Do you have a theory about Korea? Where are the big oil fields there? Or is that just another case of the US preventing a communist takeover of mountain covered land instead of jungle covered land?
Indeed. The US government wants everyone to talk about current affairs online, so they can easily flag and monitor the trouble-makers.
Where " trouble-makers" is the set of people trying to use truck bombs, car bombs, and suicide vests, plus various experiments with poison gas and plague, to kill masses of innocent people, yes.
Pot calling kettle black And the US is in a position to be talking about "fundamental freedoms"?
I think pot is the best explanation for considering that insightful. I don't see how you don't see the difference between the US and Vietnam. Maybe you haven't heard, but communism tends to have a heavy hand.
Conventiently not mentioning his other, more fundamental, oath to protect the US constitution?
I don't believe that contractors swear an oath to protect the Constitution, and even if they did, who did Snowden vet his personal interpretation of the Constitution with? Nobody, I expect. Assuming his intentions were actually "good," he just decided he didn't like it and broke the law. As to the constitutionality of the programs, Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School has some views on that.
Also, "arguably affecting the privacy"... We can omit the "arguably" here, it seems to me; that has been Snowden's main point (which has not been creditably disputed, as far as I know).
That's something of a philosophical question. If they collect and large amounts of data, which the phone company already has, but only look when they have a warrant, is it an invasion of privacy? Is it collection and storage that is a violation, or is it where there is a person looking at the data? I would say the looking. I can certainly understand how the storing would be an uncomfortable point.
But as to Snowden, it is clear at this point that he went way beyond questions of privacy in what he grabbed. He disclosed information on anti-terrorism operations, such as against Bin Laden and others. That has nothing to do with the privacy of American citizens.
Cleverly mentioning "Snowden sympathizers" and "anti-American activists" in close conjunction. The implication being, without actually demonstrating, that they are one and the same. Echoes of Al-Qaeda and Iraq, a decade ago. Bolton's statement that these have "controlled the story line" is arguably true, but not for lack of trying.
No, it is pretty straight forward that Snowden sympathizers and anti-American activists are overlapping groups, but not the same despite your claim. I don't believe that the US government ever claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 as part of the plot. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, that is beyond dispute. There were contacts between the members of the Iraqi government and al Qaida members.Al Qaida members were present in Iraq.
Hm, that contradicts the point you were making about how thousands of operatives were already in grave danger. Although I suppose you will say that you were talking about UK operatives. Ok, I'll give you that, sort of.
Actually I'm completely correct. Bolton was referring to US agents, I referred to British agents. I don't believe the actual number of agents was revealed.
Do you really not see the hypocrisy here? For years the West has accused China and Russia of doing exactly what they were themselves doing all along. So the "damage" here is that the falsely claimed moral highground is now exposed as dishonest fiction.
Was the West, the US, doing it all along? I don't think that has been established. I think it is also highly doubtful that the US or any country in the West has strong human intelligence in either China or Russia, certainly not to the degree they have on the US or Europe. The history seems to indicate that Eastern Block nations and China were pursuing computer espionage much more seriously long before the US or Europe. If you haven't, you should read The Cuckoo's Egg about an early documented case in the 80s. The author had a difficult time getting the gov
Don't do it. You'll earn more having others do math for you.
On the other hand, if you don't understand at least some math you may find other people making a great deal of money by doing math against you, e.g. casinos & the lottery.
I may have more to say at a later time, but the short answer for now is look at the date of the interview: October 2001. The Taliban had been pressuring Bin Laden to deny any involvement to try to forestall or limit any American military action against Afghanistan. Bin Laden still made his demands to the US clear some time later, but still didn't fully and openly admit al Qaida's role in the 9/11 attacks for some time after that.
It is nonsense to try to claim that Bin Laden's direct demands that dovetail with al Qaida's overall goal don't apply because he doesn't explicitly state them in every interview.
I notice that you only seem to quote Bin Laden at the points where he agrees with your apparent belief that the American government is the big enemy but leave out where he states they have taken the battle to inside America, will continue it, and find it permissible to kill innocents.
I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference?
Al Qaida is fighting the long fight. Europe is already in trouble. The birth rate of native Europeans in plunging far below replacement level in most countries. They are making up the difference with immigrants that are not assimilating, and which reject European values. The problem is likely to grow much worse as they start to have children since many of them are being radicalized in Europe. How well do you think that will turn out in the long run? Europe may very well be in a civil war in 50 years.
Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam....
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator....
I suppose you're among those that think 9/11 happened because Islamic countries just decided they "hate our freedom", rather than a long history of being fucked with in a manner that pre-existed that event and continues through today, and will inevitably result in further animosity and eventual blowback.
Here we come to the heart of the issue - you fundamentally fail to understand al Qaida's motivation. Al Qaida wants to continue the Muslim conquests of centuries ago, when invading Muslim armies threatened to conquer Europe, and continue on to the rest of the world. They want to restore what they see as the glory of Islam. They want to restore the Islamic caliphate government dissolved in 1923 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They want replace existing government in Muslim countries with strict Islamic governments ruling according to their interpretation of Islamic law. They want to reclaim former Muslim lands, such as Spain, by reconquest. They want to expand the new Islamic empire to all nations, and convert all people to Islam. They are militant and imperialistic.
Do you know what Bin Laden's demands were to the US after 9/11? Convert to Islam, and replace the Constitution with Islamic Sharia law.
They understand this is a long term struggle. They are patient, and will continue it. The problem is likely to get worse before it gets better. Countries facing the threat they pose ignore it to their peril.
Since you are likening intelligence agencies to "children in a clubhouse," that "allows them to play with big, expensive toys," I'm not sure you are really engaging on this at a serious level.
Maybe this will help. Since US and British intelligence agencies have helped to stop terrorist plots around the world in many countries, their disruption may lead to attacks in your country, the deaths of people you hold dear, and destruction of things you treasure.
I wouldn't get too comfortable with the current state of affairs. It hasn't been that long since Snowden began his disclosures, and some problems, such as Islamist terrorism, are not likely to go away any time soon. In fact it is likely to grow much worse in Europe in the coming decades. That same could easily be true in the Pacific regions as well.
Maybe you'll never truly understand until you hear a blast yourself. Some people just never learn.
Well put, although with what the British found in David Miranda's data, it isn't edging. It is somewhere between a swan dive and a cliff dive. This is way more damaging than most people realize. The British found 58,000 of their documents alone that he was transporting. A former Eastern Block intelligence general office assess Snowden as being a Russian asset.
He explained, “During the Cold War there were hundreds of other self-motivated defectors from the Soviet bloc, and as far as I know, none came out loaded with secret documents. Even the famous KGB archivist Col. Vasili Mitrokhin, who in the 1990s supplied us with some 25,000 pages of highly confidential documents (described by the FBI as ‘the most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source’) did not dare to cross the border with documents concealed on him. The British MI6 smuggled them out of Russia.”
Snowden, by contrast, was gathering up classified documents for months, including information disclosed by The Washington Post in its Friday newspaper of the “black budget” of U.S. intelligence agencies. The material was “obtained by The Washington Post from former—intelligence contractor Edward Snowden,” the paper confirmed. This is just the latest disclosure by Snowden, and more have been promised.
David Miranda, Glen Greenwald's lover, had a list of British agents under Non Official Cover obtained from Snowden, along with about 58,000 other documents, when he was detained by British police. The lives of all of those agents is deemed at risk, and their status gives them no protection. The British assess those documents as being compromised.
Snowden's leaks are a disaster for US, British, and who knows what other intelligence agencies.
I wonder how many times now the US government has blatantly lied about cyber attacks they launched that have been discovered and then blamed on other countries and pseudo organisation like Anonymous.
I wonder how many attacks by the Chines, Russians, North Koreans, and Iranians you have blamed on the US? Does anyone in the world do disagreeable things besides the US, in your mind?
I'll help you break the code there. The Iranian army was attacked by the Iraqi army with Iraqi manufactured chemical weapons under orders from the Iraqi government. The US didn't help them with chemical weapon attacks. All the US did was provide them with intelligence on a danger in their disposition so that they wouldn't lose Basra and the war. Allowing Iran to win the war would have been bad for everybody. It is strange that you should bring that up since it isn't relevant to Syria in pretty much any way. Great attempt at libeling the US though.
Assad inherited the "family business" - Syria - from his father. The mechanisms of repression are well tested and proven. Chemical weapons could kill rebels in the 1980s, they can still kill rebels today. They have no shortage of chemical weapons. There have been cases of them firing missiles at the rebels rather than lose them.
Assad didn't "give the United States and Israel the perfect excuse to bomb him if he's not desperate or a retard" by using chemical weapons. He is counting on the threats from Iran, and interference by Russia and China to protect him, as the Syrian regime long has. I also doubt that the Israelis would bomb Syria over the matter. They would bomb to keep advanced Syrian weapons out of the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, and possibly al Qaida, as they have already done. It is yet to be seen if the US will do anything, even as a token. Britain has bowed out. The French are still in, but with what?
The Syrian government has been fairly desperate, they are being propped up by Iranian troops, training, and material.
So, lets revisit the three questions:
1) He has nothing to gain by doing so -- Wrong. He has an easy way to kill rebels unprepared for chemical warfare, unlike the Syrian Army. 2) He has everything to lose by doing so -- Highly doubtful. Other countries have used chemical weapons and it typically leads to disapproval - shudder! 3) He is not a retard --- No, but he is a dictator, and he intends to hold on to power. His father massacred with chemicals, so can he. It also acts as a means of intimidation - "Keep it up and you'll get more of the same."
That the US knew about Iraqi chemical weapons is hardly a stunning revelation since Iraq had been using them in the war against Iran. I will also add that Iraq created its own chemical weapons as most countries with a chemical industry could. The US provided Iraq with some intelligence data, that has also been known for a very long time. No, the US government did not approve of Iraqi chemical weapon use. You wildly exaggerate, to be polite.
Shouldn't part of growing up be to make proper use of facts in discussion instead of making wild exaggerations?
And, btw, is good to have backup of what newspapers said before media control, like when was disclosed that U.S. backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime [archive.org].
Iraq did have and use chemical weapons in the past. They were caught repeatedly cheating on the inspections after the 1991 Gulf War. The only reason that they didn't have them in 2003 was because they secretly disposed of them previously after they had been successful in keeping them hidden from previous inspections. The Iraqi government continued to act as if it still had chemical weapons but was hiding them to fool Iran.
The US put an end to Saddam's mass murder of Iraqis, and diverting money designated for food and medicine to build palaces, buy weapons, and bribe influential politicians and UN representatives. A democratic Iraqi government is now making decisions for Iraq, and they at least have a chance at building a decent country that they wouldn't have if Saddam or his sons were still in power. The cost of that transition was less than the long term average of Saddam's butchery.
I watched the video. It said: No unarmed people were hurt during shooting. One of the marines made reference to having been shot at by a sniper.
Noone with half a brain believes Assad is behind the chemical attack because
1) He has nothing to gain by doing so 2) He has everything to lose by doing so 3) He is not a retard
Not to mention that the past 6 months have shown that Assad isn't exactly cornered, on the contrary, he has been pushing further and further back against the rebels.
Maybe you can explain why the Syrian, not Saudi, regime has previously used chemical weapons on its people under conditions far less dangerous to the regime?
You are only offering bold declarations, not analysis. Also note that without Iranian assistance in the form of troops, training, and material, the Syrian government would be in far worse shape than it is now.
They aren't showing the public what "endangered" or whose lives were actually endangered. We are suppose to just believe them.
So what it comes down to is that the only way to convince you that the lives of secret agents are endangered by there being a list of them in the wild is to actually show you the list of secret agents and explain how they are in danger? And everyone in the public needs to be convinced in the same way?
Am I the only one that sees even a tiny problem with that?
The only people I'd have respect for are those who are doing something to stop this shit. David Miranda, Julian Assage, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, rebels, terrorists, and others.
So your sympathies are literally with the terrorists? What could possibly go wrong?
Would you care for a lifetime supply of bus tickets?
If it does endanger lives. Well- good. Maybe it'll teach people working for the government is dangerous and stupid. Putting your life in danger for money is not a bright move.
So you are for terrorists and want the lives of government officials endangered? You seem to have an endless supply of bad ideas. Maybe you're ready for a lifestyle change?
Slashdot Mirror
I presume you're being sarcastic, but Vietnam's leading export is crude oil.
Which is the "WHY" of the Vietnam war from its inception.
That's pretty unlikely since oil wasn't discovered in Vietnamese waters until 1975, and Vietnam had been at war pretty much since the Japanese invasion in the 1940s.
Do you have a theory about Korea? Where are the big oil fields there? Or is that just another case of the US preventing a communist takeover of mountain covered land instead of jungle covered land?
For a time Vietnam's leading export was crude oil. Now the leading export is computers, phones, and parts, with textiles being second.
You've apparently been kissing the blarney stone a few too many times again.
You probably would straighten up with a whack from a shanene
Indeed. The US government wants everyone to talk about current affairs online, so they can easily flag and monitor the trouble-makers.
Where " trouble-makers" is the set of people trying to use truck bombs, car bombs, and suicide vests, plus various experiments with poison gas and plague, to kill masses of innocent people, yes.
Pot calling kettle black And the US is in a position to be talking about "fundamental freedoms"?
I think pot is the best explanation for considering that insightful. I don't see how you don't see the difference between the US and Vietnam. Maybe you haven't heard, but communism tends to have a heavy hand.
Conventiently not mentioning his other, more fundamental, oath to protect the US constitution?
I don't believe that contractors swear an oath to protect the Constitution, and even if they did, who did Snowden vet his personal interpretation of the Constitution with? Nobody, I expect. Assuming his intentions were actually "good," he just decided he didn't like it and broke the law. As to the constitutionality of the programs, Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School has some views on that.
Also, "arguably affecting the privacy"... We can omit the "arguably" here, it seems to me; that has been Snowden's main point (which has not been creditably disputed, as far as I know).
That's something of a philosophical question. If they collect and large amounts of data, which the phone company already has, but only look when they have a warrant, is it an invasion of privacy? Is it collection and storage that is a violation, or is it where there is a person looking at the data? I would say the looking. I can certainly understand how the storing would be an uncomfortable point.
But as to Snowden, it is clear at this point that he went way beyond questions of privacy in what he grabbed. He disclosed information on anti-terrorism operations, such as against Bin Laden and others. That has nothing to do with the privacy of American citizens.
Cleverly mentioning "Snowden sympathizers" and "anti-American activists" in close conjunction. The implication being, without actually demonstrating, that they are one and the same. Echoes of Al-Qaeda and Iraq, a decade ago. Bolton's statement that these have "controlled the story line" is arguably true, but not for lack of trying.
No, it is pretty straight forward that Snowden sympathizers and anti-American activists are overlapping groups, but not the same despite your claim. I don't believe that the US government ever claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 as part of the plot. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, that is beyond dispute. There were contacts between the members of the Iraqi government and al Qaida members. Al Qaida members were present in Iraq.
Hm, that contradicts the point you were making about how thousands of operatives were already in grave danger. Although I suppose you will say that you were talking about UK operatives. Ok, I'll give you that, sort of.
Actually I'm completely correct. Bolton was referring to US agents, I referred to British agents. I don't believe the actual number of agents was revealed.
Do you really not see the hypocrisy here? For years the West has accused China and Russia of doing exactly what they were themselves doing all along. So the "damage" here is that the falsely claimed moral highground is now exposed as dishonest fiction.
Was the West, the US, doing it all along? I don't think that has been established. I think it is also highly doubtful that the US or any country in the West has strong human intelligence in either China or Russia, certainly not to the degree they have on the US or Europe. The history seems to indicate that Eastern Block nations and China were pursuing computer espionage much more seriously long before the US or Europe. If you haven't, you should read The Cuckoo's Egg about an early documented case in the 80s. The author had a difficult time getting the gov
Don't do it. You'll earn more having others do math for you.
On the other hand, if you don't understand at least some math you may find other people making a great deal of money by doing math against you, e.g. casinos & the lottery.
It's 2013 A., handwriting is illegible and filing physical paper is staff intensive, typewriters are hard to find, and computers are all the rage. ;)
Regular news sources have carried the story about the list of agents.
I may have more to say at a later time, but the short answer for now is look at the date of the interview: October 2001. The Taliban had been pressuring Bin Laden to deny any involvement to try to forestall or limit any American military action against Afghanistan. Bin Laden still made his demands to the US clear some time later, but still didn't fully and openly admit al Qaida's role in the 9/11 attacks for some time after that.
It is nonsense to try to claim that Bin Laden's direct demands that dovetail with al Qaida's overall goal don't apply because he doesn't explicitly state them in every interview.
I notice that you only seem to quote Bin Laden at the points where he agrees with your apparent belief that the American government is the big enemy but leave out where he states they have taken the battle to inside America, will continue it, and find it permissible to kill innocents.
I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference?
Al Qaida is fighting the long fight. Europe is already in trouble. The birth rate of native Europeans in plunging far below replacement level in most countries. They are making up the difference with immigrants that are not assimilating, and which reject European values. The problem is likely to grow much worse as they start to have children since many of them are being radicalized in Europe. How well do you think that will turn out in the long run? Europe may very well be in a civil war in 50 years.
Happy to oblige. Enjoy.
The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants
Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'
Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. ...
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator....
HAMAS Targets Spain
Bonus:
UK: Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London
AU: Muslim body wants 'moderate' sharia law but government rejects plan
SE: 'Separate laws for Muslims' idea slammed
John Bolton has a more nuanced view. No doubt you will disagree.
I suppose you're among those that think 9/11 happened because Islamic countries just decided they "hate our freedom", rather than a long history of being fucked with in a manner that pre-existed that event and continues through today, and will inevitably result in further animosity and eventual blowback.
Here we come to the heart of the issue - you fundamentally fail to understand al Qaida's motivation. Al Qaida wants to continue the Muslim conquests of centuries ago, when invading Muslim armies threatened to conquer Europe, and continue on to the rest of the world. They want to restore what they see as the glory of Islam. They want to restore the Islamic caliphate government dissolved in 1923 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They want replace existing government in Muslim countries with strict Islamic governments ruling according to their interpretation of Islamic law. They want to reclaim former Muslim lands, such as Spain, by reconquest. They want to expand the new Islamic empire to all nations, and convert all people to Islam. They are militant and imperialistic.
Do you know what Bin Laden's demands were to the US after 9/11? Convert to Islam, and replace the Constitution with Islamic Sharia law.
They understand this is a long term struggle. They are patient, and will continue it. The problem is likely to get worse before it gets better. Countries facing the threat they pose ignore it to their peril.
Since you are likening intelligence agencies to "children in a clubhouse," that "allows them to play with big, expensive toys," I'm not sure you are really engaging on this at a serious level.
I'm certain you must be interesting when taken in small enough doses.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken
I suppose that can apply to allies and others that US and British intelligence helps to protect as well. Cripple them at your own risk.
Maybe this will help. Since US and British intelligence agencies have helped to stop terrorist plots around the world in many countries, their disruption may lead to attacks in your country, the deaths of people you hold dear, and destruction of things you treasure.
I wouldn't get too comfortable with the current state of affairs. It hasn't been that long since Snowden began his disclosures, and some problems, such as Islamist terrorism, are not likely to go away any time soon. In fact it is likely to grow much worse in Europe in the coming decades. That same could easily be true in the Pacific regions as well.
Maybe you'll never truly understand until you hear a blast yourself. Some people just never learn.
Well put, although with what the British found in David Miranda's data, it isn't edging. It is somewhere between a swan dive and a cliff dive. This is way more damaging than most people realize. The British found 58,000 of their documents alone that he was transporting. A former Eastern Block intelligence general office assess Snowden as being a Russian asset.
Defector Describes Russia’s Handling of NSA Leaker Snowden
He explained, “During the Cold War there were hundreds of other self-motivated defectors from the Soviet bloc, and as far as I know, none came out loaded with secret documents. Even the famous KGB archivist Col. Vasili Mitrokhin, who in the 1990s supplied us with some 25,000 pages of highly confidential documents (described by the FBI as ‘the most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source’) did not dare to cross the border with documents concealed on him. The British MI6 smuggled them out of Russia.”
Snowden, by contrast, was gathering up classified documents for months, including information disclosed by The Washington Post in its Friday newspaper of the “black budget” of U.S. intelligence agencies. The material was “obtained by The Washington Post from former—intelligence contractor Edward Snowden,” the paper confirmed. This is just the latest disclosure by Snowden, and more have been promised.
David Miranda, Glen Greenwald's lover, had a list of British agents under Non Official Cover obtained from Snowden, along with about 58,000 other documents, when he was detained by British police. The lives of all of those agents is deemed at risk, and their status gives them no protection. The British assess those documents as being compromised.
Snowden's leaks are a disaster for US, British, and who knows what other intelligence agencies.
I wonder how many times now the US government has blatantly lied about cyber attacks they launched that have been discovered and then blamed on other countries and pseudo organisation like Anonymous.
I wonder how many attacks by the Chines, Russians, North Koreans, and Iranians you have blamed on the US? Does anyone in the world do disagreeable things besides the US, in your mind?
I'm asking what line do Snowden supporters draw. Or should Snowden have no limit to what he can leak?
Direct observation of the posts in the Slashdot petri dish reveal that for many of them there is apparently no limit, regardless of the consequences.
I'll help you break the code there. The Iranian army was attacked by the Iraqi army with Iraqi manufactured chemical weapons under orders from the Iraqi government. The US didn't help them with chemical weapon attacks. All the US did was provide them with intelligence on a danger in their disposition so that they wouldn't lose Basra and the war. Allowing Iran to win the war would have been bad for everybody. It is strange that you should bring that up since it isn't relevant to Syria in pretty much any way. Great attempt at libeling the US though.
Assad inherited the "family business" - Syria - from his father. The mechanisms of repression are well tested and proven. Chemical weapons could kill rebels in the 1980s, they can still kill rebels today. They have no shortage of chemical weapons. There have been cases of them firing missiles at the rebels rather than lose them.
Assad didn't "give the United States and Israel the perfect excuse to bomb him if he's not desperate or a retard" by using chemical weapons. He is counting on the threats from Iran, and interference by Russia and China to protect him, as the Syrian regime long has. I also doubt that the Israelis would bomb Syria over the matter. They would bomb to keep advanced Syrian weapons out of the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, and possibly al Qaida, as they have already done. It is yet to be seen if the US will do anything, even as a token. Britain has bowed out. The French are still in, but with what?
The Syrian government has been fairly desperate, they are being propped up by Iranian troops, training, and material.
So, lets revisit the three questions:
1) He has nothing to gain by doing so -- Wrong. He has an easy way to kill rebels unprepared for chemical warfare, unlike the Syrian Army.
2) He has everything to lose by doing so -- Highly doubtful. Other countries have used chemical weapons and it typically leads to disapproval - shudder!
3) He is not a retard --- No, but he is a dictator, and he intends to hold on to power. His father massacred with chemicals, so can he. It also acts as a means of intimidation - "Keep it up and you'll get more of the same."
I look forward to you gaining further insight.
That the US knew about Iraqi chemical weapons is hardly a stunning revelation since Iraq had been using them in the war against Iran. I will also add that Iraq created its own chemical weapons as most countries with a chemical industry could. The US provided Iraq with some intelligence data, that has also been known for a very long time. No, the US government did not approve of Iraqi chemical weapon use. You wildly exaggerate, to be polite.
Shouldn't part of growing up be to make proper use of facts in discussion instead of making wild exaggerations?
And, btw, is good to have backup of what newspapers said before media control, like when was disclosed that U.S. backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime [archive.org].
That Daily Mail story is the result of email forgery, as the Mail admits. I trust you won't quote it again?
Iraq did have and use chemical weapons in the past. They were caught repeatedly cheating on the inspections after the 1991 Gulf War. The only reason that they didn't have them in 2003 was because they secretly disposed of them previously after they had been successful in keeping them hidden from previous inspections. The Iraqi government continued to act as if it still had chemical weapons but was hiding them to fool Iran.
The US put an end to Saddam's mass murder of Iraqis, and diverting money designated for food and medicine to build palaces, buy weapons, and bribe influential politicians and UN representatives. A democratic Iraqi government is now making decisions for Iraq, and they at least have a chance at building a decent country that they wouldn't have if Saddam or his sons were still in power. The cost of that transition was less than the long term average of Saddam's butchery.
I watched the video. It said: No unarmed people were hurt during shooting. One of the marines made reference to having been shot at by a sniper.
... against whom? the rebels or the saudis?
Noone with half a brain believes Assad is behind the chemical attack because
1) He has nothing to gain by doing so
2) He has everything to lose by doing so
3) He is not a retard
Not to mention that the past 6 months have shown that Assad isn't exactly cornered, on the contrary, he has been pushing further and further back against the rebels.
Maybe you can explain why the Syrian, not Saudi, regime has previously used chemical weapons on its people under conditions far less dangerous to the regime?
Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
You are only offering bold declarations, not analysis. Also note that without Iranian assistance in the form of troops, training, and material, the Syrian government would be in far worse shape than it is now.
They aren't showing the public what "endangered" or whose lives were actually endangered. We are suppose to just believe them.
So what it comes down to is that the only way to convince you that the lives of secret agents are endangered by there being a list of them in the wild is to actually show you the list of secret agents and explain how they are in danger? And everyone in the public needs to be convinced in the same way?
Am I the only one that sees even a tiny problem with that?
The only people I'd have respect for are those who are doing something to stop this shit. David Miranda, Julian Assage, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, rebels, terrorists, and others.
So your sympathies are literally with the terrorists? What could possibly go wrong?
Would you care for a lifetime supply of bus tickets?
If it does endanger lives. Well- good. Maybe it'll teach people working for the government is dangerous and stupid. Putting your life in danger for money is not a bright move.
So you are for terrorists and want the lives of government officials endangered? You seem to have an endless supply of bad ideas. Maybe you're ready for a lifestyle change?