Ron Paul skeptical about Trump's Syrian attack!

[toomuchtime_]

I listened to Ron Paul in the video and he lied about peace being at hand or doubts about Assad's guilt in order to rant on about warmongers and perpetual war. If you really were a critical thinker, you would have been shocked by his lies.

And what supernatural RW ability did you use to discern that Paul was lying in his video, telekinesis ?

The whole thing is a work. It makes zero sense for Assad to do this .

Assad was framed !

And he is having his jets resume flights to demonstrate this?

Really

But with 20 fewer jets and a promise there will be fewer still if he uses chemical weapons again.

Or if someone can make it seem he used chemical weapons again.

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

 

[JQPublic1]

Whether Assad used Sarin or chlorine gas this time or last, or even whether he did either of those things is irrelevant.

The relevance I see is in the contextual sense of whether Assad was behind either chemical attack. We hear clues such as the ✈ that dropped the munitions was traced back to the Shayrat air base. But I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.i shall hold this course until more facts indicating otherwise are revealed.

The man has been anything but part of the solution to squashing ISIS in Syria, and that makes him part of the problem

I have heard just the opposite. Some sources posit that the relative leniency of Trump's strike was predicated upon the notion of allowing Assad to keep most of his planes and runways intact so as not to hinder his fight against ISIS.

I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.

Well, we're talking about military action. Just how much specific source attribution do you expect to find disclosed in the public sphere? Especially from an Administration headed by a man who won't release his tax returns -- none of them, not even ones not under audit -- and populated by people who routinely as civilian, non-government employees/agents/representatives have had meetings with state actors that, when asked on the record whether they had any such interactions and what be the nature of them, failed to disclose so much as the mere fact that the interactions took place.

You can attribute your skepticism to the fact that sources are unnamed. That's your right. I'm not going to do that because "Deepthroat" was undisclosed too, yet we know he was thoroughly credible. Vetting the veracity of the information received from undisclosed sources is part and parcel of what the press has done for years. Speaking on condition of anonymity is what government and business leaders, administrators and officials routinely do, and they do it for a variety of reasons ranging from whistleblowing to "test floating" ideas to willful disinformation.

I have heard just the opposite.....Some sources posit...

Well, from whom? Just where is the rigorous "thoughtware" that gives credence to what you've heard and the resulting skepticism you have. The skepticism expressed in the popularly available news (not just the so-called mainstream media like the three major networks, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al) is all well and good, but for any of it to "hold water," there's got to be credible evidence and analysis to substantiate it.

I'm skeptical too, but absent any specific and credible information to support that skepticism, it's nothing more than what I noted in my first post in this thread. I know that; thus I know I better than to make more of it than just that.

Frankly, I've not seen reputable reports of Assad doing anything noteworthy to interdict and crush ISIS.

• Why Bashar Assad Won't Fight ISIS
  
• If Assad is not forced out, Isis never will be
  
• The war in Syria, explained
• ISIS AND THE CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA: THE CHALLENGE FOR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
  
• Syrian regime's coordination with Islamic State against other rebel groups obligates Western, Arab coalition against ISIS to revise its current strategy of treating this fight as separate from the one against Assad
  
• Did Assad Really Help Build ISIS? An Examination of the Evidence
• Assad’s Forces May Be Aiding New ISIS Surge
  
• The Rise and Fall of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (Levant) ISIS
  
• The Assad Regime and Jihadis: Collaborators and Allies?
  
• Civil Resistance vs. ISIS

Everything I keep hearing about Assad's battle actions is that he's fighting the Syrian insurgency that has nothing to do with and wants no part of ISIS. If Assad has done anything against ISIS, it's only because he feels he's squashed the "rebel" movement against his government. And let's not pretend....The Syrian "rebels" are friend to neither Assad nor Russia, whereas ISIS doesn't generally rain terror in Russia or Syria. While not addressing the ISIS problem first is a lost opportunity for Assad, it's not hard to see why he didn't prioritize that effort over the "rebel" ouster.

DAYUM, sir. Who the heck are you? The name Xelor must be the eponym for a consortium of writers. The overwhelming collection of data you have presented in such a short time would be a miraculous achievement for one poster.
OTOH I suppose you could have stayed up all night in front of your computer drinking coffee feeding your obsession to prove me wrong. Gee.If that's the case,i am flattered.
Nonetheless, I will have to take some time to sift through your narrative to find points of agreements or disagreements. But I am awed by the literary finess you have presented thus far. Great job.

 

[JQPublic1]

Whether Assad used Sarin or chlorine gas this time or last, or even whether he did either of those things is irrelevant.

The relevance I see is in the contextual sense of whether Assad was behind either chemical attack. We hear clues such as the ✈ that dropped the munitions was traced back to the Shayrat air base. But I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.i shall hold this course until more facts indicating otherwise are revealed.

The man has been anything but part of the solution to squashing ISIS in Syria, and that makes him part of the problem

I have heard just the opposite. Some sources posit that the relative leniency of Trump's strike was predicated upon the notion of allowing Assad to keep most of his planes and runways intact so as not to hinder his fight against ISIS.

What fight against ISIS? If there really was a fight against ISIS it would in syria have died years ago. But ISIS is Assad's golden opportunity - he can slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people to make sure his own round a-hole remains on the seat he was promised ages ago and now is denied.

What fight against ISIS?

I was going to ask that too, but since you beat me to it...LOL

Newsweek published this account of the battles to control Palmyra in October 2015. Unless you have some compelling reasons to invalidate that report it undermines your premise that Assad isn't fighting ISIS.
Inside Putin's and Assad's war against ISIS

 

[usmbguest5318]

Whether Assad used Sarin or chlorine gas this time or last, or even whether he did either of those things is irrelevant.

The relevance I see is in the contextual sense of whether Assad was behind either chemical attack. We hear clues such as the ✈ that dropped the munitions was traced back to the Shayrat air base. But I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.i shall hold this course until more facts indicating otherwise are revealed.

The man has been anything but part of the solution to squashing ISIS in Syria, and that makes him part of the problem

I have heard just the opposite. Some sources posit that the relative leniency of Trump's strike was predicated upon the notion of allowing Assad to keep most of his planes and runways intact so as not to hinder his fight against ISIS.

I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.

Well, we're talking about military action. Just how much specific source attribution do you expect to find disclosed in the public sphere? Especially from an Administration headed by a man who won't release his tax returns -- none of them, not even ones not under audit -- and populated by people who routinely as civilian, non-government employees/agents/representatives have had meetings with state actors that, when asked on the record whether they had any such interactions and what be the nature of them, failed to disclose so much as the mere fact that the interactions took place.

You can attribute your skepticism to the fact that sources are unnamed. That's your right. I'm not going to do that because "Deepthroat" was undisclosed too, yet we know he was thoroughly credible. Vetting the veracity of the information received from undisclosed sources is part and parcel of what the press has done for years. Speaking on condition of anonymity is what government and business leaders, administrators and officials routinely do, and they do it for a variety of reasons ranging from whistleblowing to "test floating" ideas to willful disinformation.

I have heard just the opposite.....Some sources posit...

Well, from whom? Just where is the rigorous "thoughtware" that gives credence to what you've heard and the resulting skepticism you have. The skepticism expressed in the popularly available news (not just the so-called mainstream media like the three major networks, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al) is all well and good, but for any of it to "hold water," there's got to be credible evidence and analysis to substantiate it.

I'm skeptical too, but absent any specific and credible information to support that skepticism, it's nothing more than what I noted in my first post in this thread. I know that; thus I know I better than to make more of it than just that.

Frankly, I've not seen reputable reports of Assad doing anything noteworthy to interdict and crush ISIS.

• Why Bashar Assad Won't Fight ISIS
  
• If Assad is not forced out, Isis never will be
  
• The war in Syria, explained
• ISIS AND THE CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA: THE CHALLENGE FOR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
  
• Syrian regime's coordination with Islamic State against other rebel groups obligates Western, Arab coalition against ISIS to revise its current strategy of treating this fight as separate from the one against Assad
  
• Did Assad Really Help Build ISIS? An Examination of the Evidence
• Assad’s Forces May Be Aiding New ISIS Surge
  
• The Rise and Fall of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (Levant) ISIS
  
• The Assad Regime and Jihadis: Collaborators and Allies?
  
• Civil Resistance vs. ISIS

Everything I keep hearing about Assad's battle actions is that he's fighting the Syrian insurgency that has nothing to do with and wants no part of ISIS. If Assad has done anything against ISIS, it's only because he feels he's squashed the "rebel" movement against his government. And let's not pretend....The Syrian "rebels" are friend to neither Assad nor Russia, whereas ISIS doesn't generally rain terror in Russia or Syria. While not addressing the ISIS problem first is a lost opportunity for Assad, it's not hard to see why he didn't prioritize that effort over the "rebel" ouster.

DAYUM, sir. Who the heck are you? The name Xelor must be the eponym for a consortium of writers. The overwhelming collection of data you have presented in such a short time would be a miraculous achievement for one poster.
OTOH I suppose you could have stayed up all night in front of your computer drinking coffee feeding your obsession to prove me wrong. Gee.If that's the case,i am flattered.
Nonetheless, I will have to take some time to sift through your narrative to find points of agreements or disagreements. But I am awed by the literary finess you have presented thus far. Great job.

Who the heck are you? The name Xelor must be the eponym for a consortium of writers. The overwhelming collection of data you have presented in such a short time would be a miraculous achievement for one poster.

I'm merely someone with a healthy curiosity about almost anything and everything, thus my learning sojourn didn't end upon matriculating to the "real world" of adult life and fully engaged social participation, who lives in D.C. and whose living has no direct connection (and fleeting indirect connection as my clients have all been middle market to large private sector organizations and their managers) with federal policy making, legislation and analysis. Be that as it may, my social existence has for 30+ years required that I be at least conversant on a wide range of political topics for many of the people in my "circle" are subject matter experts on one or several dimensions of public policy.

Quite simply one is not an interesting party guest or host and would be relegated to social sequestration among the "hoi polloi" if one has neither well informed, coherent and intelligent insights to offer or similarly natured questions to ask of those who have vast stores of first hand experience.

That being the reality I face and prefer to the noted alternative, I read a lot fairly quickly (faster than average, but not a "page burner;" a 400 page non-fiction text takes me about six to seven hours to read) carefully and critically. That my career afforded me multiple non-tourist opportunities to spend extended and/or frequent periods in other countries helps -- one can't really travel abroad and expect to interact with the locals and not know a good deal about the place. (My firm always provides a full brief on the history and culture of wherever I go and primers on what topics to avoid and how/why should I find myself in substantive conversations.) So does the fact that I've pretty much always been a geek who thirsts for knowledge and who cares about politics because I know that a keen understanding policy enables one to shapes one's own fortunes to take advantage of whichever way political winds blow helps too; it makes reading such material not only interesting in the abstract, but also gives it practical first hand value as well.

I am able to so quickly find and share information sources because I've been using the Internet to supplement my knowledge for some 20 years. It's not hard to recall what I've read over the years. I suppose the "trick" is knowing how to maximize Google's searching power. Basically, one just has to ask it very specific questions, and when seeking rigorous and credible content, preface the search with "scholarly article" or "scholarly paper" so as to push the "propaganda" results away from the top of the list as much as possible. That tactic alone most of the time keeps the drivel out of my searches. As for the actual content, having often read a lot, it doesn't generally take more than a quick scan of a document to know what it will say and what themes it pursues. A couple quick Ctrl-F searches for keywords that experience on the topic in question tells me to look for, along with reading quickly, pretty well covers the rest.

As for the ID, Xelor, well, I explained its origins here:

Hello. Y'all can call me Xelor. It's a name I created some 20 years ago when I played computer games with my children. I chose the name for several reasons: (1) because it starts with "X," (2) because it sounds like one of those weird names that a fantasy character would have, and (3) I'd just bought a watch.

One last thing...The quantity of references I share has several functions:

• to show that I'm not just making up "sh*t" based on little more than my gut feelings and a cursory look at the subject -- I certainly have personal preferences and gut feelings, but they don't matter unless one is merely polling to see what people wish were so, think is so, etc.
• to show that multiple independent analysts have arrived at comparable primary conclusions ("primary"l being key here as rarely does the discussion drive into nuance), and
• to offer content that may appeal to parties having differing levels and dimensions of interest in the topic.

 

[JQPublic1]

You believe the media...just the "right wing" media and you think somehow that makes you mentally superior to the lefties. Paul was right on about every damn thing,simple solutions are the best solutions only politicians make things harder than need be to make it seem things CAN'T be fixed. So yep critical thinkers are the only ones that supported Paul.

I listened to Ron Paul in the video and he lied about peace being at hand or doubts about Assad's guilt in order to rant on about warmongers and perpetual war. If you really were a critical thinker, you would have been shocked by his lies.

And what supernatural RW ability did you use to discern that Paul was lying in his video, telekinesis ?

As I pointed out previously, it was the words he said that led me to believe he was lying.

Please point to the alleged lie. This guessing what you mean is getting old.

I have pointed out what Paul lied about. For one thing he claimed peace was at hand, and there is no basis for that statement. He also claimed it there wasn't evidence Assad was guilty, but the US shared its intelligence with all of its allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt and all of them supported the missile strike. Knowing how outspoken our European allies are when they disagree with the US, this would be taken as strong evidence of Assad's guilt by any honest person.

The basis of Paul's statement likely emanates from a report similar to this from Reuters:

By Tom Miles and John Irish | GENEVA
March 2, 2017

"Syrian peace talks in Geneva edged forwards on Wednesday, for the first time in six days of U.N.-led talks, as both sides saw hope of shaping the agenda to their liking and opposition negotiators met a senior diplomat from powerbroker Russia."
I reviewed other media viewpoints dated earlier than this one that reflected a stalemate in peace negotiations. Things change so fast that what might be true one day isn't necessarily true the next. With that in mind, I would give Paul a pass on his statement since the Reuters report came out mere days before the chemical incident.
Both Syrian sides see gains in peace talks as Russia weighs in

US Intelligence involvement:
I would appreciate any information you have on this. I have searched for a connection but found nothing. BTW, it was that search that led me to Ron Paul's website. His narrative explained the lack of validation by any of the 17 US Intelligence agencies that I had vainly been seeking. Paul had obviously taken note of the same media ommisions pertaining to western intelligence input that I had.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I listened to Ron Paul in the video and he lied about peace being at hand or doubts about Assad's guilt in order to rant on about warmongers and perpetual war. If you really were a critical thinker, you would have been shocked by his lies.

And what supernatural RW ability did you use to discern that Paul was lying in his video, telekinesis ?

As I pointed out previously, it was the words he said that led me to believe he was lying.

Please point to the alleged lie. This guessing what you mean is getting old.

I have pointed out what Paul lied about. For one thing he claimed peace was at hand, and there is no basis for that statement. He also claimed it there wasn't evidence Assad was guilty, but the US shared its intelligence with all of its allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt and all of them supported the missile strike. Knowing how outspoken our European allies are when they disagree with the US, this would be taken as strong evidence of Assad's guilt by any honest person.

The basis of Paul's statement likely emanates from a report similar to this from Reuters:

By Tom Miles and John Irish | GENEVA
March 2, 2017

"Syrian peace talks in Geneva edged forwards on Wednesday, for the first time in six days of U.N.-led talks, as both sides saw hope of shaping the agenda to their liking and opposition negotiators met a senior diplomat from powerbroker Russia."
I reviewed other media viewpoints dated earlier than this one that reflected a stalemate in peace negotiations. Things change so fast that what might be true one day isn't necessarily true the next. With that in mind, I would give Paul a pass on his statement since the Reuters report came out mere days before the chemical incident.
Both Syrian sides see gains in peace talks as Russia weighs in

US Intelligence involvement:
I would appreciate any information you have on this. I have searched for a connection but found nothing. BTW, it was that search that led me to Ron Paul's website. His narrative explained the lack of validation by any of the 17 US Intelligence agencies that I had vainly been seeking. Paul had obviously taken note of the same media ommisions pertaining to western intelligence input that I had.

Negotiations have been going on internittently for years and according to your quote there is no evidence "peace is at hand" just some hope that some progress may be made some time in the future. If this is all he had, clearly Paul lied.

As for you not having personally seen any evidence of Assad's guilt, just how often does the CIA consult with you on these matters?

 

[JQPublic1]

And what supernatural RW ability did you use to discern that Paul was lying in his video, telekinesis ?

The whole thing is a work. It makes zero sense for Assad to do this .

Assad was framed !

And he is having his jets resume flights to demonstrate this?

Really

But with 20 fewer jets and a promise there will be fewer still if he uses chemical weapons again.

Or if someone can make it seem he used chemical weapons again.

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

 

[toomuchtime_]

The whole thing is a work. It makes zero sense for Assad to do this .

Assad was framed !

And he is having his jets resume flights to demonstrate this?

Really

But with 20 fewer jets and a promise there will be fewer still if he uses chemical weapons again.

Or if someone can make it seem he used chemical weapons again.

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

I'm glad to hear you are not a Holocaust denier. There is lots of evidence that Assad is guilty. All of this evidence was shared with US allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt. That's pretty strong evidence.

 

[JQPublic1]

And what supernatural RW ability did you use to discern that Paul was lying in his video, telekinesis ?

As I pointed out previously, it was the words he said that led me to believe he was lying.

Please point to the alleged lie. This guessing what you mean is getting old.

I have pointed out what Paul lied about. For one thing he claimed peace was at hand, and there is no basis for that statement. He also claimed it there wasn't evidence Assad was guilty, but the US shared its intelligence with all of its allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt and all of them supported the missile strike. Knowing how outspoken our European allies are when they disagree with the US, this would be taken as strong evidence of Assad's guilt by any honest person.

The basis of Paul's statement likely emanates from a report similar to this from Reuters:

By Tom Miles and John Irish | GENEVA
March 2, 2017

"Syrian peace talks in Geneva edged forwards on Wednesday, for the first time in six days of U.N.-led talks, as both sides saw hope of shaping the agenda to their liking and opposition negotiators met a senior diplomat from powerbroker Russia."
I reviewed other media viewpoints dated earlier than this one that reflected a stalemate in peace negotiations. Things change so fast that what might be true one day isn't necessarily true the next. With that in mind, I would give Paul a pass on his statement since the Reuters report came out mere days before the chemical incident.
Both Syrian sides see gains in peace talks as Russia weighs in

US Intelligence involvement:
I would appreciate any information you have on this. I have searched for a connection but found nothing. BTW, it was that search that led me to Ron Paul's website. His narrative explained the lack of validation by any of the 17 US Intelligence agencies that I had vainly been seeking. Paul had obviously taken note of the same media ommisions pertaining to western intelligence input that I had.

Negotiations have been going on internittently for years and according to your quote there is no evidence "peace is at hand" just some hope that some progress may be made some time in the future. If this is all he had, clearly Paul lied.

As for you not having personally seen any evidence of Assad's guilt, just how often does the CIA consult with you on these matters?

Regardless of past negotiations and how those panned out, the latest one, as cited by the author, suggested some modicum of progress. When you add your own spin and change words,you detract from the author's intent. That fragile balance of credibility that embodies an author's narrative must remain intact so it can be judged on it's own merits.

 

[toomuchtime_]

As I pointed out previously, it was the words he said that led me to believe he was lying.

Please point to the alleged lie. This guessing what you mean is getting old.

I have pointed out what Paul lied about. For one thing he claimed peace was at hand, and there is no basis for that statement. He also claimed it there wasn't evidence Assad was guilty, but the US shared its intelligence with all of its allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt and all of them supported the missile strike. Knowing how outspoken our European allies are when they disagree with the US, this would be taken as strong evidence of Assad's guilt by any honest person.

The basis of Paul's statement likely emanates from a report similar to this from Reuters:

By Tom Miles and John Irish | GENEVA
March 2, 2017

"Syrian peace talks in Geneva edged forwards on Wednesday, for the first time in six days of U.N.-led talks, as both sides saw hope of shaping the agenda to their liking and opposition negotiators met a senior diplomat from powerbroker Russia."
I reviewed other media viewpoints dated earlier than this one that reflected a stalemate in peace negotiations. Things change so fast that what might be true one day isn't necessarily true the next. With that in mind, I would give Paul a pass on his statement since the Reuters report came out mere days before the chemical incident.
Both Syrian sides see gains in peace talks as Russia weighs in

US Intelligence involvement:
I would appreciate any information you have on this. I have searched for a connection but found nothing. BTW, it was that search that led me to Ron Paul's website. His narrative explained the lack of validation by any of the 17 US Intelligence agencies that I had vainly been seeking. Paul had obviously taken note of the same media ommisions pertaining to western intelligence input that I had.

Negotiations have been going on internittently for years and according to your quote there is no evidence "peace is at hand" just some hope that some progress may be made some time in the future. If this is all he had, clearly Paul lied.

As for you not having personally seen any evidence of Assad's guilt, just how often does the CIA consult with you on these matters?

Regardless of past negotiations and how those panned out, the latest one, as cited by the author, suggested some modicum of progress. When you add your own spin and change words,you detract from the author's intent. That fragile balance of credibility that embodies an author's narrative must remain intact so it can be judged on it's own merits.

Actually the article said there is some hope of modest progress, which is very different from saying "peace is at hand". Paul lied.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Whether Assad used Sarin or chlorine gas this time or last, or even whether he did either of those things is irrelevant.

The relevance I see is in the contextual sense of whether Assad was behind either chemical attack. We hear clues such as the ✈ that dropped the munitions was traced back to the Shayrat air base. But I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.i shall hold this course until more facts indicating otherwise are revealed.

The man has been anything but part of the solution to squashing ISIS in Syria, and that makes him part of the problem

I have heard just the opposite. Some sources posit that the relative leniency of Trump's strike was predicated upon the notion of allowing Assad to keep most of his planes and runways intact so as not to hinder his fight against ISIS.

What fight against ISIS? If there really was a fight against ISIS it would in syria have died years ago. But ISIS is Assad's golden opportunity - he can slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people to make sure his own round a-hole remains on the seat he was promised ages ago and now is denied.

What fight against ISIS?

I was going to ask that too, but since you beat me to it...LOL

Newsweek published this account of the battles to control Palmyra in October 2015. Unless you have some compelling reasons to invalidate that report it undermines your premise that Assad isn't fighting ISIS.
Inside Putin's and Assad's war against ISIS

Newsweek published this account of the battles to control Palmyra in October 2015. Unless you have some compelling reasons to invalidate that report it undermines your premise that Assad isn't fighting ISIS.
Inside Putin's and Assad's war against ISIS

No, I'm not going to dispute that Assad did indeed fight ISIS for control of the noted airport. I will, however, point out that the airport in question is a Syrian military airport, a military resource, and that Assad is embroiled in a military conflict. That ISIS had gained control of it is coincidental; Assad was all but bound to at least try to recapture that airfield regardless of who held it. Palmyra holds strategic importance for Assad above and beyond the airport, and control of the airport equates to controlling Palmyra.

• Why One Antiquities Expert Thinks the Focus on Palmyra's Antiquities Is Misplaced
  
• Orientalist: the Liberation of Palmyra has a Strategic Importance
  
• Syrian Amry Liberates Strategic Heights In Palmyra Countryside
  
• http://inhomelandsecurity.com/strategic-importance-palmyra/

I submit, then, that his efforts, despite the rhetoric that ensued after it, had everything to do with his broader strategic needs and far less to do with specifically defeating or focusing on defeating ISIS. It cannot, however, be denied that Assad's recapture of the air base did help pare back ISIS' position and strength.

Take a look at some maps and you'll see what I mean.

Syria's Airfields

Syria before Assad regained control of Palmyra

Map showing VICE/ISIS control in Syria and Iraq - 2014

ISIS isn't the only group availing itself of the vacuum wrought by the civil war Assad has been fighting against the Western-backed rebels.

And then there's the oil....

This is from February 2015.

One of the earlier documents I linked discussed the, let's call it "odd," relationship whereby Assad has willfully agreed to let ISIS sell to him his own damn oil, as well as refine and transport it with Assad's full compliance. Now you tell me...Just how intent on driving ISIS out -- at least in the past and recently -- can Assad have been for him to acquiesced to such an arrangement?

 

[JQPublic1]

And he is having his jets resume flights to demonstrate this?

Really

But with 20 fewer jets and a promise there will be fewer still if he uses chemical weapons again.

Or if someone can make it seem he used chemical weapons again.

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

I'm glad to hear you are not a Holocaust denier. There is lots of evidence that Assad is guilty. All of this evidence was shared with US allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt. That's pretty strong evidence.

But I question the source of the evidence shared. Media reports out of Turkey do not qualify as vehicles by which the President of the United States uses to launch a missle attack.

Trump apologists in this forum have stated unequivocally that US intelligence agencies gathered and disseminated information to Trump and our allies. But not one shred of evidence supports that contention. I see a circus of innuendo and spurious assumptions. Meanwhile the national focus has shifted from the Trump administration's connection with Putin to the unfounded allegations against Assad.

 

[toomuchtime_]

But with 20 fewer jets and a promise there will be fewer still if he uses chemical weapons again.

Or if someone can make it seem he used chemical weapons again.

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

I'm glad to hear you are not a Holocaust denier. There is lots of evidence that Assad is guilty. All of this evidence was shared with US allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt. That's pretty strong evidence.

But I question the source of the evidence shared. Media reports out of Turkey do not qualify as vehicles by which the President of the United States uses to launch a missle attack.

Trump apologists in this forum have stated unequivocally that US intelligence agencies gathered and disseminated information to Trump and our allies. But not one shred of evidence supports that contention. I see a circus of innuendo and spurious assumptions. Meanwhile the national focus has shifted from the Trump administration's connection with Putin to the unfounded allegations against Assad.

So in your opinion all the NATO countries and other US allies who saw the intelligence and approved the missile attacks are idiots or warmongers.

 

[JQPublic1]

Or if someone can make it seem he used chemical weapons again.

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

I'm glad to hear you are not a Holocaust denier. There is lots of evidence that Assad is guilty. All of this evidence was shared with US allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt. That's pretty strong evidence.

But I question the source of the evidence shared. Media reports out of Turkey do not qualify as vehicles by which the President of the United States uses to launch a missle attack.

Trump apologists in this forum have stated unequivocally that US intelligence agencies gathered and disseminated information to Trump and our allies. But not one shred of evidence supports that contention. I see a circus of innuendo and spurious assumptions. Meanwhile the national focus has shifted from the Trump administration's connection with Putin to the unfounded allegations against Assad.

So in your opinion all the NATO countries and other US allies who saw the intelligence and approved the missile attacks are idiots or warmongers.

Did you misunderstand my post? I don't think there was any intelligence involved at all.
Trump likely reacted to a Fox news report.

 

[Meane]

Whether Assad used Sarin or chlorine gas this time or last, or even whether he did either of those things is irrelevant.

The relevance I see is in the contextual sense of whether Assad was behind either chemical attack. We hear clues such as the ✈ that dropped the munitions was traced back to the Shayrat air base. But I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.i shall hold this course until more facts indicating otherwise are revealed.

The man has been anything but part of the solution to squashing ISIS in Syria, and that makes him part of the problem

I have heard just the opposite. Some sources posit that the relative leniency of Trump's strike was predicated upon the notion of allowing Assad to keep most of his planes and runways intact so as not to hinder his fight against ISIS.

What fight against ISIS? If there really was a fight against ISIS it would in syria have died years ago. But ISIS is Assad's golden opportunity - he can slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people to make sure his own round a-hole remains on the seat he was promised ages ago and now is denied.

What fight against ISIS?

I was going to ask that too, but since you beat me to it...LOL

Newsweek published this account of the battles to control Palmyra in October 2015. Unless you have some compelling reasons to invalidate that report it undermines your premise that Assad isn't fighting ISIS.
Inside Putin's and Assad's war against ISIS

I remember that time of year 2016.

At the time the statistical bombing strike situation by Russia was, give or take a child or two, 30% on ISIS, 70% on rebels and civilians.

Impressive ..that some still think it's about ISIS. Putin is a bit of a fool, but one thing he does know and giggles at at nights, is that ISIS will survive elsewhere anyway.

 

[Meane]

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

I'm glad to hear you are not a Holocaust denier. There is lots of evidence that Assad is guilty. All of this evidence was shared with US allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt. That's pretty strong evidence.

But I question the source of the evidence shared. Media reports out of Turkey do not qualify as vehicles by which the President of the United States uses to launch a missle attack.

Trump apologists in this forum have stated unequivocally that US intelligence agencies gathered and disseminated information to Trump and our allies. But not one shred of evidence supports that contention. I see a circus of innuendo and spurious assumptions. Meanwhile the national focus has shifted from the Trump administration's connection with Putin to the unfounded allegations against Assad.

So in your opinion all the NATO countries and other US allies who saw the intelligence and approved the missile attacks are idiots or warmongers.

Did you misunderstand my post? I don't think there was any intelligence involved at all.
Trump likely reacted to a Fox news report.

Other world leaders don't generally follow fix news. And they knew as well. Or really, they knew alone.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I listened to Ron Paul in the video and he lied about peace being at hand or doubts about Assad's guilt in order to rant on about warmongers and perpetual war. If you really were a critical thinker, you would have been shocked by his lies.

And what supernatural RW ability did you use to discern that Paul was lying in his video, telekinesis ?

As I pointed out previously, it was the words he said that led me to believe he was lying.

Please point to the alleged lie. This guessing what you mean is getting old.

I have pointed out what Paul lied about. For one thing he claimed peace was at hand, and there is no basis for that statement. He also claimed it there wasn't evidence Assad was guilty, but the US shared its intelligence with all of its allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt and all of them supported the missile strike. Knowing how outspoken our European allies are when they disagree with the US, this would be taken as strong evidence of Assad's guilt by any honest person.

The basis of Paul's statement likely emanates from a report similar to this from Reuters:

By Tom Miles and John Irish | GENEVA
March 2, 2017

"Syrian peace talks in Geneva edged forwards on Wednesday, for the first time in six days of U.N.-led talks, as both sides saw hope of shaping the agenda to their liking and opposition negotiators met a senior diplomat from powerbroker Russia."
I reviewed other media viewpoints dated earlier than this one that reflected a stalemate in peace negotiations. Things change so fast that what might be true one day isn't necessarily true the next. With that in mind, I would give Paul a pass on his statement since the Reuters report came out mere days before the chemical incident.
Both Syrian sides see gains in peace talks as Russia weighs in

US Intelligence involvement:
I would appreciate any information you have on this. I have searched for a connection but found nothing. BTW, it was that search that led me to Ron Paul's website. His narrative explained the lack of validation by any of the 17 US Intelligence agencies that I had vainly been seeking. Paul had obviously taken note of the same media ommisions pertaining to western intelligence input that I had.

The basis of Paul's statement likely emanates from a report similar to this from Reuters:

You could be right and his statement may in some way derive from there....One would hope that he's got better information than does Reuters, for Paul sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Whether Assad used Sarin or chlorine gas this time or last, or even whether he did either of those things is irrelevant.

The relevance I see is in the contextual sense of whether Assad was behind either chemical attack. We hear clues such as the ✈ that dropped the munitions was traced back to the Shayrat air base. But I remain skeptical of such reports from undisclosed sources.i shall hold this course until more facts indicating otherwise are revealed.

The man has been anything but part of the solution to squashing ISIS in Syria, and that makes him part of the problem

I have heard just the opposite. Some sources posit that the relative leniency of Trump's strike was predicated upon the notion of allowing Assad to keep most of his planes and runways intact so as not to hinder his fight against ISIS.

What fight against ISIS? If there really was a fight against ISIS it would in syria have died years ago. But ISIS is Assad's golden opportunity - he can slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people to make sure his own round a-hole remains on the seat he was promised ages ago and now is denied.

What fight against ISIS?

I was going to ask that too, but since you beat me to it...LOL

Newsweek published this account of the battles to control Palmyra in October 2015. Unless you have some compelling reasons to invalidate that report it undermines your premise that Assad isn't fighting ISIS.
Inside Putin's and Assad's war against ISIS

I remember that time of year 2016.

At the time the statistical bombing strike situation by Russia was, give or take a child or two, 30% on ISIS, 70% on rebels and civilians.

Impressive ..that some still think it's about ISIS. Putin is a bit of a fool, but one thing he does know and giggles at at nights, is that ISIS will survive elsewhere anyway.

Putin is a bit of a fool, but one thing he does know and giggles at at nights, is that ISIS will survive elsewhere anyway.

A genuine fool is one thing I doubt Putin is. Foolhardy on rare occasion, perhaps, but a fool, not at all. I think too that he is an ideological anachronist who aims to restore the Cold War/USSR paradigm and he's done his best to avail himself of Trump's yearning for much the same thing as embodied in his "Make America Great Again" slogan. Those were the days, after all, when the USSR and KGB "ruled the world" from a manipulative use of intelligence/espionage standpoint. It was a time when though information was important, the availability of it and access to it was far harder to come by than in this day of hackers being able to make just about anything "common knowledge."

As for ISIS' legacy and endurance, it's certain that ISIS has innovated a new approach to terrorism and shown it's strategic viability, with some enhanced tactics and strategies required to be sure, as a path to independent statehood for sufficiently resourced, supported and motivated wackos. ISIS, to a lesser extent Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, have shown that comparatively minor groups need not be marginalized into oblivion and that they too can use the very same tactic the U.S. (Reagan) used to effect the collapse of the USSR.

Just think of how much treasure the West has spent defending against ISIS and its allies and how that sum compares with the sums and resources the Western world committed back when terrorism was little but sensational one-off events that occurred in relatively predictably consistent localities. Now think of how those resources may instead have been used for the betterment of the citizens in the nations that spent them.

Considering that from Putin's and Russia's POV, those resources squandered on less productive immediate term goals rather than on the long term development of the U.S. and its allies people -- educationally, enterprisingly, health wise, etc. -- and what one sees is situation whereby the discord ISIS cause serves to slow the West's advance beyond Russia, and to a lesser degree China, though China has largely skirted the issue by simply not getting involved in most of the imbroglios that so consume the U.S. and Western Europe. Why wouldn't Putin want that? Aside from roughly being comparable to (not equal to) the U.S. militarily, Russia may as well be considered a developing nation when viewed in terms of the quality of life most Russians experience.

And, yes, ISIS' ideology isn't likely to disappear any more than KKK ideology has not disappeared entirely.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Are you also a Holocaust denier?

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

I'm glad to hear you are not a Holocaust denier. There is lots of evidence that Assad is guilty. All of this evidence was shared with US allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt. That's pretty strong evidence.

But I question the source of the evidence shared. Media reports out of Turkey do not qualify as vehicles by which the President of the United States uses to launch a missle attack.

Trump apologists in this forum have stated unequivocally that US intelligence agencies gathered and disseminated information to Trump and our allies. But not one shred of evidence supports that contention. I see a circus of innuendo and spurious assumptions. Meanwhile the national focus has shifted from the Trump administration's connection with Putin to the unfounded allegations against Assad.

So in your opinion all the NATO countries and other US allies who saw the intelligence and approved the missile attacks are idiots or warmongers.

Did you misunderstand my post? I don't think there was any intelligence involved at all.
Trump likely reacted to a Fox news report.

And all of our allies also?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Absolutely NOT! Some of the victims survived to tell their story.And there is also plenty of film detailing NAZI atrocities against the Jews and other "undesirables."

I'm glad to hear you are not a Holocaust denier. There is lots of evidence that Assad is guilty. All of this evidence was shared with US allies and not one of them expressed any doubt about Assad's guilt. That's pretty strong evidence.

But I question the source of the evidence shared. Media reports out of Turkey do not qualify as vehicles by which the President of the United States uses to launch a missle attack.

Trump apologists in this forum have stated unequivocally that US intelligence agencies gathered and disseminated information to Trump and our allies. But not one shred of evidence supports that contention. I see a circus of innuendo and spurious assumptions. Meanwhile the national focus has shifted from the Trump administration's connection with Putin to the unfounded allegations against Assad.

So in your opinion all the NATO countries and other US allies who saw the intelligence and approved the missile attacks are idiots or warmongers.

Did you misunderstand my post? I don't think there was any intelligence involved at all.
Trump likely reacted to a Fox news report.

Other world leaders don't generally follow fix news. And they knew as well. Or really, they knew alone.

In any case, they all knew Assad was guilty.