Where is the damn proof??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Don't take it personal.
I didn't/don't think your referring to everyone or to all muslims. But on the board Muslim terrorist, Black thugs, people who voted for Obama and who knows who else are called animals here. Seems sometimes the only people NEVER considered animals are American white conservatives.
ANd really At least 1 here has made it a point of their argument that Muslim "terrorist" are literally sub human animals. frankly that really shook me. They've made me rethink using the term for anyone.
I don't want to minimize any of the horrific crimes , I'd call them Satanic, or demonic or evil, but God made us all Humans, and I'm not comfortable calling people animals. Dehumanization of a criminal or war enemy doesn't make us more humane it tends to make us less so.

I disagree Rev. Man has the capacity to renounce and completely abandon his humanity and act just like an animal. Some do that and never return from it. The Nazi's come to mind and so does the Jap soldiers that went into villages in China murdering and raping. Those soldiers used to tear the Chinese infant from its mothers arms and toss that child into the air to catch it on their bayonets. They did this as a sport and millions of Chinese civilians were murdered. Some go down that dark road and never return. Such people are truly sub human. You reject this but its true. Your rejection does not change that truth, that reality. Drummond was correct in his judgment. That you and others fail to see it does not change the fact that it is a truth about man.. --Tyr

[Gaffer]

You're certainly not silent now, by were you as vehemently against the Iraq invasion under the auspices of WMD?
So far as proof goes, there's no proof saddam used chemical warfare since '88. Yet we invaded 15 years later since he didn't fully comply with the 92 cease fire. Some doubted this, while others say that theres documented proof that Syrian took possession of such weapons-- thus proving that saddam violated those resolutions....yet here you claim there's no proof of Syrian violations. Seems to me that, if the illegitimate transfer of chemical weapons took place, then Assad is complicit in the crime, no?

Makes no difference if syria is guilty. This is a war between al qaeda and hezbollah. We don't need to be involved here. And yes assad was complicit in the crime.

[revelarts]

were we go,
Tyr We've done this.

They are human beings.
metaphorically someone can go there but in reality they remain human. Humans.
They are inhumane. Not literal animals. They are "MAN" as you've said.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're certainly not silent now, by were you as vehemently against the Iraq invasion under the auspices of WMD?
So far as proof goes, there's no proof saddam used chemical warfare since '88. Yet we invaded 15 years later since he didn't fully comply with the 92 cease fire. Some doubted this, while others say that theres documented proof that Syrian took possession of such weapons-- thus proving that saddam violated those resolutions....yet here you claim there's no proof of Syrian violations. Seems to me that, if the illegitimate transfer of chemical weapons took place, then Assad is complicit in the crime, no?

I was one that stated the WMDS went to Syria. I do not dispute that Syria has chemical weapons. Assad's FORCES RECENTLY STARTED REGAINING TERRITORY, so why murder civilians now? When it would bring down missiles from American military, best to look to who profits from that. And I have lots of guns so when somebody gets shot in the dead of night here does that mean Im the guilty party!??? THIS IS AS CLEAR A CASE OF A FALSE FLAG ATTACK AS ANYBODY WILL EVER SEE. I CLAIMED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF THAT THE GUILTY PARTY WAS ASSAD OR HIS FORCES AND THAT'S TRUE. Logic asks why do it when there is no gain but likely such great harm to come raining down on him? He went over 30 months and didn't and now suddenly when its convenient for Obama he does. I dont buy it!!! Why wasn't the proof splashed all across the world if we had it? And why the sudden rush coming from our GD traitor in chief? I've always been able to spot a scam a mile away. --Tyr

[aboutime]

Thank goodness Nobody on this forum has any power to determine, lead, or take part in the decisions surrounding the Syrian problems.

If so many are convinced, and need unquestionable truth in order to believe what has been reported. Might be time to check-in with Youtube, and all of the 9/11 Conspiracy Junkies too!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

were we go,
Tyr We've done this.

They are human beings.
metaphorically someone can go there but in reality they remain human. Humans.
They are inhumane. Not literal animals. They are "MAN" as you've said.

My friend, the word sub-human still retains the word human. It was not sub-animals. Sure they still retain all the genetics that are unique to we humans but they lose their souls and I mean permanently lose them. That is why I agree the term sub-human fits. Now can God perform a miracle and bring them back , I say yes possible. I aint God, so I say just kill the murdering bastards and be done with it.. My Indian side says , just slice 'em and dice 'em a bit first to give 'em a taste of their own medicine.. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Makes no difference if syria is guilty. This is a war between al qaeda and hezbollah. We don't need to be involved here. And yes assad was complicit in the crime.

-----------------------------------------------------------TRUE, BUT THAT CRIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA. This war is muslims TERRORISTS on both sides wasting each other and that's why our GD President WANTS TO HELP END IT!! He wants more of our enemies to stay alive and Syria to fall into their hands. Log bringing in Iraq and where the wmds went from there is irrelevant. As if the rebels couldn't have some chem weapons!! As if it's beyond the Obama admin to give them some to use!!! PLEASE....... --Tyr

[jafar00]

I don't know about you guys, but I will wait for the UN inspectors to say something before screaming about it from the rooftops.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't know about you guys, but I will wait for the UN inspectors to say something before screaming about it from the rooftops.

As if the UN inspectors are to be trusted. There is not a single thing about the damn corrupt UN that I trust. The damn UN started sating Assad was guilty before they ever inspected any damn thing. --Tyr

[logroller]

-----------------------------------------------------------TRUE, BUT THAT CRIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA. This war is muslims TERRORISTS on both sides wasting each other and that's why our GD President WANTS TO HELP END IT!! He wants more of our enemies to stay alive and Syria to fall into their hands. Log bringing in Iraq and where the wmds went from there is irrelevant. As if the rebels couldn't have some chem weapons!! As if it's beyond the Obama admin to give them some to use!!! PLEASE....... --Tyr

You have any proof of the bold?
I thought not. Yet again you repeat a series of inferred rationales based upon what, your personal opinion? By the way, I didn't bring up iraq and WMD, about time and gaffer did. I merel highlighted that as a glaring example of inconsistency in regards to previous engagements for much the same reasoning--WMD. I mean, you pretty much say, who knows, could be anyone-- they're terrorists anyways. You might as well just say you don't care if they use chem weapons and leave it at that-- that's the truth, the rest is just rhetoric.

seems to me that the fact is you dismissed a valid argument and question from me because it risks exposing your inconsistencies on the righteousness of military engagements surrounding WMD-- namely, iraq --preferring instead to be all indignant over the burden of proof for violations of international law....when you really don't give a rats ass if these two factions bomb each other to kingdom come and just prefer we stay out of it. If I understand gaffer, he's saying that sometimes the enemy of our enemy is still an enemy-- seems reasonable enough a reason as any for not intervening in others disputes.

That's fine, but don't decry another's ignorance for disagreeing and at least acknowledge the possibility that Assad did, in fact, use chem weapons on civilians; just I'm willing to accept they didn't; but its entirely possible that they did--which is foolish for them perhaps, but desperate times....is far more likely than Obama smuggling chem agents to the rebels. Not to say the latter is impossible, we did have fast and furious, (which was underthe umbrella program that began in the previous admin; so I could thus infer that the bush admin allowed the WMD to flow to syria), but its far more likely that those WMD from saddam came with Instructions on dodging UN detection, just saying.

[jimnyc]

I'm curious if this counts as "proof". They should immediately release this information to the UN and all other parties as said proof. Even then, will it be enough? Could it be fake? Will anyone in Syria take credit? Can they narrow it down to WHO said it?

Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."

American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 -- the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors' accounts and video documentation of the tragedy -- are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region.

However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That's the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.

Rest here - http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...used_nerve_gas

[glockmail]

The big thing is to watch iran. Half of assad's forces are iranians. They will use hezbo to strike Israel when the US hits assad. And unless it has moved there's still an iranian frigate or destroyer in a syrian port.

The US will strike syria in the next 48 hours.

I think The Obama will just draw another red line.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You have any proof of the bold?
I thought not. Yet again you repeat a series of inferred rationales based upon what, your personal opinion? By the way, I didn't bring up iraq and WMD, about time and gaffer did. I merel highlighted that as a glaring example of inconsistency in regards to previous engagements for much the same reasoning--WMD. I mean, you pretty much say, who knows, could be anyone-- they're terrorists anyways. You might as well just say you don't care if they use chem weapons and leave it at that-- that's the truth, the rest is just rhetoric.

seems to me that the fact is you dismissed a valid argument and question from me because it risks exposing your inconsistencies on the righteousness of military engagements surrounding WMD-- namely, iraq --preferring instead to be all indignant over the burden of proof for violations of international law....when you really don't give a rats ass if these two factions bomb each other to kingdom come and just prefer we stay out of it. If I understand gaffer, he's saying that sometimes the enemy of our enemy is still an enemy-- seems reasonable enough a reason as any for not intervening in others disputes.

That's fine, but don't decry another's ignorance for disagreeing and at least acknowledge the possibility that Assad did, in fact, use chem weapons on civilians; just I'm willing to accept they didn't; but its entirely possible that they did--which is foolish for them perhaps, but desperate times....is far more likely than Obama smuggling chem agents to the rebels. Not to say the latter is impossible, we did have fast and furious, (which was underthe umbrella program that began in the previous admin; so I could thus infer that the bush admin allowed the WMD to flow to syria), but its far more likely that those WMD from saddam came with Instructions on dodging UN detection, just saying.

I have proof that Obama armed Mexican drug cartel gangs illegally and so does the authorities that refuse to act on it . Its called Fast and Furious and Obama calls it another phony scandal. Not too much of a leap to think he'd order weapons(chem) to be given to his buddies over there to do a false flag attack. And did you think I said I had proof on that or what? I did imply that it was a legitimate possibility and it damn sure is. A man's past record surely indicates how likely he is to do a thing. Obama's past record shows that he is a corrupt , lying son of a bitch. So yes, its very possible , in fact very likely if the rebels had not captured those weapons in Syria. By the way, I never stated anywhere that it was an impossibility that Assad did it . I did state how unlikely and who stood to really gain from it.. Look at it this way, who is most likely to murder uncle John? The cousin he has never even acknowledge exists or the grandson he has put in his will to inherit his 200 million dollar estate? Logic presents who is far more likely to be the true guilty party. Over 30 months fighting the man never uses them and suddenly he does so right when Obama needs him to. -bullshit. Then he uses them on civilians instead of a large rebel fighting force! - more bullshit. To me the civilians were the target so as to garner far, far more public/world outrage/condemnation and a call for swift action that again points to who most likely did it!--Tyr

[Truth Detector]

Nothing will happen here. The media is already working overtime walking Obamas tough rhetoric back. China and Russia will block any attempts to use force by the UN and Obama will not do anything without the UN and with negative public opinion about going to war higher than any other US engagement.

Like the IRS scandal and Benghazi; nothing to see here folks. Move along.

[jimnyc]

Nothing will happen here. The media is already working overtime walking Obamas tough rhetoric back. China and Russia will block any attempts to use force by the UN and Obama will not do anything without the UN and with negative public opinion about going to war higher than any other US engagement.

Like the IRS scandal and Benghazi; nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Welcome to DP.

Maybe head on over to this thread and introduce yourself - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...-Introductions

Oh, and I agree, like all the other bullshit coming from this administration, ultimately this will be investigated by Holder and given 2 thumbs up. My guess, is that IF they send missiles, he'll bypass everyone entirely and cite the war powers resolution, like he did with Libya.