Houla Massacre, Syria: What If?

[Toontown]

I know that Syria is a totalitarian state sponsor of terrorism and a client of an even larger totalitarian state sponsor of terrorism. I know that both these filthy regimes have held onto power for decades by lying and killing.

That's Syria 101 for you. Do you know this or don't you?

Yabbut...now they've seen the light because they are afraid of being attacked by the evil corporate-media-crusader-West. So the regime has stopped lying and killing, and is now feigning innocence, while the corporate-media-crusader-West orchestrates civilian slaughters to pin on the regime to justify attacking the regime. Even though it doesn't need to justify anything and can do whatever it wants, because it controls everything except Syria and Iran. And that's why it wants to take out Syria and Iran. Then it will control everything. And Big Brother will be upon us all. So Syria and Iran are the final bulwarks, and must be held at all costs. To the ramparts, men!

Yeah. That's it. That's what's happening. The corporate-media-crusader-West is the only reason the whole world is not drinking free bubble-up and eating rainbow stew.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

So...McCain is now implicated in the Houla massacre?

Disgusting. Will the chain of blame-shame never end? How far does it go? How high does it reach?

I don't think the intent of the statement was to directly implicate McCain in any malfeasance in Syria.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Yabbut...now they've seen the light because they are afraid of being attacked by the evil corporate-media-crusader-West. So the regime has stopped lying and killing, and is now feigning innocence, while the corporate-media-crusader-West orchestrates civilian slaughters to pin on the regime to justify attacking the regime. Even though it doesn't need to justify anything and can do whatever it wants, because it controls everything except Syria and Iran. And that's why it wants to take out Syria and Iran. Then it will control everything. And Big Brother will be upon us all. So Syria and Iran are the final bulwarks, and must be held at all costs. To the ramparts, men!

Yeah. That's it. That's what's happening. The corporate-media-crusader-West is the only reason the whole world is not drinking free bubble-up and eating rainbow stew.

What are you babbling about?

There are plenty of recent examples of lies being used to peddle war.

It's crazy not to learn from the past.

Why shouldn't people be skeptical about this?

[InB4 Virus says: "Assad is the bad guy!" Yes, we know he's a dictator. So is the king of Bahrain. The West(tm) doesn't give a flying fudge about whether or not he's a dictator that's not why we want him out.]

Don't you see how crazy it is to label anyone who questions a push to war as a supporter of fascism?

Do you honestly believe everything the Syrian 'activists' are saying? Aren't you worried they could be lying? Don't you see how it serves their interests to exaggerate their claims against the Assad regime?

What do you make of the Arab league monitors' report that noted the regime's excesses were frequently exaggerated in the media, and by certain representatives of other regional governments?

Why are you discounting the accounts of those Western journalists who have told of being set up to be killed by rebels?

What about Paul Danahar's report that foreign powers have used their influence with the rebels to scuttle the cease fire?

What about the interview with the rebel leader who talked about executing heads of families who supported the regime?

And he was FSA, not even the salafist mujahedeen that have also been interviewed entering and fighting in Syria.

Given all of the above I think skepticism about the case being made for war is highly warranted and that trying to shut down such skepticism by labelling your opponents woos or fascists, with little by way of argument other than trying to impugn sources or use ad-hominem attacks is disturbing. Questioning war isn't fascistic, but trying to stifle reasonable debate arguably is.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I know that Syria is a totalitarian state sponsor of terrorism and a client of an even larger totalitarian state sponsor of terrorism. I know that both these filthy regimes have held onto power for decades by lying and killing.

That's Syria 101 for you. Do you know this or don't you?

I don't know much about geopolitics, but I know what I hate, and I hate bad guys.

Hey Virus, think Iran is more like space orks or more like chaos marines?

(Tough call, eh? Chaos marines worship evil gods, but space orks have dark skin...)

 

[Toontown]

Do you honestly believe everything the Syrian 'activists' are saying? Aren't you worried they could be lying? Don't you see how it serves their interests to exaggerate their claims against the Assad regime?

Sorry, I just don't trust this crew to come up with the right answer. I find the U.N. and the countries involved to be far more trustworthy and reliable than this crew.

I've heard Obama and others in the media voice the same concerns you are voicing. And I know that the last thing Obama wants or needs is another military entanglement in which the U.S. does the heavy work and is left holding the bag, with Obama serving as the Bush-surrogate scapegoat and whipping boy. So I have little fear that we will be mindlessly rushed off to another war and occupation. I consider the level of war fear here to be irrational, misdirected, and not entirely real.

 

[Mycroft]

People like me and the rest of the rational bunch don't think in terms like "evil", Crusader.

You said outright this guy wants to be in charge of Syria's propaganda to the west. It's just unfathomable that you don't see that creates a problem with his credibility.

 

[Mycroft]

Would you distrust someone latching onto unfounded activist claims promoting war, if they also had a website dedicated to taking down "tyrants" who've been targeted by the West's foreign policy establishment? Sure you would, because that's our baseline national/Western mentality. Someone with the opposite viewpoint should be valued as a counterweight or balance, however small. Instead they're dismissed for having some "bias" and have to go to non-Western or non-mainstream news outlets to even be heard.

Shame on us for that.

I agree, he's got a bias towards peace which, in this case, favors the Syrian government as well as a (lot, unsure %) of its people. It also goes against the wishes of the false-flagging extremist child-slashers. I favor them not being put in charge of Syria, so that's my bias too. That could motivate someone to lie about contacts and info or accept lies or errors, as you suggest. It could also motivate him to seek out truth to build a solid foundation for peace.

Just because someone's bias differs from yours doesn't mean they're wicked people rotten to the core, incapable of truth and only able to build their case on a crooked pile of falsehoods. That comes a lot closer to describing the corporate-controlled mainstream news on Syria, in my opinion. But even that isn't so simple and clear, and it remains best to go case-by-case based on the information.

First, I formed by anti-Assad bias by reading about his exploits over the past ten years, and the exploits of his father before that.

Second, "non-mainstream" news outlets are outlets that have a lesser standard for factual information. The people that choose them don't do it because mainstream news outlets are biased, they choose them because mainstream news outlets don't want to become mouthpieces for paranoid conspiracy delusions.

Third, there is no such thing as a "bias towards peace". Everyone wants peace. Some people are realistic and pragmatic about what it would take to achieve it, others believe "peace" is a state of mind that can be achieved only by being willfully ignorant of certain facts.

 

[JihadJane]

Second, "non-mainstream" news outlets are outlets that have a lesser standard for factual information.

Please justify this bald assertion.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You said outright this guy wants to be in charge of Syria's propaganda to the west. It's just unfathomable that you don't see that creates a problem with his credibility.

I gave you the cliff notes on the guy. I wouldn't take everything he says as gold (didn't bring him up btw), but he's well informed about the situation, sincere in his efforts and transparent about his position. That is far better than deceptive corporate media figures claiming to be "fair and balanced" while actively adding to the mountains of lies peddled. Someone who remains "unbiased" in face of this and buys the next load of crap from Susan "Viagra" Rice unquestioned is a fool.

You remember that Viagra stuff, right? Which Gaddafi allegedly ordered to feed to his soldiers so that they could better rape the women? Presented by Rice to the UN with never a shred of evidence, completely made up comical propaganda? Before they bombed the country back to the stone age and cut-throats far worse then him to power?

Probably not, the country is kind of cut out from the "news" since the "victory".

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Sorry, I just don't trust this crew to come up with the right answer. I find the U.N. and the countries involved to be far more trustworthy and reliable than this crew.

I've heard Obama and others in the media voice the same concerns you are voicing.

I'm glad to hear that, but I don't think many people have.

IMO the only things keeping us out of war right now are a brace of P-5 vetoes.

Hard to say whether or not that dyke will hold, it really depends on how Russia would respond if NATO goes it alone.

Being a fly on the wall for those closed door talks between Obama and Putin would undoubtedly shed some light on that.

 

[Virus]

I gave you the cliff notes on the guy. I wouldn't take everything he says as gold

I wouldn't take anything he says as gold. Since you admitted that he wants to feed propaganda for Assad to the Western media.

And he's a truther.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I wouldn't take anything he says as gold. Since you admitted that he wants to feed propaganda for Assad to the Western media.

And he's a truther.

Space orks or chaos marines?

Propaganda is my word. I guess he calls it Public Relations, but I prefer the historical use of the term Propaganda (coined by Bernays), which says nothing about if the "propagated" information is true or false. Just ftr for the uneducated.

edit: note to self - Maybe I should stop doing that as it could also be the reason for Mycroft's latest misunderstanding.

 

[Childlike Empress]

While Russia and others accuse the US of supplying weapons to the terrorists, and the US accuses Russia and others of supplying weapons to the regime, Washington Post and New York Times report that those accusations against the US are wrong.

But, according to WP:

[... Government officials] claimed that the administration had expanded contacts with armed rebels to provide the Gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure, the Post said.

"We are increasing our non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we are collectively doing," said a senior State Department official.

Material is being stockpiled in Damascus, in Idlib near the Turkish border and in Zabadani on the Lebanese border, according to the Post. [...]

And the New York Times knows that:

US intelligence operatives in Turkey are vetting the flow of weapons to Syrian rebels to ensure they do not fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda militants, the New York Times reported Thursday.

The Times cited unnamed US officials and Arab intelligence officials as saying the weapons were being paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and funneled across the border by a shadowy opposition network.

The weapons include automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some anti-tank weapons, which have allowed the rebels to fight back against the far superior forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The Times said Central Intelligence Agency operatives in southern Turkey are overseeing the weapons shipments and gathering information on Syria's fragmented opposition. [...]

Sounds plausible, as the CIA knows those Al-Qaeda guys better than their own moms and we can all sleep well knowing that they'll make sure that the dirty work done by their wonderfully democratic allies only arms wonderfully democratic domestic "rebels" and not ghastly fanatical foreign "militant" cut-throats.

At least not those on Osama's old list.

 

[Childlike Empress]

When I wrote this about what was happening in Homs in early February:

Most likely they are right and those atrocities are commited by the mercenary thugs operating out of Turkey, financed by Saudi Arabia and trained by western "intelligence" agencies. Like the french journalist who was murdered by those thugs according to the Arab League report linked above.

I wasn't psychic, on the contrary the information about the supply routes was already old news, known since Autumn 2011 by people who payed attention. But only now, many months later, after enough massacres "done by the regime" paved the way, the average WP and NYT reader is deemed to be ready to know it "officially". Because the situation has so "escalated" thanks to the mad, mad dictator and his self-hurting "evil" actions that nobody could object to those actions anyway, right? Send in the good guys!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.

Who would dare to say something like this to Congress? You guessed it, and it's outrageous and shameful that the answer is so obvious.

 

[Toontown]

I'm glad to hear that, but I don't think many people have.

Oh? Well, maybe they can't google. Or maybe they're deaf. Or maybe they're blind. Or maybe they're psychologically conditioned.

You might want to try looking directly under your nose occasionally, instead of constantly following CE around in her vicious circles. I found this on the first page results of a rudimentary google search:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...l-not-arm-syrian-rebels-romney-says-he-should

The deep divide highlighted the realpolitik approach in Syria favored by an Obama administration focused on convincing Syrian ally Russia to pressure Assad and concerned about where weapons intended for insurgents might end up.

When it comes to arming the rebels, there are concerns in Congress in both parties about who the opposition is and whether al Qaeda is involved, although those concerns have dissipated somewhat as the violence has increased.

“I didn’t hear an easy way forward,” said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who spoke to reporters on a conference call Tuesday during a congressional trip to Egypt and Israel. “There’s concern still about arming the opposition, who nobody seems to know very well, even in the region.”

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=72314

The Obama administration is reportedly moving toward providing assistance to the Syrian opposition forces, which would open a new phase of U.S. involvement. Amid the behind-the-scenes deliberations, President Obama on Tuesday warned against involving the U.S. military in the fight against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “For us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple solution, I think is a mistake,” Obama said at his press conference. “The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military — you know, that hasn’t been true in the past, and it won’t be true now.”

Anecdotally, I have heard, with my own ears, on CNN, Obama voicing concerns about the rebels.

Makes me wonder what kind of informational gulag some people live in.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Anecdotally, I have heard, with my own ears, on CNN, Obama voicing concerns about the rebels.

That's called lip service. Foreign involvement was only admitted a few months ago after it became undeniable. That was after I wrote what I quoted above, at which time the official narrative was still "the dictator is killing his only people" with no "third force" involved at all, while the situation on the ground and who does the supply was clear for many months already. You can imagine the reaction by your fellow CNN "informed" know-it-alls. "Al-Qaeda" was brought into it even later, so nobody had to talk about the slaughterers from Libya who were the good guys just yesterday.

 

[rcfieldz]

Who if?

It's all someone's relatives...

 

[Toontown]

That's called lip service. Foreign involvement was only admitted a few months ago after it became undeniable. That was after I wrote what I quoted above, at which time the official narrative was still "the dictator is killing his only people" with no "third force" involved at all, while the situation on the ground and who does the supply was clear for many months already. You can imagine the reaction by your fellow CNN "informed" know-it-alls. "Al-Qaeda" was brought into it even later, so nobody had to talk about the slaughterers from Libya who were the good guys just yesterday.

Is that some kind of hoo-doo you're trying to doo-doo? Well, it won't work on me. I've got eyes and ears. I can see and hear. And your hoo-doo isn't making those first-page google results go away either (see examples posted above). They're still there, and they show plenty of doubts and concerns about the rebels, and military intervention, both in the top echelons of government and in the mainstream media, both now and in the past.

 

[Caustic Logic]

First, I formed by anti-Assad bias by reading about his exploits over the past ten years, and the exploits of his father before that.

Exactly. The rest just shows why you don't like to see outside that box.

Re: "concerns" about the rebels from Obama et al: that they carried out any of these massacres was surely not one of them. Anyone want to bet $100? I could use it.

Why that concern never gets mentioned by anyone in the West aside from a very few journalists? I say it's the box.