Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Big Bad Voodoo

Assad full interview

61 posts in this topic

I made it to about the 4 minute mark and when the man started smiling while explaining that it's possible to kill 100's of thousands with conventional weapons I just couldn't watch it any more. Smugness in a mass murderer is nauseating.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even one Allahu Akbar in 50 minutes? Outrageous!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even one Allahu Akbar in 50 minutes? Outrageous!

glad to see people are flying in their true color

those who used to attack islam are now defending innocent muslims showing up their true compassion for victims

and those who used to pretend to defend it are the ones attacking it showing up their support to murderers

so pretty is the time of crisis because it make us reliaze what people are truely made of

very indeed we did benfit from this painful experince in syria

we came to realize true nature of people on both sides

Freedom For Syria !

Edited by Knight Of Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Yeah...

freedom from Islamic jihadists....

I heard a report somewhere that it is thought they now comprise of 50% of the so-called rebels...

And just as predicted by anyone paying attention...the jihadists have turned against the other 'rebels'..

Only the Syrian Army has a chance of dealing with them...and that will still be very difficult.

https://medium.com/w...ng/7b44b10b748e

Islamist rebels declare war on non-Islamist rebels, seize border town

On Sept. 12, Islamic rebels in Syria declared war … on their fellow rebels. Two Al Qaeda-linked extremist rebel groups—Al Nusrah and the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham, a.k.a. ISIS—followed up their declaration with an attack on the main Free Syrian Army.

The two-year-old Syrian civil war is now officially a three-way fight, pitting the regime of Pres. Bashar Al Assad versus the FSA versus the Islamists.

see link for more detail...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made it to about the 4 minute mark and when the man started smiling while explaining that it's possible to kill 100's of thousands with conventional weapons I just couldn't watch it any more. Smugness in a mass murderer is nauseating.

Fail.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fail.

The point was right on the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it there are factions within the Syrian regime and Assad is not entirely his own man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was right on the mark.

To ignore all of the content and simply label Assad's point regarding the hypocrisy of the chemical weapon outrage (while the main outraged party has themselves waged war after war, using depleted uranium, phosphor, agent orange and even dropping nuclear bombs on Japan while it was well known in US intelligence circles emperor Hirohito was willing to surrender) is utterly ridiculous and implies a stark disassociation from any form of objective reality.

This besides the fact ofcourse, the quote was placed in a highly tendentious and untruthfull manner. As if he was bragging he could kill just as many with conventional weaponry.

But your agreement with such nonsense is not unexpected. You two are truely kindred spirits.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To ignore all of the content and simply label Assad's point regarding the hypocrisy of the chemical weapon outrage (while the main outraged party has themselves waged war after war, using depleted uranium, phosphor, agent orange and even dropping nuclear bombs on Japan while it was well known in US intelligence circles emperor Hirohito was willing to surrender) is utterly ridiculous and implies a stark disassociation from any form of objective reality.

This besides the fact ofcourse, the quote was placed in a highly tendentious and untruthfull manner. As if he was bragging he could kill just as many with conventional weaponry.

But your agreement with such nonsense is not unexpected. You two are truely kindred spirits.

P, you seem to get incensed rather easily. Does it really bother you that much when someone holds a divergent opinion from your own? You seem to be saying that because the US has used means of warfare that you find heinous, Assad's killing (possibly) of children with a "human pesticide" is more acceptable. Really? Because one group acts in an offensive or even criminal manner, it ameliorates the guilt of others who do the same?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P, you seem to get incensed rather easily. Does it really bother you that much when someone holds a divergent opinion from your own? You seem to be saying that because the US has used means of warfare that you find heinous, Assad's killing (possibly) of children with a "human pesticide" is more acceptable. Really? Because one group acts in an offensive or even criminal manner, it ameliorates the guilt of others who do the same?

Thats not at all what I am saying, you know that very well.

And I assure you, you have not seen me incensed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not at all what I am saying, you know that very well.

And I assure you, you have not seen me incensed.

Okay I will accept that I don't understand - perhaps you could restate the point? Because it seemed to me that you were minimizing his actions in this war. In watching the video he DID smile and even laugh at bit while saying that one could kill thousands without gas. Perhaps it was part of a larger point but considering the history of this conflict and the role of his military in it I think such a tic or gesture was in extremely poor taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To ignore all of the content and simply label Assad's point regarding the hypocrisy of the chemical weapon outrage (while the main outraged party has themselves waged war after war, using depleted uranium, phosphor, agent orange and even dropping nuclear bombs on Japan while it was well known in US intelligence circles emperor Hirohito was willing to surrender) is utterly ridiculous and implies a stark disassociation from any form of objective reality.

This besides the fact ofcourse, the quote was placed in a highly tendentious and untruthfull manner. As if he was bragging he could kill just as many with conventional weaponry.

But your agreement with such nonsense is not unexpected. You two are truely kindred spirits.

Depleted uranium is about as radioactive as sitting next to a box of bananas, while phosphorus is a terrible weapon to use on other people, but it isn't outlawed, and no worse then any other incendiary type of weapon used but it does have other uses just as producing smoke screens, and agent orange had some bad side effects, but that is a bit more of the government ignoring the manufacturer that the batches of agent orange to be used where contaminated with TCDD.

But by far the best is the last one about the US dropping bombs on Japan at the end of WW2 when Japan was willing to surrender. First the US wanted unconditional surrender something that Japan, before dropping the atomic bombs, completely refused and was willing to continue fighting over. Japan was willing to do a conditional surrender to the USA but I doubt you know what those conditions where. Some of the conditions I can remember off the top of my head that Japan demanded was no trials against any Japanese commanders for war crimes, no foreign troops to be stationed in Japan, for Japan to be able to keep certain lands it has conquered, basically allowing Japan to keep anything that wasn't conquered from Europeans or Americans, and for Japan to be allowed to keep its military intact, along with letting the emperor remain emperor and face no charges. When Japan did surrender after the dropping of the two atomic bombs, something that almost didn't happen since there was an attempted coup against the emperor by top Japanese generals in an attempt to stop his surrender, they accepted the demand for unconditional surrender mostly, they still demanded for the emperor to remain emperor and not to face charges and we accepted that.

Edited by DarkHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interview Assad does smile, though it is obviously a weary sarcastic smile, not one of glee that he can kill 100,000 with conventional weapons. This interpretation is propaganda, and it is very tirseome, not least because it assumes none of us have too many brain cells. Assad smiles because he wonders why the fuss now over a few hundred deaths, when 100,000 deaths has been almost swept under the carpet. And more propaganda of course because this figure is made to seem as if they are all victims of Assad. I have to say that the propaganda on this site is very transparent and low grade, and I still wonder why calls for death go unremarked.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interview Assad does smile, though it is obviously a weary sarcastic smile, not one of glee that he can kill 100,000 with conventional weapons. This interpretation is propaganda, and it is very tirseome, not least because it assumes none of us have too many brain cells. Assad smiles because he wonders why the fuss now over a few hundred deaths, when 100,000 deaths has been almost swept under the carpet. And more propaganda of course because this figure is made to seem as if they are all victims of Assad. I have to say that the propaganda on this site is very transparent and low grade, and I still wonder why calls for death go unremarked.

Frankly KT I don't care who the Syrians choose to be their masters. I care that someone there has used very effective, horrific chemical agents whose use was long ago stopped by world consensus. In case you hadn't noticed, these situations never get better, only worse. If these weapons are seen to be used effectively by one regime then others will be more sanguine about resorting to them. Some here will call that statement fear mongering but I think one has to be simple minded to not see the truth of it. Humans are capable of being savage in the extreme and if we ever step back from that and agree to refrain from such horrors then that effort should be preserved, not just allowed to return with a shrug of the collective shoulders by a weaker generation of people.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depleted uranium is about as radioactive as sitting next to a box of bananas, while phosphorus is a terrible weapon to use on other people, but it isn't outlawed, and no worse then any other incendiary type of weapon used but it does have other uses just as producing smoke screens, and agent orange had some bad side effects, but that is a bit more of the government ignoring the manufacturer that the batches of agent orange to be used where contaminated with TCDD.

But by far the best is the last one about the US dropping bombs on Japan at the end of WW2 when Japan was willing to surrender. First the US wanted unconditional surrender something that Japan, before dropping the atomic bombs, completely refused and was willing to continue fighting over. Japan was willing to do a conditional surrender to the USA but I doubt you know what those conditions where. Some of the conditions I can remember off the top of my head that Japan demanded was no trials against any Japanese commanders for war crimes, no foreign troops to be stationed in Japan, for Japan to be able to keep certain lands it has conquered, basically allowing Japan to keep anything that wasn't conquered from Europeans or Americans, and for Japan to be allowed to keep its military intact, along with letting the emperor remain emperor and face no charges. When Japan did surrender after the dropping of the two atomic bombs, something that almost didn't happen since there was an attempted coup against the emperor by top Japanese generals in an attempt to stop his surrender, they accepted the demand for unconditional surrender mostly, they still demanded for the emperor to remain emperor and not to face charges and we accepted that.

Japan was willing to surrender provided the future status of the Emperor could be assured.

July 25 '45: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."

(Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).

In spite of the U.S. emphasis that the surrender must be unconditional, the Potsdam Proclamation included in its unconditional surrender terms the condition that the Japanese would be allowed to establish their own government. Perhaps the Proclamation could have gone a step further and stated clearly, as Sec. of War Stimson suggested, that the Japanese could retain the throne. In the end, after atomic bombs were detonated on the peoples of two cities, the Emperor was allowed to remain, anyway.

Even if your described additional demands have a basis in reality; am I to understand this would legitimize the use of nuclear bombs on civilian targets in your mind?! 200.000 dead civilians, all in a days work, no? Children, mothers, fathers, elderly.

Your scoffing remarks about the limited lethality of the other methods are bloodcurdling. Id bet you would have a different opinion if you were the one having to raise your children in a DU area or during agent orange / phosphor attacks.

By the way, what of the chemical weapon stockpiles of the USA. Are these too, to be amassed and destroyed..?

Hypocritical you say? Nahh.. dont be silly.

Edited by Phaeton80
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly KT I don't care who the Syrians choose to be their masters. I care that someone there has used very effective, horrific chemical agents whose use was long ago stopped by world consensus. In case you hadn't noticed, these situations never get better, only worse. If these weapons are seen to be used effectively by one regime then others will be more sanguine about resorting to them. Some here will call that statement fear mongering but I think one has to be simple minded to not see the truth of it. Humans are capable of being savage in the extreme and if we ever step back from that and agree to refrain from such horrors then that effort should be preserved, not just allowed to return with a shrug of the collective shoulders by a weaker generation of people.

Why do you not shout out against the far worse weapon, nukes, the ones Israel has. I said in several posts now that the weaker of unfriendly states needs parity. As nukes always seemed out of the question, then only biological and chemical are left. The chemical weapons Syria has are not even close to parity with nukes, not remotely. If all were fired off at Israel in one go it would not cause a huge number of deaths, thousands I'm sure, but millions of Syrians would die in a nuclear inferno. The chemicals weapons are not really a serious war weapon, not a thousand tons, it is nothing. The effect they have, is on a civilian population scared of them. I believe the aim was to have a weapon that so scares the civilian population that they would pressurise their government not to wage war on Syria. It is a form of MAD, but it would never have worked. When these chemicals weapons have gone, why would Israel need nukes? and why would any country fearing Israel not want their own. You are too one sided on this, far to much.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you not shout out against the far worse weapon, nukes, the ones Israel has. I said in several posts now that the weaker of unfriendly states needs parity. As nukes always seemed out of the question, then only biological and chemical are left. The chemical weapons Syria has are not even close to parity with nukes, not remotely. If all were fired off at Israel in one go it would not cause a huge number of deaths, thousands I'm sure, but millions of Syrians would die in a nuclear inferno. The chemicals weapons are not really a serious war weapon, not a thousand tons, it is nothing. The effect they have, is on a civilian population scared of them. I believe the aim was to have a weapon that so scares the civilian population that they would pressurise their government not to wage war on Syria. It is a form of MAD, but it would never have worked. When these chemicals weapons have gone, why would Israel need nukes? and why would any country fearing Israel not want their own. You are too one sided on this, far to much.

I'm definitely pro Israel but I don't consider myself irrational in their defense. As a specific group of people it is undeniable that Jews have been hated and persecuted far in excess of any other group of people within a single community. Pogroms and persecutions..a true holocaust... and ever since the day they declared their right to nationhood on land provided by the UN no less, they have had to cope with sworn, deadly enemies who have tried valiantly to destroy them as a nation. This is undeniable KT. If they surrender their nukes (and I believe they will someday) they would instantly be at a disadvantage against a multi prong, multinational attack. They certainly have a superior military to everyone in the region but when you mass all those enemies together at once it would become a siege that they might well lose. And if you want to know what losing means for them just read any Arabic newspaper, blog or website -translated of course. Also, you are railing against a weapon that Israel has been extremely responsible in possessing. They have refused to use it and would be insane - just as any other nuclear nation would be - to use it except in a last ditch defense of their country. Chemical weapons have several times been used by Arab leaders in the last 30 years. Israel is a population of about 7 million souls on a spec of land that is literally 1/1000 the size of their enemy's land mass. The SIZE of a Jewish state isn't the problem KT, the EXISTENCE of a Jewish state is what is unacceptable. The nukes have provided a form of peace...sort of... for Israel to prosper in the region as the only true, working democracy. Stable governmental systems and global commerce. They build and thrive while their neighbors plot and hate. And folks like yourself are unwilling to accept the status quo - they must be weakened for things to be fair" in your mind. Will it be fair when the rest of her neighbors launch another Yom Kippur? Will you shout in their defense if they are over run and we see images of gassed or slaughtered Jewish children? If Muslims will slaughter their own blood kin in the way that is happening in Syria can you even imagine how they would treat the Israelis? Or does that matter at all to you? Yeah...I think Israel NEEDS nukes and I trust them completely to behave sanely with them. They are about LIFE, KT..they aren't a cult of death like their enemies are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...I think Israel NEEDS nukes and I trust them completely to behave sanely with them. They are about LIFE, KT..they aren't a cult of death like their enemies are.

You shroud wave with talk of Jewish children being gassed, and attempt to dehumanise Arabs. You say Israel will be at a disadvantage in a multi-pronged multi-national attack, you mean as they were in the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars?. Yet they crushed three Arab armies in the Six day War, and, after some initial difficulty, again in the Yom Kippur War. Israel had no nukes then and was victorious. You also put words in my mouth by saying this

And folks like yourself are unwilling to accept the status quo - they must be weakened for things to be fair" in your mind

I have not said this, I have not said that Israel should be weakened in the way you imply. You seem to missunderstand why I talk about parity and MAD. It is fact that countries want parity, or better still superiority. Israel has this superiority and you act as though any country wanting to redress the balance is "evil". On what you say, then when Sputink was launched, the Americans should have thrown their hands in the air and surrended, as any attempt to catch up with superior Soviet technology would be "wrong". You write as if Jews had greater morality than Arabs, had a greater right to life than Arabs. You write as if anybody who does not support Isreal 100% must be against them. You try to seem as if you have the moral high ground in this affair and that the rest of us should struggle to make "excuses" for Arabs. This is just ridiculous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am frustrated that there are people in the world willing to defend the gassing of children and find excuses for it. In fact it does more than frustrate me, it disgusts me and if there is a Hell such people would be what it is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am frustrated that there are people in the world willing to defend the gassing of children and find excuses for it. In fact it does more than frustrate me, it disgusts me and if there is a Hell such people would be what it is for.

I agree. Al qaida shouldnt be defended by any means.

Big Bad Voodoo

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am frustrated that there are people in the world willing to defend the gassing of children and find excuses for it. In fact it does more than frustrate me, it disgusts me and if there is a Hell such people would be what it is for.

Who has gassed children and who defends this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has gassed children and who defends this ?

Sheesh

Read the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh

Read the thread.

So, after reading the thread I have a question. Who gassed children and who defends this?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are defending the indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.