials with quotes showing support or opposition can be seen here. The list of the top 100 editorial boards in the country was taken from a 2016 Hill piece (10/5/16) on presidential election endorsements.

Eight out of the top ten newspapers by circulation backed the airstrikes; the Wall Street Journal (4/7/17), New York Times (4/7/17), USA Today (4/7/17), New York Daily News (4/8/17), Washington Post (4/7/17), New York Post (4/10/17), Chicago Sun-Times (4/7/17) and Denver Post (4/7/17) all supported the strikes with varying degrees of qualification and concern.

The San Jose Mercury News (4/7/17) and LA Times (4/8/17) were ambiguous, highlighting Trump’s past opposition to bombing Syria and insisting, in the Mercury News’ words, that he get “serious about setting policies and pursuing diplomacy.”

The one editorial that expressly opposed the attack, in the 15th-ranked Houston Chronicle (4/7/17), did so mainly on constitutional—not moral or geopolitical—grounds, writing, “As we said a year-and-a-half ago, the president cannot and should not use military force against Syria without a legislative framework.”

The Chronicle—like all of the editorials on the list—accepted the government of Bashar al-Assad’s guilt in the April 4 chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, omitting qualifiers such as “alleged” or “accused.”

A consistent theme in the bulk of the editorials was that the airstrikes were necessary, but Trump needed a broader strategy as well as a constitutional or congressional “framework.” As FAIR (4/7/17) noted last week, the editorial and op-ed pages of top five newspapers in the country were uniformly in support of the airstrikes in the day after the attack, offering up 18 positive columns and zero critical.

Some spoke in emotional or visceral terms, most notably the New York Times (4/7/17), which insisted “it was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction” at the attack. “The US decision to launch cruise missiles at Syrian President Bashar Assad’s airfield felt good,“ the Denver Post (4/7/17) wrote.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (4/9/17) seemed giddy to the point of incoherence with Trump’s new tough-guy posture, publishing this string of NatSec bromides:

The message for the Russian and Chinese leaders must be to stop using their murderous little proxies, Syria and North Korea, to poke and prod us. We don’t want any more wars, but we also showed with the attack on the Syrian air base that we will not put up with being trifled with by their little friends doing awful things like killing children with chemical weapons and waving missiles around. Russia and China need to get busy and put the reins on the Syrians and the North Koreans, now. The game is lethal and dangerous, and there is no good reason for it to continue.

The overwhelming support for Trump’s Syria strikes—which open a whole new theater of potential war in the Middle East—is consistent with FAIR’s studies of media reaction to US military action. A 2003 FAIR survey (3/18/03) of television coverage in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, for example, found “just 6 percent of US sources were skeptics about the need for war. Just 3 of 393 sources were identified with anti-war activism.” As the US debated intervening in the civil war in Libya, pro-intervention op-eds outnumbered those opposed to or questioning intervention by 4-to-1 in the New York Times and Washington Post (Extra!, 5/11).
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Redneck
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:44 am
Reputation: 352

Postby Redneck » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:28 pm

^^^ And that's how you know the fix is in.

User avatar
Canuckster
Posts: 6731
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
Reputation: 3073

Postby Canuckster » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:24 am

Why the fuck do newspapers spout off opinions in the first place, shut the fuck up and tell me the news, not what you think dipshits
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 18295
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 8226

Postby Masato » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:07 pm

Assad Claims Chemical Attack Footage Was Fabricated

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/14/ ... fabricated

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has denied his forces used poison gas to attack a rebel-held town in Idlib, which killed 87 people, including more than 30 children. In an interview recorded Wednesday with the AFP news agency, Assad said reports of the attack were "100 percent" fabricated.

President Bashar al-Assad: "There was no order to make any attack. We don’t have any chemical weapons. We gave up our arsenal three years ago. Even if we have them, we wouldn’t use them. And we have never used our chemical arsenal in our history."


Assad suggested that children seen in widely circulated video of the incident were in fact child actors pretending to be dead. Assad’s interview was broadcast as inspectors with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said Thursday samples taken from the site tested positive for the nerve agent sarin.

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 18295
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 8226

Postby Masato » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:11 pm

Who is to say what is what anymore? What sort of international investigative court system could ever be trusted?

Governments and elite groups all spewing different versions of reality, with their own pundits and propaganda attempting to convince the masses, nobody having reason to trust any of em. Would be nice to see some grand international media system but of course how could it ever be immune to corruption at day 1?

LOL its pure chaos, believe whoever you like

The idea of unifying anything on a world scale, including public perception/opinion has always been insane.

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 18295
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 8226

Postby Masato » Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:09 am

Hey what happened to that vid of the guy saying he didn't think Assad was responsible, and the CNN reporter losing her mind?

I just looked all over I can't find it. Was an excellent vid I wanted to ask a question about it

That's fucked when things disappear, lol
I'm going senile faster than expected :D

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 18295
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 8226

Postby Masato » Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:19 pm

Canadian Journalist Eva Bartlett TRASHES MSM news re: Syria @ the UN:

Excellent job, this woman is badass:





fuller video:




This is from Dec 2016... just shows how consistent the narrative she is describing has been and continues to be :cry:


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 133 guests