Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda
nan said:
No, still blocked.
I’m pretty sure you can’t be “blocked” if you’re not logged on to Twitter.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:There's no reason for any other candidate to comment on the new revelations about Assad's terrorizing of the citizens of his country.
On whether Tulsi commented on the Syrian prison story, I'm not sure. But I'm not sure whether any of the candidates have commented. Do you know of any?
I think a better response would be "They don't have a coherent policy on Syria so there's no point in expecting them to comment."
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:They haven't made any excuses for him or attacked his civilian foes.
On whether Tulsi commented on the Syrian prison story, I'm not sure. But I'm not sure whether any of the candidates have commented. Do you know of any?
"Gabbard has long criticized the official American view that the Syrian regime is not legitimate, and has questioned intelligence from the U.S. and allied nations that suggests Assad has committed war crimes and used banned chemical weapons."
Better answer -- Tulsi has the courage to speak the truth about Syria -- that the civil war was hijacked and escalated by the US and Saudi Arabia, funding terrorist fighters with the consequent increase in death and destruction. And the solution is to end our regime-change policy and get out.
Consistent with the position of Jeffrey Sachs:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I think a better response would be "They don't have a coherent policy on Syria so there's no point in expecting them to comment."
paulsurovell said:There's no reason for any other candidate to comment on the new revelations about Assad's terrorizing of the citizens of his country.
On whether Tulsi commented on the Syrian prison story, I'm not sure. But I'm not sure whether any of the candidates have commented. Do you know of any?
Once again, Paul "edits" my comment (which was "There's no reason for any other candidate to comment on the new revelations about Assad's terrorizing of the citizens of his country. They haven't made any excuses for him or attacked his civilian foes."), He then "responds" as if he's made a legitimate point.
Only Tulsi has defended Assad (which Sachs doesn't do). The other candidates don't have to comment on yet another indication of Assad's atrocities.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Once again, Paul "edits" my comment (which was "There's no reason for any other candidate to comment on the new revelations about Assad's terrorizing of the citizens of his country. They haven't made any excuses for him or attacked his civilian foes."), He then "responds" as if he's made a legitimate point.
nohero said:I think a better response would be "They don't have a coherent policy on Syria so there's no point in expecting them to comment."
paulsurovell said:There's no reason for any other candidate to comment on the new revelations about Assad's terrorizing of the citizens of his country.
On whether Tulsi commented on the Syrian prison story, I'm not sure. But I'm not sure whether any of the candidates have commented. Do you know of any?
Only Tulsi has defended Assad (which Sachs doesn't do). The other candidates don't have to comment on yet another indication of Assad's atrocities.
You're playing your Russiagate/McCarthyite game of equating telling the truth with "defending" someone. You just don't like to hear the truth -- that the US and Saudi Arabia have promoted Al Qaeda's effort to overthrow Assad. So in order to distort the truth, you demagogue the truth by calling it "defending Assad."
Just like you did in labeling the truth about Russiagate as "defending Trump."
It's the McCarthyite tactic that you use consistently and constantly.
Worse, it’s a distraction from all the ways that MOL commenters on Venezuela support Trump-Bolton-Pompeo regime change.
paulsurovell said:
You're playing your Russiagate/McCarthyite game of equating telling the truth with "defending" someone. You just don't like to hear the truth -- that the US and Saudi Arabia have promoted Al Qaeda's effort to overthrow Assad. So in order to distort the truth, you demagogue the truth by calling it "defending Assad."
Just like you did in labeling the truth about Russiagate as "defending Trump."
It's the McCarthyite tactic that you use consistently and constantly.
Defending Assad against claims that he "committed war crimes and used banned chemical weapons" is not "telling the truth". Tulsi has no better intelligence than any other American.
Stop with the silly "McCarthyism" smear, which is getting less tethered to reality the more you use it.
[Edited to add] And, as usual, you're flinging an insult while actually practicing "McCarthyism" with your smearing of the "While Helmets" rescuers as being associated with terrorists (as Assad does). Here's a recent interview with a senior official:
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The Syrian government has targeted White Helmet workers with airstrikes. They say that you are aligned with the rebels. And you say that you act for all Syrians. But this is a civil war of Syria and against Syria, not to mention the U.S. is backing the Kurds. Russia is backing the government in Damascus. How is it possible, in such a complicated scenario, for you to represent all sides and to be impartial?
SALEH: (Through interpreter) In fact, here we have a different way to define impartiality. Impartiality for us is providing services to all Syrians and to providing support to all Syrians. Now after six years of war, we have saved more than 116,000 people from under the rubble. We have not asked any of these 116,000 people who did they belong to? Is he a Kurd? Is he a Christian? Is he a Muslim? Is he with Assad? Is he against Assad? Is he with the Kurds? Is he against the Kurds? We have never asked anyone these questions. But at the same time, we do not stand impartial between the executioner and the victim. Today we take the side of the Syrian people who are being murdered on a daily basis by airstrikes - all different kinds of airstrikes. So when we talk about impartiality, we mean impartiality in providing services.
DaveSchmidt said:
Worse, it’s a distraction from all the ways that MOL commenters on Venezuela support Trump-Bolton-Pompeo regime change.
I haven't seen a single criticism of Trump-Bolton-Pompeo regime-change sanctions. Have you?
DaveSchmidt said:
Worse, it’s a distraction from all the ways that MOL commenters on Venezuela support Trump-Bolton-Pompeo regime change.
Please get your terms right. It's the Trump-Bolton-Pence-Abrams-Pompeo-Democratic leadership foreign "meddling" cabal.
Did Tulsi bother to condemn Assad to his face about his war crimes when she met with him?
sbenois said:
Did Tulsi bother to condemn Assad to his face about his war crimes when she met with him?
When you see an Iraq vet amputee or a Gold Star family, do you tell them to their faces that you cheered their deployment and viciously attacked those who opposed it, and that you won't apologize for your complicity in their loss?
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:Please get your terms right. It's the Trump-Bolton-Pence-Abrams-Pompeo-Democratic leadership foreign "meddling" cabal.
Worse, it’s a distraction from all the ways that MOL commenters on Venezuela support Trump-Bolton-Pompeo regime change.
Thank you. Still no criticism of the cabal's economic sanctions.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Defending Assad against claims that he "committed war crimes and used banned chemical weapons" is not "telling the truth". Tulsi has no better intelligence than any other American.
You're playing your Russiagate/McCarthyite game of equating telling the truth with "defending" someone. You just don't like to hear the truth -- that the US and Saudi Arabia have promoted Al Qaeda's effort to overthrow Assad. So in order to distort the truth, you demagogue the truth by calling it "defending Assad."
Just like you did in labeling the truth about Russiagate as "defending Trump."
It's the McCarthyite tactic that you use consistently and constantly.
Stop with the silly "McCarthyism" smear, which is getting less tethered to reality the more you use it.
[Edited to add] And, as usual, you're flinging an insult while actually practicing "McCarthyism" with your smearing of the "While Helmets" rescuers as being associated with terrorists (as Assad does). Here's a recent interview with a senior official:
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The Syrian government has targeted White Helmet workers with airstrikes. They say that you are aligned with the rebels. And you say that you act for all Syrians. But this is a civil war of Syria and against Syria, not to mention the U.S. is backing the Kurds. Russia is backing the government in Damascus. How is it possible, in such a complicated scenario, for you to represent all sides and to be impartial?
SALEH: (Through interpreter) In fact, here we have a different way to define impartiality. Impartiality for us is providing services to all Syrians and to providing support to all Syrians. Now after six years of war, we have saved more than 116,000 people from under the rubble. We have not asked any of these 116,000 people who did they belong to? Is he a Kurd? Is he a Christian? Is he a Muslim? Is he with Assad? Is he against Assad? Is he with the Kurds? Is he against the Kurds? We have never asked anyone these questions. But at the same time, we do not stand impartial between the executioner and the victim. Today we take the side of the Syrian people who are being murdered on a daily basis by airstrikes - all different kinds of airstrikes. So when we talk about impartiality, we mean impartiality in providing services.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you -- the attorney -- claiming that Tulsi defended Assad from claims that he "committed war crimes and used banned chemical weapons" because she said it would depend on the evidence?
And do you think that George W. Bush committed war crimes and that his father supported Saddam Hussein when he used banned chemical weapons against Iran?
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:When you see an Iraq vet amputee or a Gold Star family, do you tell them to their faces that you cheered their deployment and viciously attacked those who opposed it, and that you won't apologize for your complicity in their loss?
Did Tulsi bother to condemn Assad to his face about his war crimes when she met with him?
Poor Pauil. Poor demented Pauil.
paulsurovell said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you -- the attorney -- claiming that Tulsi defended Assad from claims that he "committed war crimes and used banned chemical weapons" because she said it would depend on the evidence?
I, as an attorney or otherwise, know that use of the word "defending" in this context is not referring to a prosecution of Assad at the International Criminal Court, as appropriate as that may be. Tulsi is asserting that there's not already evidence against Assad, if her answer isn't an unqualified "Yes".
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I, as an attorney or otherwise, know that use of the word "defending" in this context is not referring to a prosecution of Assad at the International Criminal Court, as appropriate as that may be. Tulsi is asserting that there's not already evidence against Assad, if her answer isn't an unqualified "Yes".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you -- the attorney -- claiming that Tulsi defended Assad from claims that he "committed war crimes and used banned chemical weapons" because she said it would depend on the evidence?
Can we see your sources so we know what you're talking about?
On the issue of the International Criminal Court, do you agree that there should be a prosecution of George Bush for war crimes in Iraq?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Can we see your sources so we know what you're talking about?
I, as an attorney or otherwise, know that use of the word "defending" in this context is not referring to a prosecution of Assad at the International Criminal Court, as appropriate as that may be. Tulsi is asserting that there's not already evidence against Assad, if her answer isn't an unqualified "Yes".
Since Paul has taken great pains to post sources on this message board, which he thinks debunk such evidence, I have no doubt that he knows what I'm talking about.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Since Paul has taken great pains to post sources on this message board, which he thinks debunk such evidence, I have no doubt that he knows what I'm talking about.
nohero said:Can we see your sources so we know what you're talking about?
I, as an attorney or otherwise, know that use of the word "defending" in this context is not referring to a prosecution of Assad at the International Criminal Court, as appropriate as that may be. Tulsi is asserting that there's not already evidence against Assad, if her answer isn't an unqualified "Yes".
Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about."
Also, since you raised the issue of the ICC, do you agree that there should be an ICC prosecution of George Bush for war crimes in Iraq?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about."
Since Paul has taken great pains to post sources on this message board, which he thinks debunk such evidence, I have no doubt that he knows what I'm talking about.
Sorry, you're lost in translation.
Now he's whatabouting GW Bush - ugh - there's nothing paul doesn't whatabout.
So if we proceed in bringing in Bush for war crimes - then we can bring in Assad?
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:@nohero won't say it, but will you say that George Bush is a war criminal?
Now he's whatabouting GW Bush - ugh - there's nothing paul doesn't whatabout.
So if we proceed in bringing in Bush for war crimes - then we can bring in Assad?
Fun fact: neither Mr. J. Ross nor I are your monkeys, so we don't have to dance if you call a new tune.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Fun fact: neither Mr. J. Ross nor I are your monkeys, so we don't have to dance if you call a new tune.
jamie said:@nohero won't say it, but will you say that George Bush is a war criminal?
Now he's whatabouting GW Bush - ugh - there's nothing paul doesn't whatabout.
So if we proceed in bringing in Bush for war crimes - then we can bring in Assad?
Point of information -- There is a monkey on this thread (see above post).
But in your case, the rank hypocrisy and dishonesty of your attempts to smear Tulsi Gabbard for her efforts to end the carnage in Syria have been exposed for all to see.
Thank you for allowing me to watch you sink deeper into insanity every day.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Point of information -- There is a monkey on this thread (see above post).
paulsurovell said:Fun fact: neither Mr. J. Ross nor I are your monkeys, so we don't have to dance if you call a new tune.
jamie said:@nohero won't say it, but will you say that George Bush is a war criminal?
Now he's whatabouting GW Bush - ugh - there's nothing paul doesn't whatabout.
So if we proceed in bringing in Bush for war crimes - then we can bring in Assad?
But in your case, the rank hypocrisy and dishonesty of your attempts to smear Tulsi Gabbard for her efforts to end the carnage in Syria have been exposed for all to see.
Paul accusing me of "rank hypocrisy and dishonesty" is ironic, given his purpose in starting this thread. It began with his fulsome praise for Tulsi's speech in Congress demanding that the United States let Assad have a free hand in Idlib:
“Two days ago, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, talking about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on our country. But, they are now standing up to protect the 20,000 to 40,000 al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria, and threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists.
“This is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 and their families, first responders, and my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action and their families. For the President, who is Commander in Chief, to act as the protective big brother of al-Qaeda and other jihadists must be condemned by every Member of Congress.”
I've already commented on this thread about Tulsi's appropriation of the memory of the 9/11 victims to encourage more death and destruction against civilians. To call her positions "efforts to end the carnage in Syria" is to enter some bizarro world where war is peace, etc.
While Tulsi was pushing her "leave Assad alone" agenda on the floor of the United States Congress, the United Nations was warning against a humanitarian catastrophe if Assad had his way:
United Nations secretary general António Guterres has appealed to Russia, Iran and Turkey to “spare no effort to find solutions that protect civilians” in Idlib and said it was “absolutely essential” to avoid a full-scale battle in Syria’s rebel-held province.
“This would unleash a humanitarian nightmare unlike any seen in the blood-soaked Syrian conflict,” he told reporters.
About 3.5 million people are crammed into Idlib and the surrounding areas, at least half of whom have fled areas retaken from the opposition by the regime.
In the end, a deal was reached to avoid the carnage, at that time, which would have followed from Assad's way of attacking population centers.
Civilians in Syria's last rebel-held bastion have cautiously welcomed a "fragile" agreement signed by Ankara and Moscow to create a demilitarised zone that put on hold a threatened offensive on Idlib, even as they expressed concerns over whether the deal will last.
Residents of the province and its suburbs, home to nearly three million people - half of whom are internally displaced - have also questioned the willingness of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to abide by the agreement, described by observers as a diplomatic breakthrough.
The 15 to 20km-wide zone, expected to be implemented by October 15, would allow the "withdrawal of all radical fighters" from Idlib, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a press conference with his Turkish counterpart.
Dr Habib Kshouf said people in his village of Kherbet Eljoz were genuinely scared of a full-scale government-led assault prior to the agreement.
The Sochi agreement gave people a glimpse of hope, that they would be spared an aerial and ground assault by government forces and Russia - at least for the time being," the 55-year-old told Al Jazeera from Jisr al-Shughour district, which recently came under bombardment.
In recent weeks, there has been an offensive by the Syrian government and allies in that area, leading to the death and displacement of civilians, which might give Tulsi some consolation. Trigger warning: if you click the link to that last story, you'll see a picture of White Helmet rescuers.
So, really, Paul's accusations of hypocrisy are misdirected.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Paul accusing me of "rank hypocrisy and dishonesty" is ironic, given his purpose in starting this thread. It began with his fulsome praise for Tulsi's speech in Congress demanding that the United States let Assad have a free hand in Idlib:
nohero said:Point of information -- There is a monkey on this thread (see above post).
paulsurovell said:Fun fact: neither Mr. J. Ross nor I are your monkeys, so we don't have to dance if you call a new tune.
jamie said:@nohero won't say it, but will you say that George Bush is a war criminal?
Now he's whatabouting GW Bush - ugh - there's nothing paul doesn't whatabout.
So if we proceed in bringing in Bush for war crimes - then we can bring in Assad?
But in your case, the rank hypocrisy and dishonesty of your attempts to smear Tulsi Gabbard for her efforts to end the carnage in Syria have been exposed for all to see.
Correction not "let Assad have a free hand in Idlib" but "let Assad attack Al Qaeda in Idlib."
Al Qaeda terrorists are the forces in Idlib that Trump was protecting.
nohero said:
I've already commented on this thread about Tulsi's appropriation of the memory of the 9/11 victims to encourage more death and destruction against civilians. To call her positions "efforts to end the carnage in Syria" is to enter some bizarro world where war is peace, etc.
While Tulsi was pushing her "leave Assad alone" agenda on the floor of the United States Congress, the United Nations was warning against a humanitarian catastrophe if Assad had his way:
Tulsi's position faces reality -- that the US/Saudi regime-change program is the cause of the carnage and when the regime-change agents -- Al Qaeda -- are removed either peacefully or by force, the carnage will stop. And the proof is the absence of violence in the areas where the Assad regime has regained control.
The policy of removing terrorists by force was carried out by the US military -- to great extremes and with major death and casualties to civilians -- was our destruction of the ISIS capital of Raqqa and other actions against ISIS in Syria. @nohero has no objections to that. Why not?
nohero said:
In the end, a deal was reached to avoid the carnage, at that time, which would have followed from Assad's way of attacking population centers.
Civilians in Syria's last rebel-held bastion have cautiously welcomed a "fragile" agreement signed by Ankara and Moscow to create a demilitarised zone that put on hold a threatened offensive on Idlib, even as they expressed concerns over whether the deal will last.
Residents of the province and its suburbs, home to nearly three million people - half of whom are internally displaced - have also questioned the willingness of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to abide by the agreement, described by observers as a diplomatic breakthrough.
The 15 to 20km-wide zone, expected to be implemented by October 15, would allow the "withdrawal of all radical fighters" from Idlib, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a press conference with his Turkish counterpart.
Dr Habib Kshouf said people in his village of Kherbet Eljoz were genuinely scared of a full-scale government-led assault prior to the agreement.
The Sochi agreement gave people a glimpse of hope, that they would be spared an aerial and ground assault by government forces and Russia - at least for the time being," the 55-year-old told Al Jazeera from Jisr al-Shughour district, which recently came under bombardment.
Was the purpose of the agreement to remove Al Qaeda from Syria? If it works, great. If not, force will have to be used -- and hopefully the destruction will not be as great as what the US did in Raqqa. With regard to Tulsi's position, she supports the agreement.
nohero said:In recent weeks, there has been an offensive by the Syrian government and allies in that area, leading to the death and displacement of civilians, which might give Tulsi some consolation. Trigger warning: if you click the link to that last story, you'll see a picture of White Helmet rescuers.
So, really, Paul's accusations of hypocrisy are misdirected.
Interesting that you hold Al Qaeda blameless, when it launches attacks against regime forces and civilians from Idlib, triggering responses from the regime.
sbenois said:
Thank you for allowing me to watch you sink deeper into insanity every day.
The monkey moniker really got to you -- because you know it fits.
The big bully is a big baby.
Leaked OPCW report (confirmed by OPCW) suggests that the White Helmets were involved in staging the alleged Douma chemical attack that was the pretext for US bombing of Syria in April 2018.
https://twitter.com/RealScottRitter/status/1129266426886406145
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/05/strange-news-from-the-opcw-in-the-hague-.html
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
No, still blocked.