Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Syria mixes chemical weapons into bombs


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#46    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,426 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:40 AM

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
lightly said:
Why can't we know the name of the "senior U.S. official"   who  'told'   Fox News. If he's all that senior i suspect we may have heard of him?  Is his identity a matter of national security? .. ridiculous.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

View PostStellar, on 08 December 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

"He"  probably doesnt want to be known within the government as the guy who runs to the news agencies and gives them information such as this before the president himself can decide how he wants to approach this regarding the media...

You can't seriously sit there and tell me that you can't see any reason for someone to want to remain anonymous...


   ... Then " He "  should keep his mouth shut?

Of  course i can  'see' why  some would want to, need to, or should,  remain anonymous.   I'm just really tired of the multitude of   .. "official", "un-named", "white house",  pentagon, etc. etc. etc.   "SOURCES"  that are "quoted"  in THE "news" .  I don't trust an endless stream of  "Information"  that no one is accountable for and therefore cannot be VERIFIED.

Edited by lightly, 09 December 2012 - 11:45 AM.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#47    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 12,640 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:38 PM

View Postlightly, on 09 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
lightly said:
Why can't we know the name of the "senior U.S. official"   who  'told'   Fox News. If he's all that senior i suspect we may have heard of him?  Is his identity a matter of national security? .. ridiculous.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°




   ... Then " He "  should keep his mouth shut?

Of  course i can  'see' why  some would want to, need to, or should,  remain anonymous.   I'm just really tired of the multitude of   .. "official", "un-named", "white house",  pentagon, etc. etc. etc.   "SOURCES"  that are "quoted"  in THE "news" .  I don't trust an endless stream of  "Information"  that no one is accountable for and therefore cannot be VERIFIED.
If we went back to true journalistic standards we wouldn't have much in the way of "news" anymore.  It seems the world has gotten a bit too secretive or else the journos too cowardly to risk their reputations by telling the truths they learn by investigating.

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.

#48    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:56 PM

Unnamed sources is how journalism works. Not all news outlets and reporters who use sources that are kept secret can simply be dismissed as liars. In fact, I'd go as far as to say very few respectable outlets would ever allow false use of this to happen. If they get caught in such an act of deceit, it is the end of the journalist's career and can be the end of the editor's, not to mention the effect it would have on the actual outlet. In journalism, it's such a high risk that it really isn't employed unless the source is either known to the journalist AND the editor, or the journalist has built such a good reputation that the editor trusts him or her.

Without unnamed sources, investigative journalism would more or less die. Whistleblowers would not be able to come forward anonymously, leading to investigations into crimes such as corruption. Can you imagine that?

There is still a risk though that the actual source could be a plant, or could be passing false information. But then, so could any named source.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 09 December 2012 - 12:57 PM.


#49    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,520 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:29 PM

Assad will use chemical weapons against his own people, when he'll accept the fact that they are no longer "his people". Already his Alawite forces are ethnically cleansing most of the Sunni muslims from the eastern parts of Syria, to create a base for an Alawi state. If and when Assad will see that Syria is lost to the rebels, he'll run with his gang to the east and base a militarized Alawi, Russian-backed state. Probably, most of the Syrian weapons and WMD will be relocated to that state, making it a well armed, well fortified Alawi state. It's quite clear now that if Assad would lose power tomorrow, a genocide will start against the Alawites. Question is, what about the Christians, who've seem to be totally on Assad's side during the conflict. Should they spared, or should they be allowed to immigrate to the Alawite state as well. Who knows. One has to remember that Alawites aren't really muslims - they are somewhat of pagan religion, with a face of islam. Hafez Al-Assad, Basher's father, got them recognized as Shiia by Lebanese Mullah back in the 1980s.

IMO, he'll use chemicals if he'll see that the plan for an Alawi state is doomed, and is still in power. Because then he'll understand that a genocide of his people, ie the Alawis, will come.

Posted Image

"We live in a world where when Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade; When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre; When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel. Nobody cares"

#50    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,426 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:24 PM

ok,  thanks  'and then'  and  'ExpandMyMind '  .. what you both say makes sense..   as far as 'reporters', whistle blowers and other sources who maintain their value through anonymity  ..
    But,   I'm still puzzled as to why  White house, or Pentagon, or other officials  ,who are Public figures and public servants, must be secretive?   I'd like people to be able to put them on the spot and hold them more accountable for their statements... somehow.     .. thanks again.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#51    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,755 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:27 PM

Quote

To your first statement: People show up to bring to light the double standards which the U.S. and its allies employ. We speak out against the U.S. and its allies, not because we think they are the only ones doing something wrong in the world, but because we often have a cultural bond with them (a lot ARE American), not to mention military alliances with the country (Britain just fought two wars for you). Of course we are going to speak out about the atrocities of your country (and to some people their own) - a country who falsely claims to be spreading freedom and democracy, while essentially terrorising the World for decades - more than the likes of Sudan or Rwanda. You can ignore and try to justify your country's history if you want, but I most definitely will not, nor will I my own.

Please, don't piss on me and tell me its raining. You did no such thing. You were not bringing to light any double standards. All that you were doing was claiming that the news is propaganda, and anyone who believes it is a fool. That's what you were doing. Not "bringing to light the double standards".

Quote

Now, your claim that we always think anything committed by a non 'US/Israeli' govt as one of your three examples is, first, a completely unjustifiable generalisation. This board is full of many different types of people you have just grouped together; many types of people who often have different opinions when it comes to different, specific situations.


Completely unjustifiable? I think not. I have noticed a general tendency for those who claim things are false flags and propaganda to never deviate from those claims when it comes to the world events. Deny it all you want, but thats how it is.

Quote

Second, it is completely understandable - after we just went to war in Iraq based on complete and utter fabrications, and attacked the country of Afghanistan, when it had nothing to do with attacking the U.S. on 9/11 - that people would have a very hard time believing anything that comes from not just the nations you mention, but others as well. Why are you trying to claim that this is something strange about the fact that the World doesn't trust the U.S.? It has been the most active warring country since WW2; doing so to serve the country's elite, at the expense of millions worldwide and its own taxpayers. Your post WW2 history is disgusting (as is Britain's) and by rights every president since WW2 could easily be tried for war crimes at the Hague. Yet you expect the world to hold you in high regard? If so, that is laughable.


Lets not change the subject. We're not talking about people distrusting the US, we're talking about your condescending tone towards those who believe another country not affiliated with the US might be preparing to commit war crimes. We're talking about how you imply indirectly that the US and Israel are the source of all war crimes and evil these days. That's the subject, not the "mistrust" of the US.

Quote

To speak more specifically about this current situation: it is abundantly clear that since 2001 - 2003, Iran has been the target. The U.S. has taken out all surrounding regional threats; tried, completely unsuccessfully to do in Iran what is happening in Syria (and what they do all over the World); and the one last regional ally left to Iran (and Iran's only military alliance) is now being targeted in the manner the U.S. is accustomed to. What has happened in Syria is not the popular uprising we have seen in other countries. Contrary to what Western media spews out, this situation was created in large part by the West (and also helped along by other close by countries - Turkey for example) as a means to oust a potential threat to U.S. bases and Israel in the lead up to a war with Iran, by inserting and backing terrorists in Syria - a country where the majority of people actually support the leader - and by trying to gain worldwide support for an assault against the country.

Now I'm not saying Assad is in any way a good man or great leader or any such thing (I think the opposite). But what I am sure of is that he is not stupid enough to practically invite a devastating war that will crush whatever chance he has at holding on to power, by using chemical weapons, especially on his own people.


Look at that there. You are able to get your point across without being condescending, as well as sounding objective! Now, contrast the above to the below:

Quote


U.S.: if Syria uses chemical weapons, we will definitely attack.

Syria: Duuuh.. Think we're going to use chemical weapons, m'kay

:blush:


The Syrians will obviously not use chemical weapons on their own people for the simple fact that, if nothing else, it will be the smoking gun the U.S. is so desperately looking for - and they are obviously quite aware of this (unless they don't have the internet or TVs). Anyone who believes this bull**** is obviously walking around with a single digit IQ.


Can you see the difference?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users