General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

14. You know,

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 01:03 PM

Sep 2013

"The 'evidence' appears to come from sources that are hardly unbiased. Let's see what the UN report mentions - and if MSF, who are and have been literally on the ground in Syria (as they usually are in most areas of the world where there is civil conflict), have reason to suspect that agents other than the Assad regime may have caused the attack, it certainly behooves us all to listen before swallowing whole 'evidence' that is NOT a "slam dunk" by any means."

...I doubt if the UN confirms the U.S. position that some people will be satisfied. As for the phrase "slam dunk," Kerry addressed that.

DAVID GREGORY:

Mr. Secretary, I just want to underline the news you made this morning. This is a sarin gas attack, perpetrated by the Assad regime, this is a slam-dunk case that he did it?

SECRETARY JOHN KERRY:

The word "slam-dunk" should be retired from the American national security issues. We are saying that the high confidence that the intelligence community has expressed and the case that I laid out the other day is growing stronger by the day. We know where this attack came from. We know exactly where it went. We know what happened exactly afterwards.

We know the preparations were being taken before for this attack, we know people were told to use their gas mask to prepare for the use of the chemical barrage. We also know that after it took place, they acknowledged that they had done it and were worried about the consequences and whether the U.N. inspectors were going to find out.

I think this is a very powerful case and the president is confident that as that case is presented to the United States Congress and the American people, people will recognize that the world cannot stand aside and allow an Assad or anybody else to break a almost 100-year-old acceptance. These weapons are not to be used.

http://nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcnews/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2013/09/01/rushtranscriptj1415026.xml

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Doctors Without Borders confirmed: "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent" [View all] ProSense Sep 2013 OP

So what? It was a false flag operation connected to cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #1

What has this (what ever it is , have to do with the UN reports ? lumpy Sep 2013 #57

Somehow you forgot this part TomClash Sep 2013 #2

No one has been claiming that the DWB could certify the "precise origin of the exposure pnwmom Sep 2013 #4

Then why did MSF issue this press release? Nt TomClash Sep 2013 #16

To underline the fact that they are a neutral organization pnwmom Sep 2013 #17

Oh please TomClash Sep 2013 #19

No. They didn't want people to think that they were asserting more than they were. pnwmom Sep 2013 #21

What nonsense TomClash Sep 2013 #37

It says what I said it did. They couldn't pnwmom Sep 2013 #40

Only in your mind. lumpy Sep 2013 #58

Yes indeed - Israeli intel, it seems. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #27

Where does the OP attribute "precise origin" to DWB? ProSense Sep 2013 #5

It doesn't TomClash Sep 2013 #18

The "primary purpose" doesn't take away from the fact that they confirmed the situation. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #26

But TomClash Sep 2013 #36

What? Are you saying that DWB didn't make the statement in the OP? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #38

First the OP is YOU TomClash Sep 2013 #41

"OP" means original post. A post is not a "person" ProSense Sep 2013 #43

You are obfuscating the point TomClash Sep 2013 #78

That part supposidly that the MSF issued a press release to criticize Obama and Kerry....Where did lumpy Sep 2013 #66

It's in the first paragraph TomClash Sep 2013 #76

Are you the board chairman for MSF? tabasco Sep 2013 #62

A good question that just might be difficult to answer. lumpy Sep 2013 #67

Maybe because I TomClash Sep 2013 #74

There hasn't been much doubt of WHAT. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #3

That question ProSense Sep 2013 #6

The U.S. gov't doing the work of the people, or the bidding of the mic?... polichick Sep 2013 #7

You don't have to ProSense Sep 2013 #8

The US government has presented evidence before atreides1 Sep 2013 #9

Oh brother. The Iraq evidence of WMD that didn't exist? ProSense Sep 2013 #10

He is saying that government justifications for war have been shown to be incorrect daleo Sep 2013 #24

This is about Syria not Iraq. Be cynical if you please. lumpy Sep 2013 #60

The "evidence" appears to come from sources BlueMTexpat Sep 2013 #13

You know, ProSense Sep 2013 #14

We will just have to agree to disagree for now. BlueMTexpat Sep 2013 #15

Um, I think you forgot your thread of yesterday. Savannahmann Sep 2013 #28

No, I didn't ProSense Sep 2013 #34

"The MSF has reason to suspect that agents other than the assad regime may have caused the lumpy Sep 2013 #63

The USG just blocked complete investigation... JackRiddler Sep 2013 #29

Actually, ProSense Sep 2013 #69

Incredible how full of it your posts are. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #93

So now you're claiming the UN is lying? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #94

Same old same old same old JackRiddler Sep 2013 #95

You are deflecting. You made a claim about the UN, and then dismissed the UN statement. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #96

Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #97

Less than 10% deaths WovenGems Sep 2013 #11

No, that was at the time of the statement, which was only days after the incident ProSense Sep 2013 #12

Dude, that's 10% of people who MADE it to the hospital. Barack_America Sep 2013 #32

Pooh-poohing nerve gas' effectiveness. God, this place is classy today. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #35

"Classy" is DU's middle name these days. nt Hekate Sep 2013 #83

You didn't read MFrohike Sep 2013 #20

I can read, the ProSense Sep 2013 #22

Sigh MFrohike Sep 2013 #23

Oh God I have to get the hell out of here. Like being in an insane asylum. lumpy Sep 2013 #70

There, there. Sometimes consensual reality ... Hekate Sep 2013 #87

They have expilicitly objected to being used for propaganda purposes. rug Sep 2013 #25

"They have explicitly stated they do not know who used chemicals." ProSense Sep 2013 #31

"They have expilicitly objected to being used for propaganda purposes." rug Sep 2013 #33

Right, ProSense Sep 2013 #39

And not by whom. rug Sep 2013 #44

Yes, we've established that DWB didn't state the origin. ProSense Sep 2013 #45

The distinction between discussion and propaganda is honesty. rug Sep 2013 #46

You can't be serious? ProSense Sep 2013 #47

There can be no more serious discussion, even on the internet, than talking about killing people. rug Sep 2013 #48

Well, ProSense Sep 2013 #49

Reading DU is hardly policing the internet. rug Sep 2013 #52

No, ProSense Sep 2013 #54

Are you saying it does not support your view of attacking Syria or rug Sep 2013 #55

What the hell are you talking about? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #59

Read the thread. Communication is a two way street. rug Sep 2013 #64

You appear to be having a discussion with yourself. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #65

Don't flatter yourself. rug Sep 2013 #68

Do you think the UN report (MSF) supports anyone's view of attacking Syria ? lumpy Sep 2013 #73

MSF and UN members are not permitted to draw political conclusions as to who is responsible lumpy Sep 2013 #71

You misread it. It is: if it turns out the attack came from one of the opposition forces. rug Sep 2013 #72

Oh thanks, you didn't make that clear. I haven't made up my mind as yet, if you really care. lumpy Sep 2013 #75

Distraction to pimp for current administration policy... JackRiddler Sep 2013 #30

"So? Everyone knows there was a chemical attack." ProSense Sep 2013 #42

They've moved on from "Do we even know there was a chemical attack" and "So what if there was?" alcibiades_mystery Sep 2013 #50

What source proves that the rebels were supplied by Saudis ? lumpy Sep 2013 #79

Chemicals, schmemicals CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #84

Did they also confirm who perpetrated the attack? n/t Cerridwen Sep 2013 #51

No they didn't. They are prevented to draw conclusions as to who perpetuated the gas attack. lumpy Sep 2013 #81

scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required - meaning it's not confirmed by MSF idwiyo Sep 2013 #53

That's a reference to the type of "toxic agent" ProSense Sep 2013 #56

MSF does not confirm anything. MSF clearly stated they had second hand info. MSF also idwiyo Sep 2013 #77

So ProSense Sep 2013 #80

You used a misleading OP title to add weight to your statement. MSF does not confirm what you insist idwiyo Sep 2013 #82

It most certainly confirmed that a "toxic agent" was used. I mean, ProSense Sep 2013 #86

I am quoting MSF, not making unfounded pronouncemnts liike you do. idwiyo Sep 2013 #88

No, you're dismissing the orgnaization's statements as "second hand reports." ProSense Sep 2013 #89

Another misleading statement from you. Not surprising though. idwiyo Sep 2013 #90

More nonsense from you. ProSense Sep 2013 #92

The only nonsense before your latest response was the title of your original OP. idwiyo Sep 2013 #99

I am gone. This is too much. Clearly there is lack of reading comprehension, a lot of ignorance, lumpy Sep 2013 #85

Throw 'em under the bus! tabasco Sep 2013 #61

I like the fact that Doctors Without Borders want an independent investigation David Krout Sep 2013 #91

Do you remember the memes that Iraq had chemical WMD because we sold them to Saddam... freshwest Sep 2013 #98