This is a long video – 90 min or so, but Sargon makes some good points in this video (some of which have been echoed here on other threads)
- Back to the Main Site
- Daily Links
- Hat and Hair
- Topics A-C
- Topics D-G
- Topics H-M
- Topics N-S
- National Security
- Not So Easy Pieces
- Nuclear
- Obamacare
- Omaha Beach Diorama
- Opinion
- Outdoors
- Politics
- Poll
- Prepper
- Privacy
- Products You Need
- Racism
- Rant
- Recipes
- Regulation
- Religion
- Reloading Series
- Reviews
- Right to Repair
- Rule of Law
- Satire
- Science
- Second Amendment
- Secret Nazi President
- Sexuality
- Social Justice
- Social Media
- Society
- Sports
- Strength Training
- Subsidies
- SugarFree
- Supreme Court
- Topics T-Z
Select Page
Not going to watch 90 min of Sargon on this….but I’ve said my piece on this issue elsewhere. Occam’s Razor.
I know it’s the WaPo, but I think this editorial covers things pretty well.
There’s not necessarily going to be a “logical” answer to everything that happens. I mean, look at the Norks on any given day.
Yeah, I haven’t really gone into a whole lot of detailed investigation, but I’m in kind of the same place. Its not hard to construct a reason for Assad to do this, especially if he’s egged on by the Russians on the theory they wanted (a proxy) to test Trump. Its possible, I suppose, that the Russians mounted the attack from their own planes, but potayto/potahto.
As far as I know, there isn’t much if any evidence that anyone else in-theater even has sarin gas. Maybe Sargon goes into that; not watching a 90 minute video to find out. I think the odds that it was anyone other than the Russian/Syrian alliance who popped the sarin is pretty low. The list of people who could have done it is very short, and after the Russians/Syrians it descends very rapidly into conspiracy-land. Trump wasn’t really sporting a warboner before this happened, so I don’t think it was an American false flag (unless, again, you want to conspiracize that the US intelligence/military community did it as a rogue operation to fire up a good shootin’ war).
Not going to watch 90 min of Sargon on this
I can read the text of a 90-minute Youtube video much more quickly.
Hey, it’s a scientific fact that Sarin gas can’t melt steel.
My initial reaction to whether Assad was really behind the chemical attacks is that it doesn’t matter–for two important reasons:
1) I oppose the United States going to war with Syria for strategic reasons (among others)–regardless of whether Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. My strategic reasons for why it’s not in the best interests of the United States to go to war with Assad don’t really have much to do with Assad using chemical weapons, so my analysis doesn’t change regardless of whether Assad was really behind the gas attack.
2) If we center our opposition to going to war with Syria on doubt as to whether Assad used chemical weapons, then if and when it becomes clear (now or in the future) that Assad did use chemical weapons–or if Assad uses them in the future–then we will have set the American people up to support a war against Assad. If you don’t want to go to war with Syria, then do not center your opposition on something that may have happened or easily could happen in the future.
Both of these lessons should have been learned from the Iraq War and opposition to that war. I opposed the Iraq War for pragmatic reasons that had nothing to do with weather Saddam Hussein had WMD. I was surprised as almost anyone when we didn’t find anything that would have justified the invasion or subsequent occupation–but maybe not as surprised as the Bush Administration. By centering their narrative about the Iraq invasion on Saddam Hussein and WMD, they made a really safe bet. Coming up snake eyes was just really bad luck.
That bad luck probably won’t happen again in Syria. If they look for WMD in Syria, they’ll probably find it. Center your opposition to an invasion on doubts about Assad and WMD, and what are you going to tell people if and when they find his fingerprints all over the last attack–or the next one–that there are other reasons to oppose war? Why not just use those reasons now?
Two other quick points:
1) Whether it was in the best interests of Assad to use chemical weapons is a red herring. For one thing, it may have been in Hezbollah’s interests or Russia’s interests or Iran’s interests–and Assad’s army may be taking their orders from them as much as from Assad. Furthermore, politicians doing things that aren’t in their own best interests happens all the time. Barack Obama did things like that–so do all our presidents. Politicians make mistakes about their interests all the time. That one of the reasons they should have little power. They can’t even figure out their own best interests–how can they possibly know mine?
2) If Hezbollah, Russia, or Iran were really behind the attack, holding Assad responsible is still okay–even if Assad didn’t give the order. All those parties are fighting to keep Assad in power, and while they’re all responsible for what they do to accomplish that, Assad is responsible for what they do to keep him in power, too. Assad could denounce any of those parties for what they do and abdicate–if he chooses not to, then he’s accepting responsibility for what they did. It works the same way in the U.S. military. If President Trump doesn’t want responsibility for war crimes perpetrated by soldiers in the field, then he needs to denounce those crimes and see that the perpetrators are properly court-martialed.
Good points. From what I see – I think once ISIS is officially out of the picture, that our involvement will get toned back significantly – barring Iranian issues (in Iraq or Syria) – which could significantly complicate issues. As far as things go, I think operational use of SF in very limited measures assisting kurdish and resistance allies is far more likely than anything else and will most likely not progress beyond that barring direct chemical strikes on US forces.
Of course we’d find WMD in Syria if we went in looking for them right now. No doubt whatsoever, but the issue hasn’t been framed the same way as 2003.
This video is framing the issue in those terms, though, isn’t it? Isn’t it saying that retaliation against Assad isn’t justified because Assad didn’t use chemical weapons?
I suppose I should add that people were especially confused in 2003 because they still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11, a lot of which had to do with the anthrax attack.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
That being said, once the central question of whether we should invade became about whether Saddam Hussein had WMD, the game was basically over. Those of us who think going to war with Assad would be a mistake should avoid playing into the neocons’ hands the same way this time.
When people ask me whether I believe Assad was behind the chemical attack, I tell them it doesn’t matter.
From an anti-war perspective, telling friends and family that Trump’s response was, in part, a message to Russia and North Korea is better than telling people that it matters whether Assad used WMD. It may not be in the interests of the U.S. to invade–even if Saddam or Assad have and use WMD. And people need to hear that–rather than some spiel about how intervention isn’t justified because Assad didn’t use WMD.
Whether Assad used WMD honestly isn’t the pertinent question, but when people hear that intervention isn’t justified if Assad didn’t use WMD, then, the way their minds work, what they come to understand is that using WMD justifies intervention.
The video was more of “we don’t really know what happened, despite what the media is telling us.”
i can’t remember all of the video (i watched most of it)
but i find the “We don’t really know” arguments tend to leave out ever mentioning that “the govt did actually provide plenty of info about what IT did know”
including stuff like “where the planes over Idlib that dropped bombs actually took-off from”, etc.
its still not conclusive proof that the syrians used sarin, or whatever, but its a lot “less unknown” than people pretend.
That’s the gist of it though–that the justification for the intervention is spotty.
Since the dawn of democracy, there’s been an ongoing debate about “noble lies”. I guess they call it “fake news” now. Wikileaks has changes things slightly, but only slightly. Now that so much information is digitized, it makes it all highly vulnerable to leakage, but leaks are nothing new.
The XYZ Affair was about secrets being leaked a la Wikileaks.
The Zimmerman Telegram, likewise, was about apparent truths being leaked out to justify wars.
There were the reports by way of yellow journalism that led to the Spanish American War. “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!”? Actually, going to war with Spain was either a good idea or not regardless of the specifics of the sinking of the Maine.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident, apparently, wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.
The Lusitania may have been using passengers as human shields to transport munitions past the blockade.
All of these wars were about more than the specifics of any particular incident, but the specifics of some incident were always used to justify or hammer away at what came after. We still haven’t gotten to the bottom of what the Lusitania was carrying, and what Historian thinks it really matters? The real reasons why the U.S. should or shouldn’t have entered the war had little to do with the Lusitania.
I’d like people to scope out and see the big picture. The reasons why we should or shouldn’t get involved in Syria (or anywhere else) are much bigger than whether Assad used chemical weapons and how sure we are of any particular fact. I suppose a noble lie might be used to justify an action I agree with some day. If that ever happens though, I doubt I’ll be arguing for it in the terms of some particular fact or incident. I’ll be making the case for it in terms of the big picture, too. It certainly won’y be based on who to believe.
I see global warming that way, too, by the way. This scientific fact at any particular point in time isn’t anywhere near as important to me as bigger questions like: Is the solution authoritarian? Is the solution socialist? Because I oppose authoritarian socialism for being authoritarian and socialist. Whether someone falsified data is beside the point to me. And what are we going to base our opposition on if and when new data becomes available tomorrow showing that the alarmists were right about the climate? Doesn’t simply questioning the data set us up for authoritarian socialist solutions if and when the data shows there’s a problem?
Better to just argue against authoritarian socialism–not over the data right now–just like it’s better to argue against war with Syria–not whether Assad used WMD.
I think it was more about how a narrative gets crafted and then gets repeated endlessly in the media with no questioning of it whatsoever. It’s still far from clear exactly what weapon was used, by whom, and for what reason and was particularly so in the first few days following the incident, but as was shown in the video things that were (and are) still unknowns were being reported as fact.
It really does remind me of the lead up to the Iraq war. Everybody knew that Saddam was trying to acquire nukes and had weapons of mass destruction that he was preparing to use. It was reported endlessly in the news media who appeared to be unpaid employees of the oval office at that point, without anybody standing up and saying “why in the hell would Saddam risk the destruction of his country?”
Similarly, there’s literally no strategic or tactical advantage I can think of for Assad to have carried out this weapons attack. He could easily have just leveled the village with conventional munitions if there was a military reason for doing so. There are dozens of reasons to question the official reporting, but no media outlet seems interested. I thought that was supposed to be their job in a functioning democratic society. That’s the point that Sargon is making here.
There’s some legitimacy to the fact that he wants to terrorize and show whose in charge. The chemical weapons get more bang for your buck there (see Saddam misleading even his own generals on this subject – making each think the other had them if they fucked with him).
I’m also reminded of being in Iraq that Iraqis had rather irrational reactions to weapons. You could point a .50 cal at them and they wouldn’t respond, but pull out the M-9 and they scurried like you just shit in their faces. With chemical weapons, I think the modern world has something like an irrational fear when you compare them to the damage conventional weapons can do.
I can see your point, but from a pragmatic point of view the effect of the chemical attack on the locals would be far outweighed by the potential international backlash. It might also cause bitterness in the citizenry that might undermine the war effort. From what I have seen, Assad enjoys a decent amount of popular support and I can’t imagine why he would feel the need to jeopardize that by conducting a gas attack, particularly since his forces have been winning the conflict recently.
“rather irrational reactions”
Not something unique to Iraq. I think it is unique to people that have no real understanding of what firearms are, their capabilities, or the principles behind their working. Ever seen a primitive hold a pistol with two hands up to their face and sight it like it is a tiny rifle?
If anything, Iraq serves as a counterexample. Saddam could have stopped the invasion by opening up completely to inspection, but he didn’t. When interviewed later, he claimed it was because he didn’t want expose the country’s weakness to Iran. In other words, he was more scared of Iran than he was of the US. Wars are often a result of these kinds of miscalculations, and a dictator’s hold on power is more tenuous than people realize. Assad, or one of the multiple factions he relies on for power, might easily have believed that pushing the issue and evaluating the results was worth the risk.
Well that’s the thing. If Saddam had let inspectors in, essentially capitulating to the United States, he would have been seen as a weak strongman (weakman?), which probably would have led to him being deposed, whether from within or without. Once the first Gulf War ended with his forces being routed, I’m sure he was paranoid that he was being seen as vulnerable. He didn’t have good options, particularly since, as you say, a dictator’s power is a very precarious thing and only lasts as long as those around him believe that supporting him won’t get them killed.
Assad, on the other hand, has been winning the civil war. He has been in a stronger position recently than he has in several years and his forces have been advancing. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where a gas attack would provide an appreciable additional benefit.
The more likely perpetrator, at least on how I read the evidence, was someone else. Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as al Nusra, has been occupying Khan Shaykhun and been accused of using facilities there to manufacture chemical weapons. It also has a reported history of possessing and attempting to produce Sarin.
Who has more to gain? The Syrian government, who is winning the civil war and would have a lot to lose if the international community turned against them, or the rebel forces, who are likely starting to get desperate as they have started to lose? I’m pretty sure that a group that has no problem blowing up civilians in suicide attacks would have no qualms about gassing people in a town it controls in an attempt to bring in the West against the Assad regime.
It’s a question of motive, for me. It’s just hard to believe that Assad would risk U.S. involvement again.
Is this really true? He had apparently destroyed some of the declared weapons without inspectors present. We were going to take his word for it?
“If anything, Iraq serves as a counterexample.”
What I wrote wasn’t supposed to apply to anything anybody happened to insert about Iraq.
This is much like the way the Iraq War was sold.
The trap Syrian War opponents are falling into on whether Assad used WMD is much like the trap Iraq War opponents fell into over whether Saddam had WMD.
It was a red herring. Stop chasing red herrings. We’ve been burned this way before.
I think it’s several separate questions, Ken.
Should the United States ever intervene in Syria?
If so, should we do it only for specific reasons, or just whenever we feel like it?
If the former, does a chemical weapons attack rise to that level?
If so, do we need proof of an attack before we engage?
If so, does this incident meet that standard?
I’m with you on this one. I think we should be debating questions one and two, long and hard, but we skipped all the way down to the bottom.
There are much bigger and more important questions about an invasion of Syria that aren’t even addressed by focusing on Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Focusing on whether Assad used chemical weapons, thus, is a distraction from those bigger, more important questions.
That’s my point.
Yeah, there are more important questions to ask. Meanwhile, if average Americans start making judgments about the worthiness of an intervention with the most important criteria being whether Assad used WMD, then we’ll be predisposed to going to war.
Incidentally, this is the kind of thing I was contemplating writing about for an article submission–under the top of “libertarian paternalism”. Part of that is the belief that so long as people are given the opportunity to opt out, then what’s happening isn’t necessarily coercive. The other part, that’s being demonstrated here, is the “paternalism” side–that people’s consent can be manipulated through framing.
If Big Brother frame the question of whether we should invade in terms of Assad and WMD, then regardless of whether we give our consent, we’re going to give the answer Big Brother wants to hear. At some point, it stops being . . . libertarian regardless of whether that’s technically consensual.
But I doubt many would consent to two walls of text in the same thread.
a lot of which had to do with the anthrax attack
Its amazing to me that we an actual biological WMD attack in the US right after 9/11 and it has gone straight into the memory hole. To this day, we still haven’t really identified the perpetrator as far as I know.
That was back when snail mail still mattered, too.
A good way to bump off the aging relics that have seniority, at least. Let some new blood flow through those veins.
Bruce Edward Ivins looked pretty good for it…
*ponders the wall of text*
I am afraid, I am going to have to agree with that.
Although, I think there was a fair amount of WMD found in Iraq, it just wasn’t news worthy because it was not as vast as claimed by the Bush Admin. Not that it justifies the invasion. There is also a good chance that Assad has it now, so there is that.
“WMD” was not the point of UNSC 687 and 1441. It was “prohibited weapons” which included many non-WMD. Making the public talk about WMD was a great PR coup.
Someone who would definitely know told me they found all kinds of nasty stuff that people never heard about. It just wasn’t new, so it wouldn’t have helped that much PR-wise. Basically they took stuff that had supposedly been destroyed and hid it for later use.
I hope you appreciate that the presence or absence of WMD wasn’t pertinent. That the real question was whether it was in the best interests of the United States to invade Iraq–a much larger question. Just because Saddam Hussein had WMD by no means necessitated invading Iraq. The real test for whether we should invade Iraq should have been about American security and national interests–not WMD.
Besides, if you read my wall of text and kept arguing in response about whether there was WMD in Iraq anyway, I might lose it and pull my hair out.
Do you appreciate that whether it was in our national interests to enter World War I probably didn’t have anything to do with the Lusitania–regardless of what she was carrying as cargo?
I find in general the ‘DO SOMETHING’ crowd around the Syrian conflict to be particularly scummy. This conflict had been going for years, and already had over a hundred thousand dead Syrians, and then suddenly it became “the biggest, most important issue ever and how dare you think we should do nothing!” Then the Russians get involved, and it becomes even MORE important (for the neocons and others it was about dick swinging as a result of Obama’s foreign policy weakness, now it’s about pure hysterics about Russian Machiavellian geniuses).
Hell, I don’t think we should intervene in the first place, but it’s pretty impressive how stunningly incompetent the people who do are acting, i.e. wait until things get really, really bad and action would result in a diplomatic shitshow, then suddenly preen about your sense of moral superiority for wanting to stick your dick in that hornets’ nest.
Also a bit ironic how they wail about us needing to be there while ignoring the millions of people starving to death in Yemen because of their civil war.
Not that I’m saying we need to intervene in Yemen. We need to get what we have there out too.
True on the scummy point. Any time you have Hillary Clinton and John McCain agreeing on a course of action you can bet it is the absolutely the wrong thing to do.
I don’t have 90 minutes right now. There are 2 basic questions.
1. Was it Sarin gas? My guess is “no”. The symptoms looked like a choking agent or chlorine.
2. Did Assad do it?
Who knows? There certainly doesn’t seem to be a tactical reason to gas some kids. Maybe Assad is just trying to intimidate. Maybe a bomb blew up a chlorine tank. Maybe a jihadi group did it in hope of getting an American response against Assad.
according to the early reports in the press, everyone wrote off “Chlorine” immediately… mainly because Assad has used chlorine in the past and people were familiar with its effects
eg. the NYT
the above-linked intel report from April 11th makes the same point about the inconsistency of symptoms w/ chlorine attacks
Tissue samples, blood, fluids, etc have been pretty definitively proven to be sarin. Very different from chlorine (other Assad) or sulfur mustard (ISIS).
Meanwhile in prog-world Task-Force “chasing it’s own ass” is steaming somewhere in the South China sea, destination unknown.
The challenge this issue poses is, who to trust? Who do you believe? And its really hard to find somebody trustworthy in all this so you can really plant your feet and say “This guy gets it”.
Everyone is subject to limited information, perspective, and some amount of uncertainty. Even if Trump is telling the level truth as he understands it, he has to rely on analysts whom may be lying for their own reasons or whom may need to rely on others to tell the truth.
Some people lie with good intentions. Even if Trump were lying, that wouldn’t mean he did the wrong thing.
We live in a world of uncertainty. Who to trust is more uncertain than a lot of other questions. That’s a crap shoot.
The step-dad unit is an old school guy. He only wants to buy electronics from places with sales people so he can ask them questions. I ask him, “Why would you trust what a salesperson tells you?” He says, 1) So you’ll come back next time because they’re selling their expertise and 2) he says I’ve gotta learn how to trust people.
I don’t get along with him at all. When I was a kid and we’d get lost in downtown DC, he used to look for some stranger that he thought looked trustworthy and just follow him.
I don’t have that in my genetic code. I left home at 14.
“…in downtown DC, he used to look for some stranger that he thought looked trustworthy and just follow him.”
I am not sure what to say about that.
“He just followed me home, Mom!”
…Can we keep him?
ahh, a Businessman!
The Dirk Gently gambit.
The thing is . . . it worked.
He’d find what he was looking for if followed someone who looked trustworthy and looked like he knew where he was going.
I should add, he was a lifelong federal government bureaucrat. A very successful one.
Drill Sergeant: “Gump! What’s your sole purpose in this army?”
Forrest Gump: “To do whatever you tell me, drill sergeant!”
Drill Sergeant: “You are gonna be a general someday, Gump.”
I can’t be that guy. I just don’t have it in me.
I’m picturing your step-dad as Jerry from Rick and Morty.
I picture him more as one the “clients” that I used to deal with that had Prader-Willys” syndrome. Hold onto him in public because he can not resist eating that cigarette butt!
He was more like the Rhett, the dad, from “That 70s Show”–except angrier and meaner.
Your ass is wearing a vacancy sign and my foot is looking for a place to lodge?
Also, I’d highly recommend the documentary “Control Room” about how the Iraq War was covered and parts of it staged for the benefit of the cameras.
What you see through a camera lens gives you a particular perspective. You can watch the same event shot by different people and come away with different conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Room_(film)
Think about what it means if what you believe–either way–is only a function of what you’re shown.
You can find the whole film on YouTube. You may not like everything in it.
I am less than convinced about nearly everything surrounding this attack. I looked back at the other attacks and I am equally unconvinced by the offial lines on those.
There simply isnt anyone involved that has the tiniest shred of credibility and too many actors with conflicting/coinciding interests to know who or what to believe.
It doesn’t ultimately matter how used what in this attack.
There was no U.S. military attacked, nor any U.S. ally subject to the attack.
This is what makes it simple. We have no business being involved except for the fucktard Wilsonian do-gooder impulse. And I’m about ready to put a bullet through the head of the next fucking mouth saying WE have to do something. No bubba, YOU haul your ass over there and YOU do something, WE ain’t got nothing to do.
I’ve been hearing about this shithole region for 40+ years and it seems like we’ve had our dick in there the whole time. Enough already. What I don’t get is why Americans aren’t demanding an end to our meddling there.
Same reason Americans keep asking for socialism despite its repeated failures to deliver on its promises. We keep selling a new generation a bill of goods that’s been a giant turdburger for those that have come before, but with a shiny new coat of paint.
Try the new McShit! In shiny green!
This is what’s all so fascinating. No one really knows what’s what but kinda do but still want to bomb. Because. Insert (narrative) here.
Meanwhile, back at LexCorp, the Norks continue to display a level of retardation that’s become a credible threat to its neighbours and the United States.
But Still, We Persisted…
#assadpersisted
He’s gone far in the world as a second son. Good for him!
Fearless Girl-Dictator
Is there a reliable source on how the Syria conflict started? I mean one that doesn’t talk about the ‘Arab Spring’ or global warming or any other made up bullshit. I mean all I know is that there was Assad, some Sunnis, some Islamic militants, the USA trying to arm the good terrorists, chemical weapons, then Russia and Obumbles drawing red lines. What happened before all of that shit storm, I don’t even know and I don’t trust any of the MSM to provide that detail.
Wasn’t the USA trying to do some of it’s regime change magic in Syrian back in the 50s? I read something to that effect, somewhere.
I remember back in the late 70’s that “Shiite” terrorists were backed by Syria. Yep, I ‘member that.
I think it did morph out of the Arab Spring uprisings. Wikipedia says Bashar called out the military to put down the Arab Springers which, in turn, led to the war. Enter the US running guns to ISIS to overthrow Assad. Now it’s a big mess.
Before that, was typical authoritarian middle east dictatorship.
“Enter the US running guns to ISIS to overthrow Assad. Now it’s a big mess”
That’s about the only part I’m clear on.
Syria has been the “bad guy” since I can remember. It’s just nuance and shades now (which in my waning years I’ve lost the ability to differentiate).
I ‘member when Syria used to lob rockets at Israel from the Golan Heights, yep
‘Member when Syria held the Golan Heights? Israel ‘members.
Ya, definitely not a good guy. Hence the typical middle east dictatorship. That would have been Bashar’s father. If I remember right there was big hope Bashar would be the good kind of dictator. That went to hell with the Arab Spring putdown.
I am sure there are those here with way more knowledge than I, because I know just about fuckall.
Yeah, pretty much everything that I know was flavoured by the papers that I read when I was a kid in the 70’s. Everything has become so “meta” now that I don’t know what or who to believe anymore, hence my presence on these boards and undying faith in ZARDOZ.
mass protests in early 2011 ->security forces murder protesters, arrest regime opponents -> late 2011/early 2012 protesters begin shooting back; simultaneously, large swaths of syrian army itself defect from the regime and begin arming/leading protestors
that latter part is really when it became a ‘revolution’/civil-war.
in the first year of the conflict (2012) it actually looked like the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) were a monolithic rebel group composed mostly of former Assad forces. Meaning, they seemed like exactly the ‘moderates’ that the US wanted to support. but the truth was that they quickly became more of a shell, where they would represent the ‘rebellion’ to the public, but the fact was that they had mostly fallen apart by 2013 and most of the fighting was being done by assorted jihadi and fighters supported by outside (read: Saudi Arabia, US, et al) interests.
Let me summarize. Once Assad was a good guy and we liked him. Today we don’t like him and he is a bad guy.
Nation state politics at the 7th grade level.
Dill in your bloody mary mix.
We call that one “The pickle in the gas tank” around these parts. Tasty!
I’m serial! A dab of pickle juice and a slice of baby sunk at the bottom. We’ve been using this stay-drunk cure for two decades.
“slice of baby”??
Sometimes this place gets a little wild…..
Depends on the cut. The shank is a little “gamey” for some tastes but if you go for sweet meats then you’ll be fine.
Celebrities running out of high-profile causes to support
Think local, act global. Sure Reese, whatever.
Running out of hashtags?
If they took every producer of that sort of music into an amphitheater, doused them in gasoline, set a few buckets of water and sand around the edges and then set them alight then I would die a happy man. No need for pillow-smothering, I’d jump off the WTC just to see that happen.
Somebody’s a cynical old man here.
From that page:
Some outrage for vermin killing
The little rodents can carry the plague. A small population is what you want.
LOL good trolling
I knew a lady once who- I’m not making this up here- left bowls of cat food and water out for the prairie dogs out in her backyard for them to come up and eat.
a link with some actual detail
“Africa is totally my favorite black country”, she added.
“I had a friend who dated one of those African fellers, once!” she exclaimed.
Ha, I can so see her saying that. I’m sure she has spent lot’s of time with the elephants in Africa.
Lot’s what of time?
You won’t have time for anything else if you start making fun of all my typos Ted.
It’s more that apostrophe abuse is the one thing that really drives me up a wall. Especially when people do it in verbs like “get’s”. Or as I remember somebody once writing, “Lincoln free’d the slaves.”
Apostrophe abuse is actually a violation of the NAP. 😉
Yes, I am horrible with apostrophe abuse’s. I will do my best to limit my transgression’s. I also have red neck grammar’s which does bleed into my typing. If I don’t proofread something several time’s it often look’s like a retard type’d it. Some wood argue one did due the typing’s.
My apologie’s for the NAP violation’s. 🙂
Somebody ha’s hi’s pantie’s in a twi’st.
The proper use is ” Lincoln free’d the slave’s”, right?
“Between 20,000 and 30,000 elephants are killed every year for their tusks”
*facepalm*
Between 20 and one hundred zillion honest, hard-working Protozoae are killed every time she squeezes out those grape-like turds.
The thing I find funny is how those screaming that we need to get involved want to take the side of the Islamic State against Assad. If we’re going to get involved, why would we help them? But I guess pictures of dead kids is all we need to just know that we must do something! If I remember correctly when I listened to this video on Wednesday didn’t Sargon also show evidence that the previous chemical attack in 2013 was actually done by enemies of Assad? So, the previous attack wasn’t Assad, but we swear this time it must’ve been him! Another thing I find funny about any Christian conservatives being for us getting involved militarily is the fact that the local Syrian Christians support Assad. Local Christians side with Assad. Another funny thing I found. All the previous strongmen of the regions that our interference toppled were fairly friendly to the local Christian communities. But this time I’m sure when we off Assad the situation won’t become vastly worse.
SF’d the second link. Again?
Assad is a shitbag of the Nasser variety, in the sense that he’s a moderately secularist strongman who has an interest in protecting religion minorities in Syria because their support ends up forming the partial basis for his power. Idiot neocons like to pretend that because some of the opposition groups (like the Syrian Democratic People’s Party or Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians) boast Christian members that the opposition is suddenly some wonderful group destined to carve out a democratic, secularist Syrian state.
When in reality those opposition groups are a mess of dozens of different interests and beliefs that are just as likely to collapse in on themselves in another civil war if they ever actually won, not to mention the fact that they’d still have to fight ISIS, al-Nusra, and possibly even Rojava if the Kurds don’t want to put up with their bullshit (all of these groups also come up as at least partially more coherent and organized, though that’s not saying much). The non-Islamist opposition forces are actually the ones most likely to lose in the near future in my opinion, so even if people wanted to back the ‘least worst’ rebel group, you’d have to back the extreme underdog.
You seem to be caught in some kind of “enemy of my enemy is my friend” conundrum
it makes more sense if you realize there are 2 different conflicts layered on top of one another
1 – the Sunni- vs. Shia power struggle in the ME
Iran finances shiite militias to try and grab power all over the region. saudi arabia finances all sorts of sunni militias to similarly grab power.
Assad was an Iranian puppet, more or less. He also represented the flank of “the shiite crescent“; basically making iran/iraq/syia into a contiguous Shiite power bloc in the region.
Saudi Arabia basically arms/funds anyone- who will fight against encroaching shiite power.
2 – the intra-sunni “Jihadi vs. Secular, pro-western” conflict
within the ME you’ve also got sunnis fighting with other sunnis over the role religion should play in domestic politics. The radical islamists want to get rid of all the secular governments. ISIS et al are part of this regional movement. They don’t just want to get rid of assad because he’s a shiite; they want to get rid of any rulers in Arab states who aren’t submissive to some religious caliphate.
Egypt’s conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Military rule is sort of the regional case-study in this issue. the US strongly supports Egypt for many reasons, but one is because we desperately want an example of a non-fundimentalist Sunni regime that show the rest of the Arab states that its possible to live in somethings kinda/sorta resembling a democracy.
Anyway, the point is that even if we replaced Assad with someone we thought was ‘better’, ISIS would want to get rid of them as well. Just because they hate on Assad doesn’t mean they’re necessarily interested in the same things the US is.
I know it is more complicated than this but based on what I am seeing and hearing it appears that Assad is the lesser of the evils by a fairly wide margin. If supporting him keeps ISIS 1 country farther away from the US isn’t that a good enough reason?
As Gilmore points out, you’re dicking around in the Great Sunni-Shia Civil War of Forever, which has political and diplomatic implications if you decide to randomly throw your weight behind Assad. It’s ‘complicated’ in the sense that there’s a lot of second degree consequences in regards to the Saudis, Iran, Israel, etc.
“you’re dicking around in the Great Sunni-Shia Civil War of Forever”
Isn’t that the case pretty much everywhere in the middle east and a good reason for us to stay the fuck out of it?
Then I guess the million dollar question is: Is it better to stay out of it and risk losing Syria to ISIS, or to back Assad and risk putting our dick in another pencil sharpener? Right now we appear to be leaning toward option C: back the people that openly hate us and will work to destroy our country.
More cynically Option C is more ‘fuck over another Shia power in region and Iran proxy, also rub dirt in the Russians’ faces and maybe neutralize some of their Mediterranean fleet projection’ (also in the case of Europeans oil and natural gas pipelines to circumvent Russia is a possibility). The past U.S. attempts at action were towards ‘moderate’ groups that were clear miscalculations. The U.S. government is not trying to get ISIS installed into power, they want some ‘moderate’ group from the opposition (which, again, is a mess of different positions and beliefs. There’s a reason that FSA mostly collapsed years ago and a bunch of them went to fight for al-Nusra) or someone who’s vaguely Islamist but not insane dickbags (so some of the groups the Saudis support).
Public opinion also at least partially matters. I don’t think you’re going to be able to convince the majority of Western countries’ population that Assad is the correct one to back after two alleged chemical weapons attacks, the association with Iran and Russia, the fact he started this with an extreme military crackdown, the dead children/bombed out cities pictures and refugees, etc.
The other issue, is that ISIS in Syria affects Turkey and Iraq as well – and in the near term Israel.
Talk about what effects Syria, Turkey and Iraq – the Kurds. One day they are going to wise up to how we play them.
Assad is the lesser of the evils by a fairly wide margin
maybe that’s true *now*
i think you need to go back to the 2011 point of view, where regimes across the ME were falling left and right, and the US basically saw every one as an “opportunity for improvement”
the perspective now is completely different, obviously. Is ‘keeping Assad’ still an acceptable option to anyone involved? i don’t know enough to say. I can only assume that everyone (Russia, iran, US, israel, the various syrian oppositions) has an opinion on the subject, but that none are particularly satisfying to any of the other.
Speaking of which = there’s a 3rd dimension which i didn’t even mention above… which is “Israel”.
much of what the US does is on their behalf, whether anyone says so or not. less, ‘because we’re such nice guys’, and more because we want to keep Israel from starting another big regional war themselves.
In regards to the suggestion that Assad is the lesser of evils, Iran considers Assad’s survival as critical to its own security–and I don’t disagree. If Assad were overthrown, he would probably not be replaced by an ally of Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran is a larger, long term threat to American security than anything else going on in the region–including ISIS. If Assad falling puts Iran in danger, then that’s a good thing for American security.
If Assad’s head ends up on a pike, we should all celebrate–libertarians in particular. If we’re libertarians, how can we think that a vicious, authoritarian dictator is the lesser evil?
Freedom coming isn’t why Yugoslavia, Libya, or Syria exploded. Those things happened because the vicious dictatorships that preceded the opportunity for freedom made those problems fester for so long. In fact, those dictatorships fell specifically because they were incapable of handling some of the problems their dictatorships created.
There is not greater force for peace and intercultural, interracial harmony than economic growth and prosperity–and economic growth and prosperity are not generally associated with societies governed by vicious dictatorships.
If Assad falls, Syria will experience a terrible time of transition to something else–maybe something better. If Assad’s vicious dictatorship reasserts itself and its rule, then Syria’s problems will continue to fester–and we’ll see this happen all over again sometime in the future . . . sometime when Syria gets another chance to get rid of their dictatorship.
Oh, I get that this is part of a long struggle of various muslim factions against one another. I’m just saying, if our politicians are going to get us involved in this situation were no one is a clear “good guy” then why help out the group these same politicians have been calling the big bad guys for a while now? Why not stick with Assad, the devil you know and all that? Toppling Saddam made things worse. Same with Gaddafi. Why does anyone think that toppling Assad will suddenly work out this time? (Of course, I suspect most of the conservatives who support that probably don’t even know the terrible aftermath in those countries after the strongmen were killed. They just blame Iraq on Obama pulling us out too soon, and I honestly haven’t heard any of them talk about Libya).
Nice trailer:
Seven
I like the Borderlands-style graphics
(what do they call that? “Cell Shading”? I’ve always been surprised that so few game-makers ever really tried to fully-adopt a comic-book style artform w/ their design)
It definitely works in the first Borderlands, which is the best one. Not sure about the style is.
Well it’s been fun Ladies and Gents but I have to go earn some wheat and lupins. I’ll be back later with more furious insights.
Stooooopid mammals, where you see claw marks you’ll find Reptiles.
My bosses want to see another proper war.
Somebody never had cats.
Totally off topic: I saw a pickup truck driving around with a big old flag flying off a pole in the bed, but it isn’t the flag you expect. It was a Venezuelan flag. I’m hoping the message is that they support the Venezuelan people over their government, but it could just as easily be interpreted as ‘Venezuela is AWESOME!’, which, well I have no words for right now.
Valenzuela will rise again!
My wife had a class with some Venezuelans a few years ago. The overall consensus among them was that they hated Chavez and the socialist government with a burning passion.
OT: Apparently an American Airlines flight attendant hurt someone’s feelings. Better get your stock broker on the phone.
AA may be the only corporate entity in the history of civilization that approaches the level of stupidity and incompetence of Comcast.
That’s actually quite a feat considering that Comcast is arguably a massive extortion racket at this point and AA has legitimate competition.
Who in there right mind owns AA stock, and or flies with them?
Why was the lady balling? Because Mr mean flight attendant told her she couldn’t bring a big giant stroller on the plane? That made her cry?
or is it bawling?
Unless she cross-over dribbled the kid and dunked it into the overhead, it is the latter.
Or if she were fondling somebody’s testes….
“What we see on this video does not reflect our values or how we care for our customers.”
That is something you can really only say once. If you have to keep repeating it over and over after repeated incidents you start looking like ClintonAir.
Just because disaster medicine is something of an interest of mine, I’ve done quite a bit of reading on chemical agents and their effects. The symptoms described in the casualties of the Khan Shaykhun incident do appear consistent with organophosphate toxicity. Organophosphates are a fairly common group of chemicals that are mostly used in insecticides and herbicides. People do die in the United States from these agents, around 10-20 a year typically, usually by misuse of household products in confined areas, and the class of chemicals is among the most common causes of poisonings worldwide. Sarin and other similar compounds used as weapons are simply more friendly to being utilized that way and are not some special class of agent.
Organophosphates all produce the same toxic effects, including vomiting, diarrhea, drooling, sweating, runny nose, pupillary constriction, slowing of the heart rate, constriction of the bronchioles in the lungs producing shortness of breath, muscle weakness, coma, respiratory arrest, and death. There is no way to determine which agent was used on basis of clinical exam alone. There are several specialized lab tests that may determine the specific chemical that may have been used, including a few that are specific for Sarin toxicity, but none of those tests are readily available in the field or anywhere outside of specialized forensic laboratories, so early reports cited by the United States government that testing was performed showing Sarin was used in the Khan Shaykhun incident are highly suspicious.
Even in the United States, where I can ship out samples by next day air, I’m typically looking at several days of turnaround time on something this rare even when specimens are processed with the utmost urgency. How were the samples taken and gotten out of Syria to a facility with the capability to conduct a battery of tests to identify the substance used and resulted with confirmatory analysis within the 3 days from the incident to the bombing of the Syrian airfield? Who took and transported these specimens?
Officials of the United Nations’ Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons took samples from the victims in Khan Shaykhun and after testing concluded that death was secondary to exposure to “Sarin or a Sarin-like substance”. Well, all organophosphates are Sarin-like, so that’s hardly the bombshell it’s being made out in the media. If you died of exposure to Malathion, which is available at your local Home Depot, you would test positive for “a Sarin-like substance” too. The finding, by the way, was released two days ago, so it took the United Nations specialty center for chemical weapons over two weeks to come to the conclusion of what type of substance was used, while the United States government was able to do it in less than 72 hours.
Yes, Sarin may well have been used and it may have been there as a result of an attack by the Syrian government, but it strains credibility that all of the facts claimed to have been known by the American government prior to its bombing of Syria could have actually have been sorted out with any degree of certainty.
Just for additional information, Sarin evaporates very quickly, so any samples collected would have to be blood, tissue, or urine specimens. The gold standard as far as I know at this point is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, but there are a few other tests available that run the risk of false positives. GC/MS capable medical facilities tend to be at major academic centers or state/federal forensic labs, so it’s not like it’s available right down the street. There are portable units that have been developed for mobile laboratories that are used by the United States military, but I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that such equipment was readily at hand in theater. It’s difficult to imagine Syria agreeing to the U.S. flying in a mobile mass spec lab, so the specimens would have needed to be smuggled out of the country and flown somewhere else, then prepared for testing.
This is why I wear an atropine slapper whenever I spray for bugs.
Must get hot, what with all the inhibition of sweating.
I had no idea!
Tulpa instruction guide?
Came across it here too (better).
Where?
Note to self – always confirm links post posting
I always wondered what the fuck a “Tulpa” was. I figgered it was some shorthand from the old site that I wasn’t privy to and dared not ask about lest I be the kid on the construction site that is always asking about board stretchers and angle hammers.
didja ever google dajjal?
Blueprints for deliberate, calculated dishonesty. Imagine that. Shitbirds get their jollies from psychological torment. Notice there is no intent there to convince, just to provoke.
I was always suspicious that many of the trolls we have had to deal with were paid to troll us. After hearing the lefties ‘reveal’ that one of the ways that Russia interfered with our election was by hiring armies of trolls to spread fake news I was 100% sure of it. I would confidently place money on all of them being paid with money that originated with Soros’ organizations, Clinton foundation, or Organizing for Action.
You haven’t visited the CBC’s comment section, yet. It’s the tail-end of an old joke when the furiously raping bear asks the hunter “You’re not here for the shooting,are you?’