patrick.net

Of course not. But you know how it goes, the Media admits at first it's unconfirmed, then rushes to MIC Contractors who speculate in the affirmative, despite no actual evidence.
This eventually becomes evidence as the Echo Chamber resounds with Media quoting the Experts and each other's Experts, to the point it becomes Truth.
This is how unconfirmed becomes confirmed without actually being proven at all.

The Establishment so loves military action, the health of the state they control, it will even take a pause in bashing the populist who managed to get elected.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

The Establishment so loves military action...it will even take a pause in bashing the populist who managed to get elected.

IRL, a retired military friend and I were talking about that recently. He gets his news only from the MSM, which he considers gospel, all else being apocrypha ("fake news"). He said the photos of dead children required a response. I pointed out that America has killed many more children in Iraq and Yemen, but he was unmoved: he hasn't seen those photos. I pointed out that the Assad government (which America opposes) protects Christians, including children, whom America's Sunni "allies" would kill, but it made no difference: his church of MSM had shown him pictures and blamed Assad, and that was all. As surely as he knew he was retired military and angry about those photos, he felt America needed to kill more Syrians and should kill even more Syrians.

I have been reading Scott Adams, a hypnotist turned cartoonist who had completed a degree in economics. He ranks persuasion techniques in order of effectiveness:
1) identity;
2) emotion;
3) evidence and reason.
I experienced that in talking with my friend. He identifies as American military (retired). He had an emotional reaction to those pictures: we need to punish whomever the MSM blamed. Evidence and reason were useless: his mind was powerfully made up.

Last year, talking with a different friend, I pointed out once that these horrors weren't happening prior to the invasion of Iraq (which HIllary Clinton had supported) and Hillary's War in Libya (which extended into Syria). I got yelled at, and told to vote for Trump.

Speaking of which:
https://patrick.net/1305103/2017-04-17-100-syrians-dead-in-bomb-blasts-leaving-rebel-contested-areas

Lots of dead people shown over and over on RT and PressTV, like CNN or BBC in reverse when Assad is the primary suspect.

Whereas CNN and BBC will run the most outrageously implausible photographs (on it's face: Gloveless Responders wearing gas masks but not gloves handling "Victims"), but shy from showing so much as a dead dog on a Swedish Street.

This is the real reason the MSM hates Alternative News and Non-Western News, because the narrative is different.

Now that we have the Russian/Assad/Iranian perspective from "Global Research".........are you guys suggesting that Trump and America staged the Sarin attack in Syria with the help of Sunni jihadis?

If so - for what possible purpose? Just to get a couple of days of good headlines for domestic politics?

Do you guys also deny that Assad has already used chemical weapons on the Syrian people several times in the past? Even the UN admits that Assad has gassed his people in the past.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/dc3651.doc.htm

Is the UN part of the "MIC" too?

Bashar al-Assad still has 'hundreds of tonnes' of chemicals stockpiled, former Syrian weapons research chief claims
"Brigadier-General Zaher al-Sakat – who served as head of chemical warfare in the powerful 5th Division of the military until he defected in 2013 – told The Telegraph that Assad’s regime failed to declare large amounts of sarin and its precursor chemicals."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/14/bashar-al-assad-still-has-hundreds-tonnes-chemical-weapons-former/

socal2 says

are you guys suggesting that Trump and America staged the Sarin attack in Syria with the help of Sunni jihadis?

Based on events that have been investigated, I suspect Turkey. The Erdogun family and Turkey have financed ISIL/Daesh and other Sunni militias, and the Sunni Turks want to replace the Shia Assad government with a Sunni government. It's too early to know for sure, however, about this most recent event: careful investigation takes time.

socal2 says

If so - for what possible purpose? Just to get a couple of days of good headlines for domestic politics?

I do suspect that President Trump has capitulated within his own administration, because certain people have made clear to him that his Presidency can go either of two ways. If he gives the Deep State the war in Syria that they demand, then their MSM puppets praise him and he might have any number of ways to share in the rewards. If he tries to do what he campaigned on, he gets tremendous resistance at every step, including demonization and attempts to impeach him. At some point, it becomes easier to capitulate and go with the program.

BTW, I suspect the same happened probably to President Obama, who had campaigned against Obamacare when it was called "Hillary's Plan."

There are two possible explanations: either both Presidents lied throughout their campaigns and planned all along to do the opposite of what they said, or both realized once in office that it would be better for them personally to go along with the established flight plan. Most citizens are locked into partisan identities and emotional sloganeering, and don't care about evidence and reason, so trying to enact better policy would be a thankless task: each major party faction loves its own lies, and hates the lies of "the other" major party faction.

curious2 says

I do suspect that President Trump has capitulated within his own administration, because certain people have made clear to him that his Presidency can go either of two ways. If he gives the Deep State the war in Syria that they demand,

Again - what's the goal for the "deep state" for Trump to bomb a single Syrian regime airport other than a slap on the wrist of Assad to warn him from using chemical weapons again? That single attack is not enough to tip the war against Assad, and the US has spent the vast majority of its time bombing ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq.

Russians squealing about false pretense for an attack? Precious. It's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

socal2 says

That single attack is not enough to tip the war against Assad....

America killed at least a dozen Syrians, the war machine collected another $100+ million, and it looks like only a down payment towards further warfare. Try to remember, less than a year ago: the Democratic nominee campaigned saying we should escalate the war in Syria, while the Republican nominee said we should let Russia handle it. You're now defending Hillary Clinton and the Democrats' position. That must be painful for you, if you have a working memory that persists longer than a week.

Straw Man says

Russians squealing about false pretense for an attack?

Postol and MIT are American, and the website is Canadian.

If you want to find something "not fun," whether ironic or typical, consider looking at the so-called "liberal" media squealing for more war, MSNBC gushing over "the beauty of our weapons" as another dozen families must bury what's left of their sons, more widows will cry, and more children will grow up without parents.

curious2 says

Straw Man says

Russians squealing about false pretense for an attack?

Postol and MIT are American, and the website is Canadian.

But Russians are the ones squealing .

It's "2000 dead civilians in Tshinval" and "Nazi coup in Kiev" situation reversed on them.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Have we replaced any secular dictator that didn't result in a massive insurgency outbreak and endless violence?

In any case, rooting for the murderous Saudi Terrorists, who hate the West and love to murder Christians, is bizarre. Nobody mentions why the 28-page report was redacted and buried for so long. Had it come out at the time, people would have demanded an invasion of Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Sitting back and letting (or supporting) brutal dictators of MINORITY SECTS rule the majority doesn't seem to have worked out too well either. The Middle East status quo is the most untenable arrangement on the planet.

I think we will have more stability and less reason for radicalization if the majority Shia/Kurds have power in Iraq (as they do now) and the majority Sunnis have power and control in Syria.

I don't think the Sunni insurgency will just flame out if Assad hangs onto power in Damascus with the help of Russia and Iran. Assad needlessly killed too many people when the Sunnis were first peacefully protesting during the Arab Spring.

socal2 says

more stability and less reason for radicalization if the majority Shia/Kurds have power in Iraq (as they do now) and the majority Sunnis have power and control in Syria.

That opinion is contradicted by nearly all of the observable evidence. KSA and Pakistan have Sunni governments ruling Sunni majorities, and they produce more radicals and more terrorism than anywhere else on the planet. I've commented in the Islam thread about the ongoing terrorism in Pakistan (which is a terrorist state) where Sunni radical terrorists are demanding the immediate execution of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman accused of blasphemy. Radicalism is also growing in Sunni Indonesia, where a Christan governor was arrested for alleged blasphemy, because Islam prohibits non-Muslims from governing over Muslims. Shia Iraq has more radicalization now than it had during the Hussein era, when it had a Sunni President and a Christian Prime Minister and was an enemy of Iran. Delivering Iraq to the Shia has proved a huge gift to Iran's Ayatollahs, so it's interesting to see you support extending their influence.

socal2 says

Sitting back and letting (or supporting) brutal dictators of MINORITY SECTS rule the majority doesn't seem to have worked out too well either. The Middle East status quo is the most untenable arrangement on the planet.

When that minority includes Shi'a and Alawite heretics, and not a few Druze and Christians, with a huge chunk of the Sunni majority champing at the bit to Terrorize and "Dhimmi-ize" them.

SoCal, are you a Saudi Agent? Or a MIC Contractor defending your big customer? If not, here is a handy chart:

Courtesy of Nick Taleb, who personally knows a thing or two about being a Christian Minority in the Levant.

curious2 says

KSA and Pakistan have Sunni governments ruling Sunni majorities

I would add that Bahrain has a Shi'a majority, but is ruled by Sunnis. When the Shi'a demanded equal rights as the majority of citizens, King Hammad called in Saudi and UAE Tanks who ran over unarmed protesters. The Shi'a must know their place as occasionally tolerated heretics.

Wahabis and Salafis are the enemy.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

All Middle Eastern dictators are like that. Clearly, the lesser of the evils when compared to religious wackos.
Keep in mind.....Religious wackos in Iran support Assad. Assad is not US friendly.

curious2 says

That opinion is contradicted by nearly all of the observable evidence. KSA and Pakistan have Sunni governments ruling Sunni majorities, and they produce more radicals and more terrorism than anywhere else on the planet. I've commented in the Islam thread about the ongoing terrorism in Pakistan (which is a terrorist state) where Sunni radical terrorists are demanding the immediate execution of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman accused of blasphemy. Radicalism is also growing in Sunni Indonesia, where a Christan governor was arrested for alleged blasphemy, because Islam prohibits non-Muslims from governing over Muslims. Shia Iraq has more radicalization now than it had during the Hussein era, when it had a Sunni President and a Christian Prime Minister and was an enemy of Iran. Delivering Iraq to the Shia has pr...

I am the last person you will find defending radical Sunni or Shia Islamists. Islam and the Muslim/Arab world in general is a total shit show. It doesn't help Islam's much needed reform when we have so many dopes in the West who would rather blame Islam's unique problems on other peaceful religions or European colonialism.

My point is that it is pretty easy for radical Islamists to recruit and blame the US and the West if we simply support secular dictators to keep a boot on their necks. By all accounts Iran was a much more modern, peaceful and tolerant place when we supported the Shah. Yet here we are now nearly half a century later dealing with the nutball Mullahs who STILL have burning white hatred for the "Great Satan" United States.

I don't think there is any way the old European drawn borders and ruling arrangements were going to hold in today's world with globalization, with ease of travel and communication now available to everyone.

The Middle East was going to blow up one way or another. It will only get worse as the West requires less and less of their oil thanks to fracking and alternative energy.

So perhaps it is better for the Muslim/Arab world to sort their shit out now in terms of religious and tribal differences before more and more of them get access to powerful weapons like nukes?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Wahabis and Salafis are the enemy.

Absolutely. But not every Sunni is a Wahabi or Salafist.

By doing mostly nothing against Assad the past 3 years, we have allowed the Wahabis and Salafists free reign to recruit disenfranchised Sunnis who are being butchered by Assad, Iran and Russia.

The West could be providing a helpful hand to guide the Sunni world to a more tolerant and peaceful path that coexists with their neighbors. But we largely abandoned the field to the crazies when Obama inexplicably pulled every last troop from Iraq and toppled Libya on the way out of town.

socal2 says

By doing mostly nothing against Assad the past 3 years, we have allowed the Wahabis and Salafists free reign to recruit disenfranchised Sunnis who are being butchered by Assad, Iran and Russia.

Wait - Obama DID bomb in Syria starting a few years ago. Yet they frequently missed ISIS and hit a lot of Syrian Army positions. And never, ever attacked the "Moderate Saudi Rebels".

It was the Russian bombing, when they swept the highways clear of ISIS Oil Trucks, that ISIS began to fold almost immediately and is on the retreat. In the whole year prior to Russian bombing, the US only attacked ISIS Oil for Erodgan one time, with plenty of advance notice via fliers and radio warnings.

socal2 says

The West could be providing a helpful hand to guide the Sunni world to a more tolerant and peaceful path that coexists with their neighbors. But we largely abandoned the field to the crazies when Obama inexplicably pulled every last troop from Iraq and toppled Libya on the way out of town.

Yes, but also sticks - any Saudi attempt at spreading Wahabism needs to be smashed immediately and ruthlessly. We actually should encourage regime change in Saudi Arabia, or at least rig up some serious in-fighting so they're focused in staying in poewr instead of building more Radical Madrassahs and funding Terrorists.

With a religious mandate to conquer, destroy, infiltrate, deceive, and invade all non-Sunni nations and peoples, Sunnis are our enemy. Any attempt to support them is not only misguided, but treasonous.
That is really all there is to it.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Wait - Obama DID bomb in Syria starting a few years ago.

Obama never targeted a single Assad base. We could have grounded his entire air-force within 24 hours if we wanted.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Yet they frequently missed ISIS and hit a lot of Syrian Army positions. And never, ever attacked the "Moderate Saudi Rebels".

Are you sure you are not confusing this with the Russians? Assad was more than happy to see the moderate FSA have to compete with ISIS. Assad and Putin have done their very best to eliminate any moderate rebel and their torture prisons are churning out ISIS recruits every day. Bravo!

More than 90%' of Russian airstrikes in Syria have not targeted Isis
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/07/russia-airstrikes-syria-not-targetting-isis

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Yes, but also sticks - any Saudi attempt at spreading Wahabism needs to be smashed immediately and ruthlessly. We actually should encourage regime change in Saudi Arabia, or at least rig up some serious in-fighting so they're focused in staying in poewr instead of building more Radical Madrassahs and funding Terrorists.

The best way to combat Wahabbi (and Iranian and Russian) influence is to continue to become energy independent thanks to Fracking.

Quigley says

With a religious mandate to conquer, destroy, infiltrate, deceive, and invade all non-Sunni nations and peoples, Sunnis are our enemy. Any attempt to support them is not only misguided, but treasonous.

That is really all there is to it.

Bullshit. A very small sect of sunni's are our enemy. The ones' the last 5 presidents sucked face with. Trump will be the next to make out with them.

socal2 says

Are you sure you are not confusing this with the Russians? Assad was more than happy to see the moderate FSA have to compete with ISIS. Assad and Putin have done their very best to eliminate any moderate rebel and their torture prisons are churning out ISIS recruits every day. Bravo!

More than 90%' of Russian airstrikes in Syria have not targeted Isis

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/07/russia-airstrikes-syria-not-targetting-isis

Go back and look at best selling author and Levantine-born Nicolas Taleb's chart. "Moderate Rebels" is moderate only in comparison to ISIS. Better restated:

Most of Russia's first few days of bombing targeted Al Qaeda Affiliates.

We've never bombed Al Qaeda affiliates, amirite? LOL!

Wait... I think I'm being hacked by the Russians...

WOP! No it was just my genuine disdain for Liberals acting up again.

socal2 says

My point is that it is pretty easy for radical Islamists to recruit and blame the US and the West if we simply support secular dictators to keep a boot on their necks. By all accounts Iran was a much more modern, peaceful and tolerant place when we supported the Shah. Yet here we are now nearly half a century later dealing with the nutball Mullahs who STILL have burning white hatred for the "Great Satan" United States.

It's even easier for them to do those things when they are in charge, e.g. al Qaeda flourished in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, Sunnis ruling Sunnis. They are doing what Islam says. America supported Afghan Mujahideen, and continues to support Sunni Pakistan (which is a terrorist state). Hillary's War in Libya put Sunnis in charge there too, while W's War in Iraq put Shia in charge of a Shia majority. Over and over again, when you give Muslims them the means and opportunity, they tend towards doing what Islam motivates them to do: drift towards Sharia and terrorism. It's the same with education and wealth being risk factors for terrorism among Muslim youth: when they have the means and opportunity, they become more likely to do what Islam motivates them to do. You can find exceptions like Ataturk, like finding the occasional smoker who lived a long life without cancer, but the pattern holds: even Turkey is falling back to the Islamic pattern.

It's the same reason why Donald Trump was right to say we need to pause or shut down Muslim immigration. If you bring people here, they acquire sooner or later the means and opportunity to do what Islam motivates them to do. It doesn't always happen overnight, but Islam is persistent: it took the Mujahideen Mateen family 30 years to kill 50 Americans and wound 50 more. Churchill was right about Islam including the tragedy of Muslim rule.

curious2 says

It's even easier for them to do those things when they are in charge, e.g. al Qaeda flourished in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, Sunnis ruling Sunnis.

I think the US and the West are going to need a longterm presence in the Region to beat the sense of modernity and secularism into the primitives. As you point out, when we leave them to their own devices, the crazies take over like they did in Afghanistan and when ISIS flooded the area after we pulled out of Iraq.

That doesn't mean we need "permanent war" or a massive occupation by US troops. But rather, by working with the MAJORITY ruling regimes (instead of propping up Minority Sects) we have a better chance of tempering the worst impulses of the crazy Sunnis in Syria and Shia in Iraq.

socal2 says

have a better chance

You keep saying that as an article of faith, like someone saying smoking gives him a better chance at a long life. You have no evidence to support that view. Overwhelming evidence contradicts it. If what you said were true, Pakistan and Egypt would be better places than they are.

curious2 says

You keep saying that as an article of faith, like someone saying smoking gives him a better chance at a long life. You have no evidence to support that view. Overwhelming evidence contradicts it. If what you said were true, Pakistan and Egypt would be better places than they are.

Pakistan, Egypt, Iran and even Afghanistan were "better places" 50 years ago in that they were less fundamentalist. More women wear burqas today in Egypt, Iran and Afghanistan than they did in the 1960's. I don't think their trajectory is guaranteed in one direction one way or the other.

The Islamist fundamentalism we see now is a newer phenomenon as the Muslim/Arab world evolved through Tribalism, Colonialism, Fascism, Pan-Arabism, Marxism...... Islamism is just the latest "ism" the Muslim/Arab world has embraced as they come to grips with Globalism as the Saudis and Iranians have used their oil money to fund radical Sunni and Shias to compete for influence.