Tulsi: On 9/11 Trump is Protecting Al Qaeda

Nancy

So great she is bravely speaking out about this as it seems we may be headed to more unneeded war in Syria:

US Says Assad Has Approved Gas Attack In Idlib, Setting Stage For Major Military Conflict: With Russia and Iran now in the West's cross hairs over Idlib, indeed the entire world is again at the edge of the abyss.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/gas-attack-idlib/249009/


Psychic Nikki Haley: If There Is A Future Chemical Weapons Attack, Assad Did It

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/psychic-nikki-haley-if-there-is-a-future-chemical-weapons-attack-assad-did-it-909394df2bc0


Trump knows he can bring his ratings up when he bombs Syria cause both sides seem to love war.




Like  
Nancy

Let's hope the Democrat's reaction to Tulsi will be better this time than the last:



Like  
tjohn
nan said:
So great she is bravely speaking out about this as it seems we may be headed to more unneeded war in Syria:
US Says Assad Has Approved Gas Attack In Idlib, Setting Stage For Major Military Conflict: With Russia and Iran now in the West's cross hairs over Idlib, indeed the entire world is again at the edge of the abyss.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/gas-attack-idlib/249009/


No matter how much tinfoil I use, I just can't see why Assad would allow the use of chemical weapons at this point.   He has won.  I am quite sure that he understands that a direct conflict between Russia and the U.S. would not be to his benefit.


Like  1 Like
Nancy
tjohn said:


nan said:
So great she is bravely speaking out about this as it seems we may be headed to more unneeded war in Syria:
US Says Assad Has Approved Gas Attack In Idlib, Setting Stage For Major Military Conflict: With Russia and Iran now in the West's cross hairs over Idlib, indeed the entire world is again at the edge of the abyss.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/gas-attack-idlib/249009/


No matter how much tinfoil I use, I just can't see why Assad would allow the use of chemical weapons at this point.   He has won.  I am quite sure that he understands that a direct conflict between Russia and the U.S. would not be to his benefit.

 I think the tinfoil is supposed to make you think that the chemical weapons attacks are false.  At least that's why I get accused of wearing a tin foil hat, although I use unbleached parchment to cover my baking sheets now.  Hardly ever use tin foil for anything anymore.  And I agree with you--why would Assad do this--there is no motivation.  


Like  
dave23
nan said:
 And I agree with you--why would Assad do this--there is no motivation.  

Trying to apply logic to a murderous dictator's thoughts isn't the strongest way to make a case. (That doesn't mean he did or didn't do something--or will or will not do something.)


Like  
Nancy
dave23 said:


nan said:
 And I agree with you--why would Assad do this--there is no motivation.  
Trying to apply logic to a murderous dictator's thoughts isn't the strongest way to make a case. (That doesn't mean he did or didn't do something--or will or will not do something.)

 Our country likes dictators as long as they do our bidding.  Historically, we are not  humanitarians. But, now our regime change mania is out of control and will be our own downfall.  Time to grow up and stop believing the BS. Tulsi Gabbard found this out when she patriotically went into the military after 9/11 and now she is one of the few voices of reason about Syria:



Like  
Nancy

Oh, let's see who the US likes!   Guy makes Putin seem like Mr. Rogers, but hey, he's a "reformer!"



Like  
bub

Nan:

Quite a few commentators have explained the logic, or at least posited logic, for Assad's use of chemical weapons (including the NYT).  When your conclusion is consistent with your bias, though, Nan, I notice you don't take the careful approach  of "let's listen to all voices" and "wait for all of the evidence to be in" like you do with, e.g., the Salisbury poisoning incident.


Like  
Nancy
bub said:
Nan:
Quite a few commentators have explained the logic, or at least posited logic, for Assad's use of chemical weapons (including the NYT).  When your conclusion is consistent with your bias, though, Nan, I notice you don't take the careful approach  of "let's listen to all voices" and "wait for all of the evidence to be in" like you do with, e.g., the Salisbury poisoning incident.

 Right, because there is a long history of pointless regime change supported through false flag attacks and fake threat reports. Regime change destabilizes the countries, kills lots of people, creates refugee situations, bankrupts our country and does not make us safer. If it continues in Syria it might lead to World War III.  This is not tin foil hat hut job stuff--it's well documented.  As you will remember lies about WMD were used to get us into the Iraq war where a million people died, including Americans in our own community.  The New York Times was on board for that war and they also continue to support war by publishing Thomas Friedman who is calling Mohammed Bin Salman Bin  a nice guy who wants to make Saudi Arabia more modern.  That is called "Manufactured Consent."   So yes, you should be very skeptical of any country or politician that calls for regime change or tries to make the case that anyone who is not a US-puppet is a "dictator."   Cause being a dictator is not normally a problem for us. It is only a problem when the "dictator" does not do our bidding.


Like  1 Like
dave23
nan said:


dave23 said:

nan said:
 And I agree with you--why would Assad do this--there is no motivation.  
Trying to apply logic to a murderous dictator's thoughts isn't the strongest way to make a case. (That doesn't mean he did or didn't do something--or will or will not do something.)
 Our country likes dictators as long as they do our bidding. 

 Yes and that had nothing to do with what I said.


Like  
Nancy
dave23 said:


nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:
 And I agree with you--why would Assad do this--there is no motivation.  
Trying to apply logic to a murderous dictator's thoughts isn't the strongest way to make a case. (That doesn't mean he did or didn't do something--or will or will not do something.)
 Our country likes dictators as long as they do our bidding. 
 Yes and that had nothing to do with what I said.

 Ok, fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree.  First of all, I'm not sure Assad is a "murderous dictator" whatever that is.  That's an ill defined term.  Second, I think murderous dictators may be just as logical as anyone else, despite the murdering part. In short, I don't think you can play psychologist here and say that he's crazy and would therefore just want to kill a bunch of people even if it got in the way of his larger plan of winning. That seems unlikely to me.   He's not Trump. 


Like  
Dennis
nan said:



 Ok, fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree.  First of all, I'm not sure Assad is a "murderous dictator" whatever that is.  

 OMG, I can't believe you could actually say this in polite company.


Like  
sbenois

She can.   Shameful.


Like  
Nancy
Dennis_Seelbach said:


nan said:

 Ok, fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree.  First of all, I'm not sure Assad is a "murderous dictator" whatever that is.  
 OMG, I can't believe you could actually say this in polite company.

 Oh, right, Assad is a murderous dictator cause I saw it on CNN or MSNBC along with a story on how Muhammed bin Salman is a "reformer" taking Saudi Arabia in a more modern direction.


Like  
Nancy

Here is a Syrian jounalist's view of the situation in Idlib:


Like  
Dennis
nan said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

 Ok, fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree.  First of all, I'm not sure Assad is a "murderous dictator" whatever that is.  
 OMG, I can't believe you could actually say this in polite company.
 Oh, right, Assad is a murderous dictator cause I saw it on CNN or MSNBC along with a story on how Muhammed bin Salman is a "reformer" taking Saudi Arabia in a more modern direction.

 Could you be any more condescending, not to mention absolutely nuts?


Like  
Nancy

Here is Tom Ford, former UK ambassador to Syria.  I know a bunch of you will protest because it's on Sputnik radio, but he's not getting interviewed in this kind of depth on mainstream news.  Also, they ask him if Assad is a "murderous dictator" so it is relevant to this thread:


Like  
Jamie

Ford has been pro-Assad since 2006.  I would need to delve into this more.  


Nan - do you think Assad is a good guy?


Like  
Nancy
jamie said:
Ford has been pro-Assad since 2006.  I would need to delve into this more.  


Nan - do you think Assad is a good guy?

 How do you define "good guy?"   I have not paid attention to his rule on a daily basis, just on big things like chemical attacks, the war and who supports him.  Ford says he was originally an eye doctor and still acts like one. Does that help? 


Like  
Jamie

I see Kvork is on Sputnik - so he must be the Real Deal.


Like  
Jamie

Interesting: Former UK ambassador linked to Assad lobby group

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/former-uk-ambassador-linked-to-assad-lobby-group/

I would have thought nan would not be favoring lobbyists for information.  oh well.


Like  
Nancy
jamie said:
Interesting: Former UK ambassador linked to Assad lobby group
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/former-uk-ambassador-linked-to-assad-lobby-group/
I would have thought nan would not be favoring lobbyists for information.  oh well.

 i guess I was hoping for once you would actually listen to the video(s) and comment on the ideas first before googling for personal smears, but hope still springs eternal.  Anyway, Peter Ford is the director of the British Syrian Society, a group that promotes UK-Syrian relations (started by Assad's father).  Perhaps that should have been mentioned in the video (and maybe it was, but I did not hear and I did not know), but, as you said yourself he's been pro-Syria since 2006 and nothing has changed there.  He does not receive money for his work in that group, by the way.  I am against lobbyists, but mostly corporate and billionaire lobbyists.  You can't be against all lobbyists because there are always things that need to be lobbied for, like women's health, etc. And Syria-UK relations could certainly use some improving, don't you think?

Anyway, he is worth listening to and I hope you do.  


Like  
Nancy
jamie said:
I see Kvork is on Sputnik - so he must be the Real Deal.

He has a YouTube Channel called "Syriana Analysis: Your alternative channel to understanding Syria."  He grew up in Aleppo. He was a guest on Sputnik (good interview--perhaps I will post).  I'm sure he would be happy to go on CNN, MSNBC or FOX if they asked him.  Here is his YouTube page:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClvD6c1VI75QZWJjA_yiWhg


Like  
sbenois

Wherever the dart lands.


Like  2 Likes
tjohn
dave23 said:


nan said:
 And I agree with you--why would Assad do this--there is no motivation.  
Trying to apply logic to a murderous dictator's thoughts isn't the strongest way to make a case. (That doesn't mean he did or didn't do something--or will or will not do something.)

 So, in your world, brutal dictators can’t be rational?


Like  
Nancy
jamie said:
How do you guys decide which conspiracy theory to follow?
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/07/unproven-online-theories-doubting-syrian-gas-attac/

 Hate to break it to you, but what they peddle on the mainstream media is a theory, rarely backed up by evidence.  Why are you so quick to believe that narrative given the long history of lying.  Good to be skeptical when they try to brainwash people into supporting regime changes that only support the oil companies and defense contractors?  I'm not a big fan of oil companies and defense contractors.  They have not done much for me lately.


Like  
drummerboy
nan said: Hate to break it to you, but what they peddle on the mainstream media is a theory, rarely backed up by evidence.

 Yes.

The mainstream media's reports are rarely backed up with evidence.

Yup.

Uh huh.

okayfine.


Like  
Nancy
drummerboy said:


nan said: Hate to break it to you, but what they peddle on the mainstream media is a theory, rarely backed up by evidence.
 Yes.
The mainstream media's reports are rarely backed up with evidence.
Yup.
Uh huh.

okayfine.

I'm talking mainly about regime change and Russia-related stories.  They do the weather fine.   


Like  

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.