Chemical Weapons

[Stu Monty]

Obama: "We couldn't possibly allow Assad back into the international community".

Cameron: "I agree, terrible bloke. By the way, how are your North African rendition sites going? Still slicing up peoples testicles and shit?"

Obama: "Yeah, need a new guy now though after we lost Mubarak".

[Barney_Rubble]

I was surprised he took it to Congress in the first place. His administration have a very radical interpretation of Executive powers, which doesn't include asking Congress for permission for things you can do anyway.

 

As an aside, while nobody knows anything and we're speculating, I have been wondering if this has anything to do with Snowden. The Government were shamed in front of the world and then rendered impotent in their attempts at punishment. It may be simply about reestablishing credibility. Certainly, they've gone to war for lesser reasons.

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet! In the words of River from Serenity, the movie: "It's going to get much, much worse".

 

At the risk of going off on a tangent a little bit, and with my tinfoil hat firmly on, the very recent revelations in the Guardian about NSA's and GCHQ's numerous subvert/covert operations are just a small tip of a very large fucking iceberg.

 

I was planning to start a new thread on this (and I may still do in the coming days as this touches a few areas I work in in my real life), but here is a good place to start.

 

Bruce Schneier (a "security technologist") blew that particular gasket wide open a few days ago on his blog here with announcing two essays he did for the Guardian - NSA surveillance: A guide to staying secure and The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back. All of them were based in his own analysis and (rather vast) experience, but, more interestingly, on seeing quite a large sample of Edward Snowden-supplied documents.

 

Some of these documents have already been "digested" and used in numerous publications, but the contents of most of them is yet to be revealed to Joe Public.

 

In a nutshell, NSA and GCHQ have, apparently, not only been in cahoots with various "technology providers" for years (both software and hardware manufacturers), persuading them (understand paying or coercing them via other, less-than-morally-acceptable means) to leave backdoors in their products, easily exploitable by these two agencies, but have played a very influential (and, sadly, quite eroding) role in weakening the network and encryption standards we use today.

 

In layman terms, these standards are the basis on which everything, encryption and security-wise, operates on the Internet. By weakening a particular network or encryption standard, it allows "interested parties" to then exploit these weaknesses (and usually they are the only ones with knowledge of this - convenient, eh?) and break the encryption in a very short time interval or gain access to the Internet device in question.

 

The sad thing is, this has been going on for more than a decade!

 

For a long time I sort of expected that something like this might possible as I see examples of this in my daily work, but the sheer scale of it all was truly shocking.

 

What is interesting though, is that NSA/GCHQ have, until now, went to great lengths to protect their "technology partners" (in other words, the companies behind these agreements) and are obviously less than happy with the truth coming out. What I also did not know is that Edward Snowden had, apparently, very high-level clearance and therefore access to a top-level-secret documents at his disposal. No wonder the yanks were screaming blue murder when he gained asylum in Russia.

 

Bruce Schneier is promising more revelations in the coming days and weeks, particularly on naming exactly which companies have been involved in these covert operations - that, I'd imagine, will be particularly damaging for US and UK.

 

So, creating a small diversion with a war on that baddie Assad in Syria, for example, might, just might, focus the attention of the prying eyes of the general public elsewhere - at least for the time being.

 

For those interested, a few articles already published in the Guardian and elsewhere, in addition to the ones mentioned above:

 

Bruce Schneier blog entry: The NSA Is Breaking Most Encryption on the Internet

 

Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security

 

BT and Vodafone among telecoms companies passing details to GCHQ

[Ranxerox]

an emerging line of opposition to the strikes is based on the potential budgetary costs.

 

What would a Syria strike cost? - Austin Wright - POLITICO.com

 

While its somewhat disingenuous for Republicans to be suddenly concerned about cost after the trillions wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan at least they're on the right side now.

[Ranxerox]

My vote is for "stay the fuck out of other nations business and don't send our friends and family members to die in another foreign war".

 

Wise words indeed.

[Ranxerox]

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet! In the words of River from Serenity, the movie: "It's going to get much, much worse".

 

At the risk of going off on a tangent a little bit, and with my tinfoil hat firmly on, the very recent revelations in the Guardian about NSA's and GCHQ's numerous subvert/covert operations are just a small tip of a very large fucking iceberg.

 

I was planning to start a new thread on this (and I may still do in the coming days as this touches a few areas I work in in my real life), but here is a good place to start.

 

Bruce Schneier (a "security technologist") blew that particular gasket wide open a few days ago on his blog here with announcing two essays he did for the Guardian - NSA surveillance: A guide to staying secure and The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back. All of them were based in his own analysis and (rather vast) experience, but, more interestingly, on seeing quite a large sample of Edward Snowden-supplied documents.

 

Some of these documents have already been "digested" and used in numerous publications, but the contents of most of them is yet to be revealed to Joe Public.

 

In a nutshell, NSA and GCHQ have, apparently, not only been in cahoots with various "technology providers" for years (both software and hardware manufacturers), persuading them (understand paying or coercing them via other, less-than-morally-acceptable means) to leave backdoors in their products, easily exploitable by these two agencies, but have played a very influential (and, sadly, quite eroding) role in weakening the network and encryption standards we use today.

 

In layman terms, these standards are the basis on which everything, encryption and security-wise, operates on the Internet. By weakening a particular network or encryption standard, it allows "interested parties" to then exploit these weaknesses (and usually they are the only ones with knowledge of this - convenient, eh?) and break the encryption in a very short time interval or gain access to the Internet device in question.

 

The sad thing is, this has been going on for more than a decade!

 

For a long time I sort of expected that something like this might possible as I see examples of this in my daily work, but the sheer scale of it all was truly shocking.

 

What is interesting though, is that NSA/GCHQ have, until now, went to great lengths to protect their "technology partners" (in other words, the companies behind these agreements) and are obviously less than happy with the truth coming out. What I also did not know is that Edward Snowden had, apparently, very high-level clearance and therefore access to a top-level-secret documents at his disposal. No wonder the yanks were screaming blue murder when he gained asylum in Russia.

 

Bruce Schneier is promising more revelations in the coming days and weeks, particularly on naming exactly which companies have been involved in these covert operations - that, I'd imagine, will be particularly damaging for US and UK.

 

So, creating a small diversion with a war on that baddie Assad in Syria, for example, might, just might, focus the attention of the prying eyes of the general public elsewhere - at least for the time being.

 

For those interested, a few articles already published in the Guardian and elsewhere, in addition to the ones mentioned above:

 

Bruce Schneier blog entry: The NSA Is Breaking Most Encryption on the Internet

 

Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security

 

BT and Vodafone among telecoms companies passing details to GCHQ

 

 

 

Some pushback in regards to the NSA program

 

Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying - The Washington Post

[TheBitch]

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

[YOUTUBE]XloUnrVSEug[/YOUTUBE]

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

[YOUTUBE]XloUnrVSEug[/YOUTUBE]

 

That guy seems really, really, really worried about rabies, West Nile virus, and the plague.

[Nightcat]

The West supported and Saudi funded mercenary rebel terrorists, torturing a woman in Syria.

 

Suriyede Muhaliflerin Eline Düşen Kadın Olmak ! - YouTube

[Joe Le Taxi]

Palestine was split into three states, not two.

 

And Israel bombed the fuck out of them both. And?

[dennis tooth]

That guy seems really, really, really worried about rabies, West Nile virus, and the plague.

 

Where is the evidence it was Assad again?

[Phoenix]

My vote is for "stay the fuck out of other nations business and don't send our friends and family members to die in another foreign war".

 

Pretty much sums it up.

 

We have nothing to gain and plenty to lose.

[polymerpunkah]

I've been trying to wade through the bullshit.

 

I've yet to see a satisfactory reason offered as to why Assad would do this.

 

It just seems too convenient.

 

And another thing that's bother[ing] me: if he did somehow think it would help, why would he stop?

[BCM]

Anyone read up on this supposed massacre in Lattakia by the rebels, Some horrific accounts coming out about it.

[BCM]

Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything

 

Posted on September 7, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Classified Syria Intelligence Fails to Prove Assad Used Chemical Weapons

 

The administration’s public case for chemical weapons use by the Syrian government is extremely weak, and former high-level intelligence officers say that publicly-available information proves that the Syrian government likely did not carry out the chemical weapons attacks.

 

The Obama administration claims that classified intelligence proves that it was the Assad government which carried out the attacks.

 

But numerous congressional members who have seen the classified intelligence information says that it is no better than the public war brief … and doesn’t prove anything.

 

Congressman Justin Amash said last week:

 

What I heard in Obama admn briefing actually makes me more skeptical of certain significant aspects of Pres’s case for attacking

 

He noted yesterday, after attending another classified briefing and reviewing more classified materials:

 

Attended another classified briefing on #Syria & reviewed add’l materials. Now more skeptical than ever. Can’t believe Pres is pushing war.

 

And today, Amash wrote:

 

If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against #Syria action. Obama admn’s public statements are misleading at best.

 

Congressman Tom Harkin said:

 

I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial.

 

Congressman Michael Burgess said:

 

Yes, I saw the classified documents. They were pretty thin.

 

Yahoo News reports:

 

New Hampshire Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, for instance, left Thursday’s classified hearing and said she was opposed to the effort “now so more than ever.”

 

“I think there’s a long way to go for the president to make the case,” she said after the briefing. “It does seem there is a high degree of concern and leaning no.”

 

Senator Joe Manchin announced he was voting “no” for a Syria strike right after hearing a classified intelligence brieifng.

 

Congressman Alan Grayson points out in the New York Times:

 

The documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion. [i.e. it was no more impressive than the 4-page public version.]

 

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.”

 

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

 

***

 

And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

 

In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

 

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

 

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

 

And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven’t heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don’t expect one.

 

***

 

By refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct.

 

The rush to war based upon skewed intelligence is very similar to Iraq.

[Ranxerox]

I've been trying to wade through the bullshit.

 

I've yet to see a satisfactory reason offered as to why Assad would do this.

 

It just seems too convenient.

 

And another thing that's bother[ing] me: if he did somehow think it would help, why would he stop?

 

Even the Pentagon admits it would take troops on the ground to be sure.

 

In testimony before the Senate

Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, “It’s

100 times worse than what we dealt with in Libya. And for that reason, that’s why it’s raised even

greater concerns about our ability to address how we can secure those sites.” The Pentagon has

estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons.

 

Quote is from a Congressional Research Publication.

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42848.pdf

 

The report is long but makes for excellent reading.

[Ranxerox]

More links between the rebels and the administration, so the similarities to Iraq grow more obvious and the true goal of regime change becomes clearer.

 

A very good read which should raise skepticism about what Sec Kerry has been peddling.

 

Advocate for rebels wields influence with Kerry, McCain | The Daily Caller

 

note the article has two pages (large 1/2) at bottom above an interesting video clip of Sen. McCain.

[dennis tooth]

Did you think that's why I posted the link? To make the case that Assad did it? I was showing how the UK was changing its stance, hence my quote. This is the first step.

 

The US and French already have plenty enough evidence to show it was Syria. The only debatable thing is whether that evidence, released in two dossiers, is some huge conspiracy with fabricated evidence or if its just evidence.

 

Still waiting for you to provide this. Is this the same as your evidence that crime would go up? Clearly evidenced by the fact that it didnt. That kind of evidence?

Have you seen something we havent? Where is this evidence you state as fact please?

When you've finished eating out old women's bumholes, naturally.

[Barney_Rubble]

I've yet to see a satisfactory reason offered as to why Assad would do this.

 

It just seems too convenient.

 

And another thing that's bother[ing] me: if he did somehow think it would help, why would he stop?

That, to me, is the crux of this whole issue. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to do any of this (unless you are a mindless idiot with less than 2 brain cells functioning, that is) - there is nothing to gain from this attack, absolutely nothing! No motive whatsoever.

 

Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything

[...]

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

 

***

 

And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

 

In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

 

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

 

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

 

And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven’t heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don’t expect one.

'kinell! Talk about being fucking desperate. Evidence from YouTube clips and "social media"! Jesus!

 

*note to self - don't post anything on facebook or The Register, otherwise I might be responsible for starting a war in Syria or elsewhere*

 

So, the members of that Committee are presented with this "evidence", but can do jack shit to challenge it - and I thought the years of Stalin and the like were long gone. Fucking hell!

[zigackly]

What a big fucking surprise that the US classified evidence is so thin as to not be able to convince members of congress who have seen it.

[dennis tooth]

What a big fucking surprise that the US classified evidence is so thin as to not be able to convince members of congress who have seen it.

 

Well its enough for Numero. This complete and total wanker has somehow convinced himself, cos he likes to suck obama's bama, that bombing a huge chemical weapons stockpile will not affect civilians in the surrounding areas and its ok to do.

 

He is thick as he is dull, and I dont mean Obama, who knows exactly what he's doing. Shame he has no evidence but its not needed with Guardian boy intellingensa like Numero, they're the dangerous clever idiot types.

 

See hes been quiet since Ive arrived huh? Hes about on other threads though, seems the coward feels no way about banging his fist for U.S bombs but wont be around when hard questions are asked.

I couldnt beleive I was reading him outlining his 'credentials' earlier in this thread, hes a fucking university lecturer or something, what a turd, you'd think he's a UN secretary general the way he spouts. Hes certainly convinced himself.

 

Anyway enough, if you cant see whats going on here then you need a wheelchair for your head.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything

 

Good lord. I think blog posts like that best illustrate why opinion pieces should be taken with a pinch of salt and why blogs aren't held in very high regard. It's something that could have come straight from the Zionist school of propaganda. I'm not saying they're not right, these carefully selective few, but the article is pretty appalling. The author is quite clearly trying to sell the reader his own bias, and doing so quite dishonestly.

 

It could have been written in almost exactly the same way, but in support of the intelligence/evidence and strikes on Syria. Both would be ludicrously unbalanced and propagandistic ways to write an article, but it would be easy to change the quotes with some from other senators or congresspersons in order to push a different agenda. It's not warning people to be vigilant or cautiously skeptical of what powerful interests are telling us; it's about pushing a narrative, one clearly decided by the author. Poor.

 

Even before drilling into the sources used, or the credibility of the quotes, it's abundantly clear the motive for the piece is to convince that 1) the government have produced a dossier full of lies, 2) this is Iraq all over again. Assuming there was evidence for that, I’d heartily welcome such an article. Unfortunately, there’s no real suggestion that’s the case at all. It seems like they’re trying to convince people that’s the case.

 

They might even believe that to be the case, but considering some of the tricks they’ve tried to pull I have doubts. Checking what was actually said by those the author (who is the author, BTW? I've checked the blog, they don't even put their name to it), it raises even more questions about their honesty and integrity. You just have to look at the way they’ve used Joe Manchin's stance to push their skewed narrative. The implication in writing 'Joe Manchin announced he was voting “no” for a Syria strike right after hearing a classified intelligence brieifng(sic)” is that, fuck me, that intelligence briefing must be real bullshit. That he's not voting for it because it 'fails to prove anything'.

 

Well, it might well be a load of bullshit, but that’s not why Manchin isn’t supporting it. I suspect the author knows that, which is why he quoted just one single word out of his statement, rather than the part where he actually gave the reason, which was that “I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act”. Why would any honest writer do that, I wonder.

 

Aside from that, the author also quotes Shea-Porter. Again, there’s an obvious attempt to make out as if they believe the evidence to be unreliable. Maybe it’s best to check the author’s intentions? For example, you could read what Shea-Porter actually said. Leaving aside the fact that the source for the quote they use is a second blog, quoting a tweet from a third source (not Shea-Porter, or anybody connected to them), you can actually go to the congresswoman’s own website and read her official press release which says that after attending classified briefings on Syria, and ‘While Syrian President Assad has committed vicious crimes against his own people, and I especially condemn the use of chemical weapons, it is hard to see at this time how a military air strike against Syria will fix this”. She goes on to say that people should ‘Make no mistake, the situation in Syria is a tragedy, and the murderous Bashar al-Assad has lost all credibility as the leader of Syria. However, I believe that the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and I believe the world needs to condemn and isolate Assad while providing more humanitarian aid’. Interesting. So it’s not because the congresswoman deems the evidence to be bullshit, it’s because she doesn’t think it’ll fix the situation. A fair point. No mention of dodgy intelligence, but a good statement.

 

Again, why would the author push this false narrative? More to the point, how can people be sucked into it? Show a little intellectual rigour. Some on this thread talk about me swallowing information, and not questioning sources, and all the rest of it. Obviously no example, because it didn't happen. Anyway I agree, it's fundamentally a good idea. I just wish they'd do it themselves before posting up hit-peices like that one. I wish they'd step away from their own confirmatory bias and look objectively at the information, especially before they call other people gullible or suggest they're uncritically swallowing information.

 

Unquestioningly accepting what Mike '15 week old foetuses masturbate' Burgess of 'I love the Tea Party' fame and Justin 'I'm also a gun-totin’, rootin' tootin' Tea Party loon' Amash have to say is absolutely fine, you’re welcome to it. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're mental right-wingers who'd be beating the drum if it was a red president in the White House. Who knows.

 

From reading statements from many senators and congressmen, including the ones this blog-cunt cites, the general feeling seems to be that whilst they believe that both an attacked happened and it was Assad's regime, they're against it for two main reasons, 1) there's no national security threat to the US, 2) they feel it's the wrong action to take, either not strong enough or the wrong tactics. I certainly see their point, there's no real threat to the US.

 

To add a little bit of balance to that article - wondrously impartial though it is - here are what some other had to say: At the same time as the blog’s chosen congressman, Joe Manchin, said he’d be voting against it (again, not because of dodgy intelligence is suggest, but because he wants diplomatic a resolution) Brian Schatz also said, ”Though all of us are outraged by the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, I have concluded that a military strike against Syria is not the answer. Therefore, I will oppose this resolution”. Fair fucks, you can’t knock somebody for being against military action.

 

Then there’s senator Barbara Mikulski. She’s the longest serving woman senator in the history of the United States, and serves on the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That’s the committee which oversees the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA, and Homeland Security, suggesting she might know a little bit about the intelligence community. Maybe not as much as Mr. Unnamed Blogger, but something.

 

She said, “What we heard today made a compelling forensic case, 1), that nerve gas was used and, 2), that it was used by the Assad regime" and "In briefings like this, I was convinced that there was no compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. I was right about that. I do believe that today there was compelling evidence presented that [Assad] did use nerve gas against his own people. Now, the next question is what is the best way to deter him from ever using that again".

Edited September 8, 2013 by Numero Veinticinco

[BCM]

Numero i have no doubt both sides of the argument will sugar coat things to make their argument look better. I think what you can gather from that article and the quotes you have found though is there isnt full support for the actions that Obama wants to undertake.

Why are the USA actively looking to help a rebel force that by all accounts is littered with Al Qaada soldiers, are the yanks now their friends again.

 

Some of the videos that are on youtube allegedly showing the rebels torturing people is some of the most disguting thing i have ever seen. If that is what these people are capable of why are the west supporting them.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Numero i have no doubt both sides of the argument will sugar coat things to make their argument look better. I think what you can gather from that article and the quotes you have found though is there isnt full support for the actions that Obama wants to undertake.

 

Absolutely there isn't. I find that a perfectly fair position to take. As somebody who has opposed almost every instance of military action in recent memory, sometimes to personal and professional detriment, I fully understand the position of not wanting to use that option. However, that's not what the article was about, which is why I protested about it. The same could have been done for various links and articles, but it's too lengthy to go into detail of every one.

 

Why are the USA actively looking to help a rebel force that by all accounts is littered with Al Qaada soldiers, are the yanks now their friends again.

 

Some of the videos that are on youtube allegedly showing the rebels torturing people is some of the most disguting thing i have ever seen. If that is what these people are capable of why are the west supporting them.

 

Some of the rebels have done much, much more than torture people. Some have cut out the heart of their opponent and started eating it. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm no great fan of the rebel forces. I do think 'the rebels' is a ridiculous term, though. It covers all opposing forces, from terrorist-backed radical murderers and radicalised Islamists, to more moderate groups.

 

I'm not sure how much credible evidence exists to show that the US is actually funding or arming Al-Nusra, though. They're deemed a terrorist organisation by the US, UK and the UN. I mean, I wouldn't be shocked if they were - the CIA have certain methods they use - but I don't see any reason they'd want them to have any power at all.

[dennis tooth]

Good lord. I think blog posts like that best illustrate why opinion pieces should be taken with a pinch of salt and why blogs aren't held in very high regard. It's something that could have come straight from the Zionist school of propaganda. I'm not saying they're not right, these carefully selective few, but the article is pretty appalling. The author is quite clearly trying to sell the reader his own bias, and doing so quite dishonestly.

 

It could have been written in almost exactly the same way, but in support of the intelligence/evidence and strikes on Syria. Both would be ludicrously unbalanced and propagandistic ways to write an article, but it would be easy to change the quotes with some from other senators or congresspersons in order to push a different agenda. It's not warning people to be vigilant or cautiously skeptical of what powerful interests are telling us; it's about pushing a narrative, one clearly decided by the author. Poor.

 

Even before drilling into the sources used, or the credibility of the quotes, it's abundantly clear the motive for the piece is to convince that 1) the government have produced a dossier full of lies, 2) this is Iraq all over again. Assuming there was evidence for that, I’d heartily welcome such an article. Unfortunately, there’s no real suggestion that’s the case at all. It seems like they’re trying to convince people that’s the case.

 

They might even believe that to be the case, but considering some of the tricks they’ve tried to pull I have doubts. Checking what was actually said by those the author (who is the author, BTW? I've checked the blog, they don't even put their name to it), it raises even more questions about their honesty and integrity. You just have to look at the way they’ve used Joe Manchin's stance to push their skewed narrative. The implication in writing 'Joe Manchin announced he was voting “no” for a Syria strike right after hearing a classified intelligence brieifng(sic)” is that, fuck me, that intelligence briefing must be real bullshit. That he's not voting for it because it 'fails to prove anything'.

 

Well, it might well be a load of bullshit, but that’s not why Manchin isn’t supporting it. I suspect the author knows that, which is why he quoted just one single word out of his statement, rather than the part where he actually gave the reason, which was that “I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act”. Why would any honest writer do that, I wonder.

 

Aside from that, the author also quotes Shea-Porter. Again, there’s an obvious attempt to make out as if they believe the evidence to be unreliable. Maybe it’s best to check the author’s intentions? For example, you could read what Shea-Porter actually said. Leaving aside the fact that the source for the quote they use is a second blog, quoting a tweet from a third source (not Shea-Porter, or anybody connected to them), you can actually go to the congresswoman’s own website and read her official press release which says that after attending classified briefings on Syria, and ‘While Syrian President Assad has committed vicious crimes against his own people, and I especially condemn the use of chemical weapons, it is hard to see at this time how a military air strike against Syria will fix this”. She goes on to say that people should ‘Make no mistake, the situation in Syria is a tragedy, and the murderous Bashar al-Assad has lost all credibility as the leader of Syria. However, I believe that the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and I believe the world needs to condemn and isolate Assad while providing more humanitarian aid’. Interesting. So it’s not because the congresswoman deems the evidence to be bullshit, it’s because she doesn’t think it’ll fix the situation. A fair point. No mention of dodgy intelligence, but a good statement.

 

Again, why would the author push this false narrative? More to the point, how can people be sucked into it? Show a little intellectual rigour. Some on this thread talk about me swallowing information, and not questioning sources, and all the rest of it. Obviously no example, because it didn't happen. Anyway I agree, it's fundamentally a good idea. I just wish they'd do it themselves before posting up hit-peices like that one. I wish they'd step away from their own confirmatory bias and look objectively at the information, especially before they call other people gullible or suggest they're uncritically swallowing information.

 

Unquestioningly accepting what Mike '15 week old foetuses masturbate' Burgess of 'I love the Tea Party' fame and Justin 'I'm also a gun-totin’, rootin' tootin' Tea Party loon' Amash have to say is absolutely fine, you’re welcome to it. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're mental right-wingers who'd be beating the drum if it was a red president in the White House. Who knows.

 

From reading statements from many senators and congressmen, including the ones this blog-cunt cites, the general feeling seems to be that whilst they believe that both an attacked happened and it was Assad's regime, they're against it for two main reasons, 1) there's no national security threat to the US, 2) they feel it's the wrong action to take, either not strong enough or the wrong tactics. I certainly see their point, there's no real threat to the US.

 

To add a little bit of balance to that article - wondrously impartial though it is - here are what some other had to say: At the same time as the blog’s chosen congressman, Joe Manchin, said he’d be voting against it (again, not because of dodgy intelligence is suggest, but because he wants diplomatic a resolution) Brian Schatz also said, ”Though all of us are outraged by the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, I have concluded that a military strike against Syria is not the answer. Therefore, I will oppose this resolution”. Fair fucks, you can’t knock somebody for being against military action.

 

Then there’s senator Barbara Mikulski. She’s the longest serving woman senator in the history of the United States, and serves on the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That’s the committee which oversees the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA, and Homeland Security, suggesting she might know a little bit about the intelligence community. Maybe not as much as Mr. Unnamed Blogger, but something.

 

She said, “What we heard today made a compelling forensic case, 1), that nerve gas was used and, 2), that it was used by the Assad regime" and "In briefings like this, I was convinced that there was no compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. I was right about that. I do believe that today there was compelling evidence presented that [Assad] did use nerve gas against his own people. Now, the next question is what is the best way to deter him from ever using that again".

 

Thats it then, thats your evidence? Anything else?