General Discussion

rug

(82,333 posts)

64. Read the thread. Communication is a two way street.

Reply to ProSense (Reply #59)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:49 PM

Sep 2013

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