Syrian Poison Gas Conspiracy

[youreyes]

Well Grumpy,

lets equate Hitler to Obama. One does not need to be a tyrant to be a destroyer of other countries and cultures. One can simply proclaim a slogan of nationalistic priorities and go send armies to kill and destroy other countries. That is what Hitler and Obama, did and are doing.

 

[Undefined]

Well Grumpy,

lets equate Hitler to Obama. One does not need to be a tyrant to be a destroyer of other countries and cultures. One can simply proclaim a slogan of nationalistic priorities and go send armies to kill and destroy other countries. That is what Hitler and Obama, did and are doing.

With respect, youreyes, but you seem woefully unaware of the history of appeasing crazy bullies who have a country under their control through propaganda and the threat of violence if you're not 'with them' in their craziness even against their own citizens.

You also fail to comprehend the perils of such crazy regimes/cultures who not only create mayhem within their own borders and on their own citizens, but also 'export' through 'enablement' their craziness via terrorism into the wider world. No such country/culture as that is in any way, shape or form to be given the sort of 'hands off' protection from action which would stop the craziness and its export to other countries/cultures.

I suggest you stop in your propaganda and simplistic approach to serious and complex national and international issues when it comes to violent craziness on the scale which leaves nobody in the world safe if it is allowed to continue via 'appeasement' such as you and others seem to advise, against all the lessons of modern history, especially starting from beginning of last century.

Good luck to us all.

 

[joepistole]

This is basically cut-and-pasted from the joepistole Book of Trolling. Seriously, I've seen this post a hundred times from you.

LOL, just like everything else you post you have no clue about the material you write. When you know nothing, when you cannot make a coherent argument, all you can do is toss out insults as you have done and continue to do...good luck with that. You can continue to impress people with your ignorance and inability to reason. Instead of spending your time attacking others, perhaps you should examine the faults in your ideology.

By the way tearing apart and exposing the misinformation and illogic in your posts does not constitute trolling. I suggest you look up the definition.

 

[Balerion]

Another example of your failure to understand what is posted or your propensity to distort what you read. I NEVER SAID ASSAD WAS HITLER.

Yes, you did. Every time the issue of intervention is brought up, you call back to Hitler being left alone by the rest of the world while he built his power base (even going so far as to inaccurately state that the Germans tried nothing to stop him). Unless you're saying that these Hitler references are non-sequiturs, then it's fair to presume there's a point to them. And the point, so far as anyone can tell, is to equate Assad to Hitler.

Who do you think Hitler was, some superhuman freak never to be seen again in history. He wasn't, he was an immoral thug that only achieved power because no one stood up to him and his street gang(the Brown Shirts)in the beginning. In this he is exactly the same as Assad and the danger is very real.

I don't think Hitler was superhuman, but to pretend that he and Assad are on the same planet in terms of what they're capable of is asinine. Even without American intervention, Assad knows there are limits to what he can do. Dropping a gas bomb on a neighborhood hosting the rebels that are attempting to depose him is nothing at all like gassing millions of Jews based on paranoid delusions and antisemitism. Assad may be scumbag, but Hitler was deranged, and far more dangerous.

And the reason I insist upon you understanding the difference is because going into Syria to prevent the next Hitler (even WWIII, which you seem to believe is going to occur in that area) would be going in for the wrong reason.

Amazingly the propaganda of the Right Wing in our country today is comparable to that of the Nazis in the thirties, just with better PR men.HITLER WAS NOT UNIQUE or even that remarkable, even in his own era Stalin was more than twice the outright killer. Proportional to population Pol Pot killed 30 times as many. HITLER IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF A TYPE, a type all too common throughout history. It was the technology of the time that increased the scale of the evil, it had no effect on the kind of evil I speak of, A kind of evil Assad is certainly a practitioner of.

Was Harry Truman evil? Bill Clinton? GW Bush? Barack Obama? All of these men oversaw battles that directly caused the deaths of innocent civilians. All of them willfully accept those deaths as collateral damage serving the greater good, and in Truman's case, civilians were the target. So were those men evil?

And please, climb down off your stump. I never said Hitler was one of a kind, I simply said that Assad was in no danger of joining his ranks. Even if Assad were as psychotic as him (which we don't have evidence of, so far as I'm aware) there's no way he'd be allowed to do what Hitler did. He'd get checked. Your insistence on blind rage and dismissing context keeps you from understanding that he didn't just indiscriminately drop gas on civilians. He dropped gas where he thought the rebels were. That's a huge distinction. If he had dropped gas on his civilians for no reason other than to quiet a protest, say, or for the purposes of eradicating an ethnic minority, we'd likely already have stepped in. No matter how much you plug your ears, stamp your feet, or type in all-caps that Assad is no different than Hitler, you can't change reality.

I don't advocate invasions at all, why should a whole country and all it's innocent people suffer because of the actions of a few? I would advocate for rocket propelled dildos through a few of these asshole's bedroom windows, however. AS I POSTED BEFORE, precision, snipers not grunts. Invasive interference will not help in most cases, but taking out a few of the worst actors would.

No one is that precise. Surgical strikes would result in civilian casualties. But I guess you're just going to pretend that doesn't happen? Is that how you square that?

THE WORLD MADE THAT DECISION AFTER WW1, not me. Because of their experience of poison gas on the battlefield. We made the same decision after WW2 about atomic weapons, for much the same reasons. Gas, biological and nuclear weapons use is the world's concern, no use can be permitted because they affect the world outside the borders of any conflict.

So then you fall in line with a caucus rather than a cause. After all, if your stance were moral, it wouldn't be the device by which suffering was caused that you opposed, but the suffering itself. You would be asking for us to go into North Korea and China and Russia and every other idiotic place where innocent people suffer for no good reason. You'd be calling Putin evil, and that fat little seed of Kim Jong-Il. But you don't, because your flimsy philosophical position isn't even philosophical. It's political, based solely on a law, not an ethical position!

Don't be an idiot, the world came together and made a MORAL decision that no one of any political bent or in any circumstance could use poison gas based on their direct experience of the consequences. There is nothing silly or vapid about that. "Those who forget history..."

It wasn't the world--there have been many since, and there are quite a few currently, who still own and produce chemical weapons--it was a group of nations, and morals didn't factor in. Practicality, logistics; those were the champions of the convention, not some abstract notion of right and wrong.

It is what Christianity teaches. To those being MURDERED, there is no difference, the motivation for MURDER makes not one whit of difference, nor does the MURDEREE'S place on the MURDERER'S hit list.

You'll have to forgive me for not giving a single fuck what Christianity teaches about the morality of killing.

A killing in a fit of passion is MANSLAUGHTER, not murder, a MURDER is the deliberate, unjustified killing of another, so I did not say a wife slayer was a murderer or say they were equivalent.

Again we have an instance in which the lodestone guiding your compass is tugged at by the iron of law, which is political and often arbitrary, rather than actual conceptions of what is right and good. That's laughably absurd. How did a person as smart as you develop such slipshod ethics? And who said Assad's use of gas was unjustified? It's not as if he did it for no reason, or to scratch some itch for blood. He had a reason. Does that therefore disqualify him from being a murderer?

(PS: A husband killing his wife in a fit of passion is no more justified or accidental than a premeditated murder. And if you're going to reduce this to a question of legal code, then you've already lost the thread.)

MURDER OF AN INNOCENT is what I spoke of.

And the wife who is killed by her husband isn't innocent?

You've put yourself out on a flimsy branch, Grump. Ease back before it breaks and you make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously again.

And one or one hundred, it's not a difference in kind of evil, only in number of instances, both are as evil as men get, there is no lower floor. So, yes, George Zimmerman(IMO)is as evil as Breivik, just not as successful in implementing his evil.

I'm genuinely shocked right now. Most children have a more nuanced and, frankly, mature understanding of morality than the one you're embarrassing yourself with here.

I really don't care what motivates these sick pukes, it is their actions that reveal their character and unless stopped you get more Breiviks rather than just Keystone cop wannabes like Zimmerman.

And that's a problem. That you would equate Anders Breivik and George Zimmerman speaks to how immature you are emotionally. No good can come from that mindset.

A murderer has always been unacceptable in any civilized society, and the morality of a society is judged by how they deal with them, in part.

You'll note that Assad does not belong to our society. He lives in Syria, and commits his crimes there. You still haven't established why it's on us to stop him. At least, you haven't without fallaciously pointing out that every despot left to his own devices becomes Adolf Hitler.

No, the German's closed their eyes to the creeping murder regime that Hitler and his gang created. Hard times got better under Herr Hitler, times were good, lots of work. The Jews were not their problem, let them defend themselves(only one in a hundred Germans were Jewish). The communists were a minor faction that the Germans didn't like much. The crazy people were better off being out of their misery. The country was recovering from the Great Depression, the people followed the ones with the food, and the Nazis sure knew how to make the trains run on time(an allegory for an efficiently run dictatorship).

Perhaps you're referring to German citizens? I don't know. I also don't know what you expected them to do. A lot of people believed what he said, as well. Part of being a dictator is getting some pretty unwavering support.

Future generations of tyrants will certainly know it is possible to get away with massive chemical attacks if they get themselves in trouble, if Assad did.

We deposed Saddam Hussein for the crime of owning WMDs within the last decade, and it didn't stop Assad from gassing the rebels in his country. I think you overlook history and overestimate its ability to convince despots not to do bad things. Assad knows why we're shuffling our feet, and any tyrant in the future looking back on this moment will know why as well.

Who knows under what circumstances that would occur?Or in what part of the world. Or what constitutes "trouble", for that matter. In 1930 Germany had no idea what was going to happen in the next 15 years, similar conditions in the Middle East could very well have similar outcomes(Egypt falling apart, Iran acting an ass, Syria already at war). History repeats unless we learn the lessons it teaches, the lesson on chemical, biological and atomic weapons is they are our doom if we don't control their use WORLDWIDE. Whereas if Assad was reduced to his constituent atoms future dictators will KNOW that they will not survive such use, that it WON'T save his ass, we would be wise to treat that Son Of Kim in North Korea exactly the same way if he ever used a nuclear weapon.

Perfect summation of your paranoid delusions regarding the outcome of the Syria crisis. In your simple estimation, Assad gassing rebels = Assad gassing Israel, which is patently a fucking ridiculous claim to make. No one will look at this moment and say, "Well, he gassed his own folks, so I guess that means I can gas someone else's." Doesn't work like that, much as you need it to for your fatuous argument to stand.

This post has been CONTENT HIGHLIGHTED for those who have terrible reading comprehension or a severe case of distorted cognizance of what they read.

Translation: I get frustrated when my points are defeated, so I type in ALL-CAPS to compensate for my impotence.

 

[Balerion]

LOL, just like everything else you post you have no clue about the material you write. When you know nothing, when you cannot make a coherent argument, all you can do is toss out insults as you have done and continue to do...good luck with that. You can continue to impress people with your ignorance and inability to reason. Instead of spending your time attacking others, perhaps you should examine the faults in your ideology.

By the way tearing apart and exposing the misinformation and illogic in your posts does not constitute trolling. I suggest you look up the definition.

Who's he even talking to here? I think joe's on autopilot now.

 

[quinnsong]

@ Balerion

To liken Assad to Hitler in mindset not magnitude is accurate Balerion, why argue the point?

 

[Grumpy]

Balerion

Yes, you did. Every time the issue of intervention is brought up, you call back to Hitler being left alone by the rest of the world while he built his power base (even going so far as to inaccurately state that the Germans tried nothing to stop him). Unless you're saying that these Hitler references are non-sequiturs, then it's fair to presume there's a point to them. And the point, so far as anyone can tell, is to equate Assad to Hitler

English isn't your first language, is it? Otherwise I am baffled by your level of misunderstanding, misinterpreting and outright distorting what I posted and what you say I posted. The comparison of what occurred that allowed Hitler to rise and what we need to do to avoid a repeat is not equating anything, it is acknowledging the lessons of history. THE GERMANS DID LITTLE TO RESTRAIN HITLER(damn near nothing), period. But then, no one else did either, that's why we cannot afford to do nothing about Assad.

I don't think Hitler was superhuman, but to pretend that he and Assad are on the same planet in terms of what they're capable of is asinine.

Why? Assad is already up to 100,000, his predecessors were actual Nazis(he learned Facism at his father's knee), he's already used chemical weapons on civilians, many of his own people have fled his borders...sounds enough like what Germany experienced in the 30s to be on the same planet. Assad is just getting started, give him a decade and you might be saying "Hitler who?" You are a blind man. AND ASSAD IS FAR FROM THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF HITLER-LIKE BEHAVIOR. It's obvious you do hold Hitler in high regard, thinking he actually was superhuman, when the reality is that Hitler was actually simply a more successful, normal, everyday psychopathic, amoral sociopath who was not corrected in his behavior by the society he lived in. There was nothing "special" in Hitler's evil, the Huns, the Goths, the Britons, the Norse and the Slavs would have welcomed him as a brother, history is stuffed full of people just like him.

Dropping a gas bomb on a neighborhood hosting the rebels that are attempting to depose him is nothing at all like gassing millions of Jews based on paranoid delusions and antisemitism.

It is certainly a start. And are you of the delusion that Assad is one little whit less antisemitic and paranoid than Hitler was? Give Assad another decade uncorrected and then get back to me, if you still live, that is(hope for your sake that you are not Jewish). The point that concerns the US is the weapon he used, it is proscribed by international agreement after the horrors of gas warfare in WW1, a very, very expensive lesson we can not afford to leave unlearned, and certainly can't afford to relearn through more experience.

Assad may be scumbag, but Hitler was deranged, and far more dangerous.

Only because he was allowed(by the German people and the international community)to be more dangerous, he would have been much less dangerous if he had not been in charge, or had been slapped back when he annexed Austria or invaded Poland, even less dangerous in a jail or asylum, not dangerous at all if dead. Without the willing cooperation(or at least apathetic disinterest, as you are displaying)of the majority of the German people and world nations, Hitler was nothing but a raving lunatic. A good argument for taking out(or at least correcting)those displaying Hitler-like behavior when it first shows up. The ONLY reason Saddam Hussein is seen as a petty tyrant instead of on par with Hitler was that Saddam was slapped down hard when he invaded his neighbor in 1991, Hitler would be a footnote in history if he had been slapped back in Austria and Poland, the difference being that Poppy Bush was wiser than the leaders of the 30s, though in hindsight, he could have finished Saddam then so Shrub would have to find other playthings for Rummy and the gang. Hitler was nothing special, he was a common thug, in a thug regime, in a bigoted, defeated country in the middle of the Great Depression where your moral views are greatly affected by your empty stomach. Al Capone was nothing special, either, but circumstances collided to make him a successful, common thug, one well loved by his neighbors(who were then willing to overlook him being a common thug). Morals rarely survive an empty stomach for long.

And the wife who is killed by her husband isn't innocent?

No, it isn't murder.

I'm fast coming to the opinion that joepistole is on to something. You are just a troll and a waste of time.

Grumpy

 

[Balerion]

@ Balerion

To liken Assad to Hitler in mindset not magnitude is accurate Balerion, why argue the point?

It's not even close to accurate. Assad isn't attempting genocide, he's trying to kill rebels. I think you need to read a history book.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not even close to accurate. Assad isn't attempting genocide, he's trying to kill rebels. I think you need to read a history book.

He's an absolutely ruthless dictator.

 

[Balerion]

The comparison of what occurred that allowed Hitler to rise and what we need to do to avoid a repeat is not equating anything

Of course it is. This isn't really a hard thing to grasp, so aside from the overt emotional response you're having here, I don't see why you're having so much trouble. You must believe Assad is capable of doing what Hitler did, otherwise you wouldn't keep invoking Hitler whenever there is resistance to the idea of intervention. So the only two choices we have here is that you think Assad is similar to Hitler in psyche and ambition, or you believe that any despot given enough room will do what Hitler did. Neither option is correct.

Why? Assad is already up to 100,000,

Um, no. The 100,000 number is the amount of deaths in Syrian civil war, counting both sides. And again, we're talking about a war here. The six million counted in Hitler's number doesn't include casualties of war.

his predecessors were actual Nazis(he learned Facism at his father's knee), he's already used chemical weapons on civilians, many of his own people have fled his borders...sounds enough like what Germany experienced in the 30s to be on the same planet.

He's not a Nazi, and being a Nazi doesn't automatically mean you're going to follow in Hitler's footsteps. Remember, there were members within the Nazi party who actually tried to kill Hitler. And the atrocities committed by Assad are no different than the ones committed by Hussein. Actually, Saddam's were far worse; he actually attempted genocide. Did he go on to become the next Hitler?

Assad is just getting started, give him a decade and you might be saying "Hitler who?"

That's nonsense. Give me some evidence that he has designs beyond keeping himself in power, and we can talk.

It's obvious you do hold Hitler in high regard,

You've come unhinged, Grumpy. See what happens when you let your emotions take over? You degrade yourself to things like this.

thinking he actually was superhuman, when the reality is that Hitler was actually simply a more successful, normal, everyday psychopathic, amoral sociopath who was not corrected in his behavior by the society he lived in. There was nothing "special" in Hitler's evil, the Huns, the Goths, the Britons, the Norse and the Slavs would have welcomed him as a brother, history is stuffed full of people just like him.

Even if it were true that Assad and Hitler are the same brand of crazy (which you have no evidence for), you know as well as I do that he has no chance of repeating Hitler's crimes. Gassing civilians within his own country is atrocious, but he was doing it because he believed that's where the rebels were. He wasn't doing it because he believes those citizens needed to die, he did it because he believed they housed the enemy. That's called collateral damage, a term we use all the time when we kill civilians.

If he were to show ambition of any variety beyond keeping his power, or were to increase his actions by a significant margin, then he would get checked by an international coalition. You know that, so stop pretending letting Syria handle Syria in this case is going to lead to WWIII.

It is certainly a start.

It isn't, though. See, this is why motive is important, because it gives context to the actions. If you weren't so emotionally immature, you'd be able to see that.

And are you of the delusion that Assad is one little whit less antisemitic and paranoid than Hitler was?

Yes. I think he's quite less paranoid and antisemitic than Hitler. I'm sorry, is he rounding up Jews and sending them to internment camps, where they are worked to death or gassed? Is he branding them? Is he punishing non-Jews for housing them?

Give Assad another decade uncorrected and then get back to me, if you still live, that is(hope for your sake that you are not Jewish).

Fear-mongering bullshit. And why are you so concerned about the Jews? You realize the victims of this attack were Muslim, no?

The point that concerns the US is the weapon he used, it is proscribed by international agreement after the horrors of gas warfare in WW1, a very, very expensive lesson we can not afford to leave unlearned, and certainly can't afford to relearn through more experience.

The point hasn't been forgotten. How you turn this into "This makes it okay," is beyond me.

Only because he was allowed(by the German people and the international community)to be more dangerous, he would have been much less dangerous if he had not been in charge, or had been slapped back when he annexed Austria or invaded Poland, even less dangerous in a jail or asylum, not dangerous at all if dead

No, as usual your view of history is oversimple and incomplete. Yes, leaving Hitler to build power was a mistake, but that's not the only reason he was more dangerous than Assad. Hitler was a madman beyond what Assad is.

Without the willing cooperation(or at least apathetic disinterest, as you are displaying)of the majority of the German people and world nations, Hitler was nothing but a raving lunatic. A good argument for taking out(or at least correcting)those displaying Hitler-like behavior when it first shows up. The ONLY reason Saddam Hussein is seen as a petty tyrant instead of on par with Hitler was that Saddam was slapped down hard when he invaded his neighbor in 1991, Hitler would be a footnote in history if he had been slapped back in Austria and Poland, the difference being that Poppy Bush was wiser than the leaders of the 30s, though in hindsight, he could have finished Saddam then so Shrub would have to find other playthings for Rummy and the gang. Hitler was nothing special, he was a common thug, in a thug regime, in a bigoted, defeated country in the middle of the Great Depression where your moral views are greatly affected by your empty stomach. Al Capone was nothing special, either, but circumstances collided to make him a successful, common thug, one well loved by his neighbors(who were then willing to overlook him being a common thug). Morals rarely survive an empty stomach for long.

The fallacy you keep falling into is the notion that because Hitler wouldn't have been a problem if he were handled sooner, therefore everyone who isn't handled early will become Hitler. This simply isn't true. Hitler was more than a simple thug. Stalin was more than a simple thug. Assad is a thug. And Assad knows he has boundaries. If he stepped foot outside of Syria, he'd get smacked down. Not attacking him now wouldn't make him think otherwise.

No, it isn't murder.

Care to explain how you arrive at the conclusion that a husband killing his wife isn't murder?

I'm fast coming to the opinion that joepistole is on to something. You are just a troll and a waste of time.

If you find yourself agreeing with jopistole, you're doing something wrong.

 

[Balerion]

He's an absolutely ruthless dictator.

So was Saddam Hussein. Was he the same as Hitler?

 

[joepistole]

If you want UN convincing evidence that Assad supposevly used the chemical weapons in that attack, than you better GET THE CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

Well let’s look at the evidence that has been provided. Those on the Assad side have accused the rebels of the attack but offered no proof. Assad supporters have also accused the US of aiding in the chemical attack. But they offer no proof other than just repeating anonymous pieces sourced from specious sources.

On the other hand, the Syrian government is known to have large stockpiles of chemical weapons along with the ability to deploy them whereas Syrian rebel groups are known to not have chemical weapons or the ability to deploy those weapons. Folks on the Assad side have not yet explained how Syrian rebels were able to deploy weapons that they do not have on themselves.

No one has disputed that a chemical weapon attack occurred. And there is video evidence, coupled with blood samples taken from victims and verified by the US government as being consistent with Sarin gas poisoning. And in a few weeks, the UN is expected to provide an independent verification of that evidence. In addition the US has Syrian government communications showing that the Assad government prepared for the attack three days prior to the attack by providing gas masks to its troops.

In my view, the US government trumps anonymous sources from specious sources every time.

 

[billvon]

In my view, the US government trumps anonymous sources from specious sources every time.

Really? The last time they claimed they had evidence of WMD's, they were either wrong (best case) or actively lying about it to achieve a political goal (worst case.) What's different this time?

 

[youreyes]

Well let’s look at the evidence that has been provided. Those on the Assad side have accused the rebels of the attack but offered no proof. Assad supporters have also accused the US of aiding in the chemical attack. But they offer no proof other than just repeating anonymous pieces sourced from specious sources.

On the other hand, the Syrian government is known to have large stockpiles of chemical weapons along with the ability to deploy them whereas Syrian rebel groups are known to not have chemical weapons or the ability to deploy those weapons. Folks on the Assad side have not yet explained how Syrian rebels were able to deploy weapons that they do not have on themselves.

No one has disputed that a chemical weapon attack occurred. And there is video evidence, coupled with blood samples taken from victims and verified by the US government as being consistent with Sarin gas poisoning. And in a few weeks, the UN is expected to provide an independent verification of that evidence. In addition the US has Syrian government communications showing that the Assad government prepared for the attack three days prior to the attack by providing gas masks to its troops.

In my view, the US government trumps anonymous sources from specious sources every time.

So if it is not from CNN or Western media, it is a specious source. I see.

 

[spidergoat]

So was Saddam Hussein. Was he the same as Hitler?

Very similar.

 

[youreyes]

Very similar.

And Obama. Was he the same as Hitler?

 

[quinnsong]

It's not even close to accurate. Assad isn't attempting genocide, he's trying to kill rebels. I think you need to read a history book.

The over 400 children he gassed would beg to differ! Again, he is isolated to a small geographical area, but his psychopathy is no different than Hitler!

 

[quinnsong]

So if it is not from CNN or Western media, it is a specious source. I see.

Even Iran is saying Assad gassed his own people, soooo.......not just the Great Satan!

 

[spidergoat]

And Obama. Was he the same as Hitler?

Obviously not.

 

[Balerion]

The over 400 children he gassed would beg to differ! Again, he is isolated to a small geographical area, but his psychopathy is no different than Hitler!

So when we drop a bomb on a neighborhood to kill a terrorist, are we psychopaths as well?