Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda
Yet another inane comment from the cowboy.
Gallop on horsey!
Jamie, I see that a lot of people want you to bury this thread along with the rest. Go for it.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:Sbenois doesn't like to be reminded that he's in bed with Trump.
jamie said:Can you rename the subforum to "Be About Protecting Russia"?
This discussion is very close to going into the Alternate new and Russia subforum. Show your support be liking this post.
And also a neocon.
sbenois said:
Jamie,
Thank you for banishing this thread to the virtual dungeon.
Elevated to the commanding heights of MOL political discourse.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Not an expert, but it seems reasonable that if the Russian Air Force had deliberately targeted civilians for three years it would have killed more than 7.3 civilians per day (7,988 civilians / 1095 days).
By the way, since you haven't responded to Mr. dave23 yet, I have time to add a request. Please enlighten us with the basis for your expert opinion as to how many civilians would have been killed if the "MSM" position about Russian bombing isn't correct, as you stated here:
paulsurovell said:
This report will likely go down as another MSM omission, because it undermines the MSM narrative Russia deliberately targets civilians, because if that were true, far more than 7,988 would have been killed over three years.
In other words, you have no basis, you're just making it up. And based on what you made up, you've decided that the evil "MSM" must be criticized.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:It's rather circular -- PR by WH helps AQ recruit fighters for more war thus more PR and more recruiting etc.
paulsurovell said:So it's the fault of the truth-tellers that fighters are recruited to oppose a murderous regime. And here I thought that the murderous regime and its enablers would be the ones at fault.
The compelling way in which the White Helmets document the horrors of the Syrian civil war enables people like Samantha Power to score political points at the United Nations and elsewhere. But the message is a double-edged sword, as it also ably shines a spotlight on the very actions the anti-Assad forces use to justify their resistance—especially Al Nusra Front and Islamic State, in both of whose territory the White Helmets freely operate. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said, “There is no one who has done more to make Syria a magnet for terrorism than Bashar al-Assad.” Or put another way, the United States is the No. 1 funder and facilitator of one of the most effective recruiting tools used by terrorists inside Syria today—the White Helmets.
If you care about the Syrian people, this is the solution:
It's not "rather circular". That's a stupid comment. You're trying to blame the people reporting the facts about Assad's murderous dictatorship, instead of blaming the murderous dictatorship.
And the Jeffrey Sachs solution doesn't make the murderous dictatorship go away. So that's pretty irrelevant to your smear of the White Helmets for reporting the facts.
Regarding the placement of this thread into the subforum. It's my understanding that this keeps this thread, and the other subforum threads, from appearing at the top of the forum page. That, in turn, keeps the main Maplewood Online homepage from featuring these same discussions, for people visiting to find out about the local community.
Early on in this thread, on the second page, I had noted something that bothered me.
nohero said:
Unless I'm missing something, Tulsi Gabbard invoked the attack here on 9/11 to argue that Assad should be allowed to bomb and gas the cr*p out of as many civilians as he wants.
Our community was directly affected by the death and destruction on September 11, 2001. A lot of us know those who died, and their survivors. Many of us were there in person, fleeing that death and destruction. I don't know about anyone else, but when a politician prefaces some argument with "Because of 9/11", that concerns me. That kind of appropriation of 9/11 was used to justify invading Iraq. That kind of appropriation of 9/11 was used for religious bigotry to oppose an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan. If some politician has a good reason to support something, or to oppose something, or to criticize any other politician (including criticism of Trump), leave 9/11 out of it. It's just a cheap and thoughtless stunt if you do.
So keep this thread and it's title off the main forum, so the "Maplewood Online" home page doesn't feature a discussion about some cheap political talk that abuses the memory of the victims of 9/11.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:It's not "rather circular". That's a stupid comment. You're trying to blame the people reporting the facts about Assad's murderous dictatorship, instead of blaming the murderous dictatorship.
nohero said:It's rather circular -- PR by WH helps AQ recruit fighters for more war thus more PR and more recruiting etc.
paulsurovell said:So it's the fault of the truth-tellers that fighters are recruited to oppose a murderous regime. And here I thought that the murderous regime and its enablers would be the ones at fault.
The compelling way in which the White Helmets document the horrors of the Syrian civil war enables people like Samantha Power to score political points at the United Nations and elsewhere. But the message is a double-edged sword, as it also ably shines a spotlight on the very actions the anti-Assad forces use to justify their resistance—especially Al Nusra Front and Islamic State, in both of whose territory the White Helmets freely operate. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said, “There is no one who has done more to make Syria a magnet for terrorism than Bashar al-Assad.” Or put another way, the United States is the No. 1 funder and facilitator of one of the most effective recruiting tools used by terrorists inside Syria today—the White Helmets.
If you care about the Syrian people, this is the solution:
And the Jeffrey Sachs solution doesn't make the murderous dictatorship go away. So that's pretty irrelevant to your smear of the White Helmets for reporting the facts.
Jeffrey Sachs explains that ending ending the regime-change war, by definition, leaves Assad in power.
The White Helmets want regime-change, which means they don't want to end the war, they want to perpetuate the war, which is what you appear to favor.
nohero said:
Regarding the placement of this thread into the subforum. It's my understanding that this keeps this thread, and the other subforum threads, from appearing at the top of the forum page. That, in turn, keeps the main Maplewood Online homepage from featuring these same discussions, for people visiting to find out about the local community.
Early on in this thread, on the second page, I had noted something that bothered me.
nohero said:Our community was directly affected by the death and destruction on September 11, 2001. A lot of us know those who died, and their survivors. Many of us were there in person, fleeing that death and destruction. I don't know about anyone else, but when a politician prefaces some argument with "Because of 9/11", that concerns me. That kind of appropriation of 9/11 was used to justify invading Iraq. That kind of appropriation of 9/11 was used for religious bigotry to oppose an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan. If some politician has a good reason to support something, or to oppose something, or to criticize any other politician (including criticism of Trump), leave 9/11 out of it. It's just a cheap and thoughtless stunt if you do.
Unless I'm missing something, Tulsi Gabbard invoked the attack here on 9/11 to argue that Assad should be allowed to bomb and gas the cr*p out of as many civilians as he wants.
So keep this thread and it's title off the main forum, so the "Maplewood Online" home page doesn't feature a discussion about some cheap political talk that abuses the memory of the victims of 9/11.
Tulsi Gabbard's statement accuses Trump of desecrating the memory of 9/11 by acting to protect the perpetrators 9/11, Al-Qaeda, who are now fighting for regime-change in Syria, which you appear to support.
If anyone is disturbed by this thread title, it's because they don't want to face the reality that US policy -- under Trump -- is now aligned with Al-Qaeda.
The MSM aren't covering the Syrian civil war because they want Al Qaeda to win, have I got that right?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:In other words, you have no basis, you're just making it up. And based on what you made up, you've decided that the evil "MSM" must be criticized.
nohero said:Not an expert, but it seems reasonable that if the Russian Air Force had deliberately targeted civilians for three years it would have killed more than 7.3 civilians per day (7,988 civilians / 1095 days).
By the way, since you haven't responded to Mr. dave23 yet, I have time to add a request. Please enlighten us with the basis for your expert opinion as to how many civilians would have been killed if the "MSM" position about Russian bombing isn't correct, as you stated here:
paulsurovell said:
This report will likely go down as another MSM omission, because it undermines the MSM narrative Russia deliberately targets civilians, because if that were true, far more than 7,988 would have been killed over three years.
Has the MSM reported the SOHR data?
I didn't "make up" the numbers, I calculated the daily average of the SOHR data
And then I applied basic logic to how many civilians could be killed by a modern air force that is deliberately targeting civilians in a country that has urban areas.
As a reference, I considered how many civilians US air forces killed in Iraq in one year:
The US killed at least 80,000 Iraqi civilians (not including those killed in Falluja) in the first year of the regime-change invasion. That comes to 219 per day. And presumably we weren't "deliberately targeting civilians." I certainly don't recall the MSM telling us that.
ridski said:
The MSM aren't covering the Syrian civil war because they want Al Qaeda to win, have I got that right?
They are selectively covering the war to promote a narrative. That's why they don't publish the SOHR data -- it contradicts the narrative.
paulsurovell said:
As a reference, I considered how many civilians US air forces killed in Iraq in one year:
The US killed at least 80,000 Iraqi civilians (not including those killed in Falluja) in the first year of the regime-change invasion. That comes to 219 per day. And presumably we weren't "deliberately targeting civilians." I certainly don't recall the MSM telling us that.
To be clear, the 80,000 figure is the estimate from an epidemiological study, not an actual count. In additon, it comprises all sorts of deaths linked to war — starvation, lack of medical care, etc. — and not just civilians killed by U.S. air forces. The summary you linked to says only that “a majority of deaths were attributed to violence,” and I don’t see where it attributes them all to one side.
Larger themes aside, your insistence parsing death tolls, down to the tenth of a civilian, defies what’s “reasonable.”
paulsurovell said:They are selectively covering the war to promote a narrative. That's why they don't publish the SOHR data -- it contradicts the narrative.
How do they all come to an agreement what the narrative is?
Here's a radical alternate theory: Covering overseas engagements is very, very expensive. And Americans have never been interested in such engagements unless the US military is clearly and explicitly involved. So the media tend not to invest in expensive stories that few consumers care about.
Since I gave Paul’s link only a hasty look, maybe I should backtrack and simply ask him: Where did you get that 80,000 civilians were killed by U.S. forces?
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:They are selectively covering the war to promote a narrative. That's why they don't publish the SOHR data -- it contradicts the narrative.
The MSM aren't covering the Syrian civil war because they want Al Qaeda to win, have I got that right?
The narrative being that the US wants Al Qaeda to run Syria?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Jeffrey Sachs explains that ending ending the regime-change war, by definition, leaves Assad in power.
It's not "rather circular". That's a stupid comment. You're trying to blame the people reporting the facts about Assad's murderous dictatorship, instead of blaming the murderous dictatorship.
And the Jeffrey Sachs solution doesn't make the murderous dictatorship go away. So that's pretty irrelevant to your smear of the White Helmets for reporting the facts.
The White Helmets want regime-change, which means they don't want to end the war, they want to perpetuate the war, which is what you appear to favor.
Pretty sure the White Helmets want to save people from bombed buildings, and don't want more buildings to be bombed. But then again, I don't let myself get duped by pro-Assad propaganda.
Other than that, it's not my place to tell the Syrian people that they should shut up, sit down, and don't be mean to the murderous dictator. You may think that way, but I don't.
paulsurovell said:
Tulsi Gabbard's statement accuses Trump of desecrating the memory of 9/11 by acting to protect the perpetrators 9/11, Al-Qaeda, who are now fighting for regime-change in Syria, which you appear to support.
If anyone is disturbed by this thread title, it's because they don't want to face the reality that US policy -- under Trump -- is now aligned with Al-Qaeda.
I'm disturbed by the thread title, and I'm pretty bothered by the scummy insult directed at me because of that. You're using the same type of rhetoric used in the Bush years, when people opposed to the invasion of Iraq were called "terrorist sympathizers". Congratulations, you've gone over to the Dark Side.
Only an idiot thinks that the people fighting in Syria were involved in planning or carrying out 9/11. Anybody who argues otherwise is lying. Anyone who invokes 9/11 to argue that we should let Assad kill as many people he wants, is insulting the memory of the victims and their survivors, and isn't "about peace".
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Has the MSM reported the SOHR data?
In other words, you have no basis, you're just making it up. And based on what you made up, you've decided that the evil "MSM" must be criticized.
I didn't "make up" the numbers, I calculated the daily average of the SOHR data
And then I applied basic logic to how many civilians could be killed by a modern air force that is deliberately targeting civilians in a country that has urban areas.
As a reference, I considered how many civilians US air forces killed in Iraq in one year:
The US killed at least 80,000 Iraqi civilians (not including those killed in Falluja) in the first year of the regime-change invasion. That comes to 219 per day. And presumably we weren't "deliberately targeting civilians." I certainly don't recall the MSM telling us that.
I didn't write that you made up the numbers. I wrote that you pulled your "analysis" based on those numbers out of your posterior. Thanks for the longer explanation which demonstrates, in fact, that you just made it up.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I'm disturbed by the thread title, and I'm pretty bothered by the scummy insult directed at me because of that. You're using the same type of rhetoric used in the Bush years, when people opposed to the invasion of Iraq were called "terrorist sympathizers". Congratulations, you've gone over to the Dark Side.
Tulsi Gabbard's statement accuses Trump of desecrating the memory of 9/11 by acting to protect the perpetrators 9/11, Al-Qaeda, who are now fighting for regime-change in Syria, which you appear to support.
If anyone is disturbed by this thread title, it's because they don't want to face the reality that US policy -- under Trump -- is now aligned with Al-Qaeda.
Only an idiot thinks that the people fighting in Syria were involved in planning or carrying out 9/11. Anybody who argues otherwise is lying. Anyone who invokes 9/11 to argue that we should let Assad kill as many people he wants, is insulting the memory of the victims and their survivors, and isn't "about peace".
is "about protecting Russia"
DaveSchmidt said:
Since I gave Paul’s link only a hasty look, maybe I should backtrack and simply ask him: Where did you get that 80,000 civilians were killed by U.S. forces?
I'm sure your "hasty look" included these calculations:
84% of 100,000 is 84,000. 95% of 84,000 is 79,800 ~ 80,000
so what's the comeback, now that I've set it up?
Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I didn't write that you made up the numbers. I wrote that you pulled your "analysis" based on those numbers out of your posterior. Thanks for the longer explanation which demonstrates, in fact, that you just made it up.
nohero said:Has the MSM reported the SOHR data?
In other words, you have no basis, you're just making it up. And based on what you made up, you've decided that the evil "MSM" must be criticized.
I didn't "make up" the numbers, I calculated the daily average of the SOHR data
And then I applied basic logic to how many civilians could be killed by a modern air force that is deliberately targeting civilians in a country that has urban areas.
As a reference, I considered how many civilians US air forces killed in Iraq in one year:
The US killed at least 80,000 Iraqi civilians (not including those killed in Falluja) in the first year of the regime-change invasion. That comes to 219 per day. And presumably we weren't "deliberately targeting civilians." I certainly don't recall the MSM telling us that.
A variation on your theme that bringing up the Iraq war is so "tiresome."
nohero said:
Only an idiot thinks that the people fighting in Syria were involved in planning or carrying out 9/11. Anybody who argues otherwise is lying.
Straw man argument. No one said that. And you know it.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:I'm sure your "hasty look" included these calculations:
Since I gave Paul’s link only a hasty look, maybe I should backtrack and simply ask him: Where did you get that 80,000 civilians were killed by U.S. forces?
84% of 100,000 is 84,000. 95% of 84,000 is 79,800 ~ 80,000
so what's the comeback, now that I've set it up?
Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.
Statista.com says that 12,133 civilians were killed in Iraq in 2003 and 11,736 in 2004. Its source is Iraqbodycount.org.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-war-since-2003/
paulsurovell said:
I'm sure your "hasty look" included these calculations
84% of 100,000 is 84,000. 95% of 84,000 is 79,800 ~ 80,000
so what's the comeback, now that I've set it up?
Thanks. That's what I thought. So to recap the problem:
100,000 is the estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians whose deaths can be attributed to the war. The summary does not give an estimate of how many of those deaths were from fighting; it says only that a majority were due to violence. Which leaves us with 95 percent of 84 percent of an unspecified toll.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:Statista.com says that 12,133 civilians were killed in Iraq in 2003 and 11,736 in 2004. Its source is Iraqbodycount.org.
DaveSchmidt said:I'm sure your "hasty look" included these calculations:
Since I gave Paul’s link only a hasty look, maybe I should backtrack and simply ask him: Where did you get that 80,000 civilians were killed by U.S. forces?
84% of 100,000 is 84,000. 95% of 84,000 is 79,800 ~ 80,000
so what's the comeback, now that I've set it up?
Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-war-since-2003/
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
For argument's sake, I'll stipulate to the IBC counts, which average 33 for 2003 and 32 for 2004, which are more than 4 times higher than by Russia in Syria, and were presumably not the result of "US deliberately targeting Iraqi civilians."
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
Can you rename the subforum to "Be About Protecting Russia"?