The Romulan Republic wrote:Are you implying that the gas attack (complete with images of choking children) was faked? Or that Assad is being framed as the guilty party?
Because if so, a) have the guts to say it outright, and b) provide evidence or concede.
You're going to get a severe case of carpal tunnel, clutching those pearls so hard. If you're prone to hyperventilating, grab your puffer and have it ready as I explain The Fact Of Life to you, Tootie:
Oh go fuck yourself. Nothing I said was "hyperventilating". It was a reasonable question based on what you posted, and your subsequent comments make it clear that I was right about what you were implying, and about your unwillingness to be up front about it.
But because I have a reputation for "hyperventilating", some people find it a lazy cheap shot to use whenever they disagree with me, which only reinforces said reputation.
1) The National Security State and its fluffers have such a well-documented track record of lying this country into war after war, that were I a gambling man, I would bet a least a few bucks on the possibility probability that the "Assad did it" story* is horseshit. Do I know for a fact that this is a hoax like Yellow Rain, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident", the Kuwait baby incubator story or the doozy about Iraq having WMDs and being in cahoots with Bin Laden? No, but last time I checked, it wasn't up to me to prove a negative. Besides, the fact that Don Corleorange insists the story is true gives me more than enough valid reason to doubt it.
You're a fucking weasel.
This is why I called you out and demanded you say what you meant and prove it: because you are insinuating a conspiracy theory which you admit you cannot prove. And then, because you didn't explicitly
say it (even though the implication is clear), hiding behind "you can't make me prove a negative."
Yeah, its possible that their's some bullshitting going on. It is even possible, to the best of my knowledge, that Assad didn't do it. However, he is the most likely guilty party based on his track record and the situation, and certainly the comparison to "Yellow Rain" is absurd, because it only makes sense if you are suggesting that no gassing occurred
, which is a whole different level from "they got the wrong guilty party".
*Not that I'd put it past him, but why would he give outsiders an excuse to fire a single round in his direction when, thanks to the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah, he was winning the war?
Because big brother Vladimir has his back, and dictators are not generally known for their carefully measured and restrained response towards revolts?
2) A claim that is presented without evidence can and should be rejected without evidence. Until genuine toxicology tests are done on the victims, there is no evidence. People suffocate and/or die from toxic fumes in regular house fires. In a war zone like Syria, where countless buildings are being torched on a regular basis and where entire families and neighborhoods might cram into a single building to take cover from bullets and bombs, one explosion/fire can easily kill the lot (like the mosque full of civilians Drumpf blew up recently).
Can I absolutely prove it was Assad? No. But at the same time, if you are going to allege a deliberate conspiracy, I'd say you should also have some basis for that claim.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.