General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor the Factually Challenged: Human Rights Organization Concludes Syrian Government Culpable
If I hear one more time from a Leftist ideologue or a Rightist libertarian that "we don't know who launched the chemical weapons in Syria" one more time, I am going to throw up. That lie to relieve the Syrian regime of the culpability of this horrific act just so these ideologues can score a debate point that is contrary to all the facts in evidence is abhorrent, pernicious and incredulous. Not only has the White House released a public intelligence assessment holding the Syrian government accountable and not only have publicly available photos and videos established that, the evidence has been accepted by the most ardent anti-war voices in Congress, including the sole dissenter on the original Afghan war vote, Barbara Lee.
And now, Human Rights Watch, the international human rights organization, has weighed in with its analysis of the attacks. And to the surprise of exactly no one reasonable, they too concluded that the attack was perpetrated by the Assad regime...
Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. These attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, appeared to use a weapons-grade nerve agent, most likely Sarin.
...
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/for-factually-challenged-human-rights.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. These attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, appeared to use a weapons-grade nerve agent, most likely Sarin.
link: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack/div]
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)to do something forceful about them? If the threat of force gets the desired outcome, why the hell do "internet liberals" have such a problem with it? 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)in red and those who scream loudest about drones in blue....it would be a perfect purple circle.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Very good point.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)However, I just don't see how the atrocities of these 500 dead are worse than the other 100,000 dead in their Civil War. I'm not great at math, but the amount dead from poison gas seems to be about one-half of one percent.
1,100 people died in a factory collapse in Bangladesh in April, for reasons that were just as immoral as poison as and just as horrible to die in. Why aren't we shooting missiles at them? Why aren't we banning all trade with Bangladesh?
Where's the consistency in our values, our outrage, and our actions?
Cha
(318,954 posts)on this.. let Allah sort it out 
". Well no, Alan Grayson.. it is our business as part of the international community. Now just sit back with your smirk and cackle while Pres Obama shows you how it's done.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
Cha
(318,954 posts)bestest buddy now.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
Cha
(318,954 posts)for being the FIRST in.. "blah blah blah "
"These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations."
http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html
It's just getting in the hot and heavy stage now.. rofl.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3629695
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)Well,......not all humans, but like you said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I've been quite surprised at the muted response to Russia's gag inducing crackdown on an entire community, but I think I know the reason for it.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Good God... 
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)Progressives used to be much smarter, or at least that's the impression they gave. You're right, the only response is .
Number23
(24,544 posts)what these folks in GD are that much harder.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)there are lots of reputable sources you could use for this story.
that blogger is an asswipe and an idiot.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)posted this link to this vile piece of shit blogger.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Obama is a Democrat. So why are pro-Obama bloggers to be disallowed on this site?
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)I can stomach one but not the other.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are not fan-like. (To me that represents photos of the family/FLOTUS and the social aspects of the WH).
It says something to me that people try to smear this blogger. They really have to be anti-Obama to do it and anti-Democratic Party. There's no reason to have such a gut instinct against that blog otherwise. It's way more sophisticated and researched than the BOG is.
It's like they hate it as much as they'd hate Ann Coulter or the like. Weird, considering he is PRO Democratic and PRO the biggest name politician the Democrats have today.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)There's no homophobia there. That's a smear attempt.
But there is reasoned argument there. I can't imagine it not being allowed at DU. It is a pro-Democratic blog.
QC
(26,371 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)you define supporting the president in black and white terms. Your either for us or agin ( I don't spell redneck so well so that is my attempt) us? To use a phrase from the neo-cons.
Look I immediately discount anyone that is overly in lock step with anything. It just ain't natural. People are much more complex than that.
Do I like Obama? Not particularly. Do I support him? As much as my Democratic predecessors supported LBJ when he expanded the Vietnam war. Will i voice my disdain at ANY politician. I don't trust them, I don't believe they have the people interest at hand, and they are in general, evil. Yes even Obama. It is my sworn duty as an American to distrust and question everything they do.
And I am sorry but bloggers on both sides are just fanatical cheerleaders.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Just thought you should know.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Two days ago...
Is Obama in the Process of Landing a Bloodless Humanitarian Coup in Syria?
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/is-obama-in-process-of-landing.html
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)But I guess talking and reacting tough is unacceptable especially when the outcome maybe a "peaceful" solution.
How ironic. Actions speaks louder than words and Pres O was spot on.
Response to cali (Reply #3)
Post removed
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)inb4 the alerts for the use of this blog in GD.
Sid
flamingdem
(40,886 posts).. this was the group that supported Edward Snowden and showed up at his media presentation, no?
Rex
(65,616 posts)
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Mis-understood the report posted here many times already.
Strongly suggests. There is no definitive proof one way or the other. I don't know why you would post a claim that is refuted by the link within that claim. Perhaps you have your own issues with reading comprehension, or you are so bloodthirsty that you will demand Syria be punished and to hell with the consequences of that action. I don't know, and I don't really care. If you're going to post propaganda, you should really work on getting better at it.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Gotta dumb this down for them Kidding
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Spandan's a manipulative little shit, but you already knew that.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)These agencies had a role propagating disinformation before the 1991 Gulf War, in which they claimed that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines. Their propaganda which turned out to be FALSE and it helped lead the USA into Gulf War 1.
I would suggest you use another source.
treestar
(82,383 posts)CT lunacy to attempt to say it didn't happen or put it on others.
Cha
(318,954 posts)that he wouldn't dream of using chemical weapons on his own people.
thanks michigandem
Last week Assad said he didn't even have any Chemical weapons! LMAO
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Human Rights Watch, even if they MAY possibly have been incorrect about Gulf War I(which may or may not be true.), is still an overall reputable organization with decades of experience behind them.
I mean, come on. I understand the worries about manipulation, given that that is *exactly* what happened in the runup to Iraq. But this isn't Iraq......there are PLENTY of sources incidating that Assad's forces did in fact, carry out this attack, as they did others.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Strongly suggests," "appeared to use," and "most likely."
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts) 
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Or is it ok to kill with them just once? Get out of war free card?
Rex
(65,616 posts)PASS.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)on the basis of "strongly suggests" against a nation that is not a threat to your national security. I don't know what part of that is so hard for so many to grasp. We went to war only a decade ago on the basic of empirical evidence and absolute certainty about similar weapons.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)
first-hand evidence that might conclusively establish responsibility for the attack. The report wasn't even prepared by an HRW employee but instead engaged an outside consultant. But, that isn't the main reason to doubt its conclusions, this is.
There is nothing unique about the crude rockets used and the type of Sarin was found by another report to differ from the type held in Syrian military stockpiles.
These are improvised munitions, not standard military rockets. The opposition has produced several types of similar weapons which are made from cannibalized rocket motors, welded steel tubes, fixed fins, no provision for spin stabilization, and primative warheads that appear to be made out of truck mufflers lacking airborne burst capability that are a feature of the far more sophisticated Russian and Iranian-made artillery shells already in the Syrian inventory in large numbers.
There is nothing about these things that's beyond the ability of the opposition to manufacture or deploy from the back of light trucks using simple tube launchers. They are not accurate enough at the ranges claimed, and there's no evidence released that they were used in large enough numbers, to have accounted for the numbers of casualties the Administration initially stated. For more details, please see, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/02/1235688/-Syrian-gas-rockets-appear-homemade-and-incapable-of-flying-5-10-miles-to-target
They are improvised and not standard military ordinance. HRW found they were gov't munitions by the same circumstantial deduction that the State Dept report did - they had to have been launched by the gov't because of the unsupported assumption that the opposition doesn't have them. They do.
Here are the three general types of rockets used in Syria: A) 8/21 rocket; B) Rebel rocket; and C) Gov't rocket. Compare and contrast:
A) Gas rocket of the type used 8/21:
B) Opposition rocket:
C) Gov't rocket: Falaq-2 333mm chemical capable artillery rocket
?w=690
One does not share the characteristics as the others. Which of the three do you think that is?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)it seems more logical that the rebels were the culprits.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)launched without authorization. Most of the available evidence seems to point to the latter.
Responsibility still hasn't been proven, and I'm trying to show how an alternative explanation is just as plausible. In any case, one does not go to war without solid and convincing evidence, which we have not seen. Apparently, that hasn't been shown to Congress either.
The question of which party stood to benefit from the attack is, of course, also important.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)who benefitted from the attacks? i suspect those who want to invade Syria gained the most from the attacks....someone mentioned the Saudis in another thread.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)helped drive our country into Gulf War 1. As a result I am skeptical of their work.
I do appreciate your post though.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Obama's Case for Syria Didn't Reflect Intel Consensus
Monday, 09 September 2013 11:31
By Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service | Report
Washington, DC - Contrary to the general impression in Congress and the news media, the Syria chemical warfare intelligence summary released by the Barack Obama administration Aug. 30 did not represent an intelligence community assessment, an IPS analysis and interviews with former intelligence officials reveals.
The evidence indicates that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper culled intelligence analyses from various agencies and by the White House itself, but that the White House itself had the final say in the contents of the document.
Leading members of Congress to believe that the document was an intelligence community assessment and thus represents a credible picture of the intelligence on the alleged chemical attack of Aug. 21 has been a central element in the Obama administration’s case for war in Syria.
That part of the strategy, at least, has been successful. Despite strong opposition in Congress to the proposed military strike in Syria, no one in either chamber has yet challenged the administration’s characterisation of the intelligence. But the administration is vulnerable to the charge that it has put out an intelligence document that does not fully and accurately reflect the views of intelligence analysts.
Former intelligence officials told IPS that that the paper does not represent a genuine intelligence community assessment but rather one reflecting a predominantly Obama administration influence.
<>
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And I am very proud of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry for having the patience to work on resolving this problem without adding to the violence.
I wasn't there. I don't know who did what. It is more likely that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons. I came to that conclusion after learning how many times these weapons had been used. That was the evidence that convinced me.
We do no good when we view our discussions on DU as a battle amongst us. We all want the right thing. It is absurd to choose up sides and declare winners and losers amongst ourselves. We need to work at a team, to be honest with each other and to try to view all sides of the problems and challenges we discuss.
To argue amongst ourselves throwing derogatory epithets at each other about situations concerning which we do not have adequate information is a waste of time.
Let's be kind to each other.
I am very pleased about the outcome of this crisis thus far. It is a victory for Obama and Kerry. I am really proud. And I thank Obama and Kerry for at least thus far shunning over-reaching violence.
Frankly, I don't think I like any of the choices we have in Syria. But this was a good outcome for this specific aspect of their civil war.
shenmue
(38,597 posts)Some people don't want to admit it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)One can only wonder as to why.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)The 107-page report, "Getting Away with Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees," presents substantial information warranting criminal investigations of Bush and senior administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and CIA Director George Tenet, for ordering practices such as "waterboarding," the use of secret CIA prisons, and the transfer of detainees to countries where they were tortured.
"There are solid grounds to investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tenet for authorizing torture and war crimes," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "President Obama has treated torture as an unfortunate policy choice rather than a crime. His decision to end abusive interrogation practices will remain easily reversible unless the legal prohibition against torture is clearly reestablished."
If the US government does not pursue credible criminal investigations, other countries should prosecute US officials involved in crimes against detainees in accordance with international law, Human Rights Watch said.
"The US has a legal obligation to investigate these crimes," Roth said. "If the US doesn't act on them, other countries should."
In August 2009, US Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Assistant US Attorney John Durham to investigate detainee abuse but limited the probe to "unauthorized" acts. That meant the investigation could not cover acts of torture, such as waterboarding, and other ill-treatment authorized by Bush administration lawyers, even if the acts violated domestic and international law. On June 30, Holder accepted Durham's recommendation to carry out full investigations of two deaths in CIA custody, reportedly from Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch said that the narrow scope of Durham's inquiry failed to address the systemic nature of the abuses.
"The US government's pattern of abuse across several countries did not result from the acts of individuals who broke the rules," Roth said. "It resulted from decisions made by senior US officials to bend, ignore, or cast the rules aside."
In citing the four top-level Bush administration officials, Human Rights Watch said that:
President Bush publicly admitted that in two cases he approved the use of waterboarding, a form of mock execution involving near-drowning that the United States has long prosecuted as a type of torture. Bush also authorized the illegal CIA secret detention and renditions programs, under which detainees were held incommunicado and frequently transferred to countries such as Egypt and Syria where they were likely to be tortured;
Vice President Cheney was the driving force behind the establishment of illegal detention and interrogation policies, chairing key meetings at which specific CIA operations were discussed, including the waterboarding of one detainee, Abu Zubaydah, in 2002;
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approved illegal interrogation methods and closely followed the interrogation of Mohamed al-Qahtani, who was subjected to a six-week regime of coercive interrogation at Guantanamo that cumulatively appears to have amounted to torture;
CIA Director Tenet authorized and oversaw the CIA's use of waterboarding, stress positions, light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation, and other abusive interrogation methods, as well as the CIA rendition program.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)Thank you for the link! 
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)"...strongly suggests..." is in no way near "concludes".
johnd83
(593 posts)and it looks like it will happen peacefully. Gunboat diplomacy does work if done correctly. Soft diplomacy is not going to work with the likes of Putin and Assad.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Exactly. That bit sums up the entire incident precisely.