TennPaGa wrote:
Meanwhile, the fallout from the incident and the U.S. retaliation is severe and potentially catastrophic. As Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen, America’s leading expert on Russia, put it recently:
I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the Cuban missile crisis. And arguably, it’s more dangerous, because it’s more complex. … So the question arises, naturally: Why did Trump launch 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian Air Force base, when, God help us, he did kill some people, but was of no military value whatsoever? Was this meant to show ‘I’m not a Kremlin agent?’ Because, normally, a president would have done the following. You would go to the United Nations … and ask for an investigation about what happened with those chemical weapons. And then you would decide what to do. But while having dinner at Mar-a-Lago with the leader of China, who was deeply humiliated, because he’s an ally of Russia, they rushed off these Tomahawk missiles.
[/font][/size]
[/quote]
That was the absolute first thing that occurred to me. I think the answer is yes - and the strategy worked.
Disgusting, to use another country and some of its citizens as a pawn in our little media & politics game. But I'm equally disgusted at the media for pushing the administration to the brink to begin with.
TennPaGa wrote:
Meanwhile, the fallout from the incident and the U.S. retaliation is severe and potentially catastrophic. As Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen, America’s leading expert on Russia, put it recently:
I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the Cuban missile crisis. And arguably, it’s more dangerous, because it’s more complex. … So the question arises, naturally: Why did Trump launch 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian Air Force base, when, God help us, he did kill some people, but was of no military value whatsoever? Was this meant to show ‘I’m not a Kremlin agent?’ Because, normally, a president would have done the following. You would go to the United Nations … and ask for an investigation about what happened with those chemical weapons. And then you would decide what to do. But while having dinner at Mar-a-Lago with the leader of China, who was deeply humiliated, because he’s an ally of Russia, they rushed off these Tomahawk missiles.
[/font][/size]
That was the absolute first thing that occurred to me. I think the answer is yes - and the strategy worked.
Disgusting, to use another country and some of its citizens as a pawn in our little media & politics game. But I'm equally disgusted at the media for pushing the administration to the brink to begin with.[/quote]
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
TennPaGa wrote:
Anyway, something else I find disgusting in all this is the media's blatant love affair of war. Did you hear Brian William's comment?
Brian Williams caused a Twitter uproar following comments he made during his show on Thursday about what he called "beautiful pictures" of U.S. missiles launching during an attack on a Syrian air base.
During "The 11th Hour" on MSNBC, Williams stated that the "beautiful pictures at night" of the airstrike tempted him to quote a line from a Leonard Cohen song: "I am guided by the beauty of our weapons."
He went on to call the images "beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments."
And here I thought about the only good thing about leftists (aside from the pot issue) was that they were anti-war. Not any more, apparently.
I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the Cuban missile crisis. And arguably, it’s more dangerous, because it’s more complex. … So the question arises, naturally: Why did Trump launch 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian Air Force base, when, God help us, he did kill some people, but was of no military value whatsoever? Was this meant to show ‘I’m not a Kremlin agent?’
That was the absolute first thing that occurred to me. I think the answer is yes - and the strategy worked.
Disgusting, to use another country and some of its citizens as a pawn in our little media & politics game. But I'm equally disgusted at the media for pushing the administration to the brink to begin with.
I would agree that the Trump/Russia stories were overblown. In the end, though, I have higher expectations of the President than to try to curry the favor of a group of people he probably dislikes anyway by bombing another country.
In any case, I don't think he ought to be surprised by the tone of the (non-war) coverage. It isn't like Trump was treated much differently during either the primary or the general election campaign. In fact, I'd say he fed off this in the campaign.
Anyway, something else I find disgusting in all this is the media's blatant love affair of war. Did you hear Brian William's comment?
Brian Williams caused a Twitter uproar following comments he made during his show on Thursday about what he called "beautiful pictures" of U.S. missiles launching during an attack on a Syrian air base.
During "The 11th Hour" on MSNBC, Williams stated that the "beautiful pictures at night" of the airstrike tempted him to quote a line from a Leonard Cohen song: "I am guided by the beauty of our weapons."
He went on to call the images "beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments."
Those "beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments" made me think of the Star Spangled Banner. Being captivated by those bombs bursting in air are a recurring theme. Some things never change. We just go around the block over, and over, and over expecting to see something new when we round the corner ... but it turns out to be the same old rear end of those at the back of the line too tired to keep up with the frantic pace of those who think they are progressing.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
French and Turkish governments both confirm Syrian origin of sarin. While I'm not sure I'd believe much coming from Turkey, France is certainly more credible. Good article in the WSJ on the forensics...worth reading to get a sense of what/how this stuff is analyzed.
Or we could go with the some of the other sources recently posted. Any old information will do to conform to our beliefs if that's how we think.
You seem very trusting of governments. You do understand who governments exist to serve, don't you? Yes, the wealthy and powerful. They aren't looking out for the little guy (i.e., me). They are looking out for people who make millions and billions of dollars. That's how it works. If it fits the narrative to help the multinational corporations, then any "legitimate" government will support it.
The funniest thing I saw this week, which literally made me laugh out loud, was a news flash that popped up on my phone saying that authorities are now investigating suspected Russian influence in the French election to help Le Pen. The media has their marching orders. They must do whatever they can to try to sabotage Le Pen because she wouldn't be good for the globalist business system.
Kbg wrote:French and Turkish governments both confirm Syrian origin of sarin. While I'm not sure I'd believe much coming from Turkey, France is certainly more credible. Good article in the WSJ on the forensics...worth reading to get a sense of what/how this stuff is analyzed.
Or we could go with the some of the other sources recently posted. Any old information will do to conform to our beliefs if that's how we think.
Would you be willing to post links to the information you are citing?
Perhaps we should start a "Proving Assad gassed Syrians" thread where we attempt to hash this out based on simple deductive logic that should be obvious to anyone who isn't reflexively choosing not to believe the motives of agents of the state.
Kbg wrote:French and Turkish governments both confirm Syrian origin of sarin. While I'm not sure I'd believe much coming from Turkey, France is certainly more credible. Good article in the WSJ on the forensics...worth reading to get a sense of what/how this stuff is analyzed.
Or we could go with the some of the other sources recently posted. Any old information will do to conform to our beliefs if that's how we think.
Would you be willing to post links to the information you are citing?
Perhaps we should start a "Proving Assad gassed Syrians" thread where we attempt to hash this out based on simple deductive logic that should be obvious to anyone who isn't reflexively choosing not to believe the motives of agents of the state.
That should settle this quickly.
Perhaps we should add "Proving the US (or Russia, or China, or Turkey, or New Zealand, or even Switzerland) did not gas Syrians". That should definitely get to the bottom of it given the talents of our astute logicians. PROOF, mind you, not evidence. This crowd does not subscribe to the court room view that "evidence" is sufficient and should have absolutely no trouble proving a negative.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
In defense of the Star Spangled Banner, it is hardly a paean to weapons, bombs, and violence. It's true that the tune that it's paired with has some high notes which could be said to emphasize the rockets and bombs. But the poem simply describes how those things provided the illumination so that it could be determined that the flag still flew over the fort.
I remember my mom being disturbed by Wolf Blitzer -- aren't all moms-- during the shock & awe campaign. This was because he shouted "ooh, that was a good one!" when one of our bombs exploded.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
I'm not trusting or untrusting of government. Governments are like and composed of humans and share the same foibles and strengths. I do get ever increasingly annoyed with what in my mind is a decreasing ability of people to think critically, evaluate source credibility and weigh factual evidence. A starting analytical bias is step 1 of an inability to think critically.
I don't care what political belief spectrum someone is on, if to me they clearly aren't doing any of the above I reserve the right to take written and rhetorical pot shots at them.
Kbg wrote:I'm not trusting or untrusting of government. Governments are like and composed of humans and share the same foibles and strengths. I do get ever increasingly annoyed with what in my mind is a decreasing ability of people to think critically, evaluate source credibility and weigh factual evidence. A starting analytical bias is step 1 of an inability to think critically.
I don't care what political belief spectrum someone is on, if to me they clearly aren't doing any of the above I reserve the right to take written and rhetorical pot shots at them.
You haven't posted one source. You've only posted snark towards people who are skeptical of the official government lines on this.
Furthermore, even if we can assume Assad gassed his own people (as opposed to relentlessly bombing them), you haven't even begun to build a rational case for these tactics within a broader coherent strategy for either projecting our interests or disincentivising war atrocities by Assad. So please bring on the critical thinking. We'd love to see something other than frustration with people who have noticed the myriad of lies that have preceded every war we've been involved in.
even without digging up the sources cited there. Now that may change. Turned out Saddam didn't have a cache of WMDs, I know. So that belief (re Khan Shaykhun) could change.
At the same time, to put the burden of proof on kbg is laughable.
Welcome to the gyro forum, where the burden of proof is not on the fringe but on the mainstream. I'd type more, but I needto go watch Capricorn One.
Simonjester wrote:
even the "no wmd" claim has been questioned as fiction put out by the perennially lying government
i have no idea why they would lie about that one (cover for the countries they were shipped to maybe?) but there are far to many solders who came back with illnesses and injuries related to exposure for the "none there" claim to be true -- or so they say---
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
even without digging up the sources cited there. Now that may change. Turned out Saddam didn't have a cache of WMDs, I know. So that belief (re Khan Shaykhun) could change.
At the same time, to put the burden of proof on kbg is laughable.
Welcome to the gyro forum, where the burden of proof is not on the fringe but on the mainstream. I'd type more, but I needto go watch Capricorn One.
We aren't putting much of a burden on him other than to post a source or two and provide either his or somebodies coherent tactical/strategic plan. If someone can't provide this but they are willing to snarkily advocate for launching rockets at a country and killing civilians, then I guess I'll find a way to sleep at night while they live with their "burden" while the perma-war surveillance state continues into perpetuity.
dualstow wrote:Burden of proof is just a term from logic, not something someone has to live with.
Exactly why it's not "laughable" to ask someone to provide it if they want to drop bombs that are sure to kill civilians and put more permanent murderous, manipulative power in the hands of a limited few.
But no need for "proof." I'd settle for evidence and a coherent strategy for starters. He's provided neither, even from a third party source. He's provided nothing but snark towards those that don't believe our government.
As for my own searching, I've found some sources for the former. No decent ones for the latter.
