Is Asad Really To Blame For The Recent Syrian Attacks?

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Well you can focus on whatever you want, but I think you will miss a lot. You can run after the guy who set your house on fire, and maybe you aren't wrong. But the smart decision is probably to get the fire put out first. This is where we are now in this conflict. Rehashing the past doesn't do us any good while staring at the fire burning in Syria.

Imagine the U.S Military completely bombing an American city during some civil strife. Are we going to contemplate the potential foreign influence? Or just try to get these fools to stop bombing our own cities and people.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
6
The US bombed Syria recently (what's new there) and I was wondering if anyone had any sources to prove Bashar Acid used chemical weaponry on the civilians. I mean I just find it quite convenient that the finger was pointed at him when there are various nations engaged in this war. I do like to question how valid the western media reports are and I'm yet to see how they actually determined it was him who was behind this dreadful event.

Btw I'm not at all an Asad supporter I oppose his heinous actions and totally condemn him. I'm just convinced that the US are meddling in his civil war and trying to take over that region like that did with Iraq and Libya
I believe that as governments go, Assad is one of the better guys. He protects Christians and don't forget, he is the democratically elected president by some 92% of his people. There are US records going back some 6 presidents debating on how to take out the Assad governments (both father and son). Before anyone finalizes their opinions one way or another, I just posted another thread on a similar incident that happened 24 years ago today here in America where our very own lying, hypocritical government used chemical weapons on American women and children on our own soil. Not that it's the first or the last, but one of the incidents where so much lying was going on that the US Government, ATF, and FBI couldn't keep track of who told which lie. In the words of Dave McGowan ...
"Adolph Hitler knew a little bit about the fine art of lying. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that, “If you’re going to tell a lie, make sure it’s a really fucking big lie. Truth be told, I’m not exactly conversant in the German language so that may not be an exact translation, but it certainly captures the gist of what the future Fuhrer was trying to say. He went on to explain that this was so because everyone in their everyday lives tells little lies, and so they fully expect others to do so as well. But most people do not expect anyone to tell a real whopper … you know, the kind of brazen, outlandish lie that is just too absurd to actually be a lie. The kind of lie that is so over-the-top that no one would dare utter it if it was in fact a lie." To this day the PTB just continue to pump out lie after lie.
https://www.sott.net/article/348669-24-years-Ago-Today-Chemical-Weapons-Used-by-US-Government-to-Kill-Women-and-Children-in-Waco-Texas
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
6
Yeah I tend to feel like the whole civil war in Syria was one big American Mk Ultra move. We can infiltrate other countries easily, just plant the seeds and eventually the war starts. There may be no actual agenda, other than just playing the game.
The plan to topple the Assad government (both father and son) goes back 6 presidents.
 

Mr.Grieves

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
680
What they're trying to do to Syria is precisely what they did to Libya.
Move in Sunni Jihadists from surrounding war-torn and chaotic regions like Iraq and Afghanistan with Saudi-Arabian money and support, tether these Jihadists to Sunni groups/movements within said country, claim the country is engaged in a 'civil uprising' and that the Government's efforts to suppress these Jihadists are heinous attacks on citizens, and start invading/bombing the fuck out of the country's infrastructure in order to 'help'.

One of the most shameful moments of modern western civilization to my mind was the big old party we threw when Gaddafi was lynched; how we celebrated a man being beaten to death brutally in the street with no accountability... here in Canada, we actually threw a Canadian working as a bodyguard for Gaddafi out of the country on the suggestion he was culpable for Gaddafi's crimes because he DARED to rescue the man's wife and child from precisely the same gruesome fate.

What's been going on in Syria is more or less the same situation. The country finds itself inundated with Sunni Jihadists, indeed with a fair deal of support from the existing Sunni population, and when Assad starts combating the forces we'd under any other circumstance describe as Terrorists, we claim a terrible civil war is underway, Assad brutally murdering his own people who simply want freedom from his evil regime (and Sunni-Islamic Sharia-style Religious Rule of a currently secular and inclusive nation). America, righteous representative of goodness and freedom, comes to the aid of these noble rebel forces, but acknowledges that there are also evil Sunni-Jihadist Terrorists called ISIS (who have nothing to do with the freedom-loving Sunni-Jihadist rebels, we swear!) and so starts dropping bombs on Syrian Oil-Refineries, Syrian gas plants, all makes of Syrian oil-infrastructure for the noble purpose of 'cutting off ISIS funding', all without Syria's permission, which would be extremely illegal if America cared about international law in the slightest when they're not enforcing it themselves.

What Syria has that Libya didn't however is Russia's full support. Russia eventually called America's bluff in Syria, got the Syrian government's permission to intervene, and with their support and coordination Syria was able to rapidly turn the conflict around, going from ISIS near conquering Aleppo to ISIS generally on the run in only a few short months. While America had been 'helping' defeat ISIS for years to no apparent effect, Russia has generally defeated the Sunni Jihadists at every turn, all in accordance with international law, something which should be quite embarrassing if America actually had any shame regarding its true intentions.

As Assad's position is now solidifying rather than deteriorating, and America is put in the position of having to declare War on Russia if they want to get rid of him in the same way as they did Gaddafi with a 'No Fly Zone' (modern double-speak for a massive bombing campaign), America is looking for ways to either get around or more alarmingly justify such a terrifying move. So here we are, with yet another "Evil Assad and his chemical weapons!" story. CIA talking heads are showing up on the news and TV talk shows such as a recent release of Bill Maher's show, and actually making the nutso-bonkers claim that Assad and ISIS are in cahoots, in spite of it being a widely downplayed fact that the biggest sponsor of ISIS is the Saudi-Arabian government, an enemy of Syria and America's biggest ally in the region.

I don't 'support' Assad, I didn't 'support' Gaddafi, but to destroy and dismantle entire nations, leaving them chaos-filled cess-pools of religious extremism and barbarism, just to oust an unpleasant figurehead makes no moral sense. Name me a leader of a nation with an actively engaged military who isn't a killer and crook responsible for War-Crimes in someones eyes. Libya wasn't some horrible place prior to America's intervention. It was by most measures the wealthiest, safest, most stable nation on the African continent, and rest assured, it's none of those things anymore. Syria too, while no paradise, is a secular democracy where one at least USED to be able to be a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, whatever, with the full expectation no one's going to cut off your head. If Assad loses, that's all over.
 

Mr.Grieves

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
680
I also remain pretty baffled by the whole 'evil barrel bombs' spiel, as if dropping cheap explosives out of helicopters that kill civilians is so very much worse than dropping high-tech depleted-uranium bombs out of jets that kill civilians in rather larger numbers.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Well you can focus on whatever you want, but I think you will miss a lot. You can run after the guy who set your house on fire, and maybe you aren't wrong. But the smart decision is probably to get the fire put out first. This is where we are now in this conflict. Rehashing the past doesn't do us any good while staring at the fire burning in Syria

Imagine the U.S Military completely bombing an American city during some civil strife. Are we going to contemplate the potential foreign influence? Or just try to get these fools to stop bombing our own cities and people.
I dont get your analogy though. The US started the fire according to you. So as bystanders (you and I) why should we focus on what Syria does in regards to that, and totally ignore/place to the side the US's involvement? Of course if we were in Syria, we shouldnt watch our houses burn down while contemplating who was the source of the problem.But you and I are on a message board, trying to get to the bottom of whats going on and/or sharing our ideas of whats going on. So since we've seen the story of the US supporting rebels in the destruction of a gov't then instilling a puppet gov't, then why wouldnt you (who Im just going to blindly assume wants to know the TRUTH of the situation and not just pick a side based on bias) take that into account especially with a former general almost 10 years ago predicting that we would go into Syria to dismantle it? Its like you said we can look at what we want, but the thing is I dont have a problem looking at Assad and calling him a puppet/bad guy. You seem to have problem with looking at the US's involvement though. Only from the outside looking in though, no offense.

I guess what Im saying is assuming they're in Syria to "take the bad guy out" or "Assad is a bad guy so its ok" is a very limited view of whats actually going on and historically has been going on. Theres one to two nations that have been more aggressive in the world than others, and it shouldnt be too hard to figure out its not the middle eastern countries that are always war torn...
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
I dont get your analogy though. The US started the fire according to you. So as bystanders (you and I) why should we focus on what Syria does in regards to that, and totally ignore/place to the side the US's involvement? Of course if we were in Syria, we shouldnt watch our houses burn down while contemplating who was the source of the problem.But you and I are on a message board, trying to get to the bottom of whats going on and/or sharing our ideas of whats going on. So since we've seen the story of the US supporting rebels in the destruction of a gov't then instilling a puppet gov't, then why wouldnt you (who Im just going to blindly assume wants to know the TRUTH of the situation and not just pick a side based on bias) take that into account especially with a former general almost 10 years ago predicting that we would go into Syria to dismantle it? Its like you said we can look at what we want, but the thing is I dont have a problem looking at Assad and calling him a puppet/bad guy. You seem to have problem with looking at the US's involvement though. Only from the outside looking in though, no offense.

I guess what Im saying is assuming they're in Syria to "take the bad guy out" or "Assad is a bad guy so its ok" is a very limited view of whats actually going on and historically has been going on. Theres one to two nations that have been more aggressive in the world than others, and it shouldnt be too hard to figure out its not the middle eastern countries that are always war torn...
I don't have a problem saying the U.S shouldn't interfere in the Middle East. I just don't see the logic of blaming the U.S for all of their problems. If two people are in a bad marriage (Sunni and Shiite) and someone else walks up and triggers another round of conflict. How do you blame the one who's simply in the middle? Yeah we shouldn't of walked into it, but they already hate each other. War was probably inevitable
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
6
What they're trying to do to Syria is precisely what they did to Libya.
Move in Sunni Jihadists from surrounding war-torn and chaotic regions like Iraq and Afghanistan with Saudi-Arabian money and support, tether these Jihadists to Sunni groups/movements within said country, claim the country is engaged in a 'civil uprising' and that the Government's efforts to suppress these Jihadists are heinous attacks on citizens, and start invading/bombing the fuck out of the country's infrastructure in order to 'help'.

One of the most shameful moments of modern western civilization to my mind was the big old party we threw when Gaddafi was lynched; how we celebrated a man being beaten to death brutally in the street with no accountability... here in Canada, we actually threw a Canadian working as a bodyguard for Gaddafi out of the country on the suggestion he was culpable for Gaddafi's crimes because he DARED to rescue the man's wife and child from precisely the same gruesome fate.

What's been going on in Syria is more or less the same situation. The country finds itself inundated with Sunni Jihadists, indeed with a fair deal of support from the existing Sunni population, and when Assad starts combating the forces we'd under any other circumstance describe as Terrorists, we claim a terrible civil war is underway, Assad brutally murdering his own people who simply want freedom from his evil regime (and Sunni-Islamic Sharia-style Religious Rule of a currently secular and inclusive nation). America, righteous representative of goodness and freedom, comes to the aid of these noble rebel forces, but acknowledges that there are also evil Sunni-Jihadist Terrorists called ISIS (who have nothing to do with the freedom-loving Sunni-Jihadist rebels, we swear!) and so starts dropping bombs on Syrian Oil-Refineries, Syrian gas plants, all makes of Syrian oil-infrastructure for the noble purpose of 'cutting off ISIS funding', all without Syria's permission, which would be extremely illegal if America cared about international law in the slightest when they're not enforcing it themselves.

What Syria has that Libya didn't however is Russia's full support. Russia eventually called America's bluff in Syria, got the Syrian government's permission to intervene, and with their support and coordination Syria was able to rapidly turn the conflict around, going from ISIS near conquering Aleppo to ISIS generally on the run in only a few short months. While America had been 'helping' defeat ISIS for years to no apparent effect, Russia has generally defeated the Sunni Jihadists at every turn, all in accordance with international law, something which should be quite embarrassing if America actually had any shame regarding its true intentions.

As Assad's position is now solidifying rather than deteriorating, and America is put in the position of having to declare War on Russia if they want to get rid of him in the same way as they did Gaddafi with a 'No Fly Zone' (modern double-speak for a massive bombing campaign), America is looking for ways to either get around or more alarmingly justify such a terrifying move. So here we are, with yet another "Evil Assad and his chemical weapons!" story. CIA talking heads are showing up on the news and TV talk shows such as a recent release of Bill Maher's show, and actually making the nutso-bonkers claim that Assad and ISIS are in cahoots, in spite of it being a widely downplayed fact that the biggest sponsor of ISIS is the Saudi-Arabian government, an enemy of Syria and America's biggest ally in the region.

I don't 'support' Assad, I didn't 'support' Gaddafi, but to destroy and dismantle entire nations, leaving them chaos-filled cess-pools of religious extremism and barbarism, just to oust an unpleasant figurehead makes no moral sense. Name me a leader of a nation with an actively engaged military who isn't a killer and crook responsible for War-Crimes in someones eyes. Libya wasn't some horrible place prior to America's intervention. It was by most measures the wealthiest, safest, most stable nation on the African continent, and rest assured, it's none of those things anymore. Syria too, while no paradise, is a secular democracy where one at least USED to be able to be a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, whatever, with the full expectation no one's going to cut off your head. If Assad loses, that's all over.
I started another thread connected to this subject before I saw this one and posted an article. I'm new back to the VC forums.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,426
Aero, acting as if someone just lit a house on fire and then walked away doesn't stroke with what's happening in Syria. There are external factions continuously feeding that fire, until this very day.
 
Top