World Politics

[blutto]

....two stories....

At Reuters, ‘Not Refuting’ Is the Same as ‘Seeing’

By Jim Naureckas
“Top US General in Afghanistan Sees Russia Sending Weapons to Taliban” was Reuters’ headline over a April 25 story.

Well, that sounds like news! Tell me more, Reuters’ Idrees Ali:


The head of US and international forces in Afghanistan said on Monday he was “not refuting” reports that Russia was providing support, including weapons, to the Taliban….

Asked about reports that Russia was providing a range of help, including weapons, to the Taliban, who control large areas of Afghanistan, [Gen. John] Nicholson replied: “Oh no, I am not refuting that.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46957.htm

....and....

Israel is Providing Weaponry & Logistic Support to Terrorists in Syria: President Assad

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46951.htm

....and this bit from the first article...

“I am not refuting that”? How does that translate into “General…Sees Russia Sending Weapons to Taliban”? If NASA tells Reuters that they can’t refute speculation that there might be life on Mars, will Reuters run a story headlined “NASA Sees Life on Mars”? That would be a scoop!

Ali writes that Nicholson’s no-comment comments “are among the strongest suggestions yet that Moscow is providing arms to the Taliban.” Maybe next time Reuters could wait for a somewhat stronger suggestion—involving actual evidence, perhaps—before running a story that could inflame the new Cold War.

Cheers

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Postol, Lindzen etc: These guys are no lightweights. Skeptics is more appropriate than ''deniers'' - which is just a cheap dismissal of contrary analysis, in my opinion.

Politics and propaganda turns these issues in to certainties. Climate science itself is far from a certainty - as any scientist acknowledges - and consensus isn't intrinsically a good indication of truth. Regarding Syria, the origins of the gas attacks are faaarrr from a certainty - more evidence is needed... and I haven't personally noticed anyone here going any further than simply that. It's not ''denial'', it's remaining open-minded and circumspect. Reaching definitive conclusions on this, despite both lack of evidence and contrary analysis, indicates a lack of critical thinking IMO.

(I dunno Lindzen's opinion on smoking, but if he's just saying it's not inherently dangerous then he's correct (with lots of provisos))

First of all, Lindzen has been proven wrong on climate science time and again. He is simply not credible as an expert. Secondly, the basis of climate science is settled - anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing warming. Period. That is why anyone that denies this very basic science should not be given the honour of being called a 'skeptic', but is simply a denier. Of course there is debate within climate science, but about the magnitude of several feedbacks - like sequestration or release by terrestrial ecosystems, the fineries on clouds and warming/cooling effects, methane hydrates, etc. etc. It has been a very clear tactic of the nay-sayers to cast doubt everywhere, to convince the public that no real consensus exists within climate science. They have done a very good job, obviously.

Sorry but you're missing the point. Lindzen; how robust climate science is; how many agree/disagree, and so on, are all debatable... and entirely irrelevant. Separate the process of critical thinking from conclusions formed and actions taken. Deniers, nay-sayers, cast doubt, the science is settled, consensus: this is all the language of politics (and faiths). Falsifyability vs certainty, scientific mode of enquiry vs belief structure, et cetera. Your inference as to what you think my opinion is indicates you're not doing this separating of process from conclusion/action. Projecting caricatures, placing 'em in neat boxes...

I responded directly to your claims:
- Lindzen *is* a lightweight on climate change
- The anthropogenic nature of current warming is no point of serious debate anymore

That is not political, it is what it is. The 'process' of critical thinking should still be fact-based, which in climate change skepticism is often not the case. Skepticism is still alive and kicking because of ideological reasoning, not because of the fundamental strength of the arguments (and they are very much aware of that, hence how they frame the points they make - individual liberty vs. government imposed regulations etc.). Their claims have been debunked so many times, but as a result of the ideological attractiveness, they keep popping up. That's not serious science - *that* is politics, if you will.

In a parallel to what you say above about Syria, the "more evidence is needed" is exactly how the oil industry has deliberately slowed or halted action on climate change - since the late eighties. It's a cheap claim, because that claim can be made about almost anything in science. It's not as clear-cut in Syria, obviously.

Where's the proof that Syria used gas on? Why would Assad use gas when he is winning and gaining areas that were controlled by ISIS back into Syrian government control?

 

[python]

A very dangerous development

Iran considering deploying ground forces to counter US intervention in Syria: reports
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-considering-deploying-ground-forces-counter-us-intervention-syria-reports-779276464

The us may find itself in 2 more hot direct wars very soon.

Go democracy !!! ???

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

Where's the proof that Syria used gas on? Why would Assad use gas when he is winning and gaining areas that were controlled by ISIS back into Syrian government control?

There are strong indications that you wouldn't consider as such - we both know that. You know, Lügenpresse and all that. The second question is intruiging, but looking into possible motivation for an attack with very little information is not a very good starting point for eliminating possibilities. There's an Israeli saying that goes "The general was so stupid even the other generals noticed". Meaning that in army matters, stupidity is never far away. It could have been stupidity, miscalculation, testing the waters, or who knows. What we know is that Assad's regime very likely have access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery. What we also know is that both the Russian and Assad's own attribution of the attack was clumsy at best, moronic at worst. The alternatives for the chemical weapons attack seem much more unlikely, given the absence of jet fighter/helicopter capability of rebel groups and the need for a deep-running false flag operation (but who doesn't love a conspiracy in the times eh?).

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Where's the proof that Syria used gas on? Why would Assad use gas when he is winning and gaining areas that were controlled by ISIS back into Syrian government control?

There are strong indications that you wouldn't consider as such - we both know that. You know, Lügenpresse and all that. The second question is intruiging, but looking into possible motivation for an attack with very little information is not a very good starting point for eliminating possibilities. There's an Israeli saying that goes "The general was so stupid even the other generals noticed". Meaning that in army matters, stupidity is never far away. It could have been stupidity, miscalculation, testing the waters, or who knows. What we know is that Assad's regime very likely have access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery. What we also know is that both the Russian and Assad's own attribution of the attack was clumsy at best, moronic at worst. The alternatives for the chemical weapons attack seem much more unlikely, given the absence of jet fighter/helicopter capability of rebel groups and the need for a deep-running false flag operation (but who doesn't love a conspiracy in the times eh?).

That's great but you didn't answer the question.

 

[Echoes]

Austrian President calls on all women to wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims to fight 'rampant Islamophobia'

...'It is every woman’s right to always dress how she wants, that is my opinion on the matter'

“And it is not only Muslim women, all women can wear a headscarf, and if this real and rampant Islamaphobia continues, there will come a day where we must ask all women to wear a headscarf – all – out of solidarity to those who do it for religious reasons.”

I agree with him. Headscarf is not strictly a characteristic of Islam. I'm in favour of it for every women, if it's on their free will. The first to encourage it was saint Paul and up until the fifties or sixties, a vast majority of women in my country or in neighbouring countries such as France, Italy, or Spain wore headscarves... They were not Muslim.

 

[Brullnux]

It's the niqab which is home to most the controversy. Not just among western politicians mind, but also among Islamic scholars. Some say that it is wrong for a woman to wear one.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Where's the proof that Syria used gas on? Why would Assad use gas when he is winning and gaining areas that were controlled by ISIS back into Syrian government control?

There are strong indications that you wouldn't consider as such - we both know that. You know, Lügenpresse and all that. The second question is intruiging, but looking into possible motivation for an attack with very little information is not a very good starting point for eliminating possibilities. There's an Israeli saying that goes "The general was so stupid even the other generals noticed". Meaning that in army matters, stupidity is never far away. It could have been stupidity, miscalculation, testing the waters, or who knows. What we know is that Assad's regime very likely have access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery. What we also know is that both the Russian and Assad's own attribution of the attack was clumsy at best, moronic at worst. The alternatives for the chemical weapons attack seem much more unlikely, given the absence of jet fighter/helicopter capability of rebel groups and the need for a deep-running false flag operation (but who doesn't love a conspiracy in the times eh?).

.....there is that first bolded bit which is very interesting and something that I'll have to keep in mind ....you know for occasions when, I, as a mere civilian, speak of military matters with, uhhh, non-civilians.....and btw while it is a nifty phrase if you look at this entire event as it played out and view it thru the lenses of "who benefits", it looks pretty darn smart, especially given the results and everything...

....then there is the use of that there "could" word....which leads us to the second bolded bit, which slightly paraphrased easily reads as the following ( because there already is proof of this via the East Ghouta incident )....and please note the lack of need to use weasel terms like "very likely".....

What we know is that ISIS has access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery.

...so why use a could driven scenario and ignore the obvious scenario that is supported by the evidence of prior use....not meaning to point fingers but one could read the reliance on "could, maybe, sorta" evidence, especially when evidence of other options exists, as proof positive of blatant ideologically driven partisan hackery....

...read, even an ideologically driven partisan hack of epic proportions, such as our much loved dj, would never ever stoop so low ( further read, pull up immediately , your forehead is dragging on the ground, and if prolonged, such behaviour will cause permanent damage ...)....

...just sayin' eh....

Cheer

 

[python]

Re: Re:

...read, even an ideologically driven partisan hack of epic proportions, such as our much loved dj, would never ever stoop so low ( further read, pull up immediately , your forehead is dragging on the ground and prolonged such behaviour will cause permanent damage ...)....



Cheer

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...read, even an ideologically driven partisan hack of epic proportions, such as our much loved dj, would never ever stoop so low ( further read, pull up immediately , your forehead is dragging on the ground, and if prolonged. such behaviour will cause permanent damage ...)....



Cheer

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....is this the French election...?....

Emmanuel Clinton vs Marine LeTrump

What’s supposed to be the shock of the new is not exactly so

.

She essentially reassembled — but did not expand — her voting base. I have argued on Asia Times that Macron is nothing but an artificial product, a meticulously packaged hologram designed to sell an illusion.

Only the terminally naïve may believe Macron incarnates change when he’s the candidate of the EU, NATO, the financial markets, the Clinton-Obama machine, the French establishment, assorted business oligarchs and the top six French media groups.

As for the stupidity of the Blairite Left, it’s now in a class by itself

....btw for those not paying real close attention the Blairite left referred to above in North Am is the alt-left ( and youse guys here knows who theys is...)....

....and below is the , uhhhh, money shot....read carefully, and slowly, this the big bit thingee....

About that Wall of Cash

If the coming, epic clash could be defined by just one issue that would be the unlimited power of the Wall of Cash.

Macron subscribes to the view that public debt and expenses on public service are the only factors responsible for French debt, so one must have “political courage” to promote reforms.

Sociologist Benjamin Lemoine is one of the few who’s publicly debating what’s really behind it — the interest of financiers to preserve the value of the debt they hold and their aversion to any negotiation.

Because they control the narrative, they are able to equate “political risk” — be it Marine or Mélenchon — with the risk to their own privileged positions.

The real issue at stake in France — and across most of the West — revolves around the conflicting interests of financial masters and citizens attached to public service and social justice.

The coming clash between Emmanuel Clinton and Marine LeTrump won’t even begin to scratch the surface

.

http://www.atimes.com/article/emmanuel-clinton-vs-marine-letrump/

Cheers

 

[Brullnux]

....is this the French election...?....

Emmanuel Clinton vs Marine LeTrump

What’s supposed to be the shock of the new is not exactly so

.

She essentially reassembled — but did not expand — her voting base. I have argued on Asia Times that Macron is nothing but an artificial product, a meticulously packaged hologram designed to sell an illusion.

Only the terminally naïve may believe Macron incarnates change when he’s the candidate of the EU, NATO, the financial markets, the Clinton-Obama machine, the French establishment, assorted business oligarchs and the top six French media groups.

As for the stupidity of the Blairite Left, it’s now in a class by itself

....btw for those not paying real close attention the Blaitite left referred to above in North Am is the alt-left ( and youse guys knows who theys is...)....

I don't think anyone (in France) actually thinks he is the candidate of change. He wants some reform of the public sector and cut some jobs, which isn't very left wing but if it's anything like the Italian one then I can definitely understand why it's a good idea. But he's a 'centrist' candidate a lot like Renzi in Italy.

I agree that Le Pen disappointed in the election. While 21% on the face of it seems pretty good, if you had been following it for the past year or so it is very disappointing. Just a month or two before the election she was first and polling at above 27%, but she faded badly. The French have for a long time has a fancy for the FN - even in 2002 when the anti EU and radical right wing movement was not anywhere near as strong, Jean Marie polled 17%. And he didn't even try to become president. Marine has worked very hard to make the party more acceptable and less extreme, expelling her own father from the party and distancing herself from the neofascist elements, yet has only increased her vote share by 4%. No doubt she will do much better in the second round than her father did, but it still isn't a great result.

 

[blutto]

.....hmmm....

Should we welcome closer ties between Saudi Arabia and China? As the Asia Times writes, "China’s slow intertwining with Saudi Arabia complements the Sino-Russo alliance. Primarily, its benefits could lead to a realistic threat to the petrodollar."

While we'd prefer Saudi Arabia to disappear entirely, if it has to exist — and from a pragmatic standpoint, it probably isn't going anywhere — it would greatly benefit the world if Riyadh dumped the dollar and adopted the yuan.

It's not as crazy as it sounds.

Russia became one of China's leading energy partners by cutting deals in yaun. In March, Russia once again beat Saudi Arabia as China's top crude oiler exporter.

Last month, Saudi Arabia's King Salman oversaw the signing of deals worth as much as $65 billion on the first day of a visit to Beijing.

As Reuters reports, "Saudi Arabia has sought to boost oil sales to China, the world's second-largest oil market, after losing market share to Russia last year, by working mostly with China's top three state oil firms."

What if the Saudis decide to dump the dollar and euro and go with the yuan — or even gold?

The petrodollar is the last vestige of that “American standard of living” middle America cherishes, and if the gold trade bonds fly and yuan changes hands as the oil flows, the US is going to get a shock when Saudi Arabia likes the look of red paper as much as green, or worse yet, yellow metal, a lot of which is moving east

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/will-china-force-saudis-dump-dollar/ri19697

....and this....

http://www.atimes.com/loss-petrodollar-domination-beginning-form/

The Chinese economy has begun an economic restructuring and focus on domestic production and services. The Trump administration thinks weakening the US dollar will help American exports and likewise respectfully grow the US economy (or “grow” within the confines of the current monetary system). However, the overvalued dollar has subsidized the cherished “American standard of living,” and any weakening will now have detrimental effects.

The US needs to also restructure its economy to one that is based on production. It can no longer continue to run a debt-serviced economy that imports all goods it doesn’t produce. It’s unsustainable, and the continuous mistake of many. The wealth of the world is shifting eastwards

.


Cheers

 

[Echoes]

It's still a significant rise though. So far the FN (at any elections since 1974) had never exceeded about 13 or 14% of subscribers (taking abstention into account). Last Sunday Marine had 16% of subscribers. While they had never had 4+ million voters, last Sunday, she had 7.7M.

In 2002, Le Pen sr's qualification for the second round was a shocker to anyone. Many had abstained because they were fed up with classic politicians and because they did not believe it could happen. They voted massively against Le Pen afterwards in reaction. In between both rounds, there was a massive work of social engineering to force mainly young people to go and demonstrate on streets against the "neo-Fascist" thread. It was quite pathetic actually. I cannot stand Le Pen senior but he was not a Fascist. It was just cinema. Nowadays I don't see too much of that. Even voting Macron in order to "make a dam" against Le Pen is now seen negatively in France, as far as I can witness. Those who act like that need to justify that their actions. They seem embarrassed. A vast majority on the "Far" Left are more prone to abstention than to voting Macron. Same in the "moderate right" camp. It might be an effect of Marine's effort to "undevilise" her party but I also think many started to understand by themselves how the people of 2002 were pathetic.

This being said since the Marine Le Pen is gaining ground. Macron is making a lot of mistakes: dining at a luxury restaurant "La Rotonde" (the French don't appreciate that), meeting with the leaders of the Whirlpool company in Amiens (to be relocated in Poland at lower cost, Le Pen capitalised on it to meet with the employees), going to Oradour sur Glane (in order to instrumentalise the horrors of WWII against a "neo-Nazi" opponents) and now accusing the FN of having set up the assassination attempt against General De Gaulle in 1963. This is probably a response to the recent alliance between Mrs Le Pen and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (meant to be her PM if she's elected), a "Gaullist" "sovereigntist" candidate (4.6% at Round 1) who is relatively "moderate" and can further help de-demonise the FN...

I don't like Marine Le Pen because of her Islamophobic rants, of her constant visit to Israel, because she does not really have the charisma nor the competence to be President and she is not clear about the EU but still in my opinion she's a candidate like anyone else and Macron for me is absolute horror and I still cannot believe that the French so massively voted for that guy: 8.6M votes. It's surreal.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

Where's the proof that Syria used gas on? Why would Assad use gas when he is winning and gaining areas that were controlled by ISIS back into Syrian government control?

There are strong indications that you wouldn't consider as such - we both know that. You know, Lügenpresse and all that. The second question is intruiging, but looking into possible motivation for an attack with very little information is not a very good starting point for eliminating possibilities. There's an Israeli saying that goes "The general was so stupid even the other generals noticed". Meaning that in army matters, stupidity is never far away. It could have been stupidity, miscalculation, testing the waters, or who knows. What we know is that Assad's regime very likely have access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery. What we also know is that both the Russian and Assad's own attribution of the attack was clumsy at best, moronic at worst. The alternatives for the chemical weapons attack seem much more unlikely, given the absence of jet fighter/helicopter capability of rebel groups and the need for a deep-running false flag operation (but who doesn't love a conspiracy in the times eh?).

That's great but you didn't answer the question.

I actually answered both of your questions.

....then there is the use of that there "could" word....which leads us to the second bolded bit, which slightly paraphrased easily reads as the following ( because there already is proof of this via the East Ghouta incident )....and please note the lack of need to use weasel terms like "very likely".....

What we know is that ISIS has access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery.

'Likely' and other such terminology refers to probabilities. There is no absolute certainty in this, with the limited knowledge we have. To the bolded, not very... likely. There are only few sources that claim this.

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Postol, Lindzen etc: These guys are no lightweights. Skeptics is more appropriate than ''deniers'' - which is just a cheap dismissal of contrary analysis, in my opinion.

Politics and propaganda turns these issues in to certainties. Climate science itself is far from a certainty - as any scientist acknowledges - and consensus isn't intrinsically a good indication of truth. Regarding Syria, the origins of the gas attacks are faaarrr from a certainty - more evidence is needed... and I haven't personally noticed anyone here going any further than simply that. It's not ''denial'', it's remaining open-minded and circumspect. Reaching definitive conclusions on this, despite both lack of evidence and contrary analysis, indicates a lack of critical thinking IMO.

(I dunno Lindzen's opinion on smoking, but if he's just saying it's not inherently dangerous then he's correct (with lots of provisos))

First of all, Lindzen has been proven wrong on climate science time and again. He is simply not credible as an expert. Secondly, the basis of climate science is settled - anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing warming. Period. That is why anyone that denies this very basic science should not be given the honour of being called a 'skeptic', but is simply a denier. Of course there is debate within climate science, but about the magnitude of several feedbacks - like sequestration or release by terrestrial ecosystems, the fineries on clouds and warming/cooling effects, methane hydrates, etc. etc. It has been a very clear tactic of the nay-sayers to cast doubt everywhere, to convince the public that no real consensus exists within climate science. They have done a very good job, obviously.

Sorry but you're missing the point. Lindzen; how robust climate science is; how many agree/disagree, and so on, are all debatable... and entirely irrelevant. Separate the process of critical thinking from conclusions formed and actions taken. Deniers, nay-sayers, cast doubt, the science is settled, consensus: this is all the language of politics (and faiths). Falsifyability vs certainty, scientific mode of enquiry vs belief structure, et cetera. Your inference as to what you think my opinion is indicates you're not doing this separating of process from conclusion/action. Projecting caricatures, placing 'em in neat boxes...

Syrian gas attacks (which is what we were talking about): More evidence is needed. Critical thinking leads to that call, and the call itself is a call for critical thinking (inquiry) - for the process. It is not a conclusion.

I responded directly to your claims:
- Lindzen *is* a lightweight on climate change
- The anthropogenic nature of current warming is no point of serious debate anymore

That is not political, it is what it is. The 'process' of critical thinking should still be fact-based, which in climate change skepticism is often not the case. Skepticism is still alive and kicking because of ideological reasoning, not because of the fundamental strength of the arguments (and they are very much aware of that, hence how they frame the points they make - individual liberty vs. government imposed regulations etc.). Their claims have been debunked so many times, but as a result of the ideological attractiveness, they keep popping up. That's not serious science - *that* is politics, if you will.

In a parallel to what you say above about Syria, the "more evidence is needed" is exactly how the oil industry has deliberately slowed or halted action on climate change - since the late eighties. It's a cheap claim, because that claim can be made about almost anything in science. It's not as clear-cut in Syria, obviously.

(Trigger warning for Python: Herrings are mentioned in this post)

This is going 'round in circles J. My short last paragraph re Syria, the one you snipped for some reason (that I've re-inserted above, bolded), was the bit most relevant to the discussion. Suggesting that paragraph has any remote 'parallels' whatsoever to the oil industry re climate change is one of the hugest most steroid-pumped mutant
red herrings I've seen in a while. It's proper unadulterated nonsense man, c'mon. No offense or nuffin... just sayin', that 'paralell' is good old fashioned bollox (in my opinion). It's not serious discussion. Anyway, I defer to my previous point above re evidence on Syria. Anything else is repetition now.

Cheers.

 

[May0maniac]

It's hard to find bigger hypocrites than the German Goverment. They cry about human rights violation in other EU countries and other European countries and at the same time they sell arms to pretty much every single sictatorship on the Arabian Peninsula and even signed a deal to train Saudi army officers in Germany.
The level of hypocrisy is unbearable and distigusting.

 

[Jagartrott]

@Dan: I replied to your claims, and my parallel was in keeping with the previous topic, to which some seem to take grave offence for some reason. I think I am correct, there are many similarities - very likely because much of it is emotive, with pre-defined stances that are connected to ideology. Call that red herring all you will, it's something that has struck me following the debates here. The parallel, if you wish, is not just with climate change debate - that's just an example - but with any debate in which emotion and ideology takes the fore-front. If you see the way any news coming from the 'main stream media' (however that is defined) is brushed away by some for no other reason than that it is main stream, *that* is no serious discussion.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

It's hard to find bigger hypocrites than the German Goverment. They cry about human rights violation in other EU countries and other European countries and at the same time they sell arms to pretty much every single sictatorship on the Arabian Peninsula and even signed a deal to train Saudi army officers in Germany.
The level of hypocrisy is unbearable and distigusting.

In fairness, many Western commentators and leaders are the same.

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

It's hard to find bigger hypocrites than the German Goverment. They cry about human rights violation in other EU countries and other European countries and at the same time they sell arms to pretty much every single sictatorship on the Arabian Peninsula and even signed a deal to train Saudi army officers in Germany.
The level of hypocrisy is unbearable and distigusting.

In fairness, many Western commentators and leaders are the same.

Yes, but they are the world's 3rd biggest weapon exporter and their top clients are the Saudis and Qatar.
At the same time they really like to act all so rightious and mighty and pretend to care about human rights violations in other European countries, not many other Western nations have taken it to the same level.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

It's hard to find bigger hypocrites than the German Goverment. They cry about human rights violation in other EU countries and other European countries and at the same time they sell arms to pretty much every single sictatorship on the Arabian Peninsula and even signed a deal to train Saudi army officers in Germany.
The level of hypocrisy is unbearable and distigusting.

In fairness, many Western commentators and leaders are the same.

Yes, but they are the world's 3rd biggest weapon exporter and their top clients are the Saudis and Qatar.
At the same time they really like to act all so rightious and mighty and pretend to care about human rights violations in other European countries, not many other Western nations have taken it to the same level.

Canada springs to mind.

 

[May0maniac]

Yes, Canada is in the same league.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

It's hard to find bigger hypocrites than the German Goverment. They cry about human rights violation in other EU countries and other European countries and at the same time they sell arms to pretty much every single sictatorship on the Arabian Peninsula and even signed a deal to train Saudi army officers in Germany.
The level of hypocrisy is unbearable and distigusting.

In fairness, many Western commentators and leaders are the same.

Yes, but they are the world's 3rd biggest weapon exporter and their top clients are the Saudis and Qatar.
At the same time they really like to act all so rightious and mighty and pretend to care about human rights violations in other European countries, not many other Western nations have taken it to the same level.

It is expected of them to do that. If they wouldn't, the media would slaughter them.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Where's the proof that Syria used gas on? Why would Assad use gas when he is winning and gaining areas that were controlled by ISIS back into Syrian government control?

There are strong indications that you wouldn't consider as such - we both know that. You know, Lügenpresse and all that. The second question is intruiging, but looking into possible motivation for an attack with very little information is not a very good starting point for eliminating possibilities. There's an Israeli saying that goes "The general was so stupid even the other generals noticed". Meaning that in army matters, stupidity is never far away. It could have been stupidity, miscalculation, testing the waters, or who knows. What we know is that Assad's regime very likely have access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery. What we also know is that both the Russian and Assad's own attribution of the attack was clumsy at best, moronic at worst. The alternatives for the chemical weapons attack seem much more unlikely, given the absence of jet fighter/helicopter capability of rebel groups and the need for a deep-running false flag operation (but who doesn't love a conspiracy in the times eh?).

That's great but you didn't answer the question.

I actually answered both of your questions.

....then there is the use of that there "could" word....which leads us to the second bolded bit, which slightly paraphrased easily reads as the following ( because there already is proof of this via the East Ghouta incident )....and please note the lack of need to use weasel terms like "very likely".....

What we know is that ISIS has access to both chemical weapons and the way of delivery.

'Likely' and other such terminology refers to probabilities. There is no absolute certainty in this, with the limited knowledge we have. To the bolded, not very... likely. There are only few sources that claim this.

....you really gotta crawl out of your echo chamber every once in a while and take a breath of fresh air...it may clear your head and you might be able to get something right...pounding the company line is pretty much a stultifying dead end, as your posting proves over and over again....

....just sayin' eh...

...to the bolded...

Intervention by Air

Another false assumption pervading the Western accounts on this and other chemical incidents in Syria is that only the Syrian government and its Russian allies have control of the skies. That is clearly not true. Various military forces, including those of the U.S. and its allies, as well as Israel and – to some degree – the rebels have air capabilities in Syria.

According to Syrian accounts, the rebels have captured some government helicopters and apparently used one in what United Nations investigators were told by multiple eyewitnesses was a staged chemical-weapons attack in 2014 with the goal of sticking the blame on the Syrian regime

.


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/72477/more-new-york-times-spin-on-the-syria-sarin-case

Cheers

....edit...forgot this big picture thingee....

He’s right, isn’t he? The globalization project IS in crisis, and the reason it’s in crisis is because all of the benefits have gone to the people who crafted the original policy, the 1 percenters. So now the people in the US and EU are lashing out in anger, now they are taking desperate measures to reassert control over the system. That’s what Brexit was all about. That’s what the election of Trump was all about. And that is what the faceoff between Macron and Le Pen is all about. All three are examples of the seething populist rage that’s aimed at the elites who have imposed their own self-aggrandizing system on everyone else precipitating the steady decline in living standards, massive economic insecurity, and the loss of national sovereignty.

This is the first time I’ve seen the current wave of social turbulence traced back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but it makes perfect sense. Western elites saw the breakup of the USSR as a green light to maniacally pursue their own global agenda and impose their neoliberal economic model on the world, a process that greatly accelerated following 9-11. The terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers became the seminal event that triggered the curtailing of civil liberties, the enhancing of executive powers and the beginning of a global war of terror. Unconstrained by any serious rival, Washington felt free to impose its corporate-friendly system on the world, redraw the map of the Middle East, occupy countries in Central Asia, and topple secular regimes wherever it went. The triumphalism of western capitalism was summarized in the jubilant words of President George H. W. Bush who stated in 1990 before the launching of Desert Storm: (From now on) “what we say, goes”. The pronouncement was an unambiguous statement of Washington’s determination to rule the world and establish a new order.

Now, 27 years later, the United States has been stopped in its tracks in Syria and Ukraine. New centers of economic power are emerging, new political alliances are forming, and Washington’s authority is being openly challenged. Putin’s task is to block Washington’s forward progress, create tangible disincentives for aggression, and put an end to the foreign interventions. The Russian president might have to take a few steps backward to avoid WW3, but ultimately the goal is clear and achievable. Uncle Sam must be reigned in, the war-making must stop, global security must be re-established, and people must be free to return to their homes in peace

.

 

[python]

It's hard to find bigger hypocrites than the German Goverment. They cry about human rights violation in other EU countries and other European countries and at the same time they sell arms to pretty much every single sictatorship on the Arabian Peninsula and even signed a deal to train Saudi army officers in Germany.
The level of hypocrisy is unbearable and distigusting.

you forgot to mention the biggest example of german hypocrisy -- israel. your slip is well justified. the german msm would very rarely dare to fairly address the zionist crimes against humanity. their crimes against the gazans humanity, against the israeli palestians humanity, against the arabs displaced by the illegal settlements etc etc

if germany was concerned with humans rights and fairness, THAT's where they should start.

b/c germany is milked, abused, intimidated, shamed and otherwise blackmailed by the modern zionist racists, they keep the biggest hypocrisy quiet. not that some timid german officials from time to time dont talk (like the last week fm visiting israel), but overall, big germany is absolutely cowed by a noisy bunch of 'anti-Semitism fighters'.

@kingr
so much for the big german media slautering the govt for the israeli human rights crimes

@brullnux
agree. hypocrisy is an inherent quality of most politician. but it was not invented in the west. the difference btwn the merkel/may/trump hypocrisy and say the putin veriety is that he isn't claiming a value SUPERIORITY.

neither do the chinese for that matter. think about it !