Such sickening morals is why we're in this situation. How wonderful a world we'd live in if everyone thought like this.

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

Bullshit.

Tzelemel wrote:

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

What? You mean this one?

I've only given it a cursory glance, but it looks as if the only ones with revenue at stake are the Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese and Syrians.

mrjonno wrote:

Such sickening morals is why we're in this situation. How wonderful a world we'd live in if everyone thought like this.

If everyone thought like this the world would actually be a lot nicer place. People would only screw other people over if it was in their rational interest to do so and could take preventive measures. Most the misery in this world is due to entirely irrational reasons like religion , racism, nationalism etc

aban57 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

Bullshit.

And oversimplification. Clearly, much more is at stake here than just a pipeline. Religious influence, Russia's interests, and of course there's this little thing about Assad murdering his own people to get them in line.

Tzelemel wrote:

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

What? You mean this one?

I've only given it a cursory glance, but it looks as if the only ones with revenue at stake are the Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese and Syrians.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

Bullshit.

Willie71 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:How many are aware that the main issue in Syria is a natural gas pipeline that could have massive impacts on the gas supply to Europe? Dead babies are the convenient moralizing propaganda, but behind this is billions in revenue at stake.

Bullshit.

And oversimplification. Clearly, much more is at stake here than just a pipeline. Religious influence, Russia's interests, and of course there's this little thing about Assad murdering his own people to get them in line.

Yes it's oversimplified, but there is a direct correlation between interventions and countries that have oil reserves.

Willie71 wrote:Russia's influence? You mean their revenues are at stake?

Willie71 wrote:You missed the part where Assad isn't actually connected to the gas attack by any currently known evidence?

Willie71 wrote:Religion? Fluff for politicians to moralize about.

You re one of those who would happily screw over any number of people if it was to you and your family's benefit. Don't you listen to what you yourself say?

tuco wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Alan B wrote:IBT

MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

A leading weapons academic has claimed that the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria was staged, raising questions about who was responsible.

Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), issued a series of three reports in response to the White House's finding that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad perpetrated the attack on 4 April.
He concluded that the US government's report does not provide any "concrete" evidence that Assad was responsible, adding it was more likely that the attack was perpetrated by players on the ground.

Postol said: "I have reviewed the [White House's] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.

"In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.

"This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House."

Hmmm. The plot thickens...

In 'realpolitick' you do what you gotta do.

Maybe there should be some military strikes against the fuckers who are funding these nasties?

lol and wb. Glad to see couple of people coming back, adds to variety and, well, action.

At this point, and I am aware of non-consequence, I'd wish it was indeed the regime who did it but maybe facts will get in way.

crank wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Plus, only Syrians get killed - and no one gives a flying fuck about them. Their lives aren't worth anything. Realpolitick!

A Syrian life is not worth the same as citizen of a government electorate. That's just reality that moralisers just don't get.

A dead Syrian baby make upset people for 24 hours but not as much as taxes going up 1% or inflation going up 0.1%

So true! Dead Syrians are just good for whipping up support for killing more Syrians. And maybe (keep you fingers crossed!) getting some of our own troops killed in a far off land for a cause the public will never be allowed to learn.

But the reality is that the money that goes into starting a 'revolution' against the Syrian government is costing money, too. These Al Qaeda and ISIS armies we've been training ain't cheap. So the reality is, some of the tax dollars I just paid will go to killing more brown people in a far off land, creating more refugees, and propaganda efforts to make sure we're all talking about anything but the reality.

But the reality is that the corporate media - some owned by the same folks who agitate for war and sell weapons to terrorists, armies, and our own military - has a conflict of interest in reporting the truth. So they go for the 'moralising' about dead Syrian babies and other nonsense their bosses helped kill.

Maybe the 'moralisers' would 'get it' if the government and the press would stop lying 24/7 about what's going on.

Me, I'm apt to blame the liars, and not the folks being lied to. ymmv

Or the folks getting slaughtered by the liars.

crank wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Who is it that decides which government is good enough so its citizens get deemed superior?

In a democracy whoever votes for that democracy, outside a democracy whoever has the biggest guns.

My values are generally pretty average

1) look after myself and my family
2) try not to hurt anyone else

1 takes priority over 2

You lack any kind of perspective, clearly. 'looking after myself and my family' isn't a requirement for short-term, tunnel-vision thinking. What you keep pushing for is going to destroy the prospects for your children and their children to have a decent life. And that just shows how stupid your thinking is, it says nothing about the moral bankruptcy demonstrated.

proudfootz wrote:[...] I'm suggesting knowing whether there was a chemical attack, and knowing who was responsible, would make any action that might be taken more effective.

If Syria is going to 'pay the price' for a crime that might never even have occurred there is little incentive for them not to 'do the crime'. So random attacks against innocent people just incentivizes the most extreme acts out of self-defense.

Byron wrote:

proudfootz wrote:[...] I'm suggesting knowing whether there was a chemical attack, and knowing who was responsible, would make any action that might be taken more effective.

If Syria is going to 'pay the price' for a crime that might never even have occurred there is little incentive for them not to 'do the crime'. So random attacks against innocent people just incentivizes the most extreme acts out of self-defense.

Loathed as I am to discuss evidence with you after the Sollecito and Knox thread, since this bizarrely managed to pick up likes, could either you or your supporters clarify if you're claiming that nerve gas wasn't used?

'Cause if so, you've managed to go one better than the net's lizards' nest, which at least confines itself to writing this off as a false flag.

crank wrote:Wow, bitching about discussing evidence, but somehow ignored the evidence provided, and no one I've come across thinks there wasn't some kind of gas used, was probably nerve gas, but I don't know if that is definitive yet. From the pix I posted, it's really hard to see how the gas came from the air. And the guy who did the report, that proudfootz cited, is a well respected expert in the field.

Byron wrote:

proudfootz wrote:[...] I'm suggesting knowing whether there was a chemical attack, and knowing who was responsible, would make any action that might be taken more effective.

If Syria is going to 'pay the price' for a crime that might never even have occurred there is little incentive for them not to 'do the crime'. So random attacks against innocent people just incentivizes the most extreme acts out of self-defense.

Loathed as I am to discuss evidence with you after the Sollecito and Knox thread*, since this bizarrely managed to pick up likes, could either you or your supporters clarify if you're claiming that nerve gas wasn't used?

'Cause if so, you've managed to go one better than the net's lizards' nest, which at least confines itself to writing this off as a false flag.