the links I posted amount to all the proof youre ever likely to get. if you think the standard of proof rises to the point where the last diehard liberal can no longer suggest a conspiracy theory no matter how outlandish, gladly, youre wrong.
He's done it just a few more yards to the finish line HE CAN DO IT ! HES DOING IT HE HE DROPS IT ragic drops the ball! the game is ruined! people are crying in the stands we are hearing reports of riots erupting in all the major cities worldwide. to get so close and to ruin it all...
from a humanitarian stand point his attack accomplished nothing. it's the equivalent to giving a million people dieing of thirst in a desert a juice box....one juice.....and it's expired don't see much point in even discussing that aspect of it
you understand that the main people popping up with conspiracy theories aren't what any current political group would call a liberal, right? gerben, sure. super, lop, and saandro? i'm pretty sure not.
you take that back. Im not a liberal. I vote for parties to the left of the political center. not for the ones center right that want less regulation on companies.
"The Juice box is cursed." "That's bad." "But it comes with a free frogurt!" "Ooh! That's good!" "The frogurt is also cursed..." Anyway... it being at best ineffective from a humanitarian standpoint is the main problem I have with it... is what I was getting at. Personally I actually don't mind the high number of missiles spent. Not only are they out-of-date weapons, but the point was to send a message, as much if not more so than to hit an air-base. Whether or not that message is mistake... it's hard to tell just yet, it depends a lot on how it's received and what if any follow-up there is; but it still won't undo my feelings about the strike's "effectiveness" or the incidental (if hopefully temporary) results of it. Possibly, I'd hope not, but you're probably right on that point. The issue is that the main proof is the eye-witness accounts... and there are contradictions. Hitting (likely by accident) an enemy Chemical depot makes lots of sense. I'm, of course, not at all suggesting that Assad isn't capable of this, I think there's plenty of reason to believe he was behind it. But I think there's plenty of reason to look at other possibilities... at least enough to want to get more info to rule them out. The standard of proof isn't about shutting conspiracy theorists up, it's about making sure you're hitting the right target in the first place. I've no love for Assad, so I'm not going to be all that broken up if it turns out the strike wasn't the right target... but there's also more at play than just this incident.
if it was a plane that can't be equiped with chemical weapons and the chemical weapons were not deployed by airdrop it doesn't matter where the plane came from does it?
The universe of political discourse on this topic and others encompasses more than just the posters in this forum Dagda. It's true that not all nut cases are liberals. If that was the point you were trying to make, I'll concede that.
obviously, but when you *are* talking on this forum to this pretty set group of people, if you say "typical liberal doing things" when the people who are agreeing with the "liberal" agenda are not liberals is, or at least can be, confusing. or perhaps beside the point, because if we start talking about all the stupid Bane Shift people in general say we'd be here for weeks. you get what i'm driving at? it's sorta like bringing a strawman into the conversation for the sheer Firk of it, because it's a fun toy to kick around
this conflict has been on for more than 6 years now....they tried every military approach they can and only made things worse. Forget all the conspiracy theories (i agree with most especially Burn's) do we really think more guns and so will do something different now after all that time? Einstein once said the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So the question is...are they doing what they did for the last 6 years to create something different or to maintain the same standstill, and who benefits from a stand still. Think about that and ask urself does trump or his gvt really want peace? he has cut funds to most government systems to invest in the military and to justify this investment he does need an excuse. Do you think people without healthcare plans will appreciate the money being diverted away for no reason? the point is the timing is not random, and the impact caused was not random . Behind the clueless orange puppet is someone using him as a cover ( so he comes out as someone who doesnt know what the Firk he is doing) , this is my thought but like the rest of us I can be wrong
I know right? Its like if pancakes are so delicious, how come they're not in my belly. Or if Stranger Things is such a good TV show, how come I didn't watch it last night. Or if the sky is so blue, how come clouds? Sorry if I derailed the conspiracy thread, but my brain melted when I read the quoted text and mah fingers just started typing. I guess since I'm here: Nothing from Infowars is ever worth reading, thinking about, or discussing. There is close to 0% chance of Trump conducting any type of military strike against N.Korea. The only way Assad leaves power is if his external allies abandon him. I've seen nothing that leads me to believe this will happen. He can kill people all day everyday, but the US isn't going to go to war with Russia and Iran over Syria. So expect many more years of fighting and instability there.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately it's not. I'm not saying it isn't biased or often asinine with it's spin, but dismissing anything and everything that comes out of it (or for that matter other places) like this is part of why so many people don't know or understand what's going on. Whether it's dismissing in entirety Infowars, CNN, Fox News, RT, the BBC, the NYTimes, etc. There may be plenty of dumb crap, but... The sad reality is that a lot of time Infowar's raw information is actually fairly solid. Editorials, headlines, and commentary... maybe not so much (though some are better than others in this regard; Jones himself is generally terrible and annoying). It has been worse since they threw in behind Trump of course, but it hasn't quite gotten to the point that it should be avoided entirely. Even if that were the case (which I don't think he is personally, and quite frankly I find your "blame the Zionists for everything" attitude to undermine your position in much the same way the "blame the Russians for everything" of Clinton/McCain and their ilk undermines them... when it comes to it, the world is not so black-and-white.) that doesn't mean it isn't worth looking at. So long as one has a discerning eye. If you're concerned about them gathering information... don't give it to them? Anyway... Take the video you linked: It starts with a much younger Jones talking about supporting Israel's right to exist... then goes right into saying: "Clearly it's a Zionist backed organization..." That doesn't mean anything. There's no discussion of why it is "clear", no evidence beyond him stating his personal support for Israel to continue to exist... which is something anyone could state without being part of some larger Intelligence system. "Ooh, he keeps moving his offices around, clearly that means he's a filthy Jewish Honey Pot!" Is not the best argument I've ever heard. *Shrug* I don't really care what you think about it though, other than that people shouldn't dismiss it as a collection of information, one which usually sources it's info (when it's not just some commentary) so you can double-check it relatively easily, and judge THAT on it's own merits, or check it against any conflicting information. Just as people should with other news outlets, or Google etc. (which openly collects all information you give it and most definitely has an agenda... as well as a desire to work with China censorship programs).
