Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda

LOST said:
From the beginning of the Syria conflict I have thought and said that it is like the Spanish Civil War.
So was Fascist Franco preferable to the Communist infiltrated Loyalists-Republicans?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War

In Spain, Franco, like the Syrian "rebels," carried out a war of regime-change with the support of outside forces.

.

sbenois said:

. . . it was great to see (Nan), despite the central role that she played in helping Trump to get elected.

 You need to bring this on your next visit to the psychiatrist.

paulsurovell said:


Can we agree that it's simple that the US invasions of Iraq unleashed epic death, suffering, destruction and waste of resources?

And that it's simple that the results of US support for regime-change in Libya had similar results on a smaller scale?

And in Syria, while it may not be as simple, can we agree that without US-Saudi-Qatar-Turkish support for the "rebels," the war would have ended long ago?
And can we agree that the US should join Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria in the recent agreement to remove the "rebels" by peaceful means?
Or should we encourage the fighting to continue?

We can agree on the first two. The remaining two are more debatable, especially if you remove Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah support for Damascus, too. Regardless, agreement doesn’t answer the question: What is a well-meaning bystander (at least, one that acknowledges there was suffering under Qaddafi, Hussein and the Assads) to do? 

nan said:

 They did not fact check what she said.  End of story.  Go read Gabbard.  You need it.

I thought it was clear from my previous post that I already had.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:


Can we agree that it's simple that the US invasions of Iraq unleashed epic death, suffering, destruction and waste of resources?

And that it's simple that the results of US support for regime-change in Libya had similar results on a smaller scale?

And in Syria, while it may not be as simple, can we agree that without US-Saudi-Qatar-Turkish support for the "rebels," the war would have ended long ago?
And can we agree that the US should join Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria in the recent agreement to remove the "rebels" by peaceful means?
Or should we encourage the fighting to continue?

We can agree on the first two. The remaining two are more debatable, especially if you remove Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah support for Damascus, too. Regardless, agreement doesn’t answer the question: What is a well-meaning bystander (at least, one that acknowledges there was suffering under Qaddafi, Hussein and the Assads) to do? 

nan said:

 They did not fact check what she said.  End of story.  Go read Gabbard.  You need it.

I thought it was clear from my previous post that I already had.

 I'll give my answers to 3 and 4 at a later time (hopefully tonight).

nan said:

PVW said:

dave23 said:
One need not demonize Saddam to recognize that he was a demon. That doesn't mean one supported the invasion of Iraq. Those two things can exist simultaneously. The same rule applies to Assad.

 This. If Paul and Nan were to say something along the lines of "The Assad regime is guilty of terrible atrocities, but US involvement will only make things worse," they'd likely get fair number of folks here agreeing with them, and an interesting debate on what the the proper involvement of the US should be from the rest.
Instead, for reasons I don't really understand, they've decided it's necessary to go full-on Assad apologists.

 Please show where we have been "full-on Assad apologists"   If you mean that Syria is a secular state, with women in government, that is a better alternative to ending up like Libya with open slave markets than I guess I am guilty as charged. The people of Syria much prefer Assad to the non-secular dictator that the would surely replace him  I am not a fan of the CIA selling arms to terrorists for the purpose of regime change and then filling the MSM with propaganda to get the American public to support even more money ($200 million is  a LOT of money--we could really use that here, dontcha think?) for the military.  I am not pro-Assad as much as I am anti-war and non-interventionist and sick of financial institutions, oil companies and weapons manufactures looking to profit on the misery of the powerless (including us).    

I have yet to see you or Paul acknowledge any bad actions by the Assad regime, much less decry them. You either outright call such accusation false or insist on a skepticism that you do not extend to allegations against opponents of Assad. 

What I don't understand is, why? There's nothing about being opposed to US intervention Syria that compels one to play defense for Assad.

DaveSchmidt said:

TG: I think there are a number of reasons for this. Some people mean well—they see pictures of children suffering and are moved to want to do something to try to alleviate that suffering. But too often they are shortsighted, waging regime-change wars and dropping bombs, without realizing their actions will likely increase the suffering of the very people they say they want to help.

This is one of two instances in the interview where Gabbard hints at the possibility that life in Syria (or Iraq or Libya) wasn’t so rosy for everyone before the conflagration. Given even a tepid acknowledgment that there was suffering, and given that regime-change wars are shortsighted and worse, what is a well-meaning bystander to do? (I think nan’s solution has been akin to: Stay at home and mind its own business.)
In the case of Saudi Arabia, Gabbard calls for an end to all U.S. aid. How farsighted is that?
And Al Qaeda is “stronger than ever,” and Hussein was OK (can’t beat those U.S.-supported dictators) because he kept Iran at bay.
It’s all so simple, isn’t it.

 I keep wondering why all those refugees didn't simply flee to Damascus or other Assad controlled areas, rather than make the long and dangerous journeys to Europe and elsewhere, if Syria under Assad was so great.

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

dave23 said:
One need not demonize Saddam to recognize that he was a demon. That doesn't mean one supported the invasion of Iraq. Those two things can exist simultaneously. The same rule applies to Assad.

 This. If Paul and Nan were to say something along the lines of "The Assad regime is guilty of terrible atrocities, but US involvement will only make things worse," they'd likely get fair number of folks here agreeing with them, and an interesting debate on what the the proper involvement of the US should be from the rest.
Instead, for reasons I don't really understand, they've decided it's necessary to go full-on Assad apologists.

 Please show where we have been "full-on Assad apologists"   If you mean that Syria is a secular state, with women in government, that is a better alternative to ending up like Libya with open slave markets than I guess I am guilty as charged. The people of Syria much prefer Assad to the non-secular dictator that the would surely replace him  I am not a fan of the CIA selling arms to terrorists for the purpose of regime change and then filling the MSM with propaganda to get the American public to support even more money ($200 million is  a LOT of money--we could really use that here, dontcha think?) for the military.  I am not pro-Assad as much as I am anti-war and non-interventionist and sick of financial institutions, oil companies and weapons manufactures looking to profit on the misery of the powerless (including us).    

I have yet to see you or Paul acknowledge any bad actions by the Assad regime, much less decry them. You either outright call such accusation false or insist on a skepticism that you do not extend to allegations against opponents of Assad. 
What I don't understand is, why? There's nothing about being opposed to US intervention Syria that compels one to play defense for Assad.

 Why do bad actions by the Assad regime matter?   Saudi Arabia has more bad actions and we are BFFs with them.  We are not in this war for humanitarian reasons.  We cannot run the world from the position of being good because we don't have a leg to stand on.  And we should not be running the world anyway.  Nothing Assad has done justifies his removal and replacement by a probably much, much worse person.  Why is it so important to you that we acknowledge Assad as a having done bad actions?  What does that accomplish?  Anyway, here is someone I agree with on Assad and he gets asked the same question:

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2018/09/seymour-hersh-journalism-hell-180921120003172.htm

PVW said:

I have yet to see you or Paul acknowledge any bad actions by the Assad regime, much less decry them. You either outright call such accusation false or insist on a skepticism that you do not extend to allegations against opponents of Assad. 
What I don't understand is, why? There's nothing about being opposed to US intervention Syria that compels one to play defense for Assad.

I don't think I've written about "bad actions" by any of the parties fighting in Syria. I've challenged the narrative mainstream media narrative that ignores that Syria is a regime-change war in which (a) the "rebels" are dominated by Al-Qaeda; (b) Assad's forces have taken the most casualties; (c) not all civilian casualties have been caused by Assad and (d) without US and Saudi support the war soon would be over.

Mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the foreign policy establishment which supports regime-change in Syria. That is why the media ignores points (a) thru (d) because if they were part of the public dialogue, support for the war would go down the tube.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:


Can we agree that it's simple that the US invasions of Iraq unleashed epic death, suffering, destruction and waste of resources?

And that it's simple that the results of US support for regime-change in Libya had similar results on a smaller scale?

And in Syria, while it may not be as simple, can we agree that without US-Saudi-Qatar-Turkish support for the "rebels," the war would have ended long ago?
And can we agree that the US should join Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria in the recent agreement to remove the "rebels" by peaceful means?
Or should we encourage the fighting to continue?

We can agree on the first two. The remaining two are more debatable, especially if you remove Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah support for Damascus, too. Regardless, agreement doesn’t answer the question: What is a well-meaning bystander (at least, one that acknowledges there was suffering under Qaddafi, Hussein and the Assads) to do? 

 I'll give my answers to 3 and 4 at a later time (hopefully tonight).

On number three, I agree that if all outside forces and support were removed the outcome is less clear. But under international law Assad has the right to ask for foreign assistance, but the US has no right to deploy forces in Syria or to supply insurgents with weapons.

On number four, US did not invade Iraq, Libya or Syria because of local suffering, but as Tulsi said, our invasions certainly ramped up the local suffering in those countries.

nan said:

...

 Why do bad actions by the Assad regime matter?  
...

That's just freaking hilarious. I'll leave the "why" as an exercise for the reader.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

...

 Why do bad actions by the Assad regime matter?  
...

That's just freaking hilarious. I'll leave the "why" as an exercise for the reader.

 

Not right to pull a quote out of context unless you are a troll.  If you think it is hilarious that our government is using our tax dollars to fund terrorists while pretending to care about Assad's behavior than I feel sorry for you.  Not funny at all. Cause in the big scheme of things Assad's behavior is acceptable compared to what would replace him (by the US).  Watch the Seymour Hersh interview I posted above and stop laughing:

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2018/09/seymour-hersh-journalism-hell-180921120003172.htm

Paul -- you said "I don't think I've written about "bad actions" by any of the parties fighting in Syria."

I don't know what to make of that comment. In this thread you spent a lot of time claiming that the White Helmets are, in fact, actually among the parties fighting in Syria, and are terrorists too boot (working "hand-in-glove" with AQ, I believe you said). You've also spent a lot of time, for instance, denying Assad is guilty of gassing attacks -- most definitely a "bad action" you've written about. That's off the top of my head -- I'm sure I can find plenty more if I look, so I don't understand what you mean here?

But I'd rather leave that aside, as it's a distraction from my main point. To restate:

" There's nothing about being opposed to US intervention Syria that compels one to play defense for Assad."

And in both your and Nan's response, rather than answer, you just did repeated the very behavior I questioned, going on about how you're opposed to regime change, but never answering why you feel compelled to play defense for Assad. So why? One can certainly be critical of Assad AND be opposed to US-led regime change. Ask @tjohn, as one example of a poster here who is very critical of both. For that matter, though you accused @nohero of being in favor of the US going to war to oust Assad, I don't believe I've seen him take that position. Come to think of it, I have a hard time naming any poster here who's argued in favor of US intervention of overthrow Assad. I'm sure there are some who take that position, but you argue as if anyone critical of Assad is in favor of US war, though there's no reason to believe that.

So I ask again -- why? Why the need to defend Assad? It's not about being opposed to regime change, so what's driving this?

PVW said:
...
So I ask again -- why? Why the need to defend Assad? It's not about being opposed to regime change, so what's driving this?

I don't want to get all McCarthyite on everyone, but I can't help but think it has to do with Russia being an Assad supporter. It's the common thread through all of these, er, threads.

PVW said:
Paul -- you said "I don't think I've written about "bad actions" by any of the parties fighting in Syria."


I don't know what to make of that comment. In this thread you spent a lot of time claiming that the White Helmets are, in fact, actually among the parties fighting in Syria, and are terrorists too boot (working "hand-in-glove" with AQ, I believe you said). You've also spent a lot of time, for instance, denying Assad is guilty of gassing attacks -- most definitely a "bad action" you've written about. That's off the top of my head -- I'm sure I can find plenty more if I look, so I don't understand what you mean here?


But I'd rather leave that aside, as it's a distraction from my main point. To restate:
" There's nothing about being opposed to US intervention Syria that compels one to play defense for Assad."


And in both your and Nan's response, rather than answer, you just did repeated the very behavior I questioned, going on about how you're opposed to regime change, but never answering why you feel compelled to play defense for Assad. So why? One can certainly be critical of Assad AND be opposed to US-led regime change. Ask @tjohn, as one example of a poster here who is very critical of both. For that matter, though you accused @nohero of being in favor of the US going to war to oust Assad, I don't believe I've seen him take that position. Come to think of it, I have a hard time naming any poster here who's argued in favor of US intervention of overthrow Assad. I'm sure there are some who take that position, but you argue as if anyone critical of Assad is in favor of US war, though there's no reason to believe that.


So I ask again -- why? Why the need to defend Assad? It's not about being opposed to regime change, so what's driving this?

I recall a while back you complained that I put words in your mouth. You seem to have adopted that practice. I stated a fact -- that the White Helmets work under the jurisdiction of Al-Qaeda, in areas that Al-Qaeda controls.  That's a fact deliberately suppressed by major media because they want their audience to support a war of regime-change in Syria.

Why are you so defensive of the MSM's dishonest coverage?

drummerboy said:

PVW said:
...
So I ask again -- why? Why the need to defend Assad? It's not about being opposed to regime change, so what's driving this?

I don't want to get all McCarthyite on everyone, but I can't help but think it has to do with Russia being an Assad supporter. It's the common thread through all of these, er, threads.

 Why the need to defend the "rebels" by pretending they're not dominated by Al-Qaeda? Maybe it has to do with which side Russia is on.

paulsurovell said:I recall a while back you complained that I put words in your mouth. You seem to have adopted that practice. I stated a fact -- that the White Helmets work under the jurisdiction of Al-Qaeda, in areas that Al-Qaeda controls.  That's a fact deliberately suppressed by major media because they want their audience to support a war of regime-change in Syria.

Why are you so defensive of the MSM's dishonest coverage?

The media doesn't "surpress" the fact that the White Helmets operate in territory held by opponents of Assad.  If you want them to support your argument that "under the jurisdiction of Al Qaeda" means more than "in territory controlled by", there's a good reason why they don't adopt your conclusion.  I've already cited at least one article that goes into detail on that, so won't bother to repeat it.

paulsurovell said:

Why the need to defend the "rebels" by pretending they're not dominated by Al-Qaeda? Maybe it has to do with which side Russia is on.

One could easily take the position that your putting "rebels" in "scare quotes" and calling them "dominated by Al-Qaeda" (implying some sort of collusion or association, instead of merely the fact that they are in geographic areas under the control of groups declaring themselves AQ) may have something to do with which side Russia is on.

bub said:
Vanessa and friend.  He wears a suit.  That must make him more decent than those bearded Jihadi guys.




Vanessa Beeley (fourth from right) with President Assad in 2016. She described it as her proudest moment.

 Oh look! Second from the left is Madelyn Hoffman, who is running for US Senate for NJ for the Green Party. Or did someone already mention that and I missed the post?

wedjet said:

bub said:
Vanessa and friend.  He wears a suit.  That must make him more decent than those bearded Jihadi guys.




Vanessa Beeley (fourth from right) with President Assad in 2016. She described it as her proudest moment.

 Oh look! Second from the left is Madelyn Hoffman, who is running for US Senate for NJ for the Green Party. Or did someone already mention that and I missed the post?

 I think I would have remembered reading something like that, so I think you're the first!

paulsurovell said:

I recall a while back you complained that I put words in your mouth. You seem to have adopted that practice. I stated a fact -- that the White Helmets work under the jurisdiction of Al-Qaeda, in areas that Al-Qaeda controls.  That's a fact deliberately suppressed by major media because they want their audience to support a war of regime-change in Syria.
Why are you so defensive of the MSM's dishonest coverage?

What words did PVW put in your mouth? You didn’t say the White Helmets are working hand-in-glove with terrorists? You didn’t say Assad wasn’t guilty of gas attacks? You didn’t say you oppose regime change? 

Or is it that none of that — criticism of the forces that are against Assad — is necessarily a defense of Assad?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I recall a while back you complained that I put words in your mouth. You seem to have adopted that practice. I stated a fact -- that the White Helmets work under the jurisdiction of Al-Qaeda, in areas that Al-Qaeda controls.  That's a fact deliberately suppressed by major media because they want their audience to support a war of regime-change in Syria.
Why are you so defensive of the MSM's dishonest coverage?

What words did PVW put in your mouth? You didn’t say the White Helmets are working hand-in-glove with terrorists? You didn’t say Assad wasn’t guilty of gas attacks? You didn’t say you oppose regime change? 
Or is it that none of that — criticism of the forces that are against Assad — is necessarily a defense of Assad?

"the White Helmets . . are terrorists." Surprised you missed that.

paulsurovell said:

The White Helmets work in areas controlled by Al-Qaeda rebel factions, hand-in-glove with the Al-Qaeda rebels. Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians? 

If a gloved man punches you, do you distinguish between the hand, and the glove? 

Between AQ and the White Helmets, which are you calling the hand, and which the glove?

PVW said:

paulsurovell said: The White Helmets work in areas controlled by Al-Qaeda rebel factions, hand-in-glove with the Al-Qaeda rebels. Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians? 

If a gloved man punches you, do you distinguish between the hand, and the glove? 
Between AQ and the White Helmets, which are you calling the hand, and which the glove?

 I used an idiom to illustrate a fact -- that the White Helmets operate under the rule of and in cooperation with Al-Qaeda. You have interpreted the idiom differently.  If you are suggesting that Al-Qaeda takes a hand-off approach to organizations that operate under their control, we disagree.

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

paulsurovell said: The White Helmets work in areas controlled by Al-Qaeda rebel factions, hand-in-glove with the Al-Qaeda rebels. Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians? 

If a gloved man punches you, do you distinguish between the hand, and the glove? 
Between AQ and the White Helmets, which are you calling the hand, and which the glove?

 I used an idiom to illustrate a fact -- that the White Helmets operate under the rule of and in cooperation with Al-Qaeda. You have interpreted the idiom differently.  If you are suggesting that Al-Qaeda takes a hand-off approach to organizations that operate under their control, we disagree.

 The idiom means working very closely together. The work of AQ is terrorism -- what did you think people would take as your meaning when you claimed the WH work intimately with AQ?

Your follow up  -- "Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians" only strengthens the impression that you accusing the WH of being terrorists. Adding a question mark to an allegation doesn't negate it.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

paulsurovell said: The White Helmets work in areas controlled by Al-Qaeda rebel factions, hand-in-glove with the Al-Qaeda rebels. Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians? 

If a gloved man punches you, do you distinguish between the hand, and the glove? 
Between AQ and the White Helmets, which are you calling the hand, and which the glove?

 I used an idiom to illustrate a fact -- that the White Helmets operate under the rule of and in cooperation with Al-Qaeda. You have interpreted the idiom differently.  If you are suggesting that Al-Qaeda takes a hand-off approach to organizations that operate under their control, we disagree.

 The idiom means working very closely together. The work of AQ is terrorism -- what did you think people would take as your meaning when you claimed the WH work intimately with AQ?
Your follow up  -- "Does their cooperation go beyond saving lives of civilians" only strengthens the impression that you accusing the WH of being terrorists. Adding a question mark to an allegation doesn't negate it.

The primary allegation against the White Helmets is that in addition to providing rescue services, they function as a PR agency for the rebels (controlled by Al Qaeda).  Two of their PR functions are to provide professional, media/savvy video footage to advocate regime-change war by the West against Assad and to provide videos of purported chemical weapons attacks on civilians, especially children. The authenticity of the chemical weapons videos have been challenged by US intelligence experts and old-school real journalists like Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk.

Max Blumenthal has written an extensive profile of the White Helmets which makes these points. As I recall, he doesn't call them "terrorists."

Max is a fearless young journalist, whose father Sid, is ironically, sometimes described as Hillary Clinton's best friend. Some of the Wikileaks emails showed Sid recommending that Hillary read some of Max's stuff.

I doubt that you're interested in peering out of your comfort zone and challenging what you've been told about Syria and the White Helmets, but in case you are, these are Max's main works on the subject:

https://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria

https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military

Jamie,

It would be splendid if all of these threads could be secured within the confines of well-regulated institution.  

Can you change the name of the sub-forum to include "hats of all kinds including Tin-Foil and White Helmets"  and then toss this thread in there?    

Thank you in advance Nurse Ratched.   

paulsurovell said:

I doubt that you're interested in peering out of your comfort zone and challenging what you've been told about Syria and the White Helmets, 

Let us pause to marvel at this masterstroke of condescension, and meet it on its own terms.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I doubt that you're interested in peering out of your comfort zone and challenging what you've been told about Syria and the White Helmets, 

Let us pause to marvel at this masterstroke of condescension, and meet it on its own terms.

 That would be great. I hope he/she proves me wrong and we can have a productive discussion about what Max wrote.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I doubt that you're interested in peering out of your comfort zone and challenging what you've been told about Syria and the White Helmets, 

Let us pause to marvel at this masterstroke of condescension, and meet it on its own terms.

 That would be great. I hope he/she proves me wrong and we can have a productive discussion about what Max wrote.

If “prove me wrong” is your opening challenge, I doubt that you’re interested in having a productive discussion.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I doubt that you're interested in peering out of your comfort zone and challenging what you've been told about Syria and the White Helmets, 

Let us pause to marvel at this masterstroke of condescension, and meet it on its own terms.

 That would be great. I hope he/she proves me wrong and we can have a productive discussion about what Max wrote.

If “prove me wrong” is your opening challenge, I doubt that you’re interested in having a productive discussion.

 A hope, not a challenge.